Why do skeptics question whether the Biblical Jesus Christ ever existed?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia_Alexandria: In sum, the book can very easily be described in the terms so beloved by yourself -

oversimplifying complex events, presenting speculation as fact, and offering limited evidence to support dramatic conclusions.

Again, an amusing remark from someone who has not read the book.

The question then arises as to why scholarly reviews of the book would even exist; it should be beneath notice.

I am not the one who has claimed to have read any "scholarly reviews" of this work. That came from your good friend @rogue06.

When I'm talking about everything being disparaging, I'm talking about scholarly reviews, not write-ups in the popular press, which I didn't bother with (just like I didn't bother with reviews on obvious Christian sites).

My emphasis.

[tabibito]

In sum, the book can very easily be described in the terms so beloved by yourself -

oversimplifying complex events, presenting speculation as fact, and offering limited evidence to support dramatic conclusions.

Again, an amusing remark from someone who has not read the book.

that was a quote from someone who had actually read the book: Brian Sullivan, as cited https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/al...assical-world/

So you portray a story writer as an authority, but that writer's work fails to meet the standards that you seek to impose on others (when they write things you don't like).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The presence of discrepancies between accounts hardly justifies a conclusion that the accounts are historically unreliable. For example, the survivors of the sinking of the Titanic were interviewed almost immediately after the ship's sinking they provided contradictory testimonies as to whether it went down intact or broke in two just prior to sinking.

The gospels were not written by eye-witnesses to events.

Nor do we have any original MSS for any of these texts. As you later refer to Ehrman in this thread here is a section from his opening chapter The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture [OUP, 1993] where, after briefly referencing the variety of different beliefs held among Christians in the second and third centuries, he notes:

Few of these variant theologies went uncontested, and the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every level. [...] The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way the transcribed their sacred Scriptures? The burden of the present study is that they did, that theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "orthodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy.

[tabibito]

rogue06 Re: Ehrman's comment as cited by H_A

Few of these variant theologies went uncontested, and the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every level. [...] The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way the transcribed their sacred Scriptures? The burden of the present study is that they did, that theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "orthodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy.

The comment might have some weight if the texts of the Bible did not so often conflict with the theologies of the later churches. Are we expected to believe that the text has been emended to conflict with the teachings of the great minds of the Constantinian church?

The claim that "Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "orthodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy" actually stands in contradiction of what we find when the scriptures are compared with Constantinian church theology.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

that was a quote from someone who had actually read the book: Brian Sullivan, as cited https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/al...assical-world/

Sorry tabs according to rogue06 the popular press [which would include the New York Review] does not count.

So you portray a story writer as an authority, but that writer's work fails to meet the standards that you seek to impose on others (when they write things you don't like).

I am not holding up Nixey's work as the ultimate text on this subject, I merely made a suggestion to Alien that he might like to read the work as it was "interesting".

From that remark both you and rogue06 then weighed in with your various disparaging and derogatory comments on a work neither of you has actually read.

I am perforce left to wonder if what exercised you both so much was simply the fact that I had mentioned the book.

[tabibito]

Sorry tabs according to rogue06 the popular press [which would include the New York Review] does not count.

The Library Journal is not categorised as "popular press."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Library Journal is not categorised as "popular press."

Nor is it classified as a "scholarly review" which are, apparently, all those that rogue06 has told us he read.

However, looking at those reviews in your link they offer mixed and positive comments. Several are also behind paywalls so we cannot know everything that those reviewers wrote [unless we subscribe].

Sullivan's full comment [insofar as I can ascertain] notes:

In her debut, Times (UK) journalist Nixey boldly challenges the conventional narrative of the happy triumph of early Christianity by telling the story from the perspective of those whom the Church defeated. Her gripping, albeit sometimes sensationalistic, revisionist popular history calls into question the standard accounts of topics such as monasticism, the Roman persecution of Christians, and martyrdom while vividly portraying the tragedies of people such as Hypatia of Alexandria and Damascius of Athens. Nixey's overarching purpose is to provoke readers to consider the terrible cost of the rise of the Christian faith. Although medieval monasteries did indeed preserve a lot of classical knowledge, prior to that the Church demolished, vandalized, and destroyed art, statues, temples, and books and was an instrument of persecution, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism as it conquered its rivals across the Roman Empire.

VERDICT While providing a valuable corrective and alternative to Christian-centric historical perspectives, Nixey is prone to push too far in the other direction, oversimplifying complex events, presenting speculation as fact, and offering limited evidence to support dramatic conclusions. Regardless, readers interested in unorthodox histories will appreciate this stimulating and iconoclastic work.

My additional emphasis.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

rogue06 Re: Ehrman's comment as cited by H_A

Few of these variant theologies went uncontested, and the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every level. [...] The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way the transcribed their sacred Scriptures? The burden of the present study is that they did, that theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "orthodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy.

The comment might have some weight if the texts of the Bible did not so often conflict with the theologies of the later churches. Are we expected to believe that the text has been emended to conflict with the teachings of the great minds of the Constantinian church?

The claim that "Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "orthodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy" actually stands in contradiction of what we find when the scriptures are compared with Constantinian church theology.

Firstly, I suggest you [again] read the entire book rather than making an observation premised on a very brief extract from the first chapter. You may even find it on the site for which rogue06 provided a link.

And secondly what do you understand by "Constantinian church theology"?

[tabibito]

Nor is it classified as a "scholarly review" which are, apparently, all those that rogue06 has told us he read.

However, looking at those reviews in your link they offer mixed and positive comments. Several are also behind paywalls so we cannot know everything that those reviewers wrote [unless we subscribe].

Sullivan's full comment [insofar as I can ascertain] notes:

In her debut, Times (UK) journalist Nixey boldly challenges the conventional narrative of the happy triumph of early Christianity by telling the story from the perspective of those whom the Church defeated. Her gripping, albeit sometimes sensationalistic, revisionist popular history calls into question the standard accounts of topics such as monasticism, the Roman persecution of Christians, and martyrdom while vividly portraying the tragedies of people such as Hypatia of Alexandria and Damascius of Athens. Nixey's overarching purpose is to provoke readers to consider the terrible cost of the rise of the Christian faith. Although medieval monasteries did indeed preserve a lot of classical knowledge, prior to that the Church demolished, vandalized, and destroyed art, statues, temples, and books and was an instrument of persecution, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism as it conquered its rivals across the Roman Empire.

VERDICT While providing a valuable corrective and alternative to Christian-centric historical perspectives, Nixey is prone to push too far in the other direction, oversimplifying complex events, presenting speculation as fact, and offering limited evidence to support dramatic conclusions. Regardless, readers interested in unorthodox histories will appreciate this stimulating and iconoclastic work.

My additional emphasis.

Yes - the book sets out to achieve a purpose, and does so admirably even on the (a bit more than) five percent that is available on Google. I have already stated that it reads well, and add now that it is a writing style that I myself try to achieve (not with much success). That does nothing to change the fact that the purpose of the book is one that makes it misleading in the way that it deals with the facts regarding the Constantinian church.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes - the book sets out to achieve a purpose, and does so admirably even on the (a bit more than) five percent that is available on Google. I have already stated that it reads well, and add now that it is a writing style that I myself try to achieve (not with much success). That does nothing to change the fact that the purpose of the book is one that makes it misleading in the way that it deals with the facts regarding the Constantinian church.

As Sullivan notes in his review:

Although medieval monasteries did indeed preserve a lot of classical knowledge, prior to that the Church demolished, vandalized, and destroyed art, statues, temples, and books and was an instrument of persecution, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism as it conquered its rivals across the Roman Empire.

My emphasis.

That fact needs to be remembered; and therefore, notwithstanding all the the caveats regarding Nixey's work she eloquently makes that point.

Nor did Christianity's intolerance and brutality end in its first two centuries.

[tabibito]

As Sullivan notes in his review:

Although medieval monasteries did indeed preserve a lot of classical knowledge, prior to that the Church demolished, vandalized, and destroyed art, statues, temples, and books and was an instrument of persecution, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism as it conquered its rivals across the Roman Empire.

My emphasis.

That fact needs to be remembered; and therefore, notwithstanding all the the caveats regarding Nixey's work she eloquently makes that point.

Nor did Christianity's intolerance and brutality end in its first two centuries.

It was noted by a commentator (details lost in the decade or so since I read it) that, "no sooner had Rome ceased to persecute the churches than the churches turned to persecuting each other." It can accurately be added that having more or less* finished doing so, they then turned to persecuting outsiders.

{{*It can't be said that the process was ever finalised}}

[rogue06]

I am doing no such thing. Comments from the general public on a discussion board and blog sites do not constitute "scholarly reviews".

There are several favourable reviews [albeit with caveats] including Whitmarsh's review in The Guardian but they also are in the "popular press" which you have stated you "didn't bother with".

I'm not talking about what is posted here, and nobody believes that you didn't go looking for reviews that weren't in the popular press, which really aren't hard to find given the proper search parameters. So unless you are a bit incompetent you have run across some of the same ones I did. But you have chosen to ignore them and instead play your dishonest games that has endeared you with everyone where ever you have posted.

[rogue06]

that was a quote from someone who had actually read the book: Brian Sullivan, as cited https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/al...assical-world/

So you portray a story writer as an authority, but that writer's work fails to meet the standards that you seek to impose on others (when they write things you don't like).

Also note that Nixey is not a scholar or academic. She's a writer for the Economist who also studied classics at university (she has mocked those with degrees in the field).

That would be more than enough to get a summary dismissal from Hypocrite_Again if presented as an authority by anyone else.

[rogue06]

Nor is it classified as a "scholarly review" which are, apparently, all those that rogue06 has told us he read.

However, looking at those reviews in your link they offer mixed and positive comments. Several are also behind paywalls so we cannot know everything that those reviewers wrote [unless we subscribe].

Sullivan's full comment [insofar as I can ascertain] notes:

In her debut, Times (UK) journalist Nixey boldly challenges the conventional narrative of the happy triumph of early Christianity by telling the story from the perspective of those whom the Church defeated. Her gripping, albeit sometimes sensationalistic, revisionist popular history calls into question the standard accounts of topics such as monasticism, the Roman persecution of Christians, and martyrdom while vividly portraying the tragedies of people such as Hypatia of Alexandria and Damascius of Athens. Nixey's overarching purpose is to provoke readers to consider the terrible cost of the rise of the Christian faith. Although medieval monasteries did indeed preserve a lot of classical knowledge, prior to that the Church demolished, vandalized, and destroyed art, statues, temples, and books and was an instrument of persecution, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism as it conquered its rivals across the Roman Empire.

VERDICT While providing a valuable corrective and alternative to Christian-centric historical perspectives, Nixey is prone to push too far in the other direction, oversimplifying complex events, presenting speculation as fact, and offering limited evidence to support dramatic conclusions. Regardless, readers interested in unorthodox histories will appreciate this stimulating and iconoclastic work.

My additional emphasis.

The Library Journal, which is a professional journal, that for some reason you appear to have initially confused with the New York Review, is not popular press and could technically constitute what I meant by "scholarly review" (although it is meant for librarians and not experts in the pertinent fields). It is also one I did not come across when I looked, but since it does contain mixed reviews, I have to amend my original statement about there not being any positive reviews of her book.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It was noted by a commentator (details lost in the decade or so since I read it) that, "no sooner had Rome ceased to persecute the churches than the churches turned to persecuting each other." It can accurately be added that having more or less* finished doing so, they then turned to persecuting outsiders.

{{*It can't be said that the process was ever finalised}}

Rome did not systematically and continuously persecute Christians and their churches.

As Candida Moss notes in the opening to her work The Myth of Persecution, Harper Collins, 2013:

Christians were not routinely persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Roman authorities. Very few Christians died, and when they did so they were often executed for what today, might be considered political reasons. It should be noted that there is a distinct difference between persecution and proscription.

A persecutor targets individual members of a group merely because of their participation in that group. An individual is prosecuted because that person has broken a law. The modern distinctions of dividing religion and politics were not evident in the ancient world, and that fact complicates our understanding of the issue. In the ancient world religious freedom was not an inalienable human right. However, there is a distinct difference between being prosecuted under a law that is not intended to target or eradicate any particular group, and persecution. The laws may be unjust and unfair but those prosecuted under it are not being persecuted.

And as Nixey also notes in her work:

Even Origen noted that the numbers of martyrs could be easily counted and that Christians only "occasionally" died for their faith. Stories certainly spread and proliferated but most of these turned out to be nothing but stories. Likewise these "persecutions" were never intended to solely and explicitly target Christians.