In principle it is quite straightforward to make the case for a mythical Jesus. You just have to demonstrate the following:
The stories we have about Jesus do not place him in a recognisable historical setting. We have no idea when the stories were first told. We know nothing about the circumstances in which people first became interested in Jesus.
And there you have your mythical Jesus. The only problem is that those statements are all false. Because of that the mythicists must try to dream up scenarios which “explain” the appearance of historicity. But that is easier said than done. Take Carrier’s idea that the Gospels are allegories of a celestial being. Justin Martyr certainly didn't believe that. Luke could never have written his prologue if he believed it. But most importantly, the idea that four authors would write allegories of a celestial being which are packed with details reflecting a very particular historical setting is simply nonsense. The idea is utterly untenable.
When the mythicists reject the Gospels as evidence, they are engaged in a gigantic bluff. The Gospels are entirely satisfactory as evidence for a historical Jesus if the alternative explanation has literally zero credibility.
In principle it is quite straightforward to make the case for a mythical Jesus. You just have to demonstrate the following:
ReplyDeleteThe stories we have about Jesus do not place him in a recognisable historical setting.
We have no idea when the stories were first told.
We know nothing about the circumstances in which people first became interested in Jesus.
And there you have your mythical Jesus. The only problem is that those statements are all false. Because of that the mythicists must try to dream up scenarios which “explain” the appearance of historicity. But that is easier said than done. Take Carrier’s idea that the Gospels are allegories of a celestial being. Justin Martyr certainly didn't believe that. Luke could never have written his prologue if he believed it. But most importantly, the idea that four authors would write allegories of a celestial being which are packed with details reflecting a very particular historical setting is simply nonsense. The idea is utterly untenable.
When the mythicists reject the Gospels as evidence, they are engaged in a gigantic bluff. The Gospels are entirely satisfactory as evidence for a historical Jesus if the alternative explanation has literally zero credibility.