// API callback
related_results_labels_thumbs({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652"},"updated":{"$t":"2024-12-18T19:20:07.563-08:00"},"category":[{"term":"Robert M. Price"},{"term":"Richard Carrier"},{"term":"Bart Ehrman"},{"term":"Bruno Bauer"},{"term":"Dutch Radicals"},{"term":"Earl Doherty"},{"term":"Greg Boyd"},{"term":"Paul Rhodes Eddy"},{"term":"creationism"},{"term":"David Fitzgerald"},{"term":"W.C. Van Manen"},{"term":"Acharya S"},{"term":"Alvar Ellegård"},{"term":"Bayes Theorem"},{"term":"D. M. Murdock"},{"term":"D.F. Strauss"},{"term":"Daniel Gullota"},{"term":"Edwin Johnson"},{"term":"F.C. Baur"},{"term":"G.A. Wells"},{"term":"Hector Avalos"},{"term":"Hermann Detering"},{"term":"James McGrath"},{"term":"Miguel Conner"},{"term":"Neil Godfrey"},{"term":"Thomas L. Brodie"},{"term":"Tim Widowfield"},{"term":"Tübingen School"},{"term":"Vridar"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The Mythicism Files"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbig\u003EA Who's Who\/What's What in the ongoing discussion on the historicity of Jesus.\u003C\/big\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/feeds\/posts\/default"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/-\/Bruno+Bauer?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=7"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/search\/label\/Bruno%20Bauer"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Quixie"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/03126711689901268060"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"23","src":"\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgmXmu8XeKoRnSG1srFM_8jtBhGNvbNwOX3gaxaVXxjA4qL1Z28a0t7viPJsUgqpYxgBDxyZCGKmIhZpwF6uMa3qOzbJjvzK0DvHoF0Emh_qmIKDOxnAksVyk2Hw-fKqw\/s149\/*"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"3"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"7"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-2270553468967654036"},"published":{"$t":"2017-03-14T02:58:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2017-03-26T17:04:03.386-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bruno Bauer"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Dutch Radicals"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Antecedents of NT Minimalism: Bauer's 'Christ and the Caesars' "},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhAhjQFkHGbI6kCJFemoFsqK9OiBZrn2giyLMCp94qo63H4zMpiYjNeEMM2sIZ_nW-k9Wc7O26Vy-37nnacJnAv_K2P0aCKLiZP9G8VarmFd1GwWGgy9DcVabE-LwaPPHdu0-Crx-HdHphu\/s1600\/bruno_bauer.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"250\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhAhjQFkHGbI6kCJFemoFsqK9OiBZrn2giyLMCp94qo63H4zMpiYjNeEMM2sIZ_nW-k9Wc7O26Vy-37nnacJnAv_K2P0aCKLiZP9G8VarmFd1GwWGgy9DcVabE-LwaPPHdu0-Crx-HdHphu\/s320\/bruno_bauer.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nBruno Bauer was for a brief time in the nineteenth century the \u003Ci\u003Eenfant terrible\u003C\/i\u003E of New Testament scholarship. He was a brilliant man who crossed paths and kept company with such notable contemporary Germans as Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche. He became professor of theology in 1834—first in Berlin then later in Bonn—but by 1842 his radical rationalism provoked his academic superiors to revoke his teaching license. Insolent and defiant, he pissed off a lot of academics. He never regained a formal teaching post, but he continued to write books on New Testament criticism (and many other subjects) \u0026nbsp;that challenged the orthodox narrative, particularly its view of Christian origins. He became\u0026nbsp;\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003Eeven more scandalous than Strauss or Schleimacher, who had already begun the process of demythologizing the New Testament before Bauer came along, of examining scripture from a literary perspective rather than a devotional one.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nHe published \u003Cb\u003EChrist and the Caesars\u003C\/b\u003E in 1877. \u0026nbsp;This particular book is noteworthy as an influence on what would come to be known as the Dutch Radical school (Loman, Van Manen, Pierson, van den Bergh van Eysinga, et al). The Dutch Radicals mainly focused on the problems with the dating, provenance, and\/or authenticity of the Pauline corpus, but they were (at least indirectly) the precursors of the mythicist scholarship of the early twentieth century (c.f. Drews). \u0026nbsp;Bauer may have been scandalous, but he was far from obscure in his day. He was notorious. He was so widely known that Albert Schweitzer even dedicated a whole chapter of his seminal Quest of the Historical Jesus to discussing his view of Bauer's place on the continuum of scholarship, but Bauer's work has been all but ignored and neglected ever since. Evidence of this neglect can be seen in the fact that there has not been an English edition of this work in print for many decades.\u003Csup style=\"color: red;\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003E1\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/sup\u003E In fact, translations of the works of the whole Dutch Radical school—not just Bauer—into English are relatively rare, and so I was delighted to hear that \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/bookstore.xlibris.com\/Products\/SKU-000740887\/Christ-and-the-Caesars.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ea new translation\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;of Christ and the Caesars is now available.\u0026nbsp;\u003Csup style=\"color: red;\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003E2\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/sup\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nBauer's main contention in this work, in a nutshell, is that Christianity owes more to Greco-Roman philosophy than to anything else, even than to Judaism itself. Specifically, the seeds of Christianity are to be found, says Bauer, in the Stoic philosophy as exemplified by Seneca, the famous orator and tutor of Nero. To illustrate and argue this, Bauer tries to highlight similarities and parallels between the New Testament teachings and the Stoics. That the gospels and epistles reflect at least some Stoic influence has been argued even by conservative commentators and it is a difficult thing to deny. \u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003EBut what of the supposed teacher? To what extent was \u003Ci\u003EHe\u003C\/i\u003E a stoic? What we know about the Caesars—culminating in Nero's feigned über-humanity—provides us with enough typologically to flesh out a model for the reluctant-messiah\/suffering-servant trope which would eventually result (so Bauer) in the literary character of Jesus the Redeemer.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nThe first part of the book\u0026nbsp;is an analysis of the early imperial mindset that prepared the ground for the emergence and proliferation of Christianity. The formative Julian period is crucial to Bauer's central thesis. He is arguing that Christianity is a direct result of Greco-Roman influence \u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003Eon\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E and a syncretic redaction \u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003Eof\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E the Oriental mythologies that the Jewish Diaspora came into contact with during this period. Before he can make this case, this first half of the book necessarily reads like an abridged history of the development of imperial rule in Rome—first the Julians, then the Flavians, the Antonines, and finally culminating in Marcus Aurelius.\u0026nbsp;\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003EWhen he reviews and considers the influence of the Flavian Caesars, he includes some discussion of the influence of Josephus and the Jewish people on the subsequent cultural and imperial development in Rome. I should mention that reading this section I get the feeling that Christ and the Caesars is very likely the springboard that Joseph Atwill used in the development of his own peculiar variation of mythicism. One may compare and contrast Atwill's radical hypothesis (nay, his theory! ... it is quite elaborate—I'll be writing about it at some point soon) that the New Testament texts can be directly and specifically traced and attributed to Emperor Titus himself, who saw this as a way to pacify the nationalistic passions of the Jews after the razing of Jerusalem and the Temple. Now, I don't think that this is what Bauer is saying in \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cb style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003EChrist and the Caesars\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E, at all, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is where Atwill ultimately got the seed of the idea.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/bookstore.xlibris.com\/Products\/SKU-000740887\/Christ-and-the-Caesars.aspx\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"320\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhonHRip8DXVeXd4lyQsVqs49IM-woUqnnNydTpMPtbzNrkWCA9IGPxlCq2zI31IjzdXBSlLbfaUmqy53CuMyDcHTA8MvVXClxoPDOrylOWSfFTyh3gz_hyphenhyphenteBiy3ol_Nhdv50InYjUjlDm\/s320\/BBauerCover.jpeg\" width=\"213\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nBauer gives much detail regarding the war. And there's much to provoke thought there in his view of Josephus' influence. I find something intriguing, for instance, about Josephus' notion of the \"victory\" of a god whose rule had been transferred from the Temple in Jerusalem beyond Judea. This god could now extend his influence and effect his glory onto the whole world. This raises the question: Is there any precedent for this kind of Jewish radical universalism, or was Josephus its pioneer? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDid he\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003Einvent\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/i\u003Ethis expression?  \u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf so, he unilaterally and intentionally diverged from all the normative Judaisms of the time,\u003Csup style=\"color: red;\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003E3\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/sup\u003E all in the interest of pleasing his new master (or in the interest of survival, which in this case was one and the same thing). The question remains, though, did this kind of departure from Judaism that Josephus evinces here influence early Christianity? In order to make any sense, t\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003Ehe direction of this influence would of course require that the works of Josephus precede the composition of the New Testament, which can be argued (and has been, by Steve Mason, Richard Carrier, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Robert Price, and others) \u0026nbsp;pretty compellingly,\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;whether or not Atwill's Vespasian\/Titus assertions bear out. (I think they don't.) While it's not a part of Bauer's thesis, I only mention it now because it's a thought that has pressed itself on me while reading this work, and to which I'll return in the course of blogging here, I'm sure.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nThe second half of \u003Cb\u003EChrist and the Caesars\u003C\/b\u003E focuses on the parallels between Greco-Roman philosophical thought and the content of the New Testament, noting a particular strong connection between this and the Alexandrian allegoricalist school. Bauer finds an indubitable link between the Pauline epistles and Gnosticism, as well, specifically the Valentinian variety. This link has also been argued before by many scholars since Bauer's day.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nIn one of the most terse challenges to the tenets of fullfilment theology that I've encountered, Bauer writes:\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\n\"Not to dissolve, but to fulfill!\" was the call of this man who created the antitheses to Matthew. To call that man, the organizer of the reaction, a Judeo-Christian [...] is a very weak and hasty rush to judgment; it is more likely that this organizer was a Roman who was fed by the spirit of Seneca. The artist who so powerfully united the idea of dissolution and completion was able to speak boldly of completion because he was himself aware with equal conviction of having dissolved the Law up to the last iota.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nI think he is spot on in this assessment. \n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nThe book finally culminates with an incisive dialectical analysis of the dichotomy between Cephas and Paul, which Bauer sees as a kind of Yin Yang construct, that is, as a synthesis between a traditionalist organizing principle (thesis) and a liberating one (antithesis). Bauer does not use these terms, but his analysis reminds me of these Hegelian concepts that are used to describe historical dynamism.\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nI think Bauer was in some ways ahead of his time and I think it's great that \u003Cb\u003EChrist and the Caesars \u003C\/b\u003Eis now accessible to enthusiasts of the history of Christian origins. I do however think that he reveals an inadequate familiarity with history at times, no doubt simply because he didn't have access to all the subsequent research on these matters. For example, I should mention that I see problems with one of the passing examples that he uses to illustrate the parallels between Stoicism and early church tradition and practice. Specifically, he brings up the virginal maidens of early Pagan folklore, who were threatened and treated much in the way that the early christian martyrs were, and yet nevertheless held onto their virtue and as a result were afterward lionized and even venerated for it. If Bauer were writing today, we could point him to the recent work of people like Candida Moss, and I think he would realize that his seeing martyr self-identification as a parallel to earliest Christianity is a bit of an anachronism. We can no longer infer Claudian or Neronian persecutions from the scriptures with the certitude that we used to; these have been shown to be apologetically-derived inventions of Christian authors. That there are parallels between early Christian practice and Stoicism is undeniable, but we must be careful to not overstate the similarities, we must stay within the province of historical probability. We must avoid glaring anachronisms.  \n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nTo the degree that Bauer relies on appeals to analogy and to philosophical\/liturgical parallels in his argumentation, a method which is fairly normative in most mythicist works today, Bauer could arguably be considered the first modern mythicist. \n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ccenter\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C\/center\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E\u003Cb style=\"color: red;\"\u003E1\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/b\u003E-Though it is still cited by the two notable current-day champions of the Dutch Radical school (Hermann Detering and Robert Price)\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cb style=\"color: red;\"\u003E2\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 24px;\"\u003E-A note on this translation: academic 19th century German, with its characteristic prolixity and convoluted grammar, is a bit of a challenge to follow at times for a jíbaro like me, but t\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003Ehe translation is adequate, I'd say, despite the book's linguistic idiosyncrasies\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E. I suspect that whatever convolutedness of style this book has is not necessarily the fault of the translators (Helmut Brunar and Byron Marchant), who are probably only faithfully recreating Bauer's own\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003Elong and winding sentences and clauses. \u0026nbsp;Bauer belongs to his time. As such, his style takes a little effort to follow today. \u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E\u003Cb style=\"color: red;\"\u003E3\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/b\u003E-He didn't risk much by way of refutation from his own people, since it is well documented that the Jews considered Josephus a traitor, and not without reason; that he was a turncoat is undeniable. He could say anything and call it \"Judaism,\" for all Vespasian or Titus knew, without ever being corrected by any rabbi. \u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"text-indent: 0.25in;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n#mythicism  #ChristMyth \n\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2270553468967654036\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/2017\/03\/antecedents-of-nt-minimalism-bauers.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/2270553468967654036"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/2270553468967654036"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/2017\/03\/antecedents-of-nt-minimalism-bauers.html","title":"Antecedents of NT Minimalism: \u003Cbr\u003E\u003Csmall\u003EBauer's 'Christ and the Caesars' \u003C\/small\u003E"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Quixie"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/03126711689901268060"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"23","src":"\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgmXmu8XeKoRnSG1srFM_8jtBhGNvbNwOX3gaxaVXxjA4qL1Z28a0t7viPJsUgqpYxgBDxyZCGKmIhZpwF6uMa3qOzbJjvzK0DvHoF0Emh_qmIKDOxnAksVyk2Hw-fKqw\/s149\/*"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhAhjQFkHGbI6kCJFemoFsqK9OiBZrn2giyLMCp94qo63H4zMpiYjNeEMM2sIZ_nW-k9Wc7O26Vy-37nnacJnAv_K2P0aCKLiZP9G8VarmFd1GwWGgy9DcVabE-LwaPPHdu0-Crx-HdHphu\/s72-c\/bruno_bauer.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-5938987709359309429"},"published":{"$t":"2015-09-27T08:38:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-07-13T13:33:50.398-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bruno Bauer"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Dutch Radicals"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Edwin Johnson"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Hermann Detering"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Robert M. Price"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"W.C. Van Manen"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Hermann Detering"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEjBiA2D_7bDA47sllXbbcmPAj98B7hBIPkwU8Q4yljU6ndlzsJ5FfK757edH7bfrztIt8SiDL4bHks_4UYeJFAWzNLIxh7V45_zPqHaiv4AFFTk7gDZOsiPB0dcocskgzNjsbLQpdEGAGI4\/s1600\/HD_7.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"167\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEjBiA2D_7bDA47sllXbbcmPAj98B7hBIPkwU8Q4yljU6ndlzsJ5FfK757edH7bfrztIt8SiDL4bHks_4UYeJFAWzNLIxh7V45_zPqHaiv4AFFTk7gDZOsiPB0dcocskgzNjsbLQpdEGAGI4\/s1600\/HD_7.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nHermann Detering is not really a mythicist. That is, his writing, as far as I know, does not explicitly bring into question the historicity of Jesus. He nevertheless merits inclusion in a mythicism-who's-who, however, because his work is essentially a revisiting and a re-formulating of several of the crucial Dutch Radical theses that were influential to the development of modern mythicism, most notably the notion that the provenance, dating, and authorship of the Pauline epistles are essentially unknown—certainly uncertain.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ch2\u003E\nThe Good\u003C\/h2\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nThe Dutch Radical school, notorious and influential in a heyday that spanned the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was but a forgotten branch of critical scholarship by the time the \"Third Quest\" of the historical Jesus was underway. Were it not for Detering's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Fabricated-Paul-Early-Christianity-Twilight-ebook\/dp\/B006XXX04G\/ref=sr_1_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1443365870\u0026amp;sr=1-1\u0026amp;keywords=the+fabricated+paul\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Fabricated Paul\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;and for Robert Price's expositions and endorsements of these ideas online and in \u003Ci\u003Ehis\u003C\/i\u003E own books, this rich trove of scholarship would still be neglected or relegated to a mere footnote in the field of biblical studies. \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ch2\u003E\nThe \u003Csup\u003E(not so)\u003C\/sup\u003E Bad\u003C\/h2\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nMore than just representing the Dutch Radical skepticism regarding the traditional provenance of the Pauline epistles, Detering (as does Price in his \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-Amazing-Colossal-Apostle-Historical\/dp\/156085216X\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EThe Amazing Colossal Apostle\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E) also adds to this the somewhat radical idea that the apostle Paul was really a kind of Doppelgänger of Simon Magus, a shadowy figure who was vilified by the patristic writers as the source of all manner of heresy within the ancient Church. The idea is not a preposterous one. Indeed, it is a very thought-provoking idea, and he (they) argue(s) for it fairly cogently, but, given the piecemeal and ambiguous state of the sources from which such a hypothesis can be woven, it can only be speculative in the end. I can entertain it for the sake of the kind of thought experiments that are part and parcel of the exploration of Christian origins, but only with the requisite proverbial grain of salt. Perhaps the arid sands of the Levant will yield some surprise codexes in the future that would further support this idea, but as it stands, it has little circumstantial evidence and\/or indirect support from extant sources to commend it.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ch2\u003E\nThe Bad\u003C\/h2\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\nThe worst thing I found in my reading of Detering's\u0026nbsp;\u003Cb\u003EThe Fabricated Paul\u003C\/b\u003E is the weird (in my opinion) section in which he recalls a visit to a library wherein he finally got to read a rare book he had been searching for by Edwin Johnson, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Antiqua-Mater-Christian-Origins-Primary\/dp\/1293553352\/ref=sr_1_4?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1443366455\u0026amp;sr=1-4\u0026amp;keywords=antiqua+mater\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003EAntiqua Mater\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;(1887), which argues for a form of quasi-mythicism. I have read the book myself and found it to be very good. My apprehension is not so much about the content of this book itself but the mystical, almost sycophantic way that he treats the subject of his quest for this rare book. The section reads like a travelogue digression in what is otherwise a fairly rigorous and scholarly study. He sounds like a fanboy there. What makes it even weirder is that, although \u003Cb\u003EAntiqua Mater\u003C\/b\u003E is a fine book, Johnson's subsequent work, particularly his \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.radikalkritik.de\/PaulEpistles.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Pauline Epistles - Re-Studied and Explained\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E (1894), includes the bizarre claim that the historical period that we know as the Middle Ages (700–1400) never really happened, but was instead an invention of Christian writers, which calls to mind the kind of fringe para-historical conspiratorial formulations of someone like Joseph Atwill, and leaves me scratching my head and questioning its author's mental health and motivations. \u0026nbsp; Knowing this about Johnson's work makes this section in Detering's book a bit surreal to me, though it does not detract much from its overall approach and usefulness \u003Ci\u003Eviz\u003C\/i\u003E Pauline\/Christian origin scholarship.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"color: white;\"\u003E#mythicism\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .25in;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5938987709359309429\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/2015\/09\/hermann-detering_27.html#comment-form","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/5938987709359309429"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/5938987709359309429"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/2015\/09\/hermann-detering_27.html","title":"Hermann Detering"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Quixie"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/03126711689901268060"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"23","src":"\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgmXmu8XeKoRnSG1srFM_8jtBhGNvbNwOX3gaxaVXxjA4qL1Z28a0t7viPJsUgqpYxgBDxyZCGKmIhZpwF6uMa3qOzbJjvzK0DvHoF0Emh_qmIKDOxnAksVyk2Hw-fKqw\/s149\/*"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEjBiA2D_7bDA47sllXbbcmPAj98B7hBIPkwU8Q4yljU6ndlzsJ5FfK757edH7bfrztIt8SiDL4bHks_4UYeJFAWzNLIxh7V45_zPqHaiv4AFFTk7gDZOsiPB0dcocskgzNjsbLQpdEGAGI4\/s72-c\/HD_7.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-5143408424524351011"},"published":{"$t":"2014-12-26T14:18:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-05-15T13:47:14.854-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bruno Bauer"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"D.F. Strauss"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Dutch Radicals"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Earl Doherty"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"F.C. Baur"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"G.A. Wells"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Robert M. Price"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Tübingen School"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"W.C. Van Manen"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Mythicism as Idea Non-Grata"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEiAx3XkTJyP_HLyrwOigztT78qU5RrqOtM4tZ4ZRXOa2Vs1_wOzdFEMEQCMN_Pi0GEIeTqutn1c74Zp3eolN_DJ9ScmiQyAovCgHc_HO75nlhlJiNZLvVWv7AmHSV5seR487fQgTVf5RPaq\/s1600\/jesus_collage.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"200\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEiAx3XkTJyP_HLyrwOigztT78qU5RrqOtM4tZ4ZRXOa2Vs1_wOzdFEMEQCMN_Pi0GEIeTqutn1c74Zp3eolN_DJ9ScmiQyAovCgHc_HO75nlhlJiNZLvVWv7AmHSV5seR487fQgTVf5RPaq\/s200\/jesus_collage.jpg\" width=\"156\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-size: x-large;\"\u003EM\u003C\/span\u003Eythicism, the notion that the Jesus legend might be better explained as a composite hero myth than as a biographical phenomenon— that it might be a fabric more likely woven together from syncretic strands of Mediterranean and Near-Eastern esoterica rather than from historical memory— is an idea that has resurfaced in the cultural landscape following the publication of the works of a handful of scattered writers like Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, G. A. Wells, Hermann Detering, Richard Carrier, and a few others. It is by no means a new notion; all of these scholars would acknowledge their debt to those now-forgotten scholars who freed historical New Testament scholarship from the vise grip of ecclesiastical dogmatism during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries using their (then) newly acquired historico-critical muscles. Once the Enlightenment had safely established the scientific paradigm as the new, preferred standard of learning and investigation to aspire to (logic replacing faith as the ultimate arbiter of truth), it was only a matter of time before the new methodologies would start to be applied to Holy Writ itself. At the time, scripture had been that which had vouchsafed the authenticity of the traditions of the ubiquitous Christian religion for eighteen hundred years.  What secrets might a new scientific examination of these ancient texts reveal?  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nThis was the question that prompted the birth of the “higher criticism” (a.k.a. ‘historico-critical method’). In the post-enlightenment period, as inquisitive minds (Baruch Spinoza, Friedrich Schleiermacher,  Christian Hermann Weisse, David Friedrich Strauss, \u003Ci\u003Eetc\u003C\/i\u003E.) began to engage these texts from a deductive, historiographical perspective, one requiring a temporary 'willful suspension of belief' in the name of methodological honesty and neutrality, their resulting reconstructions were often very offensive to the scholars and to the clergy of the time, who were quick to denounce them. People tend to get a bit grouchy when their sacred cows are taken out of their glass cases and examined too closely, so despite the diligent and exhaustive work put in by Strauss and Schleiermacher and by those who followed their lead, it could only meet with resistance from both the church and the academy … at first.   The stodgy piety and decorum of that bygone era served to ensure that the conclusions reached by the historiographic probings of these men into the origins of the Bible and of the Christian religion would be categorically shunned and reviled by their conservative peers, who were still mired in their devotional, superficial approach to the study of the Bible’s details.  Among the shocking new revelations of these higher-critical scholars were:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cul style=\"margin-left: .6in; margin-right: .6in;\"\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThe fact that the Pentateuch could not have been the work of a single, historical Moses, that at least four individual scribes, or \"schools\" (for lack of a better term), spanning several centuries, were responsible for its compilation.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ESimilarly, the book of Isaiah, was demonstrably a conglomerate of at least three different schools.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EMark, contradicting long-held church tradition (\u003Ci\u003Ecf\u003C\/i\u003E., ClementºA ... Jerome), was likely the earliest of the gospels in the New Testament to be written.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EAt least several of the epistles attributed to Paul were very probably the late pseudonymous products of an emerging ecclesiastical structure.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ul\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nThese proverbial elephants in the middle of the room (and there were many others) were simply too big and too spooky for those who had authority over the parlors of the time to look at. They continued to denounce and mock those who strayed from the long-established axioms concerning the provenance and authorship of the texts, but one can only ignore an elephant for so long.  It took a few generations for the usefulness of the new historico-critical hermeneutic to slowly take hold, but it inevitably \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003Edid \u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003Etake hold,  and as time passed these scholars' ideas became progressively more and more accepted as valid, and even eventually became \u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003Ethe\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Enormative \u003C\/i\u003Einterpretation of the evidence. After a great deal of exposition, dialog, and debate of the details involved, academic consensuses were eventually arrived at concerning many things which had previously been believed to be otherwise. Indeed, the ideas of Strauss and later of Bultmann would soon become the fundamental presuppositions that scholars now use as their starting place in their own investigation and analysis of  these texts, even to this day. To be sure, consensus is not always arrived at (they are actually the exception, not the rule), but in each of the cases I listed above, at least, after various kinds of higher criticism (redaction-criticism, textual-criticism, form-criticism, source-criticism, among others) were applied to the pertinent texts, the consensus on these matters, though not universal (it never is), is fairly overwhelming.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nWith time, the conclusions of some scholars became more and more radical. F.C. Baur would found a school of thought in Tübingen that embodied this new historiographic hermeneutic. If the religionist academic hierarchy found it difficult to accept  Schleiermacher's opinion that Paul might have written neither of the Timothies, it was absolutely \u003Ci\u003Ehorrified \u003C\/i\u003Ewhen Baur suggested that out of the thirteen epistles traditionally ascribed to him, only four (both Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans) could be seen as possibly the authentic work of a historical Paul. The others, he said, could be shown to reflect a second-century synthesis of this Pauline core of four with a hazy Palestinian tradition which we know almost nothing about (its texts did not survive but we can at times see some vestigial traces of this sect in the texts that\u003Ci\u003E did\u003C\/i\u003E survive). \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\n\u003Ctable cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" class=\"tr-caption-container\" style=\"float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;\"\u003E\u003Ctbody\u003E\n\u003Ctr\u003E\u003Ctd style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEj1YZBwmQzlCgTRoZxkkfxfkdsppbjBAqU5LntecazigvqCmFyLMrSOC3G5JhRQKtHh6WDUh-ckF-XOx0y0-2ihi_Wmd4jGcuRQWzqPtu3Ty1zVFaA_7Kg2kkT6CGVc0-qdknih12Mp3jGA\/s1600\/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur_180px_01.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEj1YZBwmQzlCgTRoZxkkfxfkdsppbjBAqU5LntecazigvqCmFyLMrSOC3G5JhRQKtHh6WDUh-ckF-XOx0y0-2ihi_Wmd4jGcuRQWzqPtu3Ty1zVFaA_7Kg2kkT6CGVc0-qdknih12Mp3jGA\/s1600\/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur_180px_01.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/td\u003E\u003C\/tr\u003E\n\u003Ctr\u003E\u003Ctd class=\"tr-caption\" style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003EF.C. Baur\u003C\/td\u003E\u003C\/tr\u003E\n\u003C\/tbody\u003E\u003C\/table\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf \u003Ci\u003Ethat \u003C\/i\u003Eweren't enough, along came Bruno Bauer and the Dutch Radical school. This group saw no reason to authenticate \u003Ci\u003Eany \u003C\/i\u003Eof the Pauline works. They discredited the lot of them. Some thought Bauer went too far, and he had indeed gone further than anyone had before him, but the crucial thing to keep in mind is that when (Bruno) Bauer argued for the spurious nature of \u003Ci\u003Eall \u003C\/i\u003Ethe epistles, he was using pretty much the very same lines of reasoning that (F. C.) Baur had used to discredit Philippians, Ephesians,  \u003Ci\u003Eet. al.  \u003C\/i\u003E The Dutch were that radical. They would even eventually be as audacious as to bring into question the very historicity of Jesus and of the disciples (Bauer, Pierson, and Loman).  As radical as the idea may sound at first, if it turns out that the Pauline corpus is entirely spurious, then we in fact posses no primary sources to inform historiographic speculations on any of it. This prospect is a very disturbing one for those who would base their theoretical constructs (and professional careers) on the basic reliability and historical trustworthiness of the New Testament narratives. Bauer was crossing a kind of asymptotic line that no one had ever dared to cross before, not even Baur, who, when \u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003Ehe\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E came to that cliff edge, was compelled to stop by his religious sensibilities.   Bauer, on the other hand, dove in with aplomb.  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nThis was shocking. There is a big difference between on the one hand boldly pointing out that the chronology of the gospels as traditionally taught was wrong, that the gospel we know as Mark's very probably came first, and on the other hand suggesting that we have no primary sources whatsoever or that Jesus very probably is primarily a mythic construct. One could accept the former without it affecting one's religious or professional commitment in the least. But to accept or to even consider the latter ideas would require, at the very least, a complete re-examination of the interrelationship between the Christian scriptures and the claims they purport to historically support.  In fact, the resistance encountered by the ideas of the scholars of the Tübingen  and Dutch Radical schools was proportional to how mythologizing they were.  Marcan priority, while an audacious idea at first, was not really all that threatening to the faith itself, and so could reluctantly be brought up for discussion and debated without the awkwardness or scandal that the more radical ideas of Bauer could induce, but the really heavy ideas, like the idea that Jesus didn't \"exist\" (at least not in the way we have been taught to think he did), was ignored out of hand as a ludicrous proposition, not worthy of serious scholarly consideration.  Anything that suggested the basic fictive and tendentious and syncretic aspects of the Jesus story got the silent treatment.  The matter was never engaged, never discussed in any real depth, never debated in history departments. Simply cast aside as ludicrous from the outset, no thorough critical academic evaluation of the ideas of the Tübingen and Dutch Radical schools seems to have been conducted. Is it any surprise, then, that so few 'refutations' of these scholars were written?\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nAlbert Schweitzer, who was personally acquainted with a few of the radicals, seems to be one of the only contemporaries who took these guys seriously. He didn't just know of them. He mentioned many of them in his classic \u003Cb\u003EThe Quest of the Historical Jesus\u003C\/b\u003E, and even devoted whole chapters to Strauss and to Baur.  Curiously, while he openly disagreed with the Tubingen school and with the Dutch Radicals, he nevertheless praised their rigorous and meticulous methodologies and obviously thought very highly of them. He respected them and considered them scholars \u003Ci\u003Epar-excellence\u003C\/i\u003E.  Unfortunately, the focus and scope of Schweitzer’s volume did not allow for a full engagement with the arguments of these radicals concerning the Pauline corpus and the historicity of Jesus. Only a cursory summary is sketched in \u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003EQuest\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E, and in the end, he considered their conclusions to be reactionary and ideologically based, and he went on to put them in what he thought were their proper respective places in the history of historical Jesus studies. So ... yeah ... he disagreed with them. At least he acknowledged them, though, which is more than any of his other contemporaries had done. (An aside: His treatment of these scholars evinces his own particular brand of iconoclasm. Schweitzer was a cool dude.)\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nThe few semi-scholarly works devoted to the \"refutation\" of mythicism that \u003Ci\u003Ewere \u003C\/i\u003Epenned in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth were no more than \u0026nbsp;polemical over-simplifications that generally misrepresent mythicist arguments in a way intended to make then seem ridiculous, or else they were exercises in righteous circularity, or were both simultaneously. Very little unimpassioned or non-hostile or unbiased scholarly discussion has been advanced to refute the Christ myth theory.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nThis is doubly frustrating.  On the one hand, I’m sure that many people (I, for instance) would love to read any collection of such point-by-point scholarly refutations. Why hasn't anyone bothered to do this? On the other hand (here I finally arrive at the problem at hand), by some unfortunate lapse in logic, the long silence the hypothesis engendered has been now co-opted by apologists, who conveniently misread it as if it were evidence of some kind of tacit agreement within the academy that the hypothesis has been discredited.  The silence of a stumped room of startled exegetes has over the decades become misinterpreted as the silent ruling of some imaginary consensus. To insist that this silence is a vindication of the standard position by default, however, as some do, is an invalid and premature projection.  Is there such a thing as an expiration date on an ignored proposition which would render it invalid after a time?   Is there a statute of limitations on the discussion of theories?   An eternal green room? \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgLB_aHkfDLjEVcnDLMAi6OtaoixGNfIK09bMkPSFbf_q6tC5hGq72dxEDAgaHnIs1oikPEt71A-7TTsitvQXgsNxMKwtqkRYUlhESyo51YAT7u84Cud2pOJZqYUZzATdmlu_MKU13puY7S\/s1600\/PaperDolls.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"240\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgLB_aHkfDLjEVcnDLMAi6OtaoixGNfIK09bMkPSFbf_q6tC5hGq72dxEDAgaHnIs1oikPEt71A-7TTsitvQXgsNxMKwtqkRYUlhESyo51YAT7u84Cud2pOJZqYUZzATdmlu_MKU13puY7S\/s320\/PaperDolls.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\nThat a majority of New Testament (or any other kind of) scholars have never considered that the dearth of primary sources makes the biographical legend dubious at best—that they accept the historicity of Jesus uncritically,\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003Ea priori\u003C\/i\u003E — is unquestionably true.  But to call an unexplored assumption a \"consensus \" is to equivocate. It's a clear example of a semantic fallacy, where the precise meaning or implication of a word or phrase is disregarded (consciously or not) in favor of its more casual, every-day usage. Another example of this fallacy is the common use of the word \"myth\"  to express the idea of a falsity.  In an academic sense, the word \"myth\" denotes  a complex of interrelated symbols and stories and archetypes which informs the self-identity and cultural inheritance of a given people.  In modern lay parlance, the word simply means \"fairy-tale,\"  or worse,  \"lie.\"  Similarly, the word \"consensus\" in an academic sense denotes a position commonly held by an authoritative body, a viewpoint arrived at and agreed upon after careful examination and subsequent debate of the pertinent facts and evidence has been undertaken.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nMost New Testament scholars happen to be Christians. Even the ones that are not Christian have been enculturated in a thoroughly Christian matrix. Whether a scholar is religious or not, we must keep in mind that what we are dealing with are creedally accepted foundational axioms of a specific ancient religious community, claims which are politically incorrect to call into question, claims for which ultimately there is no way to determine historicity (even if miracles really do happen!).  These are things that have not been (that\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003Ecannot be\u003C\/i\u003E, not with the texts we have to work with, at any rate) empirically verified; they are simply taken as given. \u0026nbsp;Now, I am not saying that historicism requires \"faith.\" I realize that there are plenty of secular, Jewish, Hindu (or whatever) scholars who accept historicity as a default. The point is not that historicity requires Christian faith, the point is that even these scholars who are not Christian and hold to this opinion are not doing so through a process of examination and debate, but that they are instead just taking it as a given. It's simply something they've never thought all that much about. There is a very important distinction here. \u003Cb\u003EA consensus is not just a majority view.\u003C\/b\u003E  Consensus implies more than passive acceptance of a given, it involves reasoned agreement after rigorous examination of evidence.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nThe \"consensus\" argument is made essentially of nothing more that straw and bravado. Yet there are those who still regrettably appeal to consensus in their argumentation. It is often the frontline defense in a rejection of mythicism, sometimes the \u003Ci\u003Eonly \u003C\/i\u003Eone.  It's actually symptomatic of the troubling state of affairs in the field today, where arguing from an authority— in this case no more than a \u003Ci\u003Eperceived \u003C\/i\u003Eauthority, an \u003Ci\u003Eimagined\u003C\/i\u003E authority—an embarrassing blunder in any scientific discipline, is let slide in biblical studies. It's even worse, some academics now even specialize in this sort of superficial head counting and quasi-frequentist statistical analysis in their professional NT studies work, meticulously graphing the trends in the literary output of NT scholars, categorizing their works individually and collectively by how they rate on a linear scale, with strict orthodoxy at one extreme and skepticism on the other.  In this way they try to show that the orthodox position on any given matter is not only plausible, but normative, and therefore preferable by default (\u003Ci\u003Ec.f\u003C\/i\u003E. Gary Habermas). \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nSee the logic?\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nIf relying on a consensus is a logical fallacy, and that's necessarily a bad thing, what does it say about this tactic if the consensus that one relies on is just imaginary to begin with. It's a puzzling phenomenon to encounter in a field that is supposed to be an academic enterprise. This is the sort of scholarly behavior that Hector Avalos explores in his \u003Cb\u003EThe End of Biblical Studies\u003C\/b\u003E, a scathing critique of the currents underlying modern New Testament scholarship (Philip Davies is another vocal critic of such practices).  Then, to add insult to injury, backed by their paper-doll consensus, many  \"historicists\" (for lack of a coined term) adopt a haughty, mocking, downright insulting  attitude toward the scholars who have exhumed these long-ignored ideas of the Tübingen  and Dutch Radical schools, dusting them off for public perusal once more.  Whenever I encounter invective language in any academic argument, a little alarm goes off in the back of my head, something like a big yellow sign on a swervy road warning me: 'CAUTION! - PASSION AHEAD.'   If cogent arguments were being offered up, instead of over-simplifications, I could understand frustration turning into insult. Where there should be coherent arguments against the ideas presented, I see field of red flags and warning signs, and I will further add that there would be no need for this rancor if the theory was not seen as a personal affront somehow.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEjKDk7JLFQqEPCKVL_ik7jEKdG5llXRNGBGMHu_UZrSnJVy3uhyphenhyphenzFeQ2Zvt2kwyodVqviEsH91MVb-28FXp44ZeX10rhaF-W1Ro7YhaSnuvpvZ-miLouax_-5-NYOAG3tr6CHVm7oy84E1q\/s1600\/CrazyRoad.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"200\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEjKDk7JLFQqEPCKVL_ik7jEKdG5llXRNGBGMHu_UZrSnJVy3uhyphenhyphenzFeQ2Zvt2kwyodVqviEsH91MVb-28FXp44ZeX10rhaF-W1Ro7YhaSnuvpvZ-miLouax_-5-NYOAG3tr6CHVm7oy84E1q\/s200\/CrazyRoad.jpg\" width=\"155\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nIt's not just faith that is jeopardized by the Christ Myth, obviously. One could tangentially argue that this out-of-hand dismissal of the hypothesis in the academic community could also be a matter of scholars subconsciously huddling together against a gathering storm, so to protect the means of their livelihood (job security can be a powerful motivating factor). And who could blame these armies of professional exegetes, really, for bracing themselves against such an imaginable end to their tenures? Moreover (and perhaps more poignantly), who really wants to believe that all the work one has devoted so much time and passion to turns out to be a house of cards in the end?\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nDespite vehement opposition and prejudice, in this less-than-welcoming climate, the new mythicists have appeared on the scene, undaunted, representing the scholars of old, giving the lie to this paper doll ‘consensus,’ and reminding us that the riddles and inconsistencies in the texts, the same ones that once led the old Tübingen and Dutch radicals to advance their appalling ideas, are \u003Cbig\u003E\u003Ci\u003Estill\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/big\u003E glaringly \u003Cbig\u003E\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003Ethere\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/big\u003E, and are still as unexplored and as glossed over as ever.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-indent: .2in;\"\u003E\nTo be fair, though, in closing, let me now admit that more monographs are sorely needed (on \u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003Eboth\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E sides of this question). Until historicists can make a solid valid positive case for a historical Jesus, until mythicism can be expressed more cogently than it has been in the past, until detractors stop with the silent treatment, the mockery, and the resident scorn, this issue will continue to be the posturing dance of egos that it currently is. I also admit that I agree that some of the frustration and rancor felt toward a certain variety of infantile cyber-clandestine uninformed trolling on the internet is indeed very much deserved, and I truly empathize with those sentiments. I myself have dealt with their fanatical incoherence on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, this is the internet, where everybody and their proverbial mother can wax authoritative without having read any substantive, truly scholarly works on this (or any other) subject. But it would be a great mistake to not discern the wheat from the chaff in this matter, I think. Though there may be a few loons in the field, it would be a great mistake to throw the whole mess into the flames. To categorically consider anyone who might find mythicism a plausible scenario to be reprehensible, or laughable, or crazy, or anti-scholarly, or what-have-you, in one fell swoop, solely on their sober acceptance or defense of \u003Ci\u003Ethat\u003C\/i\u003E historical possibility, would be to do a great disservice and insult to many honest, dutiful, able, conversant, diligent, sophisticated, nuanced, credentialed, insightful, and honorable scholars of the past and of the present, who at the very least deserve the respect of their peers.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ctable cols=\"5\"\u003E\n\u003Ctbody\u003E\n\u003Ctr\u003E\n\u003Ctd\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos\/dp\/1591025362\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"150\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEiE2cNYFNXJLvt8lonadvccS8ZwR0lmDnt-_LZma0xKNASd8wUokZdyRwQiItnqy34CeswaacHGcxBRmnFP0bDVpsdwsq6YhfwZfyOLWIyt5HACTgSmwDmYAv4jSaW2FB8qdnwgcE-AHlFL\/s1600\/Avalos+book.jpg\" width=\"100\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-T%C3%BCbingen-School-And-Antecedents\/dp\/1176146408\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"150\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEhexZ81aev6TaT8O6-C94CdzpHNrjwmJB8jySSd0NdAcDNKALbKSpte2doJwHiu-eUa1PawTTQiLgbDIuEq-87FxttZFADmsCfZzWSHnBMM3H4VZWKDmICPeUPXTRBBtGwF3vSpDiDfGC7s\/s1600\/TubingenSchool.jpg\" width=\"100\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Quest-Historical-Jesus-Albert-Schweitzer\/dp\/0486440273\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"150\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEj7lPFl1CsfXBasNZzSgglUfY75dLP44uk7d_PDcqYcdXT55tLvZaZi7LWoEDCn0H8ukO8e3lkxN_lpWl95wiASuSAbNWV-ORsdwVfeDKw4w9sc9ExiLQmRDI3ZDhTalbWNfW4dUOHG3Br2\/s1600\/Schweitzer+quest.jpg\" width=\"100\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Jesus-Criteria-Demise-Authenticity-Chris\/dp\/0567377237\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"150\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgBKq3jpl7RTH2XFeyR9rQtEPB1xHJTl2t9dMAd_lq3eI0w5TAuEtTZ4qQI17G9XjAYvl-bzn_n_ynp6lXHtGEgNgdvxOCTmGRoZEYkZPYRjsHFnC7elLtYamhhlQmL5nSuJ8adTBCg9chq\/s1600\/Criteria.jpg\" width=\"100\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-Historical-Jesus-Five-Views\/dp\/0830838686\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"150\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEh8_SyYGFuwH-Zy2jFQ0BnH3-69I0E4iIUvOzItx-vnZTT0sx1sLibUevtkHbQpvg9QWCutXUwbWNp5HOe2jg0LfYki0yh8yPTlmMPGi6sLw9caAaUI3-UpY8adw4oaI-Gz-78NwX6QEQPU\/s1600\/FiveViewsWeb.jpg\" width=\"100\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003C\/td\u003E\u003C\/tr\u003E\n\u003Ctr\u003E\n\u003Ctd\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Cutting-Jesus-Down-Size-Christianity\/dp\/0812696565\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"150\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEjy73lJk0LFJB8GOq8x1wyeuv4ZpDR7VjQx7x0-jzBOWlYGJ0ijZcM62_xR8RXx6S_HZ4Q15dyoES2ENlONcPd-n7Dz28GpydbNEdPycVog4RO7_WWWhvkVwb665_5nRFLsh3zvsy4mJymB\/s1600\/GAWellsSize.jpg\" width=\"100\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E.\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E.\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E.\u003C\/td\u003E\u003Ctd\u003E.\n\u003C\/td\u003E\u003C\/tr\u003E\n\u003C\/tbody\u003E\u003C\/table\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ch2\u003E\nFurther reading:\u003C\/h2\u003E\n\u003Cul style=\"margin-left: .33in;\"\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos\/dp\/1591025362\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003EThe End of Biblical Studies\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E by Hector Avalos (2007)\u003Cbr \/\u003E—A must-read critique of the problems with the methods and the motives in New Testament studies.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRating: \u003Cspan style=\"color: #38761d;\"\u003E★★★★★\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-T%C3%BCbingen-School-And-Antecedents\/dp\/1176146408\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003EThe Tübingen School and its Antecedents\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E by R. W. Mackay (1863)\u003Cbr \/\u003E— A very informative contemporaneous overview of the movement. It is tangentially pertinent to mythicism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: small;\"\u003E. . . . . . . .\u003Cb\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/tbingenschoolan00mackgoog\"\u003EFree version\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E at Archive.org\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ERating: \u003Cspan style=\"color: #38761d;\"\u003E★★★★½\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Quest-Historical-Jesus-Albert-Schweitzer\/dp\/0486440273\"\u003EThe Quest of the Historical Jesus\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E by Albert Schweitzer (1910)\u003Cbr \/\u003E—A must read foundational classic. \u003Cbr \/\u003E. . . . . . . .\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/files\/45422\/45422-pdf.pdf\"\u003E\u003Cbig\u003E\u003Cb\u003EFree version\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/big\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E from the Gutenberg Project.\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRating: \u003Cspan style=\"color: #38761d;\"\u003E★★★★★\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/depts.drew.edu\/jhc\/\"\u003EThe Journal of Higher Criticism\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E - an online collection of essays by many of the scholars mentioned above. Great resource.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Jesus-Criteria-Demise-Authenticity-Chris\/dp\/0567377237\"\u003EJesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E by Chris Keith \u0026amp; Anthony LeDonne (editors) (2012)\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-Historical-Jesus-Five-Views\/dp\/0830838686\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EThe Historical Jesus: Five Views\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E (2009)\u003Cbr \/\u003E—A five-prong discussion on the historical Jesus, edited by Paul Eddy. Price's introductory minority opinion essay serves as a kind of foil for the other contributors to lambast. It is a good example of the irrationality of some historicists when they encounter the \u003Ci\u003Eidea non grata\u003C\/i\u003E of New Testament minimalism.\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E \u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRating: \u003Cspan style=\"color: #990000;\"\u003E★★½\u003C\/span\u003E☆☆\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Cutting-Jesus-Down-Size-Christianity\/dp\/0812696565\" target=\"_blank\"\u003ECutting Jesus Down to Size\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E by G.A. Wells (2009) — \u003Cbr \/\u003E ... Wells traces the discipline’s German beginnings, exploring the problems in the New Testament that prompted scholars to revise traditional theories of the scriptures’ origins. Wells then traces the development and reception of these views from the 18th century to today. He persuasively profiles the New Testament as a fascinating but flawed collection of incompatible viewpoints, revealing Jesus as a shifting, ambiguous, legendary figure who reflected the evolving teachings of a fragmented, emotion-based cultic movement.\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRating: \u003Cspan style=\"color: #38761d;\"\u003E★★★★★\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ul\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"color: #274e13; font-size: xx-small;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5143408424524351011\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/2014\/12\/mythicism-as-idea-non-grata.html#comment-form","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/5143408424524351011"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/4753305954289256652\/posts\/default\/5143408424524351011"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/mythicismfiles.blogspot.com\/2014\/12\/mythicism-as-idea-non-grata.html","title":"Mythicism as Idea Non-Grata"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Quixie"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/03126711689901268060"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"23","src":"\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgmXmu8XeKoRnSG1srFM_8jtBhGNvbNwOX3gaxaVXxjA4qL1Z28a0t7viPJsUgqpYxgBDxyZCGKmIhZpwF6uMa3qOzbJjvzK0DvHoF0Emh_qmIKDOxnAksVyk2Hw-fKqw\/s149\/*"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEiAx3XkTJyP_HLyrwOigztT78qU5RrqOtM4tZ4ZRXOa2Vs1_wOzdFEMEQCMN_Pi0GEIeTqutn1c74Zp3eolN_DJ9ScmiQyAovCgHc_HO75nlhlJiNZLvVWv7AmHSV5seR487fQgTVf5RPaq\/s72-c\/jesus_collage.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}}]}});