tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post109567391339337799..comments2023-06-03T10:46:52.222-07:00Comments on The Mythicism Files: Continuity — The Artist Formally Known as John Quixiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-28628329092211061712016-09-18T10:57:43.894-07:002016-09-18T10:57:43.894-07:00Not the only one reading Im sure!
This entire seri...Not the only one reading Im sure!<br />This entire series has been beautifully researched, crafte and laid out. I applaud you sir/madam.<br />Been fascinated by and drawn to the J Man for 20 years since i 'rediscovered' him in India of all places. Its been a long deep Journey of discovery and one might say Uncovery since then.<br />Latterly ive been more and more drawn toward the Mythicist viewpoint - first through Doherty and then the other Usual Suspects, though notably Richard 'The Ego' ; ) Carrier and Jovial Bob Price. Recently Rafael has caught my attention.<br /><br />This series you penned as served to take me deeper into the interactive connectivity within the 4 canonical Gospels. Most lucid and convincing exposition ive encountered thus far. For that I am grateful.<br /><br />That all being said the writings and exposition I feel MOST closely drawn to and that rings truest for myself is of esoteric nature and penned by Maurice Nicoll - most notably in 'The New Man' and 'The Mark'.<br />The New Man blew me away when i first read it. Suddenly everything seemed to just click into place.<br /><br />Much of the Theist vs Atheist vs Mythicist vs Fundamentalist dog fighting that we have to endure and often plough through on the web i see as ego driven, subjective, 'My God(or No God) is Bigger Than Your God(No God)' ranting and railing.<br />Non of it - that ive stumbled across this far - involves dialogue, its just regurgitation of whatever their pet belief is(often ad nauseum) and a concreted refusal to even listen to yet alone HEAR what the other has to say, other than seeking something the other spouts to be fashioned as a weapon to beat them about the head with.<br /><br />Hence the reason Ive enjoyed this series of yours...and your style of putting it across. I get the clear impression that whilst you have formulated an opinion, that opinion is not dogmatic and that you are constantly open to finding something that may move you to another level of your search.<br /><br />As the Old Indian Dude who re introduced me to The J Man back in India in 98 once said..."Don't go out seeking God. Seek the Truth...and then God might reveal Himself to you"<br />Of course the Truth might equally reveal No God.<br /><br />May the Truth guide your Path always...and dont forget to enjoy the Journey!<br /><br /> martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-75020087122250549022015-02-03T20:22:25.577-08:002015-02-03T20:22:25.577-08:00Hi Bertie;
This series is basically just a respon...Hi Bertie;<br /><br />This series is basically just a response to the Boyd/Eddy claim that the New Testament authors were "thoroughly Jewish." <br />It's not intended as a case for mythicism, except inasmuch as it rebuts a specific historicist argument. Its function is pretty much laid out in the first essay. Subsequent ones are just a book by book analysis defending my rejection of their premise. It turns out to be an embarrassment of riches. <br /><br />I intend the blog to be more of a "who's-who" type thing. These essays I am putting in just to flesh out the blog a bit more. As far as this series goes, I have just one more essay on Hebrews (I may touch on Revelation, though) ... <br /><br />But . . . I'm glad you asked . . . because, if I am reading your comment correctly, I think I may be in total agreement with you. <br /><br />#'s 2 and 3 is were the important distinction lies, I think. <br />And I rather like your description of the current rift within contemporary mythicism between those who accept some rudimentary Jewish root and those who see it as a pagan ... <br /><br />My own view is that the first appropriators (to use your term) were god fearers—not diaspora Jews. I don't think that the use of the LXX would necessarily distort or taint the Judaism of diaspora Jews. That it was misunderstood to the extent that it seems to have been by those who authored the subsequent texts (along with the fact that all of it references the LXX rather than either the Masoretic or the DSS versions, as would be expected to some degree if it were "Judean" in origin) is evidence (to my eyes) of their gentile provenance. <br /><br />I think that Carrier/Doherty are essentially correct in seeing Early Christianity as a syncretic "appropriation." But the mystery cults grew from the top down, so to speak. That is to say, the Mithraists were not Persians who decided to migrate; they were Hellenists who wanted to wax Persian. This is where Doherty/Carrier lose me a bit. They're putting the cart before the horse. I don't know if you agree, but I think their error is in thinking that any of the texts are "authentically" Pauline or Jewish or whatever. <br />I've yet to see a refutation of the Dutch Radical take on the Pauline epistles that doesn't involve special pleading in some way. If they're right, then it means we have no contemporaneous literature whatsoever. <br /><br />On the other hand, on the other side of the rift are the . . . conspiracists ... let's call them, who don't seem to see the extent of the Judaizing going on—explicitly—at every turn. <br /><br />I guess I am closer to the former category, with the aforementioned caveats. But, really, I'm only a "mythicist" insofar as I consider the general theory to be as likely or better than any historicist case I have yet encountered. <br /><br />I've been reading a lot on Marcion lately (Moll, BeDuhn, Lieu), and I think it is bound to affect the way I see the canon. <br /><br />It's been little more than a month since I started this blog. It's cool to know someone is reading. <br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful comment. <br />Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-65095528457946001982015-02-03T15:11:37.836-08:002015-02-03T15:11:37.836-08:00Help me understand where you're going with thi...Help me understand where you're going with this series.<br /><br />Let's divide early Christians into three potential categories —<br />1. Jews<br />2. God-fearers (or at least God-fearers recently booted)<br />3. Appropriators <br /><br />I get the sense from your writings that the gap between (1) and (2) is the important one. And to be sure, in some contexts it is — if you believe in all the faith-claims of Christianity, you need certain NT writers and certain personages described in those texts to be Jews.<br /><br />But when you get into the question of mythicism and Jesus's existence, the subject matter of your blog, I'm not sure that the distinction between (1) and (2) is the important one. Plenty of mainstream critical scholars who think Jesus existed don't depend for that belief in the slightest upon whether this or that NT writer was a Jew or God-fearer. The reason of course is that when such critical scholars speak of “Jew” here they are speaking of Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews who have obtained their literacy in the Hellenistic education system and whose Scripture is the Septuagint. Is there any reason to think (for example) that such a Jew would do Old Testament exegesis “better” than a God-fearer (with whom, of course, he shares the Greek language, Greek education, the Septuagint, and even a kind of synagogue access)? Would a Greek-speaking Diaspora Jew really be a better or worse witness to a historical Jesus than a God-fearer in the same synagogue (they're getting the same rumors, the same letters from Jerusalem and seeing the same immigrants from there)?<br /><br />But the distinction between (2) and (3), I think is an important one. One reason is that the reliability of an author's witness to a historical Jesus does go down if that author is part of a non-Jewish movement that is just appropriating Scripture for this or that purpose. Another reason is that (2) versus (3) is one of the fault lines within mythicism, roughly delineating two lines — what we seem to call the Doherty-Carrier theory (and its antecedents) who keep around a "genuine" Paul and seem to think most of the important parts of the NT (for their theory) were written by Jews or at least people sort-of-attached to Judaism versus the "radicals" who whatever the origin of the tradition find most of the text as we have it written by people pretty remote from Judaism: Greek Philosophers, Marcion, Seneca, Caesar-conspiracy, and so on, as well as the people reacting to these, the “proto-orthodox” who were doing their own form of appropriating. Bertienoreply@blogger.com