EarlDoherty

I have taken note of the latest round of discussion over the Jesus Myth question (Jesus Historical?), and am amazed at how much mileage some people still think to squeeze out of the timeworn appeal to authority. Those who dump on the mythicist theory rely so much on the principle that if the majority believes—or doesn’t believe—in something, this automatically makes them right, and justifies the one making the appeal rejecting the minority view a priori and refusing even to investigate it. This is so blatantly fallacious and unacceptable that I wonder that any supposedly intelligent person can subscribe to it. If this were the case, we’d all still believe that the sun went around the earth, or that continental drift (Wegener was dumped on by all in the geology field when he first proposed it in 1915) was a crock. Ironically, when we put the shoe on the other foot, and note that the vast majority of scientists (excluding the “science� graduates of bible colleges) subscribe with total confidence to the Darwinian case (with subsequent refinements) for evolution, the faith-driven will not accept any ‘appeal to authority’ in this regard.

Anyway, I’m not here to argue this issue. It’s a waste of time. But I thought I would inform the Board of a recent proposal made to the editor of the Fourth R, the magazine of the Westar Institute, the umbrella organization for the Jesus Seminar. This person, who is familiar with and has admired my work (no telling the crazy things some people will support, right?) noted to the editor that the Fourth R has a tradition of presenting some pretty liberal viewpoints for examination. He offered to donate $5000 to the magazine if they would print a substantial article by myself on the Jesus Myth question, accompanied in the same issue by an equal counter-article by any scholar of their choosing, to be followed in a subsequent issue by shorter rebuttals by both myself and the other scholar. (This offer, by the way, was made without my prompting or even my knowledge, until he informed me after it was made.)

This was the response he received:

I'm not presently inclined to devote an issue to questioning the existence of Jesus. The topic is a perennial one among skeptics. If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism. But the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present. With so many other living issues to explore, I don't think it would be responsible to devote the limited space in the 4R to your suggestion.

I am constantly being bombarded with the view that the mythicist case has been dealt with and discredited by regular scholarship “time and time again.� This is a sham. To the extent that any of them have devoted thought or space to the question, their responses are shallow, their arguments weak, their sheer understanding of the mythicist case is abysmal, and they have nothing new to say that hasn’t been trotted out a hundred times before and which the mythicist case has more than adequately dealt with. Michael Grant (who addressed the question by devoting one dismissive paragraph to it in the Appendix of his Jesus book, and that in 1977) is no exception. Graham Stanton is no exception. And Paula Fredriksen is certainly no exception, as I have demonstrated in my website article Challenging Doherty.

If R. T. France is supposed to be the most effective voice in the history of opposition to the Jesus Myth theory, then it is badly in need of a new champion. Personally, I think Goguel was the most substantive of the lot, but he is very dated, and if anyone thinks that orthodoxy should rest on the laurels of defenders almost a century old, this speaks to their own naivete about how far the Jesus Myth theory has progressed since then. (Richard Carrier, in his review of my book, noted that it is long overdue that orthodox scholarship provide a proper counter-case to Jesus mythicism.) I wrote this in my “Postscript� article (in the Main Articles) on The Jesus Puzzle website:

Something like The Evidence for Jesus (1986) by R. T. France, Vice-Principal of the London Bible College, hardly fills that role, and is devoted to illuminating the figure of an historical Jesus—a largely orthodox one—not just to defending his existence. As a defense it is quite ineffectual, taking no account (since it largely predates them) of recent insights into Q, the pervasive midrashic content of Mark, the modeling of Mark's passion story on the traditional tale of the Suffering Righteous One, and much else that has given ongoing support to the no-Jesus theory. Graham Stanton, in his The Gospels and Jesus (1989), devotes a chapter to addressing the views of mythicist G. A. Wells. Stanton's 'case' against Wells' position is little more than a citation of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny (discussed below)—and an appeal to the authority that comes with the majority's acceptance "that Jesus existed." Ian Wilson, in Jesus: The Evidence (1984), does much the same, first acknowledging the uncertainty and contradiction in the early evidence, and then having recourse to the same trio of ancient 'witnesses.' All of them raise points that show little or no understanding for the depth and sophistication of the mythicist position. J. D. G. Dunn, in his one-page "Note on Professor Wells' View" in The Evidence for Jesus (1985), falls back on the old timeworn explanations for Paul's silence on a human figure. He, too, asks questions that show he is trapped within the old paradigm and unable to grasp how standard objections to the mythicist position dissolve, as do many of the longstanding problems in New Testament research, when the new paradigm of an evolving historical Jesus is applied to the evidence.

One of the leading avant-garde publications in the public eye was offered a substantial amount of money to take the opportunity to demonstrate that the mythicist case hasn’t a leg to stand on, yet they refused, despite, I am sure, being aware of the increased press and attention and number of proponents it has gained over the last decade or so. If they were concerned with discrediting dangerous or crazy ideas infecting the religious atmosphere of our time, particularly something so allegedly easy to discredit, one might think that devoting an issue to this task would be good idea, especially with the financial incentive being offered. I am sure the apologists on this Board will come up with all sorts of rationalizations for the refusal, all ultimately based on the same appeal to authority and smug reliability to be placed in the majority attitude, but to me it smacks of nothing so much as fear and hesitation over opening a Pandora’s Box of disturbing ideas which might further undermine the foundations of their own world.

Last evening, while watching the TV program “Bones� I was amazed when the main character said: “It is thought that Christ, if he existed, was….� And later in the program, in discussing ‘skepticism’ in another connection, the characters had a short exchange about “the Christ Myth theory�, in anything but a negative tone! What is gratifying, and very different, about the situation in regard to the mythicist theory these days over previous ones, is that its possibility has permeated into the public consciousness and public expression in a way as never before. In many people’s minds it has become a viable option to be considered. It would seem that the subject has moved inside the fringe, despite the tawdry incompetence and uncredentialed ignorance of those charlatans like myself who have been partly responsible for generating the buzz. (Robert Price, a member of the Seminar, must be excepted, of course, as he has credentials to burn.) And yet the editor of the Fourth R won’t give it the time of day because it isn’t worth anyone’s attention, and the leading critical scholars of our day are allegedly not interested?

I find it particular ironic that he should accuse skeptics of something which the orthodox community has always been notoriously guilty of in spades, and has been demonstrated “time and time again� on various threads of this Forum.

Incidentally, within a week I will be posting on my website a lengthy response to Mike Licona’s review of Brian Flemming’s film The God Who Wasn’t There, as presented on the “Answering Infidels� website. That review focused in great part on Flemming’s, and my, presentation of the Christ Myth Theory. Licona, too, parroted the same old dismal arguments and appeals to authority. But then, that’s all they have.

Merry Christmas.

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

You go, Earl! I think that's great. I'll have to blog this one.

Vorkosigan

Zeichman

While I am certainly more than guilty of these "appeal to consensuses" (though, as an undergrad student, I prefer to think of it as an appeal to legitimate authorities"), I do think it is a rather large shame that this won't be addressed in a popular-scholarly way. To reiterate a request I e-mailed to you, PLEASE write a book intended for a more scholarly audience, your own "A Marginal Myth" or whatever so as to force the academy to take note of your thoughts, since so much is addressed in such little space in your main work.

Julian

The response was just too stupid to pass up.
Hint, hint!
No, such is the nature of dogmatism. The whole point of skepticism is that one's mind is changed based on evidence. Get a clue.
Living issue? What does that even mean?!??
Really? Jesus mythicism is not an issue among historical Jesus scholars? Whoda thunk it?
You think?
What issues would those be? You know, working without any actual evidence and all?
I am sorry, Earl. I, for one, enjoyed your book and think that the issue of a mythical/historical Jesus is rather central to the earliest beginnings of christianity and its lack of exploration displays a deplorable christian tendenciousness among most 'scholars.'

Julian

Julian

Clivedurdle

Would there be any clarity about when the belief in a historical Jesus became solidified?

WishboneDawn

Frankly, it could have nothing to do with the 'Jesus as myth' debate. You've framed it that way but I think it's at least as likely that the attachment of a $5000 bribe made the offer ethically stinky.

People pay for ad space, not to submit editorial content. I'm willing to bet they've got guidelines against that kind of thing and accepting the 'donation' would have damaged their credibility amongst their readership (not to mention given the Christian right ammunition against them). Offering it was more than a little disrespectful. I'm surprised their response was as polite as it was.

Yuri Kuchinsky

If the mythicist case is so strong, then how come they expelled me from the Yahoo JesusMysteries list for no reason whatsoever? (I do accept the Historical Jesus.)

That's when I lost all respect for the Jesus mythers...

Regards,

Yuri.

Julian

I had to look at this post since it was in a thread I posted in.

I suggest that you were removed from the list for the same reason that you are on my Ignore list here on II. The fact that you are rude, condescending and add very little to a serious debate besides your ill-placed scorn.

Don't bother replying as you will remain on my Ignore list.

Julian

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yeah, sure... personal attacks such as this do go a long way to illustrate the strength of the mythicist case...

Regards,

Yuri.

RPS

I am amazed at how readily strawmen are created and advanced.

I don't. I've read and considered the Jesus-myth arguments, including The Jesus Puzzle. Your work is a major improvement over the likes of Freke and Gandy but I'm not convinced.

There is more than enough hypocrisy to go around -- on all sides.

There are several good reasons why the proposal could have been rejected, including the following.

1. The stated reason -- "the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars."
   
2. Ethical concerns -- no journal with scholarly pretensions is likely to want to be seen as susceptible to a bribe.
   
3. Concerns similar to those expressed by Dawkins and Gould for refusing to debate creationists.

I have no doubt you believe this sincerely, but I have no reason to think that the academics who so readily dismiss the Jesus-myth idea are anything but sincere either.

If you want to claim ulterior motives among those who dismiss the Jesus-myth idea, particularly among non-Christians, you'll forgive me if I suggest the need for some evidence.

Significant portions of that very same public rejects evolution utterly, thinks Art Bell is first-rate journalist and is sure that Elvis is still alive. So what?

The reality is that web-posting, popular writing, aspersion-casting, public debates (in person or in print) and hand-wringing aren't going to remove the Jesus-myth idea from the fringe. For that to happen, you (or someone like you) is going to have to enter the fray at an academic level. That will require peer review and academic publication. The scholarly consensus may be full-of-it, but unless and until you fight the battle within the academy itself, I can't imagine the Jesus-myth idea being taken seriously.

Merry Christmas to you too.