Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

What is this "internal evidence" in Paul’s letters which shows some of them to have definitely(?) been written at an early date circa. 55-60AD?

What is that evidence please?

One thing that might be considered internal evidence is that Paul refers in certain letters to the church in Jerusalem, which certainly would not have been there after CE 70 and may not have even been functioning in CE 66, at the beginning of the Jewish revolt. While dejudge asserts that the mention of the Jerusalem church as a functioning entity is part of a deliberate forgery, there is no compelling reason to believe this.

There is also the apocalyptic theology in those letters most experts consider as genuinely Pauline, as opposed to the deutero-Pauline letters. Apocalypticism was prominent in Judaism from at least ca. 160 BCE into the Bar Kochba revolt ca. CE 135. I find it rather odd that a Christian religion developing ca. CE 180 would be that apocalyptic in orientation, particularly if it did not have Jewish roots.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge: I've asked you this already, without getting a meaningful reply. I'll try this one more time:

Assuming Jesus was completely made up and assuming that the entire corpus of Pauline letters was written after CE 180 and was in fact based on the Gospel of Luke, why and how did nascent Christianity get its Jewish connection?
It would seem odd for the Christians Pliny the younger was writing about ca. CE 120 to have eventually gone out of their way to identify their Christ with a Jewish figure. If, on the other hand, you see Christianity as beginning from a Jewish base, how and when do you see it developing into something else?

Your questions always come with mis-representations of my position.

Again, my position is that the Jesus story and cult started sometime in the 2nd century based on the fact that Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger wrote NOTHING of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul up to c 115 CE.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius claimed the Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE based on Hebrew Scripture.

No Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth is documented in the history of Jews and in fact Vespasian was believed to be the Predicted Messianic ruler, and Savior.

All known arguments by non-apologetics AGAINST the Jesus story and cult were from the mid to late 2nd century which indicate that the Jesus story and cult was completely unknown in the 1st century.

The earliest known writing against the Jesus story and cult is Celsus' "True Discourse" in the late 2nd century c 180 CE and he wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus according to Origen in "Against Celsus"

The writings attributed to Macarius Magnes "The Apocriticus" is extremely important because it is seen what we would expect Celsus to write about Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline Corpus if he had knowledge of them.

 

[TimCallahan]

Your questions always come with mis-representations of my position.

Again, my position is that the Jesus story and cult started sometime in the 2nd century based on the fact that Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger wrote NOTHING of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul up to c 115 CE.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius claimed the Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE based on Hebrew Scripture.

No Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth is documented in the history of Jews and in fact Vespasian was believed to be the Predicted Messianic ruler, and Savior.

All known arguments by non-apologetics AGAINST the Jesus story and cult were from the mid to late 2nd century which indicate that the Jesus story and cult was completely unknown in the 1st century.

The earliest known writing against the Jesus story and cult is Celsus' "True Discourse" in the late 2nd century c 180 CE and he wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus according to Origen in "Against Celsus"

The writings attributed to Macarius Magnes "The Apocriticus" is extremely important because it is seen what we would expect Celsus to write about Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Pauline Corpus if he had knowledge of them.

Okay, one last time: How and - most especially - why do YOU see this Christian religion, originating in the second century, going out of its way to identify with a made-up Jewish rabbi / messiah figure?

 

[Brainache]

Have you or have you not seen people in these recent HJ threads, numerous times objecting to this constant description of people here as mythers and mythicists?

Have you or have you not seen people here repeatedly say they feel that is clearly being used as a term of abuse?

Have you or have you not seen the people you are referring to here as "mythicists", repeatedly saying that they are not proposing any particular myth theory?

You can call people whatever you like within the forum rules. But if you have read any of these HJ threads, then the answer to the above questions is that you know full well that sceptics here have repeatedly objected to those terms as (a)obvious and quite deliberate terms of abuse, and (b)misapplied terms anyway (since few if any of us here are proposing a myth theory of Jesus … most of us are just asking for any evidence of Jesus as a real person).

So please do not refer to me as a "myther or mythicist or whatever". Because I am not claiming Jesus was a myth. I am just asking anyone here what genuine credible evidence there is of Jesus as a living human person.

I have never seen anyone object to the term "Mythicist".

Once Belz... said he didn't like "Myther" and the way I compared it to "Truther", so I've tried to avoid "Myther".

What term would you prefer?

I can think of any number of other ones if you like...

 

[IanS]

One thing that might be considered internal evidence is that Paul refers in certain letters to the church in Jerusalem, which certainly would not have been there after CE 70 and may not have even been functioning in CE 66, at the beginning of the Jewish revolt. While dejudge asserts that the mention of the Jerusalem church as a functioning entity is part of a deliberate forgery, there is no compelling reason to believe this.

There is also the apocalyptic theology in those letters most experts consider as genuinely Pauline, as opposed to the deutero-Pauline letters. Apocalypticism was prominent in Judaism from at least ca. 160 BCE into the Bar Kochba revolt ca. CE 135. I find it rather odd that a Christian religion developing ca. CE 180 would be that apocalyptic in orientation, particularly if it did not have Jewish roots.

Tim - just to be clear; firstly I was not endorsing dejudge's claim of Paul’s letters dating only after 180AD. What I was disputing was that the other poster (was it Craig-B?) was making a false argument in which he was inadvertently assuming he was right to think that the letters definitely did date from c.60AD, when of course he does not actually know that at all ... far less can he know what might really have been written in any letter from c.60AD.

However apart from that - the first problem with any mention of a church at Jerusalem in any of Paul's letters, is that we only have Christian copies of those letters written from around c.200AD and later (mostly, much later iirc).

So we do not actually know if any original writing from Paul at any earlier date of around 60AD, mentioned an existing Jerusalem church building at that earlier time. We actually do not know what Paul may or may not have written at any date around 60AD.

Apart from which - is it certain that anyone writing of a Jerusalem church (either writing in 60AD or long after that date), was definitely referring to a specific stone building? Or could that have been a reference to the group of the most faithful believers in Jerusalem? Or even reference to another building used as their "church" in Jerusalem? For example look at what Paul says in Galatians of his first trip to Jerusalem (see the quote below) - he says “ I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.”, but there he clearly does not mean he tried to destroy a building! … when he says “the church”, he means it was the group of people and their beliefs that he tried to destroy … the “church” he refers to there was the people and their beliefs -


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.+1:13-24&version=NIV
Galatians 1:13-24
New International Version (NIV)
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.


Of his second trip to Jerusalem 14 years later, iirc Paul only says that he went to the place Jerusalem and took Barnabus and Titus with him -

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2:1&version=NIV
Galatians 2:1
New International Version (NIV)
Paul Accepted by the Apostles
2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.


Perhaps Paul’s letters somewhere do talk of him actually being inside the stone building of the church and describing it? But you can tell me if that sort of internal evidence for the existence of the church building itself exists in any of Paul’s letters (albeit, the letters are still copies written centuries after the supposed lifetime of Paul)?.

 

[Stone]

In fact, iirc even the pro-HJ side have themselves several times noted in these threads that even at the time of the biblical writing (first few centuries AD) some people were disputing that Jesus was ever a real person, and saying the Christian beliefs were myth.

I'm not aware of any evidence that some people were disputing that Jesus was ever a real person. If you know of such evidence, I'd love to see it.

The closest were the docetists, who thought that Jesus existed and interacted with people, but that he wasn't made of flesh. But this seems to have arisen from beliefs that flesh was somehow corrupted, so that Jesus could not have had a fleshly body

--which is totally different from any claim that there was no real person. I second GDon here, IanS. Give us a cite for your statement. You're not supposed to falsify what others say, and yet you may be doing a damn good imitation of doing just that right here. So give us your cite. Now.

As for Paul, this point has already been made to you at least once, and yet you still pretend that no one has addressed it yet: to wit, Once we're supposing something as late as 180 c.e.(!), it is absurd to imagine anyone depicting Paul, a revered figure, as idiotic enough to talk of an apocalypse that's right around the corner. In 180 c.e., no apologetic is going to want to remind readers that Paul was wrong! By 180 c.e., every reader would know that the apocalypse never came. OOPS. So how come this kind of "imminent" talk is exactly what we do find plenty of in the seven authentic Paulines? -- in contrast with acedeme's duly rejected forgeries (like Timothy, etc.) in which such talk is practically nil.

The presence of "imminent" apocalypse talk in the seven authentics is a potential embarrassment in 180 c.e. -- as well as for Christians in any subsequent period -- that no second-century Christian forger is going to insert in a Pauline forgery. This is why the presence of just such "imminent" talk in the same seven Paulines duly authenticated by academe must be a sign of authenticity and can come only from Paul's lifetime, when the notion of imminent apocalypse was still seriously considered and not yet a source of embarrassment.

Stone

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is most laughable. Bart Ehrman's Jesus of Nazareth is DIRECTLY from the Bible.

Your statement is ridiculous. I don't care about Ehrman at all. Only you seem to feel that his opinion is important.

I came here to expose the myth called the historical Jesus of Nazareth which was always based on a failure of facts and logic from the very start as declared by Carrier on his review of Bart Ehrman "Did Jesus Exist?".

Then why don't you do that ? So far all you've done is repeat "you are wrong", which is not only unconvincing, but is annoying as hell.

People here who argue for an historical Jesus show an extreme limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity.

I'll let them tackle this, then, but I don't think you've shown much knowledge yourself.

 

[Belz...]

Have you or have you not seen people in these recent HJ threads, numerous times objecting to this constant description of people here as mythers and mythicists?

I know Stone and Piggy both claimed that I was a mythicist because I didn't accept their claims at face value.

 

[dejudge]

--which is totally different from any claim that there was no real person. I second GDon here, IanS. Give us a cite for your statement. You're not supposed to falsify what others say, and yet you may be doing a damn good imitation of doing just that right here. So give us your cite. Now.

As for Paul, this point has already been made to you at least once, and yet you still pretend that no one has addressed it yet: to wit, Once we're supposing something as late as 180 c.e.(!), it is absurd to imagine anyone depicting Paul, a revered figure, as idiotic enough to talk of an apocalypse that's right around the corner. In 180 c.e., no apologetic is going to want to remind readers that Paul was wrong! By 180 c.e., every reader would know that the apocalypse never came. OOPS. So how come this kind of "imminent" talk is exactly what we do find plenty of in the seven authentic Paulines? -- in contrast with acedeme's duly rejected forgeries (like Timothy, etc.) in which such talk is practically nil.

The presence of "imminent" apocalypse talk in the seven authentics is a potential embarrassment in 180 c.e. -- as well as for Christians in any subsequent period -- that no second-century Christian forger is going to insert in a Pauline forgery. This is why the presence of just such "imminent" talk in the same seven Paulines duly authenticated by academe must be a sign of authenticity and can come only from Paul's lifetime, when the notion of imminent apocalypse was still seriously considered and not yet a source of embarrassment.

Stone

You have no idea what you are talking about. There were Christian writers of antiquity who claimed the Second Coming would happen around or after c 500 CE.

Hippolytus of Rome supposedly writing around the 3rd century argued that the Second Advent of Jesus would happen sometime in the 6000th year or 500 years after his supposed birth. According to Hippolytus Jesus was born around the 5500th year after Creation.

Hippolytus' On the Hexaemeron

4. But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him.

For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works."

For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: "five are fallen; one is," that is, the sixth; "the other is not yet come."

 

[Belz...]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It's customary to not insult people repeatedly when trying to engage them in conversation. Being polite doesn't prevent you from making your point.

Oh, it's also customary to make a point in said conversations.

 

[dejudge]

Okay, one last time: How and - most especially - why do YOU see this Christian religion, originating in the second century, going out of its way to identify with a made-up Jewish rabbi / messiah figure?

I never claimed Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. I specifically stated that Jesus was a myth, a monstrous fable, called God Creator who came down from heaven and born of Ghost that walked on the sea for miles..

I know of no Jewish rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth that was documented by non-apologetics to be a Messianic ruler in the time of Pilate.

 

[Brainache]

I never claimed Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. I specifically stated that Jesus was a myth, a monstrous fable, called God Creator who came down from heaven and born of Ghost that walked on the sea for miles..

I know of no Jewish rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth that was documented by non-apologetics to be a Messianic ruler in the time of Pilate.

No one else has heard of this straw-Jesus either.

He had followers who thought he was the Messiah. They carried swords and everything.

He was killed by the Romans, contrary to expectations and a new Jewish Heresy arose amongst an oppressed population praying for "Salvation".

Nothing magical there.

 

[dejudge]

No one else has heard of this straw-Jesus either.

He had followers who thought he was the Messiah. They carried swords and everything.

He was killed by the Romans, contrary to expectations and a new Jewish Heresy arose amongst an oppressed population praying for "Salvation".

Nothing magical there.

Oh, Oh!! You got caught!! You conveniently believe the very Bible without external corroboration.

The Bible is a compilation of Magical events.

You forgot that in the same Bible that Jesus was identified as the product of a Ghost and A Virgin, God Creator and the one who WALKED on the sea, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended in a cloud.

Your arguments are lacking logic.

Romulus was the founder of Rome--nothing magical there.

 

[abaddon]

I have never seen anyone object to the term "Mythicist".

Once Belz... said he didn't like "Myther" and the way I compared it to "Truther", so I've tried to avoid "Myther".

What term would you prefer?

I can think of any number of other ones if you like...

What you have here is an established terminology flailing about in search of a real target.

 

[GDon]

I'm not aware of any evidence that some people were disputing that Jesus was ever a real person. If you know of such evidence, I'd love to see it.

The closest were the docetists, who thought that Jesus existed and interacted with people, but that he wasn't made of flesh. But this seems to have arisen from beliefs that flesh was somehow corrupted, so that Jesus could not have had a fleshly body. If the Gospel of Mark and the proposed set of genuine letters of Paul are the earliest layers we have, then that belief appears to be a later belief.

Isn't this one of the pro-HJ arguments often made? I mean, that if early Christianity was founded on a celestial or purely spiritual Jesus, then anti-Christians would have pointed out that any later claim to human identity was historically out of step, and after the fact? I don't think such a criticism has been found.

Not really a pro-HJ argument, but it is an anti-"celestial Jesus" one. That is, if Paul and earliest Christianity believed in a celestial Jesus, then we have no record of such a belief. And if Paul did write to all those early churches, and they believed in a celestial Jesus as well, then the question of how that belief disappeared apparently within a generation needs to be explained.

Kevin Rosero wrote an excellent and comprehensive article on the topic. He goes through early Christian literature, examining it for evidence of such early "celestial Jesus", and points out the problems with such a belief existing but disappearing entirely from the record: http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/rosero1.html

 

[Brainache]

Oh, Oh!! You got caught!! You conveniently believe the very Bible without external corroboration.

The Bible is a compilation of Magical events.

You forgot that in the same Bible that Jesus was identified as the product of a Ghost and A Virgin, God Creator and the one who WALKED on the sea, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended in a cloud.

Your arguments are lacking logic.

Romulus was the founder of Rome--nothing magical there.

This does not refute anything I or anyone else has said on this topic.

Please desist from repeating it.

What you have here is an established terminology flailing about in search of a real target.

Except for this guy and his fans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.
I think his piece is a must-read. I’ll only briefly comment on some of its key arguments here.
I quite agree with (1) and (2). I’ve made both points myself over the years. But Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.” (There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.) Meanwhile, Fincke explains, “we should either be agnostic on the issue,” as Fincke is, or “defer to historical consensus,” or, “if we really find [e.g.] Carrier’s arguments compelling” then we should “still be cautious and qualified in our declarations, acknowledging that we are agreeing with a minority view (and one that even Carrier seems far from certain about).”
Amen.
In aid of that last parenthetical, I can announce one spoiler: in my book On the Historicity of Jesus (at the publisher now and expected this February, if their production timeline goes to plan) I conclude that, using probability estimates as far against my conclusion as are at all reasonably possible (probabilities I believe are wildly too generous), there could be as much as a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus existed. When using what I think are more realistic estimates of the requisite probabilities (estimates I believe are closer to the truth), those chances drop to around 1 in 12,000...

So, what are we to call these people who arrive on forums and start chanting this mantra about "no evidence" and "Jesus was a myth"?

I'm all ears...

 

[zugzwang]

Not really a pro-HJ argument, but it is an anti-"celestial Jesus" one. That is, if Paul and earliest Christianity believed in a celestial Jesus, then we have no record of such a belief. And if Paul did write to all those early churches, and they believed in a celestial Jesus as well, then the question of how that belief disappeared apparently within a generation needs to be explained.

Kevin Rosero wrote an excellent and comprehensive article on the topic. He goes through early Christian literature, examining it for evidence of such early "celestial Jesus", and points out the problems with such a belief existing but disappearing entirely from the record: http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/rosero1.html

Wow, that is some article; I will need a few days to digest. I notice Doherty refers to the 'great divide between mythicism and historicism' - that is quite a claim. You would think that a great divide would leave behind lots of debris and arguments and general bad temper - so, presumably lots of evidence? Hmm. But maybe the winners (the historicists) erased it all, eh?

Already, my parsimony-meter is beginning to creak and groan.

 

[maximara]

No, it's not a "fringe internet thing". Many academics (and others) have been writing for over a century now, explaining why they think the biblical description of Jesus could not have been that of a real living figure.

In fact, iirc even the pro-HJ side have themselves several times noted in these threads that even at the time of the biblical writing (first few centuries AD) some people were disputing that Jesus was ever a real person, and saying the Christian beliefs were myth.

We have to be careful regarding the use of the term "mythicist" because it has been applied to people who said there was a flesh and blood Jesus in the 1st century:

David Strauss

"The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth."(The Times (1910))



Sir James George Frazer

"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" (Frazer, Sir James George (1913) ''The golden bough: a study in magic and religion'', Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125)



G A Wells. Jesus Myth (1996) and later works

Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999) are labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 ''The Jesus Legend Baker'' Academic on pp. 24.

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."(Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review)

Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus... (Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine)

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996) (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity:
(...)
George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005) (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"])


This sampling over the course of 100 years shows the problem with defining the terms "mythist" and "Christ Myth theory"--the terms have been used with people have accepted the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus in the 1st century but do not accept the Gospels as an accurate description of the life of that man as well as those who say there is no flesh and blood Jesus to be found.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wow, that is some article; I will need a few days to digest. I notice Doherty refers to the 'great divide between mythicism and historicism' - that is quite a claim. You would think that a great divide would leave behind lots of debris and arguments and general bad temper - so, presumably lots of evidence? Hmm. But maybe the winners (the historicists) erased it all, eh?

There's nothing a little FIRE won't fix.

 

[Brainache]

We have to be careful regarding the use of the term "mythicist" because it has been applied to people who said there was a flesh and blood Jesus in the 1st century:

David Strauss

"The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth."(The Times (1910))



Sir James George Frazer

"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth"(Frazer, Sir James George (1913) ''The golden bough: a study in magic and religion'', Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125)



G A Wells. Jesus Myth (1996) and later works

Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999) are labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 ''The Jesus Legend Baker'' Academic on pp. 24.

Here we start to see the modern usage of the term.

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."(Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review)

Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus... (Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine)

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996) (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

The wiki says that he has changed his mind on this. Probably needs updating.

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity:
(...)
George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005) (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"])

That's three. Not exactly a Consensus destroyer.

This sampling over the course of 100 years shows the problem with defining the terms "mythist" and "Christ Myth theory"--the terms have been used with people have accepted the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus in the 1st century but do not accept the Gospels as an accurate description of the life of that man as well as those who say there is no flesh and blood Jesus to be found.

The view that the Bible Jesus isn't an accurate depiction of the man "Jesus", is no longer called a "Jesus Myth" theory. It is mainstream History. No one argues for the gospel Jesus outside of Churches.

That's why your references from 1913 and 1931 are irrelevant to today's terminology.