Steven Carr

I checked and I don't have headaches, blurred vision or bruising.

I was surprised by this but then realised that nobody was hitting me over the head with Bart Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?'

How come one of the leading academic scholars can write a book refuting mythicism, something that is such an easy job that pretty much anybody can do it, and yet the resulting refutation just can't be used to hit mythicists with?

Refuting mythicism is like shooting fish in a barrel.

How come it never happens?

stephan huller

Because most scholars think the debate is beneath them and Bart Ehrman writes books aimed at the rabble.

Zaphod

I'm not sure that it doesn't happen. But that is because I never had the intestinal fortitude to read the Hoffman triumvirate past opening paragraphs. Were there any solid hits on any of the fish in that barrel?

Otherwise, I think you make a good point. I haven't seen much engagement at all. But then again, why should there be?

Isn't it up to the mythicist side to disprove the contention that Jesus Christ, like virtually every other deity over the history of mankind, is based on an actual human being? You know, like..... well, you know. I'll get back to you on that.

ApostateAbe

The arguments in the book are basically summaries of many of the same arguments repeated many times over in this forum's archives. Ehrman's book is not relevant. Logic, ancient evidence, and plausibility are relevant. Ehrman's book wasn't written for mythicists, anyway. Ehrman's book was written for reasonable people.

ApostateAbe

None of the many sources about Jesus before the gospel of John claim that Jesus was a deity, not Mark, not Q, not L, not M, not Acts, not Paul. They portray Jesus as a human being. Do you find that point relevant at all? I hope this point somehow gets through to at least a few mythicists, even if it means being a dick about it, because it is important. It is in Ehrman's book, but I figure most mythicists glazed over it when they read it, so let me make it clear again. We really need to have a better grasp of the evidence than we did right after we came out of church, if we want to make sound conclusions of history. Choose the pattern of history that relevantly fits the evidence. There are many reputed gods who never existed, but that isn't relevant to the beginning of Christianity as we know it. Jesus was a reputed human according to all evidence closest to his own time. So, how many reputedly-human cult founders never existed except as myth? There's the relevant pattern. Answer: absolutely none that we know about, and we have very many such figures on the table.

ApostateAbe

Steven Carr, if you would likewise prefer to be hit over the head with arguments repeated from Ehrman's book, I will be happy to oblige.

Toto

You've made these arguments before, they have been disputed and refuted. Most people who look at the evidence do not think that the earliest sources portray Jesus as merely human, and they notice that most of the human attributes are added in later sources. Mark is not an early source - it is at least a generation after this supposedly historical Jesus lived.

ApostateAbe

Toto, the point I have made is neither ambiguous nor debatable. It is a point that is plainly on the face of the evidence. Mythicists have not refuted it, because it is impossible. They haven't even disputed it, because that would be straight out nonsense. When Earl Doherty was called out for making the claim at the beginning of his book that Jesus started out as God, he didn't defend the claim, but he excused it as mere introductory prose. You think Mark is not early enough--that is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that Mark is among the earliest sources about Jesus.

Toto

If you think the evidence is so unambiguous, I don't know what you are reading.

Paul's Jesus looks divine, if not a full fledged god. The few human attributes that Paul gives to Jesus look like later additions to his imperfectly preserved manuscripts.

Only someone with a preconceived notion that Paul talks about a historical man would think that Paul is an argument for a historical Jesus, as opposed to data that needs to be explained away if you believe in a historical Jesus.

If the earliest sources are not actually early, they do not support the idea that there was a historical basis for the Jesus character.

ApostateAbe

Toto, you missed the point again. A "historical basis for the Jesus character" is neither here nor there. It makes me a little ticked off each time, because it is a needless distraction. You miss the point so often that I would like to ignore you every time you cut into a debate, but I don't want to put you on the forum's ignore list, either, so please remind me to ignore you on occasions like this.