MerionWest's Bad Article On Jesus

 I don't prefer spending my time on Jesus mythicism, but when media decides to take on religious subjects with misleading information, I can revise my policy. Last week, Peter Clarke of MerionWest (and of "Jokes Review") published an article arguing that mythicism is about to go mainstream. This article calls for correction on several points

To start off: 

"according to a Church of England poll, only 60% of the English hold that view [that Jesus existed]."

This is quite concerning. I believe this reflects the tendency of our modern world to not research topics that matter and have eternal consequences. Instead video games, sports and partying take up all of the free time.

Continuing:

"It stands to reason that as the United States becomes less Christian, it will become less tied to the historicity of Jesus."

Perhaps, but there is, as far as I am aware, no data to suggest this, other than perhaps the secularization of America.

Continuing:

"While Christians need Jesus to be historical, non-Christians do not have any particular reason to care either way."

For the sake of seeking truth alone, they should care. They should also care about researching the individual responsible for undergirding western culture as we know it today.

Back to the Clarke:

"Notably, for people who have not had much exposure to Christian history, Jesus seems like a fictional character. For example, I have a friend who has never once gone to church and more or less lives her life entirely oblivious to the existence of any world religion. I told her recently that I am starting to come around to the idea that Jesus was entirely fictional. “No kidding!” she responded. “I could have told you that!”

Um, so what? Unfortunately, your friend's intuitions aren't proper historical analysis. I hope this is Clarke merely giving us an anecdote--and not giving it as an argument!

Back to Clarke,

"Meanwhile, his story (we often hear) parallels those of other mythical figures who offer salvation after dying and coming back, such as Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, and Inanna."

For someone that is seeking to probe scholarly consensus, Clarke sure is out of touch. To quote T.N.D Mettinger:

“There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religion.” The Riddle of Resurrection, p. 221

Continuing:

"This point is important because more and more people are growing up like my friend, with next-to-no exposure to the Jesus story beyond the mythical bits. To these people, the mythicist view will be the default view."

According to Clarke's one off experience with a friend.

Clarke then says,

"Then, he rose up into the sky and conveniently never came back down."

I would be curious to see Clarke interact with this argument.

Continuing:

"Over the past few years, a number of in-depth, well-researched books have come out arguing for mythicism. These include: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier, Jesus: Mything in Action by David Fitzgerald, and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems by Robert M. Price."

Since time doesn't permit me to review 3 books at the moment, I'll just link some of what the scholars have to say about Carrier. See here, here and here. As for the Fitzgerald and Price books, I strongly encourage the reader to (1) look at the publishers and (2) look at the "scholarly" endorsements. Not all too good for them.

Clarke then states,

"The list of legitimate scholars who openly doubt the historicity of Jesus has grown rapidly during the past decade."

Given the comments of the scholars I linked up above, this seems quite unlikely. It's not as if the mythical position hasn't been given a fair hearing amongst scholars.

Back to Clarke: 

"Here is Richard Carrier’s case for mythicism, as he presented it in three simple points on a recent episode of the MythVision Podcast"

Anyone else seeing a pattern? Over-reliance on Richard Carrier and a lack of any original research on the scholarship from Clarke himself.

Now, let's take discuss Clar...I mean Carrier's 3 points that suggest mythicism.

1: Paul doesn't place Jesus on earth.

- Paul knew Jesus was born and raised as a Jew (Gal. 4:4) and that he descended from Abraham and David (Gal. 3:16; Rom. 1:3). Paul was in contact with Jesus' brother, James (Gal. 1:19). He knew Jesus' disciples, and even knew that the apostle Peter was married (1 Cor. 9:5)! I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.

2: Jesus only appears as a real person in texts that are highly mythological, i.e., the Gospels.

-Except the genre of the Gospels is that of Ancient biography. Ancient biographers investigated events, examined witnesses, and travelled to various sites in question. For citations and more in-depth study, see Craig Keener, Christobiography. 

2a: This basically means we only have one book that talks about Jesus as a real person, which is the book of Mark. The other gospels were written after Mark by authors who embellished the story while clearly lifting significant portions directly from Mark. And Mark is written by an unknown author who cites no sources for his information.

I've done several posts discussing these objections. See here and here. 

2b: Notably, a lot of ancient mythical characters were also given elaborate biographies that placed them in history with parents, siblings, birth-places, etc. This includes characters like Moses, Romulus, and Dionysus. In contrast, figures in history who are known to be real people either did not begin as revelatory beings, or we have clear evidence of their historicity.

Yes, there are plenty of fictional biographies in the Greco-Roman world. However, this isn't the type of biography the Gospels are, rather, they are closer to those written about real, historical figures when much information about the figures were available. Again, see Keener's Christobiography, as he states “…My interest is primarily in information-based biographies” p. 33.

3: "Attempts to get around these two points do not hold up. For example, there is an argument that Jesus must have really come from Nazareth because there is no other reason to attribute such an unlikely origin to him (Christopher Hitchens, for instance, finds this argument convincing). But the premise of this argument is false because there are many good reasons why that specific town would have been contrived for a mythical messiah. Also, many mythical figures were given obscure towns as their origin. For example, Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome, were given the birthplace of Alba Longa, an ancient city in Central Italy."

Can Clarke cite anything for me to work with here? All I have is assertion. As for Nazareth, I'd invite Clarke to consult John 1:46. Hardly mythmakers trying to make their subject seem like a mighty ruler. 

Returning to Clarke: 

Slate, for instance, provides five reasons for questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Slate is not a reputable academic institution, unfortunately. Also, take a look at who authored it. Valerie Tarico of the Center for Inquiry. You'll notice her PhD is not in a field remotely relevant to the academic Biblical studies.

Clarke goes on to cite Carrier's book, but see the links I provided earlier, wherein scholars discuss Carrier's work.

Returning to Clarke:

"As mythicist author Earl Doherty shows in a survey, historians rely on the consensus view to brush aside the mythicist theory rather than to examine it."

I think this happens with several topics in Biblical studies, such as authorship of the Gospels (although that certainly has more adherents than mythicism in contemporary New Testament studies.), so, fair enough.

Continuing:

"Carrier has also observed that most scholars who study Jesus are biased against the mythicist view because they are essentially trained to presuppose that Jesus existed as a real person."

Could this not just be to due to the fact that scholars are aware of the evidence and find mythicism wanting? Furthermore, if scholars found the evidence for mythicism compelling, who's to say that they wouldn't just begin treating the New Testament as a classicist does with, say, The Odyssey or The Iliad?

Clarke then cites a talk by Carrier:

"In a 2017 talk, Carrier explained, “Even secular experts in this field have been trained with a body of Christian faith assumptions that are this lens through which you look at this evidence and select which evidence to look at.”

This is just patently untrue. It's not as if public universities have faith commitments. Isn't the story of the Christian going off to college and returning an atheist all too common? Relevant here, again, is my response to the previous point by Carrier.

He goes on to discuss a quote by Ehrman, but that is an in-house debate for the anti-apologists and Ehrmanites. I'll let them hash that out so I can refute whatever final product they come out with.

Continuing:

"When Carrier recently debated Dennis R. MacDonald on the question of mythicism, no one in the comments section was laughing at Carrier (as Ehrman might have worried). Rather, I am seeing highly engaged comments that lean skeptically against historicity."

Given that the channel is mythvision, and the channel hosts many prominent mythicist that have a following, it's not at all surprising that you would find a large number of mythicists there.

Back to Clarke:

"It only makes sense that Jesus mythicism would find a growing audience online: The Internet loves a good contrarian view! And unlike many contrarian views that are potentially harmful to society (such as anti-vax conspiracies), I do not see any practical harm from speculating about whether or not a character from the first century was a real person or not."

1: This, however, cuts both ways. Internet access also gives people an opportunity to see how strong the evidence for Jesus is. People can access primary sources, academic books and responses to their favorite mythicists.

2: There are potential spiritual consequences, though. For Christians, Jesus is the foundation of their faith and for atheists, if Christ is indeed who the Gospels say he is, wouldn't you want to know? I can't see why self-proclaimed truth seekers wouldn't want to know.

Continuing:

"For the rest of us, Jesus mythicism is a harmless YouTube rabbit hole to venture down."

Notice a theme? For Clarke (and many of his fellow online atheists) this isn't a process of reading primary sources, scholarship and thinking through the data, it's mere leisure time on Youtube.

Continuing:

"This point is validated by the fact that many outlets discussing Jesus mythicism—such as the MythVision Podcast and the David C. Smalley Podcast—are responsible channels that do not feed off conspiracy theory hype."

I appreciate Clarke validating a former point of mine before my response was even written! 

To anticipate an objection (already given to me by Clarke on Twitter); yes, I know the primary goal of his article was to demonstrate that mythicism can gain more adherents as time goes on. However, in doing so, he has presented a lot of misleading information, which unfamiliar readers of his column can fall prey to. 

Proselytize or Apostatize Resurrection Debate Review

My friend Caleb Jackson and Aaron Aquinas did a debate on the resurrection against village atheists David Johnson & Matthew Taylor. Caleb has a good, accessible book defending the resurrection you can purchase here. 

Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KllcQ77QgE&t=2170s

1: Caleb defends an NT Wright style of argumentation which I am sympathetic to. I wish he had time to defend the Gospels, but time constraints made that impossible. He gave a good, albeit brief over view of the concept of resurrection and afterlife in Antiquity. 

2: He (Caleb) mentioned independent traditions in the empty tomb narratives. To bolster his case here, I'll quote some material from Jake O'Connell (2016:130f). "Matthew included the information about the guards at the tomb (28:8-10). Luke changes the list of women at the tomb even though he would have no conceivable reason to do this and he also includes the fact that Peter ran to the tomb (24:12), another event not found in Mark. John has Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb (20:4) and an appearance to Mary Magdalene by the tomb (20:11-18), both events which are not found in Mark. Thus, since the Gospel writers had independent information about the empty tomb, they do not all drive their account from Mark, and so we have four independent sources."

3: Caleb rightly points out that they would have had the language to describe a mere ascension or exaltation into heaven, drawing on Acts 12.

4: Caleb points out David Johnson can't make the elementary distinction between a resurrection and resuscitation. If Johnson bothered to do the bare minimum amount of research, he'd see there isn't a dearth of material on just this subject. Take Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003).

5: Aaron is sharp, but spends too much time getting unnecessary preliminaries out of the way. A lot of those are already known and agreed on

6: Johnson brings up the virgin birth for some odd reason. Every non Christian scholar denies the virgin birth, but still believe quite a number of episodes in the Gospels are historical. Nothing but weasel words.

7: Johnson channels Chris Hallquist in bringing up alien abductions. He neglected to mention old hag syndrome as an explanation.

a) Let's assume alien abductions happen. That does nothing with the resurrection evidence. One giant red herring.

8:He says we have more evidence for alien abductions than the resurrection, but never puts his money where his mouth is. His assertions are only as good as their supporting arguments.

9: He brings up reputational martyrdom for aliens, but has no clue how this line of argument works. The whole point is that the apostles sincerely believed what they saw and preached.

10: He says "We most certainly have evidence for the resurrection, but it pales in comparison to the evidence for alien abductions". He has yet to back this up in anyway. He cites 0 sources.

11: He brings up Trump and his supporters saying that he actually won. Well, maybe because there is evidence of voter fraud, or, at the very least, they suggest there is evidence of voter fraud?

(I will not give my opinions on that matter here.) 

12: You don't get to compare 1c Christians with 21c Christians. This is laughable at best. To boot, there are non-Christian Trump supporters. Ironically, it is David Johnson who can not parse the facts. 

13: Taylor brings up the fact that his grandfather had lied to him about his birth. Notice, he fact checked him, in the same way the early Christians could have verified the claims going around. 

a) Not all testimony is the same, we must take it on a case by case basis. 

14: Taylor needs to give some examples of ancient historians making things up. No doubt they did, but examples would be useful, so that we could compare them with the Gospels. 

15: Sure, we should put the Gospels up to the test! Happy to oblige.

16: He brings up the ending of Mark. Does he not realize that works against him? We are able to distinguish between out right fabrications and historical memory. 

17: He brings up progressions of Jesus in each Gospel account. This is beyond an exercise in misdirection. Matthew and Luke include a virgin birth, whereas the earliest and latest Gospel do not. Does John contain exorcisms? Compare the number of miracle accounts in the Gospels. See if John has the most in comparison with the earlier accounts. 

18: Mark doesn't narrate the resurrection, but it is anticipated (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:28).

19: The Gospels are remarkably accurate when compared to non-biblical sources. There are standard books and commentaries on this, which Taylor & Johnson obviously haven't bothered to consult. They want their opposition to do all the leg work. 

Ehrman vs. McGrew: Round 1 Review

 I was recently re-watching Tim McGrew's debate with Bart Ehrman on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley. I wasn't planning on blogging today, but when I heard Ehrman's misleading arguments, I had to write down some replies. 

(You can listen to it here)

1: Ehrman claims the first mention of Gospel authorship is by Irenaeus c. 180. This is such a simplistic reading, & is only true of Luke. Here is a list of when, and who, mention the Gospels by name: 

Mark- Papias (100), Justin Martyr (155), Irenaeus (175), Clement of Alexandria (195), Muratorian Fragment (late second century) Matthew- Papias (100), Gospel of Thomas 13 (140-180), Apollinaris (175), Irenaeus (175), Clement of Alexandria (195), Muratorian Fragment (late second century) John- Papias (100), Ptolemy (150-175), Heracleon (150-175), Acts of John (150-200), Irenaeus (175), Hegesippus (175), Theophilus of Antioch (180), Polycrates (190), Clement of Alexandria (195), Muratorian Fragment (late second century), Act of Peter and the Twelve (200)

(I am thankful to my friend Chris for the above) 

2: Ehrman claims Justin Martyr doesn't quote John. This is questionable. He neglects to mention C.E. Hill's study on the topic, which you can read here. To my knowledge, Hill isn't some fringe scholar, he is mainstream. I wonder why Ehrman doesn't mention this? Maybe because he teaches at a seminary?

3: Ehrman goes on to say that the Gospels are quoted anonymously by all of our earliest writings. Dr. McGrew goes on to point out (rightly) that the same is done with Paul's letters. But, lets crank up McGrew's argument up a notch. Notice those same sources Ehrman goes to, do the same exact type of citation with the Old Testament! Some examples include: 

1 Clement 4:1- "For so it is written, And it came to pass after certain days that
Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God, and
Abel he also brought of the firstlings of the sheep and of their
fatness." (Italics mine)

1 Clement 4:6- "And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go over unto the plain.
And it came to pass, while they Were in the plain, that Cain rose up
against Abel his brother and slew him." (Italics mine)

1 Clement 8:4-5- "and He added also a merciful judgment: Repent ye, O house of
Israel, of your iniquity; say unto the sons of My people, Though
your sins reach from the earth even unto the heaven, and though
they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, and ye turn
unto Me with your whole heart and say Father, I will give ear unto
you as unto a holy people. And in another place He saith on this wise, Wash, be ye clean. Put away your iniquities from your souls out of My sight. Cease from your iniquities; learn to do good; seek out judgment; defend him that is wronged: give judgment for the orphan, and execute righteousness for the widow; and come and let us reason together, saith He; and though your sins be as crimson, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool. And if ye be willing and will hearken unto Me, ye shall eat the good things of the earth; but if ye be not willing, neither hearken unto Me, a sword shall devour you; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things." (Italics original)

Ehrman is simply misleading the audience here. You can look at the rest of the 1st century corpus here. 

4: Ehrman claims McGrew is appealing to authority when bringing up Martin Hengel. However, some how, Ehrman fails to realize that all McGrew is doing here is stating where he originally got the argument from. 

5: Ehrman simply resorts to weasel words when pressed on the Gospels being formally anonymous. He was very clearly using it as an argument against traditional authorship. However, I will make a few points.

a) No doubt some Greco-Roman (GR) historians/biographers identify themselves in the text, but the Gospels aren't modeled on these texts. They imitate the Old Testament history books in this regard (though not only in this way.)

b) The Old Testament history books are also formally anonymous!

c) With respect to a), lets assume the Gospel authors are trying to do the exact same thing as the elite GR historian, Xenophon does writes about himself in 3rd person, even though he is a direct eyewitness! 

Xenophon, Anabasis 3.1- “There was in the army a certain Xenophon, an Athenian, who accompanied the army neither as a general nor as a captain nor as a private soldier; but Proxenos, an old acquaintance, had sent for him.” 

Simon Gathercole, in his 2018 paper The Alleged Anonymity Of The Canonical Gospels (p. 11 fn. 37 & 38) cites 4 Roman historians, Sallust, Livy, Tacitus & Florus. According to Gathercole, none of them identify themselves in their texts. 

5: Ehrman claims that McGrew is simply assuming the Christian tradition is correct. Well, prof. McGrew, looks like all those Friday nights you spent in the library as a teenager were just a waste! Pack it up!

On a serious note, secularism isn't objectivity. If anything, he is more biased in his research, given he is on record as saying a miracle is the least probable explanation, he needs to throw out quite a number of events from antiquity!

6: Ehrman claims that the early Christians had strong theological reasons for attributing the Gospels to their respective author, but what is the theological reason for naming Mark and Luke the authors of their respective Gospels? This alone cuts against Ehrman's assertion. 

7: McGrew calls out Ehrman's bluff on his repetitious appeal to 'critical scholars'. On a side note, does Ehrman not count the likes of Bauckham, Hengel, Keener, Gathercole, et al as serious scholars? Like McGrew said "...critical scholars as in the ones that agree with you?"

8: Ehrman acts as if McGrew does not know anything about NT scholarship.

a) McGrew has access to the same books & articles Ehrman does. 

b) McGrew is associated with several erudite scholars that are in the apologetics field as well. 

9: Ehrman rambles about harmonization, yet never provides an argument against its legitimacy. 

The rest of the debate goes on to issues of alleged contradictions in the narratives, but that is old fare, and Ehrman's examples have been addressed numerous times. Two recent posts by Jonathan McLatchie come to mind, here & here.