The issue is not \u201cproof\u201d or \u201claws\u201d but arguing probability based on available evidence.<\/p>\n
Likewise with the principle or criterion that early material is more likely to be authentic than later material. Some mythicists seem to have misunderstood this to mean \u201cIf Paul doesn\u2019t mention it, it isn\u2019t historical.\u201d How a principle could be so badly misunderstood is difficult to comprehend. Be that as it may, this principle doesn\u2019t deny that later texts may contain authentic material and that earlier texts may contain things that were invented. Both seem quite obviously to be true, and not only in Biblical studies. The point is simply that, given the tendency of legends to appear, grow and develop, all other things being equal, earlier sources are more likely to preserve a more original form and material which was more faithfully-transmitted than later sources are.<\/p>\n
This last point is of course complicated by the fact that a relatively late source may have used a very early source that is no longer extant, and thus provide much authentic material even in spite of its late date. This is why historical-critical investigations also look for signs that earlier sources have been used (one famous example being the sayings source known as \u201cQ\u201d which is thought to have been used by Matthew and Luke and to account for the material they share in common which they did not derive from Mark).<\/p>\n
There are many other\u00a0\u201ccriteria of authenticity\u201d which have been developed, discussed, disputed, and utilized in sifting through the earliest sources about Jesus, which I have not mentioned here. Information about them, detailing their strengths and\u00a0weaknesses,\u00a0can be found in most volumes on the historical study of Jesus. Historians and scholars are well aware that all the criteria have issues and problems, and none of them is infallible.<\/p>\n
The point that seems to keep getting missed by mythicists is that historical study is about probabilities. Mythicists\u00a0who\u00a0understand historical study will not be under the illusion that they can\u00a0show that the mainstream view that there was a historical Jesus is wrong without any shadow of a doubt. This is not because historians are stubborn, but rather because historians understand what historical critical tools are and are not capable of. Such absolute certainties, whether positive or negative, are not the stuff that ancient history deals in, for the most part. <\/p>\n
What mythicists can<\/em> hope to do \u2013 and what they must<\/em> do if they want to be taken seriously\u00a0\u2013 is show why the improbable claims they make, such as that Christians invented material that reflected poorly on them, should nonetheless be accepted as more likely to reflect what actually happened. Thus far, in my experience relatively few mythicists seem to be aware that they need to offer such arguments, much less have formulated them.<\/p>\n Recent discussions of mythicism here and elsewhere have shown a lack of understanding of the basic principles of historical study, including the so-called \u201ccriteria of authenticity\u201d that scholars have developed as tools for sifting through the evidence. The criteria in question are not \u201crules\u201d which, when applied to texts, guarantee that material is historical with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-5053430261432329517?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")