Five reasons to believe that Jesus never existed

[joel]

This is nothing we haven't seen before, but it's amazing to me in its sheer sloppiness for something published on a fairly mainstream site (though I guess I shouldn't be surprised; it's hardly the first dumb thing Salon has pushed out). Some creationist-level quote mining, and she can't even get the number of Paul's undisputed letters right.

www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/

[wraggy]

Fitzgerald is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people interesting, accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

Accountable to who?

[evangelion]

Dec 23, 2014 2:45:38 GMT joel said:

This is nothing we haven't seen before, but it's amazing to me in its sheer sloppiness for something published on a fairly mainstream site (though I guess I shouldn't be surprised; it's hardly the first dumb thing Salon has pushed out). Some creationist-level quote mining, and she can't even get the number of Paul's undisputed letters right.

www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/

LOL. Not even worth refuting.

[wraggy]

While we are on the topic of Mythicism, here is an article by John Dickson where he has a short critique of Raphael Lataster's article.

You can almost set your clock by it. Another article appears arguing Jesus never lived - so Christmas must be upon us.

This time, however, I was particularly interested, not because Raphael Lataster's piece in The Conversation had anything new to say but because it was written by a young man who just three years ago sat in my Sydney University class on "Historical Jesus to Written Gospels."

I baulked at writing a reply until, amazingly, his article was picked up by the Washington Post of all places. Such is the appetite for the extraordinary!

www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm

[sandwiches]

That John Dickson article was excellent. I have submitted a comment commending his article. You do wonder if it's worth posting comments but I think it is, for the same reason it's worth John Dickson writing his article - so any casual readers don't get the impression that such tomfoolery as Lataster's - is not disputed.

[fortigurn]

Dec 23, 2014 2:54:37 GMT wraggy said:

Fitzgerald is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people interesting, accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

Accountable to who?

Accountable to Fitzgerald of course!

[wraggy]

Is anyone aware of any scholarly reviews of Carriers latest book?
Or is it too early as yet?

[evangelion]

Dec 25, 2014 3:27:13 GMT wraggy said:

Is anyone aware of any scholarly reviews of Carriers latest book?
Or is it too early as yet?

Far too early for his work to be considered worth of a scholarly review...

[sandwiches]

Can't find any scholarly reviews of Carrier's book. There is a review by someone in something called "The Journal Of Religous History". I am not sure what the review-writer's first language is, but I gave up after this line which follows on from explaining Carrier's explanation of the theory that Jesus was  initially a celestial figure who came to be historicised over time:

Chapters 4 and 5 see Carrier masterfully outline crucial "elements" of background knowledge supporting this position that are so forceful that the sceptically inclined may already incline to be convinced.

[wraggy]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Religious_History
The Journal of Religious History is an international peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Religious History Association.

Game, set and match.

[fortigurn]

Dec 27, 2014 14:22:05 GMT sandwiches said:

Can't find any scholarly reviews of Carrier's book. There is a review by someone in something called "The Journal Of Religous History". I am not sure what the review-writer's first language is, but I gave up after this line which follows on from explaining Carrier's explanation of the theory that Jesus was  initially a celestial figure who came to be historicised over time:

Chapters 4 and 5 see Carrier masterfully outline crucial "elements" of background knowledge supporting this position that are so forceful that the sceptically inclined may already incline to be convinced.

The reviewer, Raphael Lataster, is a mythicist, author of 'There Was No Jesus, There Is No God'. Small wonder the review was positive. See Lataster reviewed here.

[sandwiches]

The reviewer, Raphael Lataster, is a mythicist, author of 'There Was No Jesus, There Is No God'

I am naughty: I confess I knew that.

[evangelion]

Dec 28, 2014 8:49:51 GMT fortigurn said:

Dec 27, 2014 14:22:05 GMT sandwiches said:

Can't find any scholarly reviews of Carrier's book. There is a review by someone in something called "The Journal Of Religous History". I am not sure what the review-writer's first language is, but I gave up after this line which follows on from explaining Carrier's explanation of the theory that Jesus was  initially a celestial figure who came to be historicised over time:

Chapters 4 and 5 see Carrier masterfully outline crucial "elements" of background knowledge supporting this position that are so forceful that the sceptically inclined may already incline to be convinced.

The reviewer, Raphael Lataster, is a mythicist, author of 'There Was No Jesus, There Is No God'. Small wonder the review was positive. See Lataster reviewed here.

That is one hell of a spectacular beatdown.

And no, Lataster's review does not count as a proper scholarly review.