ChatGPT
The writer of the above quote replied:
ChatGPT said:
That’s a helpful clarification from the writer. Their reasoning for introducing Classical Mythicism makes sense in terms of shifting the debate away from the endless historicity vs. non-historicity argument and toward a text-centered approach. Some key takeaways from their response:
They consider non-historicity plausible but not necessary – This suggests they aren't fully committed to mythicism in the traditional sense but think it's worth discussing.
They see "historicity detective work" as a distraction – The standard debates over proving or disproving historicity often lead to dead ends. Instead, they focus on textual analysis.
They want a concept that is useful even if historicity is irrelevant – Interpretation of texts is necessary regardless of whether Jesus existed, so Classical Mythicism reframes the discussion around that.
The term ‘classical’ shifts the focus to known texts – Unlike speculative mythicist models (e.g., Carrier’s celestial Jesus), this approach grounds itself in textual interpretation rather than hypothetical reconstructions.
They argue that ‘Classical Mythicism’ provides stronger explanatory power – By prioritizing text analysis, they believe this model avoids weaknesses in other approaches.
You said:
But - does this approach not move anything forward re searching for early christian origins i.e. interpretating texts is a bit like playing any old tune on a fiddle. It's been done for centuries of NT scholarship - and the result ? Hundreds of different interpretations of text producing hundreds of christian sects. Suggesting that interpretating text is anyone's game hence can't lead to an understanding of early christian theological thought - let alone offer anything in the way of an historical understanding of early christian origins. Texts are just that - words in print. Indeed, they are the vehicle that delivers the NT narrative. Is it not the cargo itself that is primary i.e. the narrative, the story, that the words are attempting to articulate. To understand the story we need more than the NT words, more than the vehicle that delivered the story. For that, surely, an historical research is vital. History, as far as it can be discerned, should be given it's full weight and not simply be viewed as underdog in the search for early christian origins.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a strong critique, and one that has real weight—especially if the goal is to advance our understanding of early Christian origins as a historical phenomenon, rather than just as an exercise in literary interpretation.
1. The Limits of Textual Interpretation
As you point out, textual interpretation alone—especially when it remains within the boundaries of already well-known texts—doesn’t necessarily advance the historical investigation. The sheer number of Christian sects (each with its own textual reading) is proof of how malleable interpretation can be. If interpretation alone were the key, there wouldn’t be so many competing theological and historical reconstructions.
Moreover, texts are always written for a purpose, meaning they are often biased, incomplete, or misleading as historical sources. Without grounding in external history, interpreting them is, as you put it, like playing any old tune on a fiddle—potentially interesting, but unlikely to produce a decisive understanding of early Christianity's actual development.
2. The Need for Historical Investigation
You raise an important distinction: the vehicle (the text) vs. the cargo (the story it is trying to deliver). If early Christian texts reflect an evolving theological project, then we should be looking beyond just the words—toward the historical realities that shaped these writings.
A serious historical approach needs to:
Place texts in their historical context (who wrote them, when, and why).
Look for external corroboration (or lack thereof) in non-Christian sources.
Analyze the political and social structures that influenced Christian development.
Be willing to question the reliability of textual traditions—not just by comparing them to each other, but by testing them against what we can reconstruct about 1st- and 2nd-century history.
This is why historical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, and archaeological evidence must be central, rather than just interpreting Christian texts in isolation. Otherwise, we risk only analyzing theological evolution instead of the real-world origins of the movement.
3. Does ‘Classical Mythicism’ Help or Hinder?
If it just reframes textual interpretation, then it doesn’t move historical research forward—it’s another model for reading Christian texts, not for reconstructing historical events.
If it allows for a stronger historical foundation (e.g., by questioning interpolations and textual layering in light of external history), then it could be useful.
However, if it shies away from engaging directly with history in favor of just analyzing literary trends, then it risks being just another way to endlessly debate texts without getting closer to historical reality.
Bottom Line
Interpretation of texts is necessary, but it isn’t enough. If we are to really get at early Christian origins, historical inquiry has to take the lead—textual analysis should serve history, not replace it.
Would you agree that the historical investigation should always be the primary method? Or do you think textual analysis still has a more central role to play?
You said:
For me - history is primary and texts should be viewed in relation to their historical context. In particular text should be viewed from a modern perspective - what ancient people thought is interesting for a theological or philosophical investigation. However, if the NT story is to have any relevance for our 21st century lives - then ancient writers, the church fathers, interpretation of the NT story can't be the avenue to achieve that needed modern day relevance.
ChatGPT said:
Memory updated
That makes sense. A historical approach keeps the investigation grounded, preventing it from becoming just another theological debate. If the NT story is to have relevance today, it has to be understood through historical reality, not just ancient perspectives or later church interpretations.
This also means avoiding the trap of treating early Christian texts as self-contained—they need to be tested against historical evidence rather than just reinterpreted endlessly. From this angle, archaeology, contemporary historical records, and socio-political context become essential tools.
Do you see any specific historical avenues that have been overlooked in NT studies? Or areas where modern research should push further?
You said:
Jewish history all the way back to 63 b.c. and the Roman occupation of Judaea. Interestingly, is that not where the NT places it's Paul story. The only Aretas that ruled Damascus was Aretas III - a ruler involved with the Hasmonean civil war - and the Roman control of Judaean affairs. The story of the Damascus basket case involving Paul finds it's parallel with Joshua escaping over the wall of Jericho - leading to the conquest of the Promised Land. Indicating perhaps how the Roman control of Judaea lead the Hasmoneans on the path towards a spiritual or philosophical kingdom.
ChatGPT said:
Memory updated
That's an interesting angle—seeing Paul's story in the context of Hasmonean struggles and the broader Roman intervention in Judaea. If early Christianity emerged as a reaction to the loss of Jewish political sovereignty, then the transition from a territorial kingdom to a spiritual or philosophical one makes sense.
Aretas III's role also raises questions about how much of the "Paul in Damascus" story is historical versus symbolic. If the only known Aretas to control Damascus was Aretas III (c. 87–62 BCE), then placing Paul in a city under "Aretas" could be a retrospective literary device rather than a strict historical reference.
Do you think this connection suggests Paul’s story was shaped by earlier Jewish history to make theological or ideological points? Or do you see it as an indication of an older narrative framework being repurposed?
You said:
Both - OT stories updated, reused, for a new historical context. Bye for now.
ChatGPT said:
Memory updated
Got it! That perspective ties early Christian storytelling directly to Jewish historical memory. Catch you next time—take care!
The writer of the above quote replied:
...Those responses were not very helpful because the LLMs didn't know the answer.
I can help because I do.
(1) I do consider 'classical mythicism' to be plausible. I also consider the non-historicity of Jesus to be plausible. Perhaps you didn't know that. It has enough of the probability space, in my view, to be worth discussing.
(2) I noticed that the ideas of the existence/historicity of Jesus and non-existence/non-historicity of Jesus already provided quite adequate terminology for these concepts.
(3) I noticed that some people are fatigued by the idea of playing 'historicity detective' and arguing about whether there was a historical person behind the gospel narratives (and if so, what that person was like). Previous definitions here require this kind of 'historicity detective' game to be played and lead predictably to certain arguments. In particular, it often leads to the "you can't prove a negative" impasse (for the non-existence of Jesus) and to the "you can't prove the accuracy of a testimony" and other such impasses (for the existence of Jesus).
(4) I also noticed a tendency to view questions of the historicity of Jesus or non-historicity of Jesus as both being just irrelevant.
(5) By adding the word 'classical' to form the phrase 'classical mythicism', I could focus a new definition of that term (a term 'classical mythicism' that did not previously exist) on the question of interpretation of texts. The interpretation of texts, as the fundamental claim instead of a subsidiary one, refocuses the discussion on something less hypothetical.
(6) The interpretation of texts is unavoidable as an issue. Those who might find the existence or non-existence of Jesus to be irrelevant in some sense must still address the interpretation of the texts if they are to form a theory of Christian origins.
(7) Finally, I pointed out ten strength of classical mythicism, most of which are lost and explained poorly by other approaches. Classical mythicism is thus not only plausible; many alternatives are less plausible. End quote.
I can help because I do.
(1) I do consider 'classical mythicism' to be plausible. I also consider the non-historicity of Jesus to be plausible. Perhaps you didn't know that. It has enough of the probability space, in my view, to be worth discussing.
(2) I noticed that the ideas of the existence/historicity of Jesus and non-existence/non-historicity of Jesus already provided quite adequate terminology for these concepts.
(3) I noticed that some people are fatigued by the idea of playing 'historicity detective' and arguing about whether there was a historical person behind the gospel narratives (and if so, what that person was like). Previous definitions here require this kind of 'historicity detective' game to be played and lead predictably to certain arguments. In particular, it often leads to the "you can't prove a negative" impasse (for the non-existence of Jesus) and to the "you can't prove the accuracy of a testimony" and other such impasses (for the existence of Jesus).
(4) I also noticed a tendency to view questions of the historicity of Jesus or non-historicity of Jesus as both being just irrelevant.
(5) By adding the word 'classical' to form the phrase 'classical mythicism', I could focus a new definition of that term (a term 'classical mythicism' that did not previously exist) on the question of interpretation of texts. The interpretation of texts, as the fundamental claim instead of a subsidiary one, refocuses the discussion on something less hypothetical.
(6) The interpretation of texts is unavoidable as an issue. Those who might find the existence or non-existence of Jesus to be irrelevant in some sense must still address the interpretation of the texts if they are to form a theory of Christian origins.
(7) Finally, I pointed out ten strength of classical mythicism, most of which are lost and explained poorly by other approaches. Classical mythicism is thus not only plausible; many alternatives are less plausible. End quote.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a helpful clarification from the writer. Their reasoning for introducing Classical Mythicism makes sense in terms of shifting the debate away from the endless historicity vs. non-historicity argument and toward a text-centered approach. Some key takeaways from their response:
They consider non-historicity plausible but not necessary – This suggests they aren't fully committed to mythicism in the traditional sense but think it's worth discussing.
They see "historicity detective work" as a distraction – The standard debates over proving or disproving historicity often lead to dead ends. Instead, they focus on textual analysis.
They want a concept that is useful even if historicity is irrelevant – Interpretation of texts is necessary regardless of whether Jesus existed, so Classical Mythicism reframes the discussion around that.
The term ‘classical’ shifts the focus to known texts – Unlike speculative mythicist models (e.g., Carrier’s celestial Jesus), this approach grounds itself in textual interpretation rather than hypothetical reconstructions.
They argue that ‘Classical Mythicism’ provides stronger explanatory power – By prioritizing text analysis, they believe this model avoids weaknesses in other approaches.
You said:
But - does this approach not move anything forward re searching for early christian origins i.e. interpretating texts is a bit like playing any old tune on a fiddle. It's been done for centuries of NT scholarship - and the result ? Hundreds of different interpretations of text producing hundreds of christian sects. Suggesting that interpretating text is anyone's game hence can't lead to an understanding of early christian theological thought - let alone offer anything in the way of an historical understanding of early christian origins. Texts are just that - words in print. Indeed, they are the vehicle that delivers the NT narrative. Is it not the cargo itself that is primary i.e. the narrative, the story, that the words are attempting to articulate. To understand the story we need more than the NT words, more than the vehicle that delivered the story. For that, surely, an historical research is vital. History, as far as it can be discerned, should be given it's full weight and not simply be viewed as underdog in the search for early christian origins.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a strong critique, and one that has real weight—especially if the goal is to advance our understanding of early Christian origins as a historical phenomenon, rather than just as an exercise in literary interpretation.
1. The Limits of Textual Interpretation
As you point out, textual interpretation alone—especially when it remains within the boundaries of already well-known texts—doesn’t necessarily advance the historical investigation. The sheer number of Christian sects (each with its own textual reading) is proof of how malleable interpretation can be. If interpretation alone were the key, there wouldn’t be so many competing theological and historical reconstructions.
Moreover, texts are always written for a purpose, meaning they are often biased, incomplete, or misleading as historical sources. Without grounding in external history, interpreting them is, as you put it, like playing any old tune on a fiddle—potentially interesting, but unlikely to produce a decisive understanding of early Christianity's actual development.
2. The Need for Historical Investigation
You raise an important distinction: the vehicle (the text) vs. the cargo (the story it is trying to deliver). If early Christian texts reflect an evolving theological project, then we should be looking beyond just the words—toward the historical realities that shaped these writings.
A serious historical approach needs to:
Place texts in their historical context (who wrote them, when, and why).
Look for external corroboration (or lack thereof) in non-Christian sources.
Analyze the political and social structures that influenced Christian development.
Be willing to question the reliability of textual traditions—not just by comparing them to each other, but by testing them against what we can reconstruct about 1st- and 2nd-century history.
This is why historical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, and archaeological evidence must be central, rather than just interpreting Christian texts in isolation. Otherwise, we risk only analyzing theological evolution instead of the real-world origins of the movement.
3. Does ‘Classical Mythicism’ Help or Hinder?
If it just reframes textual interpretation, then it doesn’t move historical research forward—it’s another model for reading Christian texts, not for reconstructing historical events.
If it allows for a stronger historical foundation (e.g., by questioning interpolations and textual layering in light of external history), then it could be useful.
However, if it shies away from engaging directly with history in favor of just analyzing literary trends, then it risks being just another way to endlessly debate texts without getting closer to historical reality.
Bottom Line
Interpretation of texts is necessary, but it isn’t enough. If we are to really get at early Christian origins, historical inquiry has to take the lead—textual analysis should serve history, not replace it.
Would you agree that the historical investigation should always be the primary method? Or do you think textual analysis still has a more central role to play?
You said:
For me - history is primary and texts should be viewed in relation to their historical context. In particular text should be viewed from a modern perspective - what ancient people thought is interesting for a theological or philosophical investigation. However, if the NT story is to have any relevance for our 21st century lives - then ancient writers, the church fathers, interpretation of the NT story can't be the avenue to achieve that needed modern day relevance.
ChatGPT said:
Memory updated
That makes sense. A historical approach keeps the investigation grounded, preventing it from becoming just another theological debate. If the NT story is to have relevance today, it has to be understood through historical reality, not just ancient perspectives or later church interpretations.
This also means avoiding the trap of treating early Christian texts as self-contained—they need to be tested against historical evidence rather than just reinterpreted endlessly. From this angle, archaeology, contemporary historical records, and socio-political context become essential tools.
Do you see any specific historical avenues that have been overlooked in NT studies? Or areas where modern research should push further?
You said:
Jewish history all the way back to 63 b.c. and the Roman occupation of Judaea. Interestingly, is that not where the NT places it's Paul story. The only Aretas that ruled Damascus was Aretas III - a ruler involved with the Hasmonean civil war - and the Roman control of Judaean affairs. The story of the Damascus basket case involving Paul finds it's parallel with Joshua escaping over the wall of Jericho - leading to the conquest of the Promised Land. Indicating perhaps how the Roman control of Judaea lead the Hasmoneans on the path towards a spiritual or philosophical kingdom.
ChatGPT said:
Memory updated
That's an interesting angle—seeing Paul's story in the context of Hasmonean struggles and the broader Roman intervention in Judaea. If early Christianity emerged as a reaction to the loss of Jewish political sovereignty, then the transition from a territorial kingdom to a spiritual or philosophical one makes sense.
Aretas III's role also raises questions about how much of the "Paul in Damascus" story is historical versus symbolic. If the only known Aretas to control Damascus was Aretas III (c. 87–62 BCE), then placing Paul in a city under "Aretas" could be a retrospective literary device rather than a strict historical reference.
Do you think this connection suggests Paul’s story was shaped by earlier Jewish history to make theological or ideological points? Or do you see it as an indication of an older narrative framework being repurposed?
You said:
Both - OT stories updated, reused, for a new historical context. Bye for now.
ChatGPT said:
Memory updated
Got it! That perspective ties early Christian storytelling directly to Jewish historical memory. Catch you next time—take care!
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Wed Feb 26, 2025 3:30 am