Ahistoric and Myth
Offline This is a question for anyone familiar with history, and more specifically the historicity of Jesus. Where does one, as a historian, draw the lines of delineation between the ahistoric, mythical, and historic Jesus?
The reason I am asking is that I have been following a few conversations here, at IIDB and a few other places on the Jesus Mythicist position and have noticed that it is common for those who believe in a historic Jesus (especially those who believe in the god-man Jesus) to ask for the mythicist to cite scholars who agree with their position. The historic Jesus'ers then only accept scholars who believe there was no man named Jesus to whom biblical passages/tales have been attributed. In doing this, it seems to me, they are basically turning the ahistoric and the mythicists position into the same position. This would seem to obscure any point in having two different terms, for what one would assume were two different positions, in the first place.
Does the mythicist position not allow for the possibility of a man named Jesus having existed on whom the mythical Jesus is based? If not then why is it a separate position from the ahistoric position? If so then aren't there many scholars who would agree that the biblical Jesus is mythical? Where am I misunderstanding the way these terms are used in the historical sense?
(I read the stickied mythicists position thread and didn't find what I would consider a clear delineation between the positions)
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Hello? Anything anyone can offer in helping me to understand the distinction drawn between the myhticist position and the ahistoricist position, if there is a distinction, would be appreciated.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
the term "mythicism" is largely reserved for what you seem to be calling the ahistoricist position. This is not to be confused with Bultmann's (and many others) position that most of what we see in the gospels are myths created by the church behind which there was a real teacher named Jesus.
My view is that Jesus of the gospels is a myth, not history. The lack of contempoary accounts alone proves this. What the lack of contempoary accounts do not disprove is that a insignificant historical person who may have preached a little in first century Palastine and being the basis of some later writings. I have no problem with this.
Bottom line: neither option helps the Christian.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan