My Exchange With A Mythicist

 I got into it with a Jesus mythicist on Facebook. I usually don't engage mythicism, but there wasn't much of a good Christian response in the thread, so I wanted to engage. We covered several different areas. The discussion may benefit some readers, so I wanted to post it here. I've reformatted the comments a bit so that it is easier to follow along with. 

Joel

"The Gospels, Paul, and Josephus"

1) Fictional stories written by anonymous people who never met Jesus.

2) The earliest evidence for Christianity, that actually is evidence against a historical Jesus.

3) A Christian forgery from centuries later.

Wow.

Lucas

"1) Fictional stories written by anonymous people who never met Jesus."

You have the burden here. (1) Demonstrate that the Gospels are not biographies and (2) demonstrate that they were not written by eyewitnesses.

"2) The earliest evidence for Christianity, that actually is evidence against a historical Jesus."

What do you mean? Are you referring to Paul here? If so, you should re-read the Pauline corpus. See: Gal. 3:16; 4:4; Rom. 1:3, 1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Thess. 2:14-15, etc. I can give many more verses upon request.

"3) A Christian forgery from centuries later."

Only a partial forgery. Those would be the parts of the Testimonium that call Jesus the Messiah and say that he was raised from the dead.

Joel

"You have the burden here."

False. This is the consensus of scholars.

"(1) Demonstrate that the Gospels are not biographies"

Fictional biographies are a thing, so you don't even know what you're asking for.

"(2) demonstrate that they were not written by eyewitnesses."

They don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses. Only religious extremists argue otherwise.

"Are you referring to Paul here?"

Unless you've discovered an earlier source than Paul.

"If so, you should re-read the Pauline corpus. See: Gal. 3:16; 4:4; Rom. 1:3, 1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Thess. 2:14-15, etc. I can give many more verses upon request."

All refuted in the scholarship already. Note your reliance on cherry picking ambiguous verses and forgeries rather than taking the entire context into account.

"Only a partial forgery. Those would be the parts of the Testimonium that call Jesus the Messiah and say that he was raised from the dead."

This is an apologetic argument based on no evidence. It is a fallacy of begging the question.

Lucas

"False. This is the consensus of scholars."

No, it's not. That the Gospels are biographies has been the consensus since Richard Burridge published his "What Are The Gospels?" There were also figures before him such as Charles Talbert.

"Fictional biographies are a thing, so you don't even know what you're asking for."

I'm aware. I'm asking you to show the Gospels are fictional, as opposed to information and witness based.

"They don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses. Only religious extremists argue otherwise."

-Luke (1:1-4) claims to have gotten his information from the eyewitnesses. Also, given the data from Acts, he was around the apostles frequently.

-John 19:35; 21:24, anyone?

-Furthermore, the anonymity of the Gospels has it's roots in Jewish historiography, i.e. 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, etc.

"Unless you've discovered an earlier source than Paul."

No need to be snarky. In order for a discussion to go well, we need to be on the same page.

"All refuted in the scholarship already. Note your reliance on cherry picking ambiguous verses and forgeries rather than taking the entire context into account."

Do you understand a burden of proof? How are these "refuted in scholarship?" To the contrary, see "On Richard Carrier’s Doubts

A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might

Have Reason for Doubt" by Daniel Gullotta in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 15 (2017) 310-346 as well as "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus

in Paul’s Letters" by Simon Gathercole in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 16 (2018) 183-212. The irony here is that I am relying on contemporary scholarship, meanwhile you are piggy-backing on Carrier's blog posts.

"This is an apologetic argument based on no evidence. It is a fallacy of begging the question."

Is Robert Van Voorst an apologist? Is Willem Blom an apologist? Is Alice Whealey an apologist?

Joel

"the Gospels are biographies"

Irrelevant. Read my comment before replying to it.

"I'm asking you to show the Gospels are fictional"

They are full of magic, anachronisms, narrative tropes, lifts from other fictions, etc. It's not even debated outside of cult fundamentalist circles anymore because they're so obviously fictional.

"Luke (1:1-4) claims to have gotten his information from the eyewitnesses."

He didn't claim to be an eyewitness. Nice attempt to move the goalposts but I'm not falling for that trick. And we know he lied because he was just copying Mark.

"Also, given the data from Acts, he was around the apostles frequently."

A second century fiction is not a reliable source for the early first century. Copying from Josephus and Homer is not the same as being an eyewitness. And he lied about Paul. This is the worst kind of source.

"John 19:35; 21:24, anyone?"

The authors do not claim to be eyewitnesses. Lazarus is a fictional character. Not an eyewitness.

"Furthermore, the anonymity of the Gospels has it's roots in Jewish historiography, i.e. 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, etc."

Unreliable anonymous source matches unreliable anonymous sources. Agreed.

"see "On Richard Carrier’s Doubts

A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might

Have Reason for Doubt" by Daniel Gullotta in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 15 (2017) 310-346 as well as "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus

in Paul’s Letters" by Simon Gathercole in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 16 (2018) 183-212. The irony here is that I am relying on contemporary scholarship, meanwhile you are piggy-backing on Carrier's blog posts."

If you're going to rely on an argument you should check that it's actually true and logically valid first. Ignorant complaints by people who haven't even read the text they're supposed to be responding to is hardly a good thing to associate yourself with.

"Is Robert Van Voorst an apologist? Is Willem Blom an apologist? Is Alice Whealey an apologist?"

Their arguments are fallacious and based on falsehoods. We can only speculate on their motives for ignoring logic and facts.

Lucas

somehow this reply is worse than the last one. You still have not demonstrated any of your claims.

"They are full of magic, anachronisms, narrative tropes, lifts from other fictions, etc. It's not even debated outside of cult fundamentalist circles anymore because they're so obviously fictional."

Miracles aren't magic by definition. A miracle is an even that would not have happened had the natural world not been left to itself. Magic is just a type of illusion created by a natural agent.

I need YOU to give me examples of anachronisms and lifts from other mythologies. I don't understand your failure to recognize this.

"He didn't claim to be an eyewitness. Nice attempt to move the goalposts but I'm not falling for that trick. And we know he lied because he was just copying Mark."

I didn't say he was an eyewitness. You want to win an argument in a comment section so desperately that you don't read my replies carefully. Here is what I wrote: "Luke (1:1-4) CLAIMS TO HAVE GOTTEN HIS INFORMATION from the eyewitnesses." Blatant misreading on your end.

Using Mark as a source, you mean? As Craig Keener observes: "The dependence of Luke and Matthew on information in Mark suggests two things: 1: their own commitment to information, rather than pure invention; 2: recognition that Mark provided such information." Christobiography (Eerdmans, 2019) p. 154.

"A second century fiction is not a reliable source for the early first century. Copying from Josephus and Homer is not the same as being an eyewitness. And he lied about Paul. This is the worst kind of source."

Which route do you want to take this? Theudas, the Egyptian or Lysanians? Happy to discuss these lines of evidence. 

Also, given your insistence on the scholars disagreeing with me, can you list some scholars, other than Dennis MacDonald that think any of the NT authors used Homer? Convenient how everyone missed this until Dennis MacDonald came around!

"The authors do not claim to be eyewitnesses. Lazarus is a fictional character. Not an eyewitness."

Oh my, Lazarus isn't the beloved disciple. Never mind your fictional scholars, have you ever read the Gospels?

"Unreliable anonymous source matches unreliable anonymous sources. Agreed."

The reliability of these documents is irrelevant to this part of the discussion. The point is that the Jewish people took these texts as historically reliable and the Gospel authors lined themselves up with these texts.

"If you're going to rely on an argument you should check that it's actually true and logically valid first. Ignorant complaints by people who haven't even read the text they're supposed to be responding to is hardly a good thing to associate yourself with."

In context, I cited this to demonstrate that the scholars are in AGREEMENT that Paul puts Jesus as a human on earth. That aside, you have failed to back up a single claim of yours.

Also, you're aware the journal these articles were published in is one of the leading NT journals around, right? They've certainly read the texts in question. Could you imagine making it through peer-review without reading the very subject in question! I suppose this is what happens in Joel's imaginary world.