Biblical accuracy

“Mythicism” Revisited

Every Easter season, we are inundated with the inevitable litany of TV shows, blog posts, and newspaper and magazine articles attempting to debunk or deny the resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

And every year, there is one particular rather ridiculous idea that crops up and just frustrates me no end that anyone can seriously repeat, much less profess to actually believe.

But, once again, the trope that not only are the Gospel accounts of the life of the Christ not historically accurate, but that Jesus never even existed is being trumpeted all over the internet and in print as well.

The reason it frustrates me so much is because not only has the idea that Jesus never existed been definitively refuted, but even among atheist circles, it is considered a ‘fringe’ argument because the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed is so compelling.

But first, let’s take a look at the “the story of Jesus is nothing more that previous mythology and folktales repackaged to appeal to a first century audience” argument. This argument proposes that the Apostles and their followers took nativity stories from Horus, Mithras, and other pagan deities and created a Messianic figure for personal fame and fortune.

I have three objections to this argument. First, the primary audience of the Apostles were the Jews. Jewish culture and religious teachings both were passionately opposed to entertaining ANY foreign religious mythology; it not only was expressly forbidden by their sacred texts, but was scrupulously shunned as the main reason for their enslavement at the hands of pagan governments in the first place. No Jew would expect anything resembling pagan God myths to be accepted by either the leadership or the populace. The best they could hope for would be utter rejection.

Second, the argument both ignores the many and significant differences between the Gospel accounts and the pagan myths that they supposedly borrowed from AND asserts that if there is any similarity between a fictional (or mythological) account and a later narrative presented as history, the latter story must also be false.

By that line of reasoning, it can be demonstrated that the wreck of the Titanic never happened: Fourteen years before the maiden voyage of the Titanic, Morgan Robertson wrote a novel in which a ship named the Titan sank in North Atlantic in the month of April. This fictional ship was similar in size to the Titanic, was traveling at the same speed, there were not enough lifeboats for the number of passengers aboard, the ship struck an iceberg, and more than half of the passengers and crew died. Since this was written before the wreck of the Titanic and there are so many similarities between the events related the only reasonable conclusion is that the wreck of the Titanic is nothing more than a well-told retelling of the previous story. Absurd, isn’t it? So is this line of reasoning when applied to the Gospels.

Third, the entire Roman empire would have to be populated by unthinking morons for the apostles to be able to pull of inventing a mythical, nonexistent man and then write and preach about him and his exploits and getting anyone over the age of 6 to believe them.

They were writing while hundreds of eyewitnesses to the events (or lack of them) had happened! While there are non-Biblical documents referencing Jesus from the first century, NONE of them deny that he existed.

Try this as an exercise if you think the argument holds water: Walk into a church, synagogue, bar with regular customers, local grocery store, or any other place with a large number of people who regularly go there. Now, tell them the story of how Christopher Bloomenpuddle walked into that establishment last Sunday at 12:30 and turned a glass of water into beer, healed Jim Smith of Parkinson’s disease, and then proceeded to give away 150 ice cream sandwiches that he pulled out of his back pocket.

How long do you think it will be before the people who actually were present at that location at that time will refute your story?

Anyway, happy Easter – Jesus DID exist, and He is risen indeed!


Here are some interesting links related to this topic:

A Wikipedia article summarizing the Robertson novel and the similarities between it and the Titanic

This article by Robert and Marilyn Stewart starts out with a concise definition of Mythicism, and then outlines a brief history of the belief and gives refutations of it from many sources.

This is probably the only time you’ll ever see me quote a Reddit thread here, but this one is too good to miss: A parody (I hope) of the Mythicist position “proving” that Abraham Lincoln never existed!

Is History Written By Those Who Believe Their Writings Reliable?

Recently, I was surprised by an assertion that I had read about, but had not given much thought to since I’d never heard it before in personal conversation. After some inquiry, I found out that it is becoming a popular objection to the trustworthiness of the Gospel records.

The main premise of the argument is this: The New Testament accounts are unreliable simply because the authors of the books were followers of Jesus, and because of that were prone to exaggeration and fabrication.

Now, the person who presented this to me was quite convinced that this was not only a valid argument, but a powerful one as well. After all, if you can’t trust the authors to be accurate, you can’t reasonably believe what they write to be true. Therefore, the argument goes, Christianity cannot be true.

By the strict rules of logic, this argument is valid, but only if the premise is true. Show that to be false, and the conclusion becomes not only irrelevant but rather silly.

The premise (the text is unreliable because the authors believed the unique claims about the subject) is obviously false once you apply it to other works of nonfiction. If it is true, it is also true that all of the following are unreliable simply because the authors believed the facts presented are true:

* All history texts, both modern and ancient
* Any published scientific texts
* Any owner or service manual for a mechanical device
* All biographies
*Any courtroom testimony

… and the list goes on. My point is that just because the presenter of an implausible fact or historical event believes it to be true, it does not follow as a necessity that what he is relating is untrue. So, with the premise being shown false, the argument falls apart.

But the logical fallacy is not the only problem with this argument. It presupposes that the Gospel writers were purposely making up their writings in order to deceive people into believing that Jesus is the Christ when in fact he was not.

I’ve dealt with that idea before here and here if you want more detail and many resource links. Briefly, it is highly unlikely that the writers could have gotten away with it if that was their goal – there were scores (if not hundreds) of witness to the activities of Jesus alive at the time of publication who could easily refute their claims. The only Gospel account that is disputed by any available contemporary writings is the resurrection of Christ, and those few texts offer no evidence other than speculation to support the allegation. No body was ever found or said to have been found by contemporary writers.

It should also be noted that three of the Gospel writers did not start out as ‘true believers’, and not enough is known about Mark to be able to tell when he became a follower of the Christ. Two of the authors (Matthew and John) were disciples of Jesus, but even they admit that it wasn’t until after the resurrection that they realized that He was God. Luke was an historian (and probably a doctor); according to the introduction to the Gospel he wrote, his intent in writing it was to provide an orderly and factual account of the Christ. That many archaeological finds and ancient text corroborate formerly disputed passages and none have contradicted him is testimony to the truth of Luke’s Gospel.

So, because the Gospel accounts agree with known history on every point in which they can be verified AND there are no contemporary historical accounts that give any verified evidence to contradict them, the argument that the Gospels are untrustworthy because the authors believed that Jesus was the Christ falls apart on historical as well as logical grounds.

In part 1, I started a point-by-point rebuttal of Kurt Eichenwald’s Newsweek article entitled The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin. I dealt with his misunderstanding of both the transmission and translation of the Biblical text, and I’ll start out part 2 with his rather lengthy assertion that many of the core doctrines of the faith are not found in the Bible.

Eichenwald starts out this section of his article by stating that both the deity of the Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are not found in the Bible. He does so by postulating that the passages identifying Jesus as God are all mistranslated, and that since there is no verse explicitly stating, “God is a Triune God” or “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all the same” that therefore the Trinity is non-Biblical.

Eichenwald once again makes another basic common to the majority of skeptics pontificating in the popular press. He ignores both context and reason. Continue reading

Newsweek Does it Again

It seems that at least once a year, the editors of Newsweek feel compelled to publish yet another arrogant, condescending, misinformed, and poorly researched article proclaiming to the world that those idiotic Christians are all wrong.

Last year was no exception. The latest, written by Kurt Eichenwald, was published on Dec. 23rd and is a prime example of the kind of anti-Christian arguments found spewed throughout the popular press and across the internet. You can read it here. I’m not nearly as upset over the arguments as I am about the attitude with which they are presented. Mr. Eichenwald presents his “The Bible : So Misunderstood it’s a Sin” article with the apparent expertise of a high school student who has just watched a Hogan’s Heroes marathon and on the basis of what he has learned from the series can confidently lecture any and all about how the history texts are all wrong about WWII.

In this post, I’ll start a point by point analysis of his screed, and show how sloppy both the research and the thinking of the modern pop-culture pundits really are. Continue reading