Toto

I have only one experience of discussing the mythicist hypothesis with a reputable academic. I broached the subject, and the man went into outraged hyperdrive and started talking at me about Josephus. It was a social situation and I didn't want to really have a fight, so I said enough about Josephus to indicate that I knew something about the subject, and he calmed down a bit and then came up with his underlying motivation - that he didn't understand why people would reject a historical Jesus.

If I were to go back to school, I would hesitate about taking a course from this professor, as his emotional reaction to the subject seemed to indicate that a rational discussion would be very difficult.

Zeichman

I would question the use of anachronistic and charged language such as "fraud," "mere" literature, etc. These sort of things betray a contempt and lack of empathy for the source material. I'm not saying one needs to be sympathetic, but by supposing (with little reason) that these individuals were charlatans seems to be a bit disingenuous.

I didn't say it was effective in arguing against people like Doherty or Price, but only that there is no reason that scholars should be doing significantly better. As far as most are concerned, the TF is all one needs to testify to Jesus' historicity. How many college-level biology classes spend more than more than a half-hour on creationism? Creationism is certainly far more widespread and influential than JM thinking.


Have you SEEN most of the MJ stuff online? 95% demonstrate absolutely NO familiarity with modern scholarship and appeal to outdated concepts. As your own analogy suggests, people unfamiliar with the issues believe total crap even after it has been refuted (cf. 9/11 conspiracies). ANYONE who thinks that there are ANY redeeming qualities to the Pagan Origins or similar sites is in desperate need of familiarity with recent scholarship. A lot of it is hard to see as anything other than special pleading (e.g., especially given the lack of evidence for various "savior" deities in Jewish Palestine in I CE).



I DARE you.


The fact is, prima facie, the NT documents appear to be talking about a historical individual. As far as I can tell, this prima facie case has yet to be convincingly dismantled. I ask this honestly: are there any examples of a mythical figure being placed in a narrative with numerous historical figures so shortly after these figures died? If Mark, Q, Matthew, etc. intended Jesus to be viewed as an ahistorical figure, they could have done it hardly any more opaquely.

Thanks... I guess.

I'm guessing so. The JHC site doesn't have any updates beyond 2003, as far as I can tell. The issue, hopefully, will be out soon.

mountainman

And the followers and proponents of the HJ have not
been associated with kooks and quacks, thugs
and gangsters? What a pompous self-righteous
collection of ascii you have assembled at point (2).

Is this an appeal to the argument by ridicule or simply
a disguised appeal to the argument from authority of
those who regard themselves as immune to a similar
description by such a common stance?

PS: Nothing personal here Zeichman, but in some
sense we are accountable for our claims.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

gurugeorge

Come on Zeichman, I'm not saying these texts were fraud, lies, etc., etc. I'm saying that you have to look at these kinds of possibilities alongside the possibility that they might be testimony of some kind. And we are talking about a religious cult, after all. Religious cults are not known as paragons of either sanity or honesty (though one may find sane, honest people in them, no doubt). This doesn't mean one automatically discounts them, it means one has to be careful and take all the options into consideration.

Well if the TF is all NT scholars need, then that's simply not good enough. Surely that's obvious? Surely you're aware that the TF is itself a bone of contention when you get down to the real scholarly nitty-gritty? It's not as it it's settled, independent contemporary evidence of the kind one would need to be quite so blithely dismissive of other options.

Shifting of goalposts. Those are popular works, by amateurs, intended for a general audience. Forget about them (even though they may contain bits of truth). Somewhat closer to home there's Freke & Gandy, who aren't very tight scholars, but are academics, and aren't totally negligible either (despite a lot of bluster I've seen about them); then you have a fair number of people who are intelligent and familiar with academic practice in other fields, like Wells, Doherty, Ellegard, and some of the people on this and other discussion boards; then you have a sprinkling of scholars with the requisite credentials - from the Tubingen school and the Dutch radicals of the past to Price today, who are are, or approach being, ahistoricist; then there are various other scholars with the requisite credentials who, while not taking a strictly ahistoricist line, use portions of arguments that, when put together, logically lead to an ahistoricist position. (Price talks about this - about how one scholar is ahistoricist about one bit, another about another bit, and when you put them all together, bingo, you have the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.)

Those are the sorts of arguments that haven't really been met by the mainstream - not because they're oh-so-dumb, irrational, or equivalent to nutters' plans for perpetual motion machines mailed to physics professors, but simply because - well, apparently, simply because the TF is "good enough" for most NT scholars, it seems

Come longevity treatment, and if I can drag at least one more lifetime out of this body without mishap, you're definitely on

WRONG!!!! Prima facie they're talking about a miracle-working God-man walking this Earth 2,000 years ago. What you need is an argument to show why, if you accept that as an impossibility, they should be considered to be talking about any sort of individual at all. That argument might be as simple as just a couple of paragraphs and references; it might even exist in a monograph somewhere. If it's that easy, let's see it.

That's part of a good argument, but not sufficient. Christianity just might be an exceptional case. That kind of parallel-seeking is one consideration, but you can't eliminate the ahistorical possibilities just by failure to find a parallel (plus citing the TF ). And there are cases both contemporary (see the recent discussion of Castaneda) and historical (which I can't remember at the moment, but they've been discussed here) that maybe aren't close parallels, but put together show the plausibility of something that might have happened in a more full-blown and outstanding way with Christianity.

Corrected for accuracy

Sorry to be an "Native American Giver" *ducks PC brickbats*

Amaleq13

That is a misuse of prima facie. The "face value" of the story is one of a Jewish prophet set in a specific time period and interacting with a known historical figure.

That the author appears to believe that this prophet was specially chosen by God to be his Son at the time of his baptism does not change a thing about this fundamental aspect of the story. It clearly does appear to be a story about a guy who actually existed in history right along with Pilate. That the depiction also includes rather incredible claims about the man suggests we need to look beyond the face value of the story but that doesn't mean you can pretend that face value doesn't exist.

gurugeorge

No it doesn't Amaleq13, it clearly appears to be a story of a miracle-working God-man who actually existed in history right along with Pilate - not just "a guy". We have to do with an entity who is not depicted as "a guy", but with an entity who is depicted as "a remarkable, special, miraculous being".

OK, so the evidence isn't good enough to prove the existence of a miracle-working God-man, and the rationalist doesn't believe in the possibility of such an animile anyway. Fair enough. Therefore the rationalist goes for the next best thing - some kind of man? Sorry, that's just an assumption that needs justification.

I mean is it the case that historians, when confronted with fantastic tales normally always, automatically plump for there being real people at the root of them? It's always an option, but surely it needs some justification, and other options like fraud, storytelling, purely imaginary myth, etc., are live options too.

The presence of historical figures (or even genuine historical events) in a story doesn't imply in the least that the story is factual, evidentiary, historical, etc. If one of the characters in the story cannot possibly exist, where does that leave the credibility of the story as a whole? Dubious, doubtful, at best, and if you're going to persist in thinking of the story as still being evidence of something, it seems to me that that move itself needs justification - why do you think it's still got any evidence of anything in it at all, after you have accepted that its primary claim is false?

To look at it another way, suppose some post-Apocalyptic rationalist archaeologist of the future were to dig up a fantastic story, printed on paper in words and pictures, about a super-powerful, god-like-figure, a story in which this character meets and glad-hands historical characters the rationalist has otherwise good reason to believe in the existence of, like the President of the United States in 2007. But the rationalist doesn't think it likely that such an entity as this "Superman" could possibly have existed in reality. Is his automatic recourse then going to be, "Oh but this story must have been about some guy; let's go looking for the 'historical Superman' at the root of this myth!"?

What's the difference between that thought experiment and the Christian documents we have? Tradition. OK, fair enough, tweak the knobs on the thought experiment thus: suppose in this bleak, post-Apocalyptic scenario our rationalist archaeologist inhabits, there's the remnants of a sect that believes "Superman really existed", and it has faithfully copied these "comics" through the generations. Does that change the logic any? Does it make looking for a real man behind the Superman story any more of a logically compelling option?

Now change the thought experiment: suppose this sect is socially powerful, suppose it had in the past a few guys who were good military commanders, and who managed to climb the top of the greasy social pole after the Apocalypse. Does that change anything in the logic? Does that make "oh there must have been a real guy at the root of the story" any more compelling?

But now, tweak it like this: supposing another archaeologist finds a statue of someone called "Clark Kent" in the blasted remains of a small midwestern town. The monument says this "Clark Kent" was a farmer's boy who became one of the town's greatest sons - fought in WWII, was decorated, went on to get involved in politics, etc., etc., and all round did a lot of good. Does that now make "oh there must have been a real guy at the root of the story" more compelling? (I dunno, I'm making this up, suppose Simon & Schuster knew someone of that name in a small town or something )

Would this last option make the "Superman" stories about "Clark Kent" in some way? Not really, even though there's a historical person there, even to say the stories were "really" about "Clark Kent" is stretching it if they contain no actual information about Clark's life. How about if Simon & Schuster used a few details about CC's real life, wout the "Superman" stories be "about" CC then? A teensy bit.

Etc., etc., etc. There are all sorts of possibilities and options - but that's the point. It's all variable, but I think looking for a real historical person for the stories to be "about" isn't necessarily the most compelling option of first resort , especially (one would think!) for a rationalist who's dealing with a fantastic figure.

So are the fantastic stories an aspect of the face value or not? If they are, why should "looking beyond" automatically imply looking for someone real at the root of the myth? It's just an option, alongside others, and not the most likely by a long chalk.

OTOH, if we had some monument to "Jesus" like the one to "Apollonius" Mountainman cleverly posted recently - then of course the case for a real historical person for the fantastic tales to be "about" would start to get more compelling, and if there were other bits and pieces, etc., etc.

And yes, of course we can't expect things to have necessarily survived, but all that means is that the "historical" option has to be treated, logically, as an "as if" scenario until there's more solid evidence for the existence of the ordinary guy.

Amaleq13

First, it is misleading to speak of "a story" unless, like me, you are specifically referring to the first version. Second, by no correct definition of prima facie can you conclude that Mark depicts a "God-man" in his story. I would argue the same can be said of Luke and Matthew and I believe an argument can and has been made that one cannot obtain this from John, either. Regardless, the first version of the story depicts a Jewish prophet who was especially selected and identifed as his Son. Magical powers seem to have been the result of this selection/identification but that doesn't change the fact that the story is about a Jewish prophet in a specific time and place interacting with a known historical figure from that time and place.

You appear to be ignoring that prima facie refers to the first impression one gets. No one can come away from just Mark thinking Jesus was a god.

Adding superpowers doesn't change the fact that the story is, at face value, about a Jewish prophet in a specific time and place interacting with a known historical figure.

You are confusing the act of taking the story at face value and accepting that face value as history.

Again, this does not address the face value of the story but refers to going beyond that first impression.

If a historian is confronted with a story about a man with superpowers interacting with known historical figures, it is entirely rational to initially suspect that the superpowers are an embellishment on an actual figure. Why? Because we have so many examples of precisely that happening througout history. Human beings love stories but we also love to embellish them and only more so for revered figures.

At the superficial level of "face value", it certainly does. You aren't stopping at the face value, though. You are plunging through to a deeper interpretation and then confusing that with the face value.

I think your question is founded on flawed reasoning. You are jumping from the fact that a character is depicted with superpowers to the conclusion that the character is entirely fiction without considering the incredibly mundane possibility that an actual revered person has been mythologized.

Straw man. Who is saying "must"? The response should be:

"Because I know from experience that it happens, this story may have been about an actual guy but with mythological embellishment."

I would think it obvious that such evidence clearly supports that possibility.

It would quite clearly make it a viable possibility the real "great guy" was mythologized into "Superman".

If the rationalist knows how typical it is of humans to embellish stories and mythologize heroes he would be entirely justified in starting his investigation at that point.

Obviously but the emphasis should be on the fact that they are only one part of the face value of the story. To focus exclusively on the fantastic elements is to go beyond the face value.

Because it is so common. Do you think the number of actual people who have been mythologized is less than the number of entirely fictional people who have been falsely depicted and incorrectly accepted as historical?

We can't pretend that a group who thinks that apparently thought world was going to end soon would think a statue of Jesus would be important.

I agree but that doesn't change the fact that the face value of Mark's story is that of a Jewish prophet living in a specific time and place in history. He is a magical Jewish prophet and an especially chosen Jewish prophet and identified by God as "Son" but he is still a Jewish prophet acting in and around Jerusalem in the middle of the first century.

Zeichman

I think almost all NT scholars believe some part of TF to be authentic. If they're right, then a pretty strong case exists for historicity. I certainly would not place this as my centerpiece for the case for an HJ.

Well, then Price, Doherty and whoever else you like need to get their work into places where academics will see it. It's like the kid who never leaves his basement and never talks to anyone and is made because he isn't invited to any parties. Once more, my favorite two words: Peer Review.

If the TF is authentic, would it not go far in supporting the case for historicity? I think you're still missing my point: based on the formulations of MJ that most scholars encounter (i.e., students who are not versed in Doherty's anti-TF arguments), an appeal to TF is sufficient. How can they refute a case that is not being made?

How about this: you can audit one of my classes of your choice for free in another six years or more, however long it takes for me to get a PhD... and a job.


I see Ameleq is dealing with this above, and I would only reiterate many of his points. What in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Q or Thomas suggests a "man-god" Christology? Prima facie, Jesus is a historical individual interacting with other historical individuals. Only with dubious religiongeschichteliche approach do such parallels emerge. Only someone from a Western "objective" worldview would see such parallels, due to an understandable knee-jerk reaction to miracles. When one looks at ancient texts about historical figures, the Jesus story is far less remarkable than many MJ advocates would admit. Scholars of the Context Group are of great importance in terms of countering such post-Enlightenment (and anachronistic) approaches to biblical texts. E.g., Richard DeMaris' work on the baptism of Jesus is, to say the least, elucidating. Because so few people can lay claim to understanding ancient Mediterranean culture, religious experiences, etc., these issues are often misinterpreted.

I didn't say the ahistorical possibilities were eliminated, only that they were anything but compelling. The lack of parallels is precisely what makes the prima facie historicity case.

Toto

Even if the TF was not a fourth century Eusebian insertion, and there is a core of authenticity, it might represent second hand information from a Christian source. It is not strong evidence on its face.

ChristMyth

What I'm not understanding is why it matters that Jesus is interacting with historical people? How does this even come close to showing a HJ? Is it not agreed upon that the gospel writers were not eye-witnesses to the event? If it is, then how do we know that the writer of Matt, Mark, Luke, or John isn't going on second hand knowledge that this event took place? Jesus could have interacted with multiple historical individuals and still never have been a real person himself.

Christmyth