Why Historical Jesus Studies are like Creationism

06 Jul

I’ve been following the “debate” between Neil Godfrey and James McGrath on their respective blogs, and I’ve been pretty disappointed at the level of debate. Namely, that Prof. McGrath likens “Jesus Mythicism” (MJ) with Creationism. I’ve read and participated in plenty of debates with Creationists and while McGrath has some valid points of comparison, the analogy overall is faulty.

McGrath points out how Creationists will quote-mine a debate between two biologists about a particular sub-set of evolutionary theory (like say between Punctuated Equilibria and Gradualism) and then conclude that the theory of evolution as a whole is in doubt. While this is something that I’ve seen MJs do, it’s not the focal point of their ire.

Where the analogy is more consistent is when Creationists critique the methodology of biologists, saying that their reasoning doesn’t infer common descent. So for example, say a person wants to find out whether one of ten men is his grandchild. We would do an analysis of DNA evidence to see how similar the alleged grandchildren’s DNA is to the person. At a certain similarity threshold, you can tell that the child is biologically related in some way to the person. Either as a grand-nephew, third cousin, etc. At higher levels of similarity, they would be able to tell if the child is directly related to the grandparent.
This same methodology of analyzing DNA is used by evolutionary biologist to conclude that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Creationists will agree with the grandparent/grandchild analogy, but then claim that this same methodology can’t be used with humans and chimps.

In other cases, Creationists will claim that methodological naturalism doesn’t apply to biology. If they applied this consistently to all other sciences, we would still live in the dark ages. The problem with Creationism is special pleading – as in the grandfather example – or simply attacking the philosophy of science altogether which has a greater ripple effect in all of science and not just biology.

From what I’ve read on Godfrey’s blog, he is attacking the methodology of NT historians, not simply pointing out discrepancies between two different NT historians and concluding that Jesus was a myth – as Creationists would do in the biology example. If biologists had their own criteria for doing biology that didn’t apply to other sciences, then Creationists would have a valid point in their debate. That biologists had their own type of “science” that they do that if it were applied in other fields of science would make science itself unreliable.

Quite ironically, Godfrey’s point (though he hasn’t made it) is that HJ studies shares a major premise with Creationism. That the Bible contains history in some form. Both camps’ (Creationist and HJ) arguments follow from that major premise. Creationists assume that Genesis – 2 Kings is 100% history, or has some grain of history to it, and then all of their other arguments rest on that premise. NT historians do the same – they assume that [Mark, Matt, Luke, and John] is 100% history, or has some grain of history to it, and then all of their other arguments rest on that premise. From that premise NT historians follow some form of criteriology to determine which parts are history and which parts aren’t. Creationist also do the same. For those that don’t think that Genesis is 100% history, they follow ad hoc criteriology to determine what’s literal and what’s allegory.

To point out what’s faulty about this, why don’t NT historians use their criteriology on, say, the Acts of John, or the Acts of Peter? Because they already assume that AoJ/AoP aren’t historical.

The problem with Creationism is that it undermines the entire scientific method, not just biology. Their critiques of biology overlap into other realms of science even though they don’t realize it. MJs (at least in their critiques of HJs) are simply following the same methodology that all other non-biblical or secular historians do. Not assuming that anonymous written documents contain history. MJs are actually doing the opposite of what Creationists do! They seem to be trying to get NT historians to follow the same historiography that non-biblical historians follow. It would be like Creationists who are trying to get biologists to do the same scientific methodology that cosmologists and chemists do (I have yet to encounter a Creationist who does this).

The analogous situation in NT historiography would be about another character called “Jesus”, but in the Tanakh. For a long time it was assumed that the “Jesus” narrative in the Tanakh was historical, written by eyewitnesses, and archaeologists and historians in the 18th and 19th centuries used this anonymous narrative as their “primary” historical source and guide in unlocking the history of Israel and Judah. It turns out that this anonymous narrative with a “Jesus” as the main character was simply fictional. That Jesus did not mount a successful military campaign invading Canaan and led the wandering Israelites to their new home in the Levant. Old Testament historians realized that you couldn’t depend on anonymous narratives to guide history. That you need primary evidence to reconstruct history and only depend on anonymous works (like the book of Joshua/Jesus) if they are externally and independently corroborated with primary evidence or other unbiased narratives/written works.

The book of Joshua – our main narrative about Joshua’s actions on earth – was written anonymously and in third person. The book of Mark – our main narrative about Joshua’s (Jesus’) actions on earth – was also written anonymously and in third person. We have only large date ranges for when these two books were written. What’s going for Joshua is that it seems to be a fairly straightforward origins story. Mark on the other hand has elements of entertainment or literature in it – themes like irony and allegory. Joshua seems to have been written in the native language of its central character. Mark, on the other hand, was written in Greek and its main character(s) was supposed to speak Aramaic.

Without external support for either narrative, we have no reason for thinking that these two Jesus stories are history in any way. A more accurate assumption for written works would be that the writer is writing what s/he wants us to believe, not that they are writing history. So they are primary evidence for the author and their thoughts, but not primary evidence for their content.

Creationists start from the premise that both anonymous narratives contain history. Secular historians of I&J used to assume that the book of Joshua was historical, but no longer since they don’t treat it as primary evidence. The primary evidence that they do have shows that this Jesus narrative in the Tanakh actually can’t be historical – which pushes things towards that particular Old Testament Jesus being mythological. NT historians are still assuming that their Jesus narrative contains history – assuming their conclusion. MJ proponents don’t work under the assumption that either anonymous Jesus narrative contains history. And from what I read, Godfrey is trying to get NT historians to acknowledge this fundamental assumption.

Now, just to counterpoint everything I’ve written above, showing that the entire NT is about a mythical character in no way means that “a” Jesus character related in some way to Christianity positively didn’t exist. The guy’s name doesn’t even have to be “Jesus”. The nature of the HJ/MJ debate isn’t an exclusive either-or situation. If MJ’s prove that the entire NT is historically unreliable, or about a mythical character, this does NOT mean that a Jesus-like character didn’t exist in some peripheral way. It just means that we should be agnostic about the issue. We don’t have enough positive evidence on the other side of the fence to point things in that direction. I personally think that the entire NT is historically unreliable, but this doesn’t mean I promote a “mythical” Jesus (I don’t even know what that means in this context). My position is summed up by a comment on Godfrey’s blog by “timvonhobbyhorsen”:

If an historian had four anonymous, hearsay accounts of the battle, all written several decades after the event and they all contradicted one other, what do you think he’d do? Imagine that they not only contradict one another, but we have no external evidence — no written inscriptions, no military records, no physical evidence — nothing that can corroborate the anonymous hearsay accounts. What then?

Now, suppose these four anonymous, third-hand, uncorroborated, contradictory accounts of the battle also contain various descriptions of Athena appearing on the battlefield, killing mortals and shielding others? What would a real historian do then?

Now, what if these four anonymous, third-hand, uncorroborated, contradictory accounts of the battle that had Athena appearing on the battlefield also had a history of redaction, rewriting, and interpolations inserted into them by various different communities at different time periods (that were antagonistic towards each other) to promulgate a particular [political] view about Athena’s actions on the battlefield? Should we still assume without good cause that these four anonymous documents are historical?

Just to recap some basics about the gospels:

The four canonical gospels were written in third person (hence, not by eyewitnesses which would be in first person) by anonymous omniscient narrators in Greek (this, by the way, is the reason why we call Jesus the Latinized Greek “Jesus” instead of the Hebrew/Aramaic “Joshua”). The first time that a Christian asserted that people named Mark, Matt, Luke, and John wrote gospel narratives was around 180 CE, and he did this for anti-heretical purposes. Before that, Christians just cited “the gospel” when quoting from Mark, Matt, et. al.

Since these gospels were originally anonymous, we have no reason for believing anything that is written in them. We don’t know who the authors were. We don’t know who they were writing to. We don’t know where they wrote. We don’t know when they wrote. Nothing. What if the first gospel written was written as a play, or a satire, or theological allegory, or to make fun of Christians? What if it was written to explain why Biblical Joshua-style Jewish Messianism was in error? We have no idea since we don’t know anything about the author. In all of the NT epistles, there are no references to “disciples” of Jesus.

We have references to “servants” and “slaves” of Jesus, references to “those who are sent out” (i.e. apostles) of Jesus, but no disciples. There are no references to any teachings of Jesus in the NT epistles. If all we were left with were the letters in the NT, we would have no reason for thinking that the Jesus they’re talking about was a wandering preacher who was crucified because “the Jews” were jealous about his popularity.

Curiously, as soon as the first gospel is written asserting a teaching Jesus, we start getting the “heresy” of Gnosticism. Which was all about the “secret teachings” of Jesus. I don’t think this is a coincidence at all.


Posted by on July 6, 2010 in historiography, jesus myth


7 responses to “Why Historical Jesus Studies are like Creationism

  1. Anders Branderud

    July 7, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    “Historical Jezus”!?!

    The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.

    While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
    Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and (“spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.

    There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with “30-99 C.E.”).
    Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.

    Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.

    What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period… in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.

    To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?

  2. beowulf2k8

    July 8, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Dude, there is no evidence for Jesus having been a Pharisee. His historical existence can't even be demonstrated, and still there are yahoo Judaizers running around saying he was a Torah mongering Pharisee. Ridiculous.

    As to the Torah, try explaining why Samuel had no idea that the ISraelites would ever have a king and was flabergasted when they said “give us a king so we can be like the other nations” (1st Samuel 8) in spite of the fact that he was raised by the high priest Eli and therefore had access to and must of read all the religious books of the Jews, and he was a prophet.

    Deuteronomy 17 pretends to prophecy of the future kingship “Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me…”

    How come Samuel didn't know there was supposed to be a king then? Because DEUTERONOMY DIDN'T EXIST YET!

    The same with Genesis!

    Genesis 36:31 “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.”

    Again, why didn't Samuel know that the Israelites were supposed to have a king if the Torah explicitly told him so?


    So, Moses did not write the Torah and it was all written post-Samuel.

    I could prove its also post-Solomon and even post-Babylonian-captivity, but this is enough to prove the Torah is not God's word, Judaizer.

  3. Vinny

    July 9, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    I have been disappointed by the debate as well. I think the mythicism-creationism analogy generates a great deal of heat without really shedding any light.

    I also notice that Dr. McGrath is falling back on arguments that I have frequently seen used by apologists. For example, he accused mythicists of trying to “wish away” evidence and claimed that he was relying on “the evidence we have.” In an argument over the authorship of Mark awhile back, I was accused of trying to “wish away” Papias and Irenaeus by an apologist who claimed to be relying on “the evidence we have.” I also notice that McGrath frequently invoked the consensus of “mainstream scholars” which is something I also encountered recently from a advocate of Habermas' “minimal facts” apologetic.

    I'm also disappointed by the bashing of Robert Price. I don't find Price's positive case for mythicism terribly convincing, but it does not strike me as any less speculative than the positive cases that Crossan, Johnson, Dunn, and Bock make for the their portraits of a historical Jesus.

    On the other hand, Neil hasn't convinced me that there is anything unreasonable in positing a historical Jesus of some sort. Hoffmann's theory that the gospels may represent an independent line of tradition from the epistles seems perfectly plausible to me. If this is so, the fact that Paul's Jesus looks quite mythical wouldn't eliminate the possibility that there was an actual person somewhere behind the gospel traditions. We may not be able to know anything about him, but I think one could very reasonably conclude that the gospels are an attempt to mythologize a historical figure rather than an attempt to historicize a mythological figure.

  4. J. Quinton

    July 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    I agree Vinny. There are two issues here, which might have overlap, but are not arguing the same thing:

    1. The gospel narratives are historically unreliable and describe a mythological character.

    2. Christianity began with a mythological character.

    While the four gospels selected by the winners of the orthodox struggle in the 2nd and 3rd centuries might be wholly mythological, this doesn't mean that Christianity itself began with a mythological character.

    Without inserting gospel material back into earlier Christian epistles, we have no idea when any supposed historical Jesus might have lived. The “crucified by Pilate” dogma might be just that – a dogma. There's also the assumption that Paul met contemporaries of Jesus, but this also assumes the veracity of the gospel narratives.

    The Jesus of the gospels might be the Simon of Gabriel's Revelation. Or the entire Passion could have taken place during the late Hasmonean era as the Toledo Jesu describes.

  5. Vinny

    July 10, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    I suspect that there is no way to separate myth from history in the gospel accounts, which for me seems to mandate agnosticism about a historical Jesus. I wonder, however, whether we can infer anything from the change in the Jesus portrayed in the gospels with the most human Jesus in Mark gospel and the most divine figure in John. Could that be enough to make it more likely than not that we have a historical person being mythologized rather than the other way around?

  6. J. Quinton

    July 14, 2010 at 3:19 am

    I actually tend to err on the historical Jesus side due to that trend found from Mark to John. I'd say I'm 51% sure there was a historical Jesus 🙂 But on the other hand it seems as though once you remove all of the mythological elements, you're left with numerous people who could fill the historical Jesus shoes. Which to me not only demands agnosticism, but also might mean that positing a historical Jesus could be unfalsifiable.

  7. Sabio Lantz

    July 17, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Excellent Post. Thank you. I too found the debate spirit ugly. I have so much to learn and am just starting to put some of this stuff together. Posts like this help a lot. Thanks again.

NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The Wandering Scientist

What a lovely world it is

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion


Understand your mind with the science of psychology -


Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Skepticism, Properly Applied

Criticism is not uncivil

Download PDF

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus

The Syncretic Soubrette

Snarky musings from an everyday woman

%d bloggers like this: