emphryio

Historians of the time wrote about many self proclaimed messiahs even though they personally did not believe in them. Despite numerous historians, Jewish and Roman, corrobating each other about numerous messiahs, none of them mentions Jesus the "Christos" (Messiah in Hebrew) except the Josephus forgery. As such it seems very likely that there was no historical Jesus and that instead he's just a myth thrown together probably taking much from many of the other self proclaimed messiahs much as Christianity is largely taken from Mithraism.

Biff the unclean

Not quite. They can point to a specific Romano/Celtic warlord (Ambrosius Aurelianus) as the historic figure that the Welsh myths were piled onto.
But they can't even do as much with Jesus. With him there are just the myths and no central figure. So any claim of an historic Jesus is pure speculation.
Since the myths that form the Jesus story were all current to other religions at the time and suddenly became stories of Jesus; instead of taking hundreds of years like Arthur; this would tend to indicate that Jesus wasn't a legend but rather a work of fiction like the God Serapis who was also made out of stories of other Gods.

RPS

Let's make it easy then. How about listing peer-reviewed, academic works advocating the Jesus-myth idea? There are scores of such works, by Christians and non-Christians, dealing with the historical Jesus. If the Jesus-myth idea has any merit it all, it ought to have some solid academic support don't you think?

Storme

There seems to be more historical evidence and documentation that the Jew that we refer to as “Jesus� existed than for most any other figure of that time. The Wikipedia article is a reasonably good quick and dirty synopsis on what’s available.

The only pertinent issue is whether you buy into any of the statements and things attributed to the guy—unlikely for us atheists . . . unless maybe we have a seizure of some sort.

Toto

I know of no modern peer reviewed articles that either support or attack the Jesus myth idea. Articles about the historical Jesus almost always assume that there was a historical Jesus and that there is some reflection of that person in the gospels, if it can only be uncovered. But there is no consistent portrait of Jesus that various Christians discover.

Toto

This is not true. The major political and military figures of the time left more evidence. Anyone who ever wrote anything in that time period left more evidence.

emphryio

No, I'm afraid this comment is so far wrong it descends into humor. In order to have any idea of what you are talking about you need to be aware that historians did exist back then who wrote extensively of that time period. They did not write at all of the existence of Jesus the Messiah with the exception of the Josephus forgery. The wikipedia article's attempt to discount the Josephus forgery was quite pitiful. A simple yahoo search gives multiple hits that talk in great detail about this. (Someone needs to do something about that article by the way.)

I can understand christians who'll pervert all logical thought processes in an attempt to hold on to their dogma. To such people, I couldn't care less and have no interest in talking. But it's really annoying seeing people who are apparently atheists repeating this lie.

RPS

1. Why do you think any quality professional scholar, much less a non-Christian one, would assume the existence of an historical Jesus without basis?

2. Might it be that these scholars assume that the Jesus-myth idea is false in the same way that scientific scholarship assumes that creationism is false and doesn't engage it -- because it's a silly idea?

achristianbeliever

So your response is to complain about the example I gave? How about instead you give a source that gives an opposite conclusion about what the majority of scholars and historians believe. You don't like this example I gave? I'll give others: Van Voorst, Howard Marshall, Rudolf Bultmann. Now I wouldn't be surprised if somehow you or someone else complain about their credentials or their motives but if that's the case then please, please give me a source. (Not Earl Doherty) All I've seen so far is speculation and argument by outrage over how worthless wikipedia is. So please someone give me a source that shows the majority of scholars and/or historians believe in the Jesus myth. That isn't too much to ask.

RPS

The flaw isn't exclusive to Christians. The majority of scholars (according to this book, written by a non-Christian) accept the Josephus Testimonium as authentic but interpolated, not a complete forgery. Moreover, that interpolation doesn't deal with or eliminate the Josephus "brother of James" reference. Dogma-clutching goes both ways.

And, by the way, if Yahoo hits were the measure of competent scholarship, creationism would rule the day. Instead of pointing to internet conspiracy theories, why don't you list any reasonably current academic scholarship advocating the Jesus-myth idea?