outhouse

I read what I can find online, sometimes going back ten times if that's what it takes to be able to remember certain details.

Watch vids as well as what scholars actually say themselves in certain documentaries.

Its a ongoing process and I still have quite a bit to learn. But I do have the passion for learning even if self taught.

Grog

First, since I am not a scholar in the field of NT, Bible Studies or anything similar, I think so-called mythicists have to build the blocks to support a grand theory. I see Richard Carrier doing some of that, starting with his paper on Josephus. "Mythicism" cannot get scholarly respect by publishing popular press books. I would like to see mythicist papers on Paul's "demonology" for instance. One paper that made an impression on me was Jung Young Lee's "Interpreting the Demonic Powers in Pauline Thought" citation:

Lee, Jung Young. "Interpreting the Demonic Powers in Pauline Thought." Novum Testamentum, 12 (1970): 54-69.

I am particularly interested in 1 Cor 2:8 and what Paul means when he refers to "the rulers" or ἀρχόντων.

Full passages:

8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

ην ουδεις των αρχοντων του αιωνος τουτου εγνωκεν ει γαρ εγνωσαν ουκ αν τον κυριον της δοξης εσταυρωσαν

[translations from biblos]

Now, Lee had this to say:

Now most HJers would agree with Cullman in this statement (again from Lee):

It is the "who in behind the state" phrase that I see as an insertion of the Gospel story for which there is no evidence of in Pauline thought. As I have mentioned before, not only is Paul's thinking throughout consistent with the view that Christ is in a struggle with cosmic powers but Romans 13 should be a strong check against the idea that Paul believes the Romans the crucified Jesus (or Jewish authorities for that matter).

I don't think we have to read anything into it, we can just accept that Paul believes in a Christ crucified by cosmic powers.

Now, Doherty makes much the same case in his books and other writings. What the mythicist position needs, though, are scholarly works that lay out the theoretical underpinnings of grand theories like Doherty's. There are works out there that can be built upon, such as this one that I am quoting.

aa5874

You have completely mis-read the Pauline Corpus.

Please read what Apologetic writers of antiquity who used the Pauline wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Tertullian made references to the Pauline Corpus and claimed the Jews killed or delivered up Jesus to be crucified.

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others who made references to the Pauline Corpus all claimed Jesus was on earth and was crucified after a trial with Pilate.

One must read things into the Canonised Pauline Corpus to claim the Pauline Jesus was wholly cosmic.

The Pauline Corpus is about a Resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV---And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Romans 10:9 KJV--That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

Galatians 1:1 KJV---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

Grog

aa, this doesn't address what I wrote. I am not claiming that Paul says Jesus wasn't crucified or raised from the dead. I am saying that 1 Cor 2:8 says he was crucified by elemental powers.

That ancient writers, writing perhaps centuries after Paul (or the Pauline author) interpreted Paul's writing in light of the Gospel story doesn't tell me much. It's what I am saying modern scholars do as well.

Also, the main topic of this post was that so-called "mythicists" need to publish monographs, not popular press books (although I do appreciate the latter!).

James The Least

The other disappointing thing is that two highly qualified Bible scholars, Price and Thomas Brodie, have been convinced Jesus Christ was a myth since the 1970s. That's 30+ years ago. If they had published strong, peer-reviewed, scholarly books on their theory in the 1980s, the discussion would have evolved beyond where it is now, I believe. By not publishing then, the Ehrmans of academia can present the myth theory as a recent internet fad perpetuated by ignorant amateurs.

But it appears Price's latest book is mostly opinion pieces and reviews, not the kind of thing that would be pub'd by a university press anyway.

Jaybees

There are situations where reality is important. When you step down, the ground had better be there. If you step off a cliff, believing you're on solid ground, you'll soon be disabused of your belief.

There are other situations where reality is unimportant. If you believe Jesus existed, that's all that matters. Whether or not there was such a being doesn't matter one rat's ass. Belief is all that matters.

Toto

Robert M. Price had stated at the time that he thought that Jesus was a myth based on Osiris but that he didn't think he could prove it because the evidence was lost to time. And you saw what happened to Brodie once he did come out with the thesis that Jesus never existed - he could not do that until he was ready for retirement.

Besides - I remember 1980. I don't think you are being realistic. There is no way such an idea could have gotten through "peer review" at the time. The Biblical Studies guild had circled the wagons against the idea. Conservatives were not willing to concede that the Bible had no basis in real history, and liberals needed a historical Jesus for their own purposes.

The Jesus Seminar was started in the 80's, and made a radical change to the culture by promulgating the idea that Jesus probably didn't say most of what the gospels claimed that he did say.

G. A. Wells started writing on the existence of Jesus in the 1970's, but his academic background was in linguistics, not "New Testament," so the guild used that as an excuse to ignore him.

MrMacSon

Books are rarely peer-reviewed: it's mostly journal articles that are, and probably less thoroughly pre-mid-1990s compared to today.

That "the Ehrmans of academia can present the myth theory as a recent internet fad perpetuated by ignorant amateurs" is a misrepresentation, as strawman fallacy.

They should know we are now on the 3rd quest for the historic Jesus; and if they don't, they have their heads buried.

Toto makes some good points in #27 above.

The internet has allowed a lot more collaboration of discussion of ideas and, overall, more rational debate.

Grog

I would like to see the internet camps less divided. There is almost no give and take discussion. Traditional scholars are usually dismissive and their responses reveal hidden and confirmatory bias again and again (see Ehrman's responses to his critics, as well as Goodacre's recent comments, Larry Hurtado, James McGrath, Hoffmann, and their antagonistic attitudes toward the Vridar blog.

I would like to see a healthy discussion where a decent and thoughtful scholar like Goodacre discussed the nature of the evidence and various points that mythicists have raised. Right now, it is far too antagonistic.

MrMacSon

antagonistic, such as this? -

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explori...#disqus_thread

Traditional christian scholars & traditional biblical scholars seem more immersed in theology than interested in history-via-the-Historical-Method.