leederick

Hi all,

This is my first post, please be gentle. I'd just like to ask some questions about the Jesus Myth (JC) and mainstream academic history. I find the JM very interesting, probably for similar reasons to you lot. But I'm a bit disturbed that academic historians don't seem that interested in it or to take it seriously. I now have some idea what Creationists must feel like! My questions:

(1) How does history in this area work? I presume you have academic historians working on 1st century Roman history, but I also assume you have theologians (employed by respectable universities) who come at it from a different angle and are just churning out apologetics. Does this area of research function at all like a normal academic field?

(2) Am I correct in saying that the main barrier to the acceptance of the JM by historians is the existence of Christianity? There are people (Hercules, King Arthur) who ancient historians thought were real, but who us moderns don't. JC seems to fit in quite well. But given Christianity exists, it need explaining. And since they claim to be founded by JC, that's a pretty parsimonious explanation - so there's a high hurdle for the JM to get over. I guess I'm saying that if the Round Table existed, we might take Arthur a bit more seriously.

(3) Can JM like ideas be extended to other major religious figures? (Other than the obvious; I realise evidence for Mary, Joseph and the disciples must also be pretty thin.) If so which ones?

(4) I'm not a historian. But as far as I can see they don't seem to be very interested in arguing "Was X real" with each other. They seems to have other concerns. What's the historiography and evidence standards like in this area? Is it really a concern they have?

Thanks!

Toto

Theologians tend to be employed at seminaries rather than universities. Otherwise, the field of New Testament studies (as it is called) is generally separate from classical studies or history. There have been charges that the field is not exactly normal.

I think that the main barrier is the existence of Christian (and other) sensibilities. You can explain the existence of Christianity without a historical Jesus, just as you can explain Britain without a historical Arthur. But Jesus is a very popular figure, not only with Christians.

The evidence for Buddha is very thin, but the Buddhists don't seem to care if there were a historical Buddha or not. Confucius and Lao-tse are probably mythical figures.

Historians do not seem to be especially interested in arguing about whether X was real when there is so little hard evidence, especially when so many people get upset about the idea of Jesus not existing.

leederick

Toto;

Thanks very much for the response. To be honest, I really find it very hard to accept the suggestion that the main reason the JM isn't accepted in mainstream history is that historians don't want to upset Christian sensibilities. Perhaps that could explain the JM being a minority position in the academy, but does it explain why no mainstream historian takes that position? Wouldn't you expect there to be one or two mavericks arguing for a different interpretation of early Christianity.

Historians seem happy to upset Christians when they work in other parts of history. And plenty of other disciplines (geology, biology) have had no trouble scandalising Christian sensibilities when they were much more powerful than they are today. I just find it hard to see this as being the reason for, what I interpret as, an almost uniform rejection of the JM by the discipline. Maybe I just don't have a good appreciate of norms in that field compared to those of areas of academia. Are they just more cowardly and reluctant to chalenge what has done before than people in other fields?

Toto

It isn't just Christian sensibilities. Jesus is a very popular figure with left wing socialists and humanists who want to believe that a person who embodied pure goodness could actually change history.

Everyone is happy to claim that later Christians distorted the pure message of Jesus - that's a recurring theme. But somehow the idea that there was no Jesus touches a nerve with a lot of people. It's something I have observed.

HarryStine

The existence of the Aenead isn't thin evidence for the existence of Virgil. Why is the existence of the book of John thin evidence for the existence of John. Why are the Epistles of Peter thin evidence for the existence of Peter. So much for the disciples. What does it mean for the existence of Jesus that Romans have written things to the effect of, "Yeh, we had this guy crucified in Judea, and now his followers are getting pretty active." It seems that when religion is in question the standards for historical validity go up.

Vivisector

Not to argue against the existence of John and Peter, but I don't think it's established by any means that John the son of Zebedee wrote the Gospel of John or that Peter the fisherman wrote either of the Epistles of Peter (if this is what you're suggesting).

V.

gstafleu

Good point, and it may be more than just idealistic lefties as well. I suspect that most people, including atheists, have heard so much about Jesus that he has become part of people's cultural identity. So the idea that he didn't exist rips away a part of the cultural identity, which can be quite traumatic, and hence is resisted.

Just look at the interesting debates of HJ-MJ we see here. Often (not always of course) we see HJers postulate an unspecified HJ, who is at best defined as not being identical to the gospel Jesus. I have the impression that getting the idea across that you have to specific in order to make historical sense about a Jesus is sometimes difficult: people sometimes take the position that there was a HJ, any HJ, even if we can't say who what or where. That would fit in with the cultural identity bit.

Clivedurdle

There is a huge misunderstanding of this, probably repeated by non christians in the main! Hebrews clearly talks of Melchizadeck, the great High Priest, who if you remember Hebrew mythology had to be holy to go into the holy of holies! So a messenger god between this el shaddai who shows his bum to Moses and goes around as a fire or smoke or hides in an ark and an empty temple as several Emperors found to their shock, There is a long tradition in Judaism of messengers - Satan, angels, ie lions den.

So, even the historians and most xians do not read the Bible and clearly see the themes of how to get in contact with this very very holy god they have invented. A special angel figure who slowly gets transmuted and pinned down in 'history" with very small links - a census, Pilate, kata sarka, with a few ingredients from other religions and political support.

The Shipping Forecast should probably be the basis for a new British religion!

GakuseiDon

The problem is that Jesus mythicism isn't being pushed in the academic world. So which version should scholars address, and why? Earl Doherty's "fleshy sublunar realm" version? Carlotta's "Julius Caesar as Jesus Christ" version? Tom Harpur's "Egyptian copycat" version? Acharya S's "Son of God is the Sun of God" version? Obviously each person thinks their own particular view should be the one addressed (though they themselves probably haven't tried to challenge the other views).

There is a belief that Jesus mythicists have somehow challenged historicist scholars, but until mythicists start pushing their views into the world of academia, I can't see how any challenge has been issued. I know this analogy is controversial, but I can't help but see the parallels to creationism here (with regards to how they claim that academia is ignoring them).

Let's start encouraging Jesus mythicists to publish in peer-reviewed publications!

No Robots

Evidently, mythicists also see Christ, the non-existent Christ, as a potent political weapon:

And each year that the Christian Right digs at the foundations of the United States, the number of ahistoricists will grow, because it is the natural response of people like me who were once willing to live and let live -- you blot out our democracy? Fine! We're going to destroy your Jesus. Doherty himself is an excellent example of how these two ideas cross-fertilize, for not only does he work on ahistorical Jesus theories, he also works with groups that oppose the Christian Right.

That's like saying that you have observed that many people like public health care, but they object to state ownership of industry. I mean, duh.