Kyr Shorn wrote:Angleter wrote:
Josephus' work was certainly a 1st century piece about Judaean history in general, and so would not have mentioned Jesus' existence were it not an event of any significance in Judaean history.
Furthermore, your dismissal of the Bible dismisses with it all the in-depth scholarly analysis of the New Testament to determine its varying degrees of truth. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, the notion that Jesus was simply a mythical being is rejected by the scholarly orthodoxy.
I think they reject it because they would all be out of a job if the focus of their careers was completely and utterly exposed as a fictional creation. Imagine if thousands of scholars spent their entire lives across the span of two thousand years writing about and discussing to death the various possibilities of Popeye the Sailor Man and then had to face the fact that he was just a made up comic strip character.
I could picture quite a bit of screaming and denial at the declaration that the emperor had no clothes.
There would be plenty of things to debate and interpret in the Bible and otherwise even if Jesus were proven to be non-existent, such as where these stories originated and how Jesus was created. There's no reason for a cabal of scholars to protect the idea of Jesus' existence, and to think so is about as credible as most other anti-expert theories.
EDIT: What Arch said.



