Oh, HELL NO! The two words have subtly different meanings, and abbreviated online dictionaries be damned! Here’s how the Oxford English (American) Dictionary defines the word:
Wow, those assholes at Webster’s sure are disingenuous!
Ambushed, though I cited a dictionary, that is not what I was relying on for my own knowledge. I am telling you, as a fact, that the word “disingenuous” connotes dishonesty. When you’ve called people disingenuous in the past, though you may not have intended it, you have been calling them dishonest. (Note that even by the definition you preferred to cite, it follows that you were calling me “insincere,” which, again, connotes dishonesty.)
Your argument here is ludicrous. Perhaps you’ve been immersing yourself in the works of Earl Doherty that you’ve started forgetting how actual scholars think, speak, and write. When scholars take a position, they state it clearly. The entire peer review system is designed to ensure that, among other things.
Your characterization of Ehrman’ s book is flatly wrong, but even if it was true that would scarcely explain why Mack refuses to say that he’s a mythicist if he actually is one. Scholars are used to controversy; those studying the life of Jesus doubly so. No one would fail to say his position directly just for fear of being laughed at. The claim that Mack is presenting his true beliefs in a method so subtle that no one but you has figured out what he truly means is preposterous. The notion that any scholar has to hide his true beliefs for fear of the scholarly community and its prejudices is just the sort of conspiracy-mongering we expect from creationists, Holocaust deniers, and the like.
After I asked whether you had any facts or citations to back up the claims you made, you didn’t respond. Maybe in the future you should plan your “lectures” more carefully.
Looking at the picture of the cup, it doesn’t say By Christ, it says either Through Chreston, the genitive form of the Greek name Chrestus; or through goodness.
Dia means through. Chrestus is a Greek name, found in Seutonius, and asserted by Christians that it is evidence a none Christian writer wrote about Jesus in the first century.
There is also some graffiti in Pompeii mentioning someone named Chrestus, “Methe, slave of Cominia, from Atella, loves Chrestus. May Pompeian Venus be dear to both of them and may they always live in harmony.”
Well it can be overblown, but let’s not forget what happened to Thomas Thompson in 1974. He argued that the Patriarchs are wholly mythical, and was basically blacklisted for years because of it. Couldn’t get a job til over a decade later when his view had finally become mainstream.
And let’s not forget (though this doesn’t apply to Mack AFAIK) that a lot of biblical scholarship takes place in contexts where there are statements of faith that must be upheld on pain of loss one’s job.
Thompson is a good example. There are others which share similar stories.
No, it was a typo on my part, but I was referring to Mack’s The Christian Myth—Origins, Logic, and Legacy, of which you recommended. It should have read, 2003, not 2013, so my bad. And his original printing of this book goes back to 2001. I have the Sept 2003 edition. But this much time is even more reason to wonder why nobody has commented on Mack’s conversion if this is truly the case.
Concerning Erhman, his book was supposed to be a scholarly source on Jesus historicity, a publication many were looking forward to including me, but in the end Erhman admits he just turned out another popularization.
Peter Kirby lists Mack’s Jesus as a wise sage. He cites four sources, of which I have all of these, with the exception of the last one. But this I don’t think is concrete either as Mack supporting some kind of a historical Jesus. I suspect Kirby put him in this camp possibly from the very book you have recommended, particularly chapter two entitled The case for a cynic-like Jesus. If so, Kirby perhaps could also put in a footnote explaining his reason further. Mack warns us in that chapter on page 56 that:
As far as Mack converting to the mythical camp, I do not think he was fully entrenched with Jesus’ historicity to begin with, was he? If so, there is no conversion to be had, but don’t think it is quite accurate to consider him a mythicist either. I haven’t looked at your blog of Mack yet, but will try to find some time in the future, just don’t know when that will be.
Like you, I also don’t care to quote massive texts onto a BB. It is difficult to quote Mack accurately and get to the gist of it all he is saying by being selective of what one decides to quote from and still try to get the best context from him as to the message he is trying to convey. I’m no authority on Mack, or anybody else, I can barely keep up with myself. I could always refresh my memory on a great deal of it, but my interest in going down these rabbit holes isn’t as great as it once was. I will say, I have a lot of respect for Mack, his books read like more like a textbook, unlike all of the popularizations of Jesus’ historicity that is out there, and I do find a minimum mythical Jesus similar to Carrier’s as plausible which doesn’t require any conspiracy theory, just don’t know enough to determine which side may be closer to the truth though, and I’m afraid scholars are not much closer to knowing either, and will probably never know.
I never even heard of the Cynics prior to their mention in this thread, but in perusing the Wikipiedia on it, it seems obvious Jesus was squarely a Cynic more than a Jewish Messiah or Gnostic.
Except if the gospels are all inventions based on Mark, then Mark invented a Jesus with Cynic ideas and methods of argumentation. This tells us about the knowledge and methodology of the author of Mark, and not about the real, historical Jesus(presuming he existed in the first place).
Iirc the cynic stuff shows up in Luke and Matthew but of course your general point stands.
That would be because Matthew and Luke used Mark, they are not independent. While many historians believe the authors used Mark independently, I have my doubts, and believe Matthew used Mark, copying much of the material, and inventing some of his own. And then Luke used both Matthew and Mark. Finally came John, who wrote his own gospel based loosely on the three synoptics.
No I meant out shows up in Matthew and Luke first. It is iirc supposed to come in with the Q stuff.
“Is Jesus real or a myth?” is a bad question. It’s a false dichotomy. It pre-supposes that Jesus cannot be both.*
Of course the Jesus stories are myths. But, although there is no doubt that Paul of Tarsus shaped Christianity the way we know it, there are clear pre-Pauline strands of Christianity in the NT. Peter in particular seems to be a historical person: Paul mentions Peter by name and refers to him as an “apostle” in his letter to the Galatians, which is generally acknowledged as genuinely Pauline. He also refers to meeting James, “the Lord’s brother.” So Paul is claiming to know people who knew Jesus – I think that’s a fairly good historical evidence that someone named Jesus existed and was referred to by the time of Paul as “Lord”.
*Like the late Earl Warren
So how do we distinguish between a “real” story and a fictitious one? Because it sounds plausible? Do we have any corroborating evidence that Paul met Peter or James, or just his & your word for it?
Paul was known for having revelations – visions, some might say hallucinations. Could he have had a Peter/James fantasy dream?
Only if you assume the exclusive or is intended, and only if you insist on a certain definition of “myth” that is clearly not intended by the people who are asking the question.
The idea on the (more respectable) Mythicist accounts is that Peter’s (and others’) apostleship didn’t involve having known a physical Jesus in the flesh, but rather (just as in Paul’s case) as having received visions of a celestial Christ.
“Brother of the lord” in Galatians, on some accounts, is an honorific applying to a particular set in the leadership of the church, and on other accounts, (Richard Carrier’s specifically), is used to indicate that James is just another Christian*, not an apostle like Peter. (Paul can be read in that passage as emphasizing that Peter was the only apostle he spoke with in the meeting in question.)
*If I can be permitted the anachronism…
as contained within a single book - the bible - its easy to dismiss the references as circular reasoning.
If you, as a historian, were presented two bits of stories from different sources, you might see it differnently - one backing the other up.
As to your primary question - “how do we distinguish” - I often wonder how the writings of today will be seen in a few hundred or thouasand years -Consider the scope of Tolkiens work in that time frame - would someone then start to question who the real Gandalf was?
Of course- we’re much better at preserving things now then we were then - so that should make it easier - but consider an outsider - looking at 'historical documents" -
Those pooor people…
Don’t take my word for it; I don’t claim to have special knowledge.
Suggesting that Paul have “visions” of Peter and James is pretty specious. Paul is forthright about his visions or dreams - within a few verses of referring to his meeting with Peter & James (and naming the location), he refers to receiving the gospel “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” On the other hand, he refers to meeting the others matter-of-factly and with context, just as he later mentions travelling with Barnabas and Titus. If you looked at Paul’s letters in a vacuum apart from the Gospels, there would be very little doubt that he was talking about actual meetings with real people.
If Peter and James’ authority was based on having visions just as in Paul’s case, why would Paul appeal to them as an authority? What would make their visions any more legitimate than his? The
Mythicist might respond, “because their teachings were older” since Paul was a Johnny-come-lately. But since Galatians was probably written sometime in the '50s, you are starting to push the founding of the church in Jerusalem precariously close to the period in which they claimed Jesus taught and died - not really enough time (IMO) to make up the existence of a figure like Jesus out of whole cloth.
Unless the different sources got bound together under the same cover, in which case they’d count as a single book??
as a person - its easy to dismiss 'one part of the bible that seemingly backs up another part" as either circular logic or because the people that put together the canon specifically only chose the parts that did just that, or maybe even corrupted them to make sure they did.
I (me) realize that the books in the bible are separate documents - and a historian would generally agree that (a) gives credibility to (b) regardless of how they are presented (assuming that the docs themselves past muster for credibilty/age/etc).
If the same docs were given to a historian outside the confines of the ‘bible’ - its even easier to see them as INDEPENDENT references to a given event.
Actually, he downplays their authority even while begrudgingly upholding it. He allows that his readers will consider Peter and others to be authorities, but insists that his own is as great or greater than theirs.
His audience.