GakuseiDon

Ah. I thought that you were saying that there was no evidence, outside of the New Testament, for Christianity existing in the 1st C CE. Sorry, my mistake.

GakuseiDon

A recent proliferation of albino monks.

The reason is unknown. As Earl Doherty writes:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/Weimer-Gibson.htm

"Those who have followed this site and my work over the years, including my involvement on various Internet Discussion Boards such as the Internet Infidels, will know that I have encountered considerable opposition from dissenters to my theories on Jesus Mythicism. At times, that opposition has been loud and antagonistic, even rabid. This has included not simply those with confessional interests on the question of Jesus' existence, but others who identify themselves as religiously neutral, even atheistic. Paradoxically, I have found that those who declare themselves in the latter category tend to be among those who react against myself and mythicism with the greatest amount of vitriol and animosity. Why this is so is not clear to me."

aa5874

You have no idea that Richard A Burridge claimed that it was the scholarly concensus of the 20th century that the gospels were NOT biographies.

Richard A Burridge was serious.

spamandham

I have not read Burridge, but it's my understanding he expanded upon, rather than contradicted, the summary Talbert compiled? If so, then he's correct. The scholarly consensus to this day, I believe, is that they were hero biographies, not biographies.

aa5874

You cannot put aside or reject information that shows that the letter writer called Paul is not ambiguous about the words "crucify" and resurrection" and then claim you have little reason to think he does not mean them as symbolic. You must take all the information into account to make a proper analysis.

Remember, in Galations, the letter writer met the brother of the Lord. Didn't the letter writer mean that the Lord was crucified, resurrected, ascended through the clouds and then revealed himself from heaven?

In antiquity, these things are all plausible and was believed.

The letter writer appears to have a very simple chronology, Jesus was on earth, he was crucified, resurrected, and ascended to heaven. Later the letter writer was converted during the reign of Aretas and the resurrected one called Jesus revealed his gospel, the gospel of uncircumsion, to "Paul" from heaven, even giving him one or two minor details of his life on earth.

Toto

While there are millions of atheists, only a handful are actively motivated to debunk Christianity, and of those, most chose either philosophical arguments or science, or psychology, or any of a variety of other routes that are more cost-effective than spending the time to get a PhD in an obscure and not very marketable field. (And if mythicism is wildly successful, what do you then do with that PhD?)

An additional problem with using history to debunk Christianity is that there is a general lack of evidence, and even if you show that a mythical Jesus is the best explanation of early Christian history, as long as you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never existed, it won't make any difference - Christians will cling to that .1% possibility.

So, in general, from an atheist activist perspective, the mythicist hypothesis is not worth the expenditure of effort, unless you have an existing interest in the area, as Doherty and Carrier both had.

There may also be a general lack of courage in academia at present. Just look at the thesis topics that current PhD's are pursuing - literary analysis, with very little in the way of bold new hypotheses, and very little claim to historical value. And any graduate student inclined to mythicism in NT studies will be cutting themselves out of a large part of the job market - seminaries and religious studies departments that are dominated by Christians or funded by Christians who find the mythicist argument too controversial.

Your third possibility, of a universal bias, may also be an element. The idea of a historical Jesus is a very popular one from a variety of perspectives. Christians need him, Muslims think he was a prophet, socialists claim him as one of their own, pacifists quote him, liberals use him to bash George Bush. Just look around popular culture. Jesus is a character in South Park and more than one movie. What is the percentage in claiming that he didn't exist? It's like attacking Santa.

But these things go in cycles. Mythicism was popular a few generations ago, then fell out of favor, but may be coming back. The CSER Jesus Project is preparing to take a fresh look at the whole question of the existence of a historical Jesus.

neilgodfrey

I hear this sort of charge a lot but do not understand it. Why would any atheist "be motivated to debunk Christianity"? If someone does not believe in any god then why what possible reason could they have for "being motivated to debunk" any one particular religion? Surely if they do not believe in any god, there is no need to debunk a belief in god, let alone any particular religion.

I wonder if the charge arises because some believers simply cannot imagine what it would be like not to believe, and so cannot help but assume some residual belief still resides in an atheist's mind somewhere, and that those atheists must somehow fight against that horrid belief they can never really completely eradicate.

Yes? No?

Fellow atheists I know sometimes have a bit of a laugh about a religion, but not because we are "motivated to debunk it", but because to our own satisfaction it has no substance worth the effort of "debunking". If there is any "debunking" to be done, it is little more than an intellectual hobbyhorse, or out of concern for the harm belief so often does to so many, or for just about any other reason that motivates anybody to do anything. But the idea that an atheist has some generalized propensity to debunk a belief in god does not make any sense, as per my final sentence in my first paragraph.


Neil

GakuseiDon

"Motivated to debunk Christianity"???

"Debunk Christianity"??? "Christians will cling to that .1% possibility"???

Is this what MJ vs HJ comes down to for you, Toto? The good fight against Christianity? No wonder mythicists are continually going on about "apologists say this" and "apologists say that". This isn't about scholarship at all, then, for those mythicists.

This has been gone over, again and again, about how new ideas are presented to academia. No mythicist has to unload the full 800 pound gorilla in one go.

Oh come on. People "need" him, therefore they don't question his existence? This borders on conspiracy theory. It isn't "bias". Some mythicists make it sound like scholars really secretly know that there may not have been a historical Jesus and are continually trying to avoid the question. But the fact is that the question is never really asked. A historical Jesus is ASSUMED to exist in the same way that a historical Abraham Lincoln is assumed. I'm not saying that there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Lincoln, just that the historical existence is ASSUMED. Every single piece of evidence points to a historical Jesus. His historical existence was never questioned until the last couple of hundred years.

Now, I have no problems with people challenging that assumption, anymore than I'd have a problem with someone questioning Lincoln's existence, if they thought that they have evidence to support such a position. Given the little historical evidence for Jesus, it is a legitimate question. But it is up to mythicists to raise this to academia. Has Doherty done this? Carrier? Price? Anyone in the last 30 years? That is a failure on the mythicists' part. Where are the mythicists examining, say, Doherty's work? That one page review by Carrier is about all I've seen. Why aren't mythicists building on Doherty's thesis, making it stronger, filling in the blanks?

Yeah, and I have a strong feeling that it will be the mythicists and apologists who will soon be complaining about their output. And for the same reason.

This phantom war of mythicists against Christians and apologists over a historical Jesus is sheer conspiracy theory. Why can't you see it? It is mythicist vs apologist, not mythicist vs scholar. Why are mythicists continually concerned with what apologists say about Jesus?

It's simple: no mythicist has raised this to academia in the last 30 years as far as I've heard. For all the claims of "bias", etc, it's as simple as that. If any serious historian has heard of it at all, it would as one of a number of fringe theories. But as you hear some mythicists tell it, historians are being cowed by Christians to ignore it, or they are scared that the theory may somehow be true. Meanwhile, academic papers questioning conventional Christian beliefs get published all the time.

aa5874

This is really bizarre. How can lack of evidence for Jesus be a problem for mythicist?

Lack of evidence for Jesus is a huge problem for the human only apocalyptic preacher.

A general lack of evidence for a human only Jesus is the foundation, the backbone of the mythicist case.

If there is only 0.1% possibility that Jesus existed, then it should be obvious that Jesus did not exist is 99.9% possible.

Jesus was a myth is always true or a reasonable position, with lack of evidence.

Only evidence can destroy the mythicist case, and right now, there is none.

No Phd was needed for believers to imagine that Jesus existed without evidence, no Phd is needed to recognise that there is presently no evidence of a human only Jesus.

We are not conducting a popularity poll, we are dealing strictly with evidence or a lack of evidence.

Jesus was a myth.

spamandham

I haven't put anything aside, but I did fail to mention why I think it may be appropriate to consider 1 Cor. 15 as pseudepigraphical.

I don't know if he meant those things literally or mystically. I can certainly point out places where he refers to crucifixion in terms that can not possibly be literally interpreted - but I don't know if that's always the case. Paul seems to use the word 'crucify' to mean 'humbled' at least at times.

But even outside 1 Cor. 15, there are a few other places where Paul goes out of his way to make sure we know he's talking about a human Jesus, such as Galatians 4:4-5

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons."

...this is what makes Paul so confusing to me. At times he seems to be talking in a mystical sense, and at other times he goes out of his way to make sure we know he's talking about a fleshy Jesus. I'm inclined to believe multiple layers are involved. Paul's almost unintelligible writing style at times with endless rambling sentences might be the result of multiple authors?

Does 'christ crucifiued' refer to Roman crucifixion, or does it refer to some sort of cosmic humbling experience (rhetorical) - or both at different times? Does the resurrection refer to a body rising up out of the ground, or is it a spiritual awakening - or both at different times?

They're believed today as well.

However, mysticism was also popular in antiquity. Our job is to try to figure out what the writings we call Paul's meant.