Making a Fuss Over the Historicity of Jesus

[Jagella]

Question For Debate: Why do we make such a big fuss over the question of the historicity of Jesus?

Books and journal articles and formal debates and blogs and websites and forum-threads have addressed the historicity of Jesus. Probably more than ever before, people are questioning if he existed, and those who espouse his historicity have marshaled a very spirited defense going after anybody who even expresses doubt that Jesus existed.

This skepticism regarding the existence of Jesus is normally referred to as "Jesus-mythicism" or just "mythicism." The large majority of mythicists are probably atheists, and many of them have built a significant presence on the internet. As a result, it is common for their opposition to see them as an atheist conspiracy who take advantage of the ease of access of the internet to express their "fringe" theory, a theory that presumably has no place in scholarly publishing--publishing that is worthy of appearing in print.

Nevertheless, mythicism has indeed made its presence in print, and printed books have been published by mythicists like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Earl Doherty, and DM Murdock. These writers propose various Jesus-myth theories which often involve drawing parallels between Jesus and pagan savior-gods and documenting the lack of mention of Jesus by the historians of his time such as Philo.

Although these mythicist theories vary in quality, there is no doubt that many of them certainly raise some very vexing questions for real-Jesus apologists, those who defend the historicity of Jesus. However, the response of these apologists is very often illogical, unscholarly, abusive, and even deceitful. Why do they react that way?

Obviously, it is to be expected that almost all Christians will insist on a real Jesus. A historical Jesus is one of the central dogmas of Christianity. Without a real Jesus, there can be no salvation--no heavenly reward for Christians.

Many atheists may be on the other side of the tracks fearing a violent and cruel Christendom basing its legitimacy in history as its last bastion after losing science and philosophy. To demonstrate that Jesus never existed is to take out Christianity's last hope for scholarly credibility.

Finally, many non-Christians may fear the loss of a historical Jesus. Jesus has become an icon of western civilization. To lose him as a real person is to lose one of the most revered people we have thought to have lived. Biblical studies has for centuries assumed his existence and has formed much of its scholarship on that assumption. To abandon the historicity of Jesus would be a very embarrassing, anxious, and costly change for many people.

[bjs]

Probably more than ever before, people are questioning if he existed,

This is historically inaccurate. “Mythicism� was far more popular around the turn of the 20th century. It was a common topic of scholarly discussion in the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s. Since then it has steadily declined until only a handful a scholars take it seriously and today it can only rightly be called a fringe theory.

As another poster put it: Mythicism had its day in the sun, and it was found wanting.

[Mithrae]

Question For Debate: Why do we make such a big fuss over the question of the historicity of Jesus?

I'm not sure - why do you? Most people on this forum and elsewhere for the most part are happy to hold whatever opinions they have and express them only tangentially when some topic of discussion touches on the matter. I'd hazard a guess that threads on this forum specifically criticizing or arguing against Jesus' historicity would outnumber threads defending or arguing in favour by a margin of at least 10 to 1 if not much more. I really couldn't speak for those who make such a big fuss over the subject, though I suppose it's interesting to speculate.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

That Jesus existed as a first century Jewish preacher-man is a matter of historical likelihood. That he exists as God is a statement of faith, beyond the realm of reason.

If he is not God and was only an extraordinary man, that very real man is at the core of a myth, the Divine Jesus is in effect a mythologized human Jesus.

"All the fuss" seems only a recent and fringe phenomenon. The whole "Jesus never existed at all" proposal is only held by a small minority of scholars and some internet debators.

You know, the only time I ever heard the notion that Jesus never existed at all was on this site. And I never hear that theory beyond the internet.

What's the big deal about accepting the historical likelihood that Jesus once existed, as a man? Accepting that notion does not mean one has to believe he is God.

Is the probability that a completely human Jesus once existed a threat to you or to anyone in any way? I don't see how.

"All the fuss" was initiated by the mythicists, not the average person or even the average scholar.

Do you expect most people to simply roll over and not question this conspiracy theory? Not likely.

Do you really think the only options are "Jesus is God" vs "Jesus never existed at all"?

[Jagella]

Probably more than ever before, people are questioning if he existed,

This is historically inaccurate.

So more than ever before people are accepting Jesus as historical? What makes you so sure?

“Mythicism� was far more popular around the turn of the 20th century. It was a common topic of scholarly discussion in the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s.

Can you post some examples of scholars who questioned the existence of Jesus at that time?

In any case, the issue of Jesus' existence goes way back to the time the New Testament was being written. See 2 Peter 1:16, for example. Many real-Jesus apologists make the error of claiming that mythicism is a recent phenomenon.

Since then it has steadily declined until only a handful a scholars take it seriously and today it can only rightly be called a fringe theory.

I'm not so sure. Recently Raphael Lataster, who holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney, and lectures there, got on board as a mythicist.

As another poster put it: Mythicism had its day in the sun, and it was found wanting.

Are you saying then that mythicism is an issue for you because you have "found it wanting"? I agree that some mythicist theories may lack credibility, but other mythicist theories appear to be very reasonable. Richard Carrier's work, for instance, appears to be well-reasoned and fact based.

[Jagella]

I'm not sure - why do you? Most people on this forum and elsewhere for the most part are happy to hold whatever opinions they have and express them only tangentially when some topic of discussion touches on the matter. I'd hazard a guess that threads on this forum specifically criticizing or arguing against Jesus' historicity would outnumber threads defending or arguing in favour by a margin of at least 10 to 1 if not much more. I really couldn't speak for those who make such a big fuss over the subject, though I suppose it's interesting to speculate.

Personally, I like debating any issue relating to Christianity and that includes mythicism. That's why I'm in a forum called "Debating Christianity and Religion." Note that this forum was created by Christians. You may wish to ask them why they have created such a forum.

So you're honestly unsure why you debate the existence of Jesus?

I do agree that most Christians don't make an issue over the historicity of Jesus. They appear to assume he existed because the New Testament says he did.

[Jagella]

That Jesus existed as a first century Jewish preacher-man is a matter of historical likelihood. That he exists as God is a statement of faith, beyond the realm of reason.

It's common for real-Jesus apologists to strip Jesus of his magical powers to make his historicity more plausible. As far as I know Merlin the Magician never got the same treatment. That is, few posit Merlin as an "adviser man" to King Arthur yet deem his existence as a true wizard as being "beyond the realm of reason."

In other words, Jesus is a privileged figure.

If he is not God and was only an extraordinary man, that very real man is at the core of a myth, the Divine Jesus is in effect a mythologized human Jesus.

Why not say the same for Merlin?

"All the fuss" seems only a recent and fringe phenomenon. The whole "Jesus never existed at all" proposal is only held by a small minority of scholars and some internet debators.

The suspicion that Jesus never existed goes back to the first century. It seems that real-Jesus apologists never read 2 Peter 1:16 (NRSV):

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So now you know that mythicism is not a recent phenomenon. Please stop saying that it is.

You know, the only time I ever heard the notion that Jesus never existed at all was on this site. And I never hear that theory beyond the internet.

One of the first times I became acquainted with doubt regarding the historicity of Jesus was when I read a comment written by Arthur C. Clarke who referred to Jesus as a "shadowy figure." I remember thinking that all we think we know about Jesus comes from the New Testament.

What's the big deal about accepting the historical likelihood that Jesus once existed, as a man? Accepting that notion does not mean one has to believe he is God.

It's entirely possible that there was some guy named Jesus that the New Testament is based on, but some historians like Richard Carrier think it is unlikely that Jesus existed even as a mere man.

Is the probability that a completely human Jesus once existed a threat to you or to anyone in any way? I don't see how.

Obviously it's not a good idea for people to be misinformed. So if Jesus never existed, billions of people are believing a lie.

"All the fuss" was initiated by the mythicists, not the average person or even the average scholar.

"It takes two to tango," regardless of who starts to dance. I wonder how Christians might react to anybody doubting the existence of George Washington. I think it's very probable that they wouldn't give it a second thought. So it matters greatly to them to be sure that Jesus existed believing they cannot get to heaven without him.

Do you expect most people to simply roll over and not question this conspiracy theory? Not likely.

People should question mythism or any other important idea. I have questioned mythicism, and for the most part it makes good sense to me.

Do you really think the only options are "Jesus is God" vs "Jesus never existed at all"?

No. You can have any model of Jesus you want. But that's just the problem. Jesus seems to only exist as a figure whom we talk and write about.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by Jagella]

One of the first times I became acquainted with doubt regarding the historicity of Jesus was when I read a comment written by Arthur C. Clarke who referred to Jesus as a "shadowy figure." I remember thinking that all we think we know about Jesus comes from the New Testament.

I don't know when I first began entertaining the possibility of a mythical Jesus, but I do remember vaguely a comment of mine from a while back, where I said something along the lines of (to a Christian) "Thanks for pointing that out, I've just now realized that we have no first hand accounts of Jesus. The Gospel authors make no claim to being eyewitnesses and don't mention their sources, Paul by his own admission is at best a second generation convert and the Petrine epistles are doubted as to being authored by Peter".
There is literally nothing on Jesus that is NOT from a vague or disputed source. It's not like the case with Caesar - we have busts and/or coins attesting to the existence at the very least of a leader of Rome, and then we have some written records that say he was a god.
Anything that anyone might point to for a generic Jewish preacher man is also the very same documents that attest to a magical divine man with powers over life and death.

[tam]

Peace to you!

The Gospel authors make no claim to being eyewitnesses

But that is not true. The author of the fourth gospel does claims to be an eyewitness. He does not claim to be John (other men made that claim), but he does claim to be an eyewitness.

[Jagella]

Peace to you!

The Gospel authors make no claim to being eyewitnesses

But that is not true. The author of the fourth gospel does claims to be an eyewitness. He does not claim to be John (other men made that claim), but he does claim to be an eyewitness.

Can you cite the passage where John claims to be an eyewitness? I just checked the NRSV Bible and cannot find that claim in John.