Dave31

There appears to be quite an interest in the discussion of mythicism at an assortment of blogs lately. Mostly by those who seem to know very little about it or by those who seek merely to ridicule it while knowing almost nothing about it.

So, I thought I'd share a snippet from Acharya/Murdock, since she actually has a quite a bit to offer in this area.

What is a Mythicist?

The History of Mythicism

Jesus as the Sun throughout History

mountainman

Thanks Dave,

I have read the above and have some questions.

Does Acharya/Murdock make any mention anywhere in these works concerning the specific relationship of Eusebius and Constantine in the transmission of the new testament canon towards its point of closure in the later 4th century?

Does Acharya/Murdock make any mention anywhere in these works concerning the nature of the new testament non canonical (ie: NT Apocryphal) gospels and acts and other literature, such as when they were written, who were the gnostics, why they were forbidden by the orthodox? Any mention of Nag Hammadi?

What is Acharya/Murdock 's conjectured chronology for the authorship of the NT canonical literature and the authorship of the NT non canonical literature?

spamandham

That's not really true. Her work is (almost?) entirely based on the work of scholars. But that's a problem, because she was not originally very selective in who's work she picked, and because she's not working with source material, but is instead forming an argument from other people's conclusions. In her first book she leaned heavily on Kersey Graves, which was probably a bad idea.

I've heard she learned that lesson and no longer leans on Graves in her latest book( though I haven't read it so I'm not sure about that).

But her work still builds on the work of others. In scientific fields, that's not only ok but also preferred since it's the only practical way scientific progress can be made, but it's dangerous in the field of history where opinions are treated as facts.

gdeering

Hi Dave31,

I think it's a great idea to try to find a deffiniton of the mythicist position. Though,
From my perspective, I find your quote works much too hard. I would hope that the mythicist view is represented by something simpler and less convoluted. If I were arguing a mythicist case I wold not want to be penned in by “astromythology” or “astrotheology.”


Gregg

Dave31

She discusses both of them in their roles in creating Christianity but I don't remember off the top of my melon if she goes into details about their "relationship."

Yes, she discusses many non-canonical Jewish and Christian texts. She has a whole chapter in Christ Conspiracy about the noncanonical texts that were used in the creation of Christianity, both the canonical texts and Christian tradition until the end of the second century or further. In a chapter called "The Making of a Myth," she discusses all these texts:

The Intertestamental Literature and Christian Apocrypha, such as -

The Book of Enoch
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus
The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, or the Didache
The Gospel of the Hebrews and Syrians
The Gospel of the Egyptians or Diegesis
The Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas
The Protevangelion or Book of James
The Gospel of the Infancy
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Shepherd of Hermes
The Gospel of the Lord

Because she also shows that we have no credible scientific evidence of the canonical gospels until the end of the second century, some of these texts that are from the second century could still have influenced the NT.

You would need to read Christ Con to see those arguments, and then follow up with her other books to see much more on the same subject. *Who Was Jesus?* especially goes into details about the dating of the gospels, but here's an online excerpt from *Suns of God* about the dating issue:

The "Historical" Jesus?

Some of the answers are in the link above but it's addressed throughout her work especially Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ

Dave31

Keep in mind that Dr. Price, in his review of Christ in Egypt linked above said:

"...I find it undeniable that...many, many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations..."

How much do you know about astrotheology? If we're discussing mythicism as it relates to religion, it's impossible to omit astrotheology. That's part of the problem with the discussion on mythicism recently at those other blogs I mentioned in the original post i.e. McGrath etc, they are omitting a major aspect of the case for mythicism. It's precisely what's missing from the discussion. That is where we find a mountain of pre-Christian evidence for the case for the mythical Christ.

Here's a brief excerpt

Astrotheology of the Ancients

Here's a free e-book

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ

ApostateAbe

Yeah, when I said that "they seem almost pulled out of the air," I didn't mean that Acharya S was the only one who pulls it out of the air.

spamandham

This is a nice summary of the *external* evidence of a later date for the gospels. I wonder why she omitted the *internal* evidence?

To me, the gospel statements about 'no brick upon another' and 'the desecration of desolation', do not fit 70CE, but are instead clear references to the actions Hadrian undertook, which sets a 'no earlier than' date of around 140 CE for the gospels. There are also eerie similarities between several of the gospel stories and stories found in the works of Josephus...so much so, that an unbiased observer would conclude the gospel writer was surely familiar with Josephus' work - placing a further 'no earlier than' date of perhaps 110 on the gospels.

The combination of this internal and external evidence beats the snot out of the sophomoric arguments typically used to try to force an early date on the gospels.

gdeering

You miss my point, I am not interested in debating the merits of one particular approach. Even one I am sympathetic to. But, I find that like Skeptics in the thrall of James Randi, you have replaced one religion with another.

Christian mythicism should not be tied down to one approach or in this case, a catch-all. It's not good as a definition and it's not good as a way to discuss mythicism with secular historicists, or the run of the mill Christian.

That we take for granted, and therefore diminish to the point of dismissal, astrology and "astrotheology" as a creative force in the formation of religion - I completely agree with. Knowing this however contributes noting to the debate on the existence (in, our out, of History) of a (possibly insignificant) figure who might have become Jesus. The work has to be done from the inside out.

I am persuaded much more be evidence from Jewish, and Greco-Jewish, literature than I am by a general religious zeitgeist - but I would not limit my definition to either approach.


Gregg

Dave31

Not at all. There is no set of cult rules, and no one dogmatically believes in anything. It is simply that we enjoy studying the ancient origins of religion, dating back thousands of years, and attempting to uncover the meaning about all these religious beliefs that the ancients intended. The fact is that many of these myths revolve around natural phenomena, and we as mythicists can be free to identify those phenomena, rather than merely believing in mythical characters as "real people."

But without knowing this hidden meaning to myths - which was what Joseph Campbell was all about - we have only a negative definition of mythicist. There is so much more to the perspective, as far as I am concerned.

I very strongly disagree with you that astrotheology contributes "nothing to the debate" due to the evidence that actually exists. Again, how much do you know about astrotheology? It offers precisely what's missing from the discussion. However, it's not the only thing, we have biblical criticism, textual harmonization etc to cover other aspects.

People here should be made aware that New Testament scholars are under absolutely no requirement to study or investigate the case for mythicism at all in order to get their PhD. NT scholars are too narrowly focused on the NT to see the much larger picture.

Religion and the PhD: A Brief History

A simple read of the article "What is a Mythicist?" would disprove the accusation that mythicism is any sort of a religion. There are quite a few scholars listed in that article.

Fair enough, what would you suggest?

ZEITGEIST Part 1 & The Supportive Evidence

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position