The Mythicist Position

[Maximos]

There are more quotes with a similar sentiment in the link below but, I thought Earl Doherty summarized the problem with academic acceptance of mythicism quite well:

Scholarly Opinion

by Earl Doherty

"Why is it that no individual scholar or group of scholars has undertaken a concerted effort in recent times to discredit the mythicist position? (The brief addresses that have been made to it in various publications are outlined in my Main Article "Postscript".) In the heyday of the great mythicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few valiant efforts were offered. However, both mainstream scholarship and the mythicist branch itself have made dramatic leaps since then. Biblical research has moved into bold new territory in the last several decades: unearthing a wealth of ancient documents, arriving at a new understanding of elements like Q, the sectarian nature of early Christianity, the Cynic roots of the great Gospel teachings, and so on; an almost unprecedented "critical" dimension to New Testament scholarship has emerged.

And yet the mythicist position continues to be vilified, disdained, dismissed. We would condemn any physicist, any anthropologist, any linguist, any mathematician, any scholar of any sort who professes to work in a field that makes even a partial bow to principles of logic and scientific research who yet ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination a legitimate, persistent theory in his or her discipline. There are tremendous problems in New Testament research, problems that have been grappled with for generations and show no sign of getting closer to solution. Agreement is lacking on countless topics, and yesterday's theories are being continually overturned. There is almost a civil war going on within the ranks of Jesus study. Why not give the mythicist option some serious consideration? Why not honestly evaluate it to see if it could provide some of the missing answers? Or, if it turns out that the case is fatally flawed, then put it to rest once and for all.

Doing that would require one essential thing: taking it seriously, approaching the subject having an open mind that the theory might have some merit. Sadly, that is the most difficult step and the one which most critics have had the greatest difficulty taking. It is all in the mindset, whether of the Christian believer whose confessional interests are overriding, or of the professional scholar who could never consider that their life's work might be fatally compromised."

- Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History

[Maximos]

On page 108, of "The Gospel of Jesus" (99) by Jesus Seminar Director & founder Robert W. Funk:

"The Jesus Seminar concludes that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic -- he never said or did most of those things."

The remaining 15% could not be proven either way as coming from a historical Jesus or someone else. There was no credible evidence for the New Testament Jesus.

- Jesus Project and Jesus Seminar

[andrewcriddle]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm fascinated by this problem: if we admit that the portrait of Jesus in the gospels is heavily fictionalized, how many attributes are we justified in attributing to a hypothetical, "real Jesus," about whose factual existence we can carry on an inquiry? We can't ask, was there a real person ________________ and assign NO properties other than "person," for then we're not formulating any proposition, about the truth of which to ask questions. So we have to start listing attributes in order to flesh out an identity of the hypothetical guy, whose purported real existence prompts the inquiry. "A Jewish guy who lived in Palestine during the time of Tiberius and was named Jesus," even "and who came from Galilee," would not be a specific enough description; who knows how many hundreds of hypothetical Jesuses would meet it.

It may not be quite the same as the distinction between mythicists and historicists, but there is an important question as to whether Christianity originates with stories about the life and death of Jesus which supposedly occurred very recently on earth or whether it originates with claims about events supposedly happening long ago and/or in some form of heavenly realm.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

Yes give the world a choice between those two option, hard to figure out which is going to have more appeal.

[GakuseiDon]

There are more quotes with a similar sentiment in the link below but, I thought Earl Doherty summarized the problem with academic acceptance of mythicism quite well:

Scholarly Opinion

by Earl Doherty

[snipped]

And yet the mythicist position continues to be vilified, disdained, dismissed. We would condemn any physicist, any anthropologist, any linguist, any mathematician, any scholar of any sort who professes to work in a field that makes even a partial bow to principles of logic and scientific research who yet ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination a legitimate, persistent theory in his or her discipline.

[snipped]
- Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History

That is just terrible. This is the same compliant raised by pseudo-scientists and pseuo-scholars everywhere. I wonder which ones he considers are "legitimate" mythicist theories, and why? Not all alternate theories are equal.

Richard Carrier actually discussed the work that mythicists must do to make mythicism legitimate, but unfortunately I lost the reference. But essentially he said: it is the responsibility of the fringe theorist -- in this case, the mythicist -- to push his/her theory to the mainstream. Legitimacy has to be earned, not declared. I'll see if I can find Carrier's comments on this, I thought they were excellent.

As soon as "the mythicist position" becomes legitimate, then the onus will be on the mainstream to respond. I think Carrier's book will be that step as it passes through peer-review. So it will be interesting to see the response. But where does that leave all the other alternate mythicist positions?

(ETA) I found this by Carrier. It wasn't the article I was thinking of, but it encapsulates his thoughts on the topic. This is a transcript of an interview that Carrier gave recently:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10150

• I get kooks who are have some weird, fucked up, bizarre crack pot theory about the pyramids and want my opinion on it. “Please, won’t you read my 1,000 page manuscript?”...
  
  There’s no way. I don’t even have time to read these things. It’s not even worth my time to look at them. I don’t even bother. So I tell them, “You get even one tiny piece of this published in a peer review journal and then come back and then talk to me.” Or an academic press. It could be a book and academic press. That’s completely legitimate and correct behavior. That’s how historians should behave. That’s the problem with criticism that I’ve made before about pro-myth community: that they’re outside of academia.
  
  They act like outsiders and mavericks and accuse historians of all these awful things. Then defend these theories in a fairly sloppy, often inaccurate way.
  
  So that when a historian comes along and picks up one of these books and looks through it, he can tell immediately this is inadequate. That it’s so sub-par that it’s not worth his time to continue reading.

[Peter Kirby]

Biblical scholarship is a wankfest in the first place. Nobody can test their hypotheses, there is very little data and little hope of getting more, everyone involved rolls their eyes at the first hint of math, the people running the show are vested to the hilt, and the best work being done is the social science and text criticism stuff that nobody really cares about. Do you really want to work to gain legitimacy with this crowd? (Maybe, if you really like the text criticism or social science aspects.) And I'll take a shot at something else here: there's at least one other department that looks very similar, and it's women's studies. How much luck do you think you got of convincing them that vaginas don't get paid 77% of what a penis gets because patriarchy?

[Maximos]

GakuseiDon, I disagree. What Doherty pointed out is accurate when one knows the background. Pointing out the obvious is not pseudo. Carrier's point about getting published in a peer review journal or an academic press is well taken but, it ignores the utter biases against mythicism across academia to keep it out, which is precisely what Doherty was speaking to. My problem with Carrier is that he thinks everybody should be a historian exactly like him, Carrier has his own agenda as he admits his own biases when he makes such arrogant comments such as:

Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os

At 3:10 Carrier proclaims:

"The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... so, I say, if you want a simple rule, basically, if you don't hear it from me (Dick Carrier) be skeptical of it."

There are plenty of other scholars performing work as good as and often much better than Carrier's. As Earl Doherty said, Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus." Dick Carrier's utter arrogance and conceit is out of control!!! He is an embarrassment to all of us Freethinkers / Mythicists!
http :/ / ww w. fr eethought nation .co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

GakuseiDon, is it fair to say that you yourself admit your own biases against mythicism?: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus"

We have Bart Ehrman admitting that most New Testament scholars know nothing about the mythicist movement and they refuse to even study it - exactly as Doherty stated in the quote above:

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement. I think mythicists themselves find this very frustrating, that their work is not taken seriously – in fact is not really even known – by precisely the scholars they would most like to convince. But that’s just the way it is."

- Dr. Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist as Part One
http:// ww w .fr eetho ughtnatio n .c om/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3110

I have to agree with Peter Kirby, "Biblical scholarship is a wankfest in the first place."

It's just asinine that biblical scholars and theologians refuse to even look at the mythicist position when after 2,000 years they still have no credible evidence Jesus even existed. The biases and bigotry at play is clear.

I don't see how mythicists will ever get a fair chance among biblical scholars and theologians across academia. Mythicists may need their own Department of mythological and astrotheological studies. Even Carrier, Doherty, Price and others have come out recently admitting that many of the biblical and theologian methods are very seriously flawed. Neil Godfrey has written blogs on this issue.

I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it.

"...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion.... "

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's
http :/ / w ww.fr eethoughtn ation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3110

[GakuseiDon]

GakuseiDon, is it fair to say that you yourself admit your own biases against mythicism?: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus"

Not really. I'm actually fairly sympathetic to the idea of mythicism, at least in general. I just haven't come across any that appear to be a stronger explanation for the origin of Christianity than some kind of historical Jesus. But I actively dislike nonsense about what ancient people believed being promoted in order to fit an agenda.

We have Bart Ehrman admitting that most New Testament scholars know nothing about the mythicist movement and they refuse to even study it - exactly as Doherty stated in the quote above:

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement. I think mythicists themselves find this very frustrating, that their work is not taken seriously – in fact is not really even known – by precisely the scholars they would most like to convince. But that’s just the way it is."

- Dr. Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist as Part One
http: // ww w .f reethoughtnati on.c om/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3110

So what is the onus on mythicist proponents here? What is the onus on anyone with a fringe theory challenging the mainstream?

I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it.

Can you give me any examples of academia blocking courses that teach mythicism, and the reasons given for why they were being blocked?

It might be interesting to discuss, as part of this "The Mythicist Position" thread: What would such a "Mythicist" course teach? Or how should existing classes currently being taught be changed? Having looked at JBL, I don't see much change based on the list of recent articles.

[Maximos]

GakuseiDon, is it fair to say that you yourself admit your own biases against mythicism?: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus"

Not really. I'm actually fairly sympathetic to the idea of mythicism, at least in general. I just haven't come across any that appear to be a stronger explanation for the origin of Christianity than some kind of historical Jesus.

There's far more to mythicism than just Jesus. That's a reason why I like Acharya's mythicist position because it's far more comprehensive so, what specifically are you "fairly sympathetic" to regarding mythicism? Have you read Dupuis, Baur, Strauss, Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor?

http: // www .stel larhousepublishing .com/mythicism.html The History of Mythicism

"But I actively dislike nonsense about what ancient people believed being promoted in order to fit an agenda."

Please explain further because that comment could easily be directed at the bible. Have you read the book; "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor?

Do you seriously believe that you are unbiased on the subject of mythicism?

Biases: "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biases?s=t

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? 259

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan

I watched the Creationism/Evolution debate between Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham and Nye emphasized several times that scientists want others to challenge their theories and prove them wrong and that they are delighted for it as they ultimately desire to be as accurate as possible. That is simply not the case when it comes to biblical scholarship as they rigidly adhere to an ideology as explained by Dr. Price:

"...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion."

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

Btw, the JBL is affiliated with the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL). Maybe you already knew that.

As the quote by Earl Doherty above makes clear, the onus is on biblical scholarship to take seriously and diligently examine the case for mythicism. They should debunk, once and for all, everything that can be debunked in accordance with credible evidence and they should acknowledge wherever mythicism has a better explanation &/or fills the gaps in our current understanding.

Again, the admission here by Ehrman is very significant:

"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement. I think mythicists themselves find this very frustrating, that their work is not taken seriously – in fact is not really even known – by precisely the scholars they would most like to convince. But that’s just the way it is."

"... there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world."

- Dr. Bart Ehrman
http://w ww. fre ethoughtnatio n. co m/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3110

"Ehrman raises a straw man here because he knows there is no such course teaching the case for mythicism and mythicists are not typically going to be hired, in fact, if anybody comes out of the mythicist closet they're more likely to be fired - for example:

1. Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.

2. Here is a recent example of what's wrong in academia still to this day. We have professional archaeologists publicly saying that other archaeologists are "bending science to prove a Biblical heritage" ... with "generous funding, from religious groups"

3. Religion Scholar RESIGNS After Endorsing Evolution

4. http: // ww w.fr eethoughtnat ion.com /forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3932 Mike Licona forced out of job for a single paragraph!

5. Father Tom Brodie removed from office at Dominican Biblical Institute for admitting Jesus never existed in controversial book

"The "No Serious Mythicist Scholar" fallacy contends that "no serious scholar thinks Jesus Christ is a myth" or "no serious scholar doubts that Jesus Christ ever existed." This fallacy is tossed about all over the place by both believers and evemerists alike. (Evemerists being those who believe, without real evidence, that underneath the fabulous fairytales in the New Testament there's some "real guy" there.)

To begin with, this debacle is like the Islamic Republic president saying there are no gays in Iran - well, gee, that's because you HANG them!

There are no "serious mythicist scholars" because they can't get jobs! And those who engage in mythicist studies, to whatever extent, will be fired. Doh! That's been going on since the days of Dr. David Strauss, at least, and with Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor, a highly erudite and popular English clergyman who was IMPRISONED TWICE for some years in a harsh English prison in the late 1820s to 1830s, charged with "blasphemy" for giving mythicist sermons from his pulpit...."

- The "No Serious Mythicist Scholar" Fallacy
http: / / w ww.f reetho ughtnatio n.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24035#p24035

"...Virtually all of the ‘Authorities’ who have pronounced upon the historicity of Jesus are handicapped and compromised by their employment by church-related institutions. Certainly, even an Atheist in the employ of a religious university or seminary would not dare to express mythicist theories. Almost all authorities were themselves educated at sectarian schools and were never exposed to the abundant mythicist literature that has appeared since the 1790’s.20 Virtually all secular historians are not themselves authorities on Jesus of Nazareth, taking the word of religious authorities simply because they have never had any reason to do otherwise. They never had reason to do otherwise because of the effective suppression of mythicist writings."

Footnote 20: "It is surely significant that Ehrman makes no effort to counter my claims here at any point in DJE? but rather repeatedly chides Mythicists for not being properly educated and repeatedly citing the conclusions of the 'authorities' here discussed! Because he makes no attempt to deal with this argument, the appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks of that book are more glaringly apparent than would be the case if he had tried fairly to deal with my argument here."

- Dr. Frank Zindler, 'Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth,' page 90
http : //w ww.f reethoughtna tion. com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3110

[GakuseiDon]

There's far more to mythicism than just Jesus. That's a reason why I like Acharya's mythicist position because it's far more comprehensive so, what specifically are you "fairly sympathetic" to regarding mythicism?

That is, to the idea that there was no historical Jesus; or at least, the idea that our sources are so hopelessly compromised that it is impossible to tell one way or the other.

As the quote by Earl Doherty above makes clear, the onus is on biblical scholarship to take seriously and diligently examine the case for mythicism. They should debunk, once and for all, everything that can be debunked in accordance with credible evidence and they should acknowledge wherever mythicism has a better explanation &/or fills the gaps in our current understanding.

Okay, understood, but my question above was: What is the onus on mythicist proponents here? What is the onus on anyone with a fringe theory challenging the mainstream?

Also, you said above that "Academia has consistently blocked [courses teaching of the mythicist position]". Can you give me any examples of academia blocking courses that teach mythicism, and the reasons given for why they were being blocked?