McGrath in Bible and Interpretation on mythicism

[maryhelena]

Yes, we can't tell something is a myth unless we know who developed that myth, how and why.

That is why I doubt that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is a myth.

We can tell something is a myth by considering the context of that myth - we don't need to know who and why it was created.

But if its early christian origins that we seek - then, indeed, we have to look further and consider the when, why and by who, that mythological story, that literary gospel story was created. What purpose did it serve for the creators of that story. What was the motive. Evaluating the story as a myth, that the story is not factual, that it is not history, is only the beginning - it is not the end of the road.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi maryhelena,

This writer believes the original story of Jesus as an angel has disappeared. I am afraid this writer hasn't been reading his Bible. Or maybe he just never reached the last book:

1.This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,2. who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

One may read this passage as saying that Jesus Christ sent an angel to John to tell him about a revelation that God gave him. We thus have the message going from God to Jesus Christ to an Angel to John. The problem is that Jesus Christ doesn't have angels to deliver his messages. Only God has angels delivering his messages in the Hebrew scriptures. The much simpler, plainer and likely meaning is that God gave his message to John through his angel Jesus Christ. The message goes from God to Jesus Christ(God's angel), to John.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Interesting question raised over on the Bible and Interpretation site:

According to the myth theory, the idea that Jesus was known to Cephas and the others during an earthly life was a later invention. Carrier and Doherty think that Jesus was originally thought of as a celestial being. This original understanding was then completely superseded by the idea of a historical Jesus.

This raises an interesting question: why did the later idea supersede the original one? Presumably, because it was a better story. In fact, it must have been a much better story because no one bothered to preserve the original. This appears to create a problem when we try to understand the origin of Christianity. The challenge here is to understand what made the belief so attractive in the first place? From the mythicist perspective, the original belief was so unappealing that it was soon replaced by something completely different. This creates a fatal problem for mythicists. Mythicism makes the origin of Christianity inexplicable.
#35 - Stuart - 03/31/2014 - 19:52

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8024.shtml

I think this writer is correct re the Carrier-Doherty thesis. That version of the mythicist position cannot succeed in establishing early christian origins. Why? Because tracing the development of ideas without tracing the people who held those ideas is futile. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, people hold ideas, they develop ideas. Who were the people that held the ideas in the NT? What does the NT itself indicate was the history that influenced the creation of its Jesus story? What events within that history were important enough, of significance enough, for the NT writers to reflect them in their Jesus story? Answers to these questions could well lead to the people for whom that Jesus story had personal, and historical, value. Personal value of such esteemed worth that they saw fit to preserve that value for prosperity. Others, reading their story, finding their own value in it.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Blood,

Thanks for this.

Hasn't Dr. Robert Price proved in about ten books that every detail in the gospels can be found in prior literary works?

I just read the argument that he's a climate denier and therefore nobody should listen to his biblical theories. Isaac Newton believed in astrology. should we therefore dismiss his work on gravity too?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Brodie’s argument, in a nutshell, is that everything in the Gospels is explicable as a direct literary reworking of earlier texts, and therefore stories about Jesus were created through a purely literary process, and not on the basis of historical memories or oral traditions stemming from historical events.

This can actually be demonstrated. It is therefore far more credible than positing a complex process of oral transmission and translation, which cannot be demonstrated.

Brodie’s view of the compositional method used by New Testament authors seems unparalleled, and thus historically problematic. Examples need to be provided of texts being composed in the manner that Brodie posits, where not only are major themes and phrases echoed or quoted, but minor or tangential details and prepositions from an earlier text are utilized as the inspiration for composing a new story, and indeed, a complete new work filled with stories about an individual.

It is neither unparalleled nor problematic. Examples include every other book in the Bible and related texts such as the pseudepigrapha. James Newsome wrote a book on the subject of The Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles : With Related Passages from Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra.

[maryhelena]

Hi, PhilosopherJay

I think the point of the commentator is more along the lines that the Pauline Jesus story has been overtaken by the gospel Jesus story. Although the christian faith is one of incarnation ie Jesus had a preexistence prior to the incarnation, it is Jesus as the earthly, flesh and blood figure, that holds the christian imagination. It is the figure of Jesus on the cross that has become the symbol of Christianity. However much the Pauline 'story' is seen to have value, it cannot compete with the sheer 'romance' and tragedy of the gospel Jesus story. The Pauline theology might well provide intellectual stimulation - but the gospel Jesus story warms the heart..... Christians can relate to that story - a very human story.

Hi maryhelena,

This writer believes the original story of Jesus as an angel has disappeared. I am afraid this writer hasn't been reading his Bible. Or maybe he just never reached the last book:

1.This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,2. who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

One may read this passage as saying that Jesus Christ sent an angel to John to tell him about a revelation that God gave him. We thus have the message going from God to Jesus Christ to an Angel to John. The problem is that Jesus Christ doesn't have angels to deliver his messages. Only God has angels delivering his messages in the Hebrew scriptures. The much simpler, plainer and likely meaning is that God gave his message to John through his angel Jesus Christ. The message goes from God to Jesus Christ(God's angel), to John.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Interesting question raised over on the Bible and Interpretation site:

According to the myth theory, the idea that Jesus was known to Cephas and the others during an earthly life was a later invention. Carrier and Doherty think that Jesus was originally thought of as a celestial being. This original understanding was then completely superseded by the idea of a historical Jesus.

This raises an interesting question: why did the later idea supersede the original one? Presumably, because it was a better story. In fact, it must have been a much better story because no one bothered to preserve the original. This appears to create a problem when we try to understand the origin of Christianity. The challenge here is to understand what made the belief so attractive in the first place? From the mythicist perspective, the original belief was so unappealing that it was soon replaced by something completely different. This creates a fatal problem for mythicists. Mythicism makes the origin of Christianity inexplicable.
#35 - Stuart - 03/31/2014 - 19:52

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8024.shtml

I think this writer is correct re the Carrier-Doherty thesis. That version of the mythicist position cannot succeed in establishing early christian origins. Why? Because tracing the development of ideas without tracing the people who held those ideas is futile. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, people hold ideas, they develop ideas. Who were the people that held the ideas in the NT? What does the NT itself indicate was the history that influenced the creation of its Jesus story? What events within that history were important enough, of significance enough, for the NT writers to reflect them in their Jesus story? Answers to these questions could well lead to the people for whom that Jesus story had personal, and historical, value. Personal value of such esteemed worth that they saw fit to preserve that value for prosperity. Others, reading their story, finding their own value in it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This raises an interesting question: why did the later idea supersede the original one? Presumably, because it was a better story. In fact, it must have been a much better story because no one bothered to preserve the original. This appears to create a problem when we try to understand the origin of Christianity. The challenge here is to understand what made the belief so attractive in the first place? From the mythicist perspective, the original belief was so unappealing that it was soon replaced by something completely different. This creates a fatal problem for mythicists. Mythicism makes the origin of Christianity inexplicable.

The answer to this is that religious conversion is driven by compensators, not by narrative. It's not the story, it's the promised pay-off. The original movement was almost certainly apocalyptic whether Jesus existed or not. The central belief was that Jesus was about to come back imminently, not in some undefined, distant future, but within their own lifetimes. The social order would be reversed. The last would be first and the first would be last. The miserable (and it was miserable) existence of peasantry and slavery was about to be over and they would be given eternal life in glorified bodies (or whatever) while the rich pricks got tossed into the fire. That was the hook. The kingdom was at hand. It was going to happen any day now. There was no need for a story, they were just waiting for the Jesus and the angels.

When Jesus never materialized, expectations had to change and the compensators had to be modified. Rather than an imminent doomsday cult, it now became a personality cult devoted to the worship of Jesus, more direct focus on the person of Jesus led to curiosity about him, which led to searching the LXX and other literature to find perceived clues about him and ultimately to construct a "life" based on making pictures out of Old Testament clouds.

In short, there originally was no "story" or any need for a story, only the "good news" that the Anointed Savior was coming down to liberate Israel and sort everybody out. The need for a deeper narrative only arose as a result of delayed parousia.

[neilgodfrey]

Yes. Paul and "his competitors" and "coworkers" did not need a "story". Only a faith system and sets of wisdom and hopes to propagate the faith. Or the writer of Hebrews and the author of Revelation could get away with stories of heavenly myths.

But it is quite sufficient to trust one has been saved and had a life-transforming experience

The Gospel story as we have it was not penned till well after Christianity had got under way. I understand it is not uncommon for myths to develop to explain in hindsight the origins of beliefs and rituals.

[maryhelena]

This raises an interesting question: why did the later idea supersede the original one? Presumably, because it was a better story. In fact, it must have been a much better story because no one bothered to preserve the original. This appears to create a problem when we try to understand the origin of Christianity. The challenge here is to understand what made the belief so attractive in the first place? From the mythicist perspective, the original belief was so unappealing that it was soon replaced by something completely different. This creates a fatal problem for mythicists. Mythicism makes the origin of Christianity inexplicable.

The answer to this is that religious conversion is driven by compensators, not by narrative. It's not the story, it's the promised pay-off. The original movement was almost certainly apocalyptic whether Jesus existed or not. The central belief was that Jesus was about to come back imminently, not in some undefined, distant future, but within their own lifetimes. The social order would be reversed. The last would be first and the first would be last. The miserable (and it was miserable) existence of peasantry and slavery was about to be over and they would be given eternal life in glorified bodies (or whatever) while the rich pricks got tossed into the fire. That was the hook. The kingdom was at hand. It was going to happen any day now. There was no need for a story, they were just waiting for the Jesus and the angels.

When Jesus never materialized, expectations had to change and the compensators had to be modified. Rather than an imminent doomsday cult, it now became a personality cult devoted to the worship of Jesus, more direct focus on the person of Jesus led to curiosity about him, which led to searching the LXX and other literature to find perceived clues about him and ultimately to construct a "life" based on making pictures out of Old Testament clouds.

In short, there originally was no "story" or any need for a story, only the "good news" that the Anointed Savior was coming down to liberate Israel and sort everybody out. The need for a deeper narrative only arose as a result of delayed parousia.

The apocalyptic view of the gospel JC is just one of many theories about this figure.

And as for compensation - people must first buy into a narrative - and then cross fingers there might be a payday....

Reading the NT Jesus story back to front, as is done by some mythicists, is not helping their cause. The NT story is what it is - from Jesus to Paul. Attempts to rewrite this story - from Paul to Jesus - will not sell. The gospel story has a veneer of historicity - a veneer of historicity that provides that story with a measure of security for those investing in it. (a placebo it may well be - but it does the job of securing the investment...)The Pauline story offers no security for investment - whatsoever; ideas come and they go...... no stability, only the uncertainties of the free market of ideas....

[MrMacSon]

.
I think this is a salient, highly-plausible proposal >>
(I have made some subtle text & punctuation changes which Diogenes the Cynic may disagree with)

The answer to this is that religious conversion is driven by "compensators", not by narrative. It's not the story, it's the promised pay-off.

The original movement was almost certainly apocalyptic; whether Jesus existed or not. [An early] central belief was that [a messiah] (Jesus?) was about to come back imminently, not in some undefined, distant future, but within their own lifetimes. The social order would be reversed. The last would be first and the first would be last. The miserable (and it was miserable) existence of peasantry and slavery1 was about to be over, and they would be given eternal life in glorified bodies (or whatever), while the rich pricks got tossed into the fire. That was the hook. The kingdom was at hand. It was going to happen any day now. There was no need for a story, they were just waiting for the [messiah] (Jesus?) and the angels.

When 'Jesus' never materialized, expectations had to change, and the 'compensators' had to be modified. Rather than [continuing as] an imminent doomsday-cult, it now then became a personality cult devoted to the worship of 'Jesus'; more direct focus on the "person-of-Jesus" led to curiosity about him, which led to searching the LXX and other literature to find perceived clues about him and ultimately to construct a "life" based on making pictures out of Old Testament clouds.

In short, there originally was no "story" or any need for a story; only the "good news" that the Anointed Savior was coming down to liberate Israel and sort everybody out. The need for a deeper narrative only arose as a result of delayed parousia.

1. the Jewish-Roman Wars had resulted in most Jewish ppl being dispersed or enslaved or both.

I think it's likely the 'resurrection' narrative and the '2nd-coming' proposition developed, at some stage, out of each other.

[MrMacSon]

... The NT story is what it is - from Jesus to Paul. Attempts to rewrite this story - from Paul to Jesus - will not sell. [snip] The Pauline story offers no security for investment - whatsoever; ideas come and they go...... no stability, only the uncertainties of the free market of ideas....

It doesn't have to be a dichotomy, or a one-followed-the-other scenario - the stories could have been concurrent (or close to concurrent) and been conflated later, as [one of] the Dutch Radicals has/have proposed.

The gospel story has a veneer of historicity - a veneer of historicity that provides that story with a measure of security for those investing in it. (a placebo it may well be - but it does the job of securing the investment...)

Securing & security, likely.

A 'veneer of historicity' is a basic tenet & tradition all of us are indoctrinated with: that doesn't guarantee historicity though.

add: I think you - maryhelena - make good points in your recent post on another thead, which I concentrate on in the next post

[Bernard_Muller]

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