Jesus myth / James McGrath

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by mlinssen »

https://youtu.be/w6VCAbIPYxk

I don't watch videos myself, but I'd be interested to see what he has to say.
Any volunteers?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:56 am Any volunteers?
Image
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by mlinssen »

LOL
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by neilgodfrey »

My chapter in Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist? addressed James McGrath's arguments. No doubt McG is keen to respond to that critique in his video. I'm sure someone will let me know the gist.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by GakuseiDon »

I just finished listening to the 2 hour video. Probably not a lot for people here as most of the talk was around mythicism and historicism as general topics rather than specific questions. Much of the video was the interviewer asking superchat questions. When covering specific questions raised by superchats (e.g. Paul's "made of a woman", the TF in Josephus), they didn't spend much time on them. The most interesting part for me personally was Prof. McGrath explaining his own personal beliefs when it comes to God and Jesus, which came up several times when discussing how beliefs influences scholarship.

The interviewer, Derek, said he had previously been a mythicist (which is why his podcast is called MythVision Podcast) but has recently moved over to the idea that there was probably a historical person behind it all. He is good friends with Dr Carrier, and hopes to have Carrier on his podcast in the near future to respond to his interview with McGrath.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:26 pm Probably not a lot for people here as most of the talk was around mythicism and historicism as general topics rather than specific questions. Much of the video was the interviewer asking superchat questions. When covering specific questions raised by superchats (e.g. Paul's "made of a woman", the TF in Josephus), they didn't spend much time on them. The most interesting part for me personally was Prof. McGrath explaining his own personal beliefs when it comes to God and Jesus, which came up several times when discussing how beliefs influences scholarship.
Yes, I think that is a fair summary.

McGrath is currently working on investigating John the Baptist as a contributor to Christian origins in his own right. This seems a natural development from McGrath's work on the Mandaeans and his role in translating their Book of John. I think he's much stronger on those subjects than as some kind of champion holding the line on behalf of the guild against the very idea that Jesus was a fictional or mythological character rather than a real person who actually lived.
The interviewer, Derek, said he had previously been a mythicist (which is why his podcast is called MythVision Podcast) but has recently moved over to the idea that there was probably a historical person behind it all. He is good friends with Dr Carrier, and hopes to have Carrier on his podcast in the near future to respond to his interview with McGrath.
Derek used a recurrent phrase "there was a guy," but didn't specify what he believes this guy did that was relevant to Christian origins. The less demanding your specifications, the more likely that indeed "there was a guy" who satisfied the specs.

I also think Derek may be overgeneralizing his meandering personal journey (fundie -> atheist -> atheist + mythicist -> atheist + minimal (?) historicist) and its relevance to the receptivity of "ordinary" people to mythicist ideas. He and maybe McGrath come very close, in my opinion, to arguing that disbelief in the Abrahamic divinity explains skepticism about the existence of Jesus as a real person who had a major role in launching Christianity during his natural life.

Finally for now, there was a brief and to my eye hand-waving dismissal of an analogy between the erosion of a former guild consensus about the real existence of the Jewish Bible early figures and the possibility that the historical Jesus consensus might similarly erode. Of course the two cases are different, but the force of the observation is universally true: subjective confidence isn't the same as objective correctness.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by Giuseppe »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:37 am McGrath is currently working on investigating John the Baptist as a contributor to Christian origins in his own right. This seems a natural development from McGrath's work on the Mandaeans and his role in translating their Book of John.
Historicist Alfred Loisy accused the Mythicist Paul-Louis Couchoud of believing that John the Baptist was historical "for an evil cause": he was the founder of the Mandean sect.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:26 pm I just finished listening to the 2 hour video. Probably not a lot for people here as most of the talk was around mythicism and historicism as general topics rather than specific questions. Much of the video was the interviewer asking superchat questions. When covering specific questions raised by superchats (e.g. Paul's "made of a woman", the TF in Josephus), they didn't spend much time on them. The most interesting part for me personally was Prof. McGrath explaining his own personal beliefs when it comes to God and Jesus, which came up several times when discussing how beliefs influences scholarship.

The interviewer, Derek, said he had previously been a mythicist (which is why his podcast is called MythVision Podcast) but has recently moved over to the idea that there was probably a historical person behind it all. He is good friends with Dr Carrier, and hopes to have Carrier on his podcast in the near future to respond to his interview with McGrath.
Yeah, the Ehrman move - it gets you into a much, much wider audience and fish pond. With also monetary spin-off, of course

Question just is: when will they reveal themselves as a double agent? Or have they forever abandoned the pack :D :popcorn:
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:57 am Historicist Alfred Loisy accused the Mythicist Paul-Louis Couchoud of believing that John the Baptist was historical "for an evil cause": he was the founder of the Mandean sect.
My understanding, possibly deficient, is that while the Mandaeans revere John the Baptist as a great prophet, they do not consider him their founder.

Interesting given the dispute you mention, they think they go back to Adam, who cannot be considered a historical person (within metholodological naturalism) for the excellent reason that there was no unique first human based upon how biological speciation works.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus myth / James McGrath

Post by Giuseppe »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:35 am Interesting given the dispute you mention, they think they go back to Adam, who cannot be considered a historical person
Couchoud was more coherent than McGrath: if you concede that John the Baptist was historically connected with the Mandeans, then accordingly you have to concede that the Mandean anti-demiurgism (=anti-YHWH) preceded at least the gospels, too.

Or: that there was a rivalry between Jesus' and John's disciples, requiring harmonization.

McGrath appears to assume the premise (given all his current enthusiasm for the Mandeans), but not the two logical implications above, and the reason is enough clear.

It escapes to me how can a "scholar" re-value the Mandean connection with the Baptist and in the same time ignore that there was a rivalry between the two sects, implying that a historical Jesus couldn't have been baptized by John in the real History.
Post Reply