2018-10-24

There are two types of Jesus mythicism. Here’s how to tell them apart.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

.

Type 1: Scholarly
The authors engage with not only the source documents of early Christianity but they also address the scholarship that has been written about those documents. The arguments are structured around engagement with the scholarship of biblical studies, ancient history (including judaica), the classics and other related fields such as archaeology, religion, anthropology, historiography, mythology. They apply the norms of the scientific method (e.g. evidence-based, falsifiability). e.g. Thomas Brodie, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, Robert Price.

Type 2: Pseudo-Scholarly
The authors engage with the source documents but disregard the bulk of related scholarly discussion and focus primarily on interpreting them tendentiously through a conspiracy theory or other unfalsifiable pseudo-historical theory. That is, their arguments are based on an assumption (that is, there is no unambiguous evidence in support) that there are behind-the-scenes powerful and complex forces and actors manipulating or producing the evidence. The emphasis is on arguing for the “missing link” in explaining Christianity and little to no attention is given to addressing alternative explanations in the scholarship for the evidence used. e.g. Christianity as an invention by Roman imperial powers; a strain of astrotheological beliefs dominated secret mystery religions and morphed into Christianity; Christian teachings began and were preserved in some form though centuries, even millennia, before being re-written in the gospels.

What do you think? Do those two “definitions” cover it? I’m sure the wording can be tidied.

.

59 Comments

  • MrHorse
    2018-10-24 23:52:49 UTC - 23:52 | Permalink

    I’d recommend some minor edits –

    Type 1: Scholarly

    … They apply the norms of the Historical [M]ethod (e.g. evidence-based, falsifiability, uses cogent inductive – or sound deductive – arguments) …

    Type 2: Pseudo-Scholarly

    The authors engage with the source documents but disregard the bulk of related scholarly discussion and focus primarily on interpreting them tendentiously through a conspiracy theory or other unfalsifiable pseudo-historical theory. That is, their arguments are based on an assumption that there were behind-the-scenes forces and actors manipulating or producing the evidence. The emphasis is on arguing for a “missing link” to explain Christian origins and little to no attention is given to addressing alternative explanations in the scholarship for the evidence used.

    I think that “(that is, there is no unambiguous evidence in support)” is a confusing inclusion, particularly as it involves a double negative in an already complex but otherwise good explanation

    [feel free to delete this after you’ve contemplated it, Neil]

    • MrHorse
      2018-10-25 19:34:57 UTC - 19:34 | Permalink

      ‘Falsifiability’ (and other versions thereof) is such a stupid and obsolete term and concept.

      It’s utter irrational crap. Things can be testable, arguable, verifiable (or not), able to be dismissed, able to be not accepted as fact, but falsifiable means not much.

      • 2018-10-26 04:07:48 UTC - 04:07 | Permalink

        So, the whole scientific community is being utterly irrational?

        • MrHorse
          2018-10-26 04:25:25 UTC - 04:25 | Permalink

          I’ve been a scientist for 40 yrs (and have published research in world-leading journals in my field). I therefore fully understand hypothesis formulation and testing, experiment design, and methods of statistical analysis, so I full understand what analysis of data means for accepting, rejecting, or ‘not accepting but not rejecting’ a null hypothesis (or an alternative hypothesis if that is what has been applied and tested).

          I never heard or saw the term ‘falsifiable’ (and/or its derivatives) used in the scientific community in all that time. Literally. I. Never. Heard. It.

      • Neil Godfrey
        2018-10-26 07:22:58 UTC - 07:22 | Permalink
        • MrHorse
          2018-10-26 20:24:46 UTC - 20:24 | Permalink

          I don’t think Karl Popper’s death can be falsified / refuted.

          The concept of something being ‘falsifiable’ might apply to abstract or not-definitively proven concepts (such as whether the Jesus of the new testament is based on an early 1st century human Galilean preacher), but it is largely a philosophical concept, not a scientific one, and should not be used in relation to pretty well scientlifically proven things like evolution or heliocentrism.

          • 2018-10-27 04:16:57 UTC - 04:16 | Permalink

            Popper’s death has not been falsified, and we can be justifiably certain that it isn’t going to be. But do you deny that it would be, if he were discovered to be still alive?

            Falsification was never about what we can reasonably expect to happen. Whatever is an actual fact will never be falsified in actuality. That doesn’t mean it could not in principle be falsified. Falsification is about the principle, not the actuality.

  • Rod Green
    2018-10-24 23:57:19 UTC - 23:57 | Permalink

    You are right on. I just left a discussion group because I quickly discovered they were primarily the second type group. Are there any groups of the first kind anymore? I participated on Jesus Mysteries for 10 years before it imploded. I’m now ready to get back in the game.
    Best
    Rod Green
    jaywrg@tx.rr.com

  • Kelly D Wellington
    2018-10-25 00:22:32 UTC - 00:22 | Permalink

    I rather agree with your assessment. I came to the field by starting my readings on attempting to understand what scholastic researchers had to say about a historical Jesus. I worked my way through the likes of Meier, Funk, Crossen, Horsley, and Ehrman. It was only after identifying at least three separate historical Jesuses hidden amongst the scriptures, that my eye was caught by G.A. Wells shouting in the wilderness….that all led to Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and finally, Father Brodie. Along the way, my primary support was the work of Burton Mack.

    I’m sorry to hear that Jesus Mysteries has imploded. I was a founding moderator there, but left in 2004 following the death of my wife. I was always proud of my participation in bringing it in to being. I had heard that Clarice, the founder of Jesus Mysteries, had herself succumbed to the grim reaper and suspected that JM would not last long after her departure….she was the unsure soul who made JM the gem is was when I was there.

    This is the best place I have found to follow this interest. I understand that Peter Kirby has an active site that many really like, but I have yet to make my way there. It is good to see that Rod found his way here.

  • nightshadetwine
    2018-10-25 00:40:44 UTC - 00:40 | Permalink

    “a strain of astrotheological beliefs dominated secret mystery religions and morphed into Christianity”

    It depends on what exactly is meant by this. Some astrological stuff may have gotten into Christianity through outside influences from religions that had astrological based/influenced myths.

    “Christian teachings began and were preserved in some form though centuries, even millennia, before being re-written in the gospels”

    Also depends on what is meant by this. If you mean most Christian teachings and myths aren’t unique to Christianity and were most likely influenced by other religions then that’s in line with scholarship. A lot of these ANE religions picked up influences from each other so you do find a lot of teachings and motifs in Christianity that had been around for a long time.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-25 01:02:06 UTC - 01:02 | Permalink

      Where arguments for these teachings are grounded in the evidence itself, and a range of scholarly interpretations of the same evidence are engaged with (not dismissed without specific argument), then there is no problem.

    • MrHorse
      2018-10-25 01:06:32 UTC - 01:06 | Permalink

      “Some astrological stuff may have gotten into Christianity …”

      It may have but such astrological stuff is not that overt, and one would still need to show how it got in.

      • nightshadetwine
        2018-10-25 03:18:20 UTC - 03:18 | Permalink

        “It may have but such astrological stuff is not that overt, and one would still need to show how it got in.”

        I would say it may have got in indirectly through influences from other myths/religions that had more overt astrological influences. For example, in ancient Egyptian religion the sun god and other gods associated with the sun god(which includes the Pharaoh) died and resurrected and have other obvious parallels with the mythology surrounding Jesus. Now, the Jesus stories may have picked up a “solar” influence by being influenced by these Egyptian(and Greco-Roman) myths, whether the influence was directly from pagan myths or indirectly through Judaism(scholars have shown that Judaism is influenced by Egyptian religion and that Yahweh was associated with solar symbolism).

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-10-26 07:27:19 UTC - 07:27 | Permalink

          I think there are times when we are at a loss to explain how something happened but are nonetheless left with clear evidence that it did. (But that evidence needs more than the identification of parallels — parallels can have multiple explanations and are not necessarily in a cause-effect or direct copy relationship.)

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-25 01:55:23 UTC - 01:55 | Permalink

      To take the “astrological stuff” as an example. There are obvious correlations between the 12 disciples and the 12 signs of the zodiac, the attention to fish cum early Christian fish symbolism and the new age of Pisces (equinoxes etc). But correlations, while tantalising, interesting, are not of themselves proofs of a causal or direct relationship.

      It is not very difficult to find patterns, correlations. What is more difficult is devising rules or criteria to help us decide what correlations are related causally. They may be both evidence of some third factor in common rather than directly related to each other. What time periods do the various layers of evidence come from — earlier or later?

      We also need to look for evidence that there is some other explanation for the correlations. Or try to think of alternative explanations and test them, where we can, against other possibilities.

      And at all times we need to try to inform ourselves of what scholarly research and debate has contributed to our understanding of the phenomena we are looking at. Are their other explanations? How does the evidence for them compare?

      If we find that through all of the above we can establish a plausible argument for the evangelists consciously weaving “astrological stuff” into their narratives, then great.

  • 2018-10-25 03:00:05 UTC - 03:00 | Permalink

    I would add under Type 1, sociology. Any theory of origins of Christianity that ignores sociology and what we know about the invention and persistence of religions, and belief systems is bound to fail. This IMHO is why there has been almost no progress in this field for hundreds of years. The other reason there has been no progress in this field is that academia has been captured by apologists and vested interests.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-25 05:21:46 UTC - 05:21 | Permalink

      Yes. I thought of sociology but decided “such as” covered a multitude more that I could not think of at the moment. (I may make a few edits if more info comes in through the comments.) Certainly the field has been captured by the apologists, including “liberal apologists” who fail to acknowledge they are apologists, but there is also some sound work there, and so long as “mythicist” engagement is capable of addressing the bias embedded within certain methods and interpretations of the conservative and liberal apologists then all is fine.

  • RoHa
    2018-10-25 06:26:02 UTC - 06:26 | Permalink

    Type 1: Boring

    Type 2: Fun

  • Giuseppe
    2018-10-25 09:06:50 UTC - 09:06 | Permalink

    I see that often Robert M. Price (or any similar scholar who argues for Gnostic origins of the myth, where ‘gnostic’ means someonw who, even if in contact with Judaism, rejects the basic tenets of Judaism) is declassed in the group 2 even by people who like Doherty, Carrier, Brodie, etc.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-26 07:29:17 UTC - 07:29 | Permalink

      That’s a shame if they do. Any argument, even at “type 2” argument, needs to be addressed by “type 1” methods.

  • G. Jerome Beers
    2018-10-25 10:57:06 UTC - 10:57 | Permalink

    About every other posting here (and many other places) tempts me to make the following comment, which is almost, but perhaps not quite, on topic:

    It is good to read (or re-read) chapter 3 of JS Mill’s On Liberty, in which he argues for the value of considering alternative opinions, very much including ridiculous and blatantly false ones. By sticking only to what is known to be sensible and good, what was reasoned becomes but a credo. Also, one can improve even the best formulations at times by insights gained by defending them in honest discussion from faulty alternative perspectives.

    Also good to consider are works by the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, such as Against Method, where he argues for application of Mill’s 3d chapter to science, going somewhat beyond Thomas Kuhn to call for anarchy in science. He, who I believe may have studied under Popper, attempts to deflate fetishism of “The Scientific Method.”

    To be sure, there are problems with the suggestions of Mill and Feyerabend, such as that there is something like potential a signal-to-noise problem of spending too much time on each and every ridiculous notion.

    (I vowed not to issue this comment until it was exactly on-topic, but I succumbed to temptation. Please remember it for when it is exactly on-topic.)

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-26 07:31:56 UTC - 07:31 | Permalink

      That’s on topic enough, hitting the issues that underlie the two approaches. 🙂 Thanks. What you say is worth thinking about.

    • 2018-10-26 14:55:28 UTC - 14:55 | Permalink

      “To be sure, there are problems with the suggestions of Mill and Feyerabend, such as that there is something like potential a signal-to-noise problem of spending too much time on each and every ridiculous notion.”

      Right. It’s one thing to say that no proposition will be declared beyond the pale, off limits, or however you want to say “Never to be discussed or even mentioned.” It’s quite another to say that we have no basis on which to treat some as more prima facie credible than others.

  • Joe Atwill
    2018-10-25 11:20:30 UTC - 11:20 | Permalink

    Hi Neil,
    Your definitions are Pseudo-Coherent.
    How would it be even possible for my theory of a Flavian origin for the Gospels to be less falsifiable or evidence based than a fantasy about cult that worshiped a Jesus in outer space, a ‘Q community’ or – god help us – a ‘pre Q community’?
    Joe

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-26 07:44:51 UTC - 07:44 | Permalink

      Something is either falsifiable or it is not. We don’t have “less or more” falsifiable.

      Your theory is evidence based to an extent. But you have many additional operations that you infer happened. Inference is not evidence. The more a theory depends on inferences the weaker it becomes.

      There are other ways of explaining the parallels you see between Josephus and the gospels. A theory needs to be able to address the alternatives, and that usually means grappling with the scholarship that may offer alternative explanations.

      We can usually continue to find more and more data that we can interpret in ways to support our theories — but that is nothing but confirmation bias at work.

      A good theory will be tested against alternatives, and we will look for ways to disprove our theories, too.

      • joe atwill
        2018-10-27 15:15:18 UTC - 15:15 | Permalink

        Hi Neil,

        Agreed that “Something is either falsifiable or it is not.” OK, so please explain how to falsify a conjectured, first century BCE cult that worshipped a Jesus in heaven. Actually quite curious about this.

        To address your critique of my stuff, I just have no idea what you are talking about. No disrespect, but I suspect you haven’t read the book.

        The system of typology I maintain links Jesus forward to Titus is same one that is well known to scholars and links Jesus backward to the OT presented in Mathew’s preministry. The system is built using parallel names, locations and concepts occurring in the same sequence.

        In Caesar’s Messiah all I really do is lay one text next to the other and show that when read in sequence there is a self-evident relationship between Wars and the NT that has been overlooked and appears to continue Matthew’s typology.

        Like in Mathew’s preministry typology some parallels are complicated and can only be seen analytically, however many are no brainers or are simply the same thing – Galilean towns crushed, the AoD, Temple complex razed etc.

        Just to give a sense of the overall sequential relationship here are a few no brainers:

        11) Binding and loosening

        Then Jesus answered and said. . .
        . . . “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matt 16:14-19 – Luke 9:18-20

        “O father, it is but just that the scandal [of a prisoner] should be taken off Josephus, together with his iron chain. For if we do not barely loose his bonds, but cut them to pieces, he will be like a man that had never been bound at all.”
        Wars of the Jews, 4, 10, 628-629

        13) On to Jerusalem – some sent ahead

        Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. Luke 9:51

        Titus, when he had gotten together part of his forces about him, and had ordered the rest to meet him at Jerusalem, marched out of Cesarea. Wars of the Jews, 5, 1, 40

        19) The crowds increase

        As the crowds were increasing . . . Luke 11:29

        The Jews became still more and more in number. . Wars of the Jews, 5, 2, 78

        20) Lying in wait

        And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail [Him] vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things,
        lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him. Luke 11:53-54

        . . . Caesar himself, [who spake to them thus]: These Jews, who are only conducted by their madness, do every thing with care and circumspection; they contrive stratagems, and lay ambushes . . Wars of the Jews, 5, 3, 121

        23) Divide the group 3 for 2

        These followers of John also did now seize upon this inner temple, and upon all the warlike engines therein, and then ventured to oppose Simon.
        And thus that sedition, which had been divided into three factions, was now reduced to two. Wars of the Jews, 5, 3, 104-105

        “Do [you] suppose that I came to give peace on earth?
        “I tell you, not at all, but rather division.
        “For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three.” Luke 12:51-53

        24) Cut down the fruit tree

        ‘And if it bears fruit, [well]. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”
        Luke 13:6-9

        So they threw down all the hedges and walls which the inhabitants had made about their gardens and groves of trees, and cut down all the fruit trees that lay between them and the wall of the city . . . Wars of the Jews 5, 3, 106-107

        26) How to build a tower

        “For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has [enough] to finish [it — ] Luke 14: 28-30

        Titus went round the wall looking for the best place to build a tower
        Wars of the Jews, 5, 6, 258

        27) Terms for Peace

        “Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.” Luke 14:31-32

        . . . Josephus . . . attempted to discourse to those that were upon the wall, about terms of peace . . . Wars of the Jews, 5, 6, 261

        29) Jerusalem encircled with a wall

        “For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, Luke 19:43-44

        . . . they must build a wall round about the whole city; which was, he thought, the only way to prevent the Jews from coming out any way, a
        Wars of the Jews, 5, 12, 499-501

        A couple of points concerning the crucifixion parallel. First, I discovered it only because I knew where to look within the sequence of events Josephus was recording and notice that the typologically linked names ‘Joseph of Arimathea’ and ‘Joseph bar Mathias’ – which basically prove the dependency between the two stories – are not in the text but must be ‘inferred’ by an alert reader. Finally notice that a sequence creates a rigorous methodology in and of itself. Compare my parallel, which explains ‘arimathea’ and also ‘Joseph’ to, for example, Carrier’s ‘Best doctrine town’ suggestion, which has no ‘Joseph’, group of three, survivor, etc. Then consider he had all of literature to hunt, whereas I had only a few hundred words within which to find the parallel.

        33) Three Crucified One Survives

        ‘And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealius, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.’ Vita 420-422 (edition Loeb).

        Hope this is clarifying.

        Joe

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-10-28 09:05:58 UTC - 09:05 | Permalink

          OK, so please explain how to falsify a conjectured, first century BCE cult that worshipped a Jesus in heaven. Actually quite curious about this.

          I don’t know of any argument that posits “a BCE cult” that worshiped a heavenly Jesus.

          I do see early texts in which a heavenly Jesus is an object of worship, though. The Pauline corpus, including the deutero-Paulines, speak of a Jesus in heaven who is to be worshiped. The Book of Revelation, certainly. Even our canonical Book of Acts. I suppose this evidence for a concept of a Jesus in heaven being worshiped could be falsified if we were to find documents that showed them all to be late forgeries or the depictions of Jesus in heaven were metaphors for him being on earth.

          But I think there would be little point since even today most Christians worship a Jesus in heaven.

          Hope this is clarifying.

          A perfect illustration of the Type 2 mythicism I described. Yes, I can see plausible relationships between the three crucifixion victims in Josephus’ work and the gospels, and I can see plausible connections between Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea. But you go much farther than that and posit a vast copying and reinterpreting process that is entirely speculative. It is certainly going too far to say, as you do, “which basically prove the dependency between the two stories”.

          Finally notice that a sequence creates a rigorous methodology in and of itself.

          Totally not so at all. That’s a perfect illustration of “type 2”. You have one explanation that you impose on those points paralleled and consider no other explanations for those particular details. That’s not rigorous methodology but confirmation bias, circularity….

          A scholarly approach would examine the contextual meanings of, say, the keys to heaven wrt Peter, and to examine alternative explanations of sources, and then demonstrate how those evidence-based meanings relate, if at all, to Josephus being released from bonds. I think such an argument would be very difficult to construct according to Type 1 methods. But you seem to concede that you don’t accept what I mean by the two types so there is little common basis for a discussion between us.

          Yes, Joe, I have read your book.

          • Joe Atwill
            2018-10-29 16:58:01 UTC - 16:58 | Permalink

            Hi Neil,

            To your response: “a concept of a Jesus in heaven being worshiped could be falsified if we were to find documents that showed them all to be late forgeries”.

            Exactly. To falsify Q or a group that worshipped a Jesus who was a heavenly being one would need an archeological miracle. No analytic approach using the current data could ever come close. Since the same sort of archeological miracle could obviously falsify a Flavian origin of the Gospels, why did you claim that Doherty’s’ theory is falsifiable and mine is not?

            To your point that: “I can see plausible relationships between the three crucifixion victims in Josephus’ work and the gospels, and I can see plausible connections between Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea. But you go much farther than that and posit a vast copying and reinterpreting process that is entirely speculative.”
            No. What I posit is that there is an unusual parallelism between the stories – what you call “plausible relationships” – and that this parallel exists within a sequential chain of such parallels. How unusual? It is the most coherent parallel to the crucifixion story in literature. Contrast it with Carrier’s ‘parallelomania’ suggestion.

            To your point: “It is certainly going too far to say, as you do, “which basically prove the dependency between the two stories”.

            No. What you are claiming is that there is a reasonable chance that Josephus created the crucifixion story most parallel to the Gospels and placed it where he did accidentally. Even using only the “plausible relationships” seen by others – say, crushing of Galilean towns, decision to go to Jerusalem, Jerusalem encircled with a wall, razing of temple complex, AoD, crucifixion and concluding with Simon being condemned and sent to Rome – the combination of the story’s unusual parallelism and place within the sequence would show that there is no reasonable chance that Josephus’s story is not somehow dependent on the Gospels’. It was both created and placed deliberately.

            To your point that sequence does “not create a rigorous a methodology but confirmation bias, circularity.”

            No. First, to have any meaning, unusual parallels between two stories have to be able to be seen by a fraction of viewers beyond random chance – like your seeing the “plausible connections” between Josephus’s crucifixion story and the Gospels’. No confirmation bias. Second, once a sequence of such unusual parallels is posited, the sequence itself indicates where the parallel events must occur, not the theorist. No circularity, real testable methodology.

            To your point: “A scholarly approach would examine the contextual meanings of, say, the keys to heaven wrt Peter, and to examine alternative explanations of sources, and then demonstrate how those evidence-based meanings relate, if at all, to Josephus being released from bonds.”

            This is example of what I call Type 0 scholarship. In other words, NT scholarship that does not consider Roman humor and typology as an interpretive framework has zero chance of producing anything meaningful. NT scholars are not stupid. They have simply overlooked that it is the sequence of events in Jesus’ adult ministry that is the key to discovering the correct interpretive framework, just as it is in Mathew’s preministry story.

            Joe

            • MrHorse
              2018-10-29 20:17:31 UTC - 20:17 | Permalink

              Joe wrote

              To falsify Q or a group that worshipped a Jesus who was a heavenly being one would need an archaeological miracle. No analytic approach using the current data could ever come close.

              In recent years a few scholars have proposed reconstructions of Marcion’s euangelion which mean it had to precede the extant Gospel of Luke and some of them have proposed various pathways where other or even all the synoptic gospels arose via the Marcion community or in response to Marcion’s euangelion. These scholars include Joseph B Tyson, Jason BeDuhn, Markus Vinzent, Matthias Klinghardt, and probably David Trobisch and Shelly Matthews (Matthews proposes a core Luke that precedes G.Luke).

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-10-29 21:59:25 UTC - 21:59 | Permalink

              Since the same sort of archeological miracle could obviously falsify a Flavian origin of the Gospels, why did you claim that Doherty’s’ theory is falsifiable and mine is not?

              Joe, what you asked me to falsify was not Doherty’s theory. You asked me to falsify what is believed by all Christians today and has been ever since the beginning of Christianity by all Christian sects. They ALL worship Jesus in heaven.

              What you are claiming is that there is a reasonable chance that Josephus created the crucifixion story most parallel to the Gospels and placed it where he did accidentally.

              I don’t understand what it is you are saying that I am claiming and that’s probably because you are reading your own assumptions into what I am saying instead of letting me explain my own words.

              once a sequence of such unusual parallels is posited, the sequence itself indicates where the parallel events must occur, not the theorist. No circularity, real testable methodology

              If you only said there was a series of parallel data that would be fine. We could then step back and consider a range of explanations for that sequence. But you assume without such an investigation of all the options that there can only be one explanation.

              This is example of what I call Type 0 scholarship. In other words, NT scholarship that does not consider Roman humor and typology as an interpretive framework has zero chance of producing anything meaningful.

              I do not exclude Roman humour or typology as possible explanations. I think your options should be placed on the table and compared with other explanations and studies, too. But you don’t do that.

              • joe atwill
                2018-10-31 14:19:09 UTC - 14:19 | Permalink

                Hi Neil,

                If I misunderstood everything I apologize and please correct me, but I thought when you wrote that Doherty “applies the norms of the scientific method (e.g. evidence-based, falsifiability)” to his research, you were indicating that the claim that “the nucleus of this historicized Jesus of the Gospels can be found in a Jesus-movement which wrote the Q source and believed in a Jesus who was a heavenly being who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven, where he was crucified by demons and then was subsequently resurrected by God” has the capacity to be to be proven wrong.

                If so, how? Any examples?

                I also thought that your statement that Type 2 theorists (me) who maintained that “Christianity as an invention by Roman imperial powers” interpreted “source documents tendentiously through a conspiracy theory or other unfalsifiable pseudo-historical theory” indicated I did not apply the principle of fallibility to my research in the same way that Type 1 theorist Earl did.

                If so, how?

                I am biased of course but I simply cannot even imagine how a theory of a Roman origin of the Gospels could be less falsifiable than the theory of a Q community.

                Joe

              • Neil Godfrey
                2018-10-31 23:29:20 UTC - 23:29 | Permalink

                Doherty engages with the mainstream scholarly research and publications that present alternative explanations for the evidence and tests one against the other. You don’t do anything like that but simply present one hypothesis that is really nothing more than a set of inferences (not interpretations of evidence) from the data and ignore all alternative explanations of the data.

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-10-29 22:50:05 UTC - 22:50 | Permalink

              To falsify Q . . . . one would need an archeological miracle. No analytic approach using the current data could ever come close.

              All one needs in order to falsify Q is evidence that “Luke” knew and adapted “Matthew”. Ongoing studies may yet uncover evidence that leaves no room for doubt, no room for ambiguity.

              • MrHorse
                2018-10-29 23:14:39 UTC - 23:14 | Permalink

                All one needs in order to falsify Q is evidence that “Luke” knew and adapted “Matthew”

                Exactly. And there are scholars looking at that.

  • 2018-10-25 12:48:17 UTC - 12:48 | Permalink

    Joe, I can give you specific examples of discoveries that would falsify Doherty, Carrier, or Robert M. Price. Can you tell me of a discovery would falsify your thesis?

    • Steve Watson
      2018-10-25 17:59:37 UTC - 17:59 | Permalink

      Don’t encourage him please, else we will be here all day batting away fatuous nonsense.

      • 2018-10-26 04:02:56 UTC - 04:02 | Permalink

        You do have my sympathy, Steve. However, I assume we have a few lurkers here who don’t have as much background knowledge as the rest of us have, and I don’t wan’t them to get the impression that this guy has an argument to which we cannot respond.

        I also don’t want him going back to his followers claiming “I said X, and they couldn’t answer me,” unless he is prepared to just lie about it.

        • joe atwill
          2018-10-27 15:17:39 UTC - 15:17 | Permalink

          Hi Doug,

          Your statement is not coherent. Since discoveries are a class without limits there is nothing they do not have the potential to falsify. Please give an example of a way to falsify a conjectured Q community using something in existence or I will be forced to return to my followers and inform them that I had an argument to which you could not respond.

          As far as using your ‘discovery’ standard to falsify my theory, I would note that if we discovered Jesus had made a second coming this would at least give me a reason to doubt.

          Joe

          • 2018-10-27 16:46:24 UTC - 16:46 | Permalink

            “I would note that if we discovered Jesus had made a second coming this would at least give me a reason to doubt.”

            We’re both claiming that he never existed, and that would be falsified by the discovery of a first coming.

            By “your thesis,” I was referring to something more specific, i.e. that Christianity was a hoax perpetrated by Roman politicians. Could any possible discovery falsify that?

            “Since discoveries are a class without limits there is nothing they do not have the potential to falsify.”

            Yes, for any specific fact, there is an unbounded number of hypothetical statements with which it is inconsistent. The problem is with any hypothesis that could not be contradicted by any fact. I’m asking whether your thesis is such a hypothesis.

            “Please give an example of a way to falsify a conjectured Q community”

            Why? I have said nothing about any Q community.

            • joe atwill
              2018-10-29 16:59:58 UTC - 16:59 | Permalink

              Hi Doug,

              To your point: “We’re both claiming that he never existed, and that would be falsified by the discovery of a first coming. I was referring to something more specific, i.e. that Christianity was a hoax perpetrated by Roman politicians. Could any possible discovery falsify that?”

              Your train of thought is incoherent. You are agreeing that proof of Jesus’s existence would falsify my theory, but then asking if any fact would falsify my theory. I would go so far as to say that in order to falsify my theory, if it too much trouble for Him to return, even a letter would suffice.

              To your question: Why? I have said nothing about any Q community.

              I never said you did. What you wrote was: “I can give you specific examples of discoveries that would falsify Doherty.”

              Doherty conjectures a Q community therefore:

              “Please give an example of a way to falsify a conjectured Q community”

              Please be aware if all you can come up with is an archeological miracle as Neil did, I will have no option but to report my followers when they assemble in the Coliseum for Pliny the Very Elder’s panegyric, to report to them that you couldn’t answer me.

              Joe

              • 2018-10-30 04:55:19 UTC - 04:55 | Permalink

                “Your train of thought is incoherent.”

                Yours is evasive. I’ll rephrase my question to you:

                Could any possible discovery falsify your thesis that Christianity was a hoax perpetrated by Roman politicians?

                “Doherty conjectures a Q community”

                So do historicists. The issue of Jesus’ historicity does not stand or fall on whether there was a Q community. Any theory, orthodox or otherwise, about Christianity’s origins needs to posit a provenance for the canonical gospels. With or without a historical Jesus, that provenance might or might not include Q.

              • Neil Godfrey
                2018-10-30 05:14:57 UTC - 05:14 | Permalink

                if all you can come up with is an archeological miracle as Neil did

                Joe, you failed to notice what it was I was answering — your original question had nothing to do with Doherty’s thesis or any other mythicist idea at all. I was trying to point out to you that your wording is too often vague and full of ungrounded assumptions that makes conversation and contructive conversation very difficult. You asked about belief in a Jesus in heaven. EVERY Christian who has ever lived believes in a Jesus in heaven! (I thought my initial reply would wake you up to what you had asked but it obviously didn’t.)

      • Neil Godfrey
        2018-10-26 07:46:46 UTC - 07:46 | Permalink

        Comment deleted….. Reminder to stick to comment guidelines, please. No insults. — Neil

  • Amer
    2018-10-26 14:32:24 UTC - 14:32 | Permalink

    I must beg to disagree slightly with the idea that scholarly people can be Jesus Mythicists.

    There are people who know the science and know the research and there are people who don’t know the science. Both engage in ‘inspection’ rather than ‘investigation’, albeit the former hide it better.

    Inspection is to browse through material looking for material to back up your ideas,
    Investigation is to trawl through material comparing like for like in order to develop ideas and opinions as opposed to actively finding material to agree with your stance.

    So there are indeed Jesus Mythicists that are scholars but they don’t use their scholary methods to conclude Jesus as myth. They already have that belief to begin with.

    There are also people who are in between those who believe Jesus as history and Jesus as myth – they are people who hold that Jesus is historically embellished. Confirming both his historicity but accept some concepts about him as myth.

    • 2018-10-27 04:36:07 UTC - 04:36 | Permalink

      “they are people who hold that Jesus is historically embellished. Confirming both his historicity but accept some concepts about him as myth.”

      Hmm. People believe it, and their belief confirms it?

      • Amer
        2018-10-28 05:01:42 UTC - 05:01 | Permalink

        Doug … What I mean is that they find enough to say he is historical but not enough to accept everything that is said about him to be historical.

        • 2018-10-28 14:49:05 UTC - 14:49 | Permalink

          If someone believes something, I always assume that it is for a reason that they consider sufficient. When I examine those reasons for myself, though, I often find them insufficient. That turned out to be the case when I examined the reasons people give for their belief in a historical Jesus. I have yet to find anyone, regardless of their academic credentials, whose reasons do not reduce to a circular argument.

          • Amer
            2018-10-30 03:37:01 UTC - 03:37 | Permalink

            To be honest Doug … I’m a novice and must rely on the authority. But when I delve in as you have done … I might well come to the same conclusion.

            History is only as perfect as what is found.

            • Neil Godfrey
              2018-10-30 05:24:52 UTC - 05:24 | Permalink

              Another perspective I think is preferable is to always ask authorities (or any author one is reading) to justify his or her arguments and demonstrate why alternatives fail. When it comes to historical inquiry there is no reason an author cannot do this much for any lay reader.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2018-10-27 08:13:03 UTC - 08:13 | Permalink

      Amer, I think you are confusing a preconfirmed belief that one wants to find evidence for confirmation, and a genuine hypothesis that Christianity did not begin with a historical Jesus. It is the former, the one you clearly deplore, and so do I, that I attempted to describe in my Type 2 above.

      If you think Type 1 mythicism does not exist then you will have to demonstrate that Brodie, Doherty, Wells and such like have failed to address contrary evidence in a scholarly manner, honestly addressing the extant scholarship.

      Acharya S, Joe Atwill, certainly follow the fallacy of confirmation bias, which is what you are describing. But I don’t believe you can genuinely say that all mythicist arguments are built on confirmation bias. Have you read the arguments of, say, Brodie? As for Carrier, you may disagree with several of his specific arguments, as I do, but I fail to see how you can say his method is fallacious confirmation bias. Very much the opposite. He argues a fortiori.

      • Amer
        2018-10-28 05:05:05 UTC - 05:05 | Permalink

        Neil … You’ve got me thinking.

        I always thought Bart Ehrman’s position was solid and not seriously contested.

        I’m gonna have to read up on those names and come back to you.

        • Neil Godfrey
          2018-10-28 08:19:32 UTC - 08:19 | Permalink

          Have you seen my list of Who’s Who? https://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythicists-and-mythicist-agnostics/ Quite a few scholars there.

          • Amer
            2018-10-28 10:14:20 UTC - 10:14 | Permalink

            Wow … what a list!
            Thank you … I shall peruse.

        • MrHorse
          2018-10-30 04:15:17 UTC - 04:15 | Permalink

          Ehrman was good up until ~2012 but his Did Jesus Exist? book was full of bare assertions, and his books since have not been that great. He has failed to keep up with scholarship since 2012 so has tunnel-vision.

  • 2018-10-30 04:33:43 UTC - 04:33 | Permalink

    It does take time. My interest was aroused when I read Doherty’s website back in 1999. I’ve done a bunch of reading on the subject since then, including several books purporting to defend historicity. If there is an argument for a historical Jesus that doesn’t assume its conclusion, I haven’t found it yet.

    • 2018-10-30 04:36:51 UTC - 04:36 | Permalink

      I clicked the wrong “Reply” button. The previous was supposed to be a response to the following by Amer:

      To be honest Doug … I’m a novice and must rely on the authority. But when I delve in as you have done … I might well come to the same conclusion.

      History is only as perfect as what is found.

      • Neil Godfrey
        2018-10-30 05:20:01 UTC - 05:20 | Permalink

        Unfortunately I don’t think I can change the positions of comments without losing identifying data.

  • Pingback: Why Joe Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah is “Type 2” mythicism |

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.