Chocky

Greetings all,

I've made a few adjustments to Eddy & Boyd's method of characterising standpoints on the historicity of Jesus, given in The Jesus Legend pp.24-25.

Do you think this portrays mythicism fairly? Would you agree with the definitions? The terminology bothers some people - I know Tom Verenna has argued the word "mythicist" should be dropped in favour of something like "minimalist". I've seen some "Jesus agnostics" disagree with the mythicist label, but if the argument is that basically everything that accrued around Jesus was legend, then surely in some sense the label fits as he's still a "myth".

Mythicism
1a. Jesus atheism: No historical Jesus existed at all; traditions about him are entirely fictional (Doherty, Acharya S, Harpur, Freke & Gandy)
1b. Jesus agnosticism: There may have been a historical person or people behind the Jesus legends, but if so we cannot know anything about his life or death because there is no acceptable evidence (Price, Carrier, Ellegard)

Mainstream views
2. Pessimism: Jesus was a figure in history, but our information about him is so diluted by hearsay and legend that we can conclude very little about his life (Bultmann, Wells since ca.1995)
3. Mainstream scholarship: The Jesus reconstructed by investigation is elusive, and the boundaries between hard facts and accrued legend are unclear (Mack, Crossan)
4. Conservative scholarship: The Jesus reconstructed by investigation is fairly reflected in the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (N.T. Wright, Bauckham, Keener)

Apologetics
5. Conservative apologetics: The Jesus who is reconstructed by investigation is essentially the same as the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels – and you should believe in Him (Strobel, McDowell)

So mythicism and apologetics lie outside the mainstream (but spend a lot of energy attacking each other).

ApostateAbe

I typically use the phrase, "Jesus-minimalism." The word, "minimalism," would be appropriate, but that is more often applied to Old Testament criticism, not either Jesus-mythicism or Jesus-agnosticism.

My position is that a large set of fairly-certain historical conclusions about Jesus can be inferred from the Christian myths about Jesus. So, I wouldn't call the reconstruction of the historical Jesus "elusive." Otherwise, I would be categorized in camp #3. You may want to include another camp that includes scholars like Bart Ehrman and Mark Goodacre.

Chocky

Thanks, Abe. It'd make sense to add an extra category. I pondered it, but ended up rewriting Eddy & Boyd's description and suggesting that as a whole it's more critical than it is.

The name "Jesus minimalism" at least dispenses with the baggage of the old Christ-Myth theory and its associations with dying-rising gods, which is the stick current mythicists tend to get beaten with by scholars whether they argue that or not.

aa5874

What stick are you talking about? You don't even seem to know the history of the QUEST for the Historical Jesus.

The QUEST for the Historical Jesus was INITIATED by the REJECTION of the NT Jesus and the QUEST for HJ COLLAPSED WITHOUT any input from MJers.

This is the THIRD QUEST for the Historical Jesus.

If you don't know how the QUEST for the Historical Jesus was INITIATED then what is the point in posting?

HJers are just going arounnd in CIRCLES. Nothing has changed. Every QUEST for the Historical Jesus will ultimately COLLAPSE because there is ZERO credible history of antiquity for an HJ.

There is NO NEED for a single MJ argument because the QUEST for the Historical Jesus is an argument AGAINST the Jesus of the NT, the DOCUMENTED MYTH.

Chocky

Please, aa. I'm well aware of the Quest, and if I wasn't, I wouldn't want to learn about it from someone shouting in caps. To answer your question, I'm talking about the readiness of scholars who do mention mythicism to associate it with something already "refuted", e.g. the responses to Robert Price in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (or via: amazon.co.uk).

You can argue that all scholarship is doing the same work as MJ arguments, if you see the whole field as a case of "gospel Jesus" v "all other interpretations of Jesus". But that's not how everyone sees it, and definitely not how scholars see it, hence the table. Some Third Quest-era scholarship is pretty compatible with the gospel Jesus, like Wright and Keener.

By the way, the whole traditional narrative of dividing the Quest into patterns is pretty simplistic and is disputed by some.

aa5874

What you want to learn or not learn is your business but I do not tolerate unsubstantiated claims.

You can't tell me what to write or how to write so stop wasting your time.

It is completely unsubstantiated that mythicists have been beaten by any "stick" when HJ Scholars have ZERO evidence from antiquity to support their HJ and use the "garbage" found in the NT Myth Fables as history.

The same MYTH "garbage" SOURCE that state Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost is the same source used by Scholars to claim HJ was baptized and crucified.

HJ Scholars are IMMERSED in known "DUMP SITES" looking for HJ.

HJ Scholars will FIND garbage at "DUMP SITES".

Chocky

...I think we're talking at cross purposes here. :huh:

ApostateAbe

Chocky, I have aa5874 on my ignore list. Here is why: see how he has 12,671 posts? Every one of his 12,671 posts is like what you see in this thread.

sotto voce

What is the name given to:

The Jesus who is reconstructed by investigation is essentially the same as the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels – and you can suit yourself what you think about him

?

Or is that a category too far, a category far too outrageous for scholarship to deal with?

aa5874

Oh, NO. It is too late now. You have already exposed your problem.

Please, stop your propaganda. I have RECORDED your statement. You HATE to admit that I am right. That's all.

Right now, I will not tolerate unsubstantiated claims whether from MJer, HJer, Believers, Scholars, atheists or agnostics.