http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/history-...ed-anyway/
I find Fitzgerald a better writer than Carrier who tends to get distracted with his Bayes Theorem crap. This should be a great read.
Jesus-freaks will shit bricks which makes it even better.
Quote:History writer: Jesus probably never existed — here’s why Christianity emerged anyway
Quote:Tarico: But don’t most secular historians also believe that Jesus actually existed in some form? Not the Christ of the gospels, I mean, but a reformist rabbi who amassed a following and got crucified by the Romans?
Fitzgerald: Well, that is part of the problem Albert Schweitzer identified over a century ago. There’s no consistency to the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels. Mark’s Jesus is a humble, fallible, suffering human. Matthew’s Jesus is a new and improved take on Mark’s, correcting his mistakes. By comparison, Luke’s Jesus is a Zen master and John’s is a ridiculously egotistical SuperJesus, repeatedly making blasphemous comments that should have had him stoned to death right out of the gate.
Consequently, the hypothetical reconstructions of Jesus we see proposed by different historians are radically different from each other and often fundamentally incompatible. With that little convergence between scholars, it becomes clear that whether intentionally or not, Jesus historians are making things up.
I find Fitzgerald a better writer than Carrier who tends to get distracted with his Bayes Theorem crap. This should be a great read.
Jesus-freaks will shit bricks which makes it even better.
