Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

I didn't read the OP, nor do I intend to.  Tim O'Neill is an 'historian' in roughly the same sense that  Dr. Seuss is a surgeon. 

Boru

First of all, I have never claimed to be a historian.  I'm afraid I can't control what others claim on my behalf.  But your dodging of the arguments I presented on these flaccid grounds is noted.

My own opinion on this (unlike O'Neill, I'm an actual historian, by education and training, if not by profession)

I see.  So, given that I too am "an actual historian, by education and training, if not by profession", it seems you are as much of a non-historian as I am.  Or as much of an amateur historian as I am.  So let's see what kind of analysis your "education and training" has equipped you for:

the situation is pretty closely mirrored by the 'Arthur of Britain' problem

It is?  Strange then that there is a general acceptance that a historical Jesus existed and yet no such consensus on a historical Arthur at all, beyond some "maybes".  How could this be if the two cases "closely mirror" each other? Let's see ...

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.

Well, aside from that last weird bit about "physical evidence" (something which we have for virtually no major figures in the ancient world), this is all more or less true.  As far as it goes.  The problems lie in the stuff you didn't bother to mention.  For example, do we have two mentions of Arthur as a historical person written within a century of his reported death?  Ummm, no we don't.  The very first reference to him is in Nennius, dating to the ninth century.  So that's at least 300 years later.  So we have nothing that "mirrors" the references to Jesus as a historical figure in Tacitus Annals XV and Josephus Antiquities XX (leaving the Antiquities XVIII reference aside for the moment).  More importantly, do we have a letter dating to within 20 years of Arthur's death where the writer refers to meeting Arthur's brother and best friend?  Clearly we don't.  So we also have nothing that "mirrors" what Paul says in Galatians 1:19.

This means that to pretend that the evidence we have for Jesus and for Arthur "mirrors" each other is patent nonsense.  And the reason the existence of a historical Jesus is generally accepted as most likely while that of a historical Arthur is regarded as much more uncertain is simple - the evidence for Jesus is far, far better.

So if your clumsy analysis above is evidence of your historical "education and training", I'd say you need to go back to school.

That was....beautiful Tim...