Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[The Grand Nudger]

You've heard of the mythicist position from people trying to discredit it so as to avoid it's criticisms entirely (like our "no jesus, no history" OP).  The mythicist position doesn't say "there was magic, so there can't be a man", for example. Richard Carrier didn't invent it......the mythicist position -can be- that there was no person, but this doesn't encompass every possibility.  All that -every- mythicist position agrees upon is that the character in the text is not an example of the life of an actual man, that it cannot support even -the notion- that there was a real man upon which it was based. That if there -was- a "historical jesus" (whatever that means).....he's not in the NT.

[CapnAwesome]

You've heard of the mythicist position from people trying to discredit it so as to avoid it's criticisms entirely (like our "no jesus, no history" OP).  Richard Carrier didn't invent it......the mythicist position -can be- that there was no person, but this doesn't encompass every possibility.  All that -every- mythicist position agrees upon is that the character in the text is not an example of the life of an actual man, that it cannot support even -the notion- that there was a real man upon which it was based.  That must simply be assumed, and it never goes any farther, and we don't simply assume that there was a historical hercules - so it seems entirely out of place.    

Let me ask you this, if the jesus of the text is not the jesus of history......who is?  What does it even mean to say "historical jesus"?

First off, I've primarily heard the mythicist position from people on these boards and hardly ever from people trying to discredit it. I don't know what would give you that idea.

If you use your very broad definition on what makes a mythicist than every Atheist and Agnostic and non-Christian is by default one, since if you don't believe in the supernatural you obviously can't believe in the Jesus of the bible. However with that broad of a definition it kind of makes the whole idea an irrelevant.

While I have a way better grasp on the historical process and ancient sources than most people on these boards, biblical scolarship isn't really my area of expertise. I'm pretty sure Bart Erhman has written a book on the historical Jesus and it would probably answer that question more than I could. All I'm qualified to say is that the Mythicist argument that I've commonly heard (such as Jesus not having primary sources, or because there is magic in the Gospels there can't be a historical person) isn't consistent at all with what we know about how ancient sources actually were.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you use your very broad definition on what makes a mythisist than every Atheist and Agnostic and non-Christian is by default one,

Negatron, batman, you aren't, even under my definition...eh?...you believe that there is a kernel, a core, a historical jesus.  One assumes that you have sources in mind for this historical jesus.

since if you don't believe in the supernatural you obviously can't believe in the Jesus of the bible. However with that broad of a definition it kind of makes the whole idea an irrelevant.

That I do not believe in the supernatural doesn't -make a myth- or a legend.  Sure, they're positions on each others periphery, bnot depend on the other.  Even if magic were real, the text would still be demonstrably unreliable as history, or the account of the life of an actual person.  Some magic, some miracles would be possible...that wouldn't make this text or these miracles any more true than they currently are.

While I have a way better grasp on the historical process and ancient sources than most people on these boards, biblical scolarship isn't really my area of expertise. I'm pretty sure Bart Erhman has written a book on the historical Jesus and it would probably answer that question more than I could. All I'm qualified to say is that the Mythisist argument that I've commonly heard (such as Jesus not having primary sources, or because there is magic in the Gospels there can't be a historical person) isn't consistent at all with what we know about how ancient sources actually were.

Again, arguments you've heard propped up by the opposition - and responses from people -regarding- those misapprehensions.  The mythicist position is that the jesus narrative is mythical and legendary by reference to myth and legend...not by reference to ones status of belief in the supernatural. Sure, the miracles shit is a song and dance - and if we don't believe in miracles then we don't believe in the miracle man portion of jesus..but that doesn't make "the rest of him" historical, nor does the mythicist position stop with those obvious tall tales.

[CapnAwesome]

If I'm going to engage in this, you are going to have to stop telling me that I've heard these arguments from the opposition. It's simply not true. I'm basing this mostly on stuff I've heard from mythicists on these boards.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, NP. Lets just recap.  

The mythicist position is not, directly, a position on the existence of magic or miracles.  Magic and miracles do not make or break the mythicist position.

The mythicist position is not that -there couldn't have been- a man named yeshua.

The mythicist position is simple, the jesus that we have handed to us, the jesus of our cultural and literary inheritance, is mythical, is legendary. That -no man- need be the kernel of that jesus, and that there is no man which can be extracted from the body of that jesus. That the "historical jesus" of the experts is an "any-man", and thus, effectively...... no man in particular or at all.

[CapnAwesome]

Sure, NP.  Lets just recap.  

The mythicist position is not, directly, a position on the existence of magic or miracles.  Magic and miracles do not make or break the mythicist position.

The mythicist position is not that -there couldn't have been- a man named yeshua.

The mythicist position is simple, the jesus that we have handed to us, the jesus of our cultural and literary inheritance, is mythical, is legendary.  That -no man- need be the kernel of that jesus, and that there is no man which can be extracted from the body of that jesus.

Okay sure. I don't know how someone can say there couldn't have been a man named yeshua. There were probably several. There were probably several street preachers claiming to be the Messiah. Probably one of them attracted followers, traveled, preached, was killed by the romans. If that person existed I don't know how they weren't a historical Jesus. I really don't know what's so outrageous about that story. I guess someone can say that the Gospels have nothing historical in them, but we know that isn't true. We just know that it's inaccurate about many of the historical figures mentioned in it. Why can't Jesus be one of them. I remain unconvinced.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many historical jesi' might there have been...if thats the bar? This is the "any-man" to my late edit of my last response - apologies.

Was "the historical jesus" stumping for the orthodoxy (no magic..no miracles, just stumping)..or was he a wild eyed radical, for example? Can these two men co-exist in the same, real and human skull?

[CapnAwesome]

How many historical jesi' might there have been...if thats the bar?  This is the "any-man" to my late edit of my last response - apologies.

Was "the historical jesus" stumping for the orthodoxy..or was he a wild eyed radical, for example?  Can these two men co-exist in the same, real and human skull?

Well upfront, this really is a topic that I don't know that much about. I'm not really that interested in what a historical Jesus might have actually been like (because I believe a nonmagical Jesus and a non-existent jesus amount to the same thing anyway) and I've read very little about it. I can only really respond to the shitty evidence that I've seen time and time again for mythisists (i.e. no primary sources etc.) I actually think that the movement itself is very interesting and has potential to gain a lot of traction in the Historical world, but not until it drops some of it's horrendous evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Allow that those presenting (myself included) are not sterling representatives of the theory? Here, try wiki (caveat emptor...lol).

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

(it's not primary sources, btw, it's non christian sources..a person might argue that all primary sources are christian and plainly incentivized to tell their version of the tale. I wouldn't, because I don't find the source of a narrative to be compelling or all that informative in this context, only hazarding a guess as to what the argument offered was, that you were unsatisfied with.)

[CapnAwesome]

Allow that those presenting (myself included) are not sterling representatives of the theory?  Here, try wiki (caveat emptor...lol).

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

(it's not primary sources, btw, it's non christian sources..a person might argue that all primary sources are christian and plainly incentivized to tell their version of the tale.  I wouldn't, because I don't find the source of a narrative to be compelling or all that informative in this context, only hazarding a guess as to what the argument offered was, that you were unsatisfied with.)

So there is a lot to respond to in that (I have read that wiki page before however), and I'm not sure exactly what you are expecting. I mean much of it is the same. Saying that there are no non-Christian sources in the 1st century just isn't a good argument. This is consistent with what we would expect. Jesus wasn't an important historical figure in his time. I'm not sure that there are any non-Roman sources for Julius Ceasar and he's a vastly more important historical figure. I mean one of those guys says that we have to remain agnostic about the existence of Jesus unless we find a skeleton or Diary (because of the unreliability of the gospels ). If we applied that standard to other historical figures we have to start doubting them all. What we have is four (actually 5 because there was some other early gospel also) sources about a minor figure at the time that come relatively quickly after his death. Some contradict each other, there are some references to places and people that we know to be historical, there is a lot of nonsense and inaccuracies. That is about par for the course in the ancient world. I mean we can use gospel inaccuracies to say that it obviously wasn't divinely inspired, but not to say it has no historical value.

and just to sound like a broken record, I'm going to bring up Marco Polo again, which exactly like the Gospels has some references to places and people that we know to be historical, there is a lot of nonsense and inaccuracies. It's par for the course but we consider it an invaluable historical document. Jesus mythisim not only argues that Jesus is a myth, but in someways argues that we need to change the whole historical process when it comes to the ancient world. I guess that's really my main problem with it.

Adding to the editing wars: It doesn't matter really if it's non-christian or primary. There are no primary sources for Jesus, either Christian or non-Christian That's just pretty normal when it comes to the time period we are dealing with.