Just when you think the ‘Jesus Myth’ controversy couldn't
get any more surreal, out pops a paper from Stephen Law, a philosopher at theUniversity of London entitled “Evidence, miracles, and the existence of Jesus“
in which he concludes that the historical Jesus did not exist. He does this by laying out two principles – P1
that if you get a series of extraordinary claims (i.e miracle stories without
extraordinary evidence you have good reason to be skeptical and P2:
Where
testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims
with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason
to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to
be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent
evidence of their truth.
I'm a little confused with how this works as a foundational
principle for ancient history. For instance, of the Emperor Vespasian, the
Roman historian Tacitus writes:
Among the lower
classes at Alexandria was a blind man whom everybody knew as such. One day this
fellow threw himself at Vespasian's feet, imploring him with groans to heal his
blindness. He had been told to make this request by Serapis, the favourite god
of a nation much addicted to strange beliefs… A second petitioner, who suffered
from a withered hand, pleaded his case too, also on the advice of Serapis:
would Caesar tread upon him with the imperial foot? At first Vespasian laughed
at them and refused. When the two insisted, he hesitated. .. With a smiling
expression and surrounded by an expectant crowd of bystanders, he did what was
asked. Instantly the cripple recovered the use of his hand and the light of day
dawned again upon his blind companion. Both these incidents are still vouched
for by eye-witnesses, though there is now nothing to be gained by lying.
Does this mean we should deny the existence of Vespasian?
Should we also deny the existence of Augustus because (according to Suetonius)
he was sired by Apollo in the form of a snake. Now of course there is – by most
standards – good independent evidence for both these historical figures – but as
we have seen with the myther controversy, all of it can be dismissed as
interpolations using the same methodology. Many other figures from history have
miraculous occurrences sprinkled through our sources for them and could
similarly be dismissed as fabricated.
Law concludes:
‘Our two prima facie
plausible principles – P1 and P2 – combine with certain plausible empirical
claims to deliver a conclusion very few Biblical scholars are willing to accept….
4. (P2) Where
testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims
with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason
to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to
be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good
independent evidence of their truth.
5. The New Testament
documents weave together a narrative about Jesus that combines mundane claims
with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims.
6. There is no good
independent evidence for even the mundane claims about Jesus (such as that he
existed)
7. Therefore (from 3,
4, 5, and 6), there’s good reason to be sceptical about whether Jesus existed.
. . . So, our
empirical premises – 2, 5 and 6, – have some prima facie plausibility. I
suggest 2 and 5 have a great deal of plausibility, and 6 is at the very least
debatable’
I think at this stage I have to present my own set of
principles:
1) The Gavin Menzies principle – history and the methodology
of historical research should be the art of historians who are properly
qualified in their fields. Philosophers, English professors and retired
submarine commanders can popularise, but beyond that should STFU (especially if they are 'introducing a new paradigm') .
2) The Egregious Jargon principle – history should
remain free of the type of meaningless twaddle I have witness over the past few
weeks – this would include Bayes probability theorem, obscure Marxist terminology,
postmodern waffle, p’s q’s I’s brackets and other the other assorted excel
formulas that seem to be creeping in.
3)The James the Just principle – People that don't
exist don't tend to have flesh and blood brothers (whose existence is multiply
attested).
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum