Although I don’t think this accurately describes the situation, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that the evidence for the existence of Jesus, or the criteria for evaluating the evidence, is such that the question of Jesus’ existence cannot be answered one way or the other. The evidence is precisely balanced: he could well have existed, he may well have been invented. The question simply cannot be settled – his existence is possible and plausible, but neither probable nor improbable.
If that were the situation, how might we get out of this impasse? I’d like to suggest that mythicism itself may offer the solution. Over the course of more than a century, various mythicist scenarios have been put forward in order to make the case that Jesus was a figure invented from scratch, rather than a person around whom myths and legends arose and developed. I think that all historians and scholars with expertise in relevant fields who have examined the scenarios and arguments put forward by mythicists would agree that not one of them makes sense in the historical context and time frame in question, not one of them fails to engage in special pleading or unwarranted speculation, not one of them, in short, is plausible, and certainly not more plausible or historically and contextually fitting than mainstream historical conclusions which accept the existence of Jesus, however shrouded in myth he may have become.
In other words, even if we were to grant that the evidence is inconclusive, would the very fact that mainstream historiography can offer a plausible scenario that accounts for the rise of Christianity, while mythicism cannot, itself push the balance of probability in favor of Jesus having existed?
For those who think that the evidence itself favors Jesus’ existence, this may seem like a pointless thought experiment. But perhaps for those who are sitting on the fence, this post may have some relevance.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In