The Weekly Roundup – 5.31.19

“The ‘Amalgam Jesus’ idea boils down to little more than hand waving. It is a vague and grudging admission that there may be some historical kernels in the story, but a rather muddle-headed attempt to keep this from becoming an acceptance that there was most likely a historical Jesus. As such, it is not so much a coherent argument and more of an emotional defence mechanism. Much like most Jesus Mythicism.” – Tim O’Neill


Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.

7 thoughts on “The Weekly Roundup – 5.31.19

Add yours

  1. Mythicism is not an incoherent and emotional argument. That’s rather snobbish of O’Neill to say especially give n it is backed by plenty of supporting information that’s available for him for review. I would like to see a refutation by O’Neil of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. I left that Minimal Mythicism accounts better for the evidence than Minimal Historicity.

    Like

      1. For one, the apostle Paul seems to have understood Jesus to be a flesh-and-blood figure. As our earliest NT author, this makes it probable that the churches with whom he had contact believed this as well.

        For another, our earliest Gospel, Mark’s, is not an invention of its author. That is, Mark seems to be dependent upon earlier traditions which he works into his narrative for his theological aims. Some of these traditions no doubt originated with the disciples themselves and had been passed down orally.

        There are many more. The main point is, historians of antiquity don’t just believe Jesus existed because they were told to or because they have to. They do it because the available evidence seems to point to it.

        Eventually I’d like to write more on this, particularly Carrier’s take on “born of a woman” in Gal. 4 and his odd view of Paul’s reference to the “seed of David” (i.e. the “cosmic sperm bank”) in Rom. 1. I’ve been blogging less because I’m working on a couple of major projects but maybe I’ll try and write something up soon. We’ll see.

        Like

    1. Here is my correction:
      Mythicism is not an incoherent and emotional argument. That’s rather snobbish of O’Neill to say especially given it is backed by plenty of supporting information that’s available for him for review. I would like to see a refutation by O’Neill of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. That would be a monumental undertaking and as such given O’Neill’s history of mischaracterizing Carrier’s work and sometimes even going as far as to speak less than truthfully regarding the matter is to me a great tell. I conclude from reading Carrier as well as Ehrman and E. P. Sanders that Minimal Mythicism accounts better for the evidence than Minimal Historicity. I remain unconvinced by any that claim that there is any contemporary evidence outside the NT writings that JC even existed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: