Philo Sofee wrote:Plutarch's story of Romulus (which incidentally provides a near flawless skeleton outline to the story of Jesus, hence the real possibility it's just a story) is in the same boat. Just because it's in print means nothing about what it is, or what it means, or whether its real or not. There is just too much we can never know about this Jesus character.
OK, Philo Sofee, I can't let this slip past. First, let me reiterate that I like you, respect your openness, and also have a positive interest in the mythicist perspective. That said, what you have written above is characteristic of the historical confusion I too often see among those who are interested in the historical Jesus (existent or not). Do you recall when a prominent LDS apologist told his readers that there was as much historical evidence for Jesus as there was for Alexander the Great?
Well, he was wrong. And a number of us, especially Mr. Stak, have pointed out just how spectacularly wrong he was. There is, after all, a mountain of evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, which includes autopsy accounts of his life as preserved in later authors. I believe Jesus existed, but I don't view the evidence for his existence to be anything close to the quality or quantity of evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great; I don't care how many times Christian and Mormon apologists trot out this completely daft comparison.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have people, usually mythicists, assuming that all ancient thinkers did not know the difference between an account of Heracles and an account of Pericles, or the difference between a biography of Romulus and one of Julius Caesar. While I can't speak for every last ancient author out there, we have very good reason to believe that they did understand the difference between such figures. Take, for example, this passage from the preface of Livy's
From the Founding of the City (History of Rome), first century BC:
The traditions of what happened prior to the foundation of the City or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood. This much license is conceded to the ancients, that by intermingling human actions with divine they may confer a more august dignity on the origins of states. Now, if any nation ought to be allowed to claim a sacred origin and point back to a divine paternity that nation is Rome.
In the poetic material described above, the stuff Livy would not vouch for but would nevertheless include in his history, Romulus is to be found. You see, in antiquity writers wrestled with the value of this material, and included or excluded it for various reasons. It was not the case that no one questioned the validity of including Romulus in a history because no one could appreciate the potential problems involved. So, you can't blithely talk about how Plutarch wrote about Romulus and Jesus is just like that. This shows a spectacular lack of critical thinking that would even raise eyebrows back in the days when the gospel authors and Plutarch were writing.
Let's consider a couple of basic points:
1) Romulus purportedly lived in the 8th century BCE. Regarding this period of Roman "history," we lack any primary sources, any autopsy, describing the lives and events of the Roman people. This is most certainly not the case for the first century CE Roman empire and its relationship with the Palestine of the time. Here we have written accounts, epigraphic information, coins, etc.
2) Plutarch is writing roughly 900 years after Romulus supposedly lived, and he is well aware of the fact that he is writing of a figure who is largely legendary. Plutarch knew the difference between writing about Romulus and writing about Caesar (whom he also wrote a biography on). The authors mentioning Jesus started writing a couple or few decades after his death. (I include Paul, by the way. I do not buy into this idea that he is writing about his imaginary mythical friend.)
3) While it is definitely the case that historical figures were likened to characters like Romulus, the tendency to assimilate such figures to a mythological character or pattern does not invalidate their historicity. As I have tried to show above, well-documented figures (Caesar, Augustus, etc.) were theologized and mythologized, and that does not weigh against their existence.
4) If there is sufficient direct or indirect evidence of their existence, the wiser historical choice is to judge in favor of historicity, not to conclude with great confidence that the person was NOT historical. In the case of Romulus we lack any direct and even decent indirect evidence for his life. One can safely say that he most likely did not exist. In the case of Jesus, we may lack good direct evidence for his life, but the abundance of good indirect evidence for his existence is the reason why most responsible historians believe he probably existed.
5) The historical existence of the mythologized Caesar and the historical existence of the mythologized Jesus do not compel me, or even persuade me, to worship either one. And this last bit is why I have a difficult time with the mythicist perspective as an attack on Christianity. It is misleading. It supposes that people's bad thinking can be exploited in order to persuade them not to follow their chosen religious path. It is one thing to say that we have no way of validating the miracles of Jesus. It is another to say we can conclude he did not exist. The latter is terribly disingenuous and methodologically irresponsible.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
