I'd like to see an objective discussion of the mythicist position. I'm currently appreciating Acharya's mythicist position due to it's comprehensive approach instead of just "Jesus mythicism."
There are two simple insights to keep in mind when it comes to the mythicist position:
1. When the mythological layers of the story are removed, there is no core to the onion.
2. A composite of 20 people is no one.
Even if you could find some guy there named "Jesus" who said a few things, the New Testament character is not him if all the rest of the story is myth. Indeed, we know that there were several Jesuses saying things, including both the author and editor of the pre-Christian text the "Wisdom of Jesus" or "Ecclesiasticus." In that text we have two Jesuses who said things - some of which closely resemble sayings in the New Testament - are these two Jesuses the "one historical Jesus" people are looking for? No.
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."
As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt, page 12
"Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists. You should be made aware that the mythicist position outlined above is the very first clear outline of the mythicist position throughout history.
"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."
An objective discussion of "the mythicist position" does not approach it through the lens of one person's opinion. More to the point, this thread is better titled "Acharya's Position."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
From where I stand, making this all about her is the opposite of an objective discussion since she compiles the history of mythicists and mythicism into her work. I find her work far more interesting and fascinating than current mythicists writing today but, it's fair to point out that she created that mythicist position, however, to me, it's more of an evolutionary progression of the mythicist movement. Still, she's the only mythicist to create a mythicist position. Other mythicists may have their own plank to add to it, but hers is certainly a legit position and it makes sense when one studies all of her work. Acharya is doing work in mythicism that nobody else is doing today so, she certainly deserves her own plank.
Peter Kirby wrote:An objective discussion of "the mythicist position" does not approach it through the lens of one person's opinion. More to the point, this thread is better titled "Acharya's Position."
Maximos wrote:I'd like to see an objective discussion of the mythicist position. I'm currently appreciating Acharya's mythicist position due to it's comprehensive approach instead of just "Jesus mythicism."
There are two simple insights to keep in mind when it comes to the mythicist position:
1. When the mythological layers of the story are removed, there is no core to the onion.
2. A composite of 20 people is no one.
Even if you could find some guy there named "Jesus" who said a few things, the New Testament character is not him if all the rest of the story is myth. Indeed, we know that there were several Jesuses saying things, including both the author and editor of the pre-Christian text the "Wisdom of Jesus" or "Ecclesiasticus." In that text we have two Jesuses who said things - some of which closely resemble sayings in the New Testament - are these two Jesuses the "one historical Jesus" people are looking for? No.
I'm currently reading Christ in Egypt and find it useful to learn about the gnostic flavor of chrisianity. I bolded Acharya's quote above because it would be interesting to learn how common the name of Jesus was in the first century. . . and then determine if it declined rapidly in popularity as a common name for Jews in the second century and thereafter.
^ Well, lets see, even Christian apologist Dr. Gary Habermas says:
"The Names "Joseph" and "Jesus" were very popular in the 1st century. "Jesus" appears in at least 99 tombs and on 22 ossuaries. "Joseph" appears on 45 ossuaries.… "Mary" is the most common female name in the ancient Jewish world."
"Josephus mentioned around 20 different Jesus's and none turn out to be the New Testament Jesus....."
http : // www .fr eethoughtn ation .c om/f orums/viewtopic.php?p=26427#p26427
In the early 20th century Adolf was a popular name in Germany and not surpsingly rapidly dropped in popularity for newborn german boys after 1944 (see chart) . Did the name of Jesus also drop in popularity for newborn jewish boys in the second century?
Maximos wrote:I'd like to see an objective discussion of the mythicist position. I'm currently appreciating Acharya's mythicist position due to it's comprehensive approach instead of just "Jesus mythicism."
One of the major planks of mythicism is recognizing the ancient astrotheology and nature worship engaged in by the cultures of antiquity whose religions and myths contributed to the formation of the Bible-based, Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular, but other religions as well. This astrotheology can be summed up in a nutshell as the reverence for and personification of the sun, moon, earth, planets, stars and constellations, as well as other celestial bodies and natural phenomena.
I'm not sure what the stats of beliefs amongst mythicists would show, but I don't think it would support having astrotheology a "major plank" of mythicism. Major mythicists like Richard Carrier, Doherty and Wells don't include astrotheology in their mythicist views. I'm not aware of any mythicist that pushes it, with the possible exception of Dr Robert Price and early mythicists from around 100 years or more ago.
Are there any modern-day mythicists who actually support astrotheology as a major plank in their mythicism?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Maximos wrote:^ Remove the spam/Troll please as the only person committing "Godwin's Law" is Arnold who brought it up. It has zero to do with this thread.
It's not spam, it's not trolling, and it's not accusing anyone else of bringing it up.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
