Post by gregg on Jan 5, 2015 17:58:44 GMT
I am not personally a scholar nor do I know ancient languages. Intelligence wise I am very average. However, I love science and rational thinking. Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are among my heroes. I am not prone to embrace ridiculous conspiracy theories of any kind, and although there are many things I don’t understand about such things as chemistry and mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, climate, geology and so on, my first instinct is to trust what the experts have to say about it.
I know that whenever I want to I can read any number of well-researched, scholarly books that are simply jam-packed with evidence supporting such theories as the age of the universe, the fact of evolution, continental drift, etc. Although I generally do rely on the “argument from authority” in determining what current understanding of reality I will accept (provisionally, of course), I know I don’t HAVE to just take the authorities’ word for it. I can actually check out the research and evidence they’ve compiled to show the current theories are the best available. I may not understand all of it but I have a pretty good sense of when I’m reading junk science. Carl Sagan’s “baloney toolkit” is an excellent resource for me.
When I read the arguments of mythicists I definitely don’t get any sense that I’m reading the work of “cranks” or “crackpots.” Sure, there are those who, while some of their research is certainly worthwhile and adds to the overall body of knowledge, do not have sufficient training and knowledge of ancient languages to speak with authority on the matter (again, this is not to say some of their research doesn’t merit further study by those who ARE qualified). But then there are those like Price, Carrier, Zindler and Doherty who DO have a strong working knowledge of ancient languages and other fields relevant to the subject and the time period(s) in question. And their arguments definitely do not read anything like those of, say, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They take all the evidence into account (including evidence that would seem to work against the hypothesis) and use it to build a very compelling case.
Even so, I would still be a LOT more skeptical of Jesus mythicism if the historicists could make a better case for Jesus’ existence. Thus far I have yet to see this. I started out as a historicist by default and was highly skeptical of mythicist claims, but finally realized that there is simply NO evidence for Jesus comparable to that supporting the existence of other known historical figures. The argument that the many different expressions of Christianity that we know of were all “responses” to a historical figure does not fit the evidence nearly as well as the argument that Christianity began as a variety of religious and philosophical expressions that gradually pulled together around the emerging idea of a Savior that had actually been on Earth. Scholars actually offer the same few “proofs” of Jesus’ existence over and over (and Bart Ehrman is no exception). Mythicists have addressed these proofs at length in their arguments.
From my layman’s, outsider view, I don’t find historicists giving me really compelling reasons to accept historicity other than “that’s the scholarly consensus.” If I’m pointed toward something to read, it’s the same arguments I’ve already read and find uncompelling compared to the mythicist case. I’m told “it’s settled” and “we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.” But I am not FINDING any wheel, that’s the point. The argument from authority can only go so far. There also has to be strong evidence and a logical, compelling presentation of it. Many mythicists hoped Ehrman’s book would do just that and they were truly disappointed that it did not. I think it’s very telling that they were not “scared” that Ehrman was writing DJE?—most of them were really looking forward to it. They were even willing to change their views if Ehrman’s evidence and arguments warranted it.
Once again—if a claim goes against the scholarly consensus, I certainly agree those making it have a responsibility to be sure they are qualified to make it, to do their research, to accumulate evidence, and to make their case. Mythicists have done that and continue to do that, and I think in another decade or so the logjam will break and you’ll see more and more papers in peer-reviewed journals. But right now we are in the situation that continental drift theorists were in—a long hard slog against a deeply ingrained consensus. Continental drift is the proper analogy here, not climate change denial or evolution denial. Sometimes the consensus really is wrong and it can be extremely difficult to change the paradigm—even among scientists who are supposedly open to new evidence. Think about it. When you consider continental drift, isn’t it kind of mind-boggling to realize that the vast majority of the science community rejected it for decades and for several years even refused to accept slam-dunk evidence (specifically the mid-Atlantic trench)? Why? The jigsaw fit of the continents was obvious even to children, and the theory explains so much—earthquakes, volcanos, mountain building, the fact that we have examples of the same species on different continents.
In the same way, when you consider Jesus mythicism in and of itself, is it really saying anything THAT radical? We’ve already acknowledged that Jesus has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to say much of anything with certainty about the supposed historical figure at the heart of Christianity other than “Well, he existed. He had to!” We’ve already acknowledged that all the Gospels are based on Mark and that Mark is a hot mess of allegory and symbolism and scriptural midrash, heavily redacted over the decades and centuries, and rife with historic and geographic inaccuracies. We know that the contemporary non-biblical witness to Jesus is virtually nil. So why, exactly, is it so “extreme” to suggest that perhaps, just MAYBE, all of it did NOT start with a historical person, that rather many different religious expressions, some of them quite ancient, and several including the concept of a heavenly intermediary forgiving sin via a sacrificial act, combined and evolved and gradually came into orbit around an invented founder, who originally was known to be allegorical?
Jesus mythicism is not some embarrassing, radical crank attack on Christianity by militant atheists who should know better. It is a genuine inquiry into our shared history.
I know that whenever I want to I can read any number of well-researched, scholarly books that are simply jam-packed with evidence supporting such theories as the age of the universe, the fact of evolution, continental drift, etc. Although I generally do rely on the “argument from authority” in determining what current understanding of reality I will accept (provisionally, of course), I know I don’t HAVE to just take the authorities’ word for it. I can actually check out the research and evidence they’ve compiled to show the current theories are the best available. I may not understand all of it but I have a pretty good sense of when I’m reading junk science. Carl Sagan’s “baloney toolkit” is an excellent resource for me.
When I read the arguments of mythicists I definitely don’t get any sense that I’m reading the work of “cranks” or “crackpots.” Sure, there are those who, while some of their research is certainly worthwhile and adds to the overall body of knowledge, do not have sufficient training and knowledge of ancient languages to speak with authority on the matter (again, this is not to say some of their research doesn’t merit further study by those who ARE qualified). But then there are those like Price, Carrier, Zindler and Doherty who DO have a strong working knowledge of ancient languages and other fields relevant to the subject and the time period(s) in question. And their arguments definitely do not read anything like those of, say, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They take all the evidence into account (including evidence that would seem to work against the hypothesis) and use it to build a very compelling case.
Even so, I would still be a LOT more skeptical of Jesus mythicism if the historicists could make a better case for Jesus’ existence. Thus far I have yet to see this. I started out as a historicist by default and was highly skeptical of mythicist claims, but finally realized that there is simply NO evidence for Jesus comparable to that supporting the existence of other known historical figures. The argument that the many different expressions of Christianity that we know of were all “responses” to a historical figure does not fit the evidence nearly as well as the argument that Christianity began as a variety of religious and philosophical expressions that gradually pulled together around the emerging idea of a Savior that had actually been on Earth. Scholars actually offer the same few “proofs” of Jesus’ existence over and over (and Bart Ehrman is no exception). Mythicists have addressed these proofs at length in their arguments.
From my layman’s, outsider view, I don’t find historicists giving me really compelling reasons to accept historicity other than “that’s the scholarly consensus.” If I’m pointed toward something to read, it’s the same arguments I’ve already read and find uncompelling compared to the mythicist case. I’m told “it’s settled” and “we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.” But I am not FINDING any wheel, that’s the point. The argument from authority can only go so far. There also has to be strong evidence and a logical, compelling presentation of it. Many mythicists hoped Ehrman’s book would do just that and they were truly disappointed that it did not. I think it’s very telling that they were not “scared” that Ehrman was writing DJE?—most of them were really looking forward to it. They were even willing to change their views if Ehrman’s evidence and arguments warranted it.
Once again—if a claim goes against the scholarly consensus, I certainly agree those making it have a responsibility to be sure they are qualified to make it, to do their research, to accumulate evidence, and to make their case. Mythicists have done that and continue to do that, and I think in another decade or so the logjam will break and you’ll see more and more papers in peer-reviewed journals. But right now we are in the situation that continental drift theorists were in—a long hard slog against a deeply ingrained consensus. Continental drift is the proper analogy here, not climate change denial or evolution denial. Sometimes the consensus really is wrong and it can be extremely difficult to change the paradigm—even among scientists who are supposedly open to new evidence. Think about it. When you consider continental drift, isn’t it kind of mind-boggling to realize that the vast majority of the science community rejected it for decades and for several years even refused to accept slam-dunk evidence (specifically the mid-Atlantic trench)? Why? The jigsaw fit of the continents was obvious even to children, and the theory explains so much—earthquakes, volcanos, mountain building, the fact that we have examples of the same species on different continents.
In the same way, when you consider Jesus mythicism in and of itself, is it really saying anything THAT radical? We’ve already acknowledged that Jesus has been mythologized to the point where it is impossible to say much of anything with certainty about the supposed historical figure at the heart of Christianity other than “Well, he existed. He had to!” We’ve already acknowledged that all the Gospels are based on Mark and that Mark is a hot mess of allegory and symbolism and scriptural midrash, heavily redacted over the decades and centuries, and rife with historic and geographic inaccuracies. We know that the contemporary non-biblical witness to Jesus is virtually nil. So why, exactly, is it so “extreme” to suggest that perhaps, just MAYBE, all of it did NOT start with a historical person, that rather many different religious expressions, some of them quite ancient, and several including the concept of a heavenly intermediary forgiving sin via a sacrificial act, combined and evolved and gradually came into orbit around an invented founder, who originally was known to be allegorical?
Jesus mythicism is not some embarrassing, radical crank attack on Christianity by militant atheists who should know better. It is a genuine inquiry into our shared history.