Joe Hinman’s fifth argument for the existence of Jesus is presented in three sections:

5A. Historical Methods

5B. Big Web of Historicity

5C. Jesus Myth Theory Cannot Account for the Web

I will comment on, and raise objections to, points in each of these three sections, but this post will only cover part of the section on “Historical Methods”. Specifically, I will cover the five high-level principles of historical investigation proposed by Hinman in his discussion of “Historical Methods”.

5A. Hinman on Historical Methods: Five General Principles

Hinman advocates the following five general principles of historical investigation:

P1. The document, not the people, is the point.

P2. Supernatural content does not negate historic aspects.

P3. What people believed tells us things, even if we don’t believe it.

P4. Everyone is biased.

P5. The historicity of a single persona cannot be examined apart from the framework.

Hinman’s first principle of historical investigation is this:

P1. The document, not the people, is the point.

I don’t know what (P1) means, and Hinman’s discussion of this idea does not make it any clearer. Hinman’s discussion of (P1) makes a number of assertions that are interesting and worth thinking about, but I will comment on those more specific points in my next post on “Historical Methods”. I won’t criticize what I don’t understand, so Hinman needs to clarify this principle before I will attempt to evaluate it.

The second principle put forward by Hinman is a bit clearer:

P2. Supernatural content does not negate historic aspects.

A comment by Hinman provides further clarification of (P2):

Historians do not discount sources merely for supernatural contents. Even when they don’t believe the supernatural details, they don’t just deny everything the source says.

This is certainly a true point about how historians work, and I have no problem with the basic point. However, there are some qualifications that I would add to this principle.

First, the Gospels don’t just have a few “supernatural details”. They are filled with supernatural beings and events, from start to finish. Here are a few supernatural elements from the beginnings of two Gospels (Matthew and Luke):

An angel visits Mary to tell her that she will become pregnant by the power of God, not by the usual biological process of sexual reproduction (Luke 1:26-38).

Mary miraculously becomes pregnant without first having sex with a man (Matthew 1:18-25).

An angel appears to some shepherds near Bethlehem to announce the birth of the Messiah, when Jesus is born there (Luke 2:1-20).

A multitude of angels appear to the shepherds and praise God (Luke 2:1-20).

A star indicates to some wise men from the East that a great king has been born in Palestine (Matthew 2:1-12).

The same star miraculously guides the wise men to the specific house where Mary and the baby Jesus were staying (Matthew 2:1-12).

Joseph, the husband of Mary, has a dream in which an angel warns him to take Mary and the baby Jesus away from Palestine, and Joseph follows this warning thus saving the baby Jesus from being killed in a mass slaughter of infants in Bethlehem by king Herod. (Matthew 2:13-23).

We have at least seven supernatural events surrounding the birth of Jesus in just the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. After that the miracles and supernatural events just keep on coming: Jesus turns water into wine, Jesus heals the blind, the lame, and the deaf. Jesus raises dead people back to life. Jesus walks on water, calms a huge storm with a command, and feeds thousands of people with a few fishes and a few loaves of bread. Jesus is levitated to the top of the temple by the devil and argues with the devil. Jesus is transfigured and has a conversation with Moses and Elijah. Jesus reads people’s minds. Jesus miraculously causes huge collections of fish to congregate in the nets of his disciples. Jesus dies and then comes back to life less than 48 hours later. He then walks through a locked door, instantly vanishes from sight at will, and is able to levitate himself up into the sky.

The Gospels do not just contain a few “supernatural details”. They are filled with supernatural beings (angels and demons and spirits) and supernatural events (miraculous healings, resurrections, mind reading, and nature miracles like levitation, walking on water, and controlling the weather).

Second, the supernatural elements in the Gospels are often essential to the stories related in the Gospels. If we strip out all of the supernatural beings and events from the birth narratives, for example, there is not much left over. If 75% of the assertions in the birth narratives are fictional, then why believe the 25% that remains?

It is possible that the very minimal historical claim “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” could be true, but given the general unreliability of the birth narratives (due in part to their being filled with supernatural beings and events), this also casts doubt on the tiny bit of historical “information” that remains after stripping out all of the clearly fictional B.S. Given that Christians believed that the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and given that most of the other assertions in the birth narratives are historically dubious, we ought to be very skeptical about the claim “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” even though this claim does not, by itself, involve any supernatural elements. It might represent prophecy that was used to formulate “history”.

What remains of the story of Jesus at the wedding in Cana if we delete his miracle of turning water into wine? Not much: Jesus went to a wedding in Cana. What remains of the story of Jesus walking on water on the sea of Galilee if we remove the walking on water part? Not much: Jesus went in a boat with some of his disciples on the sea of Galilee. What remains of the transfiguration story if we remove the part about how Jesus began to shine like a bright light and if we remove the appearance of Moses and Elijah? Not much: Jesus prayed with some of his disciples on a mountain top. In a few stories the supernatural beings or events might be a detail that can be ignored, but in many cases the supernatural being or event plays an important role in the story, so that removing the supernatural element guts the story or seriously changes the meaning of the story or makes the story illogical and incoherent.

As David Friedrich Strauss argued long ago in The Life of Jesus, the attempt of skeptics to strip out all of the supernatural elements of the Gospels while still maintaining the basic historicity of the Gospel accounts makes no sense. It makes far more sense to admit that Gospels are filled with legends and myths and fictional stories, and that only a few bits and pieces here and there, at best, are factual and historical.

Third, the assertion of this principle borders on a STRAW MAN fallacy. There is the suggestion here that Jesus skeptics doubt the historicity of the Gospels ONLY because the Gospel stories contain supernatural elements. Skeptics do NOT doubt the historicity of the Gospels ONLY because of there are a few supernatural details in them, nor do skeptics doubt the historicity of the Gospels ONLY because the Gospels are filled with supernatural beings and events.

Take the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke for example. They include many supernatural elements, both supernatural beings (angels), and supernatural events (virgin birth, a star that guides people to a specific location). These supernatural elements are one reason for doubting the historicity of these stories, but there are other reasons as well. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke use Mark as a primary source of information about Jesus, but there is no birth story in Mark. When Matthew and Luke follow the narrative framework in Mark, they generally agree with each other, but when they provide birth stories, their stories contradict each other, indicating that when they depart from the information in Mark, at least one of the two Gospels provides a fictional birth story, and perhaps both birth stories are fictional.

There are also some historically improbable details in both accounts beyond the supernatural elements. The census in Luke is historically improbable for various reasons. The slaughter of the innocents story in Matthew is historically improbable. The relocation of the holy family to Egypt is historically improbable. The fact that both Matthew and Luke place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in accordance with an alleged messianic prophecy, casts doubt on the historicity of that key shared claim between the two birth stories.

So, the rejection of the birth stories as legends or myths is not based ONLY on the fact that these stories are filled with supernatural elements. There are other good reasons that point to the same conclusion. Similar reasoning applies to skepticism about other parts of the Gospels.

Hinman’s third principle of historical investigation is a bit vague:

P3. What people believed tells us things, even if we don’t believe it.

I’m not sure what Hinman is getting at here, but taken straightforwardly, this principle seems obviously correct. Using an historical document to determine what early Christians believed about God or Jesus “tells us things”, even if the historian rejects some or all of those beliefs. At the very least, this tells us what early Christians believed about God or Jesus!

This information about the beliefs of early Christians can also help historians to better analyze and evaluate particular Gospel stories and passages. If early Christians believed that Jesus lived a perfectly sinless life, then historians could anticipate and look for places where the Gospels of Matthew and Luke modify some story or passage from Mark in order to make Jesus appear to be sinless, and to the extent that historians do find such modifications of Mark by Matthew and Luke, this provides further evidence that early Christians believed Jesus was sinless and also provides evidence that Matthew and Luke alter information from their sources to make the story or quotation fit better with their theological beliefs or the theological beliefs of their early Christian readers.

One of the things that the Gospels tell us is that early Christians were gullible and superstitious, at least if we assume that early Christian believers read the Gospels literally. They believed in astrological signs, in angels, in demons, in demon possession, in the devil, in faith healing, in prophetic dreams, in levitation, in mind reading, in spirits of the dead, in raising the dead, in prophecy. They believed all of these things without demanding strong evidence for claims of such events; they believed such things on the basis of hearsay and testimonial evidence, on the basis of contradictory reports in the canonical Gospels, and without conducting serious skeptical investigations into the facts. This is an important fact about early Christians that we can learn from reading the Gospels. We can learn of the gullibility of early Christian believers even if we reject some or all of the beliefs that they formed in gullible and uncritical ways.

We can also learn that the early Christians were either not particularly good at logical and critical thinking or else were generally ignorant about the contents of the OT, because they were not skeptical about Jesus being a true prophet and the divine Son of God in spite of the various contradictions between Christian doctrines and the teachings of the Old Testament (e.g. OT: God rewards those who obey his commandments with wealth, health, peace and happiness in this life, but provides only a dark and miserable afterlife for good and evil people alike. NT: God allows people who have faith in him and Jesus to suffer poverty, disease, hunger, and persecution in this life, but will provide a life of eternal bliss to those people in the next life.)

That early Christians were not particularly good at logical and critical thinking is also supported by their acceptance of various logical contradictions within Christian theology (e.g. For God so loved the world that God planned to send most humans to suffer torture in hell for all eternity). Of course it is possible that a few early Christians were bothered by such contradictions, but not enough were bothered so that there would be apologetic points on these issues built into the Gospels (or the letters of Paul).

That early Christians were not particularly good at logical and critical thinking is also supported by their apparent acceptance of unclarity of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of Paul on central issues (e.g. “What must I do to be saved?” Protestants disagree with Catholics on the answer to this fundamental question, and Protestants disagree with each other on the answer to this fundamental question. These disagreements between various Christian denominations are the result of the unclarity and inconsistencies in the teachings of Jesus, in the teachings of Paul, and inconsistencies between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul.).

We can, however, also learn things that help the case for an historical Jesus. If the Gospels and other early Christian writings show that Christians viewed the crucifixion of Jesus as something that was very shameful, then that could provide evidence in support of the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. Why invent a story about the death of Jesus that is so shameful? I don’t necessarily accept this argument from embarassment, but it is an example of how knowledge about the beliefs of early Christians can be used in support of the historicity of Jesus or of a particular event in the life (or death) of Jesus.

The fourth principle that Hinman advocates is quite brief:

P4. Everyone is biased.

Based on Hinman’s discussion of (P4) and (P5) it appears that this principle is given in part as a reply to an objection about an alleged bias of scholars on the issue of the historicity of Jesus. Here are two plausible claims about NT scholars along such lines:

The vast majority of NT scholars have a significant bias in favor of the historicity of Jesus.

Most NT scholars have a strong bias in favor of the historicity of Jesus.

So, one question to keep in mind is whether (P4) provides a strong reply to such criticisms about NT scholars.

The principle (P4) is a bit vague and ambiguous. Here are a couple of different possible interpretations of (P4):

P4a. Everyone has a bias on some issue or other.

P4b. For any given theory, everyone is either biased in favor of the theory or biased against the theory.

Principle (P4a) is no doubt true, but it is insignificant and unhelpful in this context, because it leaves open the possibility that some people have a bias when it comes to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and other people do NOT have a bias on this issue. Because (P4a) leaves this possibility open, it does not help us any in dealing with this particular issue; it fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticisms about NT scholars.

Principle (P4b) on the other hand, would certainly be of some significance to the issue of the historicity of Jesus, but, alas, (P4b) is a very broad generalization that is clearly false. So, principle (P4b) is of no use, and fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticisms of NT scholars, because (P4b) is false.

We could try to rescue (P4b) by narrowing the scope to focus exclusively on the issue of the historicity of Jesus:

P4c. Everyone is either biased in favor of the historicity of Jesus or is biased against the historicity of Jesus.

But (P4c) is still somewhat dubious. The issue of the historicity of Jesus is more controversial than many other issues, but controversiality is based on the feelings and attitudes of people in general, and there are almost always exceptions to such general psychological phenomena. In other words, although most people have strong feelings about this issue, it seems fairly certain that there are at least a few people who don’t have strong feelings or opinions about the historicity of Jesus. So, in order to rescue the (P4c) in terms of truth, we would need to either qualify the degree of bias that is being asserted or revise the quantification in terms of the proportion of people in scope:

P4d. Everyone is either biased at least a tiny bit in favor of the historicity of Jesus or biased at least a tiny bit against the historicity of Jesus.

P4e. Most people are either significantly biased in favor of the historicity of Jesus or significantly biased against the historicity of Jesus.

These generalizations are at least plausible. However, (P4d) leaves open the possibility that some people (e.g. NT scholars) have a strong bias in favor of the historicity of Jesus, while other people (e.g. Jesus skeptics) have only a tiny bit of bias against the historicity of Jesus. This would clearly not help Hinman’s case for the existence of Jesus, and fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticsims about NT scholars.

Also, (P4e) leaves open the possibility that some people (e.g. NT scholars) have a strong bias in favor of the historicity of Jesus, while a few people (e.g. Jesus skeptics) have no significant bias on this issue. Again, this would not be of help for Hinman’s case, and fails to provide a strong reply to the criticisms of NT scholars.

I have considered a number of different possible interpretations of principle (P4). The principle is false or dubious on some of those interpretations, and on the interpretations where the principle is true or plausible, it is either insignificant and unhelpful or appears to be of no help to Hinman’s case, and fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticisms of NT scholars.

If Hinman wants to continue to advocate this principle, he needs to clarify it in terms of the quantification of the portion of people who are being characterized and he needs to clarify it in terms of the scope of issues to which it applies, and he needs to clarify it in terms of the degree of bias that is being alleged (because there is a big difference between a strong bias and a very tiny bit of bias). Principle (P4) cannot be rationally evaluated unless and until it is re-stated in a much clearer and more specific form.

As with (P4), the final principle is in need of clarification:

P5. The historicity of a single persona cannot be examined apart from the framework.

What matters in this context is whether this principle applies to (or is correct in terms of) the issue of the historicity of Jesus, so we can focus on this instantiation of (P5): ”

IP5. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be examined apart from the framework.

The term “the framework” is unclear and vague. However, based on Hinman’s discussion of this principle, this phrase appears to refer to the view or theory that Jesus existed, that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person. Given this understanding of “the framework”, the principle is still ambiguous. Here are two different possible interpretations:

IP5a. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be examined apart from assuming that Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person.

IP5b. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be examined apart from examining the issue of whether Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person.

Principle (IP5a) clearly involves circular reasoning. If one simply assumes that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person, then one begs the question of the historicity of Jesus. So, we must reject (IP5a) because it is an unreasonable and illogical principle.

Principle (IP5b), on the other hand, is completely and undeniably true. But it is true because it is a trivial and uninformative tautology. The question of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth just is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person. So, this principle is of no significant help or use (other than to clarify the question at issue for those who are ignorant or confused).

There is one other interpretation, which seems both plausible and significant:

IP5c. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be examined apart from treating this question as a question about which framework or theory among available alternatives best accounts for all of the available evidence (e.g. the theory that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person vs. the theory that Jesus was just a myth).

Because this interpretation is both plausible and significant, the Principle of Charity indicates that this is the best interpretation, at least of the possible interpretations considered so far.

I have no objection to (IP5c). However, it is obvious to any intelligent and informed Jesus skeptic that (IP5c) is true, and intelligent and informed Jesus skeptics usually think and argue in keeping with (IP5c). G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier all accept this principle and they all think and argue in keeping with this principle, at least most of the time. So, emphasis on this principle appears to me to be bordering on a STRAW MAN fallacy.

Jesus skeptics do NOT argue that because this or that Gospel story is historically problematic, therefore Jesus is just a myth. The case against the historicity of Jesus is much broader than that and deals with a wide range of evidence both from the NT and from external (non-biblical) historical sources. Emphasis of this principle is a way of suggesting that Jesus skeptics and Jesus mythicists are idiots who don’t think and argue in keeping with this principle, but that suggestion is false and slanderous. There are some stupid and unreasonable Jesus skeptics, but the major published Jesus skeptics accept (IP5c) and generally conform their thinking to this principle.