The folly of Jesus-Mythicists

It really is frustrating to see how many self-declared rational people abandon historical methodology when it comes to the issue of Jesus’ historicity (really it’s special pleading).

James Hannam has a well written four-part series of posts which show the bankruptcy of the Jesus Myth claims. He goes into more detail, but this quote is worth highlighting:

 It is telling that in spite of their vast amount of learning, their hostility to orthodox Christianity, and their willingness to allege that much of the New Testament is fictional, not even John Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrman have any time for the idea that Jesus was made up of pagan motifs. Nor indeed do the vast majority of liberal scholars. The pagan myth hypothesis is firmly outside the pale of modern scholarship. That’s also the reason why refuting authors like Tom Harpur tends to be left to Christian writers. Academic historians just don’t think it is worth wasting time on anything so obviously wrong.

Read them all: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3Part 4


I found these links via Timothy Dalrymple, and as he so pithily puts it:

Simply put, if you can’t say that Jesus existed, then you can’t do history at all.  Dismissals of the existence of Jesus are not historical.  They’re ideological.


What do you think?