Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Re-upping to see if our historicity defender will actually come back and engage in a real discussion and not cower away in other threads and make claims without the full context of the arguments.

If you think your position is true, why be afraid to engage? [/quote]

Write a scholarly paper if you think the mainstream view of secular historians is wrong.[/quote]

Which “secular historians”? Are you the PP who doesn’t know what secular means? 
[/quote]

No, it's the PP who knows when the person who's responding to them is trying to be insulting.[/quote]

So which “secular historians”? 
[/quote]

The overwhelming consensus among professional historians, biblical scholars, and experts in ancient history is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure—a 1st-century Jewish preacher from Galilee who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This view is held by scholars across the spectrum, including Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others, based on evidence from early Christian texts (like Paul’s letters, which reference Jesus as a human who had a brother and was executed), the Gospels (treated as biographical traditions with historical cores), and non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.

[b]The idea that Jesus was entirely mythical (known as the “Christ myth theory” or Jesus mythicism) is a fringe position, rejected as pseudoscholarship or methodologically flawed by virtually all experts in the field for over a century—it has no traction in peer-reviewed journals, academic handbooks, or mainstream historical discourse.   [/b]

There are a small handful of individuals with academic credentials in relevant fields (such as ancient history, biblical studies, or religious studies) who argue against Jesus’ historicity or express strong agnosticism about it. These are outliers, often criticized by peers for relying on arguments from silence, selective interpretations of sources, superficial parallels to pagan myths (e.g., Horus or Mithras), and outdated methodologies that don’t align with standard historical criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment.

[u]Many mythicists lack institutional affiliations or come from outside core disciplines like classics or New Testament studies, and their work is often self-published or appears in non-academic venues. Even proponents like Richard Carrier (a mythicist himself) acknowledge that only a tiny fraction of qualified scholars hold this view, estimating around a dozen who outright doubt historicity or are agnostic, with others merely saying it’s “plausible” to debate but not endorsing it. [/u]

Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University): An independent scholar and full mythicist who argues Jesus was a celestial being mythologized into a historical figure, using Bayesian probability to claim a low likelihood of historicity. His work, like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), has undergone peer review but is widely dismissed by mainstream scholars call his work deeply flawed. Richard is a professional historian by training, but his mythicist stance is considered fringe.

Robert M. Price (PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament from Drew University): A former Baptist pastor and independent scholar who views Jesus as a composite of myths and archetypes, with the Gospels as allegorical fiction. Books like The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011) promote this, but peers regard it as outside scholarly norms. He qualifies as a professional in biblical studies, though his views are not taken seriously in academia.

Thomas L. Thompson (PhD in biblical studies from the University of Tübingen; professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen): A biblical minimalist who expresses agnosticism or skepticism, arguing Jesus (like David) draws from Near Eastern myths without warrant for historicity. Works like The Messiah Myth (2005) support this, but he’s more focused on Old Testament and doesn’t fully deny a possible historical kernel.    He is a respected professional in his field, but his Jesus-related skepticism is fringe.

Raphael Lataster (PhD in religious studies from the University of Sydney): An independent scholar and lecturer who leans mythicist or agnostic, claiming evidence for historicity is probabilistically weak. His Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) is peer-reviewed, but critics see it as unconvincing. He has professional credentials, but his position remains marginal.

Thomas Brodie (PhD in biblical studies from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; retired Dominican priest and scholar): Argues the Gospels are fictional rewritings of Old Testament stories, with Jesus as a composite myth. His memoir Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012) outlines this, but it’s not widely accepted. He is a professional biblical scholar, though his mythicist turn is atypical.

George A. Wells (philosophy background, deceased; later softened to agnosticism) or Earl Doherty (no relevant PhD), lack strong credentials in ancient history or are amateurs.

In short, yes, these individuals are “truly professionals” in the sense of having advanced degrees and some publishing history in related fields, but their mythicist views are not credible to the broader academic community—often likened to flat-earth theories or young-earth creationism in terms of evidential support.

Emphasis here: you are welcome to your own research and opinion on this topic or any topic, but you should also recognize your view is not accepted by professional historians/academics/scholars without belittling/disparaging/attacking them as unprofessional or ignorant.

You don’t have their education or expertise and can’t read the sources in the original language as they can. We all have opinions and a right to express them, but the Christ myth is considered extremely fringe.

Most people look to experts that are accredited and respected in every field, and stating anonymous that you are equal to these experts is delusional. That being said, no one here has to prove this to you, it’s already accepted. If you choose not to accept it, that’s your pov.

No one is trying to change anyone’s mind about this subject, but it’s always pertinent and responsible to know what experts think and why they think that, and compare their findings with other experts. These experts agree that Christ walked the earth.

You could enter academia and scholarship and gain credibility and credentials so you could enter the ring (where it counts) and change the overwhelming majority position about Jesus historicity. If I felt as strongly about it as many here do, I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with strangers on the internet. Use your knowledge and become a scholar or professor and show the world the truth as you interpret it, get peer reviewed, learn those languages first though. 
[/quote]

That didn’t answer my question.

Which “secular” historians are 100% sure about historical Jesus?

Hint: if they are a biblical “scholar” they aren’t secular. 
[/quote]

“100% sure” is a fake standard

No ancient figure meets it.

If you insist on 100%, you must also deny Socrates and Alexander the Great

Historians don’t operate that way.

Biblical scholar doesn’t mean religious. “Biblical studies” is a textual-historical field, like classics. Many scholars in it do not believe the Bible is inspired.

Excluding them is like saying:
“Classicists can’t study Caesar because they read Latin texts about him.”

At some point, rejecting every qualified expert just becomes a philosophical choice, not a historical argument.[/quote]

So how certain are they then? 99%? 80% “absolutely certain”? “Most likely”?

Someone who has spent their entire life studying the Bible is not an independent, secular historian.

How certain are the [u]independent, secular historians[/u]? 
[/quote]

If you don’t agree with the scholars and academics and historians, that’s your pov.

Anyone who reads this thread can make their own decision. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but the consensus among scholars/academics/historians is unequivocal. The people who reject it (which is their right) are considered fringe and a distinct minority.

This thread has run its course because it isn’t about a historical fact, it’s about people who have a need to debate or argue. [/quote]

You say that you trust professional opinions.

Why don’t you value the professional opinion of [u]independent[/u] historians? 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics