2.2.2011 by Hermann Detering In his 13-minute- NT-Pod on 9th January, 2011, prof. Mark Goodacre (Duke University) speaks about the question " Did Jesus exist? " He particularly refers to the works (published in England / USA) of G.A.Wells – who is heard in his own voice – and Freke & Gandy's "Jesus Mysteries". Goodacre's main objection against the "Mythicists": They would pour out the child with the bathwater. It won’t do, he says, to deny the historicity of the Jesus character because of a great number of mythological traits in the Gospels. For the historian of antiquity it be a well-known phenomenon, that persons like Jesus "only survived in the minds of those who talk about them"; in the case in question, after the resurrection the reminiscence of Jesus had been expanded by mythical elements, in other words: The myth had soaked up or "contaminated" the historical biography of the human Jesus.

This is an opinion which has been familiar to me - although expressed in different words – from the time of my first NT proseminars, but which could never really convince me because it elegantly steers around the core of the problem. For a myth to be able “to contaminate” the reminiscence of a human person, first of all that human being must have existed. But then, how do I know that it is not a self-delusion to say that after erasing all "kerygmatic" parts, all mythical elements, all "backward projections”, all popular adjustments and "enrichments" of a "life of Jesus“ nothing at all will be left that would give me the right to assume a historical person? (cf. the following artcle [FJF: i.e. the essay about Theissen/Merz]) Would it, however, not be up to the exegetes to first of all lay on the table some doubtless historical basic features of the life of the man from Nazaret, before they enlighten us about what mythological symbolism the early Christian communities used to explain the importance of this putative historical person? Which doubtless historical data, however, are there about Jesus? In my view, there is no trait in the Jesus figure of the Gospels for which the religious sphere of antiquity does not offer a suitable parallel - and this is true even for the "glutton and drunkard " from Mt 11:19 (see G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga: Hercules - Christus).
http://www.hermann-detering.de/Hercules_dtsch.pdf

Goodacre also deals with Paul’s silence about Jesus. To him this is easily explained by the "occasional character" of Paul’s letters. Since they just offered details of real life, one should not expect personal statements at all. Really? In the most personal of all literary genres we shouldn’t be allowed to expect any personal word of Paul’s about Jesus?Goodacres contribution is a good step in the right direction, away from hushing up and disregarding the radical-critical denyers of an historical Jesus and towards an open discussion with them who, thank God, have not yet completely become extinct. Unfortunately, however, Goodacre has not made the effort of penetrating a little deeper into their argumentation.  Those that know the articles gathered on this web page, especially by Dutch, but also by German, English and American scholars, will not be convinced by his opinion. One may only read the essays -rich in material and rich in
spirit- by G.A. van the Bergh van Eysinga (a contemporary of Bultmann!) taken from his periodical ‘Godsdienstwetenschappelijke Studiën’ which appeared after the war, or his beautiful booklet " Is Jesus alive - or has he only lived? " translated from the original Dutch into German by Frans Joris Fabri. See: http://www.hermann-detering.de/Lebt%20Jesus%20oder.pdf Compared with the demanding and sophisticated picture the Dutch radical critic of the history of early Christianity draws, Goodacre's arguments
appear a little homespun.

Although Goodacre obviously endeavers to talk moderately, he nevertheless ultimately cannot but warm up an old relict taken from the anti-radical polemics. He accuses the radicals of excessive sceptcism, theirs not being a "healthy scepticism"; —perhaps an injurious, a morbid one? Whoever reads the Gospels impartially, so G., will perceive on every page the impression of a real historical person. – Well then! as if science, where solely facts decide whether a thesis is founded well or badly, there had ever been or
could have been a "healthy " or an "unhealthy" methodical doubt. Had others accepted such a thing, the earth would still be a disc to us . And what concerns the impression of a real person with a real profile which allegedly arises automatically while reading the Gospels , this may be predominantly based on self-deception. Reading “Gone with the Wind " or " Die Leiden des jungen Werther" many readers may likewise have felt the feeling with Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara or Lotte and Werther of having to do with "real people " (many have poured tears because of them and some even made an end
to their own life because of Werther's death). However, have these persons for that reason (i.e. because the authors of these books were able to draw vivid characters) really lived? – By the way, the authors of the Gospels cannot and do not want at all to keep up in literary respect with Goethe or with Margaret Mitchell. Those that look sharper recognize nevertheless everywhere that the Gospels’picture of Jesus is quite different from of a real person . Not only because he walks on water and can rise the dead. This
Jesus is no a human being in the usual sense of the word, i.e. a person with his strengths and weaknesses. He stands beyond humanity. Everywhere the typical, the ideal predominates. The Logos on earth! No ancient representation of Christ shows a person with individual looks and a distinctive profile. As a " good shepherd " Jesus is just one of many ancient Savior figures.

Now, Goodacre has made a beginning - and that’s a good thing. It would be even more so, if other mainstream theologians (also in Germany) followed him and left their theological ivory tower for a while to occupy themselves wholeheartedly with the "Mythicists" and their inquiries (of course they won’t give a damm!).
In any case Goodacre's contribution is really worth listening to, - and be it only to persuade others of the fact that the defenders of the historicity of the Streetworker from Nazaret had and have bloody bad cards then and now. But seriously: thanks a lot, prof. Goodacre!

NT Pod 47: Did Jesus exist? (mp3)

Discussion:   JesusMysteries-discussion group

Translation : Frans Joris Fabri