Wikipedia “Jesus as myth” article.
Offline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
What are people’s views as to the quality of the article? It clearly seems to have a negative view of the Jesus mythicist position.
For example, other than Josephus, in the section on non-Christian reference to Jesus, we get references to the fact that Christians existed, and no one is disputing that.
Nowhere in the article does it seem to get the point that had Jesus the god-man existed, as per the gospels, we would have ample references and information about him. Simply discovering a human Jesus refutes the Jesus of the gospels.
For instance, how could Josephus have had knowledge of Jesus as per the gospel accounts and yet not convert to Christianity? If he did have knowledge of a Jesus, he clearly didn’t have knowledge as per what the gospels suggest he would have had - knowledge of a crowd drawing, miracle working, god-man. So suggesting that Josephus, a Jew, knew of Jesus is a refutation to the claims of the gospels!
It’s humorous to see people, especially Christians, think that they’re “halfway there” if they at least get a human Jesus!
Moving on, the article seems to conclude that the Jesus Myth has been refuted:
”Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity, that is, that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than a composite of more than one person or a completely made-up myth.”[15]
...
Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.
”The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.”[15]
15. ^ a b c Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 16. ISBN 978-0802843685.
Now I’ve no problem with the idea of a human Jesus later being embellished and ‘supernaturalised’, but has the Jesus mythicist position really been refuted, as this article suggest.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
I remember looking at that page about a year ago and it was a mess. It may have been under a different name and had a less defined scope of arguments. It seems to have improved, but I still think that it is far from suitable for real research. I remember that there was a large time line contradiction between a date that was cited and the page that was referenced that I noticed (and I was not very knowledgeable about that stuff at the time to be able to pick up on it).
I am not sure if it is possible to write a fair article and keep it accurate when the large majority of the interested parties are going to to put in misinformation that they think is reliable.
If we wanted to help the situation, I think the most time efficient solution is to create our own page written in the style of Wikipedia with all of the necessarily references to back it up. License the work so that it can be copied or put it in the public domain. Then put a link to our page in the Wikipedia article. I noticed that the external link section has more articles that support the Jesus as myth position than links that are against that position. I think some of the links supporting the Jesus as myth position is sufficient to prove the case, so that kind of work may be unnecessary except to help provide a baseline or quick reference for people editing that article.
Rook is writing a book that will cover this, and I expect it will have very current information about the Jesus as myth position, among other things. I think it will be published in early 2008.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
bump
Meh. The vast majority of biblical scholars are hopelessly biased, and therefore their opinions are completely irrelevant. They might like to think they've refuted the mythicist position, but they haven't.
Not that it really matters if some guy named jesus christ existed or not. Throw any two words together and you're almost certain to find someone who matches the name in some language or another. All that really matters is that there was no son of god, since there's no god to have a son.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You sound pretty biased yourself there assuming that most bible scholars' beliefs are irrelevant and that you have a better understanding of the issues than them.
sugoi!