This afternoon I listened to an interview with some scientists and one vital message came through. Scientists are the biggest sceptics of the lot. A good scientist is always trying to disprove his own hypothesis or results. He wants to be the one to disprove his own thesis rather than having the embarrassment of someone else doing it. A story was told of an astronomer who gave a public lecture before hundreds of his peers explaining not how he had discovered planets around other suns but all the mistakes that led him to realize he had discovered nothing: he was given a standing ovation.
Interviewer: I don’t know if many theologians do that.
I have never heard a scientist warn a layperson against being “too sceptical” though I have heard the warning often from theologian-historians.
One would think that theologians who describe themselves as “critical historians” would welcome certain challenges from mythicism as an opportunity to attempt to disprove their own models. That’s what good scientists seek to do.
It’s one reason I have several times now said that I am not “a mythicist” in the sense that I am interested in defending or proving mythicism as “a plain fact” or as “the right” interpretation. That would make me a polemicist simply because I would be forced to cherry pick facts and arguments to support my case rather than engage in a serious open-ended investigation.
If I had time to do the research as extensively as I would like I may well then be in a position argue a case of my own, having examined and tested (and investigated ways to disprove) it. Till then, it is all too easy to fend off theologian arguments against mythicism simply because it is clear most of them have not taken time to seriously explore the weaknesses of their own position or the strengths of the mythicist one.
It’s so easy to establish the historicity of so many ancient and medieval figures. Literary evidence is as strong as you ever need when it is tested against independent witnesses of valid provenance and nature. It is also easy to assume the historicity of some for whom there is no real evidence, but I don’t know of a single case where that matters — except for the case of Jesus.
Theologians have on the whole resisted the challenge of mythicism. Mythicism is in sore need of serious challenges itself.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- The Two Witnesses in Revelation 11: the theories - 2022-06-24 21:19:47 GMT+0000
- Revelation 12: The Woman, the Child, the Dragon – Wellhausen’s view - 2022-06-22 10:37:43 GMT+0000
- Measuring the Temple in Revelation 11 – the Questions Arising - 2022-06-20 22:36:35 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!