By Thomas Verenna
In a very interesting blog series “The Jesus Seminar Jesus is Bankrupt,” April DeConick explains where she started in Biblical Studies—believing in the methods of historical Jesus scholarship and accepting the historicity of the figure of Jesus—to show where she is now. She writes that she has grown out of the belief that the historical Jesus can be salvaged. Concerning this Jesus, she concludes that “[t]his Jesus is nothing more than a constructed person who exists only in our imaginations.”
A quick skim through my blog over the past year will lead readers to articles on this same subject (the historical Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, et al) and hopefully they will be gratified to know I have come to the same conclusion. What I cannot wrap my mind around is how construed and poorly understood mythicism really is. It sometimes seems as though Historical Jesus scholars are incapable of explaining mythicism beyond a jumbled mess of metaphysical hoopla and “Freke and Gandy Syndrome” (Or the sometimes-called “Kersey Graves Phobia“).
Instead of actually reading recent mythicist material, historicists seem content with referencing non-scholarly material (like the film Zeitgeist or books by Acharya S) or severely outdated mythicist books (like Graves’ book or Arthur Drews’ The Christ Myth published in the early twentieth century). Thompson, Doherty, Price, Carrier or Wells seem to rarely ever be heard in the debate—often historicists have some recollection of these names but have only skimmed the studies (if that). Bart Ehrman even went so far as to use hyperbole as an argument when he spoke the words in the vein of Michael Grant that “no serious scholar” doubts the historicity of Jesus. In other words, while historicists (generally) are well-studied and able to articulate to others the socio-cultural world of the first-century CE, they are (please forgive me if this comes off as brash) ignorant of the many arguments proposed by modern-day mythicists who are also well-versed in the socio-cultural world of the first century CE. This comes from the very obvious bias against mythicism; no historicist has yet given a valid reason for this. (Can anybody?)
In April’s article, she expresses mythicism in a similar “phobic” manner (in that she appears to be completely ignorant of new arguments for mythicism):
“I say this not because I am a myther. In fact, I think that the myther position cannot be maintained, because parallels between Jesus’ myth and other ancient myths tell us nothing about whether or not he lived as a real person. It only tells us that ancient people cast their memories of Jesus into mythological narratives and schema that were part of their culture and minds.”
This was also picked up and parroted by historicist James McGrath (who should know better than to repeat this sort of statement after he and I have had repeated conversations about this very subject) in his popular “Around the Blogosphere” series (which is usually quite interesting). The problem with the statement above is that very few modern mythicists rely primarily on pagan myth parallels. Those who do are doomed to fail under any serious scrutiny (the aforementioned Acharya S, who has a large following, is one such mythicist who I strongly disagree with precisely because of her primary reliance upon pagan myth parallels and “astrotheology”). I am even on record for making this distinction in my article Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors (which deals with these very objections by April DeConick and others).
More recent mythicist arguments deal with exegesis, Gospel genre (if the Gospels weren’t written for the purpose of “telling what happened” but rather “telling a good story” there clearly is reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ), intertextuality (the models used by the authors of the Gospels to create narrative—and how much of the Gospel can be traced back to models), Jewish socio-cultural studies in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (did the Jews of the original “Christian” sect expect a historical savior or a spiritual one?), religious-meme change (how quickly did religious trends change and how much could they have changed over that period of time—for example, euhemerizing a legendary figure of Jesus into a historical setting), and proto-Christian origins (was there a “Christianity” before the first-century CE and where did it originate?) . Clearly April would be correct if the mythicist position was reliant only on pagan myth parallels. It’s a good thing then that modern mythicists generally do not rely on pagan parallels whatsoever.
Bibliography
Thomas L. Thompson
The Messiah Myth
The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (concerning the Old Testament but relevant for New Testament)
Robert M. Price
Jesus is Dead
Deconstructing Jesus
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
The Pre-Nicene New Testament
Alan Dundes
Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore
G.A. Wells
The Jesus Legend
Earl Doherty
The Jesus Puzzle
Frank Zindler
The Jesus the Jews Never Knew
Richard Carrier
The Empty Tomb (3 Chapters are his concerning Pauline theology but the book is a collection of well-written essays)
On the Historicity of Jesus Christ (Forthcoming)
Review of Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle
Thomas S. Verenna
Finding Oneself at the Mount of Olives
On Divorce and Faithfulness to Wife and God: Mark’s Reading of Malachi and 1 Corinthians
February 3, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I’d be interested to know why you decided to write that I “parrotted” April’s remark, rather than saying that I quoted it…
February 3, 2009 at 8:55 pm
If you feel I was trying to go for a jab, I don’t mind changing it out (because I was just trying to express what I was interpreting as a bit of dishonesty from you–I may have been mistaken, of course). I would say that by the fact that you singled out that line, you were agreeing to it. Would I be wrong in assuming that? If I’m not, I would say that can be considered parroting (if you agree to a statement that is written in ignorance–would that not imply you were also ignorant?). I feel that after all of our conversations, you could have clarified your reasons for quoting that selection of text. You know full well that in our conversations I have never referenced a pagan myth where by the figure of Jesus was paralleled. And per our phone conversation, you know that I (as well as others–like Richard Carrier) have argued strongly against such positions. It seems rather backhanded of you is all. If I am wrong about your intentions, please let me know.
February 3, 2009 at 10:18 pm
What about the problem that a fair amount of mythicist scholarship comes from a poor understanding of other NT scholarship? Earl Doherty’s and Robert Price’s work on Q, I’ve argued elsewhere, relies on several fundamental misunderstandings of J.S. Kloppenborg’s work and contradict its assumptions in several places.
That said, it is unfortunate that many scholars refuse to even address these sorts of problems and instead pigeonhole the work of mythicists and lump them together, DESPITE the fact that they are so few.
Perhaps the relative obscurity of the mythicist position – the fact that most relevant books were published by the popular press of Prometheus or self-published – explains it, though it doesn’t really excuse it.
I remember when I did an independent study on Q and I wrote a lengthy section of my paper criticizing Doherty’s work; my professor told me not to address that sort of internet garbage and drop it from my paper. I think this sentiment is far-reaching in this age of wikipedianism and “pagan origins of the Christian myth” whatnot. Frankly, the stuff that’s easiest to find on the internet about the NT is the crappiest, whether its apologetic or highly polemic anti-Christian stuff.
Praise Zeus for Mark Goodacre’s site.
February 3, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Chris,
Your assessment of Doherty in this area is spot on. Bob and I have talked some about the issue of Q and we have both agreed (whether Bob fully agrees or just agrees in premise is something I am not certain of) that Q is probable. I would say I stand behind Dennis MacDonald’s recent survey on Q (that it is, in fact, Deuteronomistic teachings and not “the words of Jesus” like the Gos. of Thomas is said to be). I have talked to Dennis about this issue extensively in regards to its intertextuality and feel his case is pretty strong (as are his methods). There are non-mythicists as well, however, who dispute the Q theory. Richard Carrier cites a few of them in his blog on the Amherst conference.
The fact that many mythicists are ignored is a worry. As G.A. Wells wrote in 1985, “It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed…..Because a defective case was argued seventy years ago, most scholars today think it is certain that Jesus did exist.” (The Historicity of Jesus, p. 27, Jesus in Myth and History, Ed. by R. Joseph Hoffmann and Gerald A. Larue) Additionally, I would make the statement that many historicist studies are published in the popular press (some even through evangelical or Christian publishers).
I also agree with you that there is a great deal of garbage on the net. But as Jim West rightly suggests, that stresses the need for rational minds (like us) to set the record straight where ever possible while allowing for honest discourse where polemical sites would not. I’m not a fan of wikipedia (you will note that this article is the first use of it on my blog that I can recall).
Thanks for your thoughts on this,
Tom
February 4, 2009 at 1:47 am
//This comes from the very obvious bias against mythicism; no historicist has yet given a valid reason for this. (Can anybody?)//
Valid reason for what? If you mean “the very obvious bias against mythicism,” I think the answer should be clear. The terrible scholarship of the popular version of this theory have birthed a bunch of “challenge the man” parrots who are happy to have the ultimate platform to thumb their nose at Christianity (“YOUR JESUS WASN’T EVEN REAL! NYAH NYAH NYAH!!”) right before informing you that your government bombed WTC. Even if Acharya S’s version will eventually disappear into the better scholarship of the version that you, Dr. Carrier, Dr. Price, etc. espouse, the rats will pull the conclusion from your works without doing any more independent research beyond hearsay. We’re lucky if most internet atheists read The God Delusion, more or less spend a significant time reading this scholarship and cross-referencing the counterarguments from both sides of the belief coin.
You have to recognize the gravity of the statement you’re making. This isn’t just some academic dalliance about some obscure figurehead of a dead religion; it’s a position that removes from history itself the very existence of a figure that ties many lives together, fundamentalist or not.
By the way, you’re free to accuse scholars of being ignorant of more recent, scholarly advances in this field. As an amateur with interest, I am compelled to look at this new argument without the presuppositions the Acharya-mythers have vomited into my brain, and this should also be the case (tenfold!) for actual scholars in the subject. That’s not brash at all – but implying that Ehrman and others (L. Michael White is one I’m reading now) are *inarticulate* will make many dismiss what you have to offer outright and do nothing but ask if you need a tissue for the nosebleed you surely have way, way, waaaay up there. ;)
February 4, 2009 at 10:33 am
A fair observation. Thank you for your comments.
April 6, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“More recent mythicist arguments deal with exegesis, Gospel genre (if the Gospels weren’t written for the purpose of “telling what happened” but rather “telling a good story” there clearly is reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ), intertextuality (the models used by the authors of the Gospels to create narrative—and how much of the Gospel can be traced back to models), Jewish socio-cultural studies in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (did the Jews of the original “Christian” sect expect a historical savior or a spiritual one?), religious-meme change (how quickly did religious trends change and how much could they have changed over that period of time—for example, euhemerizing a legendary figure of Jesus into a historical setting), and proto-Christian origins (was there a “Christianity” before the first-century CE and where did it originate?) . Clearly April would be correct if the mythicist position was reliant only on pagan myth parallels. It’s a good thing then that modern mythicists generally do not rely on pagan parallels whatsoever.”
I agree with you about mythicism not being reliant only on pagan myth parallels. On the other hand, I disagree with how you seem to be rather critical of those who point out those parallels such as Acharya. It isn’t a matter of either/or thinking. I’m not a defender of Acharya, but I am an interested party who seeks out all viewpoints. I’ve read a variety of mythicist theorists and I think all of them have something useful to add.
Anyways, Acharya doesn’t simply rely on pagan parallels. If you dismiss Acharya based on this assumption, then you are falling into the same trap as the historicist scholars. She goes out of her way to consider the subject from multiple perspectives. There is no need to try to smash Acharya’s head down in your attempt to climb the scholarly ladder of peer respectability. In case you didn’t know, both Doherty and Price have given positive reviews of Acharya’s work.
April 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I agree with you about mythicism not being reliant only on pagan myth parallels. On the other hand, I disagree with how you seem to be rather critical of those who point out those parallels such as Acharya. It isn’t a matter of either/or thinking. I’m not a defender of Acharya, but I am an interested party who seeks out all viewpoints. I’ve read a variety of mythicist theorists and I think all of them have something useful to add.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but that’s a rather naive opinion. Not all scholars have something useful to add. Some have nothing useful. Some have a lot to offer while others have a mix of useful and unhelpful points that, overall, make their contributions mediocre at best. Acharya S does not have anything useful to add (in my opinion–others are welcome to disagree). I’ll give my reasons for thinking this below.
Anyways, Acharya doesn’t simply rely on pagan parallels. If you dismiss Acharya based on this assumption, then you are falling into the same trap as the historicist scholars. She goes out of her way to consider the subject from multiple perspectives. There is no need to try to smash Acharya’s head down in your attempt to climb the scholarly ladder of peer respectability. In case you didn’t know, both Doherty and Price have given positive reviews of Acharya’s work.
My problem with Acharya S is more than just pagan parallels. She uses grossly outdated source material. Here are a few examples:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
Gerald Massey, John Remsburg, Albert Churchward, Edward Carpenter, Franz Cumont, and so on. None of these individuals lived past the middle of the twentieth century. Their scholarship is so dated that using them can only hurt her points, not help make them. This is the underlying problem with Acharya S; she does not adequately research modern credible sources–only dated sources. If only dated sources can be used to make her points, then she needs to reevaluate her points. To give you an analogy of how horrific it is to use dated sources in academia, it would be akin to using a science book from the nineteenth century to back up a new model for the theory of relativity–without using anything that Albert Einstein, or any contemporary era physicist, had written. Her whole astrotheology perspective which she promotes comes from these sources–comes from parallelism that is dated and useless–and thus her usefulness is nil. That may be a hard criticism, but its one she should take to heart and consider.
Despite what you may have read or think you know, my criticisms of Acharya S have nothing to do with me “climbing the scholarly ladder”. It has everything to do with individuals such as yourself, who are trying to do honest research into the question of mythicism, who get sidetracked by this garbage–passed off as academia (of which it is not). The fact that you think she has something useful to say at all is evidence that you’ve bought into her deception. But how can you know, as a layman, what is credible and what isn’t? You have to have done an extreme amount of research to fact-check her claims to know she is full of it. If you haven’t done the research because you think she is an authority (I’m not claiming I am, either, by the way), then you’re the person I’m trying to reach. It is because serious intellectuals like you want to be educated that I come down hard on her–you need to know that what she has to say is severely flawed.
I’m not saying I’m perfect, but I don’t use sources that are from the 1880’s. Unlike Acharya S, I change my opinions to fit the facts (she is stubborn about changing her opinion and has not retracted anything she has been wrong about, not that I’ve seen or read anyway). I want my readers to be able to fact-check me and be able to raise contentions with what I write if they need to. Acharya S, on the other hand, has a group of fanboy cronies who she sends out from her message board to attack any dissenter. Often times these cronies spam other message boards and blogs with more garbage in a trollish and annoying fashion. I wouldn’t hold Acharya S responsible for her fan base, but she sends them out.
Now I’m not attacking Acharya S personally. I don’t know her personally. I can only judge her material. And I’m not the only one. While Bob Price and Earl Doherty speak of her kindly (which is their right), Richard Carrier and others have been outspoken about her inaccuracy. So just because two scholars speak favorably does not mean the whole community of experts agree. And while I respect Earl Doherty a great deal, I am dismayed that he uses her for source material and, unfortunately, he is also guilty of using dated material as well. (Doherty is far better at using modern sources for his material than Acharya S is, however, and overall Doherty’s work is substantially more credible)
To be clear: I would, in fact, be quite interested if Acharya S dropped her pseudonym (as I did) and start using her real name, started revising her theories to conform to existing, relevant, current data, and published academically or, at least, had a group of scholars review her work and offer suggestions (which she should consider, at least). I would read that book and, if it were credible, I would even promote it. But as of yet, that is a future I do not see her ever attaining. Not because she can’t, but because she has no desire to.
April 7, 2009 at 1:35 pm
In case that wasn’t adequate, I’ll give a some of the modern Egyptologists she references: Rudolf Anthes, Jan Assman, Hellmut Brunner, Claas J. Bleeker, Bob Brier, Henri Frankfort, Alan H. Gardiner, John Gwyn Griffiths, Erik Hornung, Barry Kemp, Barbara Lesko, Bojana Mojsov, Siegfried Morenz, William Murnane, Margaret A. Murray, Donald B. Redford, Herman te Velde, Claude Traunecker, Reginald E. Witt, and Louis V. Zabkar.
I’ve noticed many mythicists use Hornung as a reference. Another interesting scholar (from an earlier time) is Wallis Budge. Acharya/Murdock along with other mythicists reference him. I was having a discussion with an apologetic NT scholar recently, and I noticed in a peer-reviewed article by him that he had also referenced Budge.
April 7, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Benjamin,
What exactly are your intentions and, more importantly, why have you not been up front and honest with me? I just saw your blog and it appears that you have spent a good portion of your time going to various websites and reposting the same information at those sites that you have posted here.
Your confusing “using a reference” with “using a source appropriately”. In my articles on Jesus Quests, I reference sources going back as far as the seventeenth century–I don’t use them to support my conclusions, however. Do you understand the difference between the two? I’d happily explain the difference if you’d like.
The fact that Acharya S spends so much of her references on dated sources to back up her conclusions is appalling. You cite here twenty modern sources. Have you read modern academic publications? Twenty modern sources for a *book* is shameful. And how exactly does she use those sources? Does he refute them by drawing upon dated material like Graves or Massey? And how do mythicists cite Budge? You don’t really say.
As for Acharya S only “consulting” the producers of Zeitgeist, she provided the resources for them. Every connection the movie makes, she has made, using the same sources. So just because I’m drawing an example from Zeitgeist does not remove her from her responsibility as a consulted expert. She has a responsibility to provide the best information available–particularly to a media source which undoubtedly will organize the data into something for a popular viewer rather than an academic audience. In other words, when the media is involved, that is when the scholar should be twice as cautious about supplying information. Massey, Churchward, Remsburg–these names should never have come up. But since this is the only way she can promote her parallelism, they had to come up because no modern, contemporary, academic study exists that supports her conclusions. This is where source citing is relevant and methodology important. Has Dorothy not read Howell and Prevenier’s book on methods for historians? What about Schafer? Or Jarausch and Hardy on quantitative method? They are pretty clear on what counts as academically acceptable sources.
April 7, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Benjamin,
Can you please repost your most recent comment? I thought I hit accept but I do not see it.