aa5874

You probably have not read "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman. He does not even discuss the Myth Jesus theory with his students.

mountainman

This is a classic example. The book is entitled "Did Jesus Exist"?

It looks like a question doesn't it?

Superficially the author Ehrman is questioning the HJ.

But the cover of the book is the extent of the questioning, because the book represents some sort of mantra pitched at the converted and the prevailing mainstream paradigm which clings to the HJ as an unexamined hypothesis.


Look what happened to that Irish priest as soon as the hegemon discovered he was responsible for the authorship of a book which presented his own researched investigation that Jesus was copy/pasted from Elija et al in the LXX and did not exist in the historical sense.

Look what happened to Mike Licona when he questioned the authority of the reality of the Zombie resurrection in Matthew. The hegemon is not about to allow itself to be overturned without a struggle of some momentous nature. They would prefer to see the HJ remain an unexamined hypothesis, than to entertain any alternatives of examination.

These alternative HJ hypothesis proposals reflect the whims of the authors. In some cases a failed prophet, in others an itinerant preacher, in others a rebel with a divine cause, and in others all sorts of in-between pistaches of character. These composites of the HJ are drawn from a study of the new testament which is accepted by the hegemon to reflect some kind of genuine historical source who's authors wrote under the divine Christian guidance of the Holy Moley Spirit for the benefit of future generations.



Ehrman devotes a few brief words and phrases for what he perceives as attacks on the HJ hegemon, one of which (from memory) was "conspiracy theories". He makes no note of what these alternative theories are because he has an agenda in "Did Jesus Exist" to support the hegemon.

Ehrman makes no reference to the "Blasphemy Laws" which until the mid 20th century prohibited (or at least provided any dissident reasons for not speaking up in public) anyone from openly questioning these basic unexamined hypotheses of the Christian hegemon, such as the historical existence of the Jesus figure in the canonical books of the new testament.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

That was a priest working for a religious institution which has never claimed to be a champion of free inquiry.

Mike Licona has a degree from Liberyty University and a mail order PhD. He got into trouble when he was "Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board" and is now teaching Theology at a Texas seminary. He has little or no connection with the secular academic world.

Most of these alternative HJ hypotheses are heretical and would have gotten Licona and Brodie into big trouble with their religious institutions.

But the heydey of mythicism was actually the 19th century, while blasphemy laws were still in effect.

You haven't really identified this hegemon or its interest in perpetuating a particular theory of the historical Jesus.

mountainman

Here are a few introductory articles on the Christian hegemon (Christian hegemony).

Christian hegemony



Christian Hegemony

In a video available at this site, the author also defines it as follows:


On a rational and historical basis, central to the Christian hegemony is the (unexamined) hypothesis that the Jesus character in the New Testament was an historical figure. This hypothesis is "unexamined" because there is little of no evidence by which the hypothesis may be examined.

This (unexamined) hypothesis is probably a remnant of the "Jesus of Faith" who was savagely protected by blasphemy laws until recent times.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

I keep trying to tell you that things are more complex. The historical Jesus was an anti-Christian idea, the product of the Enlightenment. A merely human Jesus who lived in history as an ordinary man is subversive of everything Christianity stands for.

The fact that modern Christians have adapted to and coopted the scholarship on the historical Jesus is a testament to the amazing flexibility and survival value of Christianity.

I am sure that if mythicism became the norm, Christians would adapt to that, too.

mountainman

I have to disagree with this assessment unless you are prepared to apply this subversion to the "real founders of Christian archaeology".

Much modern scholarship (including AFAIK Richard Carrier) still cite evidence first collated by de Rossi in his "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae".


Modern scholarship is a recent appearance after centuries and centuries of domination by the various Christian education institutions.


At the moment the existence of the HJ is still very much the norm. The experts like Ehrman publish this propaganda and even the atheists have no problem with accepting an historical jesus. The norm is just another name for the hegemon, and it represents an insidious belief that Jesus was historical.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

Why is this belief insidious? Is a belief in the historical William Tell insidious?

Why does any atheist care that much whether there was a historical Jesus at the start of the legend, or whether it was legend all the way down?

mountainman

1. Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner: insidious rumors; an insidious disease.
2. Intended to entrap; treacherous: insidious misinformation.
3. Beguiling but harmful; alluring: insidious pleasures.


[From Latin nsidisus, from nsidiae, ambush, from nsidre, to sit upon, lie in wait for]

One need only investigate the history of belief, the inquisition, blasphemy and - where it all started - heresiological ensnarement.

The belief in the historical jesus is insidious because it has been promulgated for over 1600 years by utterly subversive means, some of which have been discussed above.

We might view these centuries of oppressive conditions as psychological operations directed by the organisation of the churches against the populace at large.

Thus the HJ is an insidious belief because it has been an integral part of the cultural conditioning of all so-called Christian countries, a conditioning that is still very much prevalent today.

But perhaps the prime reason it is insidious is because it is a commonly held psychological belief for which we have absolutely no concrete evidence and truckloads of forgeries and/or truckloads of undated, unprovenanced anonymous or pseudonymous literature.




William Tell never had an organisation in his name executing people who refused to confess he was god and/or that he existed.

William Tell never had a story written about him that served as a holy writ for a centralised monotheistic state Will Tell Cult.

William Tell does not get much airplay from the pulpits.

William Tell does not have theological colleges teaching his Holy Writ.

The belief in William Tell is not part of the hegemonic cultural mind fuck.



I don't know that they care or not. They just go to the library and read all the books in which so-called expert biblical historians think it is expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which they were convinced that an historical person called Jesus underlies the books of the new testament canon. The atheists generally parrot the so-called experts. The so called experts parrot the hegemonic party line and are generally tenured in it.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia