Paul's letters are the primary reason why Jesus is no more a fictional character than George Washington. Paul knew the apostles and frequented the early Church in Jerusalem to make sure his preachings of the death and resurrection of Christ were correct (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is one ancient creed Paul rehearsed). Plus Paul mentions Christ's crucifixion on multiple occasions throughout his letters especially in Galatians and Corinthians. A death by Roman crucifixion would hardly make sense for some spiritual being. One also has to prove that the gospels and Paul preached a spiritual Christ, not an earthly historical one. Usually the myrhicist will appeal to the theory that within the first century or so the early Church transformed from believing in a spiritual Christ to a physical and historical one. But I just don't see any reason to believe this--why would such a transformation take place?

Last edited by RomanJoe (12/14/2018 9:59 pm)

Hypatia wrote:

It's not a consensus. You're not going to find many reputable historians who accept Mythicism. The more normal secular view is that an historical Jesus existed and that a number of miracles were eventually attributed to him.

They're definitely the loudest. Hahahaha.

Hypatia wrote:

Honestly, the amount of creative reinterpretation that you need to do to make the Pauline Epistles say what the Mythicists want them to say is pretty remarkable. I'm not sure how they manage to get "born of a woman" in Galatians 4:4-5 to mean "not born of a woman" instead, but I suspect they have their methods.

I think they would deny Galatians was written by Paul. It is one of the disputed epistles according to Wikipedia, so this could be a viable interpretation.
 

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

Honestly, the amount of creative reinterpretation that you need to do to make the Pauline Epistles say what the Mythicists want them to say is pretty remarkable. I'm not sure how they manage to get "born of a woman" in Galatians 4:4-5 to mean "not born of a woman" instead, but I suspect they have their methods.

I think they would deny Galatians was written by Paul. It is one of the disputed epistles according to Wikipedia, so this could be a viable interpretation.
 

No, Galatians is one of the seven epistles generally considered authentic. It does seem that they doubt the authenticity of that particular line, though, judging it to be a later interpolation because Tertullian doesn't refer to it in quite the way they think he ought to have. Because they are mind readers and all.

I'm suspicious of anyone who tries as hard as Mythicists do to twist the historical evidence to fit a pet theory rather than letting it speak for itself. It's just bad scholarship. 

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

I'm suspicious of anyone who tries as hard as Mythicists do to twist the historical evidence to fit a pet theory rather than letting it speak for itself. It's just bad scholarship.

Mythicism is becoming more popular among people though. Most people don't know that Jordan Peterson is probably a mythicist and there are Christians who are saying that he's one of those "sincere seekers of the truth." WTF?
 

Is it? Why do you think that? Do you think it's becoming more popular in academia or the general populous? I can assure you that it's far more of a fringe theory in academia than it is among lay people. That being said, its popularity isn't enough to satisfy its credentials as a credible theory. Plenty of fringe academic theories become popular cultural trends. For instance the eliminative materialist understanding of the mind seems to be a fringe theory in academia but perhaps to the typical lay secular who isn't too familiar with the relevant philosophy of mind literature (this might even hold true for the typical secular scientist) eliminative materialism may seem viable-"It's just the brain and its chemical functions, ya know." From my anecdotal experience it seems to be the case that a lot of people are willing to accept certain academic fringe theories under the assumption that those theories are "scientific" or reflect the academic consensus. I remember I had a professor who said that the existence of Jesus is a very split issue among scholars. It's not, but some people believe it is. 
 

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Hypatia wrote:

I'm suspicious of anyone who tries as hard as Mythicists do to twist the historical evidence to fit a pet theory rather than letting it speak for itself. It's just bad scholarship.

Mythicism is becoming more popular among people though. Most people don't know that Jordan Peterson is probably a mythicist and there are Christians who are saying that he's one of those "sincere seekers of the truth." WTF?
 

Yes, I noticed that about Jordan Peterson recently, but I think it's more an element of his Jungian approach than anything else. If everything is a matter of psychological archetypes, then the historical question disappears into a mess of images and motifs.

I think Mythicism is if anything less popular than it used to be--it's no longer the trendy, daring hyper-skeptical option that it once was. Now you just look like a fringe conspiracy theorist with a minimal understanding of how history works.