Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 01-19-2006, 10:53 AM

I think it is more that mainstream historians have left it alone and have not started from a mythicist position, but as I said on thread about Starkey series:

Quote:

Programme continually took Gospels, Acts and alleged letters of Paul at face value. What is up with historians that they do not acknowledge myth as a serious position, especially as other BBC historians - Michael Wood - In search of myths and heroes - has done a whole series about this - but interestingly has not yet given the NT the treatment he gave Shangrila, Jason, Sheba, and Arthur!

With reference to Sheba:

Quote:
"I'd be very careful about historical kernels if I were you" said Yair Zakovitch with a twinkle in his eye. "The whole story sounds very much like a fairy tale to me.

Chris Weimer · 01-19-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

What about "someones"? Would the historicist view include the possibility that the saying and events did indeed transpire but did NOT involve the same individual? If so, there's a pretty small margin of difference between the mythicist view and the historicist view.

Yes, if multiple real people were involved in the creation of the single Jesus, I would think this would be historical also. The biography is still there, isn't it? The mythicist position, as far as I know, assumes that the biography is entirely made-up. But this is why I hate labels - I guess one could take my position (outlined in the previous post) and be labeled a mythicist? The purpose is not what we should call ourselves, but the evaluation of the evidence and a reasonable conclusion based on that.

Quote:

As to the sayings - I assume you mean those that appear in the synoptics, since there are no others - I don't think Doherty doubts that actual people said those things. The issue is whether the overall biography is based on a historical person or is a mythical construct.

The sayings are a very tricky bunch. I don't think the Jesus Seminar did it right. They relied too much on what fit their idea of Jesus instead of looking at the source of the sayings first, i.e. what came from Mark, what came from Q, what came from Thomas (but not Mark or Q), and what came from Paul, etc... (I could be wrong about what JS did though).

mikem · 01-19-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The sayings are a very tricky bunch. I don't think the Jesus Seminar did it right. They relied too much on what fit their idea of Jesus instead of looking at the source of the sayings first, i.e. what came from Mark, what came from Q, what came from Thomas (but not Mark or Q), and what came from Paul, etc... (I could be wrong about what JS did though).

They picked balls out of bags didn't they? One colour for "almost certainly Jesus", another for "maybe", and a third for "probably not". Very democratic I'm sure, but is it scholarship? And while we are on JS, I read somewhere that they were offered $5'000.00 dollars to refute Doherty's thesis, but couldn't be bothered. Shame really, THAT would have made for an interesting debate, balls or no balls.

Chris Weimer · 01-19-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikem

They picked balls out of bags didn't they? One colour for "almost certainly Jesus", another for "maybe", and a third for "probably not". Very democratic I'm sure, but is it scholarship? And while we are on JS, I read somewhere that they were offered $5'000.00 dollars to refute Doherty's thesis, but couldn't be bothered. Shame really, THAT would have made for an interesting debate, balls or no balls.

Actually, Doherty offered to pay expenses ($5,000) to have a debate hosted. They turned down the offer with a rather sad note. As far as I am an historicist, I do believe in scholarship. Perhaps one day when I buy the Jesus Puzzle, I can spend some time arguing with Doherty. Unless someone wants to send me a book...

Toto · 01-19-2006, 12:05 PM

Doherty did not offer to pay $5,000 to the JS publication, The Fourth R - someone with an interest in the matter made the offer.

mens_sana · 01-19-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

I didn't know Carrier had come over to the mythicist view. Close, perhaps? But has he fully embraced it?

In any case, there's G.A. Wells, Freke and Gandy, and Burton Mack, whose academic credentials are impeccable.

I don't think the gap between the mythicist Jesus and the Jesus Seminar Jesus is all that great. When you remove the virgin birth, the miracles, the Passion and the Resurrection from the traditional Jesus view (per the Jesus Seminar folks), there's not that much left to defend. (The fundamentalists are fond of pointing that out, but it's true nonetheless.)

I've read Burton Mack's A Myth of Innocence, The Christian Myth, Who Wrote the New Testament? and The Lost Gospel. Somehow I never picked up on the idea that Mack thought the "Historical Jesus" was a myth. Sometimes it helps to distinguish between the Historical Jesus and the Christ Myth, the first of which Mack believes existed — as does Gregory Riley who succeeded Mack at the Claremont School of Theology. And while "the gap between the mythicist Jesus and the Jesus Seminar" may not be all that great from a mythicist's point of view, I don't think you can find a mythicist on the Seminar's roll call. Dropping or shelving the miracle reports (as Ehrman does) does NOT mean there was no HJ.

Chris Weimer · 01-19-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Doherty did not offer to pay $5,000 to the JS publication, The Fourth R - someone with an interest in the matter made the offer.

I could have sworn, no matter where the money came from, Doherty was the one actually offering it. Not saying that it would come from Doherty's pocket... I guess its a matter of semantics, or am I wrong completely. (I thought I had read this from the letter that was circulating a while back, I haven't looked at it lately). But regardless, if was for the expenses to be paid, and not like bribery.

Llyricist · 01-19-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, if multiple real people were involved in the creation of the single Jesus, I would think this would be historical also.

Such a criteria would render nearly all fictional characters "historical".

Quote:

The biography is still there, isn't it?

What "biography"? Some preacher wondering around with a zodiac of followers teaching and pronouncing self contradictory and sometimes obscure aphorisms for 3 or 1 1/2 years and then gets inexplicably crucified by the Romans? That isn't a biography, that's a story. One that, considering the contradictory teachings and inexplicable cruci-fiction, is most likely based around several people + a pre-existing myth.

Quote:

The mythicist position, as far as I know, assumes that the biography is entirely made-up.

Well, what biographical details that exist in the gospels, ARE entirely made up. You already discarded most of them yourself. There isn't any more biography for Jesus than you would find for any central fictional character, and actually less than most.

The mythicist position is that Christianity got it's genesis from myth rather than an actual person. It says nothing of what basis may exist for the gospel stories. In that sense you are still a historicist, in that you think that there was a living person around whom the religion originally developed.

mens_sana · 01-19-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

as to the sayings - I assume you mean those that appear in the synoptics, since there are no others ....

This is a misapprehension more usually found among Fundamentalists. John Dominic Crossan lists quite a few Jesus sayings sources: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Romans, GThomas, Egerton Gospel, GHebrews, Sayings Gospel Q, Apocalyptic Scenario (Didache 16.3-8 & Mark 13), POxy 1224, Cross Gospel (In GPeter), Dialogue of the Savior (Dialog Collection), Colossians, Revelation, 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Letters of Ignatius, Polycarp to the Philippians, and more can be found in his Historical Jesus, Appendix 1.

Toto · 01-19-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I could have sworn, no matter where the money came from, Doherty was the one actually offering it. Not saying that it would come from Doherty's pocket... I guess its a matter of semantics, or am I wrong completely. (I thought I had read this from the letter that was circulating a while back, I haven't looked at it lately). But regardless, if was for the expenses to be paid, and not like bribery.

The mind does play tricks.

Jesus Seminar Magazine "Fourth R" Refuses $5000 Offer to Debate Jesus Myth Theory

Quote:

But I thought I would inform the Board of a recent proposal made to the editor of the Fourth R, the magazine of the Westar Institute, the umbrella organization for the Jesus Seminar. This person, who is familiar with and has admired my work (no telling the crazy things some people will support, right?) noted to the editor that the Fourth R has a tradition of presenting some pretty liberal viewpoints for examination. He offered to donate $5000 to the magazine if they would print a substantial article by myself on the Jesus Myth question, accompanied in the same issue by an equal counter-article by any scholar of their choosing, to be followed in a subsequent issue by shorter rebuttals by both myself and the other scholar. (This offer, by the way, was made without my prompting or even my knowledge, until he informed me after it was made.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2006, 12:05 PM	#25
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Doherty did not offer to pay $5,000 to the JS publication, The Fourth R - someone with an interest in the matter made the offer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.