Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mens_sana · 10-30-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Looking through Burton Mack's page on Wikipedia, it says that "he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history". It also notes, "Though he does not regard himself as a Historical Jesus scholar, he suggests that Jesus was a wandering sage, similar in style to the Greco-Roman cynics,".

This, I regard, as a position that counts more or less as mythicist. Therefore, I have added him to my list of those with good academic credentials who take the Jesus Myth position seriously

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...

• • •

I like the "more or less" part! But the question is what scholars support a HJ, and while Mack most definitely thinks the gospels are mostly myth, he does NOT think that Jesus is one too. So, please feel free to count his opinion of the gospels for your list, but his opinion of the HJ is still exactly that: HJ.

mens_sana · 10-30-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

So Burton Mack concludes that there was an historical personage named Jesus, and he gets at this historical personage using the Q document allegedly embedded within the gospels, yet somehow his position is more or less mythicist. I feel language has lost its meaning by the time we get this far down the path.

I might suggest, in a small attempt to reclaim the meaning of words, that there is a difference between viewing the gospels as mythical documents and viewing Jesus as a mythical personage.

Ben.

Hear, hear! :thumbs:

Magdlyn · 10-30-2007, 11:21 AM

Ein minuten bitte!

I thought this thread was for names for a list comprised of Non-Christian scholars who believe Jesus existed. Why are you compiling lists of scholars (Xtian or not, credentialed or not) who believe Jesus was a myth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Looking through Burton Mack's page on Wikipedia, it says that "he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history". It also notes, "Though he does not regard himself as a Historical Jesus scholar, he suggests that Jesus was a wandering sage, similar in style to the Greco-Roman cynics,".

This, I regard, as a position that counts more or less as mythicist. Therefore, I have added him to my list of those with good academic credentials who take the Jesus Myth position seriously:

1) Wells, 2) Price, 3) Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack.

Antipope Innocent has not given me his list of academic fields relevant to the study of the historical/myth question, so I cannot take any off this list as possessing irrelevant academic credentials.

Those writers with academic credentials that I am not sure about (but whose work may be just as important as the above) include:

1) Earl Doherty, 2) Richard Carrier, 3) Archaya S., 4) Joseph Atwill, 5) Ken Humphreys, 6) Harold Liedner, 7) Zane Winter, 8) Gary Courtney, 9) Michael Hoffman, 10) Max Rieser

...deceased 20th century mythicist scholars:

1) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 2) John (J.M.) Robertson 3) Bertrand Russell, 4) Joseph McCabe 5) William Wrede, 6) Thomas Whittaker, 7) John E. Remsburg, 8) Arthur Drews, 9) P. L. Couchoud, 10) John Allegro, 11) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 12) Robert Taylor, 13) Joseph Wheless, 14) Peter Jensen, 15) Gordon Rylands, 16) Guy Fau, 17) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian

spin · 10-30-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Looking through Burton Mack's page on Wikipedia, it says that "he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history". It also notes, "Though he does not regard himself as a Historical Jesus scholar, he suggests that Jesus was a wandering sage, similar in style to the Greco-Roman cynics,".

"[M]yth opposed to history"! Bingo! There's that sad old tired old narrow old dichotomy again. This "myth" is not the "myth" of the MJer. It is a sloppy use of the term to mean "ahistorical". The effect is that other alternatives are ignored. There is a relatively easy target, mythicism, and nothing else. Instead of dealing with the foundations of the claimed historicity of Jesus, one simply points out the flaws in the mythicist position, end of story, and everyone lives happily every after. No testing of the original hypothesis is necessary. The only alternative has been shown wanting. Its a travesty of scholarship, but who knows and who cares?

spin

mountainman · 10-30-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Ein minuten bitte!

I thought this thread was for names for a list comprised of Non-Christian scholars who believe Jesus existed. Why are you compiling lists of scholars (Xtian or not, credentialed or not) who believe Jesus was a myth?

Contrast via tangentiation. Sooner or later
the full set of possibilities will receive attention.

Personally it is my opinion that there could not
have been a Non-Christian scholar who believed Jesus existed
until Jesus had been invented in the fourth century.

And Arius IMO voted Jesus ahistorical.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

PhilosopherJay · 10-31-2007, 07:11 AM

Hi Magdlyn,

In presenting the lists, I was only responding to antipope Innocent's suggestion that he could count the number of mythicists on one hand. It seemed to me that the number was closer to twenty or thirty. I am now at 45 and still counting. His position is now that only two are qualified, but he has not clarified his position as to what fields of study one needs to be involved in, in order to be considered qualified.

I have added Alvin Boyd Kuhn to the list of 20th Century deceased writers, bringing the total number to 46.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Ein minuten bitte!

I thought this thread was for names for a list comprised of Non-Christian scholars who believe Jesus existed. Why are you compiling lists of scholars (Xtian or not, credentialed or not) who believe Jesus was a myth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Looking through Burton Mack's page on Wikipedia, it says that "he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history". It also notes, "Though he does not regard himself as a Historical Jesus scholar, he suggests that Jesus was a wandering sage, similar in style to the Greco-Roman cynics,".

This, I regard, as a position that counts more or less as mythicist. Therefore, I have added him to my list of those with good academic credentials who take the Jesus Myth position seriously:

1) Wells, 2) Price, 3) Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack.

Antipope Innocent has not given me his list of academic fields relevant to the study of the historical/myth question, so I cannot take any off this list as possessing irrelevant academic credentials.

Those writers with academic credentials that I am not sure about (but whose work may be just as important as the above) include:

1) Earl Doherty, 2) Richard Carrier, 3) Archaya S., 4) Joseph Atwill, 5) Ken Humphreys, 6) Harold Liedner, 7) Zane Winter, 8) Gary Courtney, 9) Michael Hoffman, 10) Max Rieser

...deceased 20th century mythicist scholars:

1) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 2) John (J.M.) Robertson 3) Bertrand Russell, 4) Joseph McCabe 5) William Wrede, 6) Thomas Whittaker, 7) John E. Remsburg, 8) Arthur Drews, 9) P. L. Couchoud, 10) John Allegro, 11) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 12) Robert Taylor, 13) Joseph Wheless, 14) Peter Jensen, 15) Gordon Rylands, 16) Guy Fau, 17) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, 18) Alvin Boyd Kuhn

Ray Moscow · 10-31-2007, 07:21 AM

Jay, on the other hand, would it be fair to say that most academic Bible scholars, who teach at either seminary or universities or who do recognised research, seem to hold with some form of the HJ?

Some variation of the HJ always seemed to me to be the "mainstream" view -- not that this makes it correct, of course.

Ray

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

If the gospels are mythical documents then the Jesus of the gospels is a mythical entity, regardless of any "historical core" that at one point may or may not be discovered.

This has nothing to do with what is generally meant by the term historical Jesus. That term, when used by scholars, stands in contrast to the Jesus of faith as one might find in the church or in its canonical texts; that term in and of itself implies a search for the core behind the (potential) layers of legend.

To say that the Jesus as presented by the gospels (or by the church, or by Islam, or what have you) is a myth (or a fiction, or a dream written down, or what have you) says nothing about the historical Jesus.

Quote:

If the gospels are supposed to be evidence of the historical core, they can only be so to the extent that they are not mythical.

This is not true. Myth does not mean utter lack of historicity. Nor does legend. Ahistoricity means utter lack of historicity. Myths (and legends) may (or may not) contain history.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In a similar way, if someone believes that the historical Jesus did not perform miracles, did not preach the vast majority of the things attributed to him and was not arrested and executed, and essentially thinks the Jesus character portrayed in the Gospels is a myth, then I would have to consider this more of a mythicist position then an historical Jesus position.

The transition is complete. You have now changed the meaning of the term historical Jesus.

Eadem vocabula.

--Tacitus.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay · 10-31-2007, 08:16 AM

Hi Ray,

I agree.

Still, this should be connected with the old question of institutional bias. Almost all institutions that give degrees in Bible Studies are affiliated with a Christian Church. It is hard to imagine anyone teaching at any of these institutions holding a mythical Jesus position. They would a) almost certainly not get hired or b) be fired as soon as they espoused such a position. The purpose of such institutions is not to objectively examine the historical evidence, but to instill a certain appreciation for some version of the God-man Jesus.

I would certainly admit that an historical Jesus is the mainstream, if not the only stream in this discipline. However, I would say that someone with a degree in any scientific field, such as biology or chemistry, is more qualified to speak on the question of the historicity of Jesus than someone with a degree in Bible Studies. In the same way, any person with a degree in science is more likely to accurately investigate questions of astronomy than someone with a degree in astrology. This is regardless of the number of peer-reviewed articles one may have in respected journals of astrology.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Jay, on the other hand, would it be fair to say that most academic Bible scholars, who teach at either seminary or universities or who do recognised research, seem to hold with some form of the HJ?

Some variation of the HJ always seemed to me to be the "mainstream" view -- not that this makes it correct, of course.

Ray

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

10-31-2007, 07:21 AM	#37
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	Jay, on the other hand, would it be fair to say that most academic Bible scholars, who teach at either seminary or universities or who do recognised research, seem to hold with some form of the HJ? Some variation of the HJ always seemed to me to be the "mainstream" view -- not that this makes it correct, of course. Ray

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.