TedM

Why would Eusebius make such a correction? Doesn't that likely rule out the idea that Eusebius was making up the Irenaeus source? By the same reasoning, by the time of Irenaeus, the story of Judas would have been known to him, correct? Doesn't the similar, yet different, account he gives from Papias likely rule out the idea that Irenaeus was making up the Papias testimonies? Isn't it most reasonable then to accept the fact of the existance of the works of Papias as well as the accuracy of the quotes and information attributed to him even though the works are missing?

PhilVaz

Of course you want to see my review of the book, hopefully will appear on Amazon.com in a few days:

Shattering the Internet Mythicists, July 23, 2008

By P. J. Porvaznik (St. Petersburg, FL United States)

Having been aware of this so-called "debate" on the Internet (please note: it is entirely an "online debate" not one advanced by serious NT or historical Jesus scholars) since the mid 1990s, I am glad that J.P. Holding has finally transcribed and edited some of his impressive "Tektonics" online articles for an entire book on "Shattering the Christ Myth." He and his amateur scholar contributors have pulled together an excellent set of articles and chapters debunking both the "myth" hypothesis and the "copycat" or "pagan parallel" thesis presented by many an anti-Christian conspiracy buff and uninformed skeptic of historical Christianity.

Chapters include an introduction on the history and origin of the "Christ myth" claims dating from the early 1800s; detailed defenses of the standard non-biblical references to Jesus from the Jewish historian Josephus (his two passages), the Roman historian Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, and Papias; responses to the various "silences" argued by "mythicists" from Remsburg to G.A. Wells to Earl Doherty; analysis of the supposed "pagan Christs" from Mithra to Krishna to Horus to Dionysos; reviews and refutations exposing the abysmal scholarship and poor arguments of recent "Christ myth" movies "The God Who Wasn't There" and "Zeitgeist"; and additional material on the city of Nazareth, the academic and Internet mythicists, and more.

This book shows there is really nothing at all to the "mythicist" claims: they are groundless historically, poorly argued based on "silence" and refuted by numerous reliable witnesses to Jesus, and that includes the canonical Gospels and the earliest writings of St. Paul. The real debate among scholars is not whether there was a historical Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD, but on Christ's claims to divinity and being the unique Son of God, the miracles of the Gospels as signs of that divinity, and especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ -- i.e. the whole "Jesus of history" vs. "Christ of faith" debate among conservative evangelical and more "liberal" scholarship.

Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: "There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'." ("Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus")

British historian Michael Grant: "...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels [1977], pages 199, 200)

Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright: "It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus [aside from one or two]....It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest." ("The Self-Revelation of God in Human History" from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese [2007])

Robert Van Voorst: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." (Jesus Outside the New Testament [2000], pages 6, 14, 16)

Shattering the Christ Myth is a welcome addition to the many evangelical defenses of Jesus Christ by well-known scholars such as R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), Moreland/Wilkins (Jesus Under Fire), and recently Boyd/Eddy (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition). As a Catholic apologist, I also appreciated the brief chapter on "Leo's Line" explaining the "fable quote" sometimes attributed to Pope Leo X by mythicist skeptics.

My only complaint is the book is slightly "oversized" so it is not the size of your normal paperback and may not fit easily on your bookshelf. Nevertheless a definite 5-star effort from apologist J.P. Holding and company.

Phil Porvaznik

Jeffrey Gibson

It is? Could you point me to scholars -- and especially those who deal with the Gospels, the HJ, and with NT christology -- who state or argue that "Christ" (the HJ?) ever claimed to be divine (= god) or that "Son of God" (a title Jesus never uses of himself) meant "God" for Jesus or the evangelists?


Jeffrey

Steven Carr

Most scholars claim that if you went to Bethlehem in 5 BC or 4BC you could see the Jesus of the New Testament not being born.

While the Jesus of the Gospels was never born, this has no real effect on whether or not the Jesus of the Gospels existed.

And the Jesus who ascended into the sky, probably orbiting Uranus even as we speak, never existed.

The Jesus of the Christians, the one who some Christians claimed was born in Bethlehem, and who other Christians claimed killed people as a young boy, never existed.

There never was a Jesus who was born in Bethlehem and who killed people. It is a myth.

EarlDoherty

Perhaps Mr. Holding would be willing to send me a complimentary copy of his new book, if he is so confident that he has "whupped" the mythicist case, and mine in particular. Although I couldn't do anything with it until I'm finished with my second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, I'd be more than willing to attempt a rebuttal. Maybe I could make it a new book myself, a companion piece to my rebuttal to Lee Strobel. It wouldn't be a court cross-examination, but perhaps I could call it "Interview With An Apologist." Given Mr. Holding's unbridled language and handling of opponents, I'm sure we could get a colorful exchange going.

I know he's always shy about providing Internet links to the material that he claims to have so confidently destroyed, but perhaps he might be willing to send the book to (and don't worry, my post office can handle an oversize book):

Age of Reason Publications
PO Box 49059
110 Place d'Orleans
Ottawa, ON
K1C 7E4
Canada.

(In fact, I'll make that a "double-dare".)

Earl Doherty

aa5874

It is completely mis-leading and erroneous to claim that there is evidence for Jesus as human only.

There is none.

All information about Jesus of Nazareth in the NT and the Church writers imply that Jesus was a God, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Once anyone claims that the information in the NT and Church writers is credible then they MUST accept their description of Jesus, just as they accept the description of Homer's Achilles.

Universally Homer's description of Achilles has been accepted, the author claimed Achilles is the son of a sea-goddess, Achilles is a myth.

If authors of the NT claimed Jesus was the off-spring of the Holy Ghost, was transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven, this should be accepted as the function of MYTHICAL entities.

And further, no event with respect to Jesus of the NT has been confirmed to be true. None.

If it is claimed that Jesus was just human, then Peter and Paul lied or made erroneous statements that Jesus rose from the dead, and in fact, the entire ministry of Peter and Paul would be based on delusion or deliberate mis-leading information about Jesus.


If Jesus was just human, then Mary's story about Jesus' conception is not true, the story of the shepherds and the angels is not true, the story of the temptation is not true, the story of the baptism of Jesus is not true, the stories of the miracles are not true, the story of the transfiguration is not true, the stories of the resurrection and ascension are not true, and the stories from Peter and Paul that Jesus ROSE from the dead and ascended to heaven are not true.

If it is assumed that Jesus was only human, then one must assume that the NT is fundamentally not true with respect to Jesus of the NT.

The historical Jesus is based on fiction or erroneous information, complete speculation and SILENCE.

Jeffrey Gibson

Is anyone else as tired of hearing this absolutely uninformed and totally false assertion being made by one who has no clue regrading what he is talking about, as I am?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Again, if no serious NT scholar or historical scholar is debating the Jesus myth, then why did J P Holding write and publish a book in 2008, NOW claiming to have shattered the Jesus Myth?

J P Holding cannot be serious.

I would have thought that the Jesus Myth was shattered in the mid 1990's based on your post.

You appear to be a proselytizing for the HJ camp.

Jeffrey Gibson

And you appear, for the umpteenth time, not to know what you are talking about or capable of reading accurately what people post.

Jeffrey

aa5874

This does not make much sense. In 1977, Grant wrote Christ-myth theory annihilated by first rank scholars, now 30 years later, J P Holding writes that the Jesus-myth is shattered.

Grant was wrong. The Christ-myth was NOT annihilated at all and it cannot be shattered.

Now, if we apply the material in the New Testament to Jesus, it would be seen that Jesus is fiction or a myth.

This is a partial list of mythical material just from one book.

• Matthew 1.18

• Matthew 2.13

• Matthew 4.8

• Matthew 8.26

• Matthew 8.32

• Matthew 14.25

• Mathew 15.37-38

• Matthew 17.2

• Matthew 28.6