The Mythicist Position

[Doug Shaver]

Richard Carrier has been especially poisonous towards Acharya and astrotheology for 10 years now without ever having actually read a single book of Acharya's or studying astrotheology. So, Carrier is simply not a reliable or trusted source of information regarding Acharya or astrotheology.

I'll let Carrier speak for himself. I've been to Acharya's website. I saw nothing there that made me think I was missing anything by not reading her books.

[Roger Pearse]

When someone canvases their crank opinions widely on the web, and then demands that nobody disagree unless they have read, not their website, nor any of the material endlessly posted, but *their books*, then we may fairly be suspicious that they are dishonest. Honest people don't need to do that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

There are more quotes with a similar sentiment in the link below but, I thought Earl Doherty summarized the problem with academic acceptance of mythicism quite well:

"Why is it that no individual scholar or group of scholars has undertaken a concerted effort in recent times to discredit the mythicist position?... (snip special pleading and ad hominems)

I wonder what would happen to any scholar who sought funding to study and refute "mythicism" - that is, a view only held by non-scholars?

I doubt it would get very far.

Why do real historians not spend any time on the "Jesus never existed" theory? Because they do history by collecting data. And the data, unambiguously, tells us that this chap existed who founded a world religion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Maximos]

When someone canvases their crank opinions widely on the web, and then demands that nobody disagree unless they have read, not their website, nor any of the material endlessly posted, but *their books*, then we may fairly be suspicious that they are dishonest. Honest people don't need to do that.

LOL, a standard response from Christian apologists out to shore up their Christian faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means being dishonest. Nobody said anything about demanding to agree, but asking for basic objectivity and intellectual honesty should never be too much to ask. Most honest people consider it basic common sense to actually read the book before making false preconceived assumptions that simply reading the book would alleviate.

I wonder what would happen to any scholar who sought funding to study and refute "mythicism" - that is, a view only held by non-scholars?

LOL, comments like that just show how little you know about this subject.

Why do real historians not spend any time on the "Jesus never existed" theory? Because they do history by collecting data. And the data, unambiguously, tells us that this chap existed who founded a world religion.

LOL, so only "REAL" scholars agree with you and if they don't then, according to you they must not be a real scholar. Got it.

If you're not interested in the subject then why even post here? Nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to post here against your will.

"...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion."

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? 259

[Maximos]

Richard Carrier has been especially poisonous towards Acharya and astrotheology for 10 years now without ever having actually read a single book of Acharya's or studying astrotheology. So, Carrier is simply not a reliable or trusted source of information regarding Acharya or astrotheology.

I'll let Carrier speak for himself. I've been to Acharya's website. I saw nothing there that made me think I was missing anything by not reading her books.

When Dick Carrier speaks for himself on Acharya's work he consistently makes sloppy and egregious errors; probably due to the fact he has never actually studied her work:

"However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)"

"As Earl Doherty said, Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus." Dick Carrier's utter arrogance and conceit is out of control!!! He is an embarrassment to all of us Freethinkers / Mythicists!"

http :/ / w ww. freetho ughtnation .co m /forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

— Albert Einstein

[Maximos]

GakuseiDon, it looks like you've misunderstood. What I clearly said was:

"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."

So, I've already said that I'm unaware of courses teaching mythicism. The "it" was about mythicism in general and I thought that was implied in the context of my post. Maybe not.

The last two quotes from my previous post address this issue too, I thought you would've appreciated the Zindler and Price quotes.

I also already gave you a list of examples of academia keeping mythicism out but, you omitted all of that. I mean, I'm not sure how much more straight-forward this can possibly be:

1. Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.

"What is the onus on mythicist proponents here?"

As I pointed out previously, "the onus is on biblical scholarship to take seriously and diligently examine the case for mythicism. They should debunk, once and for all, everything that can be debunked in accordance with credible evidence and they should acknowledge wherever mythicism has a better explanation &/or fills the gaps in our current understanding."

It seems to me that the next step is for academia to stop ignoring mythicism and do its job by responding objectively. Academia has a lot of catching up to do. Then, mythicists can respond to their criticism.

Have you read Dupuis, Baur, Strauss, Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor or "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor? What on mythicism have you actually studied?

"That is, to the idea that there was no historical Jesus; or at least, the idea that our sources are so hopelessly compromised that it is impossible to tell one way or the other."

Previously you said: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus, even if we can say nothing for certain about him, to the point he might as well have not existed."

What in your opinion is the very best credible evidence for a historical Jesus?

How do you "believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus" when no valid evidence exists (as you sort of acknowledge?)? THAT to me is the "fringe" theory here based on an ideology not evidence. The quote from Dr. Price exposes that notion.

"...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion."

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

Academia accepts a historical Jesus DESPITE the evidence not because of it.

It appears that even some biblical scholars concede:

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

- F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement, Who Was Jesus? 84

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Who Was Jesus? 24

[GakuseiDon]

GakuseiDon, it looks like you've misunderstood. What I clearly said was:

"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."

So, I've already said that I'm unaware of courses teaching mythicism. The "it" was about mythicism in general and I thought that was implied in the context of my post. Maybe not.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point, nor what I was supposed to have misunderstood. I was after evidence that "academia has consistently blocked courses teaching mythicism".

The last two quotes from my previous post address this issue too, I thought you would've appreciated the Zindler and Price quotes.

No, I didn't appreciate the Zindler and Price quotes, I'm afraid. I was after evidence, not opinions.

I also already gave you a list of examples of academia keeping mythicism out but, you omitted all of that. I mean, I'm not sure how much more straight-forward this can possibly be:

1. Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.

You gave 5 links, with little to nothing to do with the teaching of "mythicism":
1. Teacher sacked for teaching in a Western Civilizations class that the Adam and Eve account was not literal. Apparently some students (not "academia"!) objected. Pretty unclear what the teacher actually said, but non-literal approaches to the Bible does not equal mythicism.
2. Archaeologists being paid by religious groups, thus potentially causing conflicts of interest. Nothing to do with the topic.
3. Religious scholar forced to resign after discussing evolution -- NOT mythicism -- in a Theological Seminary. He gets new job at another Theological Seminary. Again, nothing to do with the teaching of mythicism.
4. Mike Licona forced out from an Evangelical Seminary for questioning the literal reading of a passage in Matthew. He was asked to recant his interpretation, having it labelled "unorthodox, non-evangelical, and a dangerous precedent for the rest of evangelicalism." Nothing to do with mythicism.
5. Father Thomas Brodie forced "to quit a bible teaching job" at a Biblical Institute for claiming there was no historical Jesus.

The last one is probably the only really relevant cite. It can probably be added to the evidence, if there was more evidence. But as you need to try to group "mythicism" with the teaching of evolution and non-literal approaches to the Bible, it suggests that there isn't much evidence.

"What is the onus on mythicist proponents here?"

As I pointed out previously, "the onus is on biblical scholarship to take seriously and diligently examine the case for mythicism. They should debunk, once and for all, everything that can be debunked in accordance with credible evidence and they should acknowledge wherever mythicism has a better explanation &/or fills the gaps in our current understanding."

It seems to me that the next step is for academia to stop ignoring mythicism and do its job by responding objectively. Academia has a lot of catching up to do. Then, mythicists can respond to their criticism.

I'm not sure you are seeing it yourself Maximos, but twice I have asked you about the onus on mythicist proponents, and twice you have responded by giving the onus on biblical scholarship.

So, for the third time: What is the onus on mythicist proponents to get their views heard, in your opinion?

Have you read Dupuis, Baur, Strauss, Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor or "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor? What on mythicism have you actually studied?

A little by Dupuis, little to nothing by the rest. I'm not interested in "Jesus mythicism" per se, but I am very interested in how people thought back then, including their myths.

"That is, to the idea that there was no historical Jesus; or at least, the idea that our sources are so hopelessly compromised that it is impossible to tell one way or the other."

Previously you said: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus, even if we can say nothing for certain about him, to the point he might as well have not existed."

What in your opinion is the very best credible evidence for a historical Jesus?

The genuine letters of Paul and the Gospels.

How do you "believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus" when no valid evidence exists (as you sort of acknowledge?)?

I distinguish between "evidence for historicity" and "evidence for what that historical person did". I think the best explanation for the existence of earliest writings is a historical person called Jesus who was born in Galilee, crucified in Jerusalem, and was thought to have been seen in visions after his death. But what we can get from those writings is a different question.

[Maximos]

GakuseiDon, it looks like you've misunderstood. What I clearly said was:

"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."

So, I've already said that I'm unaware of courses teaching mythicism. The "it" was about mythicism in general and I thought that was implied in the context of my post. Maybe not.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point, nor what I was supposed to have misunderstood. I was after evidence that "academia has consistently blocked courses teaching mythicism".

You really don't understand that you're putting words in my mouth I never said?

The last two quotes from my previous post address this issue too, I thought you would've appreciated the Zindler and Price quotes.

No, I didn't appreciate the Zindler and Price quotes, I'm afraid. I was after evidence, not opinions.

So, you believe that those two 30 year scholars are just making it all up?

I also already gave you a list of examples of academia keeping mythicism out but, you omitted all of that. I mean, I'm not sure how much more straight-forward this can possibly be:

1. Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.

You gave 5 links, with little to nothing to do with the teaching of "mythicism"

That's not exactly what I said and I think you're just doing the ol' hand-waving dismissal of everything just because it doesn't fit in your HJ beliefs. That list of 5 made my general point.

What is the onus on mythicist proponents to get their views heard, in your opinion?

First, the discrimination will need to be dealt with as it has already been made clear that mythicism is not being allowed in for discussion as already explained by Earl Doherty and others. Mythicists have already written thousands of pages of material that academia refuses to look at.

What would you like to see?

[GakuseiDon]

What is the onus on mythicist proponents to get their views heard, in your opinion?

First, the discrimination will need to be dealt with as it has already been made clear that mythicism is not being allowed in for discussion as already explained by Earl Doherty and others. Mythicists have already written thousands of pages of material that academia refuses to look at.

What would you like to see?

I think we've already covered that earlier in this thread. As you said earlier, there needs to be a "Mythicist Project", which would allow mythicists to work amongst themselves to develop the best case possible for mythicism. Dr Robert M Price's "Journal of Higher Criticism" perhaps would have been a good place for that, though sadly it is now defunct. Rene Salm seems to be trying to put something together at the moment.

Biblical scholarship would not be involved at that point (though such a Project couldn't help but draw notice), so there would be no need to fear the wrath of academia, until the best case had been built.

Anyway, Dr Richard Carrier has taken the first steps towards clarifying the Mythicist Position for academia, so if there is no response to Carrier's new book, I will have to concede that academia is trying to block mythicism, at least by omission.

[Maximos]

Agreed, we need a Mythicist Project.

Agreed, "Dr Robert M Price's "Journal of Higher Criticism" perhaps would have been a good place for that"

Rene Salms work on mythicism does not impress me, sadly. He should stick with his specialty, Nazareth. As I said previously, Rene Salm seems confused on several things and he is a Euhemerist/Evemerist not a mythicist as he himself admits:

"I am a euhemerist"
- Rene Salm

Rene Salm is just not the go to guy on mythicism or astrotheology. His thing seems to be Nazareth.

Rene Salm is not a mythicist

I would think that Carrier's book on Jesus coming out soon should crack the door into academia enough to get the mythicist foot in the door. Carrier being a historian with Ph.D. credentials might be enough for them to take notice. Although I'm not aware of Carrier ever actually doing anything, he certainly has the credentials.

It's a start. We'll see if it's enough to stop the 'blocking of mythicism by omission.'

I am very curious to see how all of this pans out and it looks like you are too.