gurugeorge

Eh, no, the ahistoricist position is the bland, abstract position that there was no historical Jesus human being person behind the evidently heavily mythically-layered Jesus Christ of Christianity, it's the broader category. (It's counter the idea that the obviously and evidently mythical Jesus we know and love was based on a historical human being called "Jesus".)

Mythicism is a subset of the category of ahistoricism, with more specific and testable claims - i.e. that the Jesus myth we all know and love is myth "all the way down", that there is no historical core, and that the religion came about, instead, in x, y ways, as a purely mythical construct of some sort (perhaps pertaining solely to a mythical "dreamtime", or perhaps including a then-recent-pseudo-historical component).

Other versions of ahistoricism might be that the Jesus myth was relatively late invented fiction for political ends (some theories have this); or that the myth developed out of misunderstanding what may initially have been just a historical novel or a fictional Stoic-style exemplary biography, or something of that sort.

In all cases, I think it's of capital importance to recognize that we are dealing initially with what is obviously a myth - i.e. Jesus Christ, the Jewish superhero we all know and love. There's a ton of mythical lard there already, that hardly anybody, not even Christian bishops or academics, believes a word of as being historical.

The question is whether there's some historical "core" to the mythical Jewish superhero or not.

Chili

Well you can slice it any way you want to but the fact remains that the story as presented in the Gospels bears witness to a real event that happened in history and still is happening as a fact of life today.

I would go further and call the transformation of the human mind the most basic of all human rights.

Dave31

Thanks Toto it looks like you found it.

Toto "You will find that most fictional characters have some basis in a historical figure, however distorted."

Agreed, however, that is clearly a "euhemerist"/evemerist description - that's what "euhemerism"/evemerism is. If there were no "core to the onion" it would be mythicism. "Euhemerism"/evemerism allows for myths and legends to added to a historical persons biography because that is very specifically what "euhemerism"/evemerism is - myths and legends added to ones biography but, in order for it to qualify as "euhemerism"/evemerism - there must be a core to the onion, a real historical person to point to. A collage of many different people whether historical, mythical or both simply cannot be rolled into one person and be considered a 'historical person' i.e. the New Testament character, Jesus Christ. That is still a fictional character that does not exist as a single historical person as we have been led to believe. One cannot create a real historical person by adding a collage of deeds and sayings by many different people both real and mythical and call it 'a real historical person' - that is not a core to the onion it's simply the creation of a fictional character.

maryhelena

Definitions are complex things; often with enough leg room to allow for debate and controversy. Mythicism is no exception. Yes, one can take an element of a definition and develop ones own idiosyncratic ‘flavor’, ones own take on the definition. (Rand comes to mind with both her definitions of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘selfishness’.) Consequently, whatever the technical definition of a word might be, the popular usage of that word is what most people would relate to.

And for mythicism?
That definition - that Jesus mythicism also known as the Christ Myth Theory, is that Jesus of Nazareth was not a physical historical person. Mythicism and ahistoricism, in popular usage, are linked together.

What is there to test? All we have are stories. Stories that we attempt to interpret. The idea that mythicism involves testing something - as though the testing can produce something of value - is inherently illogical. It reminds me of Richard Dawkins and his rejection of theology as a university subject. (words to this effect...). Theology can’t be tested - it’s just a set of ideas about supernatural imaginings. That is what one is doing to mythicism if one is going to subject it to testing.

Rather than aiming for some sort of testable definition of mythicism - recognize it for what it is; a word that can never be more than what it is in popular usage. Christ myth theory; the Jesus never existed theory; the non-existence hypothesis. Lets not try to turn ‘mythicism’ into an ideology or a pseudo-theology.

Yes, that is the big question - and to answer that question in the affirmative, that historical reality, a historical core, was fundamental to the creation of the composite gospel JC figure - does not mean that mythicism is found wanting. To do that is to limit ones definition of mythicism - and that reflects an ideological approach to mythicism. An approach that seeks to lock mythicism into ones own idiosyncratic definition. The ahistoricist/mythicist position is open-ended - and must remain so in it’s search for the historical roots of Christianity.

And that, methinks, is perhaps the position of Rene Salm - don’t tie mythicism down to xyz.

Chili

How can there be a historical Jesus if Jesus is the transforming agent between human and man, or between earth and heaven on earth (same thing).

Let me define historical to be with registered birth certificate in place and time, simple yes, but only to say that Jesus did not have this and so was not historical like us and everybody else including you and me.

Jesus is real, and is alive, and is alive in us, and is alive in each and every one of us to be the transforming agent during metamorphosis. That's all he is, and so really is not, while yet really he is, and is needed ony when we need him, and until then he should be a sleeper in us, to never be aroused lest he becomes alive in us and leads us further and further astray with no end in sight because he has access to a never ending source that also holds the promise of heaven to us . . . and so a premature 'awakening' of Jesus in us becomes hell on earth by degree depending on the strenght of the new wine we drank that was poured in the cup of God's anger, with anger being only the degree of reality that we see, which in turn is the prompt to "spread the good news" by those who so are fucked in the head, (pardon the colloquial but in effect it is true, and by degree, please don't forget, in the height of which mental institutions are loaded with them).

It so then is equal to spritual fornication wherein the innocent believer is made lukewarm, and wants to share this burning sensation with others (so that eventually 'might will make right' with better days ahead after they die).

The word Jesus should never be spoken lest he becomes an idol to us and wait for his arrival that so removes the 'thief' he is meant to be, 'in the nigth' when even 'time' as we know it is not.

Sorry I forgot the punchline, I always do.

The point here is that there is no -ism about myth. Myth is real, and so is Jesus and he is more real than we as human will ever be as. Jesus is the one who must be the transforming agent in our very own mind so he can be the second Adam in us to crucify the first Adam on us as the masked pretender that we are.

maryhelena

Well now, if you are trying to redefine mythicism to some idiosyncratic, ideological, in-house limited usage, then you have ruled out Earl Doherty from being a mythicist!


That the gospel JC figure is a composite figure - a composite figure that can reflect elements of "several representative, historical figures.." does not prohibit this position from being a mythicism position.

If Rene Salm wants to describe his position as euhemerist and semi-mythicist - that is his prerogative. However, what he cannot do is set the benchmark for what mythicism is. It's a general term - as he himself has noted - for the ahistoricist position. Mythicism is not an ideology that comprises xyz. It's a catch-all for the broad spectrum of Christ Myth theories. Christ Myth theories that attempt to provide answers to questions related to the ahistoricity for JC. All speculative and inherently no different to theories for JC historicity.

To rule out a historical core as being relevant to the gospel JC story - to rule out a historical core as being relevant to mythicism - is to sabotage any investigation into early christian origins. And, at the same time, it gives the JC historicist camp the stick by which they will hit one hard. Hoist upon ones own petard - sad day for mythicism if it strives to cut it's own throat!

aa5874

Whether or not definitions are complex things--definitions MUST be standardized in any field of inquiry.

It is established that Myth refers to Non-existence in the HJ/MJ argument.

Just like the Core of an Onion is always more Onion the Core of a Myth is simply more Myth.

Peeling an Onion layer by layer will only show more and more Onion.

It is the very same with Jesus the more Myth is peeled away the more myth we find.

Peel away the Gospels we are left with the Revealed Resurrected Jesus.

It is virtually impossible for a Myth to have an historical core just like it is impossible to have an Onion with the Core of the Lochness monster.

maryhelena

Are you suggesting that Earl Doherty is not a mythicist? Earl's statement, from his website, acknowledges that "elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus....".

And Earl goes on: "..mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

So, regardless of the fact that the gospel JC character is ahistorical, that literary creation can still reflect "elements of several representative historical figures.."

And it is that aspect of the JC literary creation, the use of elements from the life stories of historical figures, that gives the gospel literary figure an historical core. i.e. the gospel literary JC reflects elements from the life stories of historical figures. The core of the JC mythological figure, the core or ground from which it sprung, is life stories of historical figures. Historical figures "pertinent to the writers of the myths."

The major difference between this Jewish JC myth and non-Jewish myths that mythologize individuals - is that this Jewish JC myth is a composite myth. Thereby enabling it to steer clear from the dangers of mythologizing or turning men into gods.

(my bolding)

Chili

There is not history in the bible, ever and never, as even Gen.1, 2 and 3 are only there so we can come full circle in it.

Now talk about real is different, in that the substance behind the allegory is real in the myth that only has permanence with pre-sense but not in history as past.