Toto

Fitzgerald won an honorable mention in the 2009 Mythicism competition with "Ten beautiful lies." He has now apparently self published this as Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All (or via: amazon.co.uk).

The Friendly Atheist has an excerpt.

GakuseiDon

I just don't get why mythicists are trying to address apologist arguments. It would be like Dawkins writing a book about how evolution works and then talking about how Creationists get it wrong. If he is addressing Creationism itself, it makes sense. But if he is only talking about evolution, why bother? If I wanted to learn about evolution, and I bought a book that addressed Creationism, I would quickly put it away.

Similarly, if someone wants to address apologetics or Christian orthodoxy then great, address apologetics and Christian orthodoxy. But what does the evidence for mythicism have to do with apologetics? Why spend time on apologists' arguments? Does ANYONE here think that proving Christian preachers wrong does anything to disprove a historical Jesus?

I haven't read David Fitzgerald's book, but it seems he already has one foot posed to step onto the conspiracy banana peel. I'm convinced you don't need a tin-foil hat to be a mythicist, but the tin-foil hat business does appear to be booming. Just once I would love to see a book by a mythicist that was only about presenting the case for mythicism.

How about we list here right now all the apologists and their arguments that mythicists need to address, in order to disprove a historical Jesus. Would any mythicists like to volunteer a name of an apologist and their argument that mythicists should address to help strengthen the case for mythicism? Strobel? JP Holding?

Toto

I think that word apologist is used rather loosely in the paragraphs you cite.

You can read the essay version of Fitgerald's Ten Beautiful Lies here. See if you can find any hint of conspiracy thinking there.

GakuseiDon

Toto, it's the implications of addressing Christian arguments in the first place. You don't need to refer to creationism to show how evolution works. You don't need to refer to ancient astronauts when talking about how the pyramids or Easter Island statues were built. And you don't to refer to Christian apologetics to show that the evidence supports mythicism. Unless, of course, you are convinced that the best arguments for historicism are around the same value as Christian apologetics. In which case I would ask: what size do you want that hat?

aa5874

Why don't you read the book first? You are the one who is already making statements that you cannot corroborate.

Do you think people are idiots? Go and read the book first if you want to make comments.

It is far better to think Jesus was a myth than he was RAISED from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

maryhelena

Someone right here
One mythicist who agrees with you 100%.
I gave that game up moons ago - what's that old saying - you can play any old tune on the Bible. So, let the old tunes move those so inclined to sway along - while I get out the pick fork and head for that old historical dumping ground over there in the dirty old cowshed....:devil3:

PS: And if anyone wants an example of the futility of playing the Bible game - run over to RS and watch TimONeill and spin play it out - HJ vs MJ/skeptics - great entertainment but futile nevertheless as a means whereby any forward movement can be generated.

Toto

You seem to be determined to drag this down to the level of insult.

In fact, the most vocal defenders of the historicity of Jesus are Christian apologists, as defenders of the faith. We are all still waiting for a respectable historian to address the issue, as opposed to claiming that it is a settled matter and not really worth examining (which is Ehrman's position, as well as Crossan.)

So what exactly do you expect Fitzgerald to discuss? What case is there for the existence of a historical Jesus that is substantially different from the one presented by Christian apologists?

And even I, as scornful as I am of Christian apologists, would never suggest that Lee Strobel or JP Holding or Josh McDowell should be compared to, say, David Icke. For all of their faults, the better Christian apologists attempt to present a rational case for their position, and there is value to rebutting their arguments.

Why don't you read the book or the online article if you want to discuss this? It bears very little relation to the caricature that you have thrown up.

GakuseiDon

If, as Carrier notes, "it is common in Christian apologetics throughout history to make absurdly exaggerated claims", then non-apologetic arguments, I guess.

As Fitzgerald explains: "Many people may not believe Jesus was the divine Christ, and may regard accounts of the miracles and wonders attending him as mere legendary accretion. Perhaps he was just a wandering teacher or an exorcist, an apocalyptic prophet or a zealot." Arguments along that line.

That would be fair enough if Christian apologists had the best rational arguments. If the intention is to put the best case for mythicism, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to decry apologetic arguments as absurdly exaggerated claims -- and then discuss them. But if the intention is to address Christian orthodoxy and apologetics, then fair enough.

They appear to be addressing Christian arguments. The book is called: "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All".

The article is called: "Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus: How the myths Christians tell about Jesus Christ suggest Jesus never existed at all"

I've read the article, which seems to be the basis of his book. From the article:

Was there really any reason for Jesus to be noticed by his contemporaries?

Christians are split on the matter. Many assume news of their savior must have become just as widespread in the first century as it is now. But there is no evidence that this was the case. Increasingly, Christian commentators have noticed this shortage of historical corroboration for the Gospels and taken a very different tack. They like to claim that this is not surprising at all...

Most people assume there were scores of contemporary historical witnesses who mentioned Jesus, and this assumption is both encouraged and trumpeted by apologists... Often you see some or all of this group trotted out by apologists and simply presented in a laundry list as witnesses of Christ...

But there were many first century writers, philosophers, historians, and other commentators who had good reason to notice Jesus, and despite apologists’ fervent denials, a wealth of their writings still exists today. But these perfectly respectable sources are never on Christian lists of historical witnesses. They include important figures like Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Nicolaus of Damascus and more...

Wishful apologists try to argue that Josephus really did mention Jesus, and overenthusiastic scribes merely embellished his account. They even try to reconstruct the “original” Testimonium...

Christians were entirely on the defensive concerning charges that they had stolen from the much older mystery faiths and other pagan religions. Christian apologists today employ the ostrich defense – staunch, dismissive, unwavering denial; any similarities with the older pagan faiths are either ignored, denied, rationalized away or declared to be later copies of Christianity...

As Price remarks: “Conservative scholars and Christian apologists have never been at ease even recognizing the existence of the dying-and-rising-god motif in non-Christian Mystery Religions, much less their relevance for Christian origins. As apologists are merely spin doctors for a theological party line, their aloofness to the dying-and-rising-god mytheme is scarcely surprising... "

Apologists breeze over another important consideration: Just the mere fact that Jesus is “the Son of God” is a huge indication that he is a new creation based on the pagan model. It’s only when the other Mediterranean gods begin having demi-god sons with mortal women that God suddenly announces that he has a demi-god son too.

Fitzgerald is addressing what Christians believe. No harm in that, and good luck to him. I'm sure there are many mythicists and Christians who will be interested in the book.

Toto

And those are?

Those are not arguments. Those are attempts at rationalizing the gospels.

What rational arguments are there for the historicity of Jesus that are not addressed here?

It's always easy after the mythicist destroys a certain argument for historicity to say, oh, but those aren't the best arguments for a historical Jesus. But where are those best arguments? Why are they hidden from sight?

EarlDoherty

Good point, Toto. When scholars like Ehrman and Crossan wave a dismissive hand and declare it's not necessary to take those arguments out of the closet, maybe all that closet contains are the emperor's new--or rather old--clothes. (A nude John Dominic Crossan? Eeew. No wonder he's not anxious to model them!)

But we've got the best supermodel to parade those designs right here, don't we? In all his naked glory. GDon himself, the "slayer of Earl Doherty".

gasp, choke, expire,
Earl Doherty