The Mythicist Position

[Maximos]

GakuseiDon, I thought you'd appreciate this quote from Bart Ehrman.

So, here we can see Bart Ehrman inadvertently admitting that he and other NT scholars purposely avoid any discussion of mythicism for fear of it being taken seriously or be given any credibility. It's the suppression of mythicism by omission:

"As most of you know, I’m pretty much staying out of the mythicist debates. That is for several reasons. One is that the mythicist position is not seen as intellectually credible in my field (I’m using euphemisms here; you should see what most of my friends *actually* say about it….) – no one that I know personally (I know a *lot* of scholars of New Testament, early Christianity, and so on) takes it at *all* seriously as a viable historical perspective (this includes not just Christians but also Jews, agnostics, atheists – you name it), and my colleagues sometimes tell me that I’m simply providing the mythicists with precisely the credibility they’re looking for even by engaging them. It’s a good point, and I take it seriously."

- Bart Ehrman, Carrier, Bayes Theorem, and Jesus’ Existence

http :// freeth oughtnat ion. com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3110

[GakuseiDon]

Thanks Maximos. Yes, I do appreciate that comment from Dr Ehrman. I think that Ehrman is right -- that generally fringe theorists look for respectability by trying to get reactions by mainstream scholars, rather than by being noticed through producing peer-reviewed material. That was the concern many Dr Jerry Coyne and Dr PZ Myers expressed in the recent creation/evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.

One thing that I have noticed is that some mythicists express the "the historical Jesus is a theory in crisis" idea; that historicists have "circled the wagons", tried to shut out mythicism. All we need is a "Teach the controversy!" movement and the parallels with creationism is complete. But you'll notice that Dr Richard Carrier believes none of that. He believes that the onus is on the fringe theorist pushing their ideas through peer-review. He believes that his book will be the first stepping stone for the case for ahistoricity, but that it might take 20 years for it to become the leading concept.

And you can see how this can be done. When you look at peer-reviewed publications dealing with Biblical studies, very little has to do with the historical Jesus. For example, here is the table of contents for the JBL, Vol 132, No. 2, 2013:

• 209–227 Mark Leucher, Genesis 38 in Social and Historical Perspective
  229–250 Joshua Berman, Histories Twice Told: Deuteronomy 1–3 and the Hittite Treaty Prologue Tradition
  251–274 Yitzhaq Feder, The Aniconic Tradition, Deuteronomy 4, and the Politics of Israelite Identity
  275–293 C. L. Seow, An Exquisitely Poetic Introduction to the Psalter
  295–313 Amy Erickson, “Without My Flesh I Will See God”: Job’s Rhetoric of the Body
  315–325 Jeremy Schipper, Interpreting the Lamb Imagery in Isaiah 53
  327–332 Eric D. Reymond, The Meanings of “Life” in the Hebrew of Ben Sira
  333–350 Matthew Thiessen, Revisiting the προσήλυτος in “the LXX”
  351–371 Michael Bartos and Bernard M. Levinson, “This Is the Manner of the Remission”: Implicit Legal Exegesis in 11QMelchizedek as a Response to the Formation of the Torah
  373–391 Alexander E. Stewart, Narrative World, Rhetorical Logic, and the Voice of the Author in 4 Ezra
  393–413 Thomas R. Blanton IV, Saved by Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus’ Teaching on the Torah
  415–430 Alicia D. Myers, “Jesus Said to Them . . .”: The Adaptation of Juridical Rhetoric in John 5:19–47
  431–451 Brian C. Dennert, Hanukkah and the Testimony of Jesus’ Works (John 10:22–39)
  453–465 Troy W. Martin, Περιβόλαιον as “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre

Wouldn't it be great if Acharya S wrote an article on astrology in the Bible and submitted it for peer-review? Or even on the Masons and the OT, with the first Mason being Nimrod? Having such ideas going through peer-review would be a great basis for bringing in other more controversial ideas. Wouldn't it be great if she tried?

[Maximos]

Thanks Maximos. Yes, I do appreciate that comment from Dr Ehrman. I think that Ehrman is right ...

Yeah, I assumed you would. I think it demonstrates the attitude and level of suppression of mythicism by omission from academia. But I can understand why those who don't want mythicism to have any credibility or for it to ever be taken seriously will agree with Ehrman and I strongly feel that, in time, when this is all over, Ehrman and the rest of the suppressors will have been proven wrong, as he has been already in the Zindler/Price book Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist? for starters.

All we need is a "Teach the controversy!" movement and the parallels with creationism is complete.

LOL, the whole 'mythicism is just like creationism' argument is just another nasty form of bullying to ridicule the mythicists into submission. It has failed.

But you'll notice that Dr Richard Carrier believes none of that. He believes that the onus is on the fringe theorist pushing their ideas through peer-review.

And that's always a great idea but, we would all be fools to omit the serious discrimination against mythicists and mythicism right out of the gate. Peer-review can be a good thing but, it's just not always fool proof:

Three myths about scientific peer review
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-my ... er-review/

Peer Review and Biblical Studies Scholarship
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/ ... holarship/

Peer-review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

If Peer-Review Does Not Work for Science Why Does It Work for Biblical Studies?
http://vridar.org/2013/10/15/if-peer-re ... l-studies/

"The editors of the ACP Journal Club find that less than 1% of studies in most journals are “both scientifically sound and important for clinicians”.

We have little or no evidence that peer review ‘works,’ but we have lots of evidence of its downside.

Peer-review does not detect errors. Again numerous studies have demonstrated this. Papers have certain errors deliberately inserted into them (mixes of major and minor) and are then sent to peer review, and the rate of detection of those errors is so often very, very low indeed."

Wouldn't it be great if Acharya S wrote an article on astrology in the Bible and submitted it for peer-review?...

It looks like she has been published in peer reviewed journals already:

Acharya S: Peer Review and Scholarly Journal Publications

Maybe she will do more of that after the 2nd edition to her first book, Christ Conspiracy comes out.

[arnoldo]

I actually agree with most of what D.M. Murdock is writing about concerning the interdependence of gnosticism and Egyptian religion. The only question I have is basically whether “the Gnostic movement preceded orthodox Christianity” as D.M. Murdock suggests in Christ in Egypt. The critical passage is the following;

The Gnostic-Christian movement that sprang up In Alexandria was led by man named Valentinus, a famous Egyptian Gnostic-Christian leader educated in that city. . . Indeed, labeling Valentinus “a preacher of 30 gods,” Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem indignantly objected to the fact that the Alexandrian leader was called a “Christian.” Prior to his status as a Gnostic “heretic,” Valentinus (d. 161 AD/CE?) was thus a fervent member of orthodox Christianity, although, because the received Church history remains rife with difficulties, including the lack of evidence for the existence of an apostolic lineage-or even the apostles themselves-as well as fraud and forgery, it is difficult to determine precisely what “orthodox” meant at the time Valentinus was alive. In any even, the evidence indicates that the Gnostic movement preceded orthodox Christianity. . .In this case, if we investigate Gnosticism as it emanated out of Egypt, in particular Alexandria, we find and odd but relatively clear indication of the relationship between the 12/30 and “Horus,” which would represent the continuation of the ages old correspondences between these numbers and the god already explored.”

Is D.M. Murdock getting the cart before the horse in claiming that gnosticism preceded what became known as orthodox Christianity?

[ApostateAbe]

GakuseiDon, I thought you'd appreciate this quote from Bart Ehrman.

So, here we can see Bart Ehrman inadvertently admitting that he and other NT scholars purposely avoid any discussion of mythicism for fear of it being taken seriously or be given any credibility. It's the suppression of mythicism by omission:

"As most of you know, I’m pretty much staying out of the mythicist debates. That is for several reasons. One is that the mythicist position is not seen as intellectually credible in my field (I’m using euphemisms here; you should see what most of my friends *actually* say about it….) – no one that I know personally (I know a *lot* of scholars of New Testament, early Christianity, and so on) takes it at *all* seriously as a viable historical perspective (this includes not just Christians but also Jews, agnostics, atheists – you name it), and my colleagues sometimes tell me that I’m simply providing the mythicists with precisely the credibility they’re looking for even by engaging them. It’s a good point, and I take it seriously."

- Bart Ehrman, Carrier, Bayes Theorem, and Jesus’ Existence

http :// f reethoughtn ation.c om/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3110

Thanks for the lead. I have an upgraded subscription to Ehrman's blog, so I can provide the full post.

Carrier, Bayes Theorem, and Jesus’ Existence (For Members)

As most of you know, I’m pretty much staying out of the mythicist debates now. That is for several reasons. One is that the mythicist position is not seen as intellectually credible in my field (I’m using euphemisms here; you should see what most of my friends *actually* say about it….). No one that I know personally (I know a *lot* of scholars of New Testament, early Christianity, and so on) takes it at *all* seriously as a viable historical perspective (this includes not just Christians but also Jews, agnostics, atheists – you name it), and my colleagues sometimes tell me that I’m simply providing the mythicists with precisely the credibility they’re looking for even by engaging them. It’s a good point, and I take it seriously.

In that connection I should say that I can understand how someone who hasn’t spent years being trained in the history of early Christianity might have difficulty distinguishing between serious scholarship that is accepted by experts as being plausible (even when judged wrong) and the writings of others that, well, is not. But experts obviously don’t have that problem, and the mythicists simply are not seen as credible. They don’t like that, and they don’t like it when it someone points it out, but there it is.

The other reason for staying out of the fray is that some of the mythicists are simply unpleasant human beings – mean-spirited, arrogant, ungenerous, and vicious. I just don’t enjoy having a back and forth with someone who wants to rip out my jugular. So, well, I don’t. (They also seem – to a person – to have endless time and boundless energy to argue point after point after point after point after point. I, alas, do not.)



Having said that, I should point out the R. Joseph Hoffman – a real scholar with established credentials (I first came to know his work over 25 years ago when he was a professor at the University of Michigan) – has decided to take on Richard Carrier’s new proposal to apply Bayes Theorem to historical study so as to establish the “fact” that Jesus actually never lived. I’ve always found the use of Bayes Theorem amusing, in no small measure because prior to Carrier’s use of it to PROVE that Jesus almost certainly never existed, the theorem was most commonly used, among those wanting historical results, by the likes of Richard Swinburne to PROVE that God *did* exist and that Jesus almost certainly was raised from the dead. How can they both be right?

My first encounter with the theorem was in a debate at Holy Cross with William Lane Craig on the issue of whether historians can prove the resurrection. Craig followed Swinburne in mounting a mathematical “PROOF” of the resurrection, and I have to admit, I was probably a bit rude, because I simply couldn’t help laughing and telling him that if my colleagues at my university knew that I was seriously discussing the mathematical probability of Jesus’ resurrection they — to a person — would mock me to scorn. This is what intellectual life in America has come to??? After that debate I got a bunch of emails from mathematicians and statisticians who also thought Craig’s argument was outrageously funny – not to say outrageous – and explained to me mathematically why Craig had absolutely botched the “proof.”

My point here is that if the *same* theorem can prove both that Jesus was raised from the dead *and* that he never existed, well, there may be a problem with the proof.

To get a sense of some of the problems, I simply here give the link to Hoffman’s interesting, informative, and amusing response to Carrier and his use the theorem to advance his own ideologically driven view on the (non)historicity of Jesus. It’s a good read.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/tag/bayes-theorem/

"The other reason for staying out of the fray is that some of the mythicists are simply unpleasant human beings – mean-spirited, arrogant, ungenerous, and vicious."

True, and I think I know who he has in mind. Not Acharya S, but Richard Carrier, who is widely regarded as among the more reasonable mythicists. Acharya S would be at the bottom of the mythicist totem pole, and Richard Carrier would be at the top. But, when I read Carrier's review of Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?, it was like a collection of the greatest personal abuses I have ever seen written by someone with a PhD.

I disagree with Ehrman's refusal to debate mythicists, just as I disagree with biologists who refuse to debate creationists. Bill Nye obliterated Ken Ham in the debate, and Ken Ham debates for a living. Atheism is on the rise, and it is carrying mythicism along with it. Mythicism is ridiculous to people with knowledge of ancient history, but people with sparse knowledge of ancient history do not know how it is ridiculous until they see the arguments, and the way to do that is through debate.

[hjalti]

My point here is that if the *same* theorem can prove both that Jesus was raised from the dead *and* that he never existed, well, there may be a problem with the proof.

Is Ehrman actually saying that since guys like WLC use Bayes' theorem to argue for silly things like the resurrection, then that must mean that we shouldn't use it?

[ApostateAbe]

My point here is that if the *same* theorem can prove both that Jesus was raised from the dead *and* that he never existed, well, there may be a problem with the proof.

Is Ehrman actually saying that since guys like WLC use Bayes' theorem to argue for silly things like the resurrection, then that must mean that we shouldn't use it?

Yeah, Ehrman has a bad argument, in my opinion. Just because Swineburn crashes and burns with Bayes' Theorem does not mean Carrier will. But, I do agree that Swinburne's application of the theorem would fail for approximately the same reason as Carrier's application of the theorem. Where do you get the values of the input variables? Bayes' Theorem presumes initial probabilities, but the initial probabilities are almost the whole dispute, and Carrier is either deluded or deceptive if he thinks Bayes' Theorem solves that problem.

[GakuseiDon]

My point here is that if the *same* theorem can prove both that Jesus was raised from the dead *and* that he never existed, well, there may be a problem with the proof.

Is Ehrman actually saying that since guys like WLC use Bayes' theorem to argue for silly things like the resurrection, then that must mean that we shouldn't use it?

Yeah, I agree that Ehrman's point doesn't make much sense. What I like about Bays' theorem is that it forces you to give and weigh the premises as the first steps. Too often conclusions are based on pre-conceived (or already decided upon) premises, so we are really just pitting conclusions at each other.

[beowulf]

The Bayes theorem has been used by a non-mathematician in a very silly manner and that is saying loud and clear that deniers have nothing to say.

Why then would anyone dare to do such a shameful stunt on the adoring public?

The answer must be that this adoring public must have been found by its leaders to behave like the public in the book, Animal farm, by George Orwell. If Orwell is displeasing to someone, then I will say like the public in the Vatican square waiting for the wisdom of the office that persecuted Galileo.


Any denier book will sell –say the astrologers, the ignorant.., because the sheep acts on signals:


“But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of —
‘Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!’
“
Animal Farm
George Orwell
1945

[Peter Kirby]

Personally, I am much more charitable in my interpretations of Carrier's argument in relation to Bayes' theorem. I think of Carrier as being much more an idealistic than a pragmatic thinker, and there is no question in my mind of sincerity. He's not making any calculation regarding whether his audience will receive his proposal regarding Bayes' theorem well. Further I think he is realistic enough to know it is something of a quixotic endeavor.

I think his position is simple, then: he genuinely believes all historical statements would benefit from being analyzed mathematically, and he further believes that Bayesian tools are the best tools to give historical analysis a bit more clarity and precision.

I don't really see anything that would contradict the above understanding of Carrier's opinion.

His case would actually be easier if he weren't burdening it with an additional radical thesis, but that's not really the academic ideal nor his. It's more of a popular, post-modern version of human intellectual endeavor that we are supposed to present things that are slick enough to be accepted by others... something that Carrier clearly isn't attempting to do. (To that end, the approach would have been to drop the math and promote the historicity of Jesus.)