aa5874

"There must have been an historical core" cannot be shown to be true. Macion has already shown that Jesus of the NT does not need to have an historical core.

It is the mythicist position that is the default position.

Jesus is a myth, only evidence can contradict or overturn this position. Without evidence, this position can be maintained FOREVER.

spamandham

I did say there were a few others. I seem to recall about 6 such snippets, but haven't counted them lately.

James is the leader of the Jerusalem church. Even many apologists agree "brother of the lord" is a title and not a blood relationship.

...you seem to be retrojecting the canonical Gospels onto Paul. Paul never indicates that the resurrection of Jesus was recent.

Paul also states his gospel is in accordance with the scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-11) as well as given to him by revelation rather than by men (Gal 1 -ish). This directly opposes the idea that he was familiar with a historical crucifixion.

Even worse, Paul uses senses of "crucify" loosely in multiple places where it can not possibly be referring to Roman crucifixion.

"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—"

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

"Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."

"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."


What external clues?

Urban legends (which are myths rather than legends in most cases) constructed from whole cloth arise in the modern age in hours. Without the internet, perhaps it would be months instead or at most a few years.

There is no historical prinicple I'm aware of that allows for rapid legend making while prohibiting rapid myth making. ...we are also playing fast an loose here. It's questionable whether 40 years is 'rapid' in an age where the average lifespan was 37.


I think you're understating them.

Sure it was. Are you reading a different Mark than the rest of us? Scan Mark 13 again, and tell me what you see that is incompatible with the events ca. 70 CE.

You are inserting into Mark what simply isn't there. Mark's 'end' does not refer to the end of the world. It's a specific sequence of events related to Jerusalem and the temple; the very events that took place around 70 CE.

Mark's Jesus get's it precisely correct to the last historical detail. How? because it was written after the fact obviously.

The section of Mark 13 in question is not that long. Please read it, while keeping in mind that the rest of the past 2000 years worth of end times nonsense had not yet been developed. As best you can, try not to project end-time biases into what Mark actually states.

spamandham

...I don't completely disagree, but I have a small contention. I don't believe there are any default positions in regard to the analysis of ancient texts. They have to be analyzed first!

If Christianity were an ancient dead religion, I think that in this particular case, we would look at the texts and say "meh, another Roman myth, but with a Jewish twist".

We would not 100% rule out the possibility of a historical core (just as it is not 100% ruled out for Romulus and Remus), but we wouldn't waste time searching for it either.

Toto

For someone who claims to be an atheist, you have the strange habit of repeating Christian arguments uncritically. The idea that 40 years is too short an amount of time for wholesale fabrication has no basis in fact.

spamandham

...not to mention that if it is pure myth, we are not bound to a 40 year period. The basics could have existed in some modified form for much longer.

bacht

Nicely put. I agree that the mythicist position doesn't have to be the default. But we've already had fifteen centuries of the historicist perspective, so maybe we're overdue for some skepticism.

Don was asking if I had anything to add to researchers like Doherty. I don't, partly because I don't have the training or resources to contribute. I appreciate the opportunity to comment here because I'm not part of the academic world, and I can't keep up with strictly technical discussions.

I admit that underdogs and outsiders do attract my attention, but that's because they might have something to offer that the mainstream finds distasteful for whatever reasons.

Rick Sumner

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

Well played.

aa5874

Do you know of any test that is 100% foolproof?

A DNA match is not 100% foolproof.

You must understand that certain findings can be deemed to be true or reasonable based on the evidence available.

It is reasonable to claim that you have contracted the HIV virus if a test is positive even though no test is 100% foolproof.

Jesus is a myth is true based on a lack of evidence. Only evidence can dislodge a claim that Jesus is a myth and this statement can be made FOREVER or up to ETERNITY until evidence is found.

Jesus is a myth cannot be contradicted, Now.

GakuseiDon

Well, I didn't want to suggest that this was personally about you, but I'm trying to highlight this "phantom war" that supposedly goes on in the academic world, where scholars don't interact with mythicist ideas in fear that they may be right.

Lots of people seem to think that Doherty is right, but where are the reviews by mythicists? Leave aside the idea that historicists are afraid to engage with Doherty's ideas, why aren't mythicists doing this? Apart from a one page review by Carrier, can you point me to any review of Doherty's ideas by mythicists (beyond the person saying "it just makes sense!)? Even Carrier says that he has as many points of disagreements as agreements. (That's why I believe that the Jesus Project isn't going to offer much joy for mythicists)

Doherty summarized his arguments in an article that went into "The Journal of Higher Criticism" a few years back. This was a journal set up by Dr Bob Price to allow a voice for ideas that may be outside the mainstream. The response to Doherty's article? AFAIK there was none.

It would be great to see mythicists look into Doherty's ideas and write reviews on them. And then encourage Doherty (or any other mythicist) to publish in academia. I agree with Toto that the reason a historical Jesus isn't questioned more is due to inertia. Well, mythicists should be pushing Doherty hard until it erts.

I'm the same, which is why you won't find me making many contributions here, except in my own area of interest which is on early Christian and pagan thinking. But do you feel you know enough to pass judgement on the probable validity of Doherty's thesis? IIUC you found his book convincing?

Nothing wrong at all with that. But if you sit back and accept what the non-mainstream tells you, how are you different to those who sit back and accept what the mainstream tells them?

aa5874

You seem not to understand that mythicists are generally independent thinkers. They are not looking for a concensus before they make their views known.

It is not really necessary to push any mythicist"s view unless actually you support the view. The claim that Jesus is a myth, or did not exist is not made to start a religion.

I would expect many versions of the myth called Jesus.