krosero

Hi, I'm new here. I'm an HJer, which as everyone knows here simply means I believe that Jesus existed. I have a question for MJers -- those who believe that no man lies behind the stories that we have about Jesus. Actually it's a set of questions, but they all boil down to this: what is unconvincing TO YOU about the HJ model(s), and what is convincing TO YOU about the MJ model(s)?

I'm prompted to ask because of a theme I found in Richard Carrier's review of The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. Carrier refers to a standard historicist theory (SHT) and Doherty's mythicist theory (DMT); he compares them and always finds Doherty's to have a better explanation of the facts. He's very specific about it -- this paragraph distills his whole comparison:

"Likewise, Doherty points out repeatedly that 'Prophets like Paul were inspired through visions, through interpreting glossolalia (speaking in tongues), through a study of scripture' (29). That is, throughout the epistles, Paul uses or refers to all three of these as sources of spiritual doctrine, but never appeals to historical facts or evidence as such a source. This is strange on SHT, expected on DMT. Also relevant is how DMT perfectly fits the cultural-ideological milieu (as Doherty shows in chapter 3, for example), whereas SHT does not. And while SHT has an explanation for this, to make it work it relies on many ad hoc assumptions as well as the presumption of supernaturalism (whereas DMT does not rely on the presumption of naturalism; and, since it fits the context, it uses fewer ad hoc assumptions). In like fashion, certain strange features of the vocabulary of the Pauline epistles is more explicable on DMT than on SHT. Doherty also shows how DMT explains all the early Christian literature (especially the strange features therein), and not just the canonized works, whereas SHT has a harder time doing that. And so on. In several ways like these, Doherty shows how his theory is a better explanation of all the evidence than SHT. He is successful enough that everyone should take notice."

And he has other examples. In the end Carrier argues that SHT might very well be correct, but since SHT has not been put forward in a comprehensive manner the way that Doherty has done with the mythicist case, SHT must be regarded as the weaker theory (I know that he has recently converted fully to Doherty's view). Carrier actually suggests that a strong SHT argument might still be made -- and to some extent I agree with what he's getting at. The current wave of mythicism, which began with G.A. Wells, has many book-length arguments, and Doherty's is the most comprehensive: nothing shows this more than his ability to present his argument as a full "puzzle" that can be completed in "12 easy pieces". He's covered all the bases, regardless of how well you or I think that he's covered them. Nothing like that exists for SHT, at least not in response to the current mythicist wave. The mythicist arguments of the early 20th century had full-length responses from HJers, but those mythicist arguments were different from that of Doherty, who posits that Paul did not believe in a fleshly Christ. I don't agree with Doherty, but I do concede that he's given the mythicist case a novel twist. It needs a rebuttal -- and many rebuttals do exist. But none exist, Carrier seems to be saying, that are comprehensive:

"Maybe someone can finally take Doherty's thesis seriously and develop a single, coherent theory of Jesus' existence that explains all the evidence as well as Doherty's theory does, or better. As I have not seen it tried, I cannot say it can't be done. But someone is going to have to do it if they want to refute Doherty. Merely picking at his arguments, and again flinging prima facie plausibility and subjective notions of absurdity at it like they were heavy artillery, is not going to work."

Now I don't presume that all mythicists (MJers) subscribe to Doherty's theory. But Doherty does seem to command the most respect. And all MJers do find the claim of historicity wanting while they find the claim of mythical origin more convincing.

I know already that mythicists find the supernatural model of Jesus unacceptable. I am not pushing that model. My own candidates for best HJ scholars are John Meier and E.P. Sanders; N.T. Wright is also pretty good, and occasionally I find John Dominic Crossan to be right. Meier is my favorite, and he has ruled out the investigation of miracles, and the Resurrection, as outside the bounds of historical inquiry. So I'm not asking about the supernatural Jesus of traditional Christianity per se. I'm asking about a naturalistic model of Jesus' existence such as you find in Meier and Sanders and the others. Yeah, none of these authors have spoken, as far as I know, about the question of Jesus' existence, which is the lack that Carrier seems to be feeling; but their models count as HJ models.

What then is unconvincing about such naturalistic HJ models?
What elements are most convincing about them?
What elements are only moderately convincing?

What elements are convincing about the mythicist model(s)?
What elements are least convincing about them?
What elements are only moderately convincing?

I don't ask in order to get into a debate. This is just an inquiry. I really want to know why the model I subsribe to is unconvincing; I want to know very well how the objections to it arise; I want to understand the mythicist case better than I do now.

Answer only as many of the above questions as you want -- but please try to be as specific as Carrier.

(And you don't have to call yourself an MJer to respond to this.)

Many thanks

Peter Kirby

Krosero, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to IIDB. I hope that you enjoy your discussions here and that you are received with all the courtesy that you show.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Stacey Melissa

I'm on the fence over the issue, so I'll be interested to see what people have to say on this. Thanks for bringing up the topic, krosero, and welcome to IIDB.

spin

Sitting on the fence over this issue is the right place to be, as I see it. It is sufficient that there is a functional non-historical model to explain the earliest manifestations of the religious tradition to bring down the wrath of Ockham on the religionists who have been so complaisant as never to have felt the need to do the legwork to show in a scholarly manner that they actually have a case for the historicity of their traditions.

I have pointed out overtly non-historical material in the gospel:

1. fanciful and conflicting birth narratives;
2. impossible to report temptation (trips to mountain tops, etc);
3. doubleted feeding of the masses, fishes and bread routine (once is hard enough);
4. remarkable perception of the disciples to recognize Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration (perhaps they photos);
5. impossible to report prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane (disciples were asleep, Jesus had moved away from them); and
6. vast number of Hebrew bible citations were turned into "prophecies" to create events in Jesus's life.

All these point to a fictional, rather than a historical, work. There may in fact be a historical core to this work, but it's the religionist's task to demonstrate it, rather than sit on his/her laurels concluding from authority that no historian questions the historicity of the gospel core. Most historians would avoid the issue or pay lip service; there are after all religionists in academia that one will have to kowtow to and part of one's reading audience will be religious, so you don't want to alienate them.

The ball has always been in the court of the claimants, those who claim historicity.


spin

Amaleq13

I've yet to read one that seems to me to adequately address all the evidence. They all seem to pick and choose what can be considered historical in the Gospel stories with what seems to me to be an unreliable or flawed methodology (if one is even specified) as well as reading things into Paul from the Gospels. I've particularly found the attempts to explain Paul's "silence" unconvincing though I've really only just started focusing on some of what are considered the better books about him.

I find the psychology of the basic naturalistic HJ scenario entirely plausible. I'm referring to the notion of the former followers experiencing enormous guilt and depression subsequent to the sudden loss of their leader which resulted in one of them experiencing a vision of the risen leader which, after being shared with the others, spread.

It seems to offer a better explanation of Paul's "silence".

I consider his establishment of the location of the crucifixion to be the weakest part of Doherty's thesis.

I'm not sure I have a "moderately convincing" category in my head. Is that the same as "could go either way"? If so, I can't think of anything specific off the top of my head.

I enjoy defending the idea but I'm not convinced. I just think it is as at least as plausible as any specific depiction of the HJ as an explanation. If the equations Carrier has recently applied didn't cause me to have severe headaches, I might think otherwise. Frankly, I suspect that identifying any historical Jesus is an ultimately hopeless task because everything we have is so thoroughly mythologized. Sick as it may be, I still enjoy the attempt. I hope that was specific enough.

Toto

Briefly, the HJ model doesn't fit what we know about religious or political movements. (Christians are quite happy to point this out.)

If Jesus were a wandering hippie-type preacher, it is hard to imagine why he was enough of a threat to the Romans to crucify him. If he were that sort of a threat, it is hard to imagine why his followers were not also crucified.

New religious movements, or religio-political movements, are usually started by a charismatic individual who is a master of psychology. Pro-HJ historians have assumed that Jesus must have been a charismatic individual to have started such a movement, but there is no evidence of it in the gospels or in early Christian writings. We don't see his portrait, we don't hear about the women who wanted to bear his children, we don't have the memoirs from his best friend, etc.

Vinnie

"""""""The ball has always been in the court of the claimants, those who claim historicity.""""""

Total non-history is a poitive claim as well.

ApostateAbe

I am convinced that Jesus really existed because he made a false prophecy of his return within the lifetimes of his listeners accompanied by other events, as told in Mark 13 and Luke 9:23-27. In 2 Peter 3, the Christian religion had to defend themselves from mockers who asked, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." And the defense is, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This ad hoc would not happen in myth. I believe that Jesus existed as a cult leader who was crucified, a death that was embarrassing and unheroic at the time (1 Corinthians 1:23), and is also unlikely to happen in myth.

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps. But might not Ockham find his wrath tempered by recalling the Jerusalem sect and the "sayings", and then noting that the presumption of a sect leader behind this sect and these sayings is a fairly reasonable and parsimonious inference?

But is not legend history layered with, refracted through, and embellished/distorted by fiction?

Roland

But it isn't really "embarrassing" and "unheroic" if he comes off as the victim of other people's ignorance and his death "saves" everybody else in the process.

There's nothing "unheroic" about a person who allows himself to be unjustly killed in order to save others. In fact, that is a common meme for heroism, and, thus, doesn't speak to whether or not Jesus was an actual person.