Lataster and McGrath debate Mythicism

THE BIBLE AND INTERPRETATION has recently published two essays on "Mythicism" — the idea that Jesus did not exist as an historical person. Raphael Lataster argues for agnosticism on the question:

Questioning Jesus’ Historicity

As a secular scholar, I, of course, reject hypotheses involving the Christ of Faith. Critical scholars can only reasonably debate the existence of the so-called Historical Jesus, that figure of the Gospels stripped of all divinity. Most secular scholars of the New Testament believe that this figure certainly existed. I noticed that this is an assumption, however, later finding it to be an unjustified assumption.

See Also: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019).

By Raphael Lataster
University of Sydney
August 2019

I noted his recent book here.

James McGrath replies and disagrees:

Exorcising Mythicism’s Sky-Demons: A Response to Raphael Lataster’s “Questioning Jesus’ Historicity.”

Historians do not depend on the Gospels, much less hypothetical sources behind them, for their conclusion that there was a historical Jesus. The letters of Paul, written within decades of Jesus’ life by someone who had met his brother, combined not only with the Gospels but also Roman and Jewish sources, together provide a convincing impression that the religious phenomenon known as Christianity owes something to a historical figure named Jesus whose detractors viewed him as a charlatan and/or heretic.

See: Questioning Jesus’ Historicity.
Mythicism and the Mainstream: The Rhetoric and Realities of Academic Freedom.

By James F. McGrath
Butler University
August 2019

I think McGrath gets the better of the debate here, but you can read the essays and decide for yourself. For my own views about the historical Jesus, see here and links and here.

Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.