Robert Price is a scholar of religion who has argued that the historicity of Jesus is doubtful and should be reconsidered in the light of historical, literary, and archaeological evidence. This is naturally not a popular position among Christians, but dishonest and vituperative attacks made on him are disappointing.

According to Richard Ostling, a widely reprinted religion journalist:

Reviewing Mel Gibson’s “Passion” film, committee senior researcher Joe Nickell asserts: “Historically, apart from later Christian sources, there is virtually no evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion — or even his very existence.” Perhaps Skeptical Inquirer needs to be more skeptical about its skepticism.

Ostling goes on to cite a number of pieces of “evidence” for Jesus which have been criticized, but Ostling cites them as if there were no criticisms. This is dishonest and unprofessional.

Robert Price writes in the September/October issue of Skeptical Inquirer a response to criticisms his work has received from Ostling:

I realize that popular media are committed to reinforcing popular conceptions of religion, just as they give the benefit of the doubt to popular beliefs in the paranormal. In both cases, they know where their bread is buttered. It is like the game show Family Feud: the “right” answer is not the factually correct one but rather the one that matches the opinion or belief of most people surveyed.

In the present instance, one feels that Ostling is similarly playing to the crowd. “Experts” in the field are said to dismiss the Christ Myth theory with derision. In fact, for Ostling, that is precisely what makes them experts. He has plainly not read a line of my books, one of which he mentions in order to ridicule it, or he would know the debate is much more complex. He might have noticed that a major part of my argument is to show how the critical methods of all New Testament “experts” have far more radical implications than most of their practitioners seem to realize. But Ostling is inclined to judge a book by its cover and not by its content.

What argument Ostling presents is either circular or not to the point. He takes it as simple common sense that the memory of Jesus could not have been distorted so badly within a mere twenty years (given the date of the Pauline Epistles according to the “experts” Ostling accepts). One might offer as counterevidence the astonishing fact that, just fifty years after World War II, half of American young adults do not know whom their country fought in that war!

Ostling is not knowledgeable about the criticisms made for this historicity of Jesus. Ostling is not knowledgeable about the way memory and history can be distorted in a short period of time. Apparently, Ostling isn’t even very knowledgeable about some of the most recent critical scholarship on the New Testament. Yet, Ostling feels sufficiently knowledgeable to attack critics like Robert Price.

If his complete ignorance on this issue isn’t enough for him to hold back on forming an opinion, what does this say on all his other opinion pieces that he writes? He exhorts the Skeptical Inquirer to be more skeptical of it’s skepticism, but what does he really know about being skeptical? Did he ever stop to exercise some skepticism and critical thinking on his assumptions about Jesus and the origins of Christianity? How skeptical is he about other cherished religious assumptions he employs when he writes? Just how much can his reporting be trusted?

 

Quick Poll: Did Jesus really exist?

1. Yes, just as portrayed in the gospels
2. Yes, but the gospels are full of myths that grew up around some original figure - who knows what he was really like?
3. Maybe, maybe not. It's possible, but not definite and there's no way to know for sure
4. Definitely not - the gospels are a collection of fictional tales
5. I don't care - it's not that important

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More:

• Critical Thinking
• Religion 101
• Theism 101