ApostateAbe

Doug Shaver and I had a conversation about the way scholars treat mythicism. Here it is:
Turns out that Doug Shaver read the book already.
So, here is the relevant excerpt from Van Voorst's book, from pages 14 through 16, including the footnotes. The author's treatment is topical and brief, but it should certainly not be equated with a complete absence of arguments. At best, you can complain that the scholars are not giving mythicism as much time as it really deserves, and the reasons for their rejections are faulty.

On what grounds have New Testament scholars and other historians rejected the nonexistence hypothesis? Here we will summarize the main arguments used against Wells's version of this hypothesis, since his is both contemporary and similar to the others. First, Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: the exact time of his life, the exact places of his ministry, that Pontius Pilate condemned him, and so forth. As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous.³⁴ Moreover, we should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature, which was not written for primarily historical purposes. Almost all readers of Paul assume on good evidence that Paul regards Jesus as a historical figure, not a mythical or mystical one.

Second, Wells argues that Christians invented the figure of Jesus when they wrote gospels outside Palestine around 100. Not only is this dating far too late for Mark (which was probably written around the year 70), Matthew, and Luke (both of which probably date to the 80s), it cannot explain why the Gospel references to details about Palestine are so plentiful and mostly accurate.

Third, Wells claims that the development of the Gospel traditions and historical difficulties within them show that Jesus did not exist. However, development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence. (Some of Wells's readers may get the impression that if there were no inconsistencies in the Gospels, he would seize on that as evidence of their falsehood!)

Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it.³⁵

Fifth, Wells and his predecessors have been far too skeptical about the value of non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus. They point to well-known text-critical and source-critical problems in these witnesses and argue that these problems rule out the entire value of these passages, ignoring the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy.

Sixth, Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven.

Finally, Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ. The hypotheses they have advanced, based on an idiosyncratic understanding of mythology, have little independent corroborative evidence to commend them to others.

34. As Morton Smith remarks, Wells's argument is mainly based on the argument from silence. He criticizes Wells for explaining this silence by arguing for "unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth . . . about an unspecified supernatural entity that at an indefinite time was sent by God into the world as a man to save mankind and was crucified" (Morton Smith, "The Historical Jesus," in Jesus in Myth and History, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman and Gerald A. Larue [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986] 47-48). This "Christ before Jesus" myth has also been promoted by J. G. Jackson, Christianity before Christ (Austin: American Atheist Press, 1985).

35. The only possible attempt at this argument known to me is in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, written in the middle of the second century. At the end of chapter 8, Trypho, Justin's Jewish interlocutor, states, "But [the] Christ — if indeed he has been born, and exists anywhere — is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all. Accepting a groundless report, you have invented a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are unknowingly perishing." This may be faint statement of a nonexistence hypothesis, but it is not developed or even mentioned again in the rest of the Dialogue, in which Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus.

Each of these points can have their own separate ten threads, and some of them already do, maybe a hundred threads. But, maybe we can just take special note of point #6.

Sixth, Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven.

This is not a good scholarly reason for rejecting the nonexistence hypothesis. It is not about the evidence, but it is merely a reflection of the academy's prejudice. The statement of this point can be rightly spun into an indictment against the historicist establishment.

At the same time, the point made is perfectly correct. If a PR firm were representing the mythicists, then the marketing agents would suggest that something has to change. You really don't want your message to overlap so thoroughly with anti-religious activism. It is a similar problem that Intelligent Design advocates have with their close association with religious fundamentalists. They are actually aware of the problem, and the ID advocates often try to diversify and sometimes distance themselves from the traditional creationists. I made a thread on the subject which can be found here: Relationship between opposition to Christianity and advocacy of mythical-Jesus theory.

dog-on

Abe, what a load of crap.

1. What evidence?

2. Details of a location being correct means that the story is true, or that the story must have been written within a cetain time....right...

3. They do not prove existence either...

4. Didn't this moron just get finished saying this, "As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist", what a tool.

5. "most of these passages are basically trustworthy"... and I have a 12" schlong...

Steven Carr

'As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist.'

So THAT is why nobody talks about Elvis Presley's superb tap-dancing skills.

Just because nobody in the Elvis Presley Fan Club talked about his tap-dancing is no evidence that it did not exist.

Just because Paul writes that Jews could not be expected to believe until Christians were sent to preach about Jesus, does not mean that Jesus did not exist...

It simply means that Jews had not heard of Jesus until Christians started preaching about him.

Steven Carr

'Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it.'

Isnt' this the guy who two seconds ago was complaining that just because things are not mentioned, a Real Historian does not assume they did not exist?

Or was that a different guy?

Where are the people who pointed out that Ned Ludd did not exist?

yalla

Gee dog-on I am forced to agree with you.

Assuming the above 6 points are a reasonable synopsis of the book then such book seems to have clearly failed to refute mythicist criticism and even fails to use its own criteria consistently.

Lets have a look at a few of the points, its a long time since I read Wells so I'll concentrate more on REVV's [Robert E. Van Voorst] comments generally.

Firstly, he misapplies the idea of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" concept.
"Absence of evidence" when it could be reasonably expected to be present should give pause for thought.
There is virtually no such evidence of any HJ in the first century, a few slight possibilities which can be discussed later.
See Doherty for a detailed discussion of the lack of evidence for an HJ in Paul and other purportedly 1st C writings.

This statment:
"Almost all readers of Paul assume on good evidence that Paul regards Jesus as a historical figure is valueless.
Scholarship is not a popularity contest particularly when a powerful political organization has had centuries to indoctrinate public opinion.
Notice the word 'assume' in that sentence. Presumptions are valueless.
Now if REVV wants to give details of what constitutes "on good evidence", fine, consideration of evidence is the key.
But I see none mentioned here. Perhaps it is in the bulk of the book?
What is the evidence?

Secondly, REVV asserts that dating "Mark" c100CE [and the others later] is "far too late".
Really, on what grounds?
Does he cover these grounds in detail in his book?
Are the reasons for dating "Mark" later than 70CE presented and analysed?
Joe Wallack has given complete threads worth of evidence, both internal and external to g"Mark", for dating "Mark" later than the conventional time [which I note has changed from pre 70 to post 70 in conventional circles recently].
Mere assertion that "Mark" was written c70CE carries no weight at all.

Then there is this assertion:
".....cannot explain why the Gospel references to details about Palestine are so plentiful and mostly accurate".
REVV is making a fundamental mistake here.

I'm an Australian and we have an author here who has written a series of 'private eye' novels set in the city of Sydney a few decades ago starring a character named Cliff Hardy.
In those novels details as to time and place are "plentiful and mostly accurate", well very accurate actually.

But the novels are fiction and Cliff hardy does not exist, and never has.
And are the details in the gospels with regards to what is commonly termed 'local colour', really as accurate as REVV claims?
If you search here at this site you will find threads that throw considerable doubt, much based on reputable Christian scholarship, about such details in the gospels that refer to the geography and culture of Palestine.
Merely asserting such are accurate carries no weight.

Fourthly [I'll skip #3 for now] REVV is here utilising the 'argument for silence', which he earlier dismissed, as a positive.
"As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist."
Inconsistent.
Hoist by his own petard.

Fifthly, the value of Tacitus, Josephus, and I'd consider Pliny [the younger] and Suetonius should be included in such a list of extra NT alleged 'witnesses' is vastly overrated.
Tacitus' alleged [cos there are doubts as to its veracity] value has been debated here. Perhaps REVV should avail himself of some of the material in such threads. But even granting the veracity of T's report it is still only a second hand description which could be mere repeating of material Tacitus has heard from unnamed sources.
Pliny's description is even more overtly second hand, he is no witness to an HJ merely repeating information gained from christians.
No first hand evidence for an HJ in either of these authors, just acknowledgement that christians existed at the time of writing. We knew that.

To cite Joesephus as evidence for an HJ is an act of desperation, the credibility of the Test. Fkav. is minimal.
Here, check out this link which is to an article written by a reputable Christian [I think he is a Christian] scholar who not only presents the evidence for the TF being a forgery but identifies the probable forger.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/4869

This, by REVV :
"ignoring the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy." is an extremely optimistic verdict as to the perceived cedibility of the TF.
Even if REVV's statement " the strong consensus ...basically trustworthy" is accurate, which is unsupported and itself a very doubtful statement, I note that an argument from popularity does not make an argument correct.

Sorry Abe, but is this is the standard of refutation of the mythicist stance, then it falls a long way short of being convincing.

Steven Carr

Voorst actually includes Thallos as a reference for Jesus! '...Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus'

This shows you what junk scholarship is really like.

Why should anybody take the guy seriously when he engages in pseudo-history?

ApostateAbe

For you and others who made that point about Voorst's apparent hypocrisy about the argument from silence, I made another thread about that here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....32#post6421032

ApostateAbe

I think he included Thallos because the theme of his book is "Jesus Outside the New Testament," and Thallos really is, at least arguably, a good inference of the earliest known specific evidence of non-Christian knowledge about Jesus. It is certainly not evidence for the historicity of Jesus that I would use, but that is a consequence of choosing to look only outside the New Testament for his evidence of Jesus, where the evidence is scarcest. He actually cheated with his theme, and he used the Gospel of Q for references to Jesus outside the New Testament, just because Q is sorta kinda not part of the canon.

Steven Carr

No,he is a junk scholar peddling pseudo-scholarship if he claims Julius Africanus non-quote of a person who cannot be traced is evidence that this 'darkness' was known before the Novels were written.

yalla

Q is a very handy device for extrapolating backwards to the alleged time of JC isn't it?
Really...convenient.