In recent years, the idea that Jesus was a myth
invented by early Christians has become increasingly popular among
skeptics and atheists. For many, Jesus-Mythicism serves as an effective
tool in discrediting the Cornerstone of what is perceived to be the very shaky
edifice called “Christianity.”
Yet despite the efforts of biblical scholars
like Bart Ehrman,
Maurice Casey,
James McGrath, and
others to challenge the methodological weaknesses of the Mythicist position, there seems to
be
no end in sight
to the phenomenon.
It is not
that skepticism does not have a valid role in Jesus Research. The
problem is that Mythicism depends on problematic arguments that do not hold up under the scrutiny of critical analysis. For
example, there is no compelling reason to think that we should
have more evidence about
Jesus preserved from antiquity. Jesus left
no written records and was opposed by most of his
contemporaries. The truth is that we actually have pretty good evidence for
Jesus considering that he did not have much of a public ministry.
Historians
know that most of the ancient past is long gone, especially the early Christian
past. Christianity was a sporadically persecuted sect for almost three
hundred years. Most of its early history was either lost or destroyed. So we
can neither assume nor assert that
we should have more evidence from
this remote period in time. To do so sets up an impossible standard of proof
and evidence that can never be met, which is why it is such an easy position
for Mythicists to adopt: it makes it virtually impossible to “prove” Jesus’
existence to them – no matter what kind of evidence is presented.
What also makes the Mythicist position untenable is that none of the positive evidence for Jesus' existence ever survives their acid baths of deconstruction. The problem is not skepticism. Without critical skepticism of the Christian tradition, modern science would
never have progressed at all. But Mythicism takes skepticism to new heights. The
Quest for the Historical Jesus isn’t rocket science, but it is based on the critical evaluation of historical sources.
Historical-critical scholarship is an exercise in analytical skepticism: rendering critical judgments on the probabilities
of past events using the tools of evidence, arguments, logic, and
peer-review. According to the overwhelmingly vast majority of scholars who participate in this discussion, for example, the letters of Paul – written between c. 48 and 60 CE, with
their references to Jesus’ human birth (“born of a woman”), Jewish
ancestry, teachings (on divorce), crucifixion, family, and disciples –
refer to a very real historical figure in very real time and space.
When
it comes to Jesus, it is the cumulative weight of the evidence that
convinces. This convergence of evidence – Josephus’ references to Jesus, the references in Paul’s letters, the
embarrassing political and theological fact of Jesus’ crucifixion, the literary and theological
trajectories of the Gospels, and the telling fact that the Mythicist position
is never taken by any of the
Jesus movement’s many enemies, whether Jewish, pagan, Roman, or Gnostic,
throughtout late antiquity – is compelling. The historical question, therefore,
is not whether Jesus existed, but
why theological ideas and beliefs
were added to the Jesus story. We are better
off acknowledging that theological accretions have been added to
the developing tradition than rejecting the tradition altogether. We are better off cleaning up the Baby instead of throwing
it out with the bath-water.
