How Long Before They Include 'Jesus Might Not Have Existed' in University Courses About Christianity?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: How Long Before They Include 'Jesus Might Not Have Existed' in University Courses About Christianity?

Post by ABuddhist »

Chris Hansen wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:37 pm I'm also a non-mythicist. Specifically a historicist.
I am well aware of that - and if you maintain this level of polite, respectful engagement with mythicist ideas, then you will certainly gain a dedicated reader from me.

For what it was worth, I was led to historicism by Roger Parvus and Russell Gmirken, who both assert a Jesus who never preached but just died during an anti-Roman fracas. I also confess that I was repelled from historicism by, among other things, the nastiness of the scholars who deigned to address mythicism directly, who were too often distracted by ad hominem insults (condemning mythicists as being motivated by anti-Christianity is not a good tactic against this Buddhist for whom Christianity is a pile of absurdities based upon ravings and schemings by gods and humans), bleatings about scholarly consensus, or uncited appeals to what “all reputable scholars” accept as true.

If there is one thing that reading Vridar has taught me (and it has taughten me many other things), even allegedly reputable scholars who are not bold enough to deny Jesus’s historicity are able to advance views that challenge what seems to be the scholarly mainstream about the crucified criminal whom the people of the Roman Empire accepted as a god. By this, I refer to, among other things:

1. Jesus violence in the Temple.
2. Jesus’s baptism.
3. Jesus’s preaching about an apocalypse.

Finally, my acceptance of a historical Jesus who did not preach is motivated in part by my Buddhism. See, both the mainstream biblical scholarly view and the mythicist view can be slotted within different paradigms in which Jesus can be compared to a Buddhist master. Jesus as itinerant, impoverished, sometimes violent and aggressive preacher, can fit within the Buddhist tradition of Tilopa and other Mahasiddhas, or even Nichiren (the apocalyptic prophet-preacher who founded the Nichiren Buddhist tradition). Similarly, a Jesus who is a heavenly saviour god is no different in function (although different in origins and role!) from Amitabha Buddha. Both models can attract people to Christianity. But a Jesus whose only noteworthy deed was to get crucified upon the Earth is not worthy of respect insofar as he is less obviously a saviour and did not give allegedly profound teachings.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: How Long Before They Include 'Jesus Might Not Have Existed' in University Courses About Christianity?

Post by Giuseppe »

ABuddhist wrote: For what it was worth, I was led to historicism by Roger Parvus and Russell Gmirken, who both assert a Jesus who never preached but just died during an anti-Roman fracas.
would you agree also with this quote by Karl Kautsky?

We may grant, if we have to, the probability that Jesus lived and was crucified, probably because of an attempted rebellion; but that is all that can be said of him. What is said about his teaching is so devoid of evidence, so contradictory and so unoriginal, such a collection of general moral commonplaces that were on everyone’s lips at that time, that no part of it can be traced back to any genuine doctrine of Jesus’.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsk ... 13b.htm#s4
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: How Long Before They Include 'Jesus Might Not Have Existed' in University Courses About Christianity?

Post by Sinouhe »

ABuddhist wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:55 pm
For what it was worth, I was led to historicism by Roger Parvus and Russell Gmirken, who both assert a Jesus who never preached but just died during an anti-Roman fracas.
Can you gives references for these statements please. It's appealing.
Thanks
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: How Long Before They Include 'Jesus Might Not Have Existed' in University Courses About Christianity?

Post by ABuddhist »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:26 am
ABuddhist wrote: For what it was worth, I was led to historicism by Roger Parvus and Russell Gmirken, who both assert a Jesus who never preached but just died during an anti-Roman fracas.
would you agree also with this quote by Karl Kautsky?

We may grant, if we have to, the probability that Jesus lived and was crucified, probably because of an attempted rebellion; but that is all that can be said of him. What is said about his teaching is so devoid of evidence, so contradictory and so unoriginal, such a collection of general moral commonplaces that were on everyone’s lips at that time, that no part of it can be traced back to any genuine doctrine of Jesus’.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsk ... 13b.htm#s4
I agree with that quotation.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: How Long Before They Include 'Jesus Might Not Have Existed' in University Courses About Christianity?

Post by ABuddhist »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:23 am
ABuddhist wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:55 pm
For what it was worth, I was led to historicism by Roger Parvus and Russell Gmirken, who both assert a Jesus who never preached but just died during an anti-Roman fracas.
Can you gives references for these statements please. It's appealing.
Thanks
Here they are:

Here is Roger Parvus's statement: https://vridar.org/2019/03/07/revising- ... cal-jesus/

And in the comments to this blog-post, Russell Gmirkin (writing as "Russell Gmirkin") explains his thoughts about Jesus (including in responses to me, writing as "ABuddhist"): https://vridar.org/2021/10/31/the-war-o ... e-gospels/
Post Reply