“the academic profession of religion”

Why does the author need to attach this claimer to his arguments? Surely the arguments should stand or fall on their own merits without reminding us that they are the results of the musings of academics. This implies that academic arguments are true simply because they are academic and it is a way of patronising those people who present arguments without academic credentials. He talks of those with ‘flat earth’ attitudes. These attitudes were once the truth taught by ‘academics.’

Why does he need to present arguments for the existence of an historical Jesus? If we aim to live by the authority of Jesus then we might need to try and prove that he first of all existed and that secondly he has authority. The real problem here is not whether he existed or whether he has authority but why people feel the need to live by authority instead of by reason.

Obviously it is based on insecurity about their own ability and faith in their own human nature to determine what is the best way to live. Whilst those who profess to live by nature often behave in ways that are at odds with that nature this does not of itself elevate Christianity or any other authority to a position of moral superiority. All other things being equal it must be said that living according to one’s nature is the most logical way. Even Christians live by their nature until they find it to be in conflict with the ‘authority ‘of religion then they abandon nature to their own and often to society’s detriment.

Articles like this are not trying to prove something that is of importance to anyone but those, like the author, who need to live by authority.

Good to see all the usually crappy Jesus Myther arguments are being trotted out right on cue:

"There are no contemporary references to Jesus so this means he didn't exist"

Terrible argument. We have no contemporary attestation for MOST ancient figures. That's just the nature of ancient source material. We have no contemporary references for many people who were much more famous and prominent than some peasant Jewish preacher from the back of nowhere. Given that we have zero contemporary references for Hannibal, to expect them for Jesus is absurd. We have no contemporary references to any of the other various early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, so the fact we have none for this one tells us precisely nothing about whether or not he existed.

"The Romans kept meticulous records but none of them mention Jesus"

Really? Perhaps that's because none of these meticulous records survive. We have no Roman records from first century Judea. None. So how are we meant to find a reference to Jesus in records that we don't have?

"There's a bit academic conspiracy against the Jesus Myth theorists and their position is only rejected out of cultural bias."

No, their position is rejected because it's crap. They are peddling the same weak arguments and ad hoc workarounds that scholars have considered and rejected for the last 100 years. These arguments aren't getting any better just because a few fringe cranks with an axe to grind keep repeating them.
(cont.)

(Cont.)

"No hisotrian of the time mentions Jesus"

Wrong. He's mentioned in Josephus *Antiquities* XVIII.3.4, XX.9.1 and Tacitus *Annals* XV.44.

"Scholars have rejected the reference to Jesus in Josephus as a forgery".

Nope. The scholarly consensus is actually that the reference to Jesus in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.4 has clearly been clumsily added to by later Christian scribes, but that he still gave an account of Jesus and his execution. And the reference to the execution of Jesus' brother in *Antiquities* XX.9.1 is not only considered genuine, but is also very close to first hand testimony, given that Josephus was 25 and living in the same small city as James at the time. So, fail. Again.

"Richard Carrier says ..."

No-one cares what Richard Carrier says. Richard Carrier is a failed academic and unemployed blogger who is also a full time anti-Christian activist. To pretend he's some great authority is ridiculous. To pretend he's some kind of unbiased objective analyst is even more so. He's a joke.

Tim you keep missing the point, we really need you to answer the big questions like "How many Angles can dance on the head of a pin"?

Tim O'Neill

"The scholarly consensus is actually that [if] the reference to Jesus in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.4 has clearly been clumsily *added to* by later Christian scribes" Jospehus may have still given an account of Jesus and his execution.

OR, the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation.

"The reference to the execution of Jesus' brother in *Antiquities* XX.9.1" ... is dubious. If the NT Jesus was a real person, there is nothing that substantiates assertions that he had a blood-brother: the term 'brother' had other meanings.

Moreover, the vague reference to Jesus in Antiquities* XX.9.1 is weird. It may well be a scribal error as carrier has argued in a peer-reviewed journal article -

Carrier R. (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”
The Journal of Early Christian Studies. Vol 20; no 4, (Winter edn); pp. 489-514.
Abstract: Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

It cannot be considered genuine.

Lastly, Tacitus Annals 15 does not refer to Jesus; only Chrestians (sic) following a Christ.

So much anger, TimONeill. Perhaps you should heed my advice at the end of my last post?

If you’re going to respond to statements in quotation marks as if they were direct quotes, then you’d want to ensure that someone has actually said what you’re responding to. Your first quote, for example, was rubbish. No-one said that. You’ve done nothing but attack a strawman there. Really poor form there.

<<We have no contemporary attestation for MOST ancient figures.>>

Sure. So as with an historical Jesus, we can’t know for sure if they actually existed. No-one here has claimed that this means they mustn’t have existed. This is certainly a problem for a divine Jesus, however.

Your third quote was also rubbish. No-one said that. Your response was weak either way. You provided no examples of your assertions.

Your final paragraph was just as pitiful with an ad hominem attack on Richard Carrier that contained no reasoning to support your attacks, just assertions.

In amongst all this outrage and scoffing at Jesus Mythicicsts, you Christians miss an even bigger problem for your theology: why would a god, who has an important message for us and wants to convey it to us, only reveal it to certain individuals who then write it down so that thousands of years later we need to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals? The Christian god is incredibly stupid if it wants to rely on texts and anecdotal testimony, written in languages that die off, to achieve its goal of spreading its message to humanity.

That’s the nail in the coffin for Christianity. Not whether or not an historical Jesus existed.