Jeffrey Gibson

Jay,

Could you tell me on what basis you name Russell as one who denied the existence of Jesus?

Same with John Allegro.

Jeffrey

Zeichman

I think the "relevant fields" is the part that matters. Would you care what a geologist thought about this question? Either make use of credentials or don't; please don't dance around this issue by including scholars of irrelevant fields like this.

And please provide ANY evidence that Mack "takes this seriously." I'd be shocked if he did. As Ben Smith noted, all this talk about Mack as a "closet mythicist" is fairly absurd. You might as well place everyone who takes anthropological approaches to Christian origins in that category, then.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Zeichman,

Regarding relevant fields, we haven't really examined that question yet to any degree. It seems to me that a higher degree in geology would be far more relevant than, say, a degree in theology. A higher degree in geology teaches you important methodologies concerning discovering evolutionary processes over an historical period and useful ways of categorizing material substances and material processes. On the other hand, theology has at its core the rather abstract concepts of being and non-being. Without the prior necessary background in Philosophical studies, it is easy to see how the two concepts could become confused. The confusion is so great that for some two hundred years, philosophers from David Hume to Ludwig Wittgenstein dismissed the whole field as nonsense.

Regarding Mack, we have perhaps a borderline case, but I would contend that because he clearly categorizes the gospels as myth and his historical Jesus is more or less a shadow, that we may considered him primarily a mythicist.

Note importantly that he has written three books with Myth and Christian in the titles:

A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1988)

Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1995)

The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2001)

That should be a strong clue as to his dominant overall position.


As I mentioned previously the key passages in Wikipedia for me are these:

Mack's approach is skeptical, and he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history

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, and that the earliest "Jesus Movements" followed a similar model.

He "suggests" a cynical Jesus, but does not insist on it. In fact, as I believe Robert Price has noted somewhere, he really is just suggesting a possible source for the gospels' cynical sayings which could just as easily be seen as not coming from a single historical figure.

Mack writes:

Quote:

The framework stories of the gospels are the most highly mythologized type of material. They include the narratives of Jesus' birth, baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances. The transfiguration story is purely mythological, as are the birth narratives, the story of the empty tomb, and the appearances of the resurrected Jesus to the disciples. Critical scholars would not say that these derive from reminiscences... from Burton Mack, Myth of Innocence

and

Quote:

"Once upon a time, before there were gospels of the kind familiar to readers of the New Testament, the first followers of Jesus wrote another kind of book. Instead of telling a dramatic story about Jesus' life, their book contained only his teachings. They lived with these teachings ringing in their ears and thought of Jesus as the founder of their movement. But their focus was not on the person of Jesus or his life and destiny. They were engrossed with the social program that was called for by his teachings. Thus their book was not a gospel of the Christian kind, namely a narrative of the life of Jesus as the Christ. Rather it was a gospel of Jesus' sayings, a 'sayings gospel.' His first followers arranged these sayings in a way that offered instruction for living creatively in the midst of a most confusing time, and their book served them well as a handbook and guide for most of the first Christian century. The the book was lost ... to history somewhere in the course of the late first century when stories of Jesus' life began to be written and became the more popular form of charter document for early Christian circles." - from Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel (1983)

Mack is explaining here the origin of the gospel mythology. Now note that Mack starts out with the fairy tale phrase “Once upon a time.” He is giving us fair warning that this derivation is possibly somewhat like the way it happened, but is not to be entirely regarded as factual.

While, it is clear that he regards the gospels as myths, it appears that his own cynic Jesus lacks a history – “their focus was not on the person of Jesus or his life and destiny” – in other words they didn’t bother to tell us the history of Jesus. So we are left with a biography that Jesus was a Jewish cynic sage who said cynical things.

One could just as easily point to “Little Red Riding Hood” and say that the text tells us that Little Red Riding Hood was a little girl who wore a red hood and lived near a wooded area. Since we know that little girls who wore hoods and lived near wooded areas existed in history, we can say most probably that the historical Little Red Riding Hood was a little girl who wore a hood and lived near the woods. Shall we really classify this as an historical Little Red Riding Hood theory? Especially, when the theorist goes on to say that the trip to the woods, the wolf, the grandmother and the woodcutter were certainly all myths.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

:huh: ??? Where do you get this???.:huh: In the passage you quote, Mack is explaining the origins of Q and why, though a Gospel, it does not have the shame shape as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

You haven't read Mack, have you?

In other words, he believes that Jesus existed and cannot be counted among those who deny that Jesus existed.

Well, Jay, I wonder if you'll put your money where your your mouth is by checking with Mack himself about the validity (a) of what you say his position on the HJ is and (b) of your interpretation of what he's saying in the (secondarily derived and uncontextualized) quotes of his writings that you have given us?

Here's his e-mail address: burton.mack [at] uia [dot] net

If you are not willing to do this, would you please tell us why?

Jeffrey

Zeichman

You must be kidding if you think that understanding the very concepts used in the Bible (i.e., theology) was less relevant than geology... or a German degree or whatever. Regardless, I wasn't at all suggesting that a ThD or a PhD in theology was preferable, and you're burning a straw man here.

To go with a creationism analogy, would you take the word of a theologian over a biologist? As far as creationists are concerned, the former is well-versed in the actions of the divine whereas the latter has "abstract concepts" of adaption and change.

He's written a few essays on his historical Jesus, one in "Whose Historical Jesus? (or via: amazon.co.uk)" ed. by William Arnal and another in his "The Christian Myth." In the former, he's a bit more insistent on his historical Jesus. And having heard him speak very recently, I can tell you that he regards Jesus as a "poet" of relatively little consequence historically (i.e., compared to almost every other historical Jesus scholar). I would advise you read those before making judgments about what he thinks about the historical Jesus. As Jeffrey noted, MYTH does not always mean what you want it to. He's interested in the mythopoeic aspects of the early Christians and how it relates to anthropology. There is no reason why this would require an MJ view. It seems that you're projecting your own opinions a bit.

Also, you're partaking in the fallacy of "equivocation" with the word "suggests." Whoever wrote the article should have worded it stronger; he unequivocally asserts that Jesus and his earliest followers held noteworthy resemblances to the Cynic philosophers.

As far as I have read, Mack has never considered the Jesus Myth a viable hypothesis.

Jeffrey Gibson

Let's just note that in the above you not only engage in equivocation in changing the terms of the original comparison between degrees in in biblical studies vs any other degree when you switch, as you do there, from speaking, as you originally did, about the utility for obtaining facility in the historian's task of a Biblical Studies degree to speaking of a degree in Theology.

You also three times engage in rank petitio principii:

First, by assuming without proof that what geologists investigate (the earth), on the one hand, and what historians investigate, on the other (texts and other man made artifacts including images sound samples captured on film and tape, none of which originated through the "natural process" that formed and shaped the earth), are sufficiently analogous that a grasp of the particular methodologies that purportedly allow one to discover evolutionary processes over an historical period and that learning "useful ways of categorizing material substances and material processes", has any relevance for, or utility in, helping historians carry out what they consider to be the historian's task.

Can you name one degreed/professional geolgist who would make the claim that because he has obtained expertise in the methodologies required to be a good geologist, he is thereby qualified to be, let alone should be recognized by historians to be qualified as being, someone who would make a good ancient historian? Better yet, can you name one degreed/professional ancient historian who thinks so?

Second, in your assumption about what the study of theology has at its core.

Is it really the case, as you claim it is, that the core of theology, let alone at the core of all the classes taken by those who wish to obtain a degree in theology, is the study of "the rather abstract concepts of being and non being"? It wasn't of mine. It isn't of any other degreed theologians that I know unless they specialized the philosopy of religion and were trained specifically to be ontologists. And even then they have to do historical studies to become a master of this subsection of philosophical (not theological studies.

Let's see your proof for your claim. Show me any stated/published curriculum of the course of study of theology that any university or any department of theology lays out for those who wish to earn a degree in this subject that demonstrates the validity of your claim.

Third, even granting your claim about what lies at the core of theology, you've begged the question in your assumption that the study of "being and non being" would/does not involve the teaching of methodologies that professional historians would claim are part of, and necessary for carrying out, the historian's craft.

Would you care to state your evidence for this? How do you know, as you imply you do, that such methodologies are not taught to those who are attempting to gain degrees in theology and/or are not expected to be known, and to be employed, by those whom the faculty members of departments of theology teach?

It seems to me, Jay, that in what you write above you are talking through your hat. But I'd be delighted to be shown by you -- with hard evidence, though, mind you, -- that I'm wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson

Camio

As a sidenote: Onfray doesn't hold any specific JM theory. In his books and during his lectures, he just rehashes Couchoud's or Alfaric's. During a recent interview, he conceded that he wasn't aware of any newer works in this field, like Doherty's.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Zeichman,


The theologian may be well versed in divine actions, but if there are no divine actions then the theologian may be said to be well versed in nothing but his own fantasies of divine actions.

I think, you're asking if a theologian has a better grasp of questions regarding creationism than a biologist. I would say that if the theologian is a creationist, probably not.

A good analogy may be between a Ufologist and a biologist discussing alien lifeforms. While the Ufologist may have watched Steven Spielberg's Close encounters of the Third Kind and both Star Wars serials numerous times, and is able to describe every alien creature from those movies in detail, I would still think that the biologist is more likely to be more knowledgeable in her/his assessment of the existence of alien lifeforms on Earth, even if she/he has not specifically studied the nature of alien lifeforms on Earth. [I apologize to any Ufologists I have offended by this stereotype of Ufologists.]

As regards Mack, he may indeed unequivocally asserts that Jesus and his earliest followers held noteworthy resemblances to the Cynic philosophers.
I would still categorize him as a mythicist.

Pointing to an historical source for a fictional character does not entail a belief that the character is historical. I can point to the historical actual person who does the voice for the Homer Simpson character on the popular Simpsons television series. I can point to the actual historical writers who write each episode, and I can list the names of the actual historical people who draw the cartoon. This does not mean that I believe that there is an historical Homer Simpson. In the same way, a writer pointing to a possibly historical character who said some lines used by the Jesus character in the gospels does not mean that the writer believes the Jesus character to be historical.

In my book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, I analyze the passion narratives and propose that the passion narratives comes from an original mime play written by a woman named Mary, probably the daughter of a Jewish high priest. I suggest that she was basing her play on a real and well known incident in which a high priest turned his son over to Roman authorities. I suggest that there was a good possibility that the authoress was involved in the actual historical events. I would say that my identification of an Historical Jesus is a lot more precise than Mack's cynical Philosopher Jesus. Still, I would not say that I have put forward an Historical Jesus hypothesis.

In the same way, we cannot say that the title character in Citizen Kane is an historical character. He is clearly based on an historical person, William Randolph Hearst, and there are references to Hearst and his activities throughout the film. Still, Charles Forster Kane, is a fiction. In the same way, one may point to an historical character and say, yes, he is the basis for the gospel Jesus/s or that he said some of the sayings said by Jesus in the gospels. This is not an ontological commitment to an historical Jesus.

Let us say I start off with the idea of writing a biography of the musician Bob Dylan. I decide that in my book I will not call him bob Dylan, but Singin' Sandy Saunders". I decide that instead of a biography, I'll do an action novel and instead of a musician as the lead character, I'll make him a secret agent who captures a gang of international diamond smugglers. In one scene in the book, I have Singin' Sandy Saunders singing a Bob Dylan song. A book critic comes along and notices this and says that it seems probable that Singin Sandy Saunders is based partially on Bob Dylan. Does this mean that the critic thinks Singin' Sandy Saunders is an historical character? The critic can make this observation and can still hold that the novel is fiction.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah -- but would Mack himself agree with your characterization of him? Would he not point out that you are equivocating in your use of the term you attach to him?

Are you willing to find out by writing him? If not, why not? And why do you keep avoiding my question on this matter as well as the other ones I've asked you?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

I have (fortunately or unfortunately) not read Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk) but supposedly it represents the stories about Jesus as coded accounts of the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Since I haven't read the book I may be wrong as to what Allegro really meant, but certainly Allegro has been interpreted by both supporters and opponents as saying something like this.

Andrew Criddle