Introduction

This book aims to provide a philosophical analysis of one of the central ques- tions in Christian theology and history, which has not been thoroughly ad- dressed by philosophers before. Rather than use the tools of the New Testament specialist to determine whether or not Jesus existed, I aim to rigorously anal- yse, and judge the validity of, the methods employed by scholars addressing the question. This naturally leads into a consideration of the plausibility of Jesus’ ahis- toricity or non-existence, sometimes referred to as the Jesus Myth Theory.1 Most people are historicists. They assert that Jesus definitely existed. Draw- ing ire from believers and non-believers alike, I, and a few others, question the unquestionable, and am not so sure. We have been criticised by those of both camps for a number of reasons. One common criticism is that we are on the fringes of scholarship.2 That is irrelevant, and also untrue. It is irrelevant because the truth is not democratic; it is not determined by the consensus, scholarly or otherwise. While the consensus does matter, it can also be wrong, and can change, as proven by the history of progress, in various fields, includ- ing Biblical Studies:

My disappointment was due in large part to my inexperience. I had sup- posed that scholars were dedicated to the pursuit of truth, wherever that might lead, and that new ideas would always be welcome. This however is only partly true. Before new ideas come, scholars have reached a consensus, and their position as authorities depends upon their agreeing with that consensus. Their teachers, whom they normally honoured, had taught them the consensus; they had written their books assuming it, and they had often helped to develop it themselves. They were not at all likely, therefore, to think that they and their fellow experts had been wrong, and that a new scholar, of whom they had not heard, was in a position to put them right. But there is another problem: most scholars of the New Testament have religious loyalties: they want the text to be orthodox,

1 It is perhaps more popularly known as the Christ Myth Theory, which is a poor label, for several reasons. The most obvious being that secular scholars already see Christ as a ‘myth’. It is the existence of the Historical Jesus that we are questioning here. 2 Note that Robert Eisenman is undoubtedly a proper scholar, and employed, and yet his views are often very ‘fringe’. For example, see Robert H. Eisenman, The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ (London: Watkins Publishing, 2006).

2 Introduction

or historical, or preachable, or relevant. So any new interpretation which does not fulfil those conditions is not likely to be approved. I had to wait nearly twenty years for my vindication.3

It is worth noting that scientific consensus is usually determined by mounds of evidence; but this is not so for the consensus regarding Jesus. Rather obvi- ously, all views currently in vogue were initially fringe. That goes for all religions and scientific innovations as well. That also goes for Darwin’s theory of evolution, and heliocentricity.4 There are times when most experts are wrong. If the consensus was always right, and shouldn’t be overturned, it would seem very unlikely that we would make progress in our never-ending quest to find ‘the truth’ – and women still wouldn’t be able to vote! Our Enlightenment val- ues necessitate questioning the consensus, challenging the perceived wisdom, speaking truth to power, even if progress is difficult and slow; otherwise we end up in the pre-Enlightenment ‘dark ages’ where authoritarian religions/ ideologies with unquestionable doctrines rule supreme. Pushing the bound- aries of our knowledge by challenging the consensus is arguably the noblest pursuit of the academic, even the very reason for her being. Note also that Old Testament minimalism – the view that the Old Testa- ment has little to no historical value – was at one time extremely unpopular as well, though it is now quite mainstream. The same may happen with the New Testament minimalism that I, and my ‘hyper-sceptical’ colleagues, endorse. If it is now reasonable to think of Abraham and Moses (who allegedly spoke with God and performed miracles) as purely fictional characters in greatly exagger- ated stories designed to highlight the importance of the Jewish people, then it may one day be considered reasonable by most to think that Jesus (who also spoke with God and performed miracles) is similarly fictional.5 To be clear, I am not a mythicist per se.6 I do not assert that Jesus did not exist. I am a Historical Jesus agnostic. That is, I am unconvinced by the case for

3 Michael D. Goulder, Five Stones and a Sling: Memoirs of a Biblical Scholar (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), p. 28. Note also that historical revisionism is not new, and should not necessarily be viewed in a pejorative manner. For example, many historians now replace ‘the Dark Ages’ with ‘the so-called Dark Ages’, and mainstream scholarly views over claims in the Old Testament have changed drastically over the past few centuries. 4 To relate the latter to the current conundrum, consider the following response to your claim- ing that the methods and assumptions of geocentrists (those who think that the Sun revolves around the Earth) are fallacious: “Well 99.9% of geocentrists think you’re wrong!” 5 We shall avoid the temptation to fallaciously conclude that if Jesus’ ancestors didn’t exist, then he didn’t either. Fabricated genealogies would not necessarily be conclusive. They are also featured in numerous religious traditions. 6 A person who endorses mythicism, the view that Jesus did not exist. So that we can avoid superfluous accusations about mythicists not understanding what ‘myth’ means, let us be