Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 7, 2013 in History, Jesus | 54 comments

Did Jesus Exist?: An Historicist Defense of Mythicist Intelligence

There’s this damned of all sayings—‘a jack of all trades, the master of none’—which haunts me. It presents itself to me in moments of existential crisis. When I consider how so many fields feed into one another, I want to own them all; be the expert in philosophy, science, mathematics, history, theology, biblical exegesis, etc. But is it possible or even reasonable to assume that one can become at the least, say, ‘a master of most trades, a jack of few?’

It’s true that scholars will sometimes write outside of their specific areas of expertise. It just goes to show that you can attain a working amount of knowledge in fields other than your own without a PhD to back it. I mean, there are only so many degrees you can get before you realize that you’re not actually applying your knowledge or advancing any of your areas of particular interest. For the most part it’s a non-issue when a scholar writes on a subject of related interest but isn’t necessarily what he or she specialized in; that is, until someone uses the degree you lack as an argument against you or your proposal.

I’m an historicist. The evidence appears to me to suggest that there was an historical figure (or group of related figures) who is the basis for the gospel narratives. In other words, I deny that Jesus is a myth. My sympathies, however, toward the mythicist position have only deepened through further interaction with its proponents (e.g., our very own Aaron Adair).

Recently Bart Ehrman took up a case against the mythicist denial of a historical Jesus in his book of pop-appeal, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. The erudition you find in works of his like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture gets lost in a reoccurring ad hominem against mythicists. We learn that the historicity of Jesus is accepted by nearly every expert in the field (p. 4) and mythicists are by and large composed of non-experts (p. 19). Ehrman’s statement to the effect that expert opinion isn’t proof of a claim’s veracity (p. 4) is consequentially negated on a practical plane by his qualifying statements and ad nauseam appeals to authority; effectively poisoning the well against mythicist conviction.

This is my first concession to mythicists—not that there is a second, but who knows what the future holds!—it is clearly battery against the mythicist case (and thus a non-argument) to focus in on academic qualifications to the degree that I can collect an assortment of statements like:

  • Earl Doherty’s lack of advanced degrees (only an undergraduate degree in classics (p. 17).
  • Richard Carrier and Robert Price as only mythicists to his knowledge with degrees in relevant fields (Carrier’s being in Classics, while Price’s is in systematic theology and New Testament studies) (p. 19).
  • The “slew of sensationalist popularizers” who are not scholars (p. 19).
  • None of the mythicists are trained scholars in New Testament or early Christian studies working from an accredited academy (p. 2).
  • No scholar working from an accredited school—to Ehrman’s knowledge—is a mythicist (p. 2).
  • Virtually every scholar of antiquity, biblical studies, classics, and Christian origins in the Western world believes in Jesus’s historical existence (p. 5).
  • Bruno Bauer—mythicist and one true biblical scholar—had virtually no followers in the scholarly community (pp. 15-16).

I don’t really care to go on. You can do an Amazon Look Inside! search of the term scholar in Ehrman’s book yourself if you want to see more. You will quickly notice the sheer amount of appeal to scholarship (and how there is a lack thereof) as being far too extensive to simply count as a point-in-passing or a word of caution—it is personal and bombastic.

In conclusion, it should be noted that there is a need to look to scholars for answers in fields outside our expertise; as Ehrman notes, scholars have accomplished the requisite duties to becoming experts in their fields. But as a way of reminder, what we want to critique are arguments and not the people proposing them. To focus so intently on displaying one camp’s lack of specialty degrees while your own is full of accredited scholars is to place the opposing camp in a bad light to readers and comes across as a case of using bad taste to thwart attention to an otherwise lacking argument. I may not be a mythicist, but their arguments shouldn’t be cast into disrepute because too great a focus has been placed on appeals to authority and arguments ad populum.

  • jeffphansen777

    Thomas L. Brodie could be added to the list of mythicists with degrees in the relevant fields, although he lost his teaching post a few weeks ago over his mythicist views:

    http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/the-inevitable-catches-up-with-thomas-l-brodie/

    Earl Doherty hit back at Ehrman’s book with a 300+ page refutation of it (longer than the book it’s criticizing!) that I’m presently bogged down with. It’s pretty good so far & well worth getting if you’re interested in this little debate.

    http://www.amazon.com/End-Illusion-Ehrmans-Historical-ebook/dp/B00A2XN7EQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360236020&sr=1-1

    Ehrman could’ve done a better job if he’d taken it more seriously & not handed duties off to grad students. This last book of his isn’t anywhere near the level of most of his past output, to put it lightly. I’m waiting for the response to his rush-job to cause him to double down & crank out another must-have book like he usually does. 

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      I have not read BE’s book, but most people seem to concur it is his weakest yet.

      Thanks for the comment!

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling Bryant Cody Rudisill

      Thanks for the links, Jeff. I never put too much stock in Ehrman’s pop-level books; they can be incredibly lacking. But they usually are decent for opening discussion or introducing a subject matter. His Did Jesus Exist? is pretty flaccid, though; not one I’d care to recommend.

      On another note concerning Ehrman, I have just received and begun to read his academic version of the pop-appeal book Forged entitled Forgery and Counterforgery–I’m hoping for a much more thorough investigation into early Christian pseudepigrapha.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

        I think it was Jesus Interrupted which I really rated. Though it might have been another… my memory fails me.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

        Take some notes – a synopsis of his points would be interesting!

  • Andy_Schueler

     The evidence appears to me to suggest that there was an historical figure (or group of related figures) who is the basis for the gospel narratives.

    I´m not very familiar with mythicist positions, but are there actually mythicists who would disagree with such a statement ? If I would believe for example that all miracle claims in the gospels are myths, but there were one or more historical figures in 1st century palestine who had some followers and taught some concepts that are similar to the teachings that the gospels attribute to Jesus – would that make me a mythicist or a historicist ?

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      My position is this:

      I think there was a historical nugget to Jesus. I think he existed. However, the mythical overlays pained on to this person have distanced us so much from the real person as to render the historical Jesus unknowable. 

      Therefore, the historical Jesus might as well have been mythical, for all the fact we can garner of his life.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Afaict, it seems clear that there were several historical figures in 1st century palestine who had jewish roots, but taught quite radical new ideas to their followers and / or claimed to be the Messiah and / or were executed by roman authorities for their actions. Figures like John the Baptist, Yeshua ben Hananiah, Simon bar-Giora, John of Gischala etc. 
        Narratives like the gospels are not developed in a cultural vacuum – something had to inspire such narratives. 
        So, I´m wondering if the position that there was not one historical Jesus, but several historical figures whose actions inspired the gospel narratives about Jesus, would count as a mythicist or as a historicist position. 

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

          Interesting point. Not sure – possibly mythicist? 

          I think it interesting that some claim the birth narrative of Luke to have originally been for John the Baptist, but co-opted for JC.

          eg http://secretsun.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/john-baptist-secret-messiah-part-1.html
           and people like Price who argue that the Magnificat was originally intended for JTB.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Interesting point. Not sure – possibly mythicist? 

            I don´t care strongly about whether there was a historical Jesus or not, but it somehow bothers me that I don´t know which side I´m actually on when it comes to this question .

            I think it interesting that some claim the birth narrative of Luke to have originally been for John the Baptist, but co-opted for JC.

            Yes – there also are the miracle healings that are attributed to John the Baptist (and many other 1st century jewish preachers), and there also were several radical jewish preachers which were executed by the roman authorities. So, all the elements for the gospel narratives were there, except for the resurrection – but this story element was widely used in the neighboring cultures. And if you combine the resurrection motif with jewish ideas about atonement and the stories about jewish preachers like John the Baptist – you get the gospel narratives (based on what I´ve read so far from Carrier, this is essentially what he´s gearing at).

          • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

            I have been wondering how Carrier explains the plausibility and the how of how the myth arose (and fairly quickly, though we know myths can arise quickly).

          • Andy_Schueler

            I think he is going to argue that Paul never taught that Jesus was bodily resurrected and that the whole empty tomb myth was only added much later by the gospel authors, he argued something like that already several years ago:
            http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3.html#iv - but it´s well possible that his position on that has evolved since then. 

          • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

            That would make sense on his work in The Empty Tomb, as well as his recent interviews / debates.

            I am interested to see whether mythicism IS more plausible than some kind of historical basis.

          • Reginald Selkirk

            think it interesting that some claim the birth narrative of Luke to
            have originally been for John the Baptist, but co-opted for JC.

            I do not find that interesting, since the birth narrative of Luke is clearly fictional.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I do not find that interesting, since the birth narrative of Luke is clearly fictional.

            Yup, definitely fictional, but still interesting in a particular context – if you are interested in the question of whether there actually was a historical Jesus, evidence for Luke´s (fictional) birth narrative actually being co-opted from the (fictional) birth narrative of a completely different person is actually interesting. 
            If you don´t care whether the narratives about Jesus are completely fictional or rather based on a person that actually lived, but whose life-story as told in the gospels is full of mythological embellishments like the virgin birth and the resurrection, than it really is completely uninteresting in any case .

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling Bryant Cody Rudisill

          I hesitated in adding my qualifier because of just the question you are asking. In the end I (obviously) decided to include for two reasons: (1) sincerity to the (possible) evidence and (2) I concluded the view–distinguished correctly–is consistent with historicism.

          Personally, I am not necessarily convinced of the idea that the historical Jesus is really a conglomeration of views of various contemporaneous historical figures, but it is option that one should at least be open to.

          As far as the view being consistent with historicism–it depends on the bent you place on it. For example, it could be the case that there was an historical person known as Jesus of Nazereth whose followers later attributed the views of other contemporaneous figures to their leader. This bent is consistent with historicism to the degree that it posits an historical Jesus. Moreover, an historicist could claim that later followers gave these views to Jesus ex nihilo rather than pulling from contemporaries.

          A bent consistent with mythicism would (or could) claim the same (i.e., that the views attributed to Jesus were based on a hodge-podge of contemporary persons) but deny a historical figure of Jesus of Nazereth. Similarly, a mythicist would be consistent in his claim that believers provided (ex nihilo) descriptions of a person they called Jesus, while denying the historical veracity of the person Jesus of Nazereth.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Thanks for the explanation!

            Personally, I am not necessarily convinced of the idea that the historical Jesus is really a conglomeration of views of various contemporaneous historical figures, but it is option that one should at least be open to.

            I totally agree. Ehrman´s point that there is an almost unanimous consensus among scholars in the relevant fields is a valid one and as a layperson, I accept the scholarly consensus (provisionally, if Carrier (for example) manages to convince other experts than I´d revisit that point). But it really is unfortunate that Ehrman spends so much time pointing to the scholarly consensus (as if anyone would disagree with him on this point) and so little time actually refuting mythicist arguments. 

      • Daydreamer1

        Hi Johnathan,

          Have you read Hector Avalos’ The End of Biblical Studies? This makes me wonder how he would fall on all this, since he gets no mention.

          Anyway…

          How does all this play with how we relate to the nuggets of truth behind the likes of King Arthur or Apollo. Would Greek apologists have used similar arguments regarding the personal histories within their own beliefs? We know King Arthur is fictional, but at one point the story was not regarded as such. Without external reasons for discounting the story might they have not argued that someone lay behind King Arthur? This idea of ‘living in the narrative’, I guess another way of saying cultural blindness, is what makes me question myself with these things. After all, with the cargo cults in Polynesia and the case of John Frum (pardon my memory if inaccurate) how would we be able to say that John was not based on a real person if we could not look at documents of how went there? Or pick out the nuggets that built him. This is why I cannot convince myself that Jesus definitely real.

          My own relationship with this mythicist/historicist debate is really framed against my actual annoyance – Church teaching. How can I get to 34 and only just hear these terms, or only just be learning about the various arguments for Jesus’ historicity when a kindly old man stood before us in Church every week telling me from the age of 7 that Jesus said this, went there, and did this.

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

          Yes, and I really like Avalos’ book – it has an awful lot to add to any biblical studies debate.

          Your point about sermons being misleading is so important. Vicars and priests are of course aware of these scholarly debates and facts – they are for the most part aware and in agreement that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses etc – and yet none of their congregations generally know this. They are not honest in their sermons.

  • Andy_Schueler

    I am interested to see whether mythicism IS more plausible than some kind of historical basis.

    But again, if we assume that a model where the gospel narratives were partly inspired by the actions of some historical figures that actually did exist would count as “some kind of historical basis”, than I´m not sure that Carrier would actually be a mythicist. It seems to me that this is similar to the case of King Arthur – afaik, one can make a good case that King Arthur is mostly mythological, but partly inspired by the actions of people that actually did exist (so there is “some historical basis”). 
    I think the hypotheses that Carrier tries to contrast are not “there is a historical basis for the gospel narratives” vs. “there is no historical basis for the gospel narratives whatsoever” but rather “the character Jesus that the gospel narratives refer to actually did exist” vs. “the character Jesus that the gospel narratives refer to did not exist but the gospel narratives are partly inspired by the actions of people that did actually exist”. 

    • Daydreamer1

      Without defining what ‘historical basis’ means these debates smell funny to me. I would be around a 8.5-9 on the mythicist scale myself, meaning I think there is some ‘historical basis’, but whether that was some people read different books and saw different pottery and happened to go to meeting X and party Y where they bumped into someone who had chatted with someone who had listened to someone say, as best as they could remember, that this bloke once did…. Thrown in with cultural diffusion….

      Emergent ‘Historical’ narrative. ‘History’ that no-one does, but that emerges as stories about what might have happened seem to be all around us. Yet emergent historical narrative, just like complex ideas, is formed through the addition of experiences in the Humian sense.

      If ‘historical basis’ can mean so many things, then is it anything at all? Anything other than perhaps a term that when spoken to an audience that hears what it wants to hear (admittedly something common to us all when we listen without thinking) gets interpreted as ‘historical basis’ is parallel to ‘real history’. And at that point the compounding of complex ideas by people thousands of years ago is transported to the believer today as ‘real history’.

      I just wish people would define ‘historical basis’.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

        in the simplest terms possible, historical basis just means “truth value to a historical claim predicated on at least some positive evidence”.

        • Daydreamer1

          Exactly. That is what it means to me.

          So what is going on here then? If Jesus can have some historical basis in the sense that 5 people that were not Jesus did things or said things that became stories that people told that inspired narratives around redemption, rebirth, virgin birth that eventually got retold as Jesus then is it those 5 people that have a ‘lost historical basis’ or Jesus has a ‘historical basis’.

          Actually, I meant to ask that. I have seen comments regarding cultural diffusion. Even going so far as bringing together cultural narratives about virgin births combining with atonement through sacrifice in Judaism as well as other pagan ideas literally being realistic building blocks for Christianity. I believe the comment went along the lines of ‘Are we supposed to believe it is just coincidence that all these other ideas were just around at the time and that if we combine certain pagan ideas with Judaism we just happen to get Christianity?’ I wish I had the link, it might have been here, but I suspect it was on Richard Carriers blog.

          Either way, it really makes me question this whole ‘historical basis’. I think what is happening is that when someone intuitively feels there probably is enough to think X might have happened, but they are unable to qualify themselves they use ‘it is some historical basis’. If it was real evidence then they could use the real evidence.

          So with King Arthur there might be some historical basis in the sense that there are human beings in history and there are Kings and swords and round tables etc. But these are separate ideas, separate experiences just like the fact that wings, scales, long necks, talons and fire are. And they have ‘historical basis’ in various animals, but they have never been known to appear in the same entity in history – so no dragons. I believe Hume used this to describe how the idea of an Angel was compounded from singular ideas. Even though the singular ideas have a basis in reality, have a basis in history even, if they are not known to have occurred together then what are we saying, what do we mean if we say ‘historical basis’? etc…

      • Andy_Schueler

        Without defining what ‘historical basis’ means these debates smell funny to me. I would be around a 8.5-9 on the mythicist scale myself, meaning I think there is some ‘historical basis’, 

        I pretty much agree with that. The line between “mythicist” and “historicist” can be pretty blurry – because there often is a kernel of truth to myths, you gave the example of King Arthur, where we can say that this figure certainly did not exist, but there were figures who actually did exist and whose actions might have partly inspired the myth. 
        When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, it seems to me that it is almost impossible to deny that there were several 1st century jewish preachers whose life histories show parallels to the gospel narratives about Jesus (radical new teachings, alleged miracle healings, allegedly being the Messiah, execution by roman authorities etc.) – so even if there never was a historical Jesus, the narratives about him might well have a kernel of truth in the same sense that the King Arthur myth has a kernel of truth. 
        That there was one historical Jesus whose life story is told in the gospel, together with mythological embellishments like the virgin birth and the resurrection seems to be the almost unanimous consensus among scholars in the relevant fields, but the evidence that is usually given in support of this (Paul´s epistles, Josephus, the conjectural Q source etc.) seems very weak to me. I´m not an expert in this field and I´m happy to accept the consensus that the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus is more likely than any alternative hypothesis. But that this question has been settled beyond any reasonable doubt, as Bart Ehrman is suggesting, seems almost ridiculous to me based on the amount and quality of evidence that he presents.

        • Daydreamer1

          You see, I would be tempted to rephrase under those circumstances. It would be probable that we would mean exactly the same thing, but I wonder whether it is translated in the mind of the believer in the same way.
          ‘King Arthur has some historical basis’, or
          ‘People behind the King Arthur myth have some historical basis, but King Arthur does not’.

          With regard to Jesus I have no answer, but given the mythological content of the story I am not inspired to think that we can get anywhere near what Ehrman says. My main concern though lies with the misconception children are getting both in the Churches and in RE lessons in school (if they were like my experiences). Language is important after all and if we could say that the historical basis lay with ‘several 1st century jewish preachers’ and not with Jesus I would opt for that – if we could say that.

          I know that that is probably impossible – it is from my level of historical understanding at least. From this I think that the ”mythicist” and “historicist” positions are the incorrect ends of the scale and that the middle agnostic position is better. I would just like it to be the default position in schools, and for children to at least be aware of it for when they sit down in Church and are told that Jesus said this and Jesus did that as if they know it as well as what the Pope had for dinner yesterday.

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    No comments on Jesus (real, imagined, or blown out of proportion). 

    Your first two paragraphs caught my eye though.  I prefer the term ‘generalist’ to ‘jack-of-all-trades’.  That’s why I’ve never gotten an advanced degree.  I couldn’t pick ONE THING to think about.  I just get bored too easily.

    By now, I’ve gotten to the point where going to school to get those degrees would probably be a waste of time.  I can learn what I need on my own… mostly.  And I have the critical thinking skills to evaluate the expert opinions.

    It just means I’ll never be much more than I am.  A generalist in a world of experts is mostly useless.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      Don’t be hard on yourself! You da man!

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling Bryant Cody Rudisill

      No comments on Jesus–I wanted to focus my post primarily on Ehrman’s recurring ad hominem abusive against mythicist’s. A post on the possibility of a historical figure of Jesus would be MUCH longer.

      You can learn everything on your own–I am firm believer in that. In fact, most my studies come from reading the texts undergrads and grads are being given in the classroom. I refrained from higher education for this reason and the other you listed: what would I pick if I did go for a degree? I am, however, going for a degree; namely, because I want to work in academics. I still struggle with what to choose–hence, I’m asking universities about the possibility of a double major in philosophy and mathematics with a minor in physics.

      But I agree with Jonathan–don’t be hard on yourself. Generalists, as you call them, are grassroots.  A part of the purpose behind this post is my desire to see the sharp division between expert and generalist demolished; it starts with calling people out for abusing a titular position that gives them no more access to sound or valid reasoning than the generalist him- or herself.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

        BCR
        H/ave you checked out Smilodon Retreat’s excellent blog here at SIN – he is certainly more than a generalist!

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling Bryant Cody Rudisill

          This whole discussion raises interesting questions about the distinction between expert and what we’re referring to as a generalist. There are “generalists” with more scholarly tact, exposition, and reserve than the so-called experts with degrees. Like I said before, I want the divide between the expert and generalist destroyed–or at least extremely redefined.

          So, first proposal: if a generalist is a greater than average–even expert–expositor of a field of study who reaches the general population, then there is much to be said on behalf of them. Academia tends to stay in academia until a so-called generalists explicates it before the public. In other words, I see nothing wrong with a generalist so defined!

  • Peter

    What I hate about Ehrman is that in his notes half the time he refers to his own books! Good way to sell more books but hardly academically accurate
    he would not accept this from his students. I stopped buying him  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NZMJ7JRYKH7WR6YTXJGG3PU65E John Grove

    [[ I am not necessarily convinced of the idea that the historical Jesus is
    really a conglomeration of views of various contemporaneous historical
    figures, but it is option that one should at least be open to.]]

    Like Johnny, I think there was a man who fit the bill of Jesus. I think that the New Testament however was reversed engineered to make prophecies fit. And of course I do not have any trust in the New Testament as historical. I surmise that many of the stories we read in the bible WERE from ancient myth and somehow got conflated into the particular person of Jesus. But to what extent of the New Testament you can actually trust? I would completely disregard it.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      Like Johnny, I think there was a man who fit the bill of Jesus.

      I don’t really give a rip what you think, unless you can support it with rational arguments. The profligate use of ad hominem in BE’s book is one thing. Once you get past that, what evidence does he have to show to support the historicist position? The evidence is shockingly sparse.

      I think
      that the New Testament however was reversed engineered to make
      prophecies fit.

      No kidding. Thomas Paine did a fairly thorough job on that one – over two centuries ago. (The Age of Reason: Examination of the Prophecies ISBN-13: 978-0910309707) Most of the alleged prophecies are not actually prophecies at all.

      • Andy_Schueler

        I don’t really give a rip what you think

        No need for the harsh tone – John was not defending Ehrman´s ad hominem tactics in the mythicist debate.  

        Once you get past that, what evidence does he have to show to support the historicist position?

        Based on the HuffPo article about his new book – not much except for Paul´s epistles, particularly Galatians 1:18-20, and the (conjectural) Q source. 

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

          I now see why Carrier is so into Goodacre’s theory disposing of Q…

  • Andy_Schueler

    I just noticed something while I browsed Ehrman´s HuffPo article about the historicity of Jesus. 
    Regarding mythicists, he says:

    These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

    Overall, his appeal to authority is certainly not fallacious – he is referring to genuine experts in relevant fields and there is indeed an almost unanimous consensus. 
    However, the comparison to Biology / young-earth creationism is invalid IMO. Broad scientific claims like common descent or an old earth are supported by mountains (literally) of physical evidence and can be demonstrated to be true with a probability bordering on absolute certainty – this can never be accomplished for a claim regarding a particular detail of ancient history, like the claim that a particular ancient figure actually existed. 
    The historicity of Julius Caesar – being supported by countless contemporary sources as well as archaeological, epigraphical and numismatic evidence – is certainly beyond any reasonable doubt, but even for such a case, the sheer amount and quality of supporting evidence comes nowhere near the amount and quality of evidence supporting common descent or an old earth. 
    And therefore, I think that the consensus that Ehrman refers to could be misleading. Do the “99.99%” of scholars that Ehrman refers to believe that the historicity of Jesus is beyond any reasonable doubt (i.e. is this comparable to the consensus of Biologists regarding common descent), or does the 99.99% figure include many scholars who believe that the historicity of Jesus is more likely than not, but certainly not beyond reasonable doubt ? 

  • http://twitter.com/adair_aaron Aaron Adair

    Hey Bryant, thanks for this post, especially since it says nice things about me.

    It looks like most of the comments here agree on some sort of original human figure behind the veil of the Jesus of the Bible. While I have been leaning against it, I do want to repeat that it is not in the least an unlikely position, especially when the vast majority of scholars are in agreement on the issue (and so much mythicist material is crap). But if I see a universal agreement of everyone here, it is that the historical Jesus is pretty much lost to us, and I fear that this is a situation that future scholarship cannot save us from. Our sources are such a mess, and research seems to only show more and more how they are creations rather than memories.

    I should say, there may be some upcoming literature showing just how made-up the gospels are from a print shop Jon knows of, but I’ll let him give out the details.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      Why Aaron, you are surely not referring to your own book on the Star of Bethlehem which will be coming out later this year?

      I will spread the word soon, my friend!

      • http://twitter.com/adair_aaron Aaron Adair

        Haha, yes. Just didn’t want to overstep your marketing strategy. Not something I am good at. Tried to to gorilla advertisement and had to explain to a judge why I had exotic wildlife holding a sign. Very awkward.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling Bryant Cody Rudisill

      No problem, Aaron; and you’re right: I think there will continue to be a growing consensus toward historical obscurity of the person of Jesus (if in fact there was such a person–another subject that may eventually have to be filed into historical opacity).

      A book, eh? DETAILS! DETAILS! DETAILS!

      • http://twitter.com/adair_aaron Aaron Adair

        Oh, it’s details you want, eh? Well then, let it be had!

        Jon wanted me to give a comprehensive critique of all the theories of explaining the Star of Bethlehem you hear about every holiday. When it comes out, it should be definite in proving that none of those theories come even close to fitting what Matthew chapter 2 is talking about, nor is it plausible that anything even like the story had happened.

        I’ll be doing more self-promotion as time goes on, In the mean time, save up your cash so you can by ten copies. Because if you don’t buy it, it will make mythical baby-Jesus cry.

        • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

          I think a concise compendium against all of the silly theories about the Star of Bethlehem being a natural phenomenon is long overdue, especially since people like Frank Tipler are still knocking theories out. I am excited about Aaron’s project and look forward to reading it!

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    Personally, I think that the two most important points in the discussion here are
    1) Even if there was a historical Jesus, our ability to determine this is basically nil.
    2) Theologians know this, but don’t talk about to their congregations.

    That seems like a message that should be gotten to the average person, not the Biblical scholar or interested amateur who reads these levels of books.

  • http://tris.uphero.com/blog/ Tris Stock @Tris_Stock

    I am, what I call, a ‘soft’ mythicist; there may have been an historical Jesus, but I see no evidence to support the claim.

    Frankly, I couldn’t care less whether he existed or not. One would still have to establish his divinity in empirical terms for his existence to have any relevance to the debate, so until the existence of God is established once and for all, then Jesus’ existence is moot.

  • Patrick

    If the mythicist position is so obviously wrong, historicists should simply provide all the objective, empirical evidence they have for Jesus being an historical figure.  The fact that some like Ehrman feel the need to use argumentum ad verecundiam suggests that this evidence is not as compelling as they wish.

    It would also be interesting to know how many of the historicists are themselves Christian.

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      Your last point is crucial. This is an argument that should more often be levelled at Craig and Habermas et al. 

      Craig often uses the 75% of scholars support the empty tomb thesis. Of course, this is actually low considering that the percentage of scholars who are Christian and who presupppose the truth of the bible, or who are doing Bible studies in order to defend their faith. 

      I have an interview with scholar James G Crossley coming out in the next few days, and he and Avalos have always maintained that the conclusions of the consensus are skewed by point of fact of their presupposed starting points.

    • Daydreamer1

      It would certainly be very interesting to know how many historicists are Christians.

      Of course they would say that it didn’t matter. But surely it would.

      Surely that is the point. They are actually saying that they are members of a group that states that belief itself should not be the end product of rationalisation, but should be artificially raised through practice. Then they ask us to accept their beliefs.

      They are openly admitting that the evidence only takes you so far, but then saying that they ‘believe’ it is far enough. But honestly, hasn’t their belief been modified? If it hasn’t are they not saying that their Christian practice has been unsuccessful?

      Belief in the non-religious might generally be trustworthy, since we are not claiming to be modifying it by any other external practice other than education. At least with us you could hope to plot understanding against belief and get some sort of correlation with known facts, but this isn’t true inside religion and wouldn’t be with us either if we were artificially modifying our beliefs in other ways.

      Therefore belief in the religious cannot be used as the same barometer it can in the sciences; and therefore it does matter that they are Christian  since it is a badge they are wearing that is descriptive of processes occurring in their minds that are designed to alter their beliefs.

      • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

        I once did a simple poll of all the institutions in the UK who offered biblical studies. I sent an email questionnaire. Unfortunately, very few got back to me. Those that did were 100% Christian – in lecturers and students!

        Matters are also worsened when considering that some Christian scholars are Presuppositionalists as opposed to evidentialists, which means that no matter what the evidence is, the presupposition of the truth of the Bible is the ultimate asserted trump.

  • http://twitter.com/adair_aaron Aaron Adair

    I usually want to avoid the whole “the consensus is biased” argument since it can be such an ad hominem, but there are two things that make it more reasonable in this area. For one, the methods to reach the conclusion that Jesus existed and did X, Y, and Z are based on criteria that the scholars themselves have shown to not work. So they currently do not have a valid method to say anything about Jesus. There is also the hounding of anyone that would suggest Jesus didn’t exist, and it seems to have actually led to censorship in the case of one proponent of the position, Thomas Brodie, I wrote about that here:

    http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/free-inquiry-into-the-mythical-jesus-doesnt-look-like-it/
    http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/free-inquiry-into-the-jesus-myth-a-follow-up/

    So, there is definitely institutional problems, and it’s going to take what Avalos says should happen in his book, “The End of Biblical Studies”.

  • Patrick

    This makes it very difficult for a non-expert such as myself to come to a rational position, however provisional.  On the one hand, I don’t want to commit the genetic fallacy by assuming bias merely because the historicists appear to be uniformly Christian.  On the other hand, the fact that non-historicists have been treated badly due to their views suggests that relying on the consensus in this particular domain may be unjustified.

    I’ve read several of the popular works on this topic and am struck by the fact that the vast majority of arguments against the mythicists are not based on objective evidence demonstrating an historical Jesus but on arguments as to why that’s a reasonable position to hold.  That’s fine as far as it goes, but unless one is already committed to the idea that he did exist, it’s not strongly compelling.

    Obviously absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I my personal view is that those who claim that Jesus was an historical figure bear the burden of proof.  Thus far, I haven’t seen anyone meet that burden.  As others in this thread have noted, what would qualify as historical is itself problematic.

    Can anyone here recommend a good summary of the best evidence and arguments supporting the historicist position, accessible to a layman?  Is that asking too much — would I need to spend 20 years studying multiple ancient languages before I am able to form a sensible opinion?

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      I suppose the best summaries of historical theories are by the apologists themselves.All good summaries, though, show the gaps.

  • http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/ VinnyJH

    Someone has a vision of a heavenly being who reveals spiritual truths.  It is believed that the heavenly being had once been a man who walked the earth.  Stories about the the things the man said and did are invented and believed.

    It happened with Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni.  Could something similar have happened with Paul ( or maybe Paul and Peter) and the Risen Christ?  One difference is that Smith invented the stories about Moroni’s life and Paul doesn’t seem to have bothered to invent any about Jesus’ life.  

    If Paul’s Christ was only known through revelations and visions, but later writers used actual people as models to create stories about an earthly Jesus, would that make the earthly Jesus historical or would he be just as mythical as Moroni?

    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/tippling/ Jonathan MS Pearce

      Aw, to have an interview with Paul. He is responsible for so much in the development of Christianity, and yet so little of his writings remain. It is sooo frustrating.

      • http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/ VinnyJH

        I don’t just want an interview.  I want a psychiatric examination.  As with Joseph Smith, I think there are a range of possibilities for Paul including genuine religious visionary, pathological liar, or deranged schizophrenic.  New Testament scholars always seem to me to be overly willing to take Paul’s statements about himself at face value, while I think that any historical reconstruction should be robust enough to withstand the possibility that Paul may have been something other than completely honest and sincere.