The Jesus Dilemma

 

A propos Jesus and the Gospels...

If the choice is between secular historicism and mythicism, mythicism wins. There is no way the Gospels can be historically accurate if history is purely secular and non-supernatural. *Everything* in the Gospels (yes, everything) can be explained on a mythicist basis. The "plot" is crafted on the basis of Jewish Messianic expectations, Old Testament prophecies, Pauline theology, and pagan stories. Other material consist of free-standing teaching stories. Also, the notion of a man who spiritually transforms himself through "death" and "resurrection" must be one of the oldest archetypes in human history. 

However, on a secular historicist scenario, there are all kinds of weird plot holes and blanks that must be filled up...with speculation, nothing more. Yes, even the crucifixion can be given a mythicist explanation, and since *nothing* surrounding it makes any kind of shmucking sense, we are again forced to fill in the blanks with speculations. That´s really all the secular historicist has: speculation, speculation. Since nothing in the actual crucifixion story makes any sense, but Jesus simply *must* have been crucified, the historicist is forced to make shit up. Meanwhile, the story as it stands makes perfect sense as myth. For crying out loud, Jesus even quotes an Old Testament prophecy about a crucifixion while hanging on the cross!

So the prior probablity of mythicism is 100%, while that of secular historicism is...lower. And no, you really can´t use arguments such as "every religion needs a founder" (meaning *one* founder) or "criterion of embarassment", since the same can be said about Judaism. Yet, no secular historians think Moses was a real historical person, or that the very embarrasing things recorded in the OT must be true for that very reason (I mean, millions of people saw them happen, right? Well, no, wrong).

The Gospels can be real history only if history isn´t secular, only if the very texture of reality is ontologically very queer from a naturalist standpoint. In other words, the Gospels can be true only if Christianity is true - or at least potentially true, in a supernatural universe in which ancient prophecies can be fulfilled, gods can take human form, sacrificial deaths have soteriological and ontological significance, and dead men do rise. Now, I don´t happen to be a Christian, so obviously I have objections concerning the Gospels as sources for a supernatural reality. 

But the point is that Jesus didn´t give us the easy way out. We have to chose. Either he was the Son of God come in the flesh (or at the very least some other paranormal entity), or he was just a myth. He didn´t give us the "secular history" option.