Camio

Indeed it is. And I'd like to take this opportunity to further clarify the vocabulary point at stake through a simple example:

If I claim that the Jesus-Christ-of-the-Gospel is a fictional character (the degree of fictional components greatly varying from one individual to another, from fundies to cryptists) losely based on Josephus' Jesus Ben Ananias for instance, how would you categorize me? HJ, MJ, neither? AFAIAC, I wouldn't consider myself a mythicist, since there is a flesh-and-blood individual behind my story.

maryhelena

If you don't believe the Jesus in the gospel storyline is historical then you are holding a mythicist position.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mythicist

mythicist
1. a student of myths.
2. an interpreter of myths.

A mythicist makes a judgement - the gospel Jesus is not historical. Therefore, a mythicist will look for some other meaning, interpretation, to ascribe to the mythological, symbolic or figurative, elements of the Jesus story. But the core position is that a mythicist rejects the historicity of Jesus of the gospel story.

That there might well be a historical figure that inspired, perhaps in part, that Jesus storyline - that is a historical question and not a mythological, theological or prophetic question.

The mythicist begins with the assumption that the gospel Jesus is not a historical figure.

The historicists begins with the assumption that the gospel Jesus is a historical figure.

(OK, the historicists can try taking Jesus out of the gospel storyline, attempt some sort of salvage operation - but then they are simply dealing with a nonentity - a figure of their own imagination..)

Two different approaches, two different frameworks - which will yield different conclusion regarding the beginnings of early christianity.

The historicists are wanting to salvage a historical figure from the gospel mythology.

The mythicist can accept all of the mythological elements - and still uphold the idea that there was most probably a historical figure that inspired the Jesus storyline. No salvage operation, no assumptions about making an equation with the gospel Jesus and a historical figure.

And, to my way of thinking, it is the mythicist position that is open-ended, a position that can move forward. The historicist position is dead-locked - it is still bent on salvage - still looking for the needle in a haystack..

Camio

So, according to your definition, the Liberal Christians who don't believe in the miracles described in the Gospels for instance are actually mythicists?

maryhelena

Come now - I don't think you read anything like that in anything I wrote...:huh:

Rick Sumner

No, you're not. Nobody, to my knowledge, who posts on BC&H believes the "gospel storyline is historical." Not one person.

That does not mean we are all mythicists.

By your definition, McGrath qualifies as a mythicist.

dog-on

I think she means that if you believe that the gospel storyline is a myth, you may be considered a mythicist.

Camio

No indeed, whence my question. It is not clear to me what the "Jesus Christ of the Gospel" is made of for you. The options are much larger than "take it or leave it".

So, once again: where do you put the (vast majority of) people who think only some parts of the Gospel may be historical? Do they really qualify as mythicists to your eyes?

maryhelena

Well, that is good news indeed - that nobody on this forum believes the gospel storyline re the crucifixion of that carpenter from Nazareth being historical...

But I suppose that is not what you mean...

You mean that some on this forum are engaged in a salvage operation - that they want to cherry-pick the gospel storyline until they find a part of that storyline that suits their needs....yes, methinks, that is probably what you mean...

Solo

And I take it you feel sure about the negative that you just ruled out.

Jiri

maryhelena

Either Jesus is historical or he is not historical. The historicists don't like the gospel storyline - its got too much baggage - so they want to dump what they don't like and salvage something they do like. Which is the idea that underneath all the mythology is a normal human, historical, man. That is cherry-picking. That is taking Jesus out of the gospel context. That Jesus is nothing but a figment of their imagination - in essence an invisible man. Which boils down to the fact that such a historicist position re the gospel storyline is nothing but subterfuge, a sledge of hand that looks good but consists of nothing more than wishful thinking...Sure, a lot of people are happy with this half-way position - but as to its value in finding a historical core to the gospel storyline - it's been pretty useless...

So, no, you would not be a mythicist if you uphold this historicists halfway position re the gospel storyline.