An atheist blogger rebukes Mythicism...

[ignorantianescia]

... but the wise words are naturally ignored in the comments section.

www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/

I can’t believe I’m feeling the need to do this, but today I’d like to write a brief defense of the historicity of Jesus.

When climate change deniers want to insist that our actions have no impact on global temperatures, they display a remarkable disdain for an entire discipline populated by credentialed professionals in that field who say otherwise. It doesn’t seem to bother the deniers that they themselves have no specialization in the academic field they disparage because in any field of study there will always be at least some small contingent who go against the consensus. The existence of those outliers is justification enough for the deniers to say, “This business is far from certain, you know. Just look at these four people who disagree!”

That’s how I feel when people in the skeptic community argue that Jesus never existed. They are dismissing a large body of work for which they have insufficient appreciation, most often due to the fact that they themselves have never formally studied the subject. And yes, I know that the study of religon and of antiquity is a far “softer” field of study than climatology (and therefore more subject to personal bias). But that doesn’t mean we can’t reasonably conclude anything at all about the distant past. There are at least a handful of things about the origins of the Christian religion which we can reasonably conclude based on the things that we know. Among them are that there was most likely a guy named Jesus who preached and was killed outside Jerusalem, and that after his death a diverse following emerged which built around that event a narrative which grew to become the Christian faith.

The existence of two or three professionals within the study of antiquity claiming that Jesus never existed does not signal a sea change in that field. There haven’t been any new discoveries in the past few years which signal any significant changes in that discipline. The only thing I see that’s changed is public opinion.

That's only the first part of the post.

[sandwiches]

Interesting, as are the comments (for what they reveal about the mindset of the posters rather than their "arguments").
But then I suppose if someone wrote an article saying conspiracy theories about the moon-landings or 9/11 or the missing Malaysian airliner or climate-change are really rather ludicrous, it would immediately attract a swarm of those besotted with such conspiracy theories? Noticeably the vast majority of expert opinion on any of these matters is dismissed as the work of apologists. All such conspiracy theories at heart are faith-based? But such conspiracy theories should still be debunked, lest the truly simple-minded be taken in (at least Christianity is recognised by most of its adherents as being based ultimately on faith?). It would be interesting to see if there are any explanations or academic theories of the appeal of such conspiracy-based theories? (there must be?).

[James Hannam]

In the UK, Damian Thompson and David Aaronovitch have both written books about conspiracy theories. I haven't read either but would be interested in knowing if they contain any useful insight. I have yet to see much reliable academic work on why people believe them, but lots of pop psychology.

J

[sandwiches]

Well, oddly enough, a theory here:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/inside-jobs-and-israeli-stooges-why-muslim-world-thrall-conspiracy-theories

Inside jobs and Israeli stooges: why is the Muslim world in thrall to conspiracy theories?

The “We’ve been lied to” argument goes only so far. Scepticism may be evidence of a healthy and independent mindset; but conspiracism is a virus that feeds off insecurity and bitterness.

But an academic work would be interesting. Conspiracy theories are not unique to Islam.

[unkleE]

My (not very educated) guess would be that conspiracy theories arise from cognitive dissonance. When you can't see how a person could believe something, you have to invent a reason other than you can't understand them (e.g some atheists can't understand how a person can be a christian so they decide we're delusional or whatever). When it happens on a larger scale, the explanation of the thing we can't cope with becomes a conspiracy.

But I too would be happy to be corrected by experts.

[gregg]

I am sorry but eventually you will realize you are on the wrong side of this debate. I have a difficult time believing any truly rational, skeptical person can dismiss Jesus Mythicism out of hand after reading the arguments of people like Carrier, Price, Zindler, Dohery, etc or can fail to realize the paucity of evidence provided in support of historicism, Not to mention the many logical fallacies employed by scholars like Bart Ehrman as they try to prove the existence of some historical Jesus or another.

Yes, Jesus mythicism goes against the so-called "scholarly consensus." Yes, that is a legitimate "red flag," but one should keep in mind that Biblical/religious history studies are not nearly as unbiased and objective as other sciences. Don't forget that for decades scientists and geologists in particular rejected and ridiculed the idea of continental drift despite the plain observation that the continents appear to fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Jesus mythicism is much more akin to continental drift theory in its infancy than something like evolution denial. It is probably more difficult to "prove" mythicism because so much evidence has been lost or destroyed, but one can certainly argue there is a significant degree of probability that Jesus didn't exist as a historic person.

[gregg]

Look at the way Bart Ehrman makes his case. For example despite the fact that Nazareth was not settled at the supposed time of Jesus, Ehrman refers to highly questionable findings supposedly disproving this, then goes on to say even if Jesus wasn't from Nazareth it doesn't matter, he still must have lived somewhere! Come on...what kind of scientific argument is that? You can't falsify it. Why does Ehrman need to make such silly illogical arguments more suited to Josh McDowell if his case for historicity is so compelling?

[gregg]

I can sort of understand the visceral emotional reaction and condescending, dismissive attitude many atheists / agnostics initially have toward Jesus mythicism. Admittedly the scholarship of some mythicists is sloppy, and it's easy for some to think that all mythicists are cranky militants taking an anti-Christian agenda to an embarrassing extreme. But that is simply not the reality of the situation. Very real, solid, productive, hard work is being done in the field of mythical Jesus studies and I believe the majority of atheists/agnostics will one day acknowledge this and give credit where it is due, not to mention give the mythicist case the serious consideration it deserves.

[timoneill]

Jan 5, 2015 1:45:43 GMT gregg said:

Look at the way Bart Ehrman makes his case. For example despite the fact that Nazareth was not settled at the supposed time of Jesus, Ehrman refers to highly questionable findings supposedly disproving this

The "fact" that Nazareth wasn't settled in Jesus' time? Have you informed the archaeologists? Name me one who accepts this so-called "fact". I'd respond to your other, similar assertions in your three (!) posts, but they stink too much of obvious troll to bother.

[evangelion]

Jan 5, 2015 2:47:08 GMT gregg said:

Very real, solid, productive, hard work is being done in the field of mythical Jesus studies

Then why does it have no credibility in the academic world--even among secular scholars?

[wraggy]

Jan 5, 2015 8:33:16 GMT evangelion said:

Jan 5, 2015 2:47:08 GMT gregg said:

Very real, solid, productive, hard work is being done in the field of mythical Jesus studies

Then why does it have no credibility in the academic world--even among secular scholars?

Because there is a big wide world conspiracy against it in the academic world.
You know, sort of like the conspiracy against Creationism by all those Biologists.
Even the Christian Biologists from esteemed institutions like Kenneth Miller of Brown University and Simon Conway Morris at Cambridge are in on the act.

Submit yet Evangelion?

[evangelion]

[wraggy]

Jan 5, 2015 9:29:54 GMT evangelion said:

Just the response that I would expect from you to my infallible argument.

[fortigurn]

Jan 5, 2015 1:33:04 GMT gregg said:

Yes, Jesus mythicism goes against the so-called "scholarly consensus." Yes, that is a legitimate "red flag," but one should keep in mind that Biblical/religious history studies are not nearly as unbiased and objective as other sciences.

But Jesus' historicity isn't simply accepted within Biblical/religious history studies. It's accepted by the overwhelming consensus of secular professional historians, following standard professional historiography. I've never yet seen Carrier, Price, Zindler, Doherty, etc, engage secular professional historians on this topic. Why is this?

Very real, solid, productive, hard work is being done in the field of mythical Jesus studies

Where is it being published in the scholarly literature of professional historiography?

[gregg]

Jan 5, 2015 9:29:54 GMT evangelion said:

No, it is not a "conspiracy." It is inertia. As I state above it's much like resistance in the scientific community to continental drift, but with the added disincentive of many people dealing with the very real possibility of career fallout from taking mythicism seriously.

Have you actually taken the time to study the works of mythicists like Price, Carrier, Zindler, Doherty in depth and compare their arguments to Ehrman's? Or check their book of compiled responses to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The burden is, of course, on mythicists to prove their views, but you do have to actually READ their arguments.