sweetpea7

I am curious as to why this is, especially for scholars who are not Christians. I do not understand why most rational people place their trust in experts of every other field, but this case should be the exception. How often Christians are derided, and rightfully so, for clinging to creationism in the face of Biologists and other scientists who know the truth of evolution? In this case it seems to be a vocal minority, who in some instances lack the credentials of a scholar, yet accuse mainstream scholars of bias and argue dismissing scholars in place of their theory.How does that differ from those who purport ID or creationism?

ApostateAbe

You have two questions, and the answers to both are sociological and can be answered only with social tendencies, not universal causalities. Your two questions are:

1. Why do mainstream scholars reject the hypothesis of the merely-mythical Jesus?
2. Why do mythicists reject the scholarly mainstream?

To answer your first question, I am fairly certain that most scholars have only a glancing familiarity with the hypothesis of the mythical Jesus, so their reasons would be primarily (1) authority of those who have studied the issue, (2) the face of the evidence that appears to contradicts the hypothesis, and (3) the biases of those who promote the theory.

It would be more relevant to focus on those who have studied the issue and rejected it.

The most-oft-cited evidence, when communicating with public, is the evidence from Galatians 1:19--where Paul wrote in passing of meeting "James, the Lord's brother." We know it is a Christian myth that Jesus had a brother named James, from the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and from the writing of Josephus. Mythicists have come up with many explanations for this, mainly that "Lord's brothers" were a small group of high-ranking members of the church, but this has not convinced the scholars who have studied the issue as plausible.

Another big argument is the set of attestations to Jesus outside of Christianity, including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius. They sourced from myths of Christians, but their own accounts do not hint at any suspicion among those writers that Jesus was merely myth--they instead believed that Jesus was a wise sage or a troublemaker. This is the same sort of evidence that we would use to conclude the existence of many other figures of ancient history, including a handful of messianic claimants and other cult leaders.

The third big argument concerns the set of "embarrassments" within the earliest gospels that can be best explained with the existence of a historical Jesus as a religious leader, such as the hometown of Nazareth, the baptism by John the Baptist, the failed apocalyptic prophecies, the betrayal by one of his disciples and the crucifixion by Pontius Pilate.

Your second question is one of which I would be a little more familiar and confident with the answer. Mythicists reject the authority of the mainstream scholars because they much prefer their own position, and they really do believe that the mainstream scholars are biased in favor of Christianity, which is actually true, but of course the problem remains that even the strongly non-religious or anti-religious qualified academic scholars are equally opposed and dismissive of mythicism. Mythicists very much tend to be anti-religious and/or atheist, and they see their own position as following from the general reality that religion is a fountain of falsehood. And, since there really is no firsthand extant written attestations to the historical human Jesus, and all of the earliest accounts really are Christian, then this provides the primary rhetorical impetus in favor of the conclusion that Christians invented Jesus.

mountainman

Tenure, funding, grants, hegemonic inertia ...

aa5874

Well, you are in for a surprise.

The NT Canon itself is the source of the Mythical Jesus, the Jesus of Faith.

It is the very NT where Jesus is described as the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Creator, the Word that was God that walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended in a cloud.

HJ Scholars simply do not accept that the evidence in the NT Canon which suggests that Jesus was just a myth fable that was believed in antiquity.

But, without any credible corroborative source HJ is just an assumption by some Scholars. Even mainstream Scholars admit that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

sweetpea7

Thank you, ApostateAbe, for your response and more clearly stating my op. :-)

This is exactly what I have heard creationists say about why creationism is not taught in college. Why wouldn't non-Christian scholars teach the Mythical Jesus? Why would a non-Christian scholar dishonestly refuse to teach a valid theory? If Mythical Jesus is a valid theory, where are any non-Christian scholars arguing in defense of it?

Sheshbazzar

Ever play 'Hot Potato'?

sweetpea7

Why do non-Christian HJ scholars not accept this evidence you speak of?

I know this. I am not defending the historical reliability of the NT. Evidence of a Historical Jesus is not evidence that the NT is reliable.

Toto

When mainstream biologists are challenged on the question of evolution, they come up with facts and reasons. There is an entire website, talkreason.org, devoted to factual discussion of the reasons for evolution and the reasons to reject creationism. As more evidence is discovered, the case for evolution is only supported.

In contrast, when those who claim to be experts in the question of the historical Jesus are challenged, they primarily engage in insults, or arguments that are based on unreliable ancient documents.

It differs in every respect.

In fact, the historical Jesus so called experts have more in common with creationists than with scientists who study evolution.

aa5874

Again, there is no need for a single MJer.

Please, get acquainted with the "quest for the historical Jesus".

HJ Scholars are ARGUING against the written evidence in the NT. HJ Scholars arguing against Myth Jesus, the Jesus of Faith, for over 200 years as presented in the EXISTING Codices.

You seem not to understand that there is NO credible source for the HJ argument and IT WILL become obsolete like the Flat earth theory.

Once it was EXPOSED that HJ was an assumption based on UNRELIABLE sources then it will soon disappear.

Toto

If you really care about this issue, please do a bit of background reading.

There is no reliable evidence for a historical Jesus outside of the New Testament. There is evidence that Christians in the second century believed in a historical Jesus, but Christians have such a record of forging evidence that not much is reliable.

aa5874's point is that the New Testament describes a supernatural, spiritual Jesus. The Biblical scholars and theologians who claim to believe in a historical Jesus are part of a tradition which accepts the New Testament as history except for the supernatural parts. They have developed what they think are methods of mining the NT for reliable data about the historical man that they think must have been the inspiration for the supernatural stories in the NT. Skeptics think that their methods are as reliable as astrology.