What Do Mythicists Want?

[spin]

Hi Spin,

I do not think it is a matter of freeloading but a matter of getting a just reward.

I thought it was the religionist who was the platonist and us ratskeps slink after Aristotle. Just reward, public good. There is a heaven of sorts after all!

As i recall, Socrates' point was that the city-state rewards winning Olympic athletes with a free home and free meals. Socrates exposed the gap between what was believed to be known and what was actually known. By getting the people of Athens to think about the quantity and quality of their knowledge in a new way, Socrates argued that he was doing more good for them than any Olympic winning athlete. Ergo, he deserved the prize that the Olympic winners got.

Similarly, mythicists have gotten people to think about epistemology and authority: how much do we actually know versus what authorities claim is known. They should be given the greatest rewards society has to offer for this. I am afraid however that society has not progressed much on some levels since 400 B.C.E. Mythicists should still expect ridicule, anger, unjust verdicts and hemlock for their contributions to the public good.

So, yes, is a believer, but I think no is a believer too. So yes and no are just conflicting beliefs.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

Speaking on behalf of all mythicists, we want what Socrates wanted - an apology from every Christian who ever said that Jesus was an historical person, and a nice free place to live and free meals for the rest of our lives.

Mythicists might be Free Rats, but that doesn't make them Free Loaders.

[spin]

Let me suggest that the question of the historical existence of Jesus leads to a false path to nowhere because Jesus doesn't matter.

Sadly, so many people have invested too much energy into the fact that it does matter. There are basically two camps. The one that adheres to the consensus of biblical scholars as though these scholars are like the scholars in most fields, ie motivated by interest in the subject and the desire to understand their chosen field of inquiry, but biblical scholars are generally constrained in their efforts by the fact that they are adherents to the faith contained in the literature they study and so are not free to bring the maximum objectivity they can to the field. The other camp holds the view that they must reject all aspects of christianity, which leads to the rejection of the existence of Jesus, another position which is not free to bring the maximum objectivity to the field. Then there is a rabble who can't make up their minds for one reason or another, lacking commitment, so to speak. I guess to them Jesus just doesn't matter.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd have to say this is incomplete as a list. For example, someone like Paula Fredriksen or Stevan Davies is motivated neither by a desire to adhere to Christianity nor by a strong desire to vitiate it... or at least so it seems, and they do not fit the mold if the standard is rejecting the historicity of Jesus. If I were daring I would also add names like Loisy and Bultmann, who were Christians but as far as is possible bracketed that in their historical work. (And of course we now have the apparent paradox of the Christian mythicist in the person of Brodie, who is to be commended for helping to take the religio-political fangs out of the historical issue, if nothing else.)

Yes, there are possible impure motives for anyone studying the subject (hard for there not to be -- this isn't botany or entomology), but they aren't neatly circumscribed into the three mentioned camps (evangelical-ish, mythicist, or disinterested).

[spin]

I'd have to say this is incomplete as a list. For example, someone like Paula Fredriksen or Stevan Davies is motivated neither by a desire to adhere to Christianity nor by a strong desire to vitiate it... or at least so it seems, and they do not fit the mold if the standard is rejecting the historicity of Jesus. If I were daring I would also add names like Loisy and Bultmann, who were Christians but as far as is possible bracketed that in their historical work. (And of course we now have the apparent paradox of the Christian mythicist in the person of Brodie, who is to be commended for helping to take the religio-political fangs out of the historical issue, if nothing else.)

Yes, there are possible impure motives for anyone studying the subject (hard for there not to be -- this isn't botany or entomology), but they aren't neatly circumscribed into the three mentioned camps (evangelical-ish, mythicist, or disinterested).

This is the sort of response to the generalizing argument regarding the whitewashing of a house, where someone brings up the fact that there are a few flecks of black to be seen. Now to stop any yes-butting, you'll note that I did say, "biblical scholars are generally constrained in their efforts", ie no universal statement was made, but a general one, not all biblical scholars were included. I only said, "[t]here are basically two camps", so of course not every dog and its fleas were included.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd have to say this is incomplete as a list. For example, someone like Paula Fredriksen or Stevan Davies is motivated neither by a desire to adhere to Christianity nor by a strong desire to vitiate it... or at least so it seems, and they do not fit the mold if the standard is rejecting the historicity of Jesus. If I were daring I would also add names like Loisy and Bultmann, who were Christians but as far as is possible bracketed that in their historical work. (And of course we now have the apparent paradox of the Christian mythicist in the person of Brodie, who is to be commended for helping to take the religio-political fangs out of the historical issue, if nothing else.)

Yes, there are possible impure motives for anyone studying the subject (hard for there not to be -- this isn't botany or entomology), but they aren't neatly circumscribed into the three mentioned camps (evangelical-ish, mythicist, or disinterested).

This is the sort of response to the generalizing argument regarding the whitewashing of a house, where someone brings up the fact that there are a few flecks of black to be seen. ow to stop any yes-butting, you'll note that I did say, "biblical scholars are generally constrained in their efforts", ie no universal statement was made, but a general one, not all biblical scholars were included. I only said, "[t]here are basically two camps", so of course not every dog and its fleas were included.

Okay, but I'm not trying to nitpick. I daresay that the 'mythicist' camp (at least, among the active population of writers, if not the general populace) is smaller than the 'non-evangelical and non-mythicist' camp, which contains all those who are pursuing a historical interest in the subject, while not simply trying to decorate Christian dogma or a mythicist hypothesis with historical data. Some of these nobles are better than others in controlling their personal biases, but I'd suggest they're still more numerous than the mythicist writers after weeding out some of the more conservative types (or, if you prefer, the more liberal types, or both if you can find a happy middle in there).

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I'd have to say this is incomplete as a list. For example, someone like Paula Fredriksen or Stevan Davies is motivated neither by a desire to adhere to Christianity nor by a strong desire to vitiate it... or at least so it seems, and they do not fit the mold if the standard is rejecting the historicity of Jesus. If I were daring I would also add names like Loisy and Bultmann, who were Christians but as far as is possible bracketed that in their historical work. (And of course we now have the apparent paradox of the Christian mythicist in the person of Brodie, who is to be commended for helping to take the religio-political fangs out of the historical issue, if nothing else.)

Yes, there are possible impure motives for anyone studying the subject (hard for there not to be -- this isn't botany or entomology), but they aren't neatly circumscribed into the three mentioned camps (evangelical-ish, mythicist, or disinterested).

As an advocate of the lets see your physical evidence point of view I look it as an argument which cannot be won on the evidence being turned into an argument on the personalities. The sun continues to revolve around the earth even though that was once declared by Hitler. Should he or some other bogeyman have taken a position pro or con a real Jesus (even if, heaven forbid, they had defined what they meant by real) has no bearing whatsoever upon the evidence and analysis thereof they present.

I don't remember the other half of "when you have the facts argue the law" but that is what attacking personalities is.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

If it is possible for an academic, respected believer to come to a conclusion and publish that Jesus is a myth then their research could be dispassionate.

However if my decades of interested amateur experience in following up the claims of biblical and political archaeologists can be considered indicative the IF is moot. It is not possible.

An archaeologist who talks about the time of Solomon, isn't.

[Rick Sumner]

Okay, but I'm not trying to nitpick. I daresay that the 'mythicist' camp (at least, among the active population of writers, if not the general populace) is smaller than the 'non-evangelical and non-mythicist' camp, which contains all those who are pursuing a historical interest in the subject, while not simply trying to decorate Christian dogma or a mythicist hypothesis with historical data. Some of these nobles are better than others in controlling their personal biases, but I'd suggest they're still more numerous than the mythicist writers after weeding out some of the more conservative types (or, if you prefer, the more liberal types, or both if you can find a happy middle in there).

The problem I have with this consideration is the force of momentum. The new scholar is far more likely to follow in the footsteps of their mentor than any other tack, and it's difficult to escape the sense that many are compiling evidence in favor of a position they already hold, rather than considering it independently of such conclusions. The force of momentum against mythicism is considerable, and probably enough to counterbalance your sentiments.

[Peter Kirby]

The problem I have is that I agree with you.

Your statement on historicity-skepticism on your blog is brilliant, and I agree with that too.

I'm not making an argument from authority. I just disagree with the way spin characterized the lay of the land in terms of opinion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I just want to know what the truth is. I'm truly agnostic on the issue and have no preference for one answer over another, but I wish the historicists were more honest about the true paucity of their evidence.