McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote: ... My problem with the ahistoricist/mythicist theories that are presently being debated is that I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the logic of viewing the gospel story as a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic, celestial christ figure ...
Is that proposal widespread?

Do many ahistoricist/mythicists consider there were many messianic/gnostic stories at the time?
Don't know - I'm only speaking for myself. What other ahistoricists/mythicist think - just read their writings.... :)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Post by maryhelena »

No answers, it seems, to the questions raised by Stuart on the Bible and Interpretation site...

If the Doherty/Carrier theory is correct then there must have been a sudden and radical change in people's understanding of Jesus. Wouldn't this have given rise to disagreement? There is no evidence of it.

A successful myth theory would need to explain how the understanding of Jesus changed. On the myth theory it seems that Mark's Gospel was written as an extended parable. What happened next? Was Mark's Gospel misunderstood? Did people mistake it for history? Did the idea of a historical Jesus spread entirely by mistake? Did anyone try to correct the mistake? Were there disputes about it for which we no longer have any evidence?

These are the questions that the myth theory needs to answer.
#38 - Stuart - 04/01/2014 - 12:37
Where is the evidence, in the writings of the early christians, that the Pauline celestial christ was transformed into the Markan JC?
Where is the evidence, in the writings of the early christians, that the Markan JC was ever considered to have no historical relevance? Symbolism does not rule out relevance for a historical component to the gospel story - it does not even rule out a historical JC. Symbolism is just a vehicle to carry whatever it is designed to reflect. If gMark is viewed as a symbolic story, the question is: Symbolic of what? 1) a cosmic christ figure that became man - 2) a symbol of the historical realities that were relevant to the writers of the Markan story. 1) is a dead end, it has no means of gaining any credibility, it's meaningless. 2) can be verified by experience, or knowledge, of the historical realities that the Markan symbolic story is reflecting.

There was no debate over the essence of the gospel story. Why? Because Jewish history supports it's basic premise: A flesh and blood man, a King of the Jews, was executed by Roman agents. That the gospel JC story is a literary creation does not rule out the basic claim of that story. The symbolism of the story does not rule out it's historical relevance. And that is why the gospel story had legs on which to run; behind all the symbolism there was a historical fact.

What happened with time was that the symbol itself overshadowed the historical realities that had given that symbol it's relevance. The symbol, the literary JC, became 'real' as the relevant history faded from memory. Today, if we are seeking early christian origins we can't just say - oh, gMark is a symbolic story - we have to investigate the history that the symbolic story was designed to reflect.
Last edited by maryhelena on Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard_Muller wrote:When I said "Christianities", I meant these sects were still based on this Jesus as the trigger point.
Do we know other apocalyptic cults/sects at that times? Independent of Jesus and after & before 70 CE?

Cordially, Bernard
There were lots of sects wit lots of messianic beliefs; many probably followed various messiahs; as outlined in this post by "Digoenes the Cynic" in the Ehrman's "How Jesus Became a God" is now out thread
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:I'll just quickly summarize the rest of the book because it moves past HJ and Paul and into the developments of conflicting Christologies in the 2nd a 3rd Centuries up to Nicea. Ehrman runs through the major Christologies and heresies - Ebionites, Docetists, Gnostics, the Arian controversy, Marcion, etc up to Constantine, Nicea and the Trinity. It's again, a lot of 101 stuff, but Ehrman gives a pretty good overview of the development of systematic theologies, heresies and the nature of the conflicts. It's good in a "Heresiology for Dummies" kind of way, but he's not propounding any new personal theories here. The Paul chapter was really the payload. He kind of goes on autopilot a little bit. He does not challenge any conventional history in these chapters, but I would still recommend them to anyone who wants a basic introduction to pre-Nicene theological food fights. Ehrman does point out that Constantine himself thought these were petty squabbles over trivial details and that he didn't really care what they decided at Nicea as long as they all got on the same page and agreed to something he could stamp as "orthodoxy." This shows the somewhat cynical, horse-trading nature of how official Christian dogma got decided.
I propose that labile forerunners to a lot of these also labile Christologies started before 1AD.
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Bernard,

I am not so sure that when you remove the extraordinary elements from Jack and the Beanstalk, you get nothing. Here is the earlier known story recorded by Joseph Jacobs in 1860:
"There was once upon a time a poor widow who had an only son named Jack, and a cow named Milky-White. And all they had to live on was the milk the cow gave every morning, which they carried to the market and sold. But one morning Milky-White gave no milk, and they didn't know what to do."
There is nothing unbelievable about a poor widow living with her son and owning a single cow. Nor is there anything unusual about the cow no longer giving milk.
"What shall we do, what shall we do?" said the widow, wringing her hands.

"Cheer up, mother, I'll go and get work somewhere," said Jack.

"We've tried that before, and nobody would take you," said his mother. "We must sell Milky-White and with the money start a shop, or something."

"All right, mother," says Jack. "It's market day today, and I'll soon sell Milky-White, and then we'll see what we can do."
The dialogue here seems quite believable. The only solution is to sell the cow.
So he took the cow's halter in his hand, and off he started. He hadn't gone far when he met a funny-looking old man, who said to him, "Good morning, Jack."

"Good morning to you," said Jack, and wondered how he knew his name.

"Well, Jack, and where are you off to?" said the man.

"I'm going to market to sell our cow there."

"Oh, you look the proper sort of chap to sell cows," said the man. "I wonder if you know how many beans make five."

"Two in each hand and one in your mouth," says Jack, as sharp as a needle.

"Right you are," says the man, "and here they are, the very beans themselves," he went on, pulling out of his pocket a number of strange-looking beans. "As you are so sharp," says he, "I don't mind doing a swap with you -- your cow for these beans."

"Go along," says Jack. "Wouldn't you like it?"

"Ah! You don't know what these beans are," said the man. "If you plant them overnight, by morning they grow right up to the sky."

"Really?" said Jack. "You don't say so."

"Yes, that is so. And if it doesn't turn out to be true you can have your cow back."

"Right," says Jack, and hands him over Milky-White's halter and pockets the beans.
The supernatural element here is the beans. However if we substitute stock certificates instead of beans, we get a rather typical case of a young man being swindled out of something valuable for something of little value. There is nothing unusual about this. In fact, I get phone calls on a regular basis by people wanting to sell me stocks in Texas oil wells and natural gas companies with the promise that their value is about to go up to the sky. The money-back guarantee is still used in many swindles today.
Back goes Jack home, and as he hadn't gone very far it wasn't dusk by the time he got to his door.

"Back already, Jack?" said his mother. "I see you haven't got Milky-White, so you've sold her. How much did you get for her?"

"You'll never guess, mother," says Jack.

"No, you don't say so. Good boy! Five pounds? Ten? Fifteen? No, it can't be twenty."

"I told you you couldn't guess. What do you say to these beans? They're magical. Plant them overnight and -- "

"What!" says Jack's mother. "Have you been such a fool, such a dolt, such an idiot, as to give away my Milky-White, the best milker in the parish, and prime beef to boot, for a set of paltry beans? Take that! Take that! Take that! And as for your precious beans here they go out of the window. And now off with you to bed. Not a sup shall you drink, and not a bit shall you swallow this very night."

So Jack went upstairs to his little room in the attic, and sad and sorry he was, to be sure, as much for his mother's sake as for the loss of his supper.

At last he dropped off to sleep.

When he woke up, the room looked so funny. The sun was shining into part of it, and yet all the rest was quite dark and shady. So Jack jumped up and dressed himself and went to the window. And what do you think he saw? Why, the beans his mother had thrown out of the window into the garden had sprung up into a big beanstalk which went up and up and up till it reached the sky. So the man spoke truth after all.
The mother's anger at Jack for being swindled seems entirely justified. Who hasn't been punished by a parent or spouse for doing something stupid? The rest of the story can be read as a fantasy dream on the part of Jack. He simply dreams that the beans really are magic. It is no different then people who buy lottery tickets and dream of how their lives will change once they spend the money. I don't see how this differs much from the fantasy of Jesus returning from the dead.

We can say that there are far fewer supernatural elements in Jack and the Beanstalk than in the Jesus story and when they are removed the story is far more common and more likely to be based on an actual historical incident than the Gospel stories.




Bernard_Muller wrote:
That is why I doubt that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is a myth.
If you take all the extraordinary elements in the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, you have nothing left.
However if you do the same thing on Jesus' story from gMark, and even take out some more, what is left is enough (with the historical, political & religious context) to explain how this Jesus triggered the beginning of Christianity after his execution. That's the difference.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p50.htm

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Post by Bernard Muller »

Hi Jay,
Yes, the prologue of J & B is not fantasy, but most of what follows (the major part) is.
Writers like to introduce the fantastic part of a story as a dream, but that dream becomes so long, so precised, so overwelming, that it looks like pseudo-reality (example: Wizard of Oz, Revelation).
Anyway, never the gospels are presented as a dream or a fantastic story.
I don't see how this differs much from the fantasy of Jesus returning from the dead.
Mark's gospel is not about a fantasy of Jesus returning from the dead.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

Post by maryhelena »

So - where to now - those mythicists that uphold the Carrier-Doherty theory that the Pauline Christ figure was transformed into the gospel JC figure? The quote below comes from Stuart (Bible and Interpretation website).

It is the task of mythicists to chart the change of understanding and to explain how it happened. But before they do this, they may want to consider whether there is anything to chart or explain.

In this case the smoking gun is missing. There is no evidence that early Christians were debating whether Jesus existed as a historical person. In the absence of this evidence, there is no reason to take the myth theory seriously.
Both the JC fundamentalists and the Carrier-Doherty mythicist fundamentalists are working from a flawed premise. ie that the Pauline spiritual cosmic figure was transformed into the gospel JC figure. At least the JC fundamentalists have some flesh and blood at the end of their theory. And the Carrier-Doherty mythicists? Imagination, pure and simple.....no reality anywhere to be seen....All in the mind and nothing in the belly..... :thumbdown:

Dating manuscripts is not the yardstick for interpreting, understanding, the gospel story. That the Pauline manuscripts are dated early does not mean that they proceeded the gospel story. What would happen to the Carrier-Doherty theory if an early copy of gMark was discovered and dated prior to the dating of any Pauline manuscript?

The gospel story has to be viewed in it's own context - not as a side-line for promoting a Pauline agenda.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply