Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 05-29-2010, 06:28 AM

Here's a comment from April DeConick:

Quote:

"...I have known for a long time that traditions are conservative and self-interested, but what is coming home for me in a very real way is just how much the traditions are safe-guarded by the dominant group - be it the mainstream churches or the academy - and how far the dominant group will go to protect them. The interests and preservation of those interests often become the end-all, even at the expense of historical truth. The rationalizations, the apologies, the 'buts', the tortured exegesis, the negative labeling, the side-stepping, the illogical claims accumulate until they create an insurmountable wall that preserves both church and academy, which remain (uncomfortably so for me) symbiotic.

The entrenchment of the academy is particularly worrisome for me. Scholars' works are often spun by other scholars, not to really engage in authentic critical debate or review, but to cast the works in such a way that they can be dismissed (if they don't support the entrenchment) or engaged (if they do). In other words, fair reproduction of the author's position and engagement with it does not seem to me to be the top priority. The quest for historical knowledge does not appear to me to be the major concern. It usually plays back seat to other issues including the self-preservation of the ideas and traditions of the dominant parties - those who control the churches, and the academy with its long history of alliance with the churches.

I already know that what I have to say about the critical history of the Gospel of John and the origins of Christianity is going to be countered with the full force of the church and academic tradition that has built up around the fourth gospel a secure armor of 'correct' and 'permitted' interpretation, an exegetical tradition as old as the Johannine epistles that has worked to normalize, to deradicalize, to tame the beast. What I have to say is 'not allowed' speech, 'can't be' talk.

Even so I continue to study and write, to speak the unspeakable in my quest to remain fully engaged with the critical investigation of Christian history. "

- April DeConick

http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com...l-of-john.html

It appears that academia has much essssssplaining to do.

Dave31 · 05-29-2010, 06:40 AM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "I am just giving what seems to be the perspective of the experts in the field. Bart Ehrman..."

I have yet to see anything that would indicate that Bart Ehrman knows much about the case for mythicism. Who in academia does know much about the case for mythicism? Academia has clearly dropped the ball on this issue big time. It appears that one has to enter independent scholarship on their own to study the case for mythicism.

Acharya is trying to help out by creating the mythicist position:

Quote:

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astromythology” or “astrotheology.” As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 12

What is a Mythicist?

ApostateAbe · 05-29-2010, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

<blah blah> Bart Ehrman <blah blah>.

Has Ehrman ever said that mythicism is facially absurd?

And what are yur qualifications to label some people as "pseudo" experts?

Ehrman has not explicitly stated that mythicism is absurd on the face. Listening to him on the Infidel Guy radio show leaves that impression. He spoke about it with nothing but arrogance and contempt, as though only an idiot would believe it.

I have no qualifications to label anyone anything. As always, I am only giving my opinions, and I don't ask anyone to take my word for it.

ApostateAbe · 05-29-2010, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "I am just giving what seems to be the perspective of the experts in the field. Bart Ehrman..."

I have yet to see anything that would indicate that Bart Ehrman knows much about the case for mythicism. Who in academia does know much about the case for mythicism? Academia has clearly dropped the ball on this issue big time. It appears that one has to enter independent scholarship on their own to study the case for mythicism.

Acharya is trying to help out by creating the mythicist position:

Quote:

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astromythology” or “astrotheology.” As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 12

What is a Mythicist?

Yeah, I don't figure that Ehrman knew so much about mythicism when he went on the Infidel Guy radio show. Like I said, nothing unusual in the way of fringe theories. In New Testament scholarship, there are over a hundred bizarre propositions about Jesus, each demanding their share of time. Acharya S seems to have a definition of mythicism that suits her purpose--I would be a mythicist by that definition, too. But, I make judgments about historical/mythical characters on a case by case basis. I define mythicism as the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is purely an invention of human thought and never existed as a human being.

Solo · 05-29-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Has Ehrman ever said that mythicism is facially absurd?

And what are yur qualifications to label some people as "pseudo" experts?

Ehrman has not explicitly stated that mythicism is absurd on the face. Listening to him on the Infidel Guy radio show leaves that impression. He spoke about it with nothing but arrogance and contempt, as though only an idiot would believe it.

I have no qualifications to label anyone anything. As always, I am only giving my opinions, and I don't ask anyone to take my word for it.

I was surprised by Ehrman's comments on the talk show. It was poor form to accuse the "mythicists" of writing pulp for a popular niche of readership, something that could easily be said of Ehrman himself. It is evident he found and caters to a special, urban, liberal-minded clientele, who think themselves chic, and progressive but who still consider it risky to leave their Sunday school baggage behind.

I think someone like Detering would have taken Ehrman to cleaners over the remarks he made about Paul and the Galatians. Paul's "first visit" in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18-24) is very doubtful on the evidence we have from Tertullian, in which he only refers to Paul meeting with the pillars (in Gal 2) and omits the "again" in v. Gal 2:1. That Tertullian would have not used the "evidence" of Paul's Gal 1 visit and his audience with James, in his argument with Marcion is hard to imagine. For Ehrman to pretend that this problem does not exist, and argue from authority ("I am a historian and I am telling you...") that Paul wrote the whole of the epistle the way we have received the text takes him down some notches in my estimation.

Jiri

ApostateAbe · 05-29-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Ehrman has not explicitly stated that mythicism is absurd on the face. Listening to him on the Infidel Guy radio show leaves that impression. He spoke about it with nothing but arrogance and contempt, as though only an idiot would believe it.

I have no qualifications to label anyone anything. As always, I am only giving my opinions, and I don't ask anyone to take my word for it.

I was surprised by Ehrman's comments on the talk show. It was poor form to accuse the "mythicists" of writing pulp for a popular niche of readership, something that could easily be said of Ehrman himself. It is evident he found and caters to a special, urban, liberal-minded clientele, who think themselves chic, and progressive but who still consider it risky to leave their Sunday school baggage behind.

That's always possible, but I associate that more with the scholars of the Jesus Seminar. Their Jesus seems designed to be someone you can appreciate. Bart Ehrman's Jesus is not so flattering. And he actually had an autobiographical story in the introduction to Misquoting Jesus that accounted his loss of faith in favor of reason. Misquoting Jesus is his most popular book, and the title is actually referring to the canonical gospels and epistles who misquoted Jesus. That and his popularity may explain why conservative Christians see him as the biggest threat in the field of Biblical scholarship--the enemy of apologetics. His most recent book (God's Problem (or via: amazon.co.uk)) explains how the Bible does not solve the philosophical problem of evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I think someone like Detering would have taken Ehrman to cleaners over the remarks he made about Paul and the Galatians. Paul's "first visit" in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18-24) is very doubtful on the evidence we have from Tertullian, in which he only refers to Paul meeting with the pillars (in Gal 2) and omits the "again" in v. Gal 2:1. That Tertullian would have not used the "evidence" of Paul's Gal 1 visit and his audience with James, in his argument with Marcion is hard to imagine. For Ehrman to pretend that this problem does not exist, and argue from authority ("I am a historian and I am telling you...") that Paul wrote the whole of the epistle the way we have received the text takes him down some notches in my estimation.

Jiri

Yeah, Ehrman seems to make a lot of his own status as an authority, which is probably a rhetorical mistake. Most people, especially atheists, don't take seriously the authority of Biblical scholars.

Dave31 · 05-30-2010, 06:35 AM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "I define mythicism as the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is purely an invention of human thought and never existed as a human being."

That's not mythicism, that's just plain old atheism and it lacks any substance whatsoever. There's far more to the myth of Jesus than just non-existence. In fact, it's far more interesting than that.

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

ApostateAbe · 05-30-2010, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "I define mythicism as the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is purely an invention of human thought and never existed as a human being."

That's not mythicism, that's just plain old atheism and it lacks any substance whatsoever. There's far more to the myth of Jesus than just non-existence. In fact, it's far more interesting than that.

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

Atheism is the belief that the gods do not exist, or it is the lack of belief in the existence of the gods. Atheism does not directly concern the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because Jesus is theorized to be either man or God, or all of the above. Mythicism, as you see the word used around this forum and elsewhere, is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a human being. If Acharya S has a different, more inclusive, less inclusive or a more useful definition, then that is OK. I just hope that there are no misunderstandings. I do not think it is so useful for people like me to fall under the umbrella of Acharya S's broad definition of mythicism.

Toto · 05-30-2010, 08:02 AM

Acharya S on Pygmy Christ

Her sources are not credible, in short.

Dave31 · 05-30-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "Atheism is the belief that the gods do not exist, or it is the lack of belief in the existence of the gods. Atheism does not directly concern the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because Jesus is theorized to be either man or God, or all of the above. Mythicism, as you see the word used around this forum and elsewhere, is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a human being. If Acharya S has a different, more inclusive, less inclusive or a more useful definition, then that is OK. I just hope that there are no misunderstandings. I do not think it is so useful for people like me to fall under the umbrella of Acharya S's broad definition of mythicism. "

Atheism is the "absence of belief in god(s)" and it doesn't need to address Jesus specifically as it relates to religious beliefs of which Jesus is one.

I have yet to see anyone here at this forum who knows much about mythicism at all so, this forum may no be the best place to get information regarding mythicism and its origins, history or evolution. Those who've actually studied the case for mythicism understand Acharya's new mythicist position just fine. Dr. Price seemed to be fine with it along with several other highly respected scholars:

Quote:

"...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..."

Christ in Egypt, Reviewed by Robert M. Price

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

05-30-2010, 08:02 AM	#49
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Acharya S on Pygmy Christ Her sources are not credible, in short.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.