Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 05-28-2010, 02:35 PM

Quote:

There doesn't appear to be any requirement for students of New Testament or biblical studies to investigate the case for mythicism in order to get a PhD. I'd like to hear the experience of others here who have taken assorted courses on religion, be it theology, comparative religion, etc. I'd like to know how much your course discussed mythology, mythicism or the case for mythicism, or if they ever discussed it at all?

Please list your school or university and your course.

Should I take the silence as an indicator that none of the courses discuss mythology, mythicism or the case for mythicism to any serious degree?

Quote:

Scholarly Opinion

by Earl Doherty

"Why is it that no individual scholar or group of scholars has undertaken a concerted effort in recent times to discredit the mythicist position? (The brief addresses that have been made to it in various publications are outlined in my Main Article "Postscript".) In the heyday of the great mythicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few valiant efforts were offered. However, both mainstream scholarship and the mythicist branch itself have made dramatic leaps since then. Biblical research has moved into bold new territory in the last several decades: unearthing a wealth of ancient documents, arriving at a new understanding of elements like Q, the sectarian nature of early Christianity, the Cynic roots of the great Gospel teachings, and so on; an almost unprecedented "critical" dimension to New Testament scholarship has emerged.

And yet the mythicist position continues to be vilified, disdained, dismissed. We would condemn any physicist, any anthropologist, any linguist, any mathematician, any scholar of any sort who professes to work in a field that makes even a partial bow to principles of logic and scientific research who yet ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination a legitimate, persistent theory in his or her discipline. There are tremendous problems in New Testament research, problems that have been grappled with for generations and show no sign of getting closer to solution. Agreement is lacking on countless topics, and yesterday's theories are being continually overturned. There is almost a civil war going on within the ranks of Jesus study. Why not give the mythicist option some serious consideration? Why not honestly evaluate it to see if it could provide some of the missing answers? Or, if it turns out that the case is fatally flawed, then put it to rest once and for all.

Doing that would require one essential thing: taking it seriously, approaching the subject having an open mind that the theory might have some merit. Sadly, that is the most difficult step and the one which most critics have had the greatest difficulty taking. It is all in the mindset, whether of the Christian believer whose confessional interests are overriding, or of the professional scholar who could never consider that their life's work might be fatally compromised."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/ChallengingDoherty.htm

ApostateAbe · 05-28-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

There doesn't appear to be any requirement for students of New Testament or biblical studies to investigate the case for mythicism in order to get a PhD. I'd like to hear the experience of others here who have taken assorted courses on religion, be it theology, comparative religion, etc. I'd like to know how much your course discussed mythology, mythicism or the case for mythicism, or if they ever discussed it at all?

Please list your school or university and your course.

Should I take the silence as an indicator that none of the courses discuss mythology, mythicism or the case for mythicism to any serious degree?

Quote:

Scholarly Opinion

by Earl Doherty

"Why is it that no individual scholar or group of scholars has undertaken a concerted effort in recent times to discredit the mythicist position? (The brief addresses that have been made to it in various publications are outlined in my Main Article "Postscript".) In the heyday of the great mythicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few valiant efforts were offered. However, both mainstream scholarship and the mythicist branch itself have made dramatic leaps since then. Biblical research has moved into bold new territory in the last several decades: unearthing a wealth of ancient documents, arriving at a new understanding of elements like Q, the sectarian nature of early Christianity, the Cynic roots of the great Gospel teachings, and so on; an almost unprecedented "critical" dimension to New Testament scholarship has emerged.

And yet the mythicist position continues to be vilified, disdained, dismissed. We would condemn any physicist, any anthropologist, any linguist, any mathematician, any scholar of any sort who professes to work in a field that makes even a partial bow to principles of logic and scientific research who yet ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination a legitimate, persistent theory in his or her discipline. There are tremendous problems in New Testament research, problems that have been grappled with for generations and show no sign of getting closer to solution. Agreement is lacking on countless topics, and yesterday's theories are being continually overturned. There is almost a civil war going on within the ranks of Jesus study. Why not give the mythicist option some serious consideration? Why not honestly evaluate it to see if it could provide some of the missing answers? Or, if it turns out that the case is fatally flawed, then put it to rest once and for all.

Doing that would require one essential thing: taking it seriously, approaching the subject having an open mind that the theory might have some merit. Sadly, that is the most difficult step and the one which most critics have had the greatest difficulty taking. It is all in the mindset, whether of the Christian believer whose confessional interests are overriding, or of the professional scholar who could never consider that their life's work might be fatally compromised."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/ChallengingDoherty.htm

I think you had best address your question to students and faculty of New Testament scholarship, Dave. As far as I know, none of us are such students or faculty. I would very much doubt that the topic of mythicism is taught or studied in academia to any serious degree. It is seen as a debate that the mythicists fought and lost 100 years ago, and it hasn't contributed much to our modern understanding of the issues. The theory is popular among anti-religious activists on the Internet, but it is absurd on the face, which may explain why the experts leave it "ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination." Contrary to what Earl Doherty may think, it is not unusual behavior in academia--there are thousands of fringe theories that may find a following among laypeople, but the experts do not need any more than a cursory glance before finding them ludicrous. The "electric universe" theory is one of them.

Toto · 05-28-2010, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... The theory is popular among anti-religious activists on the Internet, but it is absurd on the face,

No it's not. You keep making these pronouncements, but when challenged you have to back down and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

What is facially absurb about the idea of a religion starting around a mythical spirit?

Quote:

which may explain why the experts leave it "ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination."

There seem to be better explanations.

Quote:

Contrary to what Earl Doherty may think, it is not unusual behavior in academia--there are thousands of fringe theories that may find a following among laypeople, but the experts do not need any more than a cursory glance before finding them ludicrous. The "electric universe" theory is one of them.

Unlike Jesus studies, experts in other fields are actually able to explain the theories that they use and justify them.

ApostateAbe · 05-28-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... The theory is popular among anti-religious activists on the Internet, but it is absurd on the face,

No it's not. You keep making these pronouncements, but when challenged you have to back down and admit you don't know what you are talking about.

What is facially absurb about the idea of a religion starting around a mythical spirit?

What seems absurd on the face to me and the experts will not seem absurd to you, and that's OK. I am just giving what seems to be the perspective of the experts in the field. Bart Ehrman went on the Infidel Guy radio show a few years ago. When a caller brought up the mythicist theory, Ehrman brought up Galatians 1:19, of Paul writing of meeting "James, the Lord's brother." He made the point that Paul seems to be writing such a thing in passing, which means it is taken very seriously by critical scholars. I know that doesn't make the mythicist theory seem so absurd on the face in your mind. To you, it counts for little, and it can other explanations--maybe it isn't the same James, and maybe "brother" is only an honorary title--but, well, whatever you may make of it, the mythicist theories come off as absurd on the face to people like Ehrman. All of the proponents of thousands of fringe theories can make a bunch of their own explanations for what otherwise seems to be straightforward evidence against them, and, to them, the experts are not giving them the time they deserve. Mythicism is nothing unusual. Like the other thousands of fringe theories, it may even be correct, and maybe the establishment really is doing them an injustice.

spamandham · 05-28-2010, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is seen as a debate that the mythicists fought and lost 100 years ago, and it hasn't contributed much to our modern understanding of the issues. The theory is popular among anti-religious activists on the Internet, but it is absurd on the face, which may explain why the experts leave it "ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination."

By most perhaps, but not by all. I've forgotten which poster here keeps a list of well qualified scholars who have either outright embraced mythicism or at least find it compelling, but I'm guessing you've seen it (PhilosopherJay?)? The list is longer than 1 or 2.

If it were actually true that no qualified scholars were mythicists, you might have a point, but that simply isn't true.

edit: my very intermittent memory actually got this one right. Here is PhilosopherJay's list:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...4&postcount=45

ApostateAbe · 05-28-2010, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is seen as a debate that the mythicists fought and lost 100 years ago, and it hasn't contributed much to our modern understanding of the issues. The theory is popular among anti-religious activists on the Internet, but it is absurd on the face, which may explain why the experts leave it "ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination."

By most perhaps, but not by all. I've forgotten which poster here keeps a list of well qualified scholars who have either outright embraced mythicism or at least find it compelling, but I'm guessing you've seen it (PhilosopherJay?)? The list is longer than 1 or 2.

If it were actually true that no qualified scholars were mythicists, you might have a point, but that simply isn't true.

edit: my very intermittent memory actually got this one right. Here is PhilosopherJay's list:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...4&postcount=45

Thanks, I saw that list when he made the post, and it is a very useful list. I adapted the list to forum format, and I reposted it here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=149

I think Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier may be the only modern fully-qualified individuals. G.A. Wells would be a modern at-least pseudo-qualified person. There are some fully-qualified people from 100 years ago, like Arthur Drews. The rest of the list seems to be people fully qualified in something else entirely, or just popular authors and leaders of anti-religious activism. I didn't mean to imply that there are no experts who accept mythicism. There are a few. Like I said, mythicism is nothing unusual in the way of fringe theories.

spamandham · 05-28-2010, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier may be the only modern fully-qualified individuals. G.A. Wells would be a modern at-least pseudo-qualified person. There are some fully-qualified people from 100 years ago, like Arthur Drews. The rest of the list seems to be people fully qualified in something else entirely, or just popular authors and leaders of anti-religious activism.

The following, at least, are well qualified (hold at least a Masters in a relavent subject) and modern (relevant work less than 20 years old):

Robert M. Price, Peter Gandy, Herman Detering, Darrell Doughty, Tom Harpur, Michael O. Wise, Burton Mack, Richard Carrier.

I have not checked everyone on the list, nor is the list necessarily complete. I'm guessing that for every famous well qualified mythicist, there are at least a dozen well qualified mythicists that that we haven't heard of.

ApostateAbe · 05-28-2010, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier may be the only modern fully-qualified individuals. G.A. Wells would be a modern at-least pseudo-qualified person. There are some fully-qualified people from 100 years ago, like Arthur Drews. The rest of the list seems to be people fully qualified in something else entirely, or just popular authors and leaders of anti-religious activism.

The following, at least, are well qualified (hold at least a Masters in a relavent subject) and modern (relevant work less than 20 years old):

Robert M. Price, Peter Gandy, Herman Detering, Darrell Doughty, Tom Harpur, Michael O. Wise, Burton Mack, Richard Carrier.

I have not checked everyone on the list, nor is the list necessarily complete. I'm guessing that for every famous well qualified mythicist, there are at least a dozen well qualified mythicists that that we haven't heard of.

Cool, I think those are probably the only people who would matter if intellectual authority is an issue. I might have higher standards, but I would count only those with a doctorate in New Testament studies. The ones with a doctorate in general history or a different field of history would be pseudo-qualified. Anyone with just a master's degree is sort of a "...meh." I would not suspect that there are a bunch of mythicist experts who are hiding, but that may be only because of the prejudice and suspicion I have for mythicism.

Toto · 05-29-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

<blah blah> Bart Ehrman <blah blah>.

Has Ehrman ever said that mythicism is facially absurd?

And what are yur qualifications to label some people as "pseudo" experts?

mountainman · 05-29-2010, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Robert M. Price

Jesus Myth Spectrum

The range of views about Jesus can perhaps be presented on a spectrum as follows:

The Gospels as a Pious Fraud

Quote:

The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.