Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[TedM]

but it is perfectly clear that the 'typical' mythicist 'skeptic' has formed a conclusion that in fact Jesus did not exist

That's not really clear.

From my experience primarily on the old forum most here came from, the typical skeptic had formed a conclusion. Whether it was 70% of the skeptics or just 30% isn't really important. The book is about mythicism, so it addresses the arguments both AGAINST the evidence for his existence and FOR his non-existence. I certainly think of a 'mythicist' as a person who has formed a conclusion that Jesus did not exist, and NOT a person who has decided he doesn't think the evidence is strong enough either way. Just as I think of an athiest as a person who has concluded that God does not exist, and NOT a agnostic who just says he isn't convinced either way. My view will eventually be the norm if it isn't now, because the 'skeptic/agnostic' view is too ambiguous. People like some certainty in their definitions.. Anyway, I don't see why Joe sees this as a strawman of any significance.

[stevencarrwork]

First, thanks Andrew for your chapter reviews. Re the prayer in Hebrews, the lack of verbal correspondences does suggest that some kind of prayer either really happened or was expected of the Messiah. Is there a Psalms or some other passage that might have caused such an expectation, thus weakening the argument Casey gives?

When Jesus enters Jerusalem in Mark, the crowd start quoting bits of Psalm 118. Jesus also quotes Psalm 118 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'

Psalm 116 has the following

I will lift up the cup of salvation
and call on the name of the Lord.
14 I will fulfill my vows to the Lord
in the presence of all his people.
15 Precious in the sight of the Lord
is the death of his faithful servants.

It appears Easter was based partly on Psalms 116-118

[stevencarrwork]

In the first century, you have writers like Seneca pushing the medium. This makes sense. Very wealthy, very connected, very literate guy.

At the same time -- the same exact time -- he is only second place, if the epistolary Paul is accepted as a construct. Nice try, Seneca. Somebody else was writing the longest letters known from the time. And who? Someone not as wealthy, whose connections are implied to be the middle class (the second 1% more than the top 1%), and who knows rhetoric certainly but who doesn't seem to be as literate as Seneca.

Yes, they are enormously long aren't they?

I thought Paul was supposed to be quite poor. How could he afford all that paper?

And we are told these letters were read out. Even today, how many churches read out all 16 chapters of 1 Corinthians? That would be a big session of letter reading.

We are told that Paul wrote these letters to resolve problems in churches. As you point out, why not just send somebody and give him a letter of authority?

If these are genuine letters of Paul, then their length means that Paul was both garrulous and obsessed.

We are told that Paul would not have wasted time telling people stuff they already knew? How did that plan work out when it came to making letters short?

If Paul was so obsessed that he could write 16 chapters to the Corinthians at a go, then he was very obsessed.

In my experience, obsessed and garrulous people hardly ever refrain from telling you stuff you already know about a subject.....

[Peter Kirby]

but it is perfectly clear that the 'typical' mythicist 'skeptic' has formed a conclusion that in fact Jesus did not exist

That's not really clear.

From my experience primarily on the old forum most here came from, the typical skeptic had formed a conclusion. Whether it was 70% of the skeptics or just 30% isn't really important. The book is about mythicism, so it addresses the arguments both AGAINST the evidence for his existence and FOR his non-existence. I certainly think of a 'mythicist' as a person who has formed a conclusion that Jesus did not exist, and NOT a person who has decided he doesn't think the evidence is strong enough either way. Just as I think of an athiest as a person who has concluded that God does not exist, and NOT a agnostic who just says he isn't convinced either way. My view will eventually be the norm if it isn't now, because the 'skeptic/agnostic' view is too ambiguous. People like some certainty in their definitions.. Anyway, I don't see why Joe sees this as a strawman of any significance.

The word 'mythicist' is a label. As a label, it has been constructed through its use. Its use has historically been and currently is dominated by its use among detractors and not proponents. Whole books have been written arguing for skepticism about the historicity of Jesus without using the term 'mythicist'. But the use of the label is addictive for proponents of the historicity of Jesus. Why?

There's the simple 'ism' factor. Labeling an idea as an 'ism' robs it of power. Conversely, an idea that cannot yet be pinned down elegantly and precisely with a label that demarcates it as outside the unlabeled common cultural assumptions of mankind has an advantage. That advantage is simple: people associate it with the unlabeled common cultural assumptions of mankind, especially if competing ideas have nifty 'ism' labels that make them appear to be minority ideas.

Most people hate the idea of being outside "the norm." You know. Stupid people. More interested in conformity than truth. So much so that the idea of truth is robbed of most of its meaning with only conformity or fashion being left. A person either conforms or is "making a statement." Not an ontological statement, of course, but simply a fashion statement, a statement of identity, a declaration that he or she does not belong to the norm on a certain issue but rather identifies with a certain 'ism.'

So you have men like Maurice Casey showing up in full drag to this fashion show of ideas. Wearing conformity on his sleeve as a badge, he gives us a long good look at his intellectual legs and flashes his heavy, smothering credentials in the face of his audience. This is persuasion by performance: we are more to be impressed that "Professor" Maurice Casey has backed the idea, which already has the advantage of being "the norm," and socially skewered the "Bloggers" who have deviated from the norm... than we are supposed to find any kind of rational argument. Because it isn't about rationality. It's about wearing the right things to show that you conform.

Does it feel good to be sure that if the norm hasn't caught up to you, it soon will?

That is, of course, the point of the display done by those advocating so fervently for the historicity of Jesus. Yes, there is a person or two who has somehow by circumstance of personal history been drawn to the subject and wishes to attempt to chart it rationally. But that's not the typical person advocating for the historicity of Jesus. The typical person doing so just wants to show what a good boy he is.

... at least when it comes to this question. Because the fashion show is complicated, and there are other runways, and there are other things that are more important to him to try to change into being the norm that are currently unacceptable. Being a proponent of the historicity of Jesus is one way to earn a normality badge, which one can show off as necessary in an attempt to prove that one's fashion sense as a whole is in good taste while trying to change one or two things here or there--the validity of homosexual marriage, the ability of a terminally ill person to end their life, a certain tax or benefit... you know, those little accessories of thought that are of some importance to most people.

But when the subject is not of real consequence, people are more than happy to go with the norm. It's more beneficial than being a gadfly, and it's certainly a hell of a lot easier than attempting to think for yourself.

So we come back to the construction of the 'ism' - the 'mythicism' - which serves only to cement the idea as the outsider position, the minority position, the queer way of thinking that it is already assumed to be from the absence of a handy, equally-prevalent corresponding opposite label.

Yes, the Hoffmans of the world are firmly set against giving their prejudice a name and using it regularly. To the suggestion of 'historicism' sometimes offered, he says it would be too confusing when there is already a movement known as 'historicism' or 'new historicism'. Obviously he does not rush to fill the void with something else.

And this is where you come in, TedM. You want to be very clear that 'mythicism' -- a made-up label in the first place -- is dolled up in a really particular way to look as garish and "unambiguous" as possible. Clearly we don't want strange ideas like the non-historicity of Jesus mixing with normal ones, everyday ones, the kind that most people can get behind, the kind that don't need a name because they're just upstanding regular ideas of the citizens of the world. So let's make sure that there's no "ambiguity" through which people might become confused and corrupted by the interloping influences of alternative thought. Let's make sure that things are crystal clear about what is and isn't an -ism. Let's try to claim those who might otherwise be on the fence for our side. Let's make sure they're happily suckling on well-hardened, unfaltering wisdom of the world right from the moment of birth and that they will know very well what thoughts aren't the kind to entertain idly, that people flirt with only with great fear and trembling at social reprisal.

No, TedM, this does matter. It is of significance. Take your definition and suck on it.

[TedM]

First, thanks Andrew for your chapter reviews. Re the prayer in Hebrews, the lack of verbal correspondences does suggest that some kind of prayer either really happened or was expected of the Messiah. Is there a Psalms or some other passage that might have caused such an expectation, thus weakening the argument Casey gives?

When Jesus enters Jerusalem in Mark, the crowd start quoting bits of Psalm 118. Jesus also quotes Psalm 118 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'

Psalm 116 has the following

I will lift up the cup of salvation
and call on the name of the Lord.
14 I will fulfill my vows to the Lord
in the presence of all his people.
15 Precious in the sight of the Lord
is the death of his faithful servants.

It appears Easter was based partly on Psalms 116-118

While that's the kind of thing I had in mind, the prayer in Hebrews was in contrast to fulfillment of vows--it was loud and with tears and the implication is it had to do with being saved from having to go through with it.. Both in Hebrews and clearly in Mark. That's a point in favor of historicity and against this Psalm. Perhaps there is some passage that talks about the Messiah's hesitancy or search for another way to fulfill the vow??

[TedM]

And this is where you come in, TedM. You want to be very clear that 'mythicism' -- a made-up label in the first place -- is dolled up in a really particular way to look as garish and "unambiguous" as possible.

Yep. That's not because I favor labeling people. It's because it is an idea that needs clarity. It's human nature, and it is the best way. Of course there are variations of acceptance of the idea, skepticism, ete.. That's what the word 'skepticism' is for Peter. I don't know why you are getting all worked up over reality. You certainly don't have to label yourself as a mythicist. To try and get people to accept some other meaning of the word than what they naturally will make it out to be is idealistic, and a waste of time because it won't work. Are you really seriously suggesting the word 'mythicism' be reserved for skeptics without proposing a word for the idea that Jesus never actually existed?

[Peter Kirby]

You certainly don't have to label yourself as a mythicist.

Nobody does.

I don't know why you are getting all worked up

Originally I had a terse response, but then I replaced it with a longer one. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Speaking of reality, this is where this conversation started.

The final three sentences of the introduction are:

I hope this introduction is sufficient to make clear the appalling state of pseudo-scholarship which has dominated the whole notion that Jesus of Nazreth was not a historical figure. The rest of this book is devoted to demonstrating that he was. In Chapter 2, I turn to historical method, which is fundamental to the major mistakes made by mythicists.

Professional introductions, at a minimum, should include the following:

• 1) Identification of the issue/problem
  
  2) Historical background of the discussion
  
  3) Objectives of the book
  
  4) Summary of Methodology to achieve objectives

MC does identify a problem, he's just wrong about it. The specific bloggers he mentions might get a few hundred independent views per month. Meanwhile, Historical Jesus books are on the Best Seller list (and even claim to know what Jesus had for break fast the morning of the resurrection = stauros and trumpets). On a broader scale, the number of Americans who have heard of any of the Mythicists MC mentions may be a small multiple of 10,000 while last time I checked, there were hundreds of millions Christians in the US who generally assume that we have multiple independent first-hand witness to the Gospels and the only issue is whether or not you believe them.

Similarly, MC gives a historical background, but only a relatively recent one, leaving out most of the history of Christianity that would have killed or at least censored anyone for saying Jesus did not exist.

Most important to an Introduction are giving the objectives of the book which is needed to evaluate it. Shaking off all the mud regarding MC's discussion of someone misrepresenting someone misrepresenting someone, the only thing I see for an objective is:

"The rest of this book is devoted to demonstrating that he was [a historical figure]."

I take "demonstrating" to mean "prove". So that tells us the what of his objective(s). As to the how, the closest I can get is his closest sentence "In Chapter 2, I turn to historical method, which is fundamental to the major mistakes made by mythicists." An implication from this is that MC will use "historical method" to demonstrate how Jesus was historical.

Maurice Casey needs the conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure for his rhetoric to carry the day. And he also says that this is his objective: "The rest of this book is devoted to demonstrating that he was."

It is in this context and in the context of reality that Joe said the following.

MC's first sentence:

One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist.

This is a Strawman as the position of most of the so-called "Mythicists" MC hammers are merely skeptical about the existence of Jesus. Specifically they assert/question whether the historical evidence for Jesus is as good as commonly presented or thought. Burn strawman, burn! So he has impeached his credibility in the first sentence. Congratulations.

Joe specifically refers to the "so-called 'Mythicists' MC hammers," and that is significant. These are not nameless labeled ideologues. They are the named, such as Neil Godfrey, who are frequently labeled "Mythicists" and who hold the position of skepticism regarding the historicity of Jesus without saying that there is conclusive evidence against the historicity of Jesus. I am someone who is skeptical regarding the historicity of Jesus and the authenticity of the letters of Paul, and that has led people to label me a "mythicist." Others such as Robert Price, Thomas Verenna, Thomas Brodie, Thomas Thompson, and other doubting Thomases have been labeled "mythicist" for their position of skepticism regarding the historicity of Jesus.

The word 'mythicist' is a label. As a label, it has been constructed through its use. Its use has historically been and currently is dominated by its use among detractors and not proponents. Whole books have been written arguing for skepticism about the historicity of Jesus without using the term 'mythicist'. But the word 'mythicist' has been applied to anyone who has publicly maintained a position of skepticism regarding the historicity of Jesus. This is the definition by way of use. That's reality. That's what you're struggling against when you write:

I don't think so Joe. The mythicist position is more than 'mere' skepticism. The mythicist position is that Jesus never existed. Of course there are variations in level of support, etc.. but it is perfectly clear that the 'typical' mythicist 'skeptic' has formed a conclusion that in fact Jesus did not exist, and that there are many really great arguments for that position. SO, I don't really get where you are coming from here. It's a book about mythicism, not agnosticism..

You feel it is important to impute to the "mythicist position" the idea that "there are many really great arguments" "that Jesus never existed." Already getting it wrong once with your narrow opinion about the use of the word "mythicist" and its position, you are compelled to make another error flowing from your original mistake. You go on to attribute epistemic positions to the "'typical' mythicist 'skeptic'" (as if it were not enough to paint them into a corner that required putting "skeptic" in scare quotes) when you also require them to believe in many great arguments for the position that "Jesus did not exist." You don't see anything odd about believing in the existence of great arguments (as opposed to knowing them) ... after all, it is parallel to the strange ideas that theists have held for centuries regarding the proofs for the existence of God.

When called out, you make an appeal to the desire for clarity and certainty (suggesting that people will eventually be as desperate as you are for clarity and "certainty" if they are not already because people are sheep like that) in one of the most absurd arguments from popularity that I've ever seen. You don't even care whether you already have the popular vote on your side; it's enough that you believe that you will eventually. Your choice is to be in the most dumbed-down position, even ahead of the masses, because it is destiny. It's the kind of forward thinking that could keep someone entertained by giving them a mirror and calling it reality television.

From my experience primarily on the old forum most here came from, the typical skeptic had formed a conclusion. Whether it was 70% of the skeptics or just 30% isn't really important. The book is about mythicism, so it addresses the arguments both AGAINST the evidence for his existence and FOR his non-existence. I certainly think of a 'mythicist' as a person who has formed a conclusion that Jesus did not exist, and NOT a person who has decided he doesn't think the evidence is strong enough either way. Just as I think of an athiest as a person who has concluded that God does not exist, and NOT a agnostic who just says he isn't convinced either way. My view will eventually be the norm if it isn't now, because the 'skeptic/agnostic' view is too ambiguous. People like some certainty in their definitions.. Anyway, I don't see why Joe sees this as a strawman of any significance.

The important thing isn't the label though. As you know, "You certainly don't have to label yourself as a mythicist." The important thing about a book isn't its title either. The fact that Maurice Casey felt that "mythicist myths" is an awfully clever thing to put into a title does not imply that Maurice Casey should get a free pass to do nothing but attempt to roast "mythicists" because that's the narrowly-defined scope of his book, pace TedM:

It's a book about mythicism, not agnosticism

Thus giving us an example of how labels work. It takes critical thinking to look past the labels and regard a subject in itself. Without that critical thinking, we can be fooled by a label in ignoring an aspect of the subject because it doesn't clearly fall under a handy label that has been made to help us ignore that aspect of the subject. This is how you get stupid ideas, like the idea of a book narrowly circumscribed to be about "mythicism, not agnosticism." (This isn't even an accurate description of the scope of the book in question in any case. So this statement is stupid in more than one way.)

I don't see why Joe sees this as a strawman of any significance.

Well, for one, because some of the particular people to whom Maurice Casey takes exception are well-described as skeptics.

Yep. That's not because I favor labeling people. It's because it is an idea that needs clarity. It's human nature, and it is the best way. Of course there are variations of acceptance of the idea, skepticism, ete.. That's what the word 'skepticism' is for Peter. I don't know why you are getting all worked up over reality. You certainly don't have to label yourself as a mythicist. To try and get people to accept some other meaning of the word than what they naturally will make it out to be is idealistic, and a waste of time because it won't work. Are you really seriously suggesting the word 'mythicism' be reserved for skeptics without proposing a word for the idea that Jesus never actually existed?

Here's your word: non-historicity.

As for 'mythicism', it's rubbish. It's quite like having a word for not believing in King Arthur (already a questionable need) and then making it 'legendarianism.' The advocates for the legendary are those who believe in King Arthur and his legends, not the other way around. The word is slander. It is born from insecurity about the subject of the legends and projects that insecurity on to those who question the legends critically. It attempts to impute the legendary to the critics in an attempt to keep the rhetoric balanced in a tit-for-tat way. It's propaganda. It already attempts to accomplish tacitly what Maurice Casey attempts to accomplish explicitly when putting the redundancy of a phrase "mythicist myths" in the title of his book.

The word 'mythicist' is slander in the same way 'legendarianist' would be slander. It's propaganda. Nobody has to accept it.

[TedM]

Peter, you think too much. Mythicism will stay and it will be applied to people who don't believe Jesus ever existed, and it will be applied to people who simply question whether he lived or not. To think that the term 'non-historicity' will ever be used in place of mythicist or mythicism is a foolish fantasy. No one cares whether 'mere' skeptics about Jesus' historicity are mislabeled except those skeptics. They won't be heard. Sorry but THAT's reality Peter. I think you're just going to have to deal with it and stop trying to redirect the wheels already very much in motion. The word is here to stay. It's already a done deal.

When called out, you make an appeal to the desire for clarity and certainty (suggesting that people will eventually be as desperate as you are for clarity and "certainty" if they are not already because people are sheep like that) in one of the most absurd arguments from popularity that I've ever seen.

Wiki proves you have no basis for such comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, you think too much.

Ted, you're an ignorant slut.

[TedM]

Peter, you think too much.

Ted, you're an ignorant slut.