Why the Certainty on the Part of Mythicists?

[bcedaifu]

The claim that early Christians believed that after his crucifixion on earth Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can IMO correctly be regarded as mainstream. Whereas the question as to whether Jesus has really been raised to heaven is in effect something scholars have to agree to differ about.

Hello Andrew,

MaryHelena wrote "Well put", by which, I interpret her opinion as conformant with your sentiments. I disagree, though I acknowledge that your sentences above are indeed, as MaryHelena had observed, very well expressed.

I dispute your several points raised by these two sentences. First, I deny that we have any idea what "early Christians" did or did not believe. There is no record of what second century CE folks thought about anything, let alone the nascent new religion, Christianity--the very word did not exist until the fifth century, correct me if I err.

Secondly, I deny that there had ever been a Jesus to be crucified. I urge you to offer some evidence of his existence. One must exist, before one can be crucified. Fictional characters do not exist.

Third, please, please, Andrew change one word in your second sentence quoted above. And then tell me, whether or not, this is something which "scholars have to agree to differ about"?

That one word, is a substitution of Herakles for Jesus.

The entire Jesus fable is based upon Greek mythology. One can no more believe that any component of the New Testament represents genuine history, than one can believe in any of the stories about Herakles.

There is no heaven to argue about. There is no resurrection after death. There is no rising in defiance of gravity. F = ma. This is not a negotiable element. This is not something that scholars can agree to differ about. Newton's law is a fact, not something one takes on faith. "Why the certainty on the part of Mythicists"? Why the uncertainty on the part of those uneducated persons who do not understand gravity? There is no "middle ground". Gravity, and the force needed to overcome it, are evidently not components of the curriculum of bible studies, hence the confusion among those suggesting a need for "compromise" on the issue of Herakles' resurrection, ascending to Mount Olympus, after his death.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The problem is even more astounding when you realize that Hurtado actually believes that early Christians experienced "visions of Jesus in Heaven" because Jesus really was in heaven and revealing himself in all his glory to the saints, and early Christian "creative interpretation of scripture and prophetic oracles" was because God had intentionally created all those obtuse scriptural narratives and oracles as clues for them to pick up on for their edification.

But Carrier and Price are crackpots.

This is a kind of academic hypocrisy unique to Biblical scholarship. What other academic discipline humors supernaturalism to such a degree. If a historian said he thought Greek myths were true and derived from visions of a real Olympus, he'd be considered mentally ill. There is still this weird taboo when it comes to the Bible. These elephants that are still walking around. Even the secular scholars have to nod and pretend these are not completely batshit beliefs. I don't know why you can believe in space magic and be a serious scholar, but posit a defensible naturalistic dissent fro the mainstream and you're as crazy as the Joker,

In order to allow general academic discussion of religion it is probably necessary to try to avoid arguing from the basis of explicit faith (and anti-faith) positions.

This has the effect that the claim that early Christians believed that Jesus had not died on earth but only in some heavenly realm can IMO correctly be regarded as fringe. (On the basis, among other grounds, that ancient people didn't think like that.) The claim that early Christians believed that after his crucifixion on earth Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can IMO correctly be regarded as mainstream. Whereas the question as to whether Jesus has really been raised to heaven is in effect something scholars have to agree to differ about.

Andrew Criddle

But Hartado isn't talking about what Christians believed, he's asserting that Jesus literally did appear in the sky historically.

Making an implausible claims that Winston Churchill believed in elves is still less crazy than making claims that Winston Churchill WAS an elf.

[MrMacSon]

... First, I deny that we have any idea what "early Christians" did or did not believe. There is no record of what second century CE folks thought about anything, let alone the nascent new religion, Christianity--the very word did not exist until the fifth century, correct me if I err.

It seems to me that Christianity grew out of mixed & wide-spread changing belief systems including Gnosticism & its derivatives.

[stevencarrwork]

This has the effect that the claim that early Christians believed that Jesus had not died on earth but only in some heavenly realm can IMO correctly be regarded as fringe. (On the basis, among other grounds, that ancient people didn't think like that.) The claim that early Christians believed that after his crucifixion on earth Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can IMO correctly be regarded as mainstream. Whereas the question as to whether Jesus has really been raised to heaven is in effect something scholars have to agree to differ about.

I see.

So the claim that Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can be regarded as mainstream, because ancient people really did think like that.

While the claim that Jesus had died in some heavenly realm is fringe because ancient people didn't think like that.

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

[Thor]

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, so I can only suggest possible examples that is well documented and undisputed common academic knowledge.

Gaius Julius Ceasar, also known as Divus Julius, who in death rised to the heavens to be reiceived as a coelicola

But this one example is so obvious I suspect there is something I do not properly understand regarding the examples requested.

[Rick Sumner]

Why do mythicists seem to argue that the existing evidence is on the one hand so weak that it provides no evidence FOR a historical Jesus but strangely is 'so strong' that they can have certainty that Jesus never existed? . . . .

Carrier, Price, Wells, Thompson, Droge, Noll, Carr, myself -- we've all said that if there was an HJ he is now lost to us; we can't be certain that there was no HJ but the evidence or arguments that explain Christianity without an HJ are strong and any HJ is irrelevant. I think a number of HJ scholars would say much the same thing.

So with that little list of names I don't think we can say that "mythicists" do argue dogmatically that there was no HJ. Those names simply don't.

I get what you're saying, but the grouping together here (and, for that matter, in the subject header of the thread), aren't really helpful. It makes it all sound like they're a group of post-modern Bultmannians, and, with the possible exceptions of Price and Wells, they're not (unless you happen to want to count yourself as one?!)

Thompson, for example, at least in his published work, does not indicate that he thinks his case makes a strong explanation without an HJ, on the contrary, he doesn't care if it does or not. An HJ, in Thomas' own words, isn't necessary, but that's not the same thing as saying that the case is strong against (or that an explanation with is inherently weaker). A trope can be applied to a real life as well as it can a fictitious one. Thompson's point is that it's a trope. Thompson and Wells have explicitly distanced history from "true" science, Carrier thinks history should be regarded as essentially scientific (by far the weakest argument in his book....Gaddis? Really?). This lets Carrier assume a level of certainty is possible that Thompson would never dream of. One could go on, but you get the drift. The types of claims allowed by their historiographic differences are radically different.

Again, I get your general point, and it's a good one that's accurate, I just take issue with the grouping both in the thread title and your list. I skew mythicist because of reasoning similar to Thompson's, but I part company with Carrier before he finishes his twelve axioms of history, because I don't think history is or can be essentially scientific.

[andrewcriddle]

But Hartado isn't talking about what Christians believed, he's asserting that Jesus literally did appear in the sky historically.

Making an implausible claims that Winston Churchill believed in elves is still less crazy than making claims that Winston Churchill WAS an elf.

I think we may need more detail about Hurtado's claims.

Is he saying that he regards the ascension of Jesus into Heaven as historical in the sense that he believes it happened ? Or is he saying that he regards the ascension of Jesus into Heaven as historical in the sense that he believes it can be shown to have happened by the ordinary procedures of historical enquiry ? or is he saying something different ?

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

This has the effect that the claim that early Christians believed that Jesus had not died on earth but only in some heavenly realm can IMO correctly be regarded as fringe. (On the basis, among other grounds, that ancient people didn't think like that.) The claim that early Christians believed that after his crucifixion on earth Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can IMO correctly be regarded as mainstream. Whereas the question as to whether Jesus has really been raised to heaven is in effect something scholars have to agree to differ about.

I see.

So the claim that Jesus had been resurrected from death and raised into heaven can be regarded as mainstream, because ancient people really did think like that.

While the claim that Jesus had died in some heavenly realm is fringe because ancient people didn't think like that.

OK, so produce your examples of ancient people claiming that historical persons had been resurrected from the dead and raised into heaven.

We want to see the parallels between pagan religions and Christianity before we can accept that ancient people really did think like that. If there are no such parallels for the mainsteam story, then why is it a strike against mythicism that there are no parallels for the mythicist story?

Jewish people believed that God had raised people into heaven, Enoch and Elisha. They believed that God had raised people from the dead in the past and would do so on a large scale at the end of the age (see Daniel 12)
There may be closer parallels in the apocryphal literature.

Andrew Criddle

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think the distinction between being raised to a heaven in the sky or being raised in an underworld is not an important one anyway. That is just a reflection of cultural afterlife beliefs. The essential theme is that the hero is conquering death.

Having said that, even celestial apotheoses were commonplace in the ancient world.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But Hartado isn't talking about what Christians believed, he's asserting that Jesus literally did appear in the sky historically.

Making an implausible claims that Winston Churchill believed in elves is still less crazy than making claims that Winston Churchill WAS an elf.

I think we may need more detail about Hurtado's claims.

Is he saying that he regards the ascension of Jesus into Heaven as historical in the sense that he believes it happened ? Or is he saying that he regards the ascension of Jesus into Heaven as historical in the sense that he believes it can be shown to have happened by the ordinary procedures of historical enquiry ? or is he saying something different ?

Andrew Criddle

I don't think he really tries to argue the latter, but he does rely a lot on the tropes that "the earliest Christians believed it" and "they were persecuted and martyred."

For what it's worth though, Hurtadao does not argue that the earliest Christians believed in a physical resurrection, but an apotheosis.

I should probably also make the point that I wasn't trying to single out Hurtado specifically (certainly there are worse offenders than him), but just the general acceptance of scholars who believe the supernatural happened historically (whether they make those arguments formally or not), while dismissing mythicists as being ipso faco incapable of scholarship.