gstafleu

Here is something I've been wondering about: why is the mythicist position not the default one taken by historians? Isn't it the case that when one hypothesizes the existence of a person, the burden of proof is on the hypothesizer?

In general, when we have a story about a person doing wondrous things with divine aid, the assumption is that the person is fictional. As an example, let's take Odysseus. When we read Homer in school, the question of course came up: was Odysseus an historical person? The answer was: perhaps, but probably not because there is not enough evidence showing he existed. Notice that the answer is not a definite yes or no. Both options are valid and discussable, we just have an opinion about their relative likelihood.

So why is the case of Jesus different? The evidence in both cases consists of a literary work, possibly presented as history. In the case of Odysseus it is the Iliad and Odyssey, in case of Jesus it is the New testament. In both cases we have a bunch of derived documents. Odysseus appears in other tales, but his appearance in these is seen as derived from Homer. Similarly Jesus appears in other documents, all clearly based on the NT.

Nevertheless the case of Jesus' historicity is often presented as a slam-dunk. This can only be justified if there is overwhelming evidence for it. But everyone agrees there isn't. The amount of non-NT evidence is very limited, and just as we would look for evidence outside Homer for the existence of Odysseus, so we should look for evidence outside the NT for Jesus. But that evidence is very scarce, and even if we waive arguments about interpolation and derivation, it is still not enough to relegate the mythicist case to the waste basket of ridicule. We don't even have to add arguments like Doherty's. They make the mythicist case much stronger, but are not necessary for it to be a valid hypothesis.

So, when you look at something like the Jesus story, isn't it normal to start out with the assumption that it is fiction, change that as evidence for existence comes along and only put the mythicist option on the back burner once the evidence for historicity is overwhelming? But I get the impression that the opposite is happening. It is the historicists claiming that the mythicists have to make there case, while it should be the other way around.

WishboneDawn

Damn. That's a good question.

mikem

The mythicist position is not the default because the NT is a product of the Christian Church, and it is the Church through history which claims that Jesus was a historical figure, and that this historical figure stands at the very beginnings of the Church's existence. Apart from the gospels there are a mass of christian writings from the early centuries that assume the existence of Jesus. Historically, the default position is that Jesus existed. The mythicist view is a relative latecomer.

In order to make a case, mythicists have not only to reinterpret the NT, they also have to reinterpret the history of the Church, to explain why and how a non existent character came to be regarded as historical. This is no easy matter, since by and large the mythicists have to rely on Christian writings to make their case.

jjramsey

First, it is misleading to describe the NT as if it were a single story. It is an anthology. Also, there's a big difference in genres. The genre of the Iliad and Odyssey is epic poetry. The genres in the NT are epistle, apocalyptic (namely, Revelation), and historical narrative. Note that the latter genre does not mean that the works are accurate history, only that they purport to be history.

Bear in mind that Christians did not hold a monopoly on mixing fact and fiction. It would not make sense to reject the possibility of embellishment in the NT, even gross embellishment, when it is apparent in other works. Life of Apollonius is a particularly fanciful example of a grossly embellished work based on a historical character.

No, it is also justified if the Jesus' historicity makes better sense of the evidence that we have than competing explanations.

andrewcriddle

The main reason for doubting a historical Odysseus is the gap of over 300 years between his supposed adventures and Homer our earliest source. (The fantastic elements of the story of Odysseus are actually rather easy to detach from the main story, and are not in themselves a reason to doubt a historical core.)

We have prima facie evidence for Jesus much closer to his lifetime.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Hmmm.