maryhelena

Maybe some people have a bit of a misunderstanding regarding the mythicist position. As I have repeatedly said - the basic mythicist position is that the Jesus spoken about in the NT is not a historical Jesus. That's it, that's all there is to the basic position. All a mythicist position rules out is that Jesus is not historical. That there were people involved in early christianity is obvious. Who they were is another question - and I don't think it is a question that can be answered from a literal reading of the NT. There is just too much there that belongs to mythology, to theology, to prophecy etc. Its a bit of a cliché to suggest to read between the lines - but we are dealing with mythology, with theology and with prophecy etc - we just can't expect, from all of that, that a surface reading, a literal reading, will be sufficient.

Rick Sumner

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "MJ," at least around here. The mythicist position is something akin to Doherty (though he's not the only brand). It's that there was no Jesus at all behind the gospel stories.

maryhelena

And I concur with Earl - there was no Jesus at all behind the gospel stories..And that does not contradict anything I have ever written....

Rick Sumner

And you're more than welcome to. But Jayrok's synopsis is more or less correct. The mythicist position, at least as JM is used around here, is that there is no historical figure, even at the roots.

Jayrok

What evidence from the historical Jesus side would you accept as good enough to turn your opinion to historicity?

It seems that the view from someone, who doesn't have a dog in the fight, is that the majority view of scholars is that Jesus was historical and that the mythicist is the one that must present his or her case.

I've read Earl's book and find it fascinating and I wish it would be addressed by mainstream scholarship, just as many others here. I think it deserves a forum, for sure.

You are asking GDon to address the core of the MJ position, but how can he do this if there are varying brands of the MJ camp? All he can do is respond to what is presented, e.g. Earl's book. As far as I can tell, he's doing that. He has stated he would like to read your case as well.

But it seems you are telling him "Jesus didn't exist, prove he did." If I'm wrong I apologize. But as things are it should be the other way around. Jesus did exist, prove he didn't. Or at least the concensus is that he did exist.

Again, if I misrepresent your argument, I apologize. For the record, I think Jesus may have existed but the stories written about him were mostly made up for effect and theological purposes. That said, I find Earl's case for mysticism strong and would like to read scholarly opposition to it.

Jay

gdeering

Thanks for your reply. At the risk of being thought flippant you are might be the sort of believer who would be at home with the first century Jews whose feelings started the mythical ball rolling. The suffering servants who had to reorient their religion under the Roman occupation into believing in a more charitable and passive God of love.

From my perspective, your position on Jesus might be the same as it was when you were an atheist.

If one is persuaded by the weight of midrash and the desperate need of the Gospel to frame Jesus' life (and death) as having OT precedents then his philosophy and death can be seen as a more transparent part of this over all conception of the messiah that coleseed - probably in dozens of different versions - but surviving in few, and now organized as the three or four gospels.

If you reduce the gospels to an account of a death, then one can say little. Or, like me, having lost sight of any individual in the mist of the fiction - decide that myth was the better operational stance. That make me a mythicist, but it does not really answer whether there was a "Socrates of Jerusalem."

Hmm, but if you believe in God then you might be much more interested in maintaining a philosophical link to Jesus. Me, I assume the whole thing is a big myth, so it's just a sliding scale of how aggressive the myth-making is in any generation of believers.

Ancient mythical sacrifices and reconstructions aside the argument breaks down to this for me:

There must be have been some one otherwise how did it start? vs. That's just the kind of thing Hellenized Jews in Antioch would have thought of.

I am not sure where actual debate is possible, there is no evidence for an historical Jesus (existing in history), there is no documentary (i.e. non-circumstantial) evidence that he was an evolutionary product of myth.

Sorry to be so long winded and round-about, but I'd like to see where the debate might be outside of "What Paul Knew." Which will be my next biblical mystery novel.



Gregg

maryhelena

All GDon is doing is attempting to knock down specific details of a particular theory that revolves around the non-historicity of Jesus. That's fine - I don't find anything wrong with that. But he knows, as he has written in other posts, that this approach does not negate the mythicist position - which is - that Jesus is not historical. The only way he can attempt to disproof the mythicist position is to establish the historical Jesus position - which I think he will admit he cannot do.

So, however many more mythicists produce various theories - all that does is give GDon some more work. But if he were to concentrate on trying to support the historicists assumption instead he might find he would have less frustration. Knocking theories down is all very well - establishing a theory something else - more satisfying I would imagine, in the long run - even if one ultimately has to abandon the exercise. Hope lives eternal - as the saying goes - but hope without some demonstration of possibility is really just wishful thinking..

And that really is where the historicists position is - quest after quest for a historical Jesus. Surely, the penny must drop sometime - there just is not a historical Jesus to be found. Once someone on that quest faces the possibility that the quest is futile - then they are more likely to be open to trying alternative roads to a gospel understanding.

What evidence for a historical Jesus would I accept? What evidence would I accept that a carpenter from Nazareth was crucified nearly 2000 years ago?
The very thought that there could be evidence for such a Jesus boggles the mind...:banghead:

Jayrok

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

maryhelena

Your welcome....:wave:

GakuseiDon

Correct. Though I would say I've already knocked it down, at least to my satisfaction. The "caverns in the sky" piece earlier is just another example. What I've been attempting to do is to get people to look into these things for themselves. That's the really hard bit! I've provided the analysis and the cites used. Not much more than I can do than that.

I'm not out to debunk mythicism generally, though. There are plenty of mythicist theories that I haven't looked at and will never look at.

I can't prove it, no. But I think it is the best available explanation of the evidence that we do have (as I laid out in the RDN thread a few weeks back).

No it doesn't, unless the theory falls into my area of interest.