better critiques of mythicism than by Tim O'Neill

[ABuddhist]

Atheist, Tim O' Neill, has written extensively over the recent years about the Jesus Mythicist cult lead by Richard Carrier who are practicing bad history with bad faith.

"History for Atheists regularly features responses to and critiques of Jesus Mythicism – the idea that not only was Jesus not what Christianity claims, but also that there was no historical Jesus at all. Despite this being a thesis with little academic support and accepted by no more than a handful of fringe scholars, it is enthusiastically supported by many atheists, particularly of the New Atheist variety."...Tim O' Neill

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

Yeah I know. I helped him with a few of his articles, including his one on Romans 1:3 and on his Testimonium Flavianum one. I have the emails and message remainders to prove it. Tim is hardly authoritative and, honestly, there are infinitely better critiques of mythicism out there.

So, can anyone recommend any such resources? I am a non-mythicist, but I have found many criticisms of mythicism to be defective in various ways.

[MrMacSon]

There is nothing to prove the assertions that the NT Jesus existed when it is said he did.

Nothing proves that the Jesus of the books of the New Testament actually existed as any of the asserted pared-down versions found there-in.

Many people, including 'historicists,' admit that, say, >> 90% - and perhaps 99% - of 'the NT Jesus' or stories about 'him, or both, is/are mythical.

So, I would say that the proposition that NT Jesus is fully mythical is a reasonable one.

The Burden of Proof is on those asserting His historicity* : the adage, 'they who aver must prove,' remains the key fundamental

* I don't think anyone has met the burden of proof satisfactorily

[MrMacSon]

Yes, some or aspects of some mythicists' arguments are poor, but, in my view, the issue of mythicism vs historicity remains unresolved

I don't think one can talk about "criticism of mythicism" : just criticism of mythicist propositions or arguments

[GakuseiDon]

I agree with MrMacSon in that mythicism is a broad umbrella, so we can't talk about "criticism of mythicism", but rather criticisms of specific positions. With that, I think Dr Richard Carrier has offered some good criticisms of various mythicist positions over the years on his blog and on Yoututbe. As a mythicist himself, he makes a point of calling out bad arguments from that side:

On Acharya S: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/580

Murdock thinks this is a political game whereby we should all “up vote” and “positively review” each others work, and never be “adversarial.” That is a perfect example of why her methodology sucks. That is not how a professional should ever behave. You can never make progress toward any true knowledge if you never criticize or call out error, if you show no interest in the validity of the methods being employed, if you show no desire to root out errors and improve methodologies. If it’s all a “back slapping” game whereby our only aim is to promote each others’ book sales, then we are not scholars. We’re hucksters.

On Joseph Atwill: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers I often get conflated with. Mythicists like him make the job of serious scholars like me so much harder, because people see, hear, or read them and think their nonsense is what mythicism is. They make mythicism look ridiculous.

On Freke and Gandy (though he is complimentary about Freke's more recent work in the same link): https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18645

I have long complained of the problematic amateurism of The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy. It’s literally the most popular and widely read book advancing a Jesus myth hypothesis, and yet is so unreliably argued it actually makes professional hypotheses harder to get accepted, because experts think it’s the same stuff being argued. It isn’t.

On Rene Salm (note that Carrier's review was on his Freethought blog, which now exists only on web archive): https://web.archive.org/web/20130605143 ... hives/3522. Salm responded here:

One of the worst contributions is by Salm, yet this is representative of the kind of problem frequently encountered in this book...

Note to future mythicists: if you are going to write a chapter or article on a subject, make it comprehensive enough to be required reading on that subject. That means: don’t leave key evidence out of it, and be a better Devil’s Advocate of your own arguments as you write them, to ensure they aren’t easily shown faulty or hyperbolic, and that they exhibit the caution and self-awareness of their weaknesses any good scholar should rightly expect.

Carrier himself makes it a point that it is important for mythicists to be seen disagreeing with each other. The following is from his Freethought blog which no longer exists except on the web archives (bolding below is mine):

Bad mythicists (e.g. Atwill, to pick an example of someone who is very much arguing a thesis Murdock must reject) are doing good mythicists no favors. In fact, they are making it worse for us, by communicating to the scholarly community that “mythicism” is based on sloppy methodology, dubious speculations, and ignorance of the arguments and evidence discussed by the actual experts in these matters. So when I try to present at a conference or publish a paper, I have to explain at length how my methodology is valid and that I do not endorse all the nonsense that people like Atwill argue, and even then academics are suspicious, because all they have seen is Freke & Gandy crap. Mythicists can’t even agree on what happened (is it Murdock’s explanation? Or Atwill’s? One of them is wrong…which one? What method do they have to answer that question with?). There is therefore no benefit in “not criticizing” each other. Because, by all disagreeing with each other, most mythicists must be wrong. And the cornerstone of valid, professional methodology is pursuing and rooting out error and determining who of any collection of disagreeing parties is wrong. We therefore must do that. To say we shouldn’t do that, in some sort of political solidarity to the abstract “idea” of mythicism is precisely the kind of dogmatic, political, emotional bullshit that is screwing over serious myth research. That behavior is the surest way to never be taken seriously by anyone who matters.

But contrast Carrier's approach to Earl Doherty's on the topic of non-historicists being critical of other non-historicists. Doherty was responding to Carrier's fairly mild criticism of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", part of which I used in my Amazon review of Doherty's work (my bolding below): https://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/12/26 ... ment-38756

[Doherty writes:] Sometimes I think non-historicists can be their own worst enemies. I can’t for the life of me understand Carrier’s motivation in this. Does he want to cut a fellow writer off at the knees in preparation for the publication of his own book? Incomprehensible behavior like that naturally raises less than flattering speculation. It also gives ammunition to unscrupulous apologists like GDon who will gleefully promote Carrier’s comment in his devious and despicable “review” of the book on Amazon (see Neil’s much appreciated comment added to that review).

As a corollary it also enables apologists to portray the mythicist camp as squabbling and at odds with themselves. The same kind of overwrought condemnation of Acharya even by some who sympathize with mythicism is self-defeating. And it’s fodder as well for those declared atheists and agnostics found all over the internet who for unfathomable reasons treat the mythicist case as scholarly charlatanism and virtually tantamount to raping their grandmothers. I regularly get sick of the whole thing.

I think that mythicists would be taken much more serious if they were seen as -- to use Doherty's word -- "squabbling" (that is, seriously debating) amongst themselves. As Carrier noted above, they can't all be right. While there are mythicists and historists who are more interested in finding out the truth rather than promoting their own agendas, I get the impression from many that it is pulling down the existing "historicist" narrative that is considered more important than getting to the truth.

I'll note that a lot of the above criticisms can also be applied to the historicist side.

[Giuseppe]

I like much about Carrier the fact that he recognizes that his own position is a general paradigm (a deity later euhemerized) of which the specific mythicist views are mere instances.

For example, in a recent intriguing discussion with Jack Bull, Richard Carrier has been ready to concede fo pure sake of discussion many points to his interlocutor (Marcionite priority as to epistles and Earliest Gospel, Ignatius as complete forgery, only Hebrews and the original Paul preceding the first gospel) only to conclude, again and again, that it is sufficient having Paul before the first gospel to consider Jesus a mythical figure later historicized.

So I don't think that Carrier would be very critical against a proponent of Marcionite priority or against David Oliver Smith's view (that the Pillars were not Christians, Paul being the first who introduced the death of Jesus).

[MrMacSon]

... it is sufficient having Paul before the first gospel to consider Jesus a mythical figure later historicized

Perhaps. Does that depend on what the first gospel might have been? G.Mark or the Marcion[ite] Evangelion? or another gospel-text?

[Carrier's] position is a general paradigm (a deity later euhemerized)

I'm not sure that 'what' might/would have been euhemerized / anthropomorphized / personified need be a deity ...

... it might have been another divine or celestial entity. Or even Israel. ( not sure why you say "specific mythicist views are mere instances".)

The bottom line is there needs to be wider engagement with

1. the entities now reframed as early Christian one such as Simon (aka Simon Magus, a pejorative term) and Simonians; the Sethians; the Cainites; the Nicolaitans; Carpocrates and Marcellina, and their followers; etc.,
2. the still novel idea of Marcionite Priority, and
3. the nature of the Pauline epistles in Marcionite hands

before any proposals for or against the historicity of Jesus can be rationally advanced

[Giuseppe]

the nature of the Pauline epistles in Marcionite hands

If Paul is entirely a forgery, then Richard Carrier would be, by his own admission, not more able to "throw the first stone" against the historicity of Jesus.
I fear that I agree with him on this point.

[Sinouhe]

or against David Oliver Smith's view (that the Pillars were not Christians, Paul being the first who introduced the death of Jesus).

Where did he said that ?

[mlinssen]

There is nothing to prove the assertions that the NT Jesus existed when it is said he did.

Nothing proves that the Jesus of the books of the New Testament actually existed as any of the asserted pared-down versions found there-in.

Many people, including 'historicists,' admit that, say, >> 90% - and perhaps 99% - of 'the NT Jesus' or stories about 'him, or both, is/are mythical.

So, I would say that the proposition that NT Jesus is fully mythical is a reasonable one.

The Burden of Proof is on those asserting His historicity* : the adage, 'they who aver must prove,' remains the key fundamental

* I don't think anyone has met the burden of proof satisfactorily

What Mac said

[mlinssen]

Yes, some or aspects of some mythicists' arguments are poor, but, in my view, the issue of mythicism vs historicity remains unresolved

I don't think one can talk about "criticism of mythicism" : just criticism of mythicist propositions or arguments

The game of course is to take something into its extremes so that the extremity of it can be rightly and justly convicted and rejected, which is supposed to backlash at the initial something

E.g. Thomas is apocryphal, apocrypha are Gnostic, Thomas is Gnostic - hence Thomas can't be talking of the true Geewsus because Gnostics are heretics

Yes, I am conflating 2 red herrings there, I'm feeling unusually bold and audacious today