Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilVaz · 07-24-2008, 01:16 AM

aa << This does not make much sense. In 1977, Grant wrote Christ-myth theory annihilated by first rank scholars, now 30 years later, J P Holding writes that the Jesus-myth is shattered. >>

OK, I'll try to explain, but I'm no expert on this topic. You should go ahead and get the J.P. Holding book, and write your own fair and detailed review.

Here's my "story"....

In the mid-1990s I became aware of this whole "Jesus myth" thing from some radical skeptic forums I was involved with on Usenet and FidoNet (particularly the old obnoxious "HolySmoke" forum). At the time I was a beginning Internet "Catholic lay apologist" (mainly inspired by Karl Keating and Catholic Answers) trying to sort out the whole Catholic-Protestant "fundamentalist" debate thing (along with a few Greek/Eastern Orthodox Christians too), and occasionally ventured into the skeptic-Christian debate. At that time the 80-year-old essay by M. M. Mangasarian "The Truth about Jesus : Is He a Myth?" (orig 1909) I remember was regularly posted at HolySmoke and elsewhere. That was my introduction to the "Jesus myth" claims, and I found this very strange that someone would actually deny Jesus even existed. Sure atheists believed God didn't exist, I knew that already. But that there was no historical Jesus? I never heard that before.

This was back in 1994-95 for me, before Earl Doherty went online, and slightly before the "Internet Infidels" became a site I believe. Other atheists I found online in various discussion forums recommended books by G.A. Wells who was the only well-known "Jesus myth" scholar. What I didn't know, but later found out, was he was not really a credentialed or professional NT or Jesus scholar, but a teacher of German. Wells had also changed his mind about this time, and now writes in his 2004 book:

"Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist." (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament [2004], page 4)

So Wells is now saying he never really believed the "mythicist" claim. In the 1970s however, Wells had at least two books that many atheists and skeptics interpreted as arguing for the "Jesus myth" position, and these are probably the books that Michael Grant is referring to above in his 1977 book on Jesus, along with the earlier "Jesus myth" scholars (very few of them) dating back to the late 19th, early 20th century.

These are outlined in J.P. Holding's book in the chapter by James Hannam "A Historical Introduction to the Myth that Jesus Never Existed." So yes, the "Jesus myth" position had a very few adherents, beginning explicitly with Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), and later Arthur Drews The Christ Myth (1911), then John M. Robertson (1856-1933) The Historical Jesus (1916) and The Jesus Problem (1917) which argued Jesus was based on some sort of pre-Christian myth, and in the United States by John Remsburg The Christ (1909) that Jesus was a pagan god, and mathematician William B. Smith. However, Hannam writes:

"The generation of Jesus Mythologists represented by Smith and Robertson died out in the 1920s. They had based their work on theories about mythology from the 'history of religions' school but scholarship itself moved on, leaving the Jesus Mythologists high and dry....[but] a few amateurs trudged on....It was not until 1971 that the Jesus Myth burst back into life with the work of a polite and erudite Professor of German...George Albert Wells (1926- )." (J.P. Holding, Shattering, chapter by Hannam, page xiv-xvi)

So by the 1920s the earliest "mythicist" claims were answered, annihilated, shattered, and obliterated, and then later in the 1970s when they re-surfaced with G.A. Wells, his bogus claims were again answered, annihilated, shattered and obliterated by such historians as Michael Grant, once again in the 1980s (since Wells was still publishing his books) by the evangelical scholar R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), and then in the 1990s when Doherty replaced Wells as the primary "Jesus myth" scholar/historian for the skeptic/atheist community, the J.P. Holding online articles (and now his oversized book) answers, annihilates, shatters, and obliterates their claims all over again in excruciating detailed fashion (in my opinion, read the book for yourself).

Maybe when Doherty admits Jesus existed in a new edition of his book (like Wells did), then Richard Carrier will take over as the new "scholar/historian" for the "Jesus myth" claims and come up with new (or new and improved) arguments from silence for "mythicism." You never know....

It is also true (just as I said) that this whole "debate" is limited to mainly online discussion forums (such as the Infidels.org) and web sites (and a couple of self-published books) and isn't addressed by professionals anymore, and is simply ignored by mainstream biblical scholarship and modern historical Jesus studies. E.G. see the Crossans vs. the Craigs (or via: amazon.co.uk), the Borgs vs. the Wrights (or via: amazon.co.uk), the Jesus Seminar or more "liberal" types vs. the evangelicals, or traditional or moderate Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown (or via: amazon.co.uk) or John P. Meier (or via: amazon.co.uk), etc. None of these guys are "mythicists" and they do not even address them or their "arguments." Why? Because there is no real "debate" on the subject, never has been. That is my understanding after carefully studying this subject as an amateur the past 10+ years.

Phil P

Steven Carr · 07-24-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

Wells had also changed his mind about this time, and now writes in his 2004 book:

"Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Early Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist." (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament [2004], page 4)

So Wells is now saying he never really believed the "mythicist" claim.

Wells always claimed that Paul believed Jesus had been on earth, but that Paul had no idea when.

For Wells, Paul had a Jesus who had emptied himself of divinity, and so was a totally ordinary man.

PhilVaz · 07-24-2008, 01:53 AM

steven << For Wells, Paul had a Jesus who had emptied himself of divinity, and so was a totally ordinary man. >>

Thanks, that probably clears it up. I don't have Wells' earlier books. Looking forward to what Richard Carrier can come up with as this "online debate" continues. And you caught me typing Early Doherty as well, rather than Later Doherty, and Just-In-Time Doherty. I see Doherty himself participates here. Cool. :wave:

Phil P

Steven Carr · 07-24-2008, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

So by the 1920s the earliest "mythicist" claims were answered, annihilated, shattered, and obliterated, and then later in the 1970s when they re-surfaced with G.A. Wells, his bogus claims were again answered, annihilated, shattered and obliterated by such historians as Michael Grant, once again in the 1980s (since Wells was still publishing his books) by the evangelical scholar R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), .....

Grant certainly did not address Wells's arguments.

And France pretty much agreed with Wells when it came to discussing Tacitus, Suetonius....

As JP Holding writes 'It is unfortunate that France so readily agreed with Wells' assessment.'

How very 'unfortunate' that the person who obliterated, annihialted and shattered Wells in point of fact 'so readily agreed with Wells assessment'....

Holding simply starts claiming that France didn't actually consult any scholars on Tacitus.

So that is the level of refutation of Wells. Refuted by somebody who even Holding claims didn't actually consult any scholars on his sources. (Holding doesn't blink before slandering absolutely *anybody* who does not agree with him, even the scholars he otherwise touts as marvellous.)

What Holding really means is that any scholar who agrees with him is a great scholar, while anybody who 'so readily agreed' with sceptics turns out to have done shoddy scholarship.

While Holding blames France for not consulting any Tacitaen scholars, this does not stop Holding touting France as somebody who destroyed the Jesus Myth.

This is the level of objectivity of Holding's book.

It is a wonder that Holding does not put little signs in his book saying 'Cheer here' when he mentions an apologist and 'Boo now' when he mentions a sceptic.

Steven Carr · 07-24-2008, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

British historian Michael Grant: "...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels [1977], pages 199, 200)

Did Grant give a list of these criteria?

Would these criteria enable us to definitely state whether or not , for example, Judas Iscariot existed?

Would these criteria enable us to definitely state whether or not , for example, Thomas existed?

We shall never know, unless Phil reproduces the criteria that Grant used to definitely state that Jesus existed.

Steven Carr · 07-24-2008, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

Well, you start by learning Koine Greek. Two years should do it. For me it was Latin, but same difference. Take whatever the university entrance exam is in your country as a private student so you have a bit of paper to wave.

Next, you need an Masters (I assume you have a bachelors). The best bet would be in an Ancient Near East Studies department or else Classics if they have someone interested. I did history. You'd do a dissertation whcih should be on say, one or two of the would-be Messiahs in Josephus or perhaps 1st century Platonism if you a Dohertian.

Then, the big one. You should do the PhD in whichever subject (and probably the department) you did the MA. Your PhD thesis will be on what you regard as the most important foundation that the historical Jesus has. You will not claim he does not exist, but you will knock down his biggest support.

The write a book based on your PhD and pose the question in the epilogue.

I had no idea Holding could now read Koine Greek.

I assumed he was totally unqualified to talk on the Jesus Myth, having failed all of Hannam's requirements.

PhilVaz · 07-24-2008, 04:44 AM

steven << We shall never know, unless Phil reproduces the criteria that Grant used to definitely state that Jesus existed. >>

I have Michael Grant's 1977 edition of his book, I might be able to type in some of his criteria. Also you are correct that R.T. France conceded the point to Wells on Tacitus, France says: "I find Wells' argument entirely convincing. Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' is evidence only for what was believed about Christian origins at the time he wrote, and there is plenty of other evidence for that." (France, Evidence for Jesus, page 23 [1986 edition]). France concedes that Tacitus is not necessarily independent testimony. But on all other evidence, France argues against Wells. J.P. Holding's book argues differently on Tacitus, citing various scholars.

Phil P

James Hannam · 07-24-2008, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I assumed he was totally unqualified to talk on the Jesus Myth, having failed all of Hannam's requirements.

Hello Stevie,

Still smarting from Dawkins proving you wrong at the end of the God Delusion about the waving statute thing. That must really have hurt after you accused me of lying and worse for years.

Of course, you are wrong here too. I laid out how to get your theory noticed in academia, not what you need to do to be entitled to write a book. But JP's book will, quite rightly, not be reviewed or cited in the academic literature because he (and I in this context) are not scholars working in the area.

Hope that clears things up.

Best wishes

James

PS (edit to add): But JP is now planning to take a PhD.

http://jameshannam.com

Steven Carr · 07-24-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I assumed he was totally unqualified to talk on the Jesus Myth, having failed all of Hannam's requirements.

Hello Stevie,

Still smarting from Dawkins proving you wrong at the end of the God Delusion about the waving statute thing. That must really have hurt after you accused me of lying and worse for years.

Of course, you are wrong here too. I laid out how to get your theory noticed in academia, not what you need to do to be entitled to write a book. But JP's book will, quite rightly, not be reviewed or cited in the academic literature because he (and I in this context) are not scholars working in the area.

Hope that clears things up.

Best wishes

James

PS (edit to add): But JP is now planning to take a PhD.

http://jameshannam.com

Dawkins still says a waving statue of the virgin Mary would be a miracle....

Holding is planning to take a PhD? Has he written to Ian Paisley for advice on getting a doctorate.

Good to know that academics in Biblical studies ignore all writings put forward by somebody without a PhD in some form of NT discipline.

Nothing like being open-minded, is there?

In science, amateur astronomers have made big contributions.

But science is not as academic a discipline as the study of stories of Jesus talking to Satan in the desert...

'Mainstream' Biblical scholarship produces works where people look at why Mark names Bartimaeus while Luke doesn't, and then propose that Bartimaeus died in the time between the writing of Mark and the writing of Luke.

I could never be a mainstream NT academic, as I simply can't make up things off the top of my head and pretend it is scholarship.

Steven Carr · 07-24-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

steven << We shall never know, unless Phil reproduces the criteria that Grant used to definitely state that Jesus existed. >>

I have Michael Grant's 1977 edition of his book, I might be able to type in some of his criteria. Also you are correct that R.T. France conceded the point to Wells on Tacitus, France says: "I find Wells' argument entirely convincing. Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' is evidence only for what was believed about Christian origins at the time he wrote, and there is plenty of other evidence for that." (France, Evidence for Jesus, page 23 [1986 edition]). France concedes that Tacitus is not necessarily independent testimony. But on all other evidence, France argues against Wells. J.P. Holding's book argues differently on Tacitus, citing various scholars.

Phil P

Wells trashed France's arguments against him. 'Evidence of Jesus' basically says there are 4 Gospels, so Jesus of Nazareth must have existed, even if no other 1st century work places Jesus in Nazareth.

Grant's 'criteria' have apparently been used successfully to show the historicity of hundreds of pagan personages. He said so himself.

It would be interesting to see them applied to the personages of Judas Iscariot and Thomas.

07-24-2008, 01:16 AM	#101
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	Annihilating the Christ Myth aa << This does not make much sense. In 1977, Grant wrote Christ-myth theory annihilated by first rank scholars, now 30 years later, J P Holding writes that the Jesus-myth is shattered. >> OK, I'll try to explain, but I'm no expert on this topic. You should go ahead and get the J.P. Holding book, and write your own fair and detailed review. Here's my "story".... In the mid-1990s I became aware of this whole "Jesus myth" thing from some radical skeptic forums I was involved with on Usenet and FidoNet (particularly the old obnoxious "HolySmoke" forum). At the time I was a beginning Internet "Catholic lay apologist" (mainly inspired by Karl Keating and Catholic Answers) trying to sort out the whole Catholic-Protestant "fundamentalist" debate thing (along with a few Greek/Eastern Orthodox Christians too), and occasionally ventured into the skeptic-Christian debate. At that time the 80-year-old essay by M. M. Mangasarian "The Truth about Jesus : Is He a Myth?" (orig 1909) I remember was regularly posted at HolySmoke and elsewhere. That was my introduction to the "Jesus myth" claims, and I found this very strange that someone would actually deny Jesus even existed. Sure atheists believed God didn't exist, I knew that already. But that there was no historical Jesus? I never heard that before. This was back in 1994-95 for me, before Earl Doherty went online, and slightly before the "Internet Infidels" became a site I believe. Other atheists I found online in various discussion forums recommended books by G.A. Wells who was the only well-known "Jesus myth" scholar. What I didn't know, but later found out, was he was not really a credentialed or professional NT or Jesus scholar, but a teacher of German. Wells had also changed his mind about this time, and now writes in his 2004 book: "Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist." (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament [2004], page 4) So Wells is now saying he never really believed the "mythicist" claim. In the 1970s however, Wells had at least two books that many atheists and skeptics interpreted as arguing for the "Jesus myth" position, and these are probably the books that Michael Grant is referring to above in his 1977 book on Jesus, along with the earlier "Jesus myth" scholars (very few of them) dating back to the late 19th, early 20th century. These are outlined in J.P. Holding's book in the chapter by James Hannam "A Historical Introduction to the Myth that Jesus Never Existed." So yes, the "Jesus myth" position had a very few adherents, beginning explicitly with Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), and later Arthur Drews The Christ Myth (1911), then John M. Robertson (1856-1933) The Historical Jesus (1916) and The Jesus Problem (1917) which argued Jesus was based on some sort of pre-Christian myth, and in the United States by John Remsburg The Christ (1909) that Jesus was a pagan god, and mathematician William B. Smith. However, Hannam writes: "The generation of Jesus Mythologists represented by Smith and Robertson died out in the 1920s. They had based their work on theories about mythology from the 'history of religions' school but scholarship itself moved on, leaving the Jesus Mythologists high and dry....[but] a few amateurs trudged on....It was not until 1971 that the Jesus Myth burst back into life with the work of a polite and erudite Professor of German...George Albert Wells (1926- )." (J.P. Holding, Shattering, chapter by Hannam, page xiv-xvi) So by the 1920s the earliest "mythicist" claims were answered, annihilated, shattered, and obliterated, and then later in the 1970s when they re-surfaced with G.A. Wells, his bogus claims were again answered, annihilated, shattered and obliterated by such historians as Michael Grant, once again in the 1980s (since Wells was still publishing his books) by the evangelical scholar R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), and then in the 1990s when Doherty replaced Wells as the primary "Jesus myth" scholar/historian for the skeptic/atheist community, the J.P. Holding online articles (and now his oversized book) answers, annihilates, shatters, and obliterates their claims all over again in excruciating detailed fashion (in my opinion, read the book for yourself). Maybe when Doherty admits Jesus existed in a new edition of his book (like Wells did), then Richard Carrier will take over as the new "scholar/historian" for the "Jesus myth" claims and come up with new (or new and improved) arguments from silence for "mythicism." You never know.... It is also true (just as I said) that this whole "debate" is limited to mainly online discussion forums (such as the Infidels.org) and web sites (and a couple of self-published books) and isn't addressed by professionals anymore, and is simply ignored by mainstream biblical scholarship and modern historical Jesus studies. E.G. see the Crossans vs. the Craigs (or via: amazon.co.uk), the Borgs vs. the Wrights (or via: amazon.co.uk), the Jesus Seminar or more "liberal" types vs. the evangelicals, or traditional or moderate Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown (or via: amazon.co.uk) or John P. Meier (or via: amazon.co.uk), etc. None of these guys are "mythicists" and they do not even address them or their "arguments." Why? Because there is no real "debate" on the subject, never has been. That is my understanding after carefully studying this subject as an amateur the past 10+ years. Phil P

07-24-2008, 01:53 AM	#103
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	ordinary man steven << For Wells, Paul had a Jesus who had emptied himself of divinity, and so was a totally ordinary man. >> Thanks, that probably clears it up. I don't have Wells' earlier books. Looking forward to what Richard Carrier can come up with as this "online debate" continues. And you caught me typing Early Doherty as well, rather than Later Doherty, and Just-In-Time Doherty. I see Doherty himself participates here. Cool. :wave: Phil P

07-24-2008, 04:44 AM	#107
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	criteria steven << We shall never know, unless Phil reproduces the criteria that Grant used to definitely state that Jesus existed. >> I have Michael Grant's 1977 edition of his book, I might be able to type in some of his criteria. Also you are correct that R.T. France conceded the point to Wells on Tacitus, France says: "I find Wells' argument entirely convincing. Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' is evidence only for what was believed about Christian origins at the time he wrote, and there is plenty of other evidence for that." (France, Evidence for Jesus, page 23 [1986 edition]). France concedes that Tacitus is not necessarily independent testimony. But on all other evidence, France argues against Wells. J.P. Holding's book argues differently on Tacitus, citing various scholars. Phil P

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.