Some atheists attempt to undermine Christianity by arguing that Jesus never existed - He's a myth like many other god-myths in history.  The dying-and-resurrected-messiah myth is one such attempt that Greg dismantled in Solid Ground earlier this fall.  These critics claim Josephus, a Jewish historian who records that Jesus lived and His followers believed He was the Christ, is completely compromised.  That's not true - even taking the most severe questions into account, Josephus's record remains intact.  It's simply not the case that there is serious question among scholars that Jesus didn't exist.

Recently on the radio show, Mike Licona mentioned an interesting bit of information.  Even the Jesus Seminar, a group with radical skeptical views of the Bible, don't consider the question of Jesus' existence a serious question of debate.  They're anxious to debate many of the New Testament details of Jesus, but not the fact of His existence.

They turned down an offer to publish an artcile by Early Doherty on Jesus as myth.  Doherty reported:

A recent proposal [was] made to the editor of the Fourth R, the magazine of the Westar Institute, the umbrella organization for the Jesus Seminar. This person, who is familiar with and has admired my work (no telling the crazy things some people will support, right?) noted to the editor that the Fourth R has a tradition of presenting some pretty liberal viewpoints for examination. He offered to donate $5000 to the magazine if they would print a substantial article by myself on the Jesus Myth question, accompanied in the same issue by an equal counter-article by any scholar of their choosing, to be followed in a subsequent issue by shorter rebuttals by both myself and the other scholar. (This offer, by the way, was made without my prompting or even my knowledge, until he informed me after it was made.)

This was the response he received:

I'm not presently inclined to devote an issue to questioning the existence of Jesus. The topic is a perennial one among skeptics. If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism. But the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present. With so many other living issues to explore, I don't think it would be responsible to devote the limited space in the 4R to your suggestion.

So even one of the most liberal groups dismisses these myth claims as unserious.  

And here is Mike Licona's review of the film "The God Who Wasn't There" that is mentioned in the link above.  Mike critiques the case that Jesus is merely a myth.

Comments

[Brian]

What the editor actually said was that although the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. "Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present". This is neither a dismissal of the claim nor are they stating the issue is "unserious". The editor mearly states it's untimely. That there are more pressing issues at the moment.

[Vic]

Brian..

"More pressing issues"?...Wonder what could be more foundational to the debate that the fact or myth status of the subjects' very existence?

[eric]

Brian,

That phrase, "Perhaps it should be...", could easily be seen as a diplomatic nod toward the individual making the suggestion. It could be that the editor really thinks the topic should be discussed, but it also could be that the editor does not want to unduly offend a possible financial contributor o the journal.

[Neil]

I love when atheists bring up the "Jesus didn't exist argument." It is so easy to use the minimal facts approach and put the burden back on them.

I just point to the virtually unanimous position of historical scholars who agree that he lived. If the atheists want to form positions in opposition to historical facts then that is their problem. It quickly disarms them.

I also like to point out how even skeptics like the Jesus Seminar concede so many of the minimal facts. To come up with the theory that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs, people like John Dominic Crossan unwittingly point to the significant evidence for not only the resurrection but the empty tomb. I submit that the physical resurrection accounts for the same facts Crossan appears to trust. It is just that the resurrection is a better explanation.

[Damian]

Even if it were true that Jesus didn't exist (I don't believe it is) it only proves the Christians are wrong. It does not follow that if the Christians are wrong then God doesn't exist.
For once I would like to hear an Atheist have the stones to say Allah doesn't exist and neither did Mohammed. Sorry. Maybe I shouldn't wish that.

[eric]

Damian,

Before you say something like that, you may want to do some simple looking first. It's quite routine for atheists to say Allah doesn't exist. Atheists don't believe in any of the gods, by definition. Claiming to be an atheist includes the claim that you don't think Allah is real. It's my understanding that the record on Muhammad, as an historical person, is pretty good. We even have a book he wrote. Still, I think you can easily find people who will deny that Muhammad had any special connection to God.

As for needing 'stones' to do so, this seems to imply that there would be unpleasant, perhaps violent, repercussions. Do you want to see people say things that will result in them being physically harmed? If you hold a gun to my head, I will claim to believe anything you like. It would be a bit of a stretch to take this as actual support for anything other than a desire for self preservation.

[Sam]

I don't think you can equate the dismissal of the notion that Jesus didn't exist with a dismissal of Christ myth theories because subscribing to the Christ-myth theories doesn't necessarily entail a denial of Jesus' existence. Of the scholars I've read about who advocate some version of the Christ-myth theory, none of them have claimed that Jesus didn't exist. They just think legends grew up around his memory, some being inspired by other myths.

[Brian]

Eric and Vic,

My point is simply that Melinda's argument was based on the fact that editor(s) of Fourth R believe the idea of the Jesus Myth to be an unserious one. I was simply pointing out that a direct and simple reading of the the editor's letter posted by Melinda does not support her argument.

Let me be clear. I believe that Jesus Christ was a historical person. I have not heard or read an argument that has persuaded me otherwise. To be quite honest, outside of academia, I'm not sure that most unbelievers think much about the matter. Their living issues have to do with evolution, the problem of evil, and the perceived hypocrisy within the church.

[Sam]

Brian, I can't say anything about the majority of people out there, but I have met people in real life who have been persuaded by Zeitgeist and Religilous that Jesus didn't actually exist.

[Chris]

It's been my experience that people who bought Zeitgeist are the kind of people whom no evidence could ever convince otherwise. Why? The a priori desire to believe. I say this because of the unwillingness, or if willing, the itterative skepticism toward any counter-argument. And yet Zeitgeist and "The God who wasn't there" gets basically unquestioning allegiance. That simply goes to show that for many the answer to Jesus is no before any examination is necessary. Romans 1

[Sam]

Chris, that's probably true for a lot of people. Whether Christian or non-Christian, people will jump on the bandwagon whenever some idea confirms what they already believe or want to believe. But there are exceptions. I got sucked up into the whole conspiracy theory genre in my early 20's, but abandoned it when I began learning some critical thinking skills. When you hear a lot of conspiracy theories, you start to notice patterns in how they reason. I sometimes recommend Zeitgeist to people who buy into the Christ myth theory because I think it illustrates a good point--that these Christ myth theories are no different than any other conspiracy theory and just as dubious. In fact, I would say more so since (at least in the case of Zeitgeist) some of the "extraordinary coincidences" appear to be completely made up. A good conspiracy theory will be a patched work of true facts, cherry picked of course, and arranged in such a way as to create a believable scenario.

[eric]

Chris,

I read several atheist and skeptic sources and listen to several podcasts/programs. I have read/heard Zeitgeist discussed multiple times in these sources, and not a single time was that discussion positive. I haven't seen the film, so I am relying on hearsay about the contents itself, but the impression I get, from atheist sources, is that the film is not well regarded.

I don't doubt there are places where it is seen differently, but I thought you might be encouraged to know that there is certainly not universal support for Zeitgeist among atheists and religious skeptics.

[Christopher]

"It's simply not the case that there is serious question among scholars that Jesus didn't exist."

This is a dangerous path you are treading, and a fallacious one at that. First of all, coming from most Christians this argument would be hypocritical -- after all, it's simply not the case that there is serious question among scholars that life does not evolve via natural selection. So if the basis of your argument is valid ("if there is no serious question among scholars on a topic then the truth must be as said majority of scholars believe") then you just put the nail in the coffin of intelligent design.

More likely, however, is that your argument is invalid. After all, at one time it simply was not the case that there was serious question among scholars that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth. "Scholars" are human, like the rest of us, and can be wrong -- how many of them agree or are debating a topic has nothing to do with the truth of that topic.

The moral of the story is that if you want to debate atheists (or anyone else, for that matter), it's a good idea to learn a little logic first.