Why the Certainty on the Part of Mythicists?

[Blood]

I'm not so certain of anything about mythicism as I am certain about the lack of imagination and extremely narrowly defined horizons of NT scholars, who have been rigidly-trained to think a certain way (Jewish/Christian scriptures=nobly historic; all others=ahistoric junk or irrelevant). This is basically the justification for all us vs. them imperialism. It is mostly, if not entirely, based on wish-fulfillment and ego. Scholarship is merely a symptom of this disease; rarely is it allowed to advance against interest in religious studies. But NT scholars are so well-trained no outside control is necessary.

[MrMacSon]

All what I have said is that the theoretical model for the deification of a Jewish man is more interesting to me than simply accepting he was Heracles or...

No; you didn't say "to me ..."

In the other forum anyone who tried to study how a man was made God was always met by a pack of dogs barking: lies, Constantine, horseshit...

I despise Ms

What other forum?

So what? Why bring your issues here?

[andrewcriddle]

IMHO the issue is not that mythicists claim dogmatically that there was no historical Jesus. The issue is the claim that some reasonably specific alternative, (e.g. the idea that Christianity started with the worship of an obviously non-historical figure who was later historicized), is probably true.

I.E. mythicists combine what most people would regard as an excessive scepticism towards an historical Jesus, with what most people would regard as an excessive credulity towards their preferred type of alternative.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

As always very well put Andrew.

[stevencarrwork]

Why do mythicists seem to argue that the existing evidence is on the one hand so weak that it provides no evidence FOR a historical Jesus but strangely is 'so strong' that they can have certainty that Jesus never existed?

Good point.

It is a bit like claiming the evidence that Superman exists is so weak there is no evidence for Superman, while simultaneously claiming that there is no Superman.

Elementary logic should tell you that if the evidence for the existence of something is weak, you can't also claim the evidence is (somehow, in a strange way) strong that it doesn't exist.

[stevencarrwork]

IMHO the issue is not that mythicists claim dogmatically that there was no historical Jesus. The issue is the claim that some reasonably specific alternative, (e.g. the idea that Christianity started with the worship of an obviously non-historical figure who was later historicized), is probably true.

I.E. mythicists combine what most people would regard as an excessive scepticism towards an historical Jesus, with what most people would regard as an excessive credulity towards their preferred type of alternative.

Andrew Criddle

We keep getting told that Christianity is unparalleled and unique, and that if you think you have detected any parallels between Christianity and other religions then you are suffering from 'parallelomania' and are deluded.

But if the transformation of an unremarkable obscure preacher from Galilee into the Son of God is unique and unparalleled, is there really no case to be made for questioning whether or not it happened?

[Roger Pearse]

I was driving today and a question popped up in my head. Why do mythicists seem to argue that the existing evidence is on the one hand so weak that it provides no evidence FOR a historical Jesus but strangely is 'so strong' that they can have certainty that Jesus never existed? The two ideas really are unrelated. Whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that Jesus did in fact exist is one thing. ... But I've never understood the certainty that so many people have that Jesus was all made up.

Some years ago, in quite a different context, I noticed a type of argument being deployed. This consisted of (a) debunking whatever evidence there was against some favoured theory and then (b) asserting now that there was no evidence against it, their pet theory must be true.

Of course if we have no evidence about what happened in the year 22 AD on the 3rd May between 9 and 10 in the morning, we have no evidence, we have no information. That absence is certainly NOT evidence that a spaceship landed in ancient Rome around 9:45, and everyone afterwards agreed to keep quiet about it!

Since then I have seen various cranks attempt the same ploy; create a vacuum and argue that only their theory can fill it. To which, as you rightly observe, our response should be to point out the disconnect.

Once you've seen a series of people try to rewrite 1st century history in the interests of wildly differing theories, and how all of them employ the same tactic, you acquire a certain contempt for it when it appears subsequently.

[Eric]

I think it's just as legitimate (maybe more so) to ask historicists why they're so sure there WAS a Jesus and what they even mean by an HJ anymore.

But I think that's obvious. Behind every faithful person is a domineering mommy or daddy or both.

Not true. My Father was an atheist. Mother was agnostic. Yet a very early age, I brought up the subject of God at the dinner table (back when families ate dinner together) and pushed for family going to church. Used to drive my dad crazy...lol. They would both ask me where I was getting this from. It is, I truly believe, initiated by God and left for us to learn.

[Robert Tulip]

some of the people around here act as if the lack of evidence 'proves' that Jesus did not in fact exist. I think I was reading Robert Tulip's comments about the epistles of Paul so I apologize if this doesn't apply for everyone.

Recognising that Jesus came in imagination and not in Nazareth provides a coherent explanation of the texts. Lack of evidence for the traditional historical claims is only a supporting factor for a logical argument for the non-existence of Jesus. The understanding that Jesus Christ is a non-historical myth rather than a real person is based on understanding the function of the Christ idea in its originating context.

In terms of current understanding and practice today, the problem of Christian origins has much to say about how Christianity can be reformed onto a scientific basis, and thereby how the Christian vision of love and grace can transform the world. The Christ Myth Theory is a way to save Christianity, not to condemn it.

While we accept the Big Lie of the Historical Jesus we fail to see what John Calvin called the total depravity of the human condition. We can understand the Bible in its bleak existential rigorous authenticity when we honestly recognise the Jesus story as a comforting fiction, but one that still contains a redeeming message.

To paraphrase Saint Paul from 1 Corinthians 1:18-24, the invention of Christ is foolishness to those who believe, but to us who understand it is the power of reason and evidence. Hasn't science made foolish the wisdom of religion? The discoveries of science show that the world through its beliefs didn't know reality. Yet the natural cosmic message behind the preaching can save those who know. Scientists ask for evidence, believers seek after faith, but we analyse Christ invented; a stumbling block to atheists, and foolishness to Christians, but to those who study, both scientists and Christians, Christ is the power of nature and the wisdom of science.

I don't think most scholars doubt for a minute that the gospel narrative was developed in some way to reinforce a set of ethical principles, teachings, mysteries etc. But what's the justification for taking the leap and saying that BECAUSE the narrative was contrived in this way, Jesus didn't exist?

Stephan, that leap is certainly not how I view the logic of the Bible. I suggest the real intent of the Jesus story started from cosmology, from what the ancients could actually see and know about the apparent motion of the heavens. The key question is, if they wished to present this vision and Gnosis in allegorical human form, how would they do it? The New Testament as we have it is completely explicable against this agenda of making heaven on earth, which is actually stated as the core of the Gospel, for example in The Lord’s Prayer. The ancient cosmology of precession presented a vision of a shift of ages focussed at the time of Pilate. That is astronomical fact, much as people may deny it. The Jesus story was invented to fit this vision, gradually adapting to what people wanted to hear. It makes perfect scientific sense.

[Blood]

Once you've seen a series of people try to rewrite 1st century history in the interests of wildly differing theories, and how all of them employ the same tactic, you acquire a certain contempt for it when it appears subsequently.

Isn't that precisely what the NT writers were doing? Rewriting history to fit a current agenda?