William Lane Craig on "Jesus and Pagan Mythology"

He responded to a question about whether Jesus was a real person here. What do you think?

I do find one response of his odd but interesting:
When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, “Do you really believe that?” Act as though you’ve just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. You could say something like, “Man, those old theories have been dead for over a hundred years! Where are you getting this stuff?” Tell them this is just sensationalist junk, not serious scholarship. If they persist, then ask them to show you the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel. They’re the ones who are swimming against the scholarly consensus, so make them work hard to save their religion. I think you’ll find that they’ve never even read the primary sources.
Maybe we skeptics should do something similar when it comes to the Christian belief system! ;-) But this advice does tell us what he actually thinks of the mythicist case, now doesn't it?

Then Craig ends with this challenge:
Remember: anyone pressing this objection has a burden of proof to bear. He needs to show that the narratives are parallel and, moreover, that they are causally connected. Insist that they bear that burden if you are to take their objection seriously.
What do you think when it comes to the burden of proof here?

45 comments:

ahswan said...

I think the quote you chose could be better understood when the previous comment is included:

"When you point out to them the spuriousness of the alleged parallels, then you’re accused of “working too hard to save your religion.” This is a no win situation for you. So I’m inclined to say that you should not go about “trying to refute every single similarity.” Rather I think a more general and dismissive attitude on your part may be more effective."

I think he's right; when confronted with someone who is "impervious to scholarship," you're in a no-win situation.

As to your parenthetical comment, "Maybe we skeptics should do something similar when it comes to the Christian belief system!", this is a common approach used by Darwinists against IDists.

I think the burden of proof is, as Craig says, on those raising the myth allegation, when challenging Christians. However, if a Christian were to approach someone holding such beliefs, then the burden should be on the Christian as it is they who are raising the issue. Fair enough?

Adrian said...

I read the full article and I'm interested in seeing more about the debate with Price, especially with regards to the final comment that Price's source "bore no resemblance whatsoever to the Gospel stories". What did the source say and what methodology is Craig using to determine if a story derives from earlier legends? I can find a link to an oral debate between Price and Craig, is that what he's referring to? That seems like a good format for an entertaining evening but a very poor format for scholarly debate. It's not surprising that both sides didn't get a chance to expand on points and perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that Craig's response is more suited to a demagogue than a scholar.


As for burden of proof, I definitely think that any mythicist bears as high a burden of proof as any historicist. One might mount an argument that the evidence is insufficient to reach conclusions either way, but to step beyond and say Jesus was a myth or Jesus was a real person requires much more. The mere absence of evidence is inadequate to say that Jesus is a myth just as the mere presence of pious stories of magic is inadequate to say that Jesus was historical.


What do you think?

Teleprompter said...

ahswan:

I still don't understand why people who believe in evolution are labeled as "Darwinists".

It's complete non-sense, because much of our understanding of evolution has radically changed and improved since Darwin's day. People affix the label "Darwin-ist" to pretend that evolutionary biology is some kind of static dogma. Of course, that is not the truth.

Science, including evolutionary biology, is constantly updated to include newly discovered evidence. When experimental tests or other new discoveries discredit a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis is either discarded or reworked to account for the new evidence.

It is ironic that people who adhere strictly to an interpretation of a belief system that not even dare to attempt to conform to evidence should label any other group of people as dogmatic.

Evolution is critical to our understanding of modern biology. It's made predictions about other things which we have been able to confirm through our understanding of evolution, such as where we can locate particular transitional fossils.

I apologize if what I am saying doesn't apply to you, but it's something that's been annoying me.

Darrin said...

Funny, I was about to send you this very link a few minutes ago before I checked the blog.

Burden of proof's on the mythicist.

Anonymous said...

Let's see. I guess if I can't convince you, then you are 'impervious to scholarship', since obviously I have scholarship on my side. Oh sorry, I just realized anyone can say that!

In relegating the myth idea to late nineteenth century, Dr. Craig may have forgotten that even in the early days Justin Martyr was explaining away the same parallels. He could see them. He did not try to say something like "It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but the last duck I saw had a reddish beak, but this duck has a pinkish beak, therefore this isn't really a duck, especially since you haven't proven causality" which to me is basically what apologists today seem to be doing.

Myths happen all the time, and borrowing between myths happens all the time. But the Christian will have you believe his story is not a myth, though it looks very much like other prior myths. Of course those miracle stories in the Koran and Book of Mormon are just silly. We have the truth.

Anonymous said...

Tyro, I honestly think with your demands you would not make it as a historian. Your history book of, say, England, would be filled with blank pages where you say: "we have a letter purportedly written from King Henry VIII, but I cannot verify it actually came from him" or "we found what looks like a royal sword with King Henry's name on it but it could have been made by someone else for some other reason."

The historical past does not give up its secrets very easily to the point where a few philosophers of history have argued we cannot know anything about the past...that historical facts are "merely in the mind."

That historians think Jesus existed is because they understand the nature of historical studies and what history can show. They must go with the best explanation of the facts. Anyone who uses double standards can deny almost any event in the past by being overly skeptical of it. This is the reason why mythicists can get away with their overly skeptical claims and why they are not trained as historians.

Baconsbud said...

It seems to me that the level he wants for proof is way higher then the evidence he expects others to believe. Of course I believe this about any christians. The comment you posted of his made it sound like he wants you to provide word for word proof that the christian myth was copied.

I know if I was going to use information from other myths to create my own I wouldn't make them the same but would use the jest of their point as mine or the opposite of it.

The burden of proof is tough since there is so much of those time periods that has been lost but does usually fall on the one making the claim.

Samphire said...

I’m not sure Craig’s point is in any way important. The resurrection has to be judged on its own reported facts and not on whether or not it formed a continuum of myth.

For me the more difficult problem for christians is that the resurrection still leaves them with a body to dispose of. Even the nature of that body is uncertain. Though the disciples were supposedly with the risen Jesus they still doubted it was him and, according to Acts, Jesus had to give “many proofs” that he was alive. What these proofs were we have no idea. Apart from eating some broiled fish did he get into arm-wrestling contests with them? Did the disciples stamp on his feet or were they invited to poke him in the eye with a sharp stick to discover his reaction? Perhaps he was asked for his autograph on a clay tablet. We simply do not know. And, of course, if Jesus really was alive, why would he have to give any proofs at all? Being alive is itself proof of being alive. Rather, did the disciples suspect that he may have been an impostor, a doppleganger and that the proofs were for identity rather than vitality?

But then along comes St Paul who claims to have learned all through revelation without giving any indication that he discussed the matter of the resurrection with any of the disciples, Jesus’ mother or the other supposed resurrection witnesses. We do not even know if he knew any of the detail of the various contradictory resurrection stories or, if he did, whether he believed in the literality of any of them. However, we do know that in order to explain the resurrection he considered it necessary to invent the idea of a glorified body although exactly what he meant by this he failed to make absolutely clear.

But, a long time before Paul, the disciples (or rather their biographers) still had the problem of what to do with the body. They can’t leave Jesus walking around the countryside with an everlasting body shell so they have to get rid of him by sending him up to heaven like a rocket. Fortunately, a cloud gets in the way which absolves them from explaining what happened next. But, and here comes the burden of proof, I know that heaven is not “up there”. I have the photographs. Heaven is nowhere to be found above the cloud base. There may be a few space vehicles floating around up there and the odd ladies’ toolbag but no 2,000 year old living bodies. The story is untrue.

So, Jesus did not go “up” to heaven. If the resurrection was true it was of no lasting physical effect and his bodily atoms and nail clippings remain here on Earth. In fact, even though not a catholic, I have some of those atoms in my own body together with some of Mohammed’s and Hitler’s although, to be honest, I am not sure which one is which. But perhaps that is a good thing.

Stephanie said...

I'm curious. Has anyone here seen the "Zeitgeist Movie" on Youtube or Google Video? I have "The Suns of God" and "The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S. regarding Astrotheology. I haven't read them yet. I was wondering what your opinions are on the angle that the story of Jesus is simply about the sun and how it goes through the seasons and the 12 constellations during the year.

David B. Ellis said...

One thing that I think needs to be acknowledged and which so far doesn't appear to have been is that the borrowing from pagan mythology is not just a position for mythicists. If there was a historical jesus the writers of the Gospels could have, and probably did, borrow extensively from prior mythology and the oral history in its repeated retellings probably absorbed much from existing myths quite unconsciously on the part of those telling it.

So far in this discussion the idea of Jesus being modelled on pagan sources has been treated as if it was the exclusive domain of the mythicist when it clearly isn't. That's probably not intentional but its the impression I've gotten from what's been said.

Jeff said...

Stephanie,

I have seen the Zeitgeist movie, and I can tell you that it's not worth any serious attention. It's a movie about conspiracy theories, and most reasonable people reject conspiracies such as the ones they talk about. In the first section as it is talking about Jesus and his sun-god similarities, it's important to know that the things it mentions are greatly exaggerated. It's pretty clear that there are parallels between Jesus and other dying-and-rising-gods, but they are not that explicit. Not like the film would have you believe.

I am saying this as a person who is not completely resolved on the historical/mythical Jesus question, so I don't believe that I'm biased either way. I can see the parallels, but I recognize that most of them are likely cultural influences rather than straight plagiarization. And that goes back to what Craig is saying. He seems to indicate that we'd need to show how the Gospel stories and some other ancient myths line up word for word. But I don't think any serious scholar would posit that. They would only posit rough parallels and comparisons.

Adrian said...

John,

Tyro, I honestly think with your demands you would not make it as a historian. Your history book of, say, England, would be filled with blank pages where you say: "we have a letter purportedly written from King Henry VIII, but I cannot verify it actually came from him" or "we found what looks like a royal sword with King Henry's name on it but it could have been made by someone else for some other reason."

Are you confusing me for someone else, what demands are you talking about?

I merely said that we should start from the position of agnosticism and to go beyond requires evidence and argument. Surely this would mark me as an excellent scholar, not a poor one.

Of course we must bear in mind the possibility of forgeries and that letters which purport to be written by one person may in fact be written by another. We can see this sort of discussion when we look at the relatively mundane question of which plays Shakespeare wrote. When we look at any piece of historical evidence we give it the benefit of the doubt but we never trust it completely. That's the mark of a good historian, not a poor one!


I have said many times in the past that I think your argument for the historicity of Jesus was good, that given even the scant evidence we have that, in the absence of the mythicist arguments, we are justified in concluding that Jesus probably did exist.


That historians think Jesus existed is because they understand the nature of historical studies and what history can show. They must go with the best explanation of the facts.

I agree. I've said so many times before.

Anyone who uses double standards can deny almost any event in the past by being overly skeptical of it. This is the reason why mythicists can get away with their overly skeptical claims and why they are not trained as historians.

Yet again I have to tell you the mythicist argument is not that there is insufficient evidence to prove Jesus existed. I urge you (again) to spend the five minutes to read this short review of Doherty's book which would at least give you the broad strokes. It isn't an argument from extreme scepticism and it isn't establishing double standards: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html



You've brought up the question of scholarship many times and have implied that anyone who is a mythicist cannot be a good scholar yet Carrier says of Doherty: "In short, I was very impressed. This is serious scholarship, marshaling a great deal of important evidence and observations, and the lack of letters behind the author's name does nothing to remove from the importance of this work as something one must read and interact with before dismissing."

It seems clear what this historian thinks of people who dismiss mythicism without having read their arguments. Since you respect Carrier, perhaps you should take this to heart and give him the benefit of the doubt. Are you so certain that this stems from poor scholarship, extreme scepticism and dogmatism and not from evidence you haven't yet considered?

Anonymous said...

Tyro, you are aware that there is debate about whether Shakespeare existed? Maybe I did confuse you with someone else, so sorry about this.

AIGBusted said...

I wrote a response to Craig here:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/01/bill-craig-on-pagan-parallels.html

Anonymous said...

Tyro, Carrier and I come from different perspectives. He's admitted I'm more knowledgable about the Bible and Christianity than he is. I freely admit he knows more about science and the historical method than I do. I consider us brothers who seek the same goals.

What I don't see from the mythicists is a proper understanding of the picture of Jesus we find in the NT. The NT pictures him as a doomsday prophet which became more and more of an embarrassment to the church as time went on. That to me is the biggest fact that needs to be dealt with. Until that fact is explained away I will stand with the scholarly consensus.

Harry H. McCall said...

Samphire, it’s great to read a post so well reasoned. Thanks!

Jon said...

Mythicists aren't trained historians, John? Is Richard Carrier trained?

Frankly, John, I think this is part of what motivates you in your historicism. Mythicists are laughed at. It's true. Nobody likes being laughed at. And you've said you want to appear credible to the Christian. Craig's laughter doesn't help.

For centuries everyone has just assumed that Mohammed was a historical person. I know of one Muslim scholar today who questions that. I bet Craig wouldn't laugh at the proposition. I bet he'd consider it. Some people today question the authenticity of some of Plato's dialogues, though they were never questioned in the past. Craig wouldn't laugh at the proposition. Why? Because he doesn't feel threatened by it.

Craig's counter to Price's pagan parallels is that if it isn't the same damn story it doesn't count. He says things like "Get real. Osiris was cut into pieces, which is totally unlike Jesus." And I suppose the movie "The Godfather" in no way influenced movies like "Goodfellas." I mean, get real. In The Godfather a horse's head is severed and placed in bed with the owner, while in Goodfellas Pesci says he's no clown. Totally different.

I think Craig's response is wise. Laugh. Don't engage. Maybe just withdraw and say you're bored with the topic. :) According to Price, a man that has read pretty much every book ever written, nobody even made a serious attempt to rebut the 19th century Dutch radicals. Craig laughs because the views are old and long ago rejected. True. But not refuted. He's wise to adopt the same approach. It worked before.

Steven Carr said...

CRAIG
He needs to show that the narratives are parallel and, moreover, that they are causally connected.

CARR
What does 'causally connected' mean?

I don't understand the phrase.

CRAIG
If they persist, then ask them to show you the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel.

CARR
It is alleged Jesus saw parallels between John the Baptist and Elijah.

How would Jesus show 'the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel', and are the types of parallel between JtB and Elijah the level of proof which is needed to show parallels?

SirMoogie said...

John,

How does Doherty not understand the picture of Jesus we find in the NT?

Anonymous said...

Jon said...For centuries everyone has just assumed that Mohammed was a historical person. I know of one Muslim scholar today who questions that. I bet Craig wouldn't laugh at the proposition.

I bet he would, but who cares. My point has been that if someone wants to he can rationally deny almost anything in history if he's too skeptical. Conspiracy theories abound. Some deny Socrates and Shakespeare existed too. It's very tough to come to sure conclusions about the historical past, I'll grant. Sometimes the evidence is just a hair above the odds so just barely probable. That's what I think about the existence of Jesus. He was a failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet and nothing more. Mythical elements were then added to his story. Charismatic leaders start cult like groups and the testimony from Paul is that such a group already existed whom he was persecuting. So that charismatic leader was not Paul. If you want to deny Paul's existence in order to deny Jesus' existence then have at it. But like I mistakenly said to someone else, you would not make a good historian. Your book would contain little or nothing.

Nontheless, this is the very argument I make when it comes to the historical basis for the Christian faith. Since it's based upon history and since almost anything can be rationally denied in history, then history is a slender reed to hang one's faith on. God chose a poor medium and a poor era to reveal himself if he did.

Anonymous said...

SirMoogie, I read the link earlier and saw nothing in it dealing with the majority of scholars that Jesus was an eschatological prophet who predicted the new age in his day. I was speaking of mythicists in general.

Why, does he? What does he say about it, that's what I want to know.

SirMoogie said...

I was curious how you identified when individuals didn't have this understanding without reading their works. In particular, I'm still uncertain what you mean by dealing with the position that Jesus was a failed doomsday prophet. I would think offering an allegedly consistent theory that accounts for all the evidence, and that contradicts the theory that Jesus was a historical doomsday prophet would be addressing this position. Perhaps you have something else in mind?

Jon said...

John, assuming you've read Doherty and Price, you ought to know that this is not about adopting a methodology that would call into question any historical claim. This is about adopting a different paradigm and seeing if it fits the data better. Doherty doesn't just throw up his hands and say "We can't know anything." He argues positively that Paul's letters make better sense if we understand him to be talking about a Jesus that operates in an upper Platonic realm rather than the earth. The first gospel written makes better sense as a writing intended as fiction that historicizes myth. You are mistaken to suggest that this method would reduce our history books to blank pages. This method helps explain a lot of seemingly strange things in the NT. Stories in Mark are slavish re-tellings of Hebrew scriptures or other myth. Paul's staggering lack of familiarity with anything that happened to Jesus on earth. Crucified at Golgatha, under Pilate, by the Jews. A healing ministry, an apocalyptic teaching ministry, use of parables, disciples that walked with a physical Jesus. This is a positive argument, not simply an appeal to hyper-skepticism.

Anonymous said...

SirMoogie, I think you commented earlier and it wasn't posted. I don't know who rejected it or why. Maybe I accidentally did. I can't find it now.

But I have read plenty of things on the web and have not found any of the mythicists dealing with this argument. As I said, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument is explained at the Opposing Views Site on the question "Was Jesus Real?"

To me this whole question is like debating whether or not Shakespeare existed. I don't care. And since I don't care I think I have more objectivity with regard to it. What I don't understand at all (at all!) is why skeptics are so emotionally attached to this conclusion that they personally attack me for saying otherwise, goading me into wasting a year of research to come to the same conclusion I now have about a non-issue--an issue that could potentially hurt the credibility of Carrier as a scholar, which skeptics don't seem to care about just so they can have at least one bone fide historian agree with them before losing his credibility as a scholar and hurting his chances at teaching in a university. Although, he's a big boy and can fend for himself.

Listen, Carrier and Price and I are friends. We've met and had great discussions. Carrier even helped me with my book and they both recommend it. We each have different perspectives. I maintain mine. I stand with the scholarly consensus. I see no reason yet to change my mind. I don't even think it's a worthwhile issue to study at great length, but what I think is from some deep reflection on that which I have studied.

As I have said, my target audience is the Christian. Others can spend all of their time writing to skeptics on this issue if they want to do so. My goal is to change the mind of the Christian. And to do that I must have the respect of Christians, and I do.

I left the cookie cutter mentality a long long time agao when I left the church. But I can see I'm now a part of a new church, one that claims to respect freethinking but witholds it whenever someone steps out of line.

Anonymous said...

Jon, Paul does not show a "staggering lack of familiarity" with Jesus. Just read "The Silence of Paul" in Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy's book, The Jesus Legend. Yes, that is a Christian book written by Christian scholars. So what? There is much I disagree with them about in their book, but I think they made a good case about what we can know about Jesus from Paul.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if my friend Peter Kirby has been listening in on this debate, but just now he posted a comment here in which he said:

One of my favorite quotes has always been the one attributed to Bertrand Russell, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so cocksure and the intelligent so full of doubt." A culture that derides changes in ideas, minds, and even hearts as only so much political or psychological flip-flopping, to be commented upon with rancor, is a dangerous one to freedom of inquiry... as the true test of the critical person is whether it is a person who constantly and continuously questions himself and sticks to the ideal of Shakespeare, "To thine own self be true."

Jon said...

John, lots of mythicists don't care either. I don't care. Why would I? If you've run into some people that are emotionally driven, so what? People get emotional when they argue no matter what position they defend. People just don't like to lose arguments.

On the other hand mythicists are often laughed at (as Craig suggests) or belittled and their motives questioned (as you are doing with all your talk of consensus and damage to credibility of those that take a different position from you). Maybe that explains some of the emotion you see.

I do read Christian books often. I plan to read the Boyd/Eddy book. I've read Ehrman's Apoclolyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. He concedes my point. Very little can be derived about Jesus' earthly life from Paul. His paradigm causes him to be a little surprised at that. My paradigm doesn't.

Adrian said...

John,

In my local library I can't find "Jesus Legend" by Eddy and Boyd but I can get "Lord or legend? : wrestling with the Jesus dilemma / Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy." Is this close enough?

You've said that you have put "The Jesus Puzzle" on your reading list to learn about your opponents and I too would like to read more from both sides. I haven't found anything which directly deals with the mythicist claims and I would like to.

(FWIW, I only brought up Shakespeare to illustrate that good scholarship arises when we question authenticity and motive, such as whether Shakespeare really authored all of his plays. The conclusion, whatever it may be, is only strengthened by this. We don't end up with blank pages through this questioning, we end up learning much and being certain of little. IMO, a good thing.)

Stephanie said...

Jeff said: "and most reasonable people reject conspiracies such as the ones they talk about."

Can you point me in the direction (maybe a book) that proves these conspiracy theories wrong? She has written a few books on the subject with numerous citations to back up her theory, plus Robert Price endorses them as well.

Thanks.

James F. McGrath said...

I finally decided to jump into the fray. My latest blog post is about an interesting parallel between the situation of those who want to make a case for the Bible's inerrancy and those who want to argue for an originally purely mythical Jesus.

Steven Carr said...

All I can say is that the claim that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him would be greatly enhanced if we found very early Shakespeare fans who never seemed to ask the person teaching them the signficance of Shakespeare any questions about how he wrote his works, or his life in general.

Romans and Corinthians have thousands of words to address Christian queries about their new religion, and what Jesus meant.

But none of them seemed to be about getting a written account of any of the life of Jesus, in the way that Tacitus asked Pliny the Younger to write an account of his uncle's death.

Nobody ever seemed to ask Paul to clarify the meaning of a parable, for example.

They ask about food and marriage, but not about Jesus.

The conservative book by Strauss 'Four Portaits One Jesus' has a section on the sources for the historical Jesus.

And it doesn't even mention the earliest Christian writings about Jesus - Paul's letters.

If somebody wrote a book assessing the hisstorical evidence for Shakespeare and left out the earliest documents about Shakespeare as pretty much irrelevant to the historical Shakespeare, what would we conclude?

SirMoogie said...

John,

You said,

"But I have read plenty of things on the web and have not found any of the mythicists dealing with this argument. As I said, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument is explained at the Opposing Views Site on the question "Was Jesus Real?""

With your argument specifically? It is fairly new, and on Opposing Views (which I don't think most scholars interested in the question peruse). However, I think Tyro did try to address your argument by pointing you to scholars that hold a position contrary to your own.


"To me this whole question is like debating whether or not Shakespeare existed. I don't care. And since I don't care I think I have more objectivity with regard to it."

If by "don't care" you mean that the truth of the proposition, "Jesus existed," has no bearing on the atheist/skeptics "worldview". I agree, there isn't much to care about. However, if one is interested in history, and the pursuit of truth, then I think there is something to care about.

"What I don't understand at all (at all!) is why skeptics are so emotionally attached to this conclusion that they personally attack me for saying otherwise, goading me into wasting a year of research to come to the same conclusion I now have about a non-issue [...]"

That's quite the mouthful. First, if there are skeptics that are emotionally attached to this issue, I agree that they shouldn't be, as there is no need to be. However, I'm not sure if you're pegging me as one of these individuals that is attacking you, or anyone on this thread, as this doesn't appear to be the case. What seems to be happening is there is a general interest in your thoughts, as an expert, on other people, who are also historical experts, who claim the opposite of what you claim.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone is insisting that you waste a year of your life on research. They've only suggested that you read some scholarly positions related to a field you've written about. I suppose one presumes that when an individual writes about some topic and is declared an expert in that topic (you are on Opposing Views as one), then they have some modicum of interest in exploring that topic. However, you've just professed that you don't, so color me confused.

Finally, I don't think it's admirable to declare another scholar's position a non-issue prior to examining the evidence they've gathered and their explanations for that evidence.

"Listen, Carrier and Price and I are friends. We've met and had great discussions. Carrier even helped me with my book and they both recommend it. We each have different perspectives. I maintain mine. I stand with the scholarly consensus. I see no reason yet to change my mind. I don't even think it's a worthwhile issue to study at great length, but what I think is from some deep reflection on that which I have studied."

Of course, by declaring the oppositions view as an issue not worth exploring you'll never change your mind. However, when one declares the opposing position as a "non-issue" and a "[waste of] a year of research", they better have a sound argument for why it is, or at least have read the works in question and discussed their failings. Why is the mythist position a non-issue, and why is it a waste of time to research it?

"As I have said, my target audience is the Christian. Others can spend all of their time writing to skeptics on this issue if they want to do so. My goal is to change the mind of the Christian. And to do that I must have the respect of Christians, and I do."

This is quite the false dichotomy you've proposed. It suggests that when discussing the historicity of Jesus either one writes for skeptics or for Christians. I don't think Doherty or Carrier are writing their books exclusively for skeptics. Doherty publishes his work in journals, so I presume he has expert scholars, like yourself, in mind when he publishes.

"I left the cookie cutter mentality a long long time agao when I left the church. But I can see I'm now a part of a new church, one that claims to respect freethinking but witholds it whenever someone steps out of line."

That's right, you're just a persecuted freethinker now. No one is silencing you, and I most certainly didn't say you should get back in line, or even suggest you weren't a "real freethinker". I asked you for your expert opinion, rather than the dismissive remarks you gave to Tyro, and you took it as persecution. You're overreacting.

Anonymous said...

SirMoogie, There are a few places on the web where I have been ridiculed and berated by skeptics in the last month. I have not shared the links here and I won't. Maybe I am feeling maligned here because I am maligned there.

My arguments can be read here.

I tell you though that the way I'm treated by skeptics is the same I would be treated by Christians if I didn't write a book. Since here on the Blog I can only write what amounts to a few paragraphs here or there they tell me I am ignorant. But because I did write a book they cannot say that. But even if I didn't write one my conclusions would still be considered ones. I'm saying I could write a book on this topic too. I'm saying Bart Ehrman and I agree with each other. He believes Jesus existed. If you want my views read Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Milleniuum.

I'm saying that I have read enough and heard enough to know what I'm talking about, but I know more than I can say. I've said I have not done the research to write that book, for it would require more research than I've done, but if I did I'm sure my position would not change. If I can only be an expert if I write a book on the topic then not even Carrier is an expert on the topic until he's finished, and just because someone does write a book on the topic does not an expert make.

It's like the sceience/religion debate. Most scientist don't understand religion and most religionists don't understand science. I understand theology quite well. Carrier understands history. We need someone who understands both. Bob Price understands theology with me but he's presently writing a book in which he claims Paul did not write any of the letters attributed to him, and if so there would be no reason to believe Paul actually existed. He's led to deny Paul in order to deny Jesus. I find that position to be reckless with history even if I do respect him as a friend.

Just celebrate our respective opinions and believe what seems to be the most reasonable position. We each know what we're talking about. Read what we write and come to your own conclusions.

Hector Avalos will weigh in before too long. He's a scholar I can respect as well. He's agnostic on the question. When he does speak out listen to what he says and judge for yourself.

I don't care what you come to believe. I'm stating what I think is the case from what I know. I am not planning on writing a book about this, but I'm pretty sure from what I know my conclusions would be sustained.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Stephanie,

Acharya S has pages and pages of citations ... but she cites mainly fringe pseudohistorians like Gerald Massey (who was a "self-taught" interpreter of hieroglyphs, making his claims vastly less credible), and neo-Gnostic writers like Tim Freke.

Here is a link to a website that debunks most all of the claims in the Religion portion of Zeitgeist:

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Honestly, most of her claims can be debunked simply by reading an Egyptology book or an encyclopedia.

Unknown said...

For all of the scholarly, historical and philosophical discussion here, may I please point to this verse (since I assume you're all familiar with this one):

“always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” 2 Timothy 3:7 (NIV)

There is a lot of "thinking" with one's head in this discussion but not the spirit/heart where the answers lie.

Unknown said...

As I read further through all of the posts, it's clear that folks have not accepted the gift. Instead, people have torn apart, degraded and insulted the one who created us. This "one" came down in human form to reconnect with humanity, the link that WE broke by sin. All you have to do is acknowledge and accept it....and it becomes yours. No church, text book, philosophy needs to tell you. God's spirit comes alive in you and it's all different. There are those that take the plunge head first and those that don't and can never find the "elusive" truth they seek. Really-all of this discussion becomes quite ridiculous when you experience it. It is a spiritual experience and you will not find your answers in historical research.

NightFlight said...

Would you happen to be a Mormon, Spiritual? I've heard Mormons saying the same thing as you are saying.

Unknown said...

Absolutely not:-) Yikes! I was an ex-Catholic and then "nothing" for a long time. Out of pure intellectual curiosity I read the Bible (sans a church)-new testament first. Often times a series of personal negative events (like I encountered) lead folks to surrender to God since they cannot find another human answer. That surrender opened the door to the other side. If you approach spirituality from a humanistic educational standpoint you can't connect with God. You have to acknowledge that you are a spiritual being driving this car of a body. Your spirit is the only thing capable of reconnecting with God. It seems to be the ultimate act of surrender that folks just can't get past. We hang on to our pride, thoughts of superiority and that "do-it-ourselves" attitude as long as we can. Those are precisely the items we need to remove to access the truth. It's there and many many people have taken that plunge.

I do believe that the trouble in acknowledging God and relationship to Him is not all our fault though. There are opposite forces at work that seek to confuse us by giving us "so" many options for truth. Especially in our culture, we are so clouded with things and philosophies and what people call "truths"-it becomes next to impossible to find the one singular truth in God. You just have to surrender and open that door.

Rian said...

Spiritualist: If you approach spirituality from a humanistic educational standpoint you can't connect with God.

Why? Are you saying you cannot rationally connect with your god, and therefore your belief is irrational?

Spiritualist: You have to acknowledge that you are a spiritual being driving this car of a body.

Why do I have, when the evidence suggest that it is my brain, which is a part of my body, driving the rest of my body.
What "role" do you think this "spiritual being" plays?

Spiritualist: It seems to be the ultimate act of surrender that folks just can't get past.

Surrender to what? I'd want to be somewhat confident the thing I was surrendering to existed prior to the surrender.

Spiritualist: Those are precisely the items we need to remove to access the truth. It's there and many many people have taken that plunge.

Do we also need to abandon reason and rationality?

Spiritualist: it becomes next to impossible to find the one singular truth in God.

How do you know there is one singluar truth, and why does it happen to be your god?

Spiritualist: You just have to surrender and open that door.

What door? I'm not even in a room, let alone one with a door :-)

As for MJ/HJ, I'm interested in the arguments and research, but the answer seems irrelevant, at least as far as Christianity as a religious belief is concerned.
Whatever happened in 1st century Palestine, you don't end up with the Christ figure of the Christian faith :-)

Philip R Kreyche said...

Spirit,

If you approach spirituality from a humanistic educational standpoint you can't connect with God. You have to acknowledge that you are a spiritual being driving this car of a body.

So we have to be convinced that it's true in order to be convinced that it's true?

Ignerant Phool said...

Craig said,
"It boggles the imagination to think that the original disciples would have suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead just because they had heard of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods."

The problem I still find if I were to accept this point of view is that, Jesus's death and resurrection came at a time in history when pagan mythology of dying and rising gods were dominant. This makes me doubt that Jesus's "character" was only just "unique", but also possibly a "unique" myth. Would it had delayed God's plans if he came to die in the year 2009 when what's real and whats myths would be more easier to verify?

The same thing can be said about the virgin birth and anything else any apologist wants to say and believe about pagan parallels to Jesus. And they can laugh if they want, but that just might be what is somewhat "spurious".

Havok said...

And the only way Craig "knows" that the disciples had "suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead" is from documents of dubious origin, seeming to present little concern for the accurate recording history, being for the most part works of theology/myth/legend.

Evan said...

I know this thread is beginning to die, but I would heartily recommend to anyone looking for a positive exposition of the primary mythicist position (the one held by Earl Doherty) that is easy to understand and requires no heavy labor, a series of youtube vids by truthsurge.

Adrian said...

Evan - I'm on part 5B of the videos and am really enjoying them. He does a good job of presenting the positive evidence for mythicism in an approachable way. Videos aren't for everyone but they're sure to appeal to some people. Thanks for the find, I'll be sure to pass it along.

Matt said...

Stephanie,

I echo what Jeff and others have to say about Zeitgeist. I've been studying archaeoastronomy now for the past year, and I must tell you, you have to take what you hear on the Internet with a very large grain of salt.

As far as Acharya S. goes, she isn't able to back up any of her stories with credible sources. Her ideas are a hodge-podge of pseudo-science and flimsy historical evidence. However, I do believe that there are very reliable sources that can allude to multiple solar divinities, virgin births, etc., whose origins are astronomical, and I hate to use the word, but astrological, in nature. It requires a lot of patience and careful research.

Christian apologists are happy to tell us that astronomy has been lifted by pagans, and that the true names of the stars and constellations were handed down by God to Adam. If that's the case, ask yourself, "Who really had astronomical knowledge first? What region did it come from? Who named the constellations?" If you ask yourself those questions, avoid Gerald Massey and Acharya S., and really study, you'll find the answers you're looking for.

I would point you in the direction of the Mul .Apin., Ptolemy's Almagest, and peer-reviewed astronomical research journals on the topic of ancient astronomy. The following link would be a great start:

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/

Try looking up keywords like, "Babylonian," "Greek," "Mul .Apin," "Ancient," "Religion," "Mesopotamia," "Akkad," etc.

Happy hunting!