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

[robvalue]

I don't get the big deal with trying to bash mythicists. A handful of facts barely makes any difference between the HJ position and the mythicist position. They couldn't really be much closer together. Why the animosity?

[TheMessiah]

I don't get the big deal with trying to bash mythicists. A handful of facts barely makes any difference between the HJ position and the mythicist position. They couldn't really be much closer together. Why the animosity?

I'm not ''bashing'' mythcists - I reserve ''bashing'' for religious people's arguments.

[robvalue]

OK, well the title here says they're not taken seriously, when both positions overlap by about 99% in my reckoning. I mean really, even a mythicist will say you could find some guy back then and just base it on him. It wouldn't make a lot of difference. There were bound to be many "potentials" of which any could be built upon in the same way.

For a bigger difference in the cases requires believing a bit more in the gospels, when referring to the writings of people who were clearly either mentally ill or making stuff up.

Anyway, I've said my piece I'd love us all to get along. I don't feel the need to identify as either because I see them as essentially the same thing.

[Minimalist]

[TheMessiah]

OK, well the title here says they're not taken seriously, when both positions overlap by about 99% in my reckoning. I mean really, even a mythicist will say you could find some guy back then and just base it on him. It wouldn't make a lot of difference. There were bound to be many "potentials" of which any could be built upon in the same way.

For a bigger difference in the cases requires believing a bit more in the gospels, when referring to the writings of people who were clearly either mentally ill or making stuff up.

Anyway, I've said my piece I'd love us all to get along. I don't feel the need to identify as either because I see them as essentially the same thing.

OK then, agree to disagree.

I think this discussion has ran it's course for me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Even without looking at the Gospel material"?

How can the Gospels be counted as evidence of Jesus? They are the claim.

The magic in the gospel is nonsense; but the historical time and characters are real, e.g. Pontius Pilate

Some may well be. But using one part of a book to support a claim in another part is still circular.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have a question - Why are the gospels automatically dismissed as unreliable in its entirety? There's certainly a load of horsecrap (probably most of it) but shouldn't it be analysed like any other historical document to find which contexts are reliable and not? Why do I see people on this board instantly label all the bible as invalid? Don't all myths need some kind of real life event to serve as an inspiration?

See my answer above.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[abaris]

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

Assumed as much. So I didn't even look up that O'Neill character. With this OP, I'm always wondering if he isn't some kind of Poe. The discussions always move in very tight circles with this one.

[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