The Children of Wisdom
A
few days ago fellow Cadre contributor Joe Hinman took apart an argument common
among Jesus mythicists: that if Jesus existed, the first century Jewish philosopher
Philo probably would have mentioned him, and because Philo did not in fact
mention him, it follows that Jesus probably did not exist.[1]
Joe rightly contends that the mythicist appeal to Philo is, like so many others
of its kind, little more than a (weak) argument from silence. In a comment on
Joe's post I pointed out that Jesus didn't mention Philo either, in which case
perhaps Philo didn't exist. It turns
out that if we were to apply mythicist reasoning consistently we would have no
history at all – since no events or personalities are mentioned by everyone else.
Because
it leans so heavily on a methodological double standard, Jesus mythicism apparently
cannot be falsified. So, for the Roman historian Tacitus to mention Jesus in
passing suggests merely "hearsay"; but full-blown biographies of
Christ outlining his ministry, teachings and travels, complete with detailed birth
and death accounts – i.e., the Gospels – indicate excessive "theological
bias." As I said some time ago concerning mythicist treatments of the
famous passages by Josephus: "An incidental reference to Jesus as the
brother of James is not enough evidence to 'prove' anything; but at the same
time a detailed elaboration of just what it meant for Christians to understand
Jesus as the one 'who was called Christ' (i.e., what made Jesus worthy of
mention historically) is somehow saying too
much."[2] In other words there appears to be no
form of evidence for historicity, even in principle, which a mythicist could
not manage to construe in purely mythic terms.
A similar
kind of duplicity abounds not only in the area of Jesus mythicism but in hypercriticism
of the Bible and of Christianity generally. This is demonstrated vividly, if
routinely, in the field of Near Eastern archaeology. The operating assumption
among professional archaeologists almost seems to be that the biblical
narratives must be presumed false until proven true. These accounts are only
accepted (and then with great caution) when "confirmed" via the
witness of a nonbiblical account. The historicity of kings, peoples, places and
events mentioned in the Scriptures therefore requires external, extrabiblical
support to find acceptance. So if the Bible tells the stories of kings like
David and peoples like the Hittites in great detail, then the stories have to be
doubted, even if the origin of Israel as a nation cannot be reasonably explained
without them. When both David[3]
and the Hittites[4]
are eventually found mentioned in nonbiblical sources, then and only then is
the biblical record confirmed – because nonbiblical sources are not subject to the
excessive skepticism and scrutiny reserved for the Scriptures.
Or consider
skepticism itself. One would think that professing skeptics would be
sympathetic to the considered and conscientious doubts of others. But too often
it seems as if the beliefs of skeptics themselves are not to be questioned. I've
been told that questioning the doctrine of common ancestry, for example, or whether there is a
viable mechanism for macroevolution, cannot be founded in honest
inquiry or informed skepticism, but only in a simplistic "personal
incredulity" or "science denialism" that refuses to accept the
so-called "mountain of evidence" for grand-scale evolutionary theory.
This is not the language of intellectualism (let alone skepticism) but of
propaganda. For a person who finds a theory incredible, personal incredulity is
perfectly rational. And whatever is supposed
to be meant by science denialism, it can only mean denial of the very institution
of science. After all, individual scientific theories in principle are always potentially subject to revision
and replacement, if not outright falsification.
Some people
ultimately will never be satisfied. What may have begun as honest skepticism eventually
becomes a way of life to which they are ironically, wholeheartedly committed.
Christians often hear skeptics assert that they have "grown out" of
their belief in God, just like they grew out of their belief in Santa Claus. But
it may be that they have some growing up of their own to do. Jesus suggested
that insatiable skeptics are "like children sitting in the marketplaces
and calling to their companions,
'We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
We mourned to you,
And you did not lament'" (Mt.
11:16-17).
The picture
resembles something like a bunch of bored kids looking for something to do on a
Saturday afternoon. A few of them try to start up a game, but the others appear
sullen and disinterested. So the first group tries to console them instead –
but they don't want that either. In fact they don't know what they want. They
only know what they don't want. Thus Jesus
continues,
"For
John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a
demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton
and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!" (Mt. 11:18-19).
"But,"
he adds, "wisdom is justified by her children" (v. 19). Other
translations have "her deeds," or "her offspring." This
calls to mind the warning of Jesus concerning false prophets: "You will
know them by their fruits" (Mt. 7:16). The idea here, I suggest, is that
skepticism and criticism will fail in the crucible of life, and certainly in
the afterlife. This only makes sense, given that doubt leaves one with literally
nothing in which to hope or trust. At this point I would remind my skeptical philosopher
friends that philosophy means not rationalism,
skepticism or empiricism, but "love of wisdom." And wisdom begins not with doubt, but with
the fear of God.
[1] Joe Hinman,
"Contra Jesus mytherism; answering the Philo argument,"
[2] Don McIntosh,
"Myth-Managing History: A Reply to Aron-Ra," http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/01/myth-managing-history-reply-to-aron-ra.html.
[3] See "The Tel Dan Inscription: The
First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible," Bible History Daily, http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/
[4] See Joshua J. Mark,
"The Hittites," Ancient History
Encyclopedia (April 28, 2011),
http://www.ancient.eu/hittite/.
http://www.ancient.eu/hittite/.
Comments