Explaining Mythicist Sleight of Hand

Last updated on: April 26, 2011 at 8:49 am by James F. McGrath

Explaining Mythicist Sleight of Hand 2011-04-26T08:49:00-04:00 James F. McGrath

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Magic tricks are fun, and having had the privilege of knowing a magician or two, I’ve also had the occasional trick explained to me. For some, knowing how any trick works seems to “spoil the magic,” but from my perspective, understanding how some tricks work only tells you what you should have known already – that you are being deceived. When you realize how that is being accomplished, I find that you appreciate the magician who can do it successfully even more.

I’d like to explain how one of mythicism’s classic tricks works. I’m sure that some mythicists, like many magicians, would prefer that the illusion not be ruined, and so if you’d rather enjoy the illusion of mythicism rather than know how it works beneath the level of appearances, stop reading now.

In a recent guest post on Neil Godfrey’s blog, Earl Doherty claimed that there is “a subtle piece of question-begging going on” when mainstream scholars argue that it is less likely that a crucified Davidic Messiah was invented from scratch, and more likely that Christianity interpreted an actual historical person who was crucified as somehow nonetheless being the Davidic Messiah.

Watch carefully. Here’s what Doherty goes on to write:

The latter alternative is only more likely if indeed such a man existed. One cannot assume he did so, or adopt as an axiom that the Gospels represent the story of a real man, and then on that basis declare the latter alternative as more likely. The question is: does the evidence in the record as a whole indicate that such a man did live and that the Gospels are meant to be history? Mythicism makes the case that both answers are “No.” One cannot appeal to the Gospels as history to prove that the Gospels and their central character are history.

Did you spot when the goal post was moved? If not, then the sleight of hand was effective.

Watch how this trick is done in slow motion.

First, question-begging, for those unfamiliar with the term, is basically a way of denoting circular reasoning: the argument for X in fact presupposes X to be true. This is a not-uncommon claim that mythicists make, in particular in the following form: that one only concludes that the Gospels and other sources are about a real historical figure if one presupposes that they are about a real historical figure. If you don’t read the text assuming that a character is historical, then you not only won’t conclude that he is historical, you won’t be able to draw that conclusion.

So where does the question-begging or circular reasoning occur in mainstream scholarly treatment of these sources? It doesn’t. In fact, mythicists presume that reasoning from texts to decisions about historicity is not circular, until the discussion gets to material that makes a historical Jesus seem likely.

What they do is readily discuss the letters of Paul as though it is possible to determine from them whether Paul and the movement he was a part of thought Jesus was a real person. What they hope you will not notice up their sleeve is this: In your average letter, written to someone you know or who can safely be assumed to share important major assumptions with you, you are incredibly unlikely to emphasize that a person you refer to actually existed. But in the case of mythicism, the lack of repeated clear statements of Jesus’ status as a historical figure is highlighted as though it were evidence for mythicism, and no mention is made of the fact that this could simply represent a failure to state the obvious.

Reading any letters in this way, one could draw all sorts of highly improbable conclusions. It would receive nothing but derision in any field of historical study if someone, purporting to be making a historical argument, said “When the author says that person X spoke to him, it might be a reference to a dream or vision, since the author nowhere explicitly states that person X was made of flesh and blood and spoke to him audibly in his presence with eyewitnesses present.” It isn’t an argument, just an observation of typical characteristics of letters, interpreted in a bizarre way as though they were proof of something.

And one suspects that if Paul did emphasize Jesus’ existence, this would be taken as proof that Jesus’ existence was in doubt, since why else would he have needed to emphasize it?

Heads I win, tails you lose.

But apparently discussing those textual sources, the letters from which mythicists feel they can make their case due to these characteristics, is not inappropriate or question-begging. What is allegedly inappropriate is treating texts which are from only decades later, from the same movement, but which clearly envisage a historical Jesus, as though texts can provide historical evidence.

The goal post has moved. Did you see it this time?

If texts cannot provide a basis for drawing conclusions about the historicity of a figure they mention, then there was no need for any of this discussion of details of Paul’s letters that mythicists engage in without objection. But if mythicists in fact stated that outright, they would (1) end the conversation too early, (2) leave the question of the historicity of Jesus as simply unanswerable, whereas they want to answer it in the negative, and (3) risk giving the impression that they are not in fact giving the data its due attention. And so they only bring in the alleged circularity of arguing from a text about the historicity of a figure mentioned in them late in the game – they move the goal post only once you’ve kicked the ball and it is headed towards it.

Mythicists are good at what they do. Just as magicians can convince people that they have supernatural powers through sleight of hand, mythicists manage to persuade people that they are actually discussing evidence in a serious manner using historical methods. There are other equally impressive tricks they use, but hopefully in illustrating this one, you will be ready to appreciate the illusion, and appreciate the tricks as tricks, not as scholarship.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 25, 2011

Mythicism's Best Answers?

Next Post

April 26, 2011 Mythicism Meets Mandaism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Samuel 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Corinthians 2 Kings 2 Peter 2 Samuel 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy academia Acts of the Apostles afterlife Akhaten Alcatraz American Academy of Religion Amos Anglican Arabic Aramaic archaeology art artificial intelligence astronomy atheism atonement Babylon 5 Baptists Battlestar Galactica Bible Biblical Studies Carnival biblioblogging Black Mirror Blade Runner Book of Job book review Buddhism Call for Papers China Christianity Christmas Christology Chronicles Coptic creation Daniel Deuteronomy Doctor Who Dune Easter Ecclesiastes economics education Eldad Keynan Enoch Seminar Ephesians eschatology Esther Evangelicals evolution Exodus Expanse Ezekiel Ezra fantasy Fringe fundamentalism Galatians games Ge'ez genealogy Genesis Gnosticism Gospel of Jesus' Wife Gospel of John Gospel of Judas Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Greek Harry Potter Hebrew Hebrews Hinduism historical Jesus history Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Holidays horror Hosea humor incarnation India inerrancy information literacy inspirational Intelligent Design Ireland Isaiah Islam Israel Italy James Jeremiah John the Baptist Jonah Joshua Judaism Jude Judges Judith Lamentations languages Latin Leviticus libraries literature Lord of the Rings LOST Mandaeans Mandaic memes Methodism Micah monotheism morality Mormons movies music mythicism NASSCAL Nehemiah new perspective New Testament news Numbers Orthodox paganism panentheism pantheism Patheos Paul and his letters Pentecostals Philippians Philippians 2:6-11 philosophy physics Planet of the Apes podcast politics Progressive Christianity Protestantism Proverbs Psalms pseudoscience racism religion Revelation Roman Catholicism Romania Romans Ruth scams science science fiction Secret Gospel of Mark Society of Biblical Literature Song of Songs Star Trek Star Wars Stargate Swahili Syriac Taoism technology Terminator The Handmaid's Tale The Hobbit The Matrix theodicy theology theory Timeless Titus tomb Torchwood travel TRON Uncategorized United Kingdom Westworld X-Files young-earth creationism Zechariah

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 February 2007 January 2001

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz