andrewcriddle

I have major problems with the 'Mythic Hero Archetype'.

Its proponents seem to be consciously or unconsciously emphasising those features in Myths about Heroes that have at least vague parallels with the Gospel accounts of Jesus and de-emphasizing those features (such as lurid family dramas often including incest), which lack such parallels.

a/ The alleged resemblance of the life of Jesus to the 'Mythic Hero Archetype' seems stronger than the parallels between a specific hero eg Hercules and Jesus.

b/ The 'Mythic Hero Archetype' seems substantially different from the more mainstream analysis by scholars such as Kirk of the commonly found features of Mediterranean and Near East myths about heroes.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots

<cough>mythicist porn<cough>

Ben C Smith

It is just that, an overview. The devil is in the details, and an overview, by definition, cannot really get into the details. So only a few comments are in order at this point:

Is is really the case that the various parallels dissolve all data about Jesus until nothing is left? Or are there stubborn points, however small, left over that seem to defy parallelism and other explanations, and in fact appear to point in the other direction? Peeling back most of the data with methods X, Y, and Z cannot affect those data points on which methods X, Y, and Z do not work; that would be guilt by association.

Here the mythic archetype argument is passed on as so strong that it almost renders the Wells argument from silence superfluous. Andrew Criddle has already expressed doubt as to the utility of this argument in the first place, but does not Price himself nullify it later in the overview? He writes:

If the mythic archetype argument ranks Apollonius and Caesar Augustus high on the scale, then the argument itself is useless in distinguishing purely mythical characters from historical figures over whom myth has been overlaid. Price admits this by resorting back to the argument from silence to break the stalemate:

In other words, the mythic archetype argument has led us nowhere that the alleged absence of Jesus from the pages of secular history had not already taken us. That is the real argument here; the mythic archetype is simply a handy category into which one might place Jesus if other arguments make him seem purely mythical.

Here I simply disagree. If these references are genuine, I think they ought to be taken as seriously as other Josephan and Tacitean references are normally taken. If they are genuine, these references are not a combined null; they count for something.

(Let me go out on a limb here to suggest that the numerous attempts I have seen on this board to argue that these references are interpolations may help to confirm the impression that, if genuine, they would count for something. Some on this board would make the argument just for the sake of consistency, even if nothing were at stake either way, but I do not think many would. These are my own impressions, so take them for what they are worth.)

I reject the axiom. Usefulness may be (one of) the only reason(s) to preserve an entire line of tradition, but it is not the only reason to preserve individual items within that tradition. Some things, for example, are inconvenient but cannot be ignored, and may have been preserved as the uncomfortable core of an otherwise apologetical argument meant to override that very core. (Chris Weimer already pointed this out.)

Notice the virtually. Even taken at face value, for all its worth, this term implies that at least a few stories or parts of stories fail this test. If all we are going to do is focus on the parts that seem legendary, the parts that seem to point in the opposite direction may slip through our grasp.

All that said, it is a fine summary of the path taken by a conscientous scholar who is eminently fun to read. Whoever said he could certainly turn a phrase was certainly right.

One more thing. Despite his talk of embracing a Christ myth theory, I think the rest of this overview shows that he is neither a Jesus historicist nor a Jesus mythicist. He is a Jesus agnostic; he honestly does not know either way.

Ben.

Toto

Price has said in a lecture that he thinks that Jesus might have been based on Osiris in some fashion, but that it is impossible to prove one way or another.

Toto

Are you referring to Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (or via: amazon.co.uk)? (just to get the reference straight) But Price is describing Bultman's view, not the most modern one. And it's not clear how your case is supported if the temple incident never happened.


I'm not sure how this follows, but it's worth a separate thread.


This is just a brief overview, after all.

Just to clarify, Price has decided that he can call himself a Christian, even though he does not believe at all in the supernatural. He happily attends an Episcopal Church. He loves the ritual and the church tradition.

Hmm.. if you take the Jesus that scholars have reconstructed, based on their research into that time, how would he not fit?

But you can ask that question of Price if you want, including the rest.

Jayrok

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and appreciate your preference to debate silly NT claims.

I'm not saying that the absence of references "proves" anything. But it adds to the evidence to build the case for non-historicity.

Jayrok

Many thanks for the link. It's seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. I'll check out Doherty's review as well. Thanks.

Toto

The digression into the Christian's use of evidence has been split off here

aa5874

Especially the Septuagint and Josephus, these material played a major role in the fabrication of Jesus. The Septuagint was used to assemble the 'god' and Josephus to fabricate the history of the 'man'.

Doug Shaver

Yes, if the man was real. If he was not, then nobody would have heard anything about him until the gospels began circulating, and afterward they would have known absolutely nothing about him except what was in the gospels.

And that is exactly what the Christian record itself shows. Not until near the very end of the first century do any Christian writers exhibit any knowledge of Jesus' life or attribute any teachings to him. To those Christians, their lord and savior did only two things: He died by crucifixion, and three days later he rose from the dead. Then throughout the second century, no Christian has anything to say about Jesus but what the gospel authors wrote. This suggests either that the authors managed to record everything that anybody had to say about him, or else that once they wrote the gospels, people stopped saying anything that didn't get reocrded in the gospels. Neither possibility looks at all plausible to me.