Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Yes, Jesus existed … but relax, you can still be an atheist if you want to

By Mike Bird - posted Tuesday, 30 December 2014


I finally read with great reluctance Mr. Raphael Lataster’s piece published by The Conversation, entitled “Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’”. My hesitation was justified; the article turned out to be just another attempt to propound the ideological holy grail of fringe atheist groups, namely, that Jesus never existed. Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of “Jesus mythicists”, as they are known.

That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously. They are the equivalent of climate change deniers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists. None of them are bonafide academics with tenure at a respected institution in this field, have peer-reviewed publications, and are recognised as experts in their area.

The Jesus mythicists are a group of enthusiastic atheists who through websites and self-published books try to prove the equivalent of a flat earth. I serve on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, where we have an editorial team of people from all faiths and none, celebrated experts in their fields; and I can tell you that the Jesus mythicist nonsense would never get a foot in the door of a peer-reviewed journal committed to the academic study of the historical Jesus.

Advertisement

Let me take you through a few of the innumerable problems with Mr. Lataster’s thesis.

First, Mr. Lataster does not acknowledge that the Jesus myth view has been around for over 100 years, and that every time it raises its head it gets shot down by a barrage of criticism. There is a reason why this view is the sole possession of an energetic bunch of fringe atheists and has never been entertained as a possibility by experienced and respected scholars working in the field of Christian Origins.

Second, Mr. Lataster complains about the lack of early sources. Well, what do you mean by “early”? Paul’s letters are written about 20-30 years after Jesus’ death, and the Gospels about 50-70 years after his death. Our oldest piece of papyrus with a fragment of John 18 is P25 and is dated to about 125-150 CE. Authors like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus from the late first and early second century wrote about Jesus too.

That sounds pretty early to me, at least in comparison to other historical figures. For example, there is a gap of over 200 years between the death of Alexander the Great and our first known biographies of him written by Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Arrian. These biographies include miracle stories, legendary development, hagiography, and are heavily edited accounts. One could employ the same arguments that Mr. Lataster uses to dismiss these sources to prove that Alexander the Great did not exist.

The complaint that the earliest sources portray the “mythical Christ of faith” is a classic case of assuming what you’re proving. But let’s indulge the argument for a moment. I wonder if we might say the same thing about Roman historians. Let us remember that the historical Gaius Octavius was known principally through the lens of Roman veneration of him as “The Divine Augustus,” an object of worship in the state-sanctioned imperial cult, complete with temples and priesthood across the eastern Mediterranean. Should we dismiss all Roman sources because they appear to be written from the perspective of the Augustus of faith? Same argument, but I don’t hear any Roman historians claiming that Octavius did not exist.

Third, on the witness of Paul the Apostle, Mr. Lataster’s claims that his letters in the New Testament represent only a “heavenly” Jesus are simply false. Paul knows that Jesus was born into a Jewish family (Galatians 4:4), he taught about divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), he had a final meal with his followers (1 Corinthians 11:23-26), and he was crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 3:1). While Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus as far as we know, he certainly met eyewitnesses to Jesus in the persons of James, John, and Peter (Galatians 2:1-10). Lataster seems to regard Paul as historically spurious because he did not write a biography of Jesus. An odd reason to dismiss him as an authentic source.

Advertisement

Fourth, what I find absolutely flabbergasting is that Mr. Lataster rejects the account of Jesus by secular and non-religious historians like the late Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman in favour of the conspiracy theories of amateur atheist historian Richard Carrier. The late Prof. Casey was a recognised expert in first-century Aramaic, source criticism of the Gospels, and the evolutionary belief in Jesus’ divinity. Prof. Ehrman is a recognised expert on the textual criticism of the New Testament and something of a celebrity sceptic who writes one book after another debunking various elements of Christianity, such as the resurrection. Casey and Ehrman have both written animated attacks on the Jesus mythicist theory and pretty much laid waste to it.

Let me emphasise that Casey and Ehrman are writing from a post-faith position which is even, at times, somewhat anti-faith. That is not to discount the work of believing historians (as Lataster breezily does); but these two can hardly be accused of toeing a religious line.

On the one hand, then, Mr. Lataster nonchalantly mischaracterises and dismisses Casey and Ehrman, without engaging their actual arguments against the mythicists. On the other, he eulogises Carrier’s crazy thesis without batting an eyelid. This is a telling failure to discern good scholarship.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

66 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Michael Bird is Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne and is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mike Bird

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mike Bird
Article Tools
Comment 66 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy