GakuseiDon

No, it is on the case for ahistoricisty. The case for historicity and the case for ahistoricity are two separate things. That one might be invalid does not mean that the other is validated. There may not be enough evidence for either case, for example.

Now, imagine I said that I was going to give the case for historicity, but all I did was bring up problems with the mythicist case. I think everyone would see the problem there. In that case, I would be the one behaving in "creationist" mode.

So why can't mythicists see this when they are doing the same thing?

Maryhelena, many historicists are happy to question the Gospel storylines. It doesn't necessarily add anything to mythicism. It might; just as problems with "gradualism" in evolution might add to creationism (which is a creationist claim, not mine!) but it is up to creationists to make that link.

So, is that all? Have you finished in your presentation of the mythicist case? I'm not trying to be nasty, I just want someone to outline the mythicist case.

GakuseiDon

Then how on earth am I an "apologist"? :huh: Please explain.

I sent you a number of emails about my motives. If there is anything you want to ask, just PM me.

My main interest here are posts around how people thought back then. If mythicists can present a case that helps shed any light on this, well and good. I'm not particularly interested in supporting a historical Jesus. I have no interest in converting people to my version of theism.

You mean, "just read the book"? Or "Carrier is coming out with a book in a few years... "

No problem questioning historicity, if the topic is the case for historicity. So, what is the case for mythicism, Toto? Do people understand it? If not, can you lay it out, please?

Zaphod

Creationism has a very large problem that mythicists do not share. And that is that Creationism can not be falsified. There is no argument that a biologist can present to a creationist that would disprove his theory.

That is decidedly not the case with those promoting the MJ. The MJ simply asks for relevant unimpeachable evidence to justify the HJ hypothesis, evidence that should be abundant but does not seem to exist.

Meanwhile, the MJ hypothesis does make an assertive and multi-faceted case beyond the deafening silence of the HJ. You simply don't seem to appreciate any of it, indeed, you basically assert here that such a case does not exist!

Also, the HJ vs MJ question is pretty much a zero sum game. The less likely the HJ, the more likely the MJ and vice versa. Therefore, it seems to me that MJ arguments against the HJ are completely relevant to the MJ case.

Toto

THAT IS NOT WHAT DEFINES CREATIONISM. THIS IS NOT A VALID ANALOGY TO CREATIONISM.

You might label this a logical error of some sort, but the defining issue in Creationism is that it is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and rejects overwhelming scientific evidence. This is why comparing someone to a creationist is always perceived as an insult.

Since there is no overwhelming scientific evidence of the existence of Jesus, Creationism is irrelevant here. PLEASE STOP USING THE TERM.

Furthermore, one argument that historicists tend to use is that the existence of Christianity is evidence that there was a founder. (Christian apologists like JP Holding argue that Christianity was so improbable that it required divine intervention; others sometimes argue that the growth of Christianity must have required a charismatic individual to set it in motion.) Once you show that this charismatic or divine figure is not necessary, a mythicist explanation becomes more probable.

But are there historicists who do not rely on a historical core of some sort?

Toto

No one will ask you to treat Carrier's book as inerrant. Do you understand the distinction? You may not be as familiar with Creationists as Americans are.

If you are not trying to make the case for historicity, why do you keep bringing up the Brother of the Lord argument?

A number of people agreed to finance Richard Carrier's professional investigation into the question. That's why I prefer to wait for the book to come out, since this is not really a pressing issue for me in my daily life.

I think I have stated before my personal view of the most probable story of Christian origins. I think that Christianity evolved from Jewish Messianist sects sometime after 70 CE. The mythical Jesus was based on Joshua son of Nun, and was gradually turned into a historical figure in the second century. Paul's letters were heavily interpolated, so cannot be used as evidence of much. I don't expect to be able to prove this; I think a lot of Christian history was possibly lost in the persecutions under Decian, and the Christians who survived reconstructed their history in a way that made sense to them.

I think this is most probable because I see it happening today - political and religious groups rewrite history for their own purposes.

But I am not now prepared to fill in all the details that would turn this broad outline into a theory. If you refuse to admit the probability that Paul's letters cannot be dated and are heavily interpolated, you will be stuck arguing about Jesus' brothers.

steve_bnk

Herodotus is a good example, he creatively filled in the blanks so to speak and liley not as a deception, but likley in the tradition of his times. That the gospels wrer embelished is a given.

GakuseiDon

Sure, I agree. No analogy is exact on every point. I tend not to use analogies, since the first thing the other person does is point out the place where the analogy doesn't hold, and ignore the place where the analogy does hold.

And that would be fine... if the topic was the HJ hypothesis.

You are right I'm afraid, I don't appreciate it. If there is a case for mythicism, please lay it out for me.

It may be that arguments against a HJ will support an MJ, but it is by no means necessarily true. You would still need to show how they support an MJ.

GakuseiDon

As I've said many many times, the analogy is how they deal with arguments.

I would argue that it is the same logic error that creationists use. Obviously mythicists aren't creationists; but some don't appear to be aware that they are making this logic error.

The purpose of an analogy is to highlight an element in the current topic, by relating it to something that the other party might understand. You could use the "creationist analogy" in a variety of ways, and against any group that exhibits the element you are trying to address. It could refer to historicists; the analogy can even be used against evolutionists, I suppose, in some situations.

Again: THAT IS NOT HOW THE ANALOGY IS BEING USED. It isn't the merits of the case for historicism and evolution that is at issue, it is how creationists and some mythicists argue.

Great! I will drop the creationist analogy altogether, and we can look at the mythicist case. You have said that you don't expect to be able to prove your personal view, so I will move to the next person.

maryhelena

GDon, I really think you need to cut this out - re the equating of mythicists with creationists - if this is your starting position you will not be getting very far with me....Take this attitude where someone might appreciate it - James McGrath's blog for instance...

Hold the horses right there...this is nonsense. ie that the gospel storyline "..doesn't necessarily add anything to mythicism". Lets cut to the chase right here - the mythicist position is that the Jesus in the gospel storyline is not historical. Full Stop. Anything else is only taking the mythicist position further - in whatever direction a mythicist seeks to go. Remember how many Jesus theories are out there - cynic sage, social reformer, apolalyptic prophet etc....

The mythicist position relates primarily to the gospel storyline re Jesus - ie it rejects a literal interpretation of that storyline, it rejects a historical Jesus figure. That's all you ask - really, as I matter of fact it is not all - nothing is set in stone - and particularly with the mythicist position - it is open ended to accommodate whatever intellectual developments might arise.

As to wanting someone to outline a mythicist case - GDon, in the post that I referenced earlier, I set out a very simple mythicist position - a position that you have not attempted to address. Until you understand the necessity of addressing the idea set forth in that post - you are not indicating to me that you are in any way seeking understanding here but are intent upon a de-bunking mode. I'm not here to have any 'fight' - an exchange of ideas is welcome - but going down the mythicist equals creationist footpath does not bode well for such a mutual beneficial exchange of ideas.

You know something - perhaps you do have a serious misunderstanding here. The fundamental mythicist case is not about offering some alternative position re the gospel Jesus - as though it is possible to have such an alternative. The mythicist case is that the historical Jesus position is nonsense, it is bizarre, it is a dead end, it is wishful thinking, it is a floating abstraction. The mythicist case seeks to knock this position - this idea - to kingdom come...Does that clear the issue up for you - set it out clear and simple. Any ideas that a mythicist might offer are additional - they are attempts to build anew, if you like, after the old idea has been placed into the museum of historical curiosities...

Sure, the historical Jesus idea has been around for a long time - but it is an ageing idea - long past its sell by date. Like all ideas, it is not aging well. Ideas have never learned to go gracefully to their netherworld. The aging drama queen is more their style - they make no pretence at dignity as they kick and scream for the adulation of their youth.

And that is how a mythicist views the current state of the debate.....:wave:

GakuseiDon

Maryhelena, I will no longer use that analogy here. I'd much rather concentrate on the mythicist case, get it laid out clearly so that there is no misunderstanding.

Sure, that's fine. There may well be a case for mythicism built from the Gospels, I do not deny it. But many historicists also question the validity of information in the Gospels. I'm saying that questioning the validity of information in the Gospels doesn't necessarily support mythicism. A case still has to be made. I am after that case. I'm hoping that this makes sense?

That's fine. I'm interested in the case for this. Can you lay out the supporting evidence, please?

It does, and is consistent with how I've seen mythicists argue here and elsewhere. I really appreciate your honesty here, Maryhelena!

I got it. Thanks again.