Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are "mythologized history." In other words, based on the evidence available they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provide...
I highly doubt that. Mythicism is a minority position, though not one without merit, and the article admits to this fact. But it is nevertheless true that the majority of biblical scholars, both secular and religious, believe Jesus existed.
Fitzgerald points out that for centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts.
That doesn’t automatically make the majority position unjustified. It could indicate bias, but you’d have to demonstrate that bias to be justified in implying it here. Additionally, it doesn’t mean every claim is taken at face value just because it came first.
Historians are subject to the peer review process, too, so to cast aspersions like this only delegitimizes mythicism, which is already struggling to gain broader legitimacy. This article is trying to punch up but only succeeds in punching itself in the face.
Mythicism is basically a dead position. Nobody in academia supports it, outside of a few diehards who have basically lost all credibility years ago. The problem is that it is simply bad historical scholarship. If it were taken seriously, it would mean that nearly nobody in history can be convincingly proven to exist.
I highly doubt that. Mythicism is a minority position, though not one without merit, and the article admits to this fact. But it is nevertheless true that the majority of biblical scholars, both secular and religious, believe Jesus existed.
That doesn’t automatically make the majority position unjustified. It could indicate bias, but you’d have to demonstrate that bias to be justified in implying it here. Additionally, it doesn’t mean every claim is taken at face value just because it came first.
Historians are subject to the peer review process, too, so to cast aspersions like this only delegitimizes mythicism, which is already struggling to gain broader legitimacy. This article is trying to punch up but only succeeds in punching itself in the face.
Mythicism is basically a dead position. Nobody in academia supports it, outside of a few diehards who have basically lost all credibility years ago. The problem is that it is simply bad historical scholarship. If it were taken seriously, it would mean that nearly nobody in history can be convincingly proven to exist.