How did I miss Hurtado’s smack down of mythicists?

So in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot.  It’s a bit wearying to contemplate!   And now, I really must get back to that essay.

via The “Did Jesus Exist” Controversy and Its Precedents « Larry Hurtado’s Blog.


You Might Also Like

17 Replies to “How did I miss Hurtado’s smack down of mythicists?”

  1. Well, it took quite a while to get back to that essay, so it couldn’t have been that wearying.

    I asked Larry for some references for Paul’s use of Jesus’ teaching (not being very impressed with just citing 1 Cor. 7:10-11), and all I got was Dungan’s 1971 book. Same question to McGrath (see his review of Carrier’s book and our debate in comments) elicited Allison’s latest book, especially one chapter. Well, my public library, St. Paul (finally realized that you’re at UTS, OH instead of here) doesn’t have a single book by either of these guys. And there are only a couple of those books in any public library in MN. I’m going to get an inter library loan for Allison, but I don’t think it’s worth it for Dungan. Can you provide any open access online journal article citations or professors’ websites with papers addressing the teaching of Jesus in Paul?

    PS as I am Mark reading in St. Paul, I have to chuckle that just a slight word switch and I’m guilty of the cardinal sin of HJ studies – reading Mark into St. Paul.

    1. Mark, I’m not sure Paul cared about the teachings of Jesus except for the eschatological eucharist.

      Open access… umm… I don’t think so, but I can see if I can find you something. One place to start is Google Books, and look for Theissen’s work on the Historical Jesus co-authored with Merz.

      You will also not find miracles of Jesus in Paul (Paul, not Acts). This is the motivation of concern and crisis. For Paul, it was about his death. He was delivered up to the enemy, etc… There is also the idea that the death of Christ is the Triumph (contra Rome) in Paul, something Mark, I believe, takes and really blows up.

      1. I’d agree on the teachings. So where is the evidence that the Eucharist was in the Jesus tradition pre-Paul? By open access, I meant a journal that I can get full text access through public library subscription to a database that includes it. EBSCO doesn’t seem to cover many religious studies titles however. But there are other things I can do. So give me any article and I’ll see if I can find it. What I assumed would exist is professors posting their articles on their own website at the university or their own personal site. If so, link away.

        I don’t understand “This is the motivation of concern and crisis.”

        1. Yes, I know what you meant by open access.

          Have you read Theissen’s work on the Criteria of Plausibility?

          Paul was not facing a crisis. The death (and resurrection) of the Messiah was for him a good and grand thing. It was a new world, etc… The only thing left to do was to wait for Jesus return, something that shifted in his lifetime. This is why see leadership structures develop after Paul (Ephesians).

          Mark’s crisis was different. The Temple was destroyed… and … no Jesus.

    1. Bad analogy.

      Most likely, neither Jesus nor Zoroaster founded anything, but others after them, in their name, founded religions. And I’m not even going to go into the detail of how the Pharisees brought back from Persia Zoroasterian theology.

      Why attack? To attack means the mythicists have something to defend. That is the point. Smacking someone around is not really an attack.

      You can think what you want about Moses and Solomon, but in the end…

      It’s like explaining why the President is not a myth but Santa Claus is. Noah and Jesus? One is presented as myth and the other is not. Pretty darn simple.

      There is no scientific proof for a lot of people… but there are historical evidences.

      1. Jefferey, no offense, but I don’t think you are arguing well.

        First, we are talking about Jesus. Throwing in other figures of history to suggest that one figure is like another is a logical fallacy.

        So, I have no need to debate the historicity of King Arthur or Zoroaster because they are not the topic.

        I know the “argument” of mythicists. It, like Creation Science, is little more than the theory of motivated reasoning escalated. It doesn’t rely on history, science, or actual evidences, only logical fallacies.

        You present a logical fallacy when you demand that mythicists needed answering. Why? Not every “theory” needs an answer.

        Arguing with a mythicist is like arguing with a Creationist – both rely upon their own (denial) of facts so that they can refuse to accept logical reasoning. So, again, why should I waste time actually dealing with mythicists when they have no clue about history, historians, the time period of the Gospels, social memory, historiography, language, semiotics, and simple logical reasoning?

        1. First, you are dealing with two different cultures, with two different developments. It is liking comparing Jesus and Barack Obama.

          No religion is based solely on the Noah story, and for good reason. (Again, logical fallacy)

          Exact numbers do not mean importation of historical material. I’m not sure where you got that, but considering the heavily mythological nature of Genesis 1-11 are meant to take, I’m not sure it is a point to argue.

          And you are a neurotic idgit that doesn’t understand historical evidences, logic, or the concept of.. well, everything. But, hey, no offense.

          1. hahahahahhahahahahha oh boy… someone doesn’t understand proper logic.

            Because UFO’s do not exist, then Jesus doesn’t – that is the sum of your argument.

          2. I have no need too. You’ve gone so far off tract that it is pointless to discuss anything with you. If you want, you may start over. But, I doubt that you have the logical discipline to refrain from throwing the kitchen sink into the conversation.

  2. Oh no. I’m so blocked from your impenetrable website that I so so so wanted to continue to read. What will I ever do now? 🙁

    1. Oh look… someone doesn’t understand what blocked means… umm…. who would have thought someone who makes things up doesn’t know the real meaning of words…

Leave a Reply, Please!

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