Ted Hoffman

I have been seeking all over the web for refutations directed to christ-myth hypotheses by scholars who hold the idea that a historical Jesus more likely than not existed.

Largely, the biggest Christ Mythers are Earl Doherty and G. A. Wells. Archaya S OTOH has been a sitting-duck for people against the idea of Jesus being a myth she has actually placed herself in a position of ridicule by claiming visitations by aliens and so on. Its hard to take her seriously.

J. P. Holding, I have found, is a hard anti christ myther. When one wades through his ridicules and insults directed at christ mythers and scratches the bottom of his derisions, there are some weak arguments.

Are there any serious scholars who have advanced arguments against the christ-myth hypothesis? Does any of you have any trenchant argument that can shatter the idea of Jesus having been mythical?

Alternatively, links to relevant sites supporting both christ myth and historical Jesus would be appreciated.

And oh, for the record, I am a six-day old christ myther.

Darkside_Spirit

Can you give references to Acharya S's claim of alien visitations? Her book, The Christ Conspiracy, is a moderately good work, although she devotes only a few pages to refuting the Gospels (something which should, IMHO, take up at least 25% of any mythicist work) and fails to sufficiently substantiate her statements (time and again we see accusations of "forgery", "interpolation" etc, without any real backing). I happen to think she's right, but her lack of backing (probably due to space constraints) puts her in a vulnerable position.

Oh, and her psychedelic website could do with a redesign

Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ is supposed to be good. I haven't read it, though, and Earl Doherty has written a refutation called Challenging the Verdict.

David Bowden

Apparently they have not - at least none good enough to absolutely convince in favor of Jesus' historicity.

Richard Carrier, a trained historian who long granted Jesus some degree of historical existence, seems to have changed his mind recently, giving provisional assent to the basic argument Doherty advances, until the pro-Historical Jesus camp comes up with a better case.

From Richard Carrier's new review of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle:

source:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml</a>

-Wanderer

CX

I'm afraid you'll not find it. Almost unianimously the academic community does not take christ mythicism seriously enough to merit a repsonse. Personally I think there is insufficient evidence to take a stand either way. Since it is clear that the Jesus of the gospels is a legendary figure, what possible difference does it make whether there is a real person behind the legend? And, given the tremendous paucity of sources for historical information about that person, how could we even in principle say anything concrete about him one way or the other?

Berean

You won't find many arguments against the Christ-myth idea from "serious scholars", largely because mainstream NT scholars consider the idea of no real merit and ignore it.

The Tektonics material is likely the most extensive on the web (and I would be interested to know what you consider "weak" in JPH's arguments) addressing this issue, but you might also wish to check out Glenn Miller's site, which has a moderately lengthy essay <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html" target="_blank">here</a>, which has an entirely scholarly tone unlike JPH's intentional in-your-face style. He cites a number of respectable sources that do have a few comments on the pagan copying issue.

Darkside_Spirit

Perhaps the scholastic disregard towards the Jesus myth theory comes from the fact that most of the "New Testament scholars" are Christians? After all, you're much less likely to make a profession out of one particular text if you consider it just another mythological legend.

CX

Well I think Michael Goulder serves as a good counter example. He's an atheist and respected biblical scholar and as far as I know he has said nothing about the christ myth theory. He seems to accept unreservedly an HJ behind the gospel texts.

Peter Kirby

All the good atheist biblical scholars are either Jewish or ex-Christian.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

The problem with JPH is that he is good at criticizing but poor at constructing a positive case. This is evident in his article on the secular mentions. I think that only Tacitus and Josephus may have any value as independent evidence for Jesus. But Holding tries to milk all kinds of dubious sources, such as the late second century satirist Lucian of Samosata. A major limitation of JPH on the historical Jesus is that there is no serious discussion of the merit of the Christian documents as historical evidence. But if there is evidence for a man named Jesus, it is surely strongest there.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think that Carrier's essay should change that. He uses accepted historical methodology and shows that Doherty's thesis provides a better explanation of the facts than the alternative Literalist hypothesis. Since there is so little evidence, it is impossible to be sure one way or the other, but the question is definitely not trivial or boring.

This reminds me to a certain extent of the controversy over the Atkins diet, the subject of a New York Times Magazine article written by a skeptical writer. All of the experts have dismissed the Atkins diet and refused to even look at it, but the evidence is piling up that is has more of a basis in nutritional fact than the standard nutritional model.