First Monthly Bibliovlog Carnival (Topic: Mythicism)

Joel Watts, inspired by Rodney, posted the following:

During the first week of October, I would like to host a carnival or sorts on mythicism. I would like two ten-minute presentations, pro and con. They must be a video of some sort. No, you don’t have to be on the camera, and yes, you can just make an audio recording and turn it into a video of a powerpoint for all I care. These videos will be uploaded to a youtube account and remain private until they are released to the public. Once they are uploaded, I will then send the private links to the presenters who will in turn create a follow up. Privacy is of the utmost on these presentations, because it will allow for a more fuller discussion, especially in the next section.

Bloggers who wish to participate in this carnival by making their own videos on various topics as mythicism and the historical Jesus or even the role of historian, may file amicus curiae (1 to 2 minutes ‘briefs’ in support of your side) videos with me. They will remain private as well until the carnival.

First day, the main presentations. Second day, the follow up/rebuttals. Third day, the briefs.

Maybe if this works, we can have later carnivals of the same type, focused on an issue of the day.

What do you think? I am open to suggestions.

If you would like to submit, please email me at

j watt s

(at)

su dd en l i n k (dot) net

No spaces!

Be sure to include your blog and your position. I don’t need the details, just what position you will argue for.

Presumably I should participate, as it has been several years since I have made a video addressing mythicism.

YouTube Preview Image

Other regular readers who participate in the discussions of mythicism may also be interested in contributing.

To those interested in the topic and in my contributing to this bibliovlogging carnival on mythicism, I would appreciate input and suggestions regarding what it would be most interesting and useful to address in the video.

  • http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/ Joel

    Yes!

  • Anonymous

    That was brave.

  • Stuart James

    This is such a brilliant idea and will inject a whole new exciting dimension to the biblioblogosphere.

    Kudos to Rodney and Joel.

    I’m really excited about this as someone who learns from the biblioblogosphere.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Presumably I will have to make a video arguing the case for mythicism, lest I be thought predictable and unoriginal? 

    • http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/ Joel

      Umm…. No?

  • Robert

    Hello Dr. McGrath,

    I watched the video. Just so I am sure I understand, your argument basically rests on the following premises:

    1. The earliest Christians did not view Jesus as divine.
    2. A crucified messiah ran contrary to contemporary Jewish expectation

    The historical fact, you reference, is the actual crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans.

    Is that correct?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    @8436b7430a904f881bfb7ec67ccfd60d:disqus , there is a sense in which the divinity of Jesus isn’t really relevant, although I agree with your statement. My argument in the video (as I recall – I haven’t watched it in a long time!) is essentially that (1) Jewish expectation regarding the Davidic Messiah was for a human being, descended from David, who would restore the kingship to the rightful lineage; (2) being crucified by foreign overlords was at odds with that expectation; therefore (3) the earliest movement focused on Jesus (even before they were called Christians) would not have invented a figure so at odds with Jewish expectation, had they been starting from scratch, given their aim of persuading other Jews to believe that said figure was the awaited Davidic Messiah.

  • Anonymous

    McGrath: “Many would argue that historical study can’t really say anything about the resurrection.”

    Historical study can say unequivocally that the resurrection was wildly unlikely. No other resurrection story in history is considered historical, therefore, the principle of analogy confirms that any resurrection story is fictional. See how easy that is?

  • Gary

    Don’t care about mythicism…but “Historical study can say unequivocally that the resurrection was wildly unlikely. No other resurrection story in history is considered historical”…just for completness, I think people ought to preface their arguments with their definition of death and resurrection, based upon what people thought at the time. Many cases thoughout history, including current day instances, where a person’s heart stops, they are declared dead, and are then either buried alive (seemed to be a fear in the dark ages), or found alive at the morgue even with modern medical science available (or incompetent doc’s). So is a resurrection coming back alive, as a God, never to die again (if so, how could you tell 2000 years ago)? Or is it just coming back alive, which seems to be a rather common occurance. Or is it coming back alive, in ways we do not understand? My dictionary says “Resurrection – rising from the dead”. Then a secondary definition, Resurrection, with a capital “R”, Christ’s rising from the dead”. Or is it resurrection, after three days? Worth setting ground rules at the beginning of the discussion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X