In Ehrman's recent works, he provides excellent refutations of atheistic obscurantists like Richard Carrier and Jesus Seminar member Robert Price who, by mainly ideological reasons (atheistic wishful thinking and extreme personal animus against Christianity) deny the existence of Jesus in order to make Christianity a non-starter religion. Ehrman calls them "mythicists", but I prefer the name "atheistic obscurantists", since they're trying to suppress knowledge, in this case, the historical knowledge that Jesus actually existed. They're trying to manipulate the historical evidence in order to make it fit with their atheistic and anti-Christian prejudices.
In this lecture, Ehrman summarizes some of his historical arguments for the existence of Jesus.
I think people like Carrier, who knows that a large part of internet atheists are his "fans", is trying to create a new generation of internet atheists who, convinced by Carrier's mythicist and obscurantist arguments, will think that Jesus didn't exist. With this strategy, the new generation of atheists will argue against Christianity, not on the grounds of whether the resurrection happened or not, but on the grounds of whether Jesus existed or not.
In order to block and counter this new, clever and astute way of atheistic deception, I would suggest the following strategy:
1-Let's don't call them "mythicists", but atheistic obscurantists.
2-Prove that their obscurantist view is widely rejected by mainstream atheistic, secular and agnostic historians and scholars who have specialized in the study of Jesus.
3-Prove that all the historical data that we have about Jesus and Christianity, including the origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection, is overwhelmingly better explained by Jesus' existence than by Jesus' non-existence.
In fact, Carrier has defended a theory about the origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection, which entails Jesus' existence. In his debate with Mike Licona, Carrier said "There are many theories contrary to what Mr. Licona has argued, but there isn’t time tonight to look at them all. I will instead present the one theory I think is most probably correct, which I only have time to summarize. Shortly after the death of Jesus, his disciples prayed, meditated, and searched the scriptures for some meaning to justify the tragedy and some way to preserve and promote the noble program of moral reform Jesus had died for. As a result, some had prophetic dreams or visions in which Jesus appeared to them, reassuring them, and telling them just what they wanted to hear" (Richard Carrier and Mike Licona, On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (The Veritas Forum, 2004).
If Jesus didn't exist, then his "death" was impossible. Therefore, it is also impossible for the disciples (of a non-existing person?) to pray, meditate or search the scriptures in order to explain a non-factual event and find some meaning to justify the tragedy of the death of a person who never existed.
Carrier's theory, if a plausible and realistic one, implies Jesus' existence. Therefore, if Jesus didn't exist, then his theory is not correct, and Carrier's belief it it as the "most probably correct" one is irrational and without any historical basis.
If Jesus didn't exist, historians will have a massive problem to account for the historical evidence about the first Christians and the Christian movement.
4-Prove that if we deny Jesus' existence, then (on the consistent application of the same criteria) we would have to deny the existence of many other ancient people for whom we have even less evidence than for Jesus (like greek philosopher Socrates, for example), but that any secular historian accepts.
Carrier's objections to the existence of Jesus are examples of invalid criticisms.
To be honest, I think that Carrier has destroyed forever his academic credibility adopting such a fringe position. Scholars won't take him seriously anymore.
Perhaps Carrier's strategy will be sucessful between internet atheists (mostly teens and young angry atheists), but it wiil be a failure among professional scholars and secular historians.
This is what happens when ideology blinds us.
Carrier's name and scholarly legacy will be strongly linked to an eccentric position which virtually all professional historians and New Testament scholars reject, and will be considered evidence on how extreme forms of atheisms can be so anti-intellectual and dangerous like religious fundamentalism.
I think people like Carrier, who knows that a large part of internet atheists are his "fans", is trying to create a new generation of internet atheists who, convinced by Carrier's mythicist and obscurantist arguments, will think that Jesus didn't exist. With this strategy, the new generation of atheists will argue against Christianity, not on the grounds of whether the resurrection happened or not, but on the grounds of whether Jesus existed or not.
In order to block and counter this new, clever and astute way of atheistic deception, I would suggest the following strategy:
1-Let's don't call them "mythicists", but atheistic obscurantists.
2-Prove that their obscurantist view is widely rejected by mainstream atheistic, secular and agnostic historians and scholars who have specialized in the study of Jesus.
3-Prove that all the historical data that we have about Jesus and Christianity, including the origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection, is overwhelmingly better explained by Jesus' existence than by Jesus' non-existence.
In fact, Carrier has defended a theory about the origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection, which entails Jesus' existence. In his debate with Mike Licona, Carrier said "There are many theories contrary to what Mr. Licona has argued, but there isn’t time tonight to look at them all. I will instead present the one theory I think is most probably correct, which I only have time to summarize. Shortly after the death of Jesus, his disciples prayed, meditated, and searched the scriptures for some meaning to justify the tragedy and some way to preserve and promote the noble program of moral reform Jesus had died for. As a result, some had prophetic dreams or visions in which Jesus appeared to them, reassuring them, and telling them just what they wanted to hear" (Richard Carrier and Mike Licona, On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (The Veritas Forum, 2004).
If Jesus didn't exist, then his "death" was impossible. Therefore, it is also impossible for the disciples (of a non-existing person?) to pray, meditate or search the scriptures in order to explain a non-factual event and find some meaning to justify the tragedy of the death of a person who never existed.
Carrier's theory, if a plausible and realistic one, implies Jesus' existence. Therefore, if Jesus didn't exist, then his theory is not correct, and Carrier's belief it it as the "most probably correct" one is irrational and without any historical basis.
If Jesus didn't exist, historians will have a massive problem to account for the historical evidence about the first Christians and the Christian movement.
4-Prove that if we deny Jesus' existence, then (on the consistent application of the same criteria) we would have to deny the existence of many other ancient people for whom we have even less evidence than for Jesus (like greek philosopher Socrates, for example), but that any secular historian accepts.
Carrier's objections to the existence of Jesus are examples of invalid criticisms.
To be honest, I think that Carrier has destroyed forever his academic credibility adopting such a fringe position. Scholars won't take him seriously anymore.
Perhaps Carrier's strategy will be sucessful between internet atheists (mostly teens and young angry atheists), but it wiil be a failure among professional scholars and secular historians.
This is what happens when ideology blinds us.
Carrier's name and scholarly legacy will be strongly linked to an eccentric position which virtually all professional historians and New Testament scholars reject, and will be considered evidence on how extreme forms of atheisms can be so anti-intellectual and dangerous like religious fundamentalism.
1 comments:
In your article you you've been describing as "obscurantist" repeatedly to those who deny the existence of the alleged historicity and Jesus. Obviously it is easier to convince readers that someone is obscurantist repeating the term, justifying that the term is used. You use ad-hominem fallacies as your reference Bart Ehrman instead of going to the point. The arguments are refuted by arguments, do not resort to logomachy, if we want to be intellectually honest.
Post a Comment