I recently came this post on Ben Stanhope’s Remythologized blog: “Bart Ehrman Spanks Acharya S’ Christ Conspiracy.” It really does reflect the attitude of mainstream scholars toward the über skepticism of the Jesus-myther school (the wacky Zeitgeist conspiratorial hermeneutic). Ehrman of course describes himself as an near-atheist agnostic, so he’s no friend of conservative thinking about Jesus. But he knows nonsense when he reads it.
I’ve had the personal experience of being at academic conferences and dropping specific names of PaleoBabblers that multitudes out there on the internet presume know what they’re talking about only to have scholars laugh (literally). Real scholars are aware of the nonsense out on the web about Jesus being an amalgam of pagan gods, ancient astronauts, and [fill in the blank with some other point of nonsense]. They think it hilarious, not threatening. They don’t write about it because they consider it beneath them or a waste of the time they want to devote to publishing.
It’s just something you should know.
Not all Jesus non-historicity proponents believe that Christianity was a product of direct pagan influence.
agreed.
Frankly, the fact that you prop up the Jesus myth is enough for me to not trust this blog… there is just zero evidence that Jesus existed. A skeptic you are not…
Please, direct me to the scholarly work that overturns what Ehrman and basically every other Jesus scholar says about Jesus existing (whether they assign any religious meaning to him or not). You apparently have come across data everyone else has missed. Take your time. I won’t be holding my breath on this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA
In this video, Acharya S. herself has been replying and citing sources, under the name D.M. Murdock.
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html
http://truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
Which I think at least deserves a critique, even though she doesn’t seem to be showing necessary connections, could you please see the conversation and write up a huge article that discusses all of these things in depth?
It would be helpful to me, and people like me, because from the looks of it, her sources are primary and peer reviewed(albeit still in infancy because no necessary connections are being demonstrated).
See my reply to Cath (and in email as I recall).
Isn’t Jesus a Flavian dynasty creation? Worth a Google if you’re peddling redemption and salvation space cults. I believe Joseph Atwill is the scholar nobody will take on for that argument. I await your response.
short answer: No
longer answer: Tell Mr. Atwill to submit his work to peer review rather than self-publishing. You can’t really say no one is willing to take him on when he doesn’t have the courage to first submit his material to experts for peer review.
Was that worth the wait?
“They think it hilarious, not threatening. They don’t write about it because they consider it beneath them or a waste of the time they want to devote to publishing.”
While this is wonderful to know that the scholars are doing work, it seems that unless they are willing to do more than just assert this, and further demonstrate the incoherencies that they have made, while responding to the persons they are objecting against, it is simply not sufficient to say that it is enough. Because Acharya’s work does seem rigorous, although I do have to agree that the connections she makes is ridiculous, however, I still find the need for some serious scholar to discourage works as such, in the age of the internet, disinformation is a plenty, and it is this very thing that needs to be heavily discouraged by the ones who are actually Scholars in professional fashion dealing with the claims made and the critiques made.
They have demonstrated the incoherence – since the late 1800s (mostly early 20th century) — in published books and other peer-reviewed items. This “Jesus didn’t exist” mythology is a lot older than the internet and Zeitgeist. I have books on my shelf from the 1930s that debunk it. Since this is old news to scholars, they feel it’s a waste of their time. Sadly, few care about publishing for the masses. Boyd/Eddy and Porter are exceptions (and I guess some of what Craig Evans has put out here, and some things on Ben Witherington’s blog), but most scholars publish for the guild.
I don’t like it; that’s just the way it is.