EarlDoherty

I would respectfully like to ask "spin" if he has read "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man," before making such a statement. Since there are many who regard my latest book (building on "The Jesus Puzzle" but in much greater depth) as the strongest case yet made for mythicism, I don't think I would be out of line to expect, especially on a board like this, that that case should be required reading for any disputant on either side of the question. Again respectfully, no statement such as the above should be offered without having read and dealt with that case.

As for Student Don, I think his postings over the last few months have shown that, despite having read the book, he has simply ignored the vast majority of its content. He has hardly dealt with it in any substantive manner whatsoever, and we are still (as far as I know) awaiting his long-promised review of it, hopefully with some of that missing substance. I might also add that I am still awaiting even a peep out of Jeffrey Gibson who received a (free) copy a year ago, considering that prior to that time he had never passed up an opportunity here to dump on me personally, even if he rarely took the trouble to address any of my actual arguments.

Incidentally, a copy was sent (at her request) to Adela Yarbro Collins several months ago. And if I recall correctly, a copy was sent by someone on my behalf to Bart Ehrman. No word from either yet.

Merry Christmas to all (any excuse for a holiday, right?).

Earl Doherty

spin

I have to plead ignorance, Earl. I haven't read your book. My comments on mythicism weren't aimed in your direction, I don't think. The usual mythicist case is that the Jesus story is a species of conspiracy, a fabrication from mythical parts. Ancient conspiracies are harder to prove than modern ones. The epistemology behind such an argument seems unattainable.

This leads me to ask you how do you envisage the development of the earliest form of christianity. Over a month ago, I attempted to classify the various theories as to the emergence of Jesus. You might be able to say where I went wrong with regard to you in this table.


spin

angelo

And a merry christmyth to you Earl. [I've read " Puzzle" but not the other, yet.]

RussianM3_dude

The latest Swiss studies suggest Will Tell was a myth probably borrowed from Finnish legends.

spin

That's why he mentioned it, jumping from the situation where the evidence is ambivalent in the case of Robin Hood to where it isn't.


spin

aa5874

The evidence for Robin Hood or Will Tell has ZERO to do with the written evidence from antiquity about Jesus where it is claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, that he was EQUAL to God, walked on water, cursed a tree so that it died, talked to storms so that there would be calm, used SPIT to heal incurable diseases, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

No one can seriously even claim that the existence or non-existence of Will Tell can determine the history or non-history of Robin Hood. No one can say that if Robin Hood existed then King Authur existed.

All these arguments about Will Tell, Robin Hood and King Authur are STRAWMAN arguments.

There is evidence that Jesus was described as a MYTH so it MUST be possible that Jesus was MYTH like Marcion's Phantom Son of God. After all Jesus was the described as the CHILD of a Ghost of God.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl. You're right that I haven't posted much on your book. I'm just no longer interested in mythicism (or 'historicism' for that matter) per se. I'm still very much interested in how people thought back in those days, including trying to understand the thinking behind old texts like AoI, but since (admittedly IMHO) your theory doesn't accurately reflect that thinking, I doubt I'll be spending time on your theory in the future.

On my review of "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man": I'm going to finish it over the Christmas break and put it on my website. I won't be posting anything here on FRDB or on the Rational Skepticism forum.

EarlDoherty

Just a quick and general response for now. I don't hold too much sympathy for conspiracy theories of any sort, and I think far too much emphasis is placed in some circles on the accusation of conscious 'borrowing' of mythical elements related to prior savior god cults. I don't think anything was done deliberately, merely an evolution and misinterpretation of prior ideas over time, with naturally a good helping of influence from concepts 'in the air' during this period. When a sycretistic idea pops into someone's head impelled by all these contemporary influences, the one popped tends to think that he has been visited by a divine revelation and new understanding, and a little different meme is born, gets propagated and finally installed in a new sectarian group.

The expected arrival of a human Messiah becomes in some fevered brain(s) the conviction that a divine intermediary figure, Logos-like, perhaps even God's own heavenly son, is going to arrive to establish the Kingdom and judge the world. Trying to find out something about him as imbedded in scripture leads the same or other fevered brains to detect other features, even that he had undergone a sacrifice. Platonic cosmology and other related views about the heavenly world, even in Judaism, enables the ploacement of that sacrifice in the supernatural dimension. Ergo, Paul's spiritual Christ, though some basic idea of him preceded Paul.

Nothing in the early epistolary or non-canonical record reveals any knowledge of an earthly ministry, so that becomes a dimension that must have been added subsequently, a record of which lies behind the Gospels (but no earthly passion story), and in the Gospels themselves we are first presented with the amalgamation of those two parent sources. Where allegory/symbolism ended and imagined history began within the minds of Mark and the later evangelists is the big question mark, though it need not be that clearly answered. But it's pretty clear that the actual elements of the Gospels come almost entirely from scripture and other salvation mythologies and popular literature.

The critical phase came with the interpretation of those Gospels by the generation beginning around Ignatius or whoever wrote (shortly after him) the original letters in his name. They wanted the Gospels to be real history, and so they became so. And down the garden path we all traipsed.

Earl Doherty

Kapyong

Gday all,

Unfortunately - I notice that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is coming to mean "crazy shit I don't believe".

aa5874 is a perfect example of that ...


K.

Toto

I think you nailed that.