RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 5, 2015 at 7:38 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2015 at 7:39 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
I think I see what may be the sticking point here.
When atheists make the claim, 'There is no evidence for an historical Jesus', they are manifestly not claiming that it is an utter impossibility that an itinerant preacher with a name very like 'Yeshua-bar-Yusef' got into some trouble with the authorities in 1st century Palestine. By and large, what atheists are claiming is that there is no evidence for an historic Jesus who corresponds in large part to the figure depicted in the Gospel narratives and the Pauline epistles.
My own opinion on this (unlike O'Neill, I'm an actual historian, by education and training, if not by profession) is that the situation is pretty closely mirrored by the 'Arthur of Britain' problem. In both cases, we have 'histories' of dubious reliability - and with a pretty clear bias -, penned long after the events they relate, in which the central figure is credited with remarkable/miraculous abilities. In both cases, we have a central figure who seems tied to actual, historic events (the reign of Tiberius, the Battle of Mount Badon), but not even a scintilla of undisputed physical evidence.
So, could there have been a Romanized Briton warlord who went about bashing Saxons for fun and profit? Maybe, but this person bears about as much resemblance to Arthur of the Round Table as an unwashed, illiterate rabbi bears to the Jesus of the Gospels.
Boru
When atheists make the claim, 'There is no evidence for an historical Jesus', they are manifestly not claiming that it is an utter impossibility that an itinerant preacher with a name very like 'Yeshua-bar-Yusef' got into some trouble with the authorities in 1st century Palestine. By and large, what atheists are claiming is that there is no evidence for an historic Jesus who corresponds in large part to the figure depicted in the Gospel narratives and the Pauline epistles.
My own opinion on this (unlike O'Neill, I'm an actual historian, by education and training, if not by profession) is that the situation is pretty closely mirrored by the 'Arthur of Britain' problem. In both cases, we have 'histories' of dubious reliability - and with a pretty clear bias -, penned long after the events they relate, in which the central figure is credited with remarkable/miraculous abilities. In both cases, we have a central figure who seems tied to actual, historic events (the reign of Tiberius, the Battle of Mount Badon), but not even a scintilla of undisputed physical evidence.
So, could there have been a Romanized Briton warlord who went about bashing Saxons for fun and profit? Maybe, but this person bears about as much resemblance to Arthur of the Round Table as an unwashed, illiterate rabbi bears to the Jesus of the Gospels.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
