17AR22-11

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

AR 22:11 - Jesus' deniers and their "preposterous arguments"

In this issue:

CHRISTOLOGY - "virtually nothing" like the Gospels in the entire ancient world

Apologia Report 22:11 (1,331)

March 15, 2017

CHRISTOLOGY

Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? by Maurice Casey [1] -- notes that the late Casey was Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham and had described himself as "known for being 'completely irreligious.'" Reviewers Gary R. Habermas and Benjamin C.F. Shaw (both of Liberty University) discuss Casey along with the highly controversial Bart Ehrman, a self-described "agnostic with atheist leanings." With this in view, Habermas and Shaw show how these "agnostic historical Jesus scholars decimate the mythical Jesus popularists."

The abstract explains that the reviewers "highlight important observations raised by these agnostic scholars against those in the mythicist movement, including topics such as various idiosyncrasies leading to historically deficient methods, egregiously late-dating the canonical Gospels, claiming inspiration from earlier mystery religions, and positing textual interpolations."

In their opening remarks, Habermas and Shaw find that "Casey does not engage much with Ehrman's work, but does state briefly that it 'contained a number of good points, but also a small number of regrettable mistakes.'"

The meat of their review unpacks major mythicist errors, opening with: "Mythicist fundamentalism has produced an unhistorical method that is defective in a very large number of places." In a section on the dating of the canonical Gospels, Habermas and Shaw write: "Casey refers constantly to [late-dating] mythicist shenanigans as 'ludicrously late dates.' His advice? 'The very late dates for the canonical Gospels proposed by the mythicists should be uniformly rejected.'

"But the incredible import of this last conclusion should not be missed. If the Gospels are to be dated where the vast majority of scholars, liberals and otherwise, place them - in the last third of the first century - we are at least a century closer to the life of the historical Jesus. No major world religion possesses any earlier records of their founder's teachings. Further, there is virtually nothing like this in the entire ancient, classical world!"

On the subject of interpolations, the reviewers explain that "Ehrman cites a particular tendency for mythicists who do not like fairly early references to the historical Jesus in Roman writers like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, so they may claim that Christians inserted them.... Ehrman rather hilariously terms these outright textual rejections by the mythicists as 'the principle of convenience.'" The reviewers conclude that this mythicist behavior "and other practices are simply unscholarly, which is precisely what agnostic scholars like Casey and Ehrman assert, sometimes in very strong terms."

Moving on to "more preposterous arguments" by the mythicists, Casey identifies "a number of significant problems associated with what might be the most popular mythicist argument, namely that Christianity borrowed from various other ancient religions to create the mythical figure of Jesus. Casey, along with virtually all scholars today, finds nothing but errors in such an argument.

"Initially, even if one were to grant the premises that Christians borrowed from other religions, it would not follow that Jesus never existed. ... Casey complains that some of the assumed similarities are faulty applications of the mythicists' 'linguistic incompetence,' while many others are due to sources and/or traditions that actually *postdate* Christianity. Still other events are not even remotely parallel. ...

"Ehrman provides more details and is even tougher on the mythicists, though only hints can be provided here. Ehrman asserts that no ancient sources teach that any ancient gods returned to earth after death or were resurrected. Other major issues include the perennial sore spot of very few or no scholarly sources being cited by the mythicists, no demonstrated influence of these beliefs in Palestine, there being far too many differences between the ancient stories and the Christian accounts while many supposed parallels are not close at all, and some accounts frankly being made up."

Last: "Actually, there is nothing like the resurrection message in the mythical accounts at all. Ehrman concludes concerning the pagan accounts, 'Some die but don't return; some disappear without dying and do return; but none of them die and return.'"

The reviewers conclude: "To say that Casey often dismisses mythicists as unscholarly is an understatement. Seldom do preeminent scholars step up and demarcate such problems. But it is even more uncommon when the scholars are agnostics like Casey and Ehrman, since they are not defending Christianity. This adds a different dimension to their critiques. ... Highlighting the many uncritical, undocumented, and dogmatic assertions of the mythicist groups, Casey seeks to show the problems that readily occur when one disregards historical method in favor of biased ideology." Philosophia Christi, 18:2 - 2016, pp485-495.

The publisher's promotional material for the book is also interesting: "Did Jesus exist? In recent years there has been a massive upsurge in public discussion of the view that Jesus did not exist. This view first found a voice in the 19th century, when Christian views were no longer taken for granted. Some way into the 20th century, this school of thought was largely thought to have been utterly refuted by the results of respectable critical scholarship (from both secular and religious scholars).

"Now, many unprofessional scholars and bloggers ('mythicists'), are gaining an increasingly large following for a view many think to be unsupportable. It is starting to influence the academy, more than that it is starting to influence the views of the public about a crucial historical figure. Maurice Casey, one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation, takes the 'mythicists' to task in this landmark publication. Casey argues neither from a religious perspective, nor from that of a committed atheist. Rather he seeks to provide a clear view of what can be said about Jesus, and of what can't."

And from Book News: "Casey counters growing arguments on the Internet that there was no historical Jesus, a phenomenon he attributes to atheist and anti-religious elements. He discusses historical method, the date and reliability of the canonical Gospels, what is not in the Gospels or not in Q, what is written and what is not in the epistles of Paul and others, and it all happened before but in Egypt or India but not in Israel. He concludes that the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person is verifiably false."

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? by Maurice Casey (Bloomsbury, 2014, paperback, 288 pages) <www.goo.gl/E5J4Uk>

------

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )