Why the Certainty on the Part of Mythicists?

[stephan happy huller]

I was driving today and a question popped up in my head. Why do mythicists seem to argue that the existing evidence is on the one hand so weak that it provides no evidence FOR a historical Jesus but strangely is 'so strong' that they can have certainty that Jesus never existed? The two ideas really are unrelated. Whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that Jesus did in fact exist is one thing. I don't think there is a lot of evidence beyond the basic idea that writers 'steal' from what's around them to make up stories. Woody Allen movies are always about this and I think it is basically true. Writers are thieves who are generally too lazy or lack enough ambition to invent something wholesale 'from scratch.'

But I've never understood the certainty that so many people have that Jesus was all made up. It might be the case. It might not. I just think there is a dearth of evidence about early Christianity as such and that helps make the existence of a man named Jesus uncertain but some of the people around here act as if the lack of evidence 'proves' that Jesus did not in fact exist. I think I was reading Robert Tulip's comments about the epistles of Paul so I apologize if this doesn't apply for everyone.

I don't think most scholars doubt for a minute that the gospel narrative was developed in some way to reinforce a set of ethical principles, teachings, mysteries etc. But what's the justification for taking the leap and saying that BECAUSE the narrative was contrived in this way, Jesus didn't exist? Sorry if this is repetitious. But why can't we just all find common ground that the gospel narrative is contrived and maybe he existed, maybe he didn't and hold hands and be friends.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I guess it depends on which ones we mean, but the prominent, credentialed ones, at least (e.g. Carrier, Price, Mack, Avalos) do not express categorical certitude, and some are better described as agnostic or minimalist. Burton Mack, for instance, does not say no historical prototype or inspiration could have existed, but that he is now so subsumed by myth that he's irrecoverable. He's like Robin Hood or King Arthur (or King David). All that's left is the myth and any genuine personality which may have played an inceptional role has become functionally irrelevant to the mythic characters.

I am an agnostic on the question, but I think it's just as legitimate (maybe more so) to ask historicists why they're so sure there WAS a Jesus and what they even mean by an HJ anymore.

[Peter Kirby]

To some people, even the notion that Jesus might not have existed is threatening to their beliefs. To some other people, it is important to insist on recognizing that the nature of the evidence does not permit certainty. I believe that a lot of the dialogue occurs in the friction between these two points of view, that of the certainty that Jesus existed and that of uncertainty.

There is, I will admit, also a conversation between both of the former and those who are fairly certain that Jesus did not exist. But I believe that the size of each group, by population, is descending: most people in the conversation are certain that Jesus existed, many people are uncertain whether Jesus existed, and a few people are certain that Jesus did not exist.

A self-serving definition of "mythicism" as "the belief that Jesus certainly did not exist" tries to hide the area of largest friction today, between the certainty that Jesus existed and uncertainty. Possibly because, to an extent, they already know they (those who are certain that Jesus existed) can't win that argument on rational grounds.

[stephan happy huller]

I think it's just as legitimate (maybe more so) to ask historicists why they're so sure there WAS a Jesus and what they even mean by an HJ anymore.

But I think that's obvious. Behind every faithful person is a domineering mommy or daddy or both.

[MrMacSon]

The lack of evidence in conjunction with the elaborations that are part of theology - especially part of the development of a theology - suggest most, if not all, of the narrative is fiction.

[ficino]

I don't have certainty either way, but I agree w/ Diogenes that it's become muddy, what is even meant by the HJ. That problem came up on this earlier thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=373

I find it hard to get clear on the reference of "Jesus". It's not possible to prove anything about a first-century Jewish guy, Jesus, in Palestine to whom no other qualities are attributed. Once we start assigning enough qualities to make our quarry identifiable, so that inquiry can get off the ground, we are already "in the world of the text" and are drawing on a portrayal that served purposes of propaganda.

How, then, could one set up a methodology for distilling facts from the solution (in the chemical sense) of representations/propaganda that is the gospel portrayal?

I guess one could just set out some heuristic assumptions and see where they go. But since we don't have anything usable for this inquiry besides the NT (that I can see), and many of the criteria wind up in circularity, it's hard to see an outcome except to agree, as Stephan says, on the contrived nature of the gospel narrative.

Part of the issue seems to me also to involve a tussle over shifting the burden of proof.

[MrMacSon]

... It's not possible to prove anything about a first-century Jewish guy, Jesus, in Palestine to whom no other qualities are attributed. Once we start assigning enough qualities to make our quarry identifiable, so that inquiry can get off the ground, we are already "in the world of the text" and are drawing on a portrayal that served purposes of propaganda.

The issue is not "qualities" - it is suitable information; or lack of it ...

... Lack of suitable contemporary information: no documentation; no artifacts; no archaeology.

For a relatively long time.

Part of the issue seems to me also to involve a tussle over shifting the burden of proof.

I think it is a failure of proponents [for Jesus] to even provide information; that might provide some evidence, let alone proof.

ie. the proponent for Jesus fail to meet the burden of proof.

It is an ethical principle that He who avers must prove

[neilgodfrey]

Why do mythicists seem to argue that the existing evidence is on the one hand so weak that it provides no evidence FOR a historical Jesus but strangely is 'so strong' that they can have certainty that Jesus never existed? . . . .

Carrier, Price, Wells, Thompson, Droge, Noll, Carr, myself -- we've all said that if there was an HJ he is now lost to us; we can't be certain that there was no HJ but the evidence or arguments that explain Christianity without an HJ are strong and any HJ is irrelevant. I think a number of HJ scholars would say much the same thing.

So with that little list of names I don't think we can say that "mythicists" do argue dogmatically that there was no HJ. Those names simply don't.

[stephan happy huller]

It is an ethical principle that He who avers must prove

I am not sure about that. I think this is what the mythicists typically like to think (i.e. it's them against the apologists). But I am not an apologist for anything and I don't think that either side needs to 'prove' anything. I don't think that it comes down to the 'apologists' having to 'prove' what they believe otherwise Jesus didn't exist. What kind of logic is that? What on earth is decided by logic like this?

[stephan happy huller]

Those names simply don't.

If that's the case why not just agree that the gospel is contrived, study the contrivance but leave the question of whether or not there was a historical Jesus to the side as it can't be answered? Does the argument emerge as a byproduct of engaging people like James McGrath? Then why not stop engaging people like James McGrath?

I don't get it. What's the controversy all about then? Why not limit the discussion to 'you can't prove that Jesus existed'? Why go beyond that question? I don't think if it was merely a debate about Jesus being lost to us, Ehrman, McGrath et al would be so upset or that there would be any controversial save only with the zealot fringe. I think someone should at least try to get these people to agree that we can't know that Jesus existed rather than continuing a debate over the likelihood that he didn't exist.