EarlDoherty

You know, Abe, your scorn and and self-confidence about your own opinions would be so much more effective if you showed any sign of having investigated and understood even the basics of the mythicist case--or even better, having done so and published your own critique and rebuttal of it. Of course, scorn and self-confidence are so much easier in a context of ignorance.

But then you are only taking a page from NT scholarship as whole which has always shown the same scorn and self-confidence in the same context of ignorance. And since you seem to be a trusting follower and not an independent thinker, I guess we can't fault you for simply relying on others to determine what you will believe.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

I have not understood the basics of the mythicist case? You could be right. The mythicists seem to be somewhat unified in their anti-historicist case, but there is no "the mythicist case." This forum alone presents a large diversity of opinions on how to explain the evidence without a historical Jesus. For example, you, of course, have your own theory, that Christianity started out as a belief in an explicitly mythical Jesus, and you take the writings of Paul as evidence of that. But, there are others who dismiss the supposed writings of Paul as either hopelessly interpolated or completely inauthentic forgeries. So, I am not going to argue with you on that. I really don't understand the basics of the mythicist case.

I am curious. Was I wrong with my guesses about why those two submissions were refused the prize?

Chili

I would be 100% mythicist but I think it is wrong for the preacher to tell everyone that "it is all in your head" because they would never come back for more. There is no infancy either, but if intercourse does not have to be sexual so does infancy not have to be about infants, and next, if Jesus never was an infant who is he? . . . and now we have got the virgin Mary in trouble who's virginity has nothing to do with sex but yet is virgin and is virgin of virgins to say that the hymen is real but has nothing to do with sex in this context . . . yet it is a good story to tell from the pulpit so that people will come back for more, etc.

So what is wrong with the historical Jesus as a starting point?

Chili

I would continue to say that rather than debunking the historical Jesus it is better to find a solution in the philosophy of religion and he'll debunk by himself.

Chili

So the preacher then would call 'mythicism' a heresy just as gnosticism and pantheism were heresies no matter how noble they sound . . . while Jesus is purely mythical and was gnostic in the end and was a pantheist when he said: 'this' is my body and 'this' is my blood.

EarlDoherty

First of all, one side of the mythicist case is the discrediting of the historicist case, so that is a very legitimate element of it. (It's also true that the 'anti-historicist' case has hardly been properly rebutted or debunked, including here. Dismissal does not equal discredited.)

And you sound like a Creationist. They regard the fact that evolutionists have varying views on things like the mechanisms of evolution, and the fact that not every possible question regarding evolution has been answered, as 'proof' that evolution is false, or that it can be dismissed and their own biblical view becomes somehow true by default. I think you know that such a stance is logically unsustainable. (Would you accept the same argument to simply dismiss an historical Jesus because established scholarship hasn't been able to come up with anything near a consensus picture of such a figure?)

This does not mean that there are no common elements among the various approaches to mythicism. But since you don't seem to have really investigated mythicism on your own, you can't be expected to gain even an overview of the case, much less its strengths.

And I am not going to comment on internal deliberations among the judges regarding the essay contest.

Earl Doherty

Toto

Note that comparing posters to creationists is frowned on here (although Abe would have a hard time complaining.)

ApostateAbe

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Earl. I wasn't criticizing mythicists for their disunity. I was only defending myself against the accusation that I have not "understood even the basics of the mythicist case." It is very difficult to understand the basics of the mythicist case when there is no "the mythicist case." The historicists, of course, have their own large set of disagreements, but they seem to be relatively united on a handful of essential points of early Christianity. They seem to tend to agree that:

• Jesus was from the town of Nazareth
• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
• Jesus was the leader of a small Jewish religious group
• Jesus was a traveler
• Jesus was an orator
• Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem under the order of Pontius Pilate
• The followers of Jesus led the group soon afterward
• Paul evangelized to non-Jews, who were more likely to accept the message
• Paul wrote about seven extant letters to fellow Christians
• The synoptic gospels were written by Greek Christians in the first century.

They tend to disagree on the details of Jesus' life. The wise sage Jesus and the apocalyptic prophet Jesus, I think, are the two big ones. With a relatively unified picture, you can have relatively unified points in opposition. But, there is nothing close to this sort of consensus in favor of any positive theory among those who believe that Jesus was just a myth. Again, not that I hold it against them.
I understand, thanks.

ApostateAbe

I absolutely would not. It is continually difficult to hold myself back from such analogies.

EarlDoherty

The last three points have nothing to say about whether Jesus existed or not. And is it not curious that the first seven, which do relate to him, are found entirely and exclusively within the Gospels and Acts. Outside of those minority of inbred documents, not a single one of those points can be supported in any Christian document, canonical or otherwise, of the first century, nor in many of the second.

The "agreement" amounts to no more than accepting the elements of a story (constructed out of scripture) found first in the Gospel of Mark and copied and reworked by three later writers (and their editors). No corroboration for the elements of that story can be found outside the story itself, until later generations came to encounter and accept that story as history.

That in the face of this situation (along with much else) NT scholarship can declare no doubt in the historicity of Jesus and the Gospel events indicates that it is not unbiased historiography that is being practised. April DeConnick is only the latest to point out what IS being practised, and it is only a matter of time before more and more scholars from within academia itself will be adding their voices to the same realization and dissatisfaction with it. Mythicism is the track of the future, Abe, and I'd invite you to get on board the train.

Earl Doherty