Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 12-20-2010, 12:19 PM

In its original form

Quote:

We must get rid of Christ

this seems to go back to Emerson at Home and Abroad the 1882 quasi-biography by Moncure Daniel Conway. It is reported as private conversation.

Emerson apparently wished Unitarianism to develop into full-blown Deism in a way that would rule out any special place for Christ.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 12-20-2010, 04:08 PM

Thanks very much Andrew (and others) for both the references and assessments.

No Robots · 12-20-2010, 05:23 PM

Great sleuthing, Andrew.

mountainman · 12-21-2010, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Why are you so sure of this? [that this is not related to the HJ-MJ discussion.]

...

Because I can read, damn it.

It would appear that you do not see this "Transcendentalism" as any form of "Mythicism", but I am not so sure of this assessment, since I think they may be in some way highly related. The fact that this specific phrase prefaces "The Christ Myth - A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence" by John E. Remsberg (or via: amazon.co.uk) should provide reason to pause and withhold an immediately contrary judgement.

Is Remsberg considered a "Mythicist"?

Toto · 12-21-2010, 01:04 AM

Remsberg is not considered a mythicist in the sense we use the term now. He seems to have favored the idea that the Christ myth was built around an obscure person.

The google books version of The Christ Myth can be previewed online. Chapter 9 is instructive.

maryhelena · 12-21-2010, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Remsberg is not considered a mythicist in the sense we use the term now. He seems to have favored the idea that the Christ myth was built around an obscure person.

The google books version of The Christ Myth can be previewed online. Chapter 9 is instructive.

Quote:

Mythicism

Mythicism, and the verb to mythicize, may refer to:

the process of turning a historical or semi-historical person or event into a myth
mythical king
hero cult
interpretation of accounts in terms of mythology, see mythography

in particular the term is used for those who have a mythological interpretations of Jesus Christ or deny/doubt his historicity.

Simple denial of the gospel Jesus as a historical figure is the bedrock mythicist position. It is only from that starting point that additional theories can be developed. Theories that can focus purely on mythological ideas or theories that can combine, intertwine, history with mythological elements.

Toto · 12-21-2010, 01:52 AM

Remsberg's book seems to be here on the positiveatheism site. It is labeled "The Christ"

Remsberg, in Chapter 9, writes

Quote:

Jesus Christ is a myth. But what do we understand by the term myth? ...

Myths are of three kinds: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.

A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. "Nothing great has been established," says Renan, "which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived."

A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the caress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as "a piece of unscientific philosophizing," and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.

A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?

I think Remsberg is essentially agnostic. He makes statesments such as "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed..." without ever proclaiming the evidence either sufficient or insufficient.

And if you read the preface, you can see what he meant by "we must get rid of Christ"
- that we must get rid of the supernatural Christ.

Quote:

"We must get rid of that Christ, we must get rid of that Christ!" So spake one of the wisest, one of the most lovable of men, Ralph Waldo Emerson. "If I had my way," said Thomas Carlyle, "the world would hear a pretty stern command -- Exit Christ." Since Emerson and Carlyle spoke a revolution has taken place in the thoughts of men. The more enlightened of them are now rid of Christ. From their minds he has made his exit. To quote the words of Prof. Goldwin Smith, "The mighty and supreme Jesus, who was to transfigure all humanity by his divine wit and grace -- this Jesus has flown." The supernatural Christ of the New Testament, the god of orthodox Christianity, is dead.

mountainman · 12-21-2010, 05:11 AM

Thanks Toto for the references. The author concludes his chapter 9 with the following paragraph:

Quote:

While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth.

Some believe that he is a historical myth;
others that he is a pure myth.
Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved;
others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination.

After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable.

If I am reading this correctly Remsberg, who opens his book with Emerson's quote repeated, assesses Jesus to be an historical myth. He seems to associate "all Freethinkers" as "Mythicists" (although he is using that word in the context of his time) and this would indicate that he may have seen Emerson as a one of these "Mythicists".

Does modern "Jesus Mythicism" start from any specific decade?

Toto · 12-21-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks Toto for the references. The author concludes his chapter 9 with the following paragraph:

Quote:

While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth.

Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination.

After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable.

If I am reading this correctly Remsberg, who opens his book with Emerson's quote repeated, assesses Jesus to be an historical myth. He seems to associate "all Freethinkers" as "Mythicists" (although he is using that word in the context of his time) and this would indicate that he may have seen Emerson as a one of these "Mythicists".

Does modern "Jesus Mythicism" start from any specific decade?

I think there is some confusion here. The 21st century use of the term "mythicist" is different from Remsberg's use. Based on the four categories he gives at the beginning of chapter 9, we would call category 3 "historicists" or maybe "minimalist historicists" and category 4 "mythicists." But this is just a convenience for our debate.

If you read the first part of the introduction where he uses that quote, Remsberg considers Emerson as part of a previous generation, not part of his cohort of Freethinkers, so there is no reason to assume that he would use the term "mythicist" for Emerson.

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

12-20-2010, 04:08 PM	#12
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thanks very much Andrew (and others) for both the references and assessments.

12-20-2010, 05:23 PM	#13
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Great sleuthing, Andrew.

12-21-2010, 01:04 AM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Remsberg is not considered a mythicist in the sense we use the term now. He seems to have favored the idea that the Christ myth was built around an obscure person. The google books version of The Christ Myth can be previewed online. Chapter 9 is instructive.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.