Chris Weimer

I can only name a handful of mythicist, and half are in the scholarly fringe. We have Doherty, Carrier, Atwill, and....who else? Who else within the scholarly world with publications and credentials?

RUmike

You're kidding, right?

RUmike

I don't buy this idea. You can probably ask virtually any biblical scholar/historian why he believes Jesus actually existed, and he will probably be able to give you his reasons without appeal to authority or majority. The reasons may not be convincing to you, but they are reasons nonetheless.

Didymus

I didn't know Carrier had come over to the mythicist view. Close, perhaps? But has he fully embraced it?

In any case, there's G.A. Wells, Freke and Gandy, and Burton Mack, whose academic credentials are impeccable.

I don't think the gap between the mythicist Jesus and the Jesus Seminar Jesus is all that great. When you remove the virgin birth, the miracles, the Passion and the Resurrection from the traditional Jesus view (per the Jesus Seminar folks), there's not that much left to defend. (The fundamentalists are fond of pointing that out, but it's true nonetheless.)

Once you arrive at that point, the gospel Jesus could easily be an amalgam of several real and legendary individuals - even named Jesus! - events and teachings, leavened by Hebrew scripture and Near Eastern Mystery religions, as well as by other traditions like Homer et al. That's not such a great leap, but it's not one that seems to satisfy either the mythicists or the traditionalists.

Didymus

jjramsey

This is a false analogy. We are aware that legends and tall tales can develop around real people. This happened with Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, and even someone as relatively recent as Davy Crockett. The story of Jesus is certainly similar to these stories of these individuals in that he is portrayed as a human being who did extraordinary feats, and in that he can be placed fairly well on a timeline in human history instead of in some indistinct hazy time in the past.

Actually, this points to another reason mythicists aren't taken too seriously: their arguments look weak to those who are experts in the field. I have yet to see any mythicist put forth anything that didn't have ad hoc hypotheses, strained parallels, or distortion. darstec's false analogy is a case in point.

Didymus

There's a big distinction between "historians in general" and bible historians. I agree that most non-specialist historians take HJ for granted. Or they just repeat the standard party line. Why fight it, when they have other fish to fry?

Academics don't work in a vacuum; their activities are tracked closely by colleagues, department heads, and the like. MJ is considered to be "fringy," so why should I spend time pursuing a questionable proposition that could endanger my career?

There are other problems too. I won't mention Archarya S , but there are some pretty dubious folks in the MJ "community." Not many academics would want to be associated with them.

As to the bible people, well, as Doherty says, most are from confessional/religious backgrounds and are firmly committed to the HJ as a matter of faith and academic training, not to speak of the career and livelihood issues.

Didymus

Chris Weimer

Didymus - I define mythicist as one who thinks that there is no core basis for the Jesus of the New Testament. An historicist is one who believes there was actually someone there originally.

Historicism ranges wide. Jesus Seminar is technically historicist since they attribute core sayings to an actual person, while Doherty on the other hand has all the sayings attached to a mythical Christ entirely. There's a big difference there.

I'm an historicist. I think there was a man who was killed and some of the sayings attributed to him survive. How much I'm still determining, but more evidence points to the direction that he actually existed.

From what I gathered so far, here's my basic outline: man named Yeshua from Galilee taught a bit and was crucified by the Romans. He was apocalyptic, expecting the end-times to come soon. His followers included a James, a John, a Simon Peter/Cephas (I'm not sure about this one, could have been one, two, or three different people), a group known as the Twelve, and quite possibly a Mary. This Jesus was fully Jewish, and was thought to be the Messiah, was thought to come back in a short time after his death to defeat the Romans and restore the Holy Land. There may have been a secret side to his teachings, but I'm more inclined to think that it was invented by Mark.

These things were added: virgin birth, resurrection, Gentile-inclusion, 12 disciples (which included James, Simon Peter, and John as part of the 12), Judas' betrayal, the Jewish involvement in his death, his hometown as Bethlehem/Nazareth, his mother Mary (but I'm unsure about his father Joseph, though he may as well have been invented), much of his teachings, he being a savior, and the distorted view of the Messiah.

Amaleq13

Mythicism is clearly a minority view but it certainly points out the rather substantial holes that exist in the "mainstream views". Even before Carrier fully "converted" he had to acknowledge that Doherty had accomplished that much.

The simple fact is, regardless of one's opinion of mythicism, there is no single agreed upon depiction of "the historical Jesus". For example, you can find "mainstream" disagreements on almost every point of Killer Mike's summary though I think it would be mostly accepted by many.

Personally, I have a hard time differentiating between a non-existent Jesus and one about whom we can say almost nothing with a reasonable degree of confidence except that the latter is far easier to imagine for most people (myself included).

When the evidence is honestly considered, it must be acknowledged as a complete mess. IMO, all scholars (including mythicists) have done their best to take that mess and conjure their particular conception of Jesus out of it while ignoring or attempting to explain away anything that doesn't quite fit. And there is always evidence that doesn't fit. Given the state of the evidence, I don't know what other choice they have if they want to make a living at trying to explain it.

Didymus

What about "someones"? Would the historicist view include the possibility that the saying and events did indeed transpire but did NOT involve the same individual? If so, there's a pretty small margin of difference between the mythicist view and the historicist view.

As to the sayings - I assume you mean those that appear in the synoptics, since there are no others - I don't think Doherty doubts that actual people said those things. The issue is whether the overall biography is based on a historical person or is a mythical construct.

Didymus

Artemus

I've pointed out here before that using the criteria that some apply to accept a historical Jesus, one would also be compelled to accept a historical Citizen Kane since his life is purported to be a legendary account of William Randolph Hearst.

Someday I envision people arguing in scholarly journals about whether or not the Rosebud incident actually occurred, or was a later interpolation. No doubt descendents of Oded Golan and Hershel Shanks will eventually unveil the actual Rosebud, complete with markings and patina.