 |
150 years ago, David Friedrich Strauss described
the gospels as part history and part myth, a formulation
that has stuck ever since.
|
Who founded Jewish Christianity?
A thriving Jewish sect existed before Paul established Christianity for gentiles. Who started it? Where? Historians say it was Jesus in Galilee. Mythicists have no clear answer.
Why did early Christianity have no official leader, rules, or creeds?
Early Christians struggled to figure out who could be a Christian, what you had to believe, whose direction to follow, and even who Jesus had been. There was no church hierarchy or pope to specify which people and beliefs were legitimate. Historians say that Jesus’ execution left the sect without clear direction and leadership. Mythicists don’t explain why the people who invented the sect left these leadership issues up in the air.
How did certain leaders in the early church get identified as Jesus’ brother and apostles?
Paul meets with Jesus’ so-called brother James, and with two so-called apostles, Peter and John. Historians explain this by saying those people were Jesus’ brother and disciples. Mythicists have no clear answer.
Who is the preacher who composed the sayings attributed to Jesus?
The gospels include a lot of unremarkable teaching attributed to Jesus that really anybody could have said. The synoptic gospels, however, also include a body of original teachings that challenged the assumptions of 1st century Jews. We underestimate the power and originality of these sayings because 2000 years later they’re old hat, but at first they were so unusual that evangelists sometimes “tamed” them with a little editing. Who came up with these remarkable sayings? Turn the other cheek? God's reign is like dirty leaven? Who is behind this distinctive voice? Historians say it was Jesus who said these unusual things. Mythicists have no clear answer.
Why did the author of Mark create a new literary genre, the gospel?
Today we take gospels for granted, but the first gospel was unprecedented. According to historians, the author strung together elements from written and oral traditions to synthesize a narrative. While myths tend to be about great heroes of the distant past, this was the story of a hillbilly bastard exorcist who had died a loser’s death just a generation or two earlier. Historians say that this genre-creating work was inspired by Jesus. How do mythicists explain Mark?
Why don’t Jewish and pagan critics of Christianity question Jesus' existence?
Critics said he was a fool, magician, fraud, or bastard but not a fiction. Historians say that Jesus was a public figure, so even critics of Christianity acknowledged that he had lived and died. What is the mythicist explanation?
Hitchens asks, why are the gospels full of weird details?
That's right, Hitchens laid out "impressive" evidence for why he thought there may have been a historical Jesus, whom he characterized as a charismatic, deluded rabbi. Hitchens makes the point that the gospels have enough weird elements that they are evidently “not a whole-cloth fabrication”. If Jesus were merely an invention, why would the gospels say he was from Nazareth in Galilee and not the “right” city, Bethlehem in Judea? Early Christians had to invent two competing explanations for how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem despite growing up in Nazareth. If he were just a myth, why bring in Nazareth at all? And why are the first witnesses to the resurrection just lowly women and not higher-status men? Again, not a detail that one would invent. Here is a link to a video clip of Hitchens making his case.
What are the telltale signs of a fringe idea?
Revolutionary ideas, such as natural selection, deny the scholarly consensus and offer something better. Fringe ideas merely deny the scholarly consensus. Creationist arguments are primarily criticisms of evidence for evolution, not a better explanation of the fossil record. Mythicist arguments are primarily criticisms of evidence for Jesus, not a better explanation for how Christianity started. Where is the biologist who uses creationism in their work? Where is the historian who uses Jesus mythicism to write a better history of Christian origins?
What are the telltale marks of group-identity bias?
If a fringe idea is largely confined to an identity group, it’s probably the product of group identity rather than evidence. The same is true if the idea is especially popular with the more outspoken members of that group and if it readily inspires emotional arguments. Young-earth creationism is like this, and so is Jesus mythicism.
More evidence
My arguments are holistic and brief. If you want to get down to brass tacks and assess evidence in detail, here’s a great article in which an atheist historian lays it all out for us. Again, Jesus mythicists will try to pick apart each piece of evidence, but they can’t propose a more plausible explanation for where Christianity came from.
The Big Picture: Jesus Mythicism and Atheism
Accepting the historical consensus on Jesus and rejecting mythicism would be a great way for the atheist community to show that we value scholarship and evidence over our own group-identity bias.
The gospels include a lot of unremarkable teaching attributed to Jesus that really anybody could have said. The synoptic gospels, however, also include a body of original teachings that challenged the assumptions of 1st century Jews. We underestimate the power and originality of these sayings because 2000 years later they’re old hat, but at first they were so unusual that evangelists sometimes “tamed” them with a little editing. Who came up with these remarkable sayings? Turn the other cheek? God's reign is like dirty leaven? Who is behind this distinctive voice? Historians say it was Jesus who said these unusual things. Mythicists have no clear answer.
Why did the author of Mark create a new literary genre, the gospel?
Today we take gospels for granted, but the first gospel was unprecedented. According to historians, the author strung together elements from written and oral traditions to synthesize a narrative. While myths tend to be about great heroes of the distant past, this was the story of a hillbilly bastard exorcist who had died a loser’s death just a generation or two earlier. Historians say that this genre-creating work was inspired by Jesus. How do mythicists explain Mark?
Why don’t Jewish and pagan critics of Christianity question Jesus' existence?
Critics said he was a fool, magician, fraud, or bastard but not a fiction. Historians say that Jesus was a public figure, so even critics of Christianity acknowledged that he had lived and died. What is the mythicist explanation?
Hitchens asks, why are the gospels full of weird details?
That's right, Hitchens laid out "impressive" evidence for why he thought there may have been a historical Jesus, whom he characterized as a charismatic, deluded rabbi. Hitchens makes the point that the gospels have enough weird elements that they are evidently “not a whole-cloth fabrication”. If Jesus were merely an invention, why would the gospels say he was from Nazareth in Galilee and not the “right” city, Bethlehem in Judea? Early Christians had to invent two competing explanations for how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem despite growing up in Nazareth. If he were just a myth, why bring in Nazareth at all? And why are the first witnesses to the resurrection just lowly women and not higher-status men? Again, not a detail that one would invent. Here is a link to a video clip of Hitchens making his case.
What are the telltale signs of a fringe idea?
Revolutionary ideas, such as natural selection, deny the scholarly consensus and offer something better. Fringe ideas merely deny the scholarly consensus. Creationist arguments are primarily criticisms of evidence for evolution, not a better explanation of the fossil record. Mythicist arguments are primarily criticisms of evidence for Jesus, not a better explanation for how Christianity started. Where is the biologist who uses creationism in their work? Where is the historian who uses Jesus mythicism to write a better history of Christian origins?
What are the telltale marks of group-identity bias?
If a fringe idea is largely confined to an identity group, it’s probably the product of group identity rather than evidence. The same is true if the idea is especially popular with the more outspoken members of that group and if it readily inspires emotional arguments. Young-earth creationism is like this, and so is Jesus mythicism.
More evidence
My arguments are holistic and brief. If you want to get down to brass tacks and assess evidence in detail, here’s a great article in which an atheist historian lays it all out for us. Again, Jesus mythicists will try to pick apart each piece of evidence, but they can’t propose a more plausible explanation for where Christianity came from.
The Big Picture: Jesus Mythicism and Atheism
Accepting the historical consensus on Jesus and rejecting mythicism would be a great way for the atheist community to show that we value scholarship and evidence over our own group-identity bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.