James McGrath published a recent article on mythicism after I sent him over a link to a radio interview with Richard Carrier. James makes some very good points and also some not-so-good points (but its okay, he’s still new at thinking like a “mythicist”). So instead of doing what I normally do (write a ten page, highly detailed article with endnotes and citations), I’ll repost his statements and add my thoughts which, I hope, will produce a very good discussion (I’m in great need of a good discussion after another recent debacle).
There is an interesting parallel between the situation of those arguing for the inerrancy of the Bible and that of “mythicists”, i.e. those who argue that Jesus was originally thought of as a heavenly figure, one who was later then turned into an allegedly historical figure. The case for inerrancy has to be able to demonstrate that every single factual claim made in the Bible is without error. The case for errancy, by contrast, has only to demonstrate conclusively that there is a single error. The situation for mythicists is similar. They must show that all the stories about, sayings attributed to and evidence about Jesus is best explained in terms of his never having existed as a historical figure. The historicist, on the other hand, only has to show decisively that one event in the life of Jesus makes best sense if Jesus was in fact a historical figure, and that makes the case for there having been such a figure more probable.
This is 100% accurate. I have the burden of proof to some degree and, as James describes it here, he is correct. However, there is something missing from James’ critique. It does not just require the mythicist to explain the sayings and events of Jesus from the Gospels, and Paul’s statements in the Epistles, as something other than historical (because historicists still have some part of the burden of proof on them, i.e. they must show that the Gospels are not, in some fashion, similar to Plutarch’s biography of Romulus). Both historicists and mythicists have the burden of proof in this area (as there is insufficient data to establish, with any certainty, historicity or ahistoricity). The mythicist, however, must show that the interpretations of the sayings and events of Jesus, Paul, et al, are inferior; conversely, the mythicist must also show how their interpretations of the data are superior. Additionally, the mythicist must show where the historicist might have overlooked or taken for granted additional, related materials. (These last few methods swing both ways)
While I have accepted the burden of proof, I have also met this burden (to a large degree). The question is, when will historicists (like James McGrath) take it upon themselves to show how my arguments for mythicism are inadequate, lacking, or inferior? It is one thing to continue to repeat an opinion (for example, James, et al, can say how unpersuaded they are by the arguments all they’d like), it is another thing entirely to show in what manner you were unpersuaded, and offer alternative reasons that refute or expose the arguments of mythicists (like me).
Richard Carrier’s example (used in the podcast below) of the guards at the tomb in Matthew is a case in point – that story is clearly a creation by Matthew, or someone between the time Mark wrote and the time in which Matthew was composed. It is patently unhistorical, but that doesn’t show it to be an unhistorical narrative about the burial of a mythical figure.
James is right again. But as he even said, it is just *one example* that Carrier used. Carrier used another example (and remember, Richard even points out that it would be impossible in a show clip to explain his position to its entirety, or to give all the examples required to produce a study or monograph) of the Bar’abbas scene related to Leviticus. I have made cases against the crucifixion and Gethsemane, and the sayings on divorce. Although these last few are also not comprehensive (they cannot be; after all, this is a blog and I am still working on my monograph–and Richard is writing a monograph on this subject as well), they do offer a sufficient-enough interpretation that it meets (albeit wth minimal standards as, once again, it is just a blog post at the moment) the burden of proof required from my position. Thus, the burden has shifted back to the historicist.
There is an additional problem as well. Assuming the Jesus Seminar is right, very little can be said to be “probably authentic” historically (remember that the Jesus Seminar went in assuming historicity). That already leaves the majority of the Gospels, Paul, etc…fictional or legendary (opposite: historical). Other studies that have been done more recently (Dennis MacDonald’s work, for example) exclude everything in the Gospels (entirely) as historical. I would even remind James that as I have shown in my article here, no two scholars can sit down and agree on even five things that are historical from the Gospels or the Epistles. Opinions in this area are too far strung, and James is overstating his position by suggesting what he has in this particular manner. The job of the mythicist is mostly reduced (thanks to the work of historicists). Although it should still be done, the fact that the vast majority of scripture, New Testament Gospel or Epistle, is already accepted (whether fully or in part) as fictional, the little left behind is all the mythicist really needs to expose. The job, in other words, is already done. To put it bluntly, the historicists have just done a very half-assed job of it. It is left to the mythicist, in this case, to clean up the crumbs that were brushed to the floor.
Carrier (a mythicist) has some wise advice for mythicists on how to make the case for mythicism. I don’t find his viewpoint persuasive, but it deserves to be heard and considered seriously in a way that some pseudo-historical claims, popular among so-called skeptics prone to engaging in parallelomania, do not (HT Tom Verenna).
(Just curious what “HT” means in context with the statement and my name)
But I find it problematic when Carrier claims that the Romans must have known that Jesus did not exist, since otherwise they would have rounded up the followers of Jesus. Why do Roman sources (Tacitus or the letters of Pliny) not mention that this movement is seeking to historicize a mythical figure? How is it that, in all the history of Roman opposition to Christianity, the non-existence of Jesus never gets a mention?
Why don’t Roman sources (the many we have on Orpheus and Dionysus) discuss how the Orphites and Dionysiacs are historicizing fictional characters? I think the answer is not that far off. But also, these sources (Pliny and Tacitus in particular) both show disdain and apathy towards Christians and their “superstitions” (a word shared by Tacitus and Pliny alike). Tacitus was so put-off by Jewish cults and religious history that he recited rumor concerning their exodus in his Histories instead of even consulting Jewish literature on the subject or examining the claims made by the rumor proveyors. Pliny (as Carrier rightly points out, one of the more influential characters of the Roman state at that time, holding many high positions) was completely unaware of Christians prior to his torturing of a few of them (and seems to only have recieved his information from them upon torturing them). It wasn’t as if Pliny had known of Christians prior to this event (in fact, it appears to be quite the opposite) and what he does know, he seems to not to care much about. (Once more, he likens Jesus to a God and never once refers to Jesus as a human, in past tense or otherwise–this is interesting).
Paul himself claims that Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh, and there is a reasonable likelihood that Paul may indeed have been executed by the Romans.
This claim is handled here. (By the way, James, I have linked you to this article five times now over the course of our friendship!)
Posted by Tom Verenna 
Posted by Tom Verenna 
