mountainman

I'd like to discuss the range of (informal) postulates
which underly all MJ Theories. There are a sufficient
range of such MJ theories listed at Peter Kirby's page
Historical Jesus Theories

Most of the theories listed appear related to the HJ sphere.
Only the first 5 seem MJ theories. I have listed HJ/MJ
below against these authors in the manner I am supposing
best reflects their categorisation. Are there any mistakes?

Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ (MJ)
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past (MJ)
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero (MJ)
Gregory Riley

The rest are all HJ .....
Jesus the Revolutionary (HJ)
Jesus the Wisdom Sage (HJ)
Jesus the Man of the Spirit (HJ)
Jesus the Prophet of Social Change (HJ)
Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet (HJ)
Jesus the Savior (HJ)

It is probably unusual that any of these MJ theorists
have listed their postulates. However a reading of the
theories should eventually discern the postulates used
by the above five authors.

Has anyone any idea of any postulates claimed by any
of these, or any other MJ theory, which vary from the
following five postulates of most HJ theories ...

(1) Epicenter: the existence of an HJ is viewed as an unexamined postulate.
(2) Source Language: the New Testament was written in Greek
(3) Apostlic lineage: the apostle Paul wrote something preserved to us
(4) Transmission: the critical Westcott-Hort transmission is correct
(5) History: the christian historiology written c.314 is true and correct

gstafleu

Not too many answers so far . Let me try something. The first postulate of MJ is that the Jesus story is mythology and hence should be treated as such. The second postulate is that mythologies are usually not synthesized de novo, but flow, at least in part but possibly completely, from pre-existent mythologies. When it comes to HJ/MJ there may be a third postulate, and that is that most characters from mythology are not based on real persons, or if they were that real person does not make a significant contribution to the myths.

The third postulate (characters usually not real) may not be a postulate but established fact if its factuality can be shown from other mythology. The truth of the second postulate (flowing from pre-existent mythology) may also be establishable from other mythologies. The truth of the first postulate can be established if it can be shown that the Jesus story can be explained using the mechanisms found in the study of other mythologies.

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

I don't think that there are common postulates underlying the MJ theories.

If you look at HJ research, there are a number of postulates. For some scholars, there is the postulate that the actual history of the time can be recovered in sufficient detail to have some assurance that one obscure person existed. For some, there is the postulate that Jesus existed, for others it is a conclusion drawn from the fact that Christianity exists and somebody started it. Most seem to assume that written records are some sort of evidence for history (ie, not recent forgeries), but there is a great deal of variability in what they think they can prove from that evidence.

I don't see any similar postulates underlying MJ theories. Some theorists assume that the history of the time can be recovered, some do not (eg Robert Price, if he is counted as a mythicist). Most assume that a religion can evolve and later invent a founding figure - I guess that could be a postulate.

Doherty assumes that Paul's letters are reasonably close to what he wrote, other mythicists do not make that assumption.

Malachi151

Well, my MJ postulate, or better hypothesis, is that the story of Jesus Christ is an extension of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, and that the concept Jesus Christ is based on the Hebrew scriptures. The Gospels of Jesus Christ are what give Jesus Christ the air of historicity, and these Gospels are all based on the scriptures, not an external reality. The writing of the Gospels was probably initially prompted by the destruction of Judea in 70 CE.

Key scripture:

Daniel 12:2-4:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the dome, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end."

Loomis

What about Occam's Razor?

“One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”

Why is HJ necessary?

What does HJ bring to the table that we can’t have without it?

Toto

It is our general observation that religions are started by charismatic leaders who personally inspire their followers. If Christianity is similar to the modern religions and cults that we observe, it seems reasonable to look for a charismatic founder of some sort.

Malachi151

Where is the evidence for this? To how many cases does this apply? In what way would this, if true, relate to the story of Jesus? Is not Paul such a figure?

Was the religion of the Greeks started by Zeus?

Were the cults of Dionysus started by Dionysus?

Each of the figures of Greek, Egyptian, and Roman mythology were real people?

Moses was a real person?

Toto

Distinguish between "New Religious Movements" and older religions. There is an entire branch of sociology that studies these NRM's, as they are called. Almost all that I can think of revolve around one person - which is part of the criticism of them, that they are "personality cults" run by madmen.

I was just answering Loomis' question, as to "why a JH". If you look at Ehrman's view of Jesus, for example, he seems to envision someone like David Koresh. There is a certain expectation that someone who starts a religion might be a little insane - who else would try to start a religion? And if he was that insane, there might well have been an attempt to clean him up and rewrite his story. (And at that point do you really have a HJ left?)

The MJ scenario, however, does not require a founder figure. It assumes that the religion grew organically, and at a certain point invented a history for itself. There was probably a charismatic story teller early in the growth of the religion, but this person may be lost to history.

Doug Shaver

I assume you're talking about background assumptions of the sort that Occam's razor is supposed to deal with. The only MJ theory I have examined in any detail is Doherty's. So far as I am aware, though, no MJ theory postulates anything that is not also postulated by historicists.

Her pinkness saves

whats wrong with paul?