WHO’s WHO: Mythicists and Mythicist Agnostics

[neilgodfrey]

I have not been able to find any evidence that Gerd Ludemann has ever expressed doubt about the existence of Jesus -- or called for an open approach to the works of those who do. If you know of any, though . . . .

Robert Cargill? Is there anything specific re his views on any mythicist work?

Barbara Thiering I had forgotten about. But though she might be considered a borderline case of mythicism I think she really has a quite unorthodox view of what Jesus and his followers actually did rather than question their existence. But I admit I could never be sure I was understanding the book of hers that I was reading.

[neilgodfrey]

Hey Neil,

What about Tom Dykstra, he seems at least very sympathetic to mythicist arguments.

http://tomdykstra.wordpress.com/2014/07/

Interesting. I hadn't seen that. Thx

[MrMacSon]

I have not been able to find any evidence that Gerd Ludemann has ever expressed doubt about the existence of Jesus -- or called for an open approach to the works of those who do. If you know of any, though . . . .

mmm., seems he may be more an agnostic-atheist who beleives in a HJ http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/lud368027.shtml

Robert Cargill? Is there anything specific re his views on any mythicist work?

likewise, more an agnostic? (at this stage)

Cheers.

[neilgodfrey]

Gerd Ludemann certainly treats the gospels as myth but as far as I can see never questions the HJ. Spong also virtually says everything in the gospels except the bare fact of a crucifixion is myth but nonetheless believes firmly in an HJ. The myths are supposedly evidence of the great overwhelming impact the HJ had -- the were so amazed with great amazement that they could only express anything about this great HJ in terms of myth.

Even Jim West in his contribution to "Is This Not the Carpenter?" writes a classic piece that to my mind cements the mythicist case. But no, if the gospels are all myth then that only goes to show how great the HJ was!

It would be quite logical to call many theologians mythicists from this perspective.

[Blood]

Gerd Ludemann certainly treats the gospels as myth but as far as I can see never questions the HJ. Spong also virtually says everything in the gospels except the bare fact of a crucifixion is myth but nonetheless believes firmly in an HJ. The myths are supposedly evidence of the great overwhelming impact the HJ had -- the were so amazed with great amazement that they could only express anything about this great HJ in terms of myth.

Even Jim West in his contribution to "Is This Not the Carpenter?" writes a classic piece that to my mind cements the mythicist case. But no, if the gospels are all myth then that only goes to show how great the HJ was!

It would be quite logical to call many theologians mythicists from this perspective.

Yes, we have two lines of inquiry: the theologians who admit that the gospels are 90-100% myth, therefore proving what a Great Man Jesus was to become so mythologized; and we have the skeptics, who say that the gospels being 90-100% myth is the best evidence that the "Great Man" was also a myth.

When you look at it that way, the enormous energy expended on proving that the Great Man must have been historical seems silly.

[Leucius Charinus]

It would be quite logical to call many theologians mythicists from this perspective.

Yes, we have two lines of inquiry: the theologians who admit that the gospels are 90-100% myth, therefore proving what a Great Man Jesus was to become so mythologized; and we have the skeptics, who say that the gospels being 90-100% myth is the best evidence that the "Great Man" was also a myth.

When you look at it that way, the enormous energy expended on proving that the Great Man must have been historical seems silly.

Consider as an analogy that the books of Superman, originally written in 1933, were raised, in 2225 (almost 300 years afterwards) by the Council of the New World Planetary Order (based in a city called Metropolis) to the status of a 'holy writ' for a centralised monotheist planetary internet-based multi-media religion. Thousands of years later - in the 2nd millennium AS (after Superman) - historical studies have rejected the miracles and divinity of Superman but still think there was a mild mannered and historical Clark Kent wandering around downtown Metropolis in the early 20th century.

[Stephan Huller]

But there is no religion of Superman and no one believes in the historical existence of Clark Kent.

[neilgodfrey]

The trick with Christianity is that its faith is not just in other-worldliness but is in history. The faith of Christianity is a faith in a historical event. History is actually theology. Its theological message is about history.

So it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account.

This is the cultural heritage of Christianity -- the theological message of a theological historical event. God entered history.

So it has been as fundamental to Christian civilizations to take for granted the existence of Jesus as easily as they assume the existence of God. It has from the beginning been heresy to doubt either.

All that has happened since the Enlightenment is an attempt to remove the theology from the history. The assumption is that the history was real history to begin with -- failing to fully grasp that the history was really a theological illusion from the outset.

Trying to find the historical Jesus is as vain as trying to find Noah's ark.

[MrMacSon]

The trick with Christianity is that its faith is not just in other-worldliness but is in history. The faith of Christianity is a faith in a historical event. History is actually theology. Its theological message is about history.

I would say

"The faith of Christianity is a faith in an alleged historical event"; or, .... faith an event was historical.

"So it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account" ... despite the accounts being riddled with implausible supernatural 'events', and the accounts not being adequately documented to meet reasonable standards of historical methodology, such as other accounts.

This is the cultural heritage of Christianity -- the theological message of an alleged theological historical event.

This

-- failing to fully grasp that the history was really a theological illusion from the outset.

Trying to find the historical Jesus is as vain as trying to find Noah's ark.

[neilgodfrey]

"So it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account" ... despite the accounts being riddled with implausible supernatural 'events', and the accounts not being adequately documented to meet reasonable standards of historical methodology, such as other accounts.

More likely "because", not "despite". What else is God acting in history if not a miracle? Without that there would be no faith, nothing to believe, no theology, no Christianity.