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

[The Grand Nudger]

So there is a lot to respond to in that (I have read that wiki page before however), and I'm not sure exactly what you are expecting. I mean much of it is the same. Saying that there are no non-Christian sources in the 1st century just isn't a good argument. This is consistent with what we would expect. Jesus wasn't an important historical figure in his time.

-oh?  Your historical jesus may not been, but others disagree.  Others see the historical jesus as an immensely important and galvanizing figure even in his own time - this is a contributing factor necessitating that those stories be told about him, you see.

 I'm not sure that there are any non-Roman sources for Julius Ceasar and he's a vastly more important historical figure. I mean one of those guys says that we have to remain agnostic about the existence of Jesus unless we find a skeleton or Diary (because of the unreliability of the gospels ). 

sure...lets not start the quote there though, eh?  He says "there might have been - but- " - he is comfortable with the notion.  This single quote does not convey the entirety of his position on the matter, of course.  

If we applied that standard to other historical figures we have to start doubting them all. 

 
We often have good reason to either doubt them, or the stories told about them, or the stories they tell about themselves.  This is well known and not at all controversial.

What we have is four (actually 5 because there was some other early gospel also) sources about a minor figure at the time that come relatively quickly after his death. Some contradict each other, there are some references to places and people that we know to be historical, there is a lot of nonsense and inaccuracies. That is about par for the course in the ancient world. I mean we can use gospel inaccuracies to say that it obviously wasn't divinely inspired, but not to say it has no historical value.

Mythicists do not claim that they have no historical value -in the general-.  You could learn alot about literary tradition of the time they were written, from them, for example.  The mythicist position is a position on the nature of the christ narrative, and the claim to a historical person -within- that narrative. Not..a position on the availability of different types of inks used by scribes in this or that century. Whatever historical value those texts have it is completely unconnected with and independent of any historical jesus.

[CapnAwesome]

I think at this point I'm really just going to start repeating myself. But I think you are seeing the whole Christ-mythisism movement through the rosiest of lens. Also for fun I need to note that one of the documentaries referenced at the end of that wiki article Zeitgiest, is also a 9/11 truther film.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, that's in the periphery, no sense in disavowing your bastard stepchildren just because they say ridiculous things, eh? lol. What's the implication though, Zeitgeist is not proof, it is not the evidence that the theory is true, nor am I required to advance the position that zeitgeist itself is true in order to advance a mythicist position. What rosy lens, the christ myth theories are what they are. I agree with some proponents, I disagree with others.

[CapnAwesome]

Yep, that;s in the periphery, no sense in disavowing your bastard stepchildren just because they say ridiculous things, eh? lol.

It probably doesn't help them with mainstream historians though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing seems to help with them when it's their bread and butter on the line, though. I'll say this, "mainstream historians" implies a larger monolith, we're not really discussing all historians or history, just a specific subset. Mainstream historians -whose entire specialty is predicate upon the assumption of a historical jesus - strongly disagree with mythicists, granted.

[CapnAwesome]

Mainstream historians who have studied that time period and region overwhelming think Jesus existed, regardless of their religious association. I mean that's just reality. It's pretty commonly used by people who are against mythicists. Although I do think it's a weak argument also and wouldn't normally use it beyond perhaps showing why mythicism hasn't really gone into the mainstream. Personally I didn't bring that up as an argument earlier because I think that facts are always more important than who believes in them, regardless of what the argument is.

[abaris]

Mainstream historians who have studied that time period and region overwhelming think Jesus existed, regardless of their religious association.

Bold by me. Think being the operative word. Nobody can prove a positive or a negative. I also think, there has been a person or persons being at the source of the legend. Something probably happened that inspired the legend. But what it was is anyone's guess, since Judea was swarming with prophets and self proclaimed Messiahs at the time in question. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What matter are the decades between the supposed happenings and the putting it into writing. Campfire tales growing bolder and bolder with everyone telling them until someone finally decided them to be story material.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mainstream historians were once convinced that the OT was historical as well.  There seems to be a relationship between cultural and traditional mores and certainty, when it comes to this larger narrative and it's historicity.  We have still only begun with the -assumption- that there was a jesus as an explanation of the stories -about- jesus.  That we -know- this is not a fundamental truth of the cosmos or of narratives seems to be lost on the inertia that tradition has built up. There need be no such man, no such assumption is required and mythicists contend that not only is it not necessary, it is not present in the texts.

[CapnAwesome]

Mainstream historians were once convinced that the OT was historical as well.  There seems to be a relationship between cultural and traditional mores and certainty, when it comes to this larger narrative and it's historicity.  We have still only begun with the -assumption- that there was a jesus as an explanation of the stories -about- jesus.  That we -know- this is not a fundamental truth of the cosmos or of narratives seems to be lost on the inertia that tradition has built up.  There need be no such man, no such assumption is required and mythicists contend that not only is it not necessary, it is not present in the texts.

Exactly. That's why I think it's a weak argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet mythicists and those willing to be it's proponents have to constantly account for why they -haven't- made such an assumption......that their observations are equally mainstream when not combined into a single whole is lost. Some of the mythicists evidence for their position is the same as the historical crowds evidence for why the "other historical crowd" is wrong. All of a sudden, though, due to the mention of myth and legend, they're nutters, lol - and that very same evidence isn't serious or credible.