Biblical scholars typically have dismissed this question outright. As people of faith employed by Church institutions, where supporting the traditional teachings is a condition of their employment, they begin with the assumption that the Jesus of the New Testament must have existed, even if they debate the extent to which claims about him and sayings attributed to him should be taken literally.
On the other hand, there are other scholars not employed by Church institutions, who do not start with the assumption that Jesus was a real person, but rather apply the methods of professional historians to weigh the actual evidence. Those who conclude the evidence is stronger for a mythical Jesus than for an historical Jesus are often called “mythicists”.
Richard Carrier, Ph.D., is one such scholar. Carrier makes the case that Paul’s writings reflect Paul's belief in a Christ who presided at a Lord’s Supper, and was crucified, buried, and risen — all in the heavens, as described in Hebrew Scripture plus the books of Enoch, popular in his day, and not on earth. The Gospels, written later, Carrier argues, are the works of devotees aiming to place a mythical Christ figure in history, much like what happened with gods of the Greeks and Romans. In his book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Carrier provides a detailed analysis that has been peer-reviewed. His conclusion when that book was published twelve years ago was that there was only a one-in-three chance that Jesus was a real person.
Recently published research by others has caused Carrier to tentatively reassess, lowering the odds of Jesus’s historicity to 1 in 5 (actually 18%) at best, subject to further peer review. Carrier has presented his analysis in two recent blog posts here -- part 1 and here -- part 2. In part 1, Carrier discusses the work of another scholar, and her conclusions that the New Testament letter known as 1 Peter is authentically written by Peter and was written earlier than previously thought.
If her conclusions are true, Carrier argues in part 2, then it seems clear that when Peter writes the letter (1 Peter) in about 60 CE (AD), Peter does not know of, or talk about, an historical Jesus, but a Christ whom he knows only from Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and from visions, just like Paul. In several examples Carrier cites, Peter tries to make certain points where he would be far more persuasive if Peter were to have provided examples of things he saw Jesus say or do, but instead, he relies only on quoting scripture. Nowhere in this Letter does Peter ever refer to anything he witnessed in real life. This is odd, to say the least. This implies Peter does not know the Jesus of the Gospels, which would have been written later. Further, Peter talks about one day meeting Jesus in the future, but not in the past.
We’ve here barely scratched the surface of what Carrier has to say, and I have provided only an overview. If this topic interests you, you will surely want to read Carrier for all the details and rationale — possibly starting with part 2 for his conclusions. Then read part 1 if you are interested in the detailed analysis of the reasons for thinking 1 Peter is early and authentic — a subject much more technical in nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment