RE Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 25, 2015 at 10:03 am
(June 25, 2015 at 1:11 am)robvalue Wrote: (Just for kicks)
I wonder if one of the reasons mythicists aren't taken seriously by some is that all Christian biblical scholars must categorically deny it as even a remote possibility?
Not all biblical scholars deny it as a remote possibility. Some even affirm it as likely. But most say that they believe in an historical Jesus. (Though as Minimalist likes to point out, they disagree with each other on what, exactly, that means. Some believe more detailed stories than others, and some believe different details than others.)
The thing is, pretty much everyone entering the matter starts with the idea that there was an historical Jesus. Before I read anything on the matter, I pretty much assumed that there was. But in reading about it, I found the evidence less than compelling. But I have no particular need to believe one way or the other, as it does not matter to me if there was or was not an historical Jesus.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
