Professor McGrath on Whether or Not Jesus Existed
Don't look now but a professional NT Historian is taking on the mythicists. It started with this YouTube video which has carried on in some recent posts of his here, then here, then here, then here, then here. I think he's gearing up for a book on the topic and if he writes it then it's long overdue.
17 comments:
I don't really care whether there was actually a person named "Jesus," but I find this whole use of the "criterion of embarrassment" to be, well, embarrassing.
I'm not a historian, perhaps there is more to it, but it just seems that:
1. Like a responder on James McGrath's website noted: Alien abductees must be telling the truth because they told embarrassing stories about being probed in the "nether regions."
2. "Rocky" must really exist because he embarrassingly gets the crap kicked out of him in the early rounds of every boxing match.
3. "Han Solo" must really exist because he embarrassingly gets himself locked up in a cryogenic box for a few years.
Embarrassment, embarrassment, embarrassment . . . always followed by release, recovery, redemption, reawakening, resurrection, revival . . . and . . . overcoming the obstacle.
It's what just about every great storyline contains. The protagonist must overcome some obstacle to achieve glory!
Perhaps I lack imagination--what kind of storyline would there have to be in the New Testament where there are NO embarrassing elements, where there is nothing for Jesus to overcome?
Thanks Jim, but isn't it about time a professional NT historian finally responds? I think it's long overdue, that's all.
I agree John. Could you ask Dr. Avalos to comment on the historical method and the "criterion of embarrassment"
From what I've read on the historical method there no use of the criterion of embarrassment to determine historical reliability.
John I haven't heard your debate yet but as a skeptic I would consider it a somewhat loss if you didn't point out specifically when the other side was wrong and ask them address the explanation and not carry on the debate until that point was done.
Jim's question is a good one, but for the comparison to be a fair one, we have to note the following:
First, the alien abductee probably believes they are telling the truth. Whether they are or not is another question. And the criterion of embarrassment might apply well here: the person probably would not just make us such a detail. It might be a dream, a hallucination, or something else, but not deliberate falsification.
3. If there were Jedis who revered Anakin Skywalker as a historical figure, for instance, we might expect them to cover up his turn to the dark side. But in what all but perhaps a few die hard fans know is a recent work of fiction, the situation is different, is it not? The early Christians, on the other hand, believed that they were dealing with a historical figure, one who was God's anointed, and yet they included details that did not obviously support that view of him. And so it isn't a foolproof criterion, but neither is it irrational or unhelpful in sifting through the evidence, in my opinion.
I just think "New Testament" and "History" don't belong in the same sentence
If there were Jedis who revered Anakin Skywalker as a historical figure, for instance, we might expect them to cover up his turn to the dark side.
Really?
Why did George Lucas write it the way he did then? Doesn't it allow him to seem more appealing due to his overcoming of his turn to the dark side?
This seems very odd reasoning to me.
Why make up Arthur's problems with Lancelot? Must they not be true stories by this criteria?
Are you suggesting that George Lucas thought he was telling a true story?
Prof. Mcgrath are u suggesting the criterion of embarrassment is part of the historical method?
I just googled "Criterion of embarrassment" and a Wikipedia article was the first hit.
Not that Wikipedia is by any means an authority on the historical method, but I found it interesting that the first sentence is:
The criterion of embarrassment is an analytical tool that some Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.
Is it true that this a single-use tool? Was it invented by Christian apologists just for this one historical question?
When I grew up Christian, I certainly never felt embarrassed that my Lord and Savior was executed in any particular fashion. I don't remember thinking "Oh, he was crucified--that's particularly embarrassing. Having his throat slit would have been more noble."
We just learned the crucifixion as part of a much larger story.
Are we letting Christian apologists control the dialogue on this one?
Another Wikipedia entry on "Historical Method" mentions:
Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort?
This seems to indicate only comments made by a person in history about himself. This presupposes that the person existed. It would be begging the question to presuppose Jesus existed so that we could use this criteria to prove his existence. Additionally, we don't have anything written by Jesus about Himself.
Just rambling . . .
"Having his throat slit would have been more noble."
Having his head cut off and put on a spike (which we English used to do quite a lot 400 years ago) would have required a more ingenious resurrection story.
Notice James McGrath never defended the criterion of embarrasment by doing what he does in his classes - by telling his college students where else it has been used successfully on other figures of 2000 years ago.
The 'criterion of embarrassment' has a proven track record of success in studies of people of 2000 years or more ago.
If only we could find out where....
The criterion of embarrassment is just plain embarrassing.
Like others have said, overcoming obsticles is a standard part of heroic stories & myths. And crucifiction is no more embarrassing than Osiris getting chopped into hundreds of pieces or Baldur getting shot to death by a blind god.
I just don't understand how the bible...the only place where Jesus is ever mentioned or his life and statements are ever described...a book chock full of myths, contradictions, mistakes, and outright lies...can be considered a reliable historical document.
Are there any other figures in history whom historians believe probably existed where:
1) The only evidence of their existence is a single account in an extremely unreliable and contradictory religious text written over the course of centuries many decades after the alleged events contained within it took place.
2) There are no corroborating accounts of that person's existence by contemporary writers or historians.
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Why do apologists always insist on making an exception for Jesus, and insisting that those who doubt his existence are believers in "conspiracies"? I think a much bigger conspiracy would be required for all of the historians of the ancient world to completely overlook and never mention a word about what would be, if true, the most important event in human history (Jesus' life, death, and resurrection).
Not to get too far off topic, but one thing we can say with nearly 100% certainty, is that Adam and Eve did not exist. Thanks to the convergent findings of countless scientific disciplines, we have a deep understanding of the history of the Earth and the history of life on Earth. Because of this we can reasonably have as much certainty in the fact of Adam and Eve's non-existence as we can in the fact of the Tooth Fairy's non-existence.
When you accept this fact, you logically must also accept that the Genesis account is a myth, and there was no "fall". Eve never ate the apple because she, Adam, and the Garden of Eden never existed. Therefore there is no "original sin" (original sin is a ridiculous concept in and of itself, but I've already gotten off topic).
If there is no original sin, then there is no need for redemption by blood sacrifice; There is no need for Jesus' crucifixion. There is no need for Jesus period.
So, since we know with as much certainty as we can know anything that Adam and Eve never ate the apple and therefore there was no original sin and therefore no need for the crucifixion, the real question becomes:
Q: Does it matter, in anything other than an academic historical sense, if a historical Jesus existed or not?
A: Not really.
Meh, a pretty typical example, that is to say it misses all of the key notes.
For balance, Thomas Verenna posted a response: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/james-on-jesus-reopening-pandoras-box/
For the academics, he does a good and lengthy post which covers many of the problems I have with these so-called defenses of the "historical" jesus, one which should speak to John & others who are steeped in the discipline: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/locating-the-hypothetical-jesus/
Tom Verenna says in his blog post that it is plausible that Jesus existed.
That's the trouble with mythicists. They are so dogmatic.
It must be said that it is not a requirement for NT scholars to investigate the mythicist case in order to get their Ph.D. Everybody needs to know that McGrath is not an expert on the mythicist position - his comments and questions prove that fact. If you haven't studied the massive amount of evidence in the mythicist field, you aren't an expert.
NT scholars will never determine whether Jesus is historical or mythical only by narrowly focusing on the NT. But it's about time NT scholars step-up to the plate to respond to The Mythicist Position but before they can respond it's probably wise to actually study it first.
"Professional NT Historian is taking on the mythicists"
Post a Comment