Talk:Ossuary of James

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Name frequency[edit]

How common were the names Joshua/Jesus, James and Joseph at that time and locality? 'No, we are the James bin Joseph and Joshua bin Joseph the wine makers of the Judea Popular Front - you want the James bin Joseph and Joshua bin Joseph the carpenters from Bethlehem.' (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

According to a study, only 1.71 people during the time of Jesus was named James with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. See 'The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family', page 62.Korvexman (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
1.71 seems implausibly precise and, if the ossuary is an antiquity (a) there were probably more 'appropriately named trios of men' who were not able to afford such objects and (b) there were probably far more occasions of 'James brother of Joshua' and 'Joshua son of Joseph' where pious fraud or more modern manipulation transformed the inscription into the trio. And - weird coincidences happen/several low probability events do occur together. (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
1.71 is not "implausibly precise", it's simply the best possible reconstruction of the past according to the evidence we have today. 86, you might need to look a lot, lot more at scholarly research before dismissing the conclusions of renowned experts in the field, especially as a laymen. Otherwise, you simply make yourself look immature. Andre Lemaire's research has also concluded that in Jerusalem at the time of when the ossuary was formed, no more than 20 men in all of Jerusalem at the time would have been named James, with a father named Joseph and brother named Jesus. The numbers don't lie, and the numbers themselves aren't lies, either. The research has been done, and the only way to dismiss it is to show your own research or someone who has done research themselves and have come to your conclusion. Otherwise, opinions can be dismissed.Korvexman (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Madness everywhere[edit]

I don't know if this article was written a decade ago or is simply based on an insane amount of misinformation. RationalWiki promotes rationality, not the junk on this page. Since 2003, Oled Golan has been acquitted of all forgery charges. This Rational page says that he was caught with yet-to-be-completed forgeries in his house, thereby making it seems he was obviously a forger... But and the citation provided for this claim doesn't even work. It's strange enough that someone decided to cite a website called Baptist News, but the complete failure of the link to work is probably the worse part. The article also says the IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) concluded that the ossuary is forged, however the IAA has now ruled out the forgery claim and no longer posits that it is forged. In other words, just about everything here is outdated.

Several world-class scholars have now authenticated the inscription on the ossuary and so scholars no longer question the veracity of the inscription, it is now accepted as authentic. Considering this, the page needs a complete makeover for the most part. I don't see why the pseudojournal Open Journal of Geology even warrants a mention. Korvexman (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Madness everywhere"? You don't think you might be laying it on a little thick there?
As for you not knowing if our article was written a decade ago, the date of RationalWiki's founding is a matter of public record. Furthermore, the article history clearly states that it was first created one June 12, 2015. But I digest.
Now, first of all, you're very right about one thing — our article on the Ossary does indeed need updating (and expansion). As pertains to the rest of your claims... Facepalm.png
Regarding the developments in the case of the Ossary of James, here's what TOWWikipedia's W.svg has to say on the matter as of today:

In 2003, The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) determined that the inscriptions were forged at a much later date. In December 2004, Oded Golan was charged with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception, including forgery of the Ossuary inscription. The trial lasted seven years before Judge Aharon Farkash came to a verdict. On March 14, 2012, Golan was acquitted of the forgery charges but convicted of illegal trading in antiquities. The judge said this acquittal "does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago".

Citing from The Times of Israel:

In his ruling Wednesday, the judge went out of his way to say that the fact Golan had been found not guilty did not mean the artifacts were real.

His decision to clear Golan of forging the inscription on the James ossuary, he wrote, “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell.

“Moreover,” he wrote, “it was not proven in any way that the words ‘the brother of Jesus’ necessarily refer to the ‘Jesus’ who appears in Christian writings.”

Speaking of the trial (and what wasn't brought to the fore), consider the investigative journalism undertaken by 60 Minutes in March of 2008:

Pagis says that Golan wasn't working alone and that he had help from academics, dealers, and an Egyptian craftsman.

"So Oded Golan was the head of the operation and he had an Egyptian who did the actual forgery?" Simon asks.

"Yes," Pagis says. "The Egyptian makes the forgeries, and Oded Golan is marketing them."

"So we are dealing with a sophisticated operation here. How good was the Egyptian at what he did?" Simon asks.

"He's a very talented craftsman that's for sure," Pagis says.

The Egyptian is Marko Sammech, who did work for Oded Golan over a period of 15 years.

To find him, 60 Minutes sent producer Michael Gavshon undercover to the Cairo market where a lot of fakes are made, something the Egyptian authorities are reluctant to admit.

Marko Sammech was surprised to see 60 Minutes. Gavshon asked him about the James ossuary and Marko denied that he had worked on it; he then showed Marko a picture of that $4 million dollar tablet.

"I inscribed several stone slabs that looked just like this for Golan," Marko remarked.

"Yeah, but I mean, he presumably gave you the text," Gavshon asked.

"Yes, Golan brought me the text and I carved it onto the tablet," Marko replied.

Marko said Golan didn't pay him very much, but when 60 Minutes told him that some of his work had been sold to collectors for a small fortune he was shocked.

"These seals were sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars," Gavshon pointed out.

"But these are just pieces of clay. You can barely see what's written on them. Why would collectors pay that kind of money? It doesn't make sense to me," Marko said.

"But they do, and they did. And they're very angry now because they understand that they were made in a workshop in Cairo," Gavshon said.

"Tell them to call me. I'll make hundreds for them," Marko said,

Marko may be amused, but the Israeli police are not. They desperately need his testimony to convict Golan. 60 Minutes learned the Egyptian authorities won't let him go.

And indeed, in Ghatas (the Egyptian) confessed to both Egyptian authorities and to the head of the IAA's Theft Prevention Unit, Amir Ganor, "rinsing and smearing" the inscription on the Ossary for Golan. As Ha'aretz reported in April of 2008:

Marco Samah Shoukri Ghatas, the Egyptian artist who confessed to manufacturing many items for Golan, including the Jehoash inscription, will not be coming to Israel to testify. According to the IAA, it is the Egyptian authorities that are preventing Ghatas from coming to Israel.

Many, many problems plague the James Ossary which have nothing to do with the trial, however — and which remain to this day.
As noted CSICOP skeptical investigator Joe Nickell relates regarding the inscription itself (noting the references listed in the bottom of his article):

In addition to the questionable provenance, the exterior appearance of the ossuary also raises suspicions. To view the box, which was on display at the Royal Ontario Museum, I recently traveled to Toronto with several of my Center for Inquiry colleagues. They included Kevin Christopher, who has degrees in classics and linguistics, with whom I had been studying the case (see acknowledgments). We were able to get a good look at the box, and what we observed raised eyebrows.

First of all, I was surprised to see that the ossuary was far from being “unadorned” as Lemaire (2002, 27) reported. He stated that “The only decoration is a line forming a frame about 0.5 inch (1.2 cm) from the outer edges,” but he is mistaken. Significantly, on the side opposite the inscribed side are circular designs, badly worn but unmistakably present.

Now, ossuaries are usually decorated on only one side (Royal 2002), presumably the one intended to face out during storage. If a name was added (possibly with an identifying phrase), it was apparently carved after purchase by someone such as a family member (Figueras 1983, 18). A look at a number of ossuaries (Figueras 1983; Goodenough 1953) shows that the name might be engraved on the decorated side if there were space for it; otherwise it might be cut on the top, an end, or the back. Wherever placed, it “probably faced outwards where it could be read” (Altman 2002a).

In the case of the James ossuary, there would have indeed been room on the front, yet the scribe elected to carve the inscription on the back. (A possible reason for this will soon become evident.)

Furthermore, the box’s decorations—the carved “frame” Lemaire referred to which outlines all four sides, plus the circular designs—are badly worn, whereas the inscription seems almost pristine. That is, the decorations are blurred, partially effaced, and (like much of the surface) pitted. Yet the lettering is entirely distinct and blessed with sharp edges, as if it were of recent vintage. My colleagues and I were all struck with that observation. So was an Israeli engineering professor, Dr. Daniel Eylon, of the University of Dayton, who noted that “sharp edges do not last 2,000 years.”

Dr. Eylon applied a technique that is employed in determining whether damage to an airplane part occurred prior to an accident or after it.

Examining photographs of the inscription for scratches accrued over time, he stated: `The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches” (Eylon 2002).

The inscription’s off-center placement is even in an area of the back that suffers the least damage. Commenting on what is termed biovermiculation—that is, “limestone erosion and dissolution caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting and etching”—one art historian states: “The ossuary had plenty except in and around the area of the inscription. This is not normal” (Lupia 2002). Indeed, that is one of the first things I had observed in studying the James ossuary. It suggested a forger might have selected a relatively smooth area of the back as a place to carve the small, neat characters.

Early on, the text of the inscription itself raised doubts among experts familiar with Aramaic scripts. They observed that the “James, son of Joseph” portion was in a seemingly formal script while the “brother of Jesus” phrase was in a more cursive style. This suggested “at least the possibility of a second hand,” according to one expert (McCarter 2002). Another states, “The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least” (Altman 2002b). But the perceived dichotomy in styles may simply signal that the forger was an inexpert copyist or that the effect results from the vagaries of stone carving.

Taken together, the various clues suggest a scenario in which a forger purchased a genuine ossuary that—lacking feet, elaborate ornament, and inscription—cost little. He then obtained an Aramaic rendition of the desired wording, carved it into what seemed a good spot on the blank back, and perhaps added patination followed by “cleaning” to help mitigate against the fresh look of the carving.

Finally, the entire end chapter of the book Oxford University Press' Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction — a book written by Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology Eric H. ClineWikipedia's W.svg (which actually won the 2011 Biblical Archaeology Society's award for "Best Popular Book on Archaeology") — titled "Fabulous finds or fantastic forgeries?" details the story of the James Ossuary (up to 2009, when the book was printed) and casts massive academic doubt on the whole affair.
Cline also makes an unimpressed mention of the "new" 2008 claim (as continually rehashed by the same "believers" in 2005 — at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America — and 2003, prior).
Specifically, Cline also details Golans' apparent "mass production" of forgeries, as brought up by several of the above sources as well.
I'd cite Cline's text in full along with the above, but I can't very well paste 15 pages of text here — so I'll simply recommend that you read it instead.
There's much, much more that can be said and cited here about the Ossary and the affair involving Golan, but I'm saving my breath for now. Thanks for reminding us to update our article, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the claim of "IAA has now ruled out the forgery claim and no longer posits that it is forged" has no reference should sent up a red flag faster then a 25 car pile up at the Indianapolis 500. A quick trip to the Israel Antiquities Authority confirms the claim is total BS.
Here are the relevant parts of the English translation of the Final Report Of The Examining Committees For the Yehoash Inscription and James Ossuary:
"Conclusions: The inscriptions on both items are forged and date to modern times."
"A) the Yehoash inscription is a forgery"
"B) The James Ossuary inscription is a forgery"
"We, the committee members for examination of the materials of the Yehoash inscription and the James Ossuary conclude that the patina on both items is forged and significantly varies from the original patina on the items."
The information above was retrieved 22 February, 2017.
Another article from March 2012 states "Several months later the experts published their opinion, which stated that both items are modern forgeries: new and modern lettering had been added to the original ossuary; while the Jehoash inscription is an utter forgery."
No article ruling out a forgery was found and, in fact, three articles that "posits that it is forged" were found. There is nothing to update because the matter has been closed since 2012 and is still regarded as being on par with Piltdown Man.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Bruce's remarks will be first addressed, as the are most simple. Both links he refers to only references the 2003 trials which charged Oded with forgeries, but as I explained in my original post, he has since been acquitted of any forgery charges from the original 2003 case. --- Bruce, all your 2012 link does is mention the acquittal of Oded and does not reinforce any charges of forgeries, just repeats the background information in which Oded was originally charged. As shown, Oded has been acquitted. This is a demonstrable fact that any quick google search of "oded golan acquitted of forgery" will yield trillions of quadrillions of results. The idea that the matter has been "closed" since 2012 is even funnier, but I'll get back to this in a second.
Black Percy's comments are more relevant because they do not simply re-post the 2003 charges that have been acquitted. Regarding these charges, Black simply points out that the fact that Oded has been acquitted of forgery here does not mean that the ossuary is in fact authentic, which is obvious. The acquittal of forgery doesn't make the ossuary authentic, but it deletes any credibility of the Rational page saying that the ossuary was closed as a forgery in 2003 and that's that. An update needs to be made specifically saying that although these charges were initially made in 2003, they were acquitted in 2012. That is a fact that of course, cannot be denied. The matter of the authenticity of the ossuary is different all together, but the 2003 charges are obsolete when it comes to this question.
The link to 60 Minutes is virtually useless, because a guy named Marko claiming to have written something for Oded similar is irrelevant, and statements do not constitute evidence for forgery. The reference to the article on "Skeptical Inquiry Volume" (the name alone should raise suspicion on bias) is also useless, because it has never actually been published into any relevant journals. All its claims are basically conjecture. We have to ignore the conjecture by random people on their blogging websites, and look at what the science actually says (which I will get to in a second). The only relevant data Black mentioned was the Oxford University Press publication, and Black says that it "casts doubt" on the entire affair. Without a single quotation from the volume to support Black's claim, it can be ignored as well. Does this publication really cast doubt on the authenticity of the ossuary? Does it actually claim the thing is a forgery? Until a single quotation can be pulled from the book/volume, it is irrelevant. One cannot merely assert a book says this or that, I need a quotation.
So, the real question is, what does the science say? What do all the world class epigraphers have to say about the ossuary, what does all the published scientific and archaeological data conclude? This is the only thing that is relevant, and sadly, not a single piece of it is mentioned in the entire Rational article. When it comes to this, the respected scholar, Joseph Holden, has written a paper regarding the history of the authenticity and the research conducted on it by actual professionals. One can read the full thing here -- --- in the end, the research of work by scholars such as none other than Andre Lemaire, Ada Yardeni, Hagai Misav, Shmuel Ahituv, Yosef Naveh, Y.L. Rahmani, Roni Reich, and numerous others ALL conclude the entire inscription is completely authentic, and there isn't a shred of evidence for forgery. Only two (rather irrelevant) scholars had ever come to the conclusion it is not authentic, and there positions are no longer sustainable at all in the academic community. It has been shown that natural patina has been found in the second half of the inscription, that the entire inscription was composed by the same individual and that the epigraphy of the inscription was the same as that of other ossuarys of the time, etc, etc, etc. In other words, all the top scientific research studies have come to the conclusion it is in fact authentic and there is not a scratch of scientific data that has ever challenged this overwhelming body of data and facts. Even wacky mythicists like Richard Carrier have been hard-pressed to call the thing an outright forgery and has said it is probably authentic. The science is conclusive and the scientific data and overwhelming body of published papers is the only thing that matters here. Science beats testimony of random people interviewed on 60 Minutes. I am also going to do an edit immediately on the page to remove the non-functioning Baptist News link and update the part about Oded Golan's acquittal. I will not yet insert the data on the authenticity of the ossuary until a consensus has been reached.Korvexman (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
First, Oded Golan's acquittal has nothing to do with ossuary's inscription being a forgery. Note how the judge summed up the verdict "The prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt what was stated in the indictment: that the ossuary [itself] is a forgery and that Mr. Golan or someone acting on his behalf forged it" The judge also stated that “This is not to say that the inscription on the ossuary is true and authentic and was written 2,000 years ago” and "Moreover, it has not been proved in any way that the words ‘brother of Jesus’ definitely refer to the Jesus who appears in Christian writings."
Second, as an archaeologist myself with a geology background in situ is the gold standard as all other dating methods are far less reliable.
Finally, going to geologists rather then archeologists or historical anthropologists for artifact evaluation should be a major warning sign. Remember how geology was used to claim the Sphinx dated from the 5th millennium BC? It is the equivalent to going to a foot doctor for advice on heart surgery (Joseph M. Holden is not an expert in archeology and certainly not in historical anthropology which is why The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible is published by Harvest House rather Routledge, Wiley, or even a university press). The fact no archeologist or historical anthropologist has written any peer reviewed paper or book published by a reputable journal in their field confirming the authenticity of the Ossuary of James' inscription tells us something. That the latest attempt could only get vetted through Open Journal of Geology (which is so questionable that a tabloid would be more reliable) tells us even more.
Carrier addresses the Ossuary in OHJ 257n6 and cites a University of North Carolina work to put the kibosh on the whole thing and he clarifies that part of the inscription is likely a forgery. His wording is likely due to the more generous libel law in the UK (as seen in the McLibel case)
All this comes down to efforts to rehabilitate a highly questionable incription.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Bruce, I'd hate to see you become a victim of your own bias. Your claims against the ossuary are backed up with assertions and not merit. As we have seen, just like you have in fact admitted, Oded Golan has been acquitted of the charges. This means that any reference in the Rational page that says Oded Golan has been charged with forgery and leaves it at that, is dishonest. This is an utter fact. The prosecution failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that "the ossuary [itself] is a forgery and that Mr. Golan or someone acting on his behalf forged it", therefore the charges of forgery have been dropped and the prosecution failed. In other words, the results of the trial give not a shred of evidence that the ossuary is a forgery.
As I explained previously, the only thing that has any say in the discussion of the authenticity of the shroud is science, because science is the only thing that can make any conclusion about the authenticity of the ossuary. Before I re-establish what the science has to say, the wacky mythicist Richard Carrier himself has admitted that the evidence is on the shroud of authenticity, but he thinks there are "reasons to consider the ossuary is a forgery", which are baseless nonetheless. Again, let's get back to what is actually relevant, as in the science.
First, Bruce tells us he is a geologist, but that is irrelevant as Bruce has made no publications on the James Ossuary, no analysis, and has practically ignored and not read a single word of the many papers from leading scholars on the issue that have concluded with authenticity. Norman Geisler's paper in and of itself was NOT used as evidence for the James Ossuary, I cited it to list the number of scholars and experts who have conducted analysis on the authenticity of the ossuary, and what they have concluded. Bruce is almost too funny when he tells us that these people are publishing in fields not their own, and with a wave of a hand, dismisses an entire body of highly respected publications as if they never existed! This is of course impossible to defend, because ALL experts who published on the ossuary have analyzed it in fields they are specialized in (how else would they even be able to conduct an analysis, let alone publish it?). So, his claims are false and they are in fact specialized in the field without question, that is not even a debate. Ada Yardeni and Andre Lemaire, two highly renowned scholars, are specialized in "dating, interpreting and authenticating inscriptions" -- Bruce, it seems to me that you are simply ignoring and pretending away the credentials of these people. All this comes to show that there is nothing "questionable" about this inscription as you say, Bruce, as you've given not a shred of evidence to indicate a forgery here, let alone more evidence then I have put forth otherwise. If we want to ignore the science here, we might as well join Answers in Genesis. Therefore, there is no debate. One last thing, Bruce -- any more attempts to re-insert the forgery charges that Oded Golan has been acquitted of, and you will be accused of edit warring. This is not proper at all. I will put forth an edit to make you happy and make the Rational page a little more rational.Korvexman (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Even by the standards of Bruce Trigger's 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge University Press) there is a lot wrong with the ossuary. First, because the artifact was not discovered in situ its provenience was shot to blazes. Second, because the artifact traveled through the unofficial antiquities market its provenance (an object's complete documented history) was also shot to blazes. Finally, no professional in the relevant field has written a peer reviewed article in a recognized professional journal defending the inscription's authenticity since 2002.

I should add if you are going to add references make sure the urls still work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruce, your statements are not all correct. You state that the provenience (original location) of the ossuary was "shot to blaze" -- whatever that means. You say that no person has published a paper/book defending the authenticity of the ossuary since 2002 -- that is obviously false, unless you consider Andre Lemaire's work the only work in the field. Furthermore, there has been NO PEER-REVIEW WHATSOEVER that has ever come to the conclusion that the ossuary is forged. And if there was one or two, they are no longer taken into consideration by scholars and all the works by all the top experts have concluded the ossuary and the entire inscription is authentic. As I originally said, the SCIENCE is the only thing that matters on the authenticity of this ossuary, and the SCIENCE is on my side here. End.Korvexman (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You write:
"Furthermore, there has been NO PEER-REVIEW WHATSOEVER that has ever come to the conclusion that the ossuary is forged."
Speaking of science; way to try and shift the burden of proof. The Ossary is fake until proven real, not the other way around.
Note that this is not unfair treatment, but a basic tenet of science — and no special exceptions are made to it, ever.
The truth doesn't need you to pilfer it a free ride. Prove that the Ossuary is real first, then we'll talk. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Black Percy, please conduct any research at all before questioning me. As I have said from the beginning, SCIENCE is the only thing that is relevant to the dsicussion of the authenticity of the James Ossuary, and science has proven my case beyond a reasonable doubt. Analysis on the James Ossuary from renowned scholars like Ada Yardeni and Andre Lemaire have all confirmed its authenticity, natural patina has been found throughout the entire inscription and there isn't a figment of evidence for forgery, the Aramaic letters are also consistent with the ancient Aramaic lettering of the time, etc, etc, etc. In other words, academia has authenticated the ossuary beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no case here, the position against the authenticity of the ossuary is worthless and has been disproved. I've already seen the Fossil Record on the Rational page of the Jesus myth theory, and found that you have contributed pseudoinformation to it -- meaning that in fact, I have realized why you have an emotional response to the authenticity of the James Ossuary, it triggers you to know that there is no substance behind the view that Jesus did not exist. Checkmate.Korvexman (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Science hasn't "proven" the inscription is authentic only the ossuary itself. If anything the consensus is that the inscription is a forgery. Also going ad hominem on editors is not a way to prove your case. Moreover, Black Percy's last edit on Jesus myth theory was factually correct. Paul doesn't give us real details about Jesus' time on Earth but only vague generalities. For example, instead of writing 'None of the rulers in the time of Pontius Pilate understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' he instead writes 'None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' Go though Paul's seven epistles and note that he doesn't name Jesus' mother or any family member other then possible James (and there are problems there ala John Frum and Prince Phillip).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruce, your blatant lies will NOT be aloud. Science has already proven the inscription is authentic, the entire thing, and virtually all reports from all world class scholars, including Andre Lemaire, Ada Yardeni, etc, have confirmed it is authentic. All the published data says it is authentic, as well as all the experts on the issue. All of them. This is the consensus, the consensus is that is it authentic. Any attempts to remove Andre Lemaire's report, as well as disingenuously remove the discussion of which specific "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" it is speaking about will be removed, as you have made no convincing report for your case. I have already cited many sources establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that 100% of authorities accept it is authentic -- the authenticity of the inscription is a closed matter. As in, not open. It hasn't been open for at least five years. Again, it is the consensus of all modern experts and scholars on the inscription that it is authentic. Not just the box, obviously, the inscription as well of course. I've referred you to multiple studies through Norman Geisler's report, and in turn all you have are acquitted forgery charges -- as in nothing. Science has closed this matter.
As for the pseudohistory of mythicism -- your statements remain to be irrelevant and false. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have already remarked and established that Paul says as much about Jesus as would be expected. Paul tells us about specific teachings of Jesus, specific family members of Jesus, specific disciples of Jesus, the blood lineage of Jesus, the fact the he had many disciples and was buried, etc, etc, etc. Paul said as much about Jesus as any historical source with the genre of Paul's writings would have commanded, more then enough, and definitely referring to an earthly Jesus. He speaks of many things about Jesus, as has been shown. Again, 100% of historians agree with me. That is 100%. Not 99%. Mythicism is pseudohistoric garbage that isn't worth anyone's time. Mythicism requires an enormous amount of deception, it requires somehow convincing yourself that both accounts of Josephus are a complete forgery, even though one is partially authentic and the other is fully authentic, it requires convincing oneself that the Tacitus quote is forged (even though it's not), it requires believing that the view that Jesus was some sort of celestial being in the New Testament writings of Paul, even though that's obvious nonsense, etc, etc, etc. There are ten thousand and one problems with mythicism, and that is exactly why 100% of all historians reject is. 100% of Christian scholars, 100% of Jewish scholars, and 100% of non-religious scholars. Atheist/Agnostic scholars have already fully rejected and refuted the mythicism nonsense, they do not take it seriously. Anyone who takes mythicism seriously is highly non-credible, and for the most, really just a deluded twat. I have shown that all the worlds greatest experts that have published on the James Ossuary conclude that the inscription is authentic, and you somehow get from all this that the CONSENSUS of scholars is that the thing is forged. Ridiculous. Do you see what I'm talking about? Mythicists are blatantly stupid and proud of it! Anyways, Jesus obviously existed -- the Gospels prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, Paul's letters prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, as does Josephus, Tacitus, Clement of Rome, the pre-Pauline creeds and traditions, James Ossuary, etc, etc, etc.Korvexman (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Mythicism is not "pseudohistory" because as the Jesus myth theory article shows with citations the term "mythicism" has been (and is) applied to the idea that the New Testament story of Jesus "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes". Last time I checked the mainstream does not accept the idea that the supernatural part of the Gospels are historical fact which fits into the category of historical myth.
Ehrman states that the idea that a Jesus who co-opted an already existing Christian movement (ie did not "found" the movement) would also be part of the Jesus myth theory. Israel Knohl's The Messiah before Jesus, G.A. Wells, and several others did not go the Jesus didn't exist as human being route but they all fall into Ehrman's definition of Christ Myth.
While we are on Ehrman he stated "The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust.". As the Evidence... article shows that comparison is insane. His comparisons to the Moon Landing and Assassination of JFK are even worse. Setting aside that we have films of those events (las I checked we don't have movie footage of the crucifixion) his comparison of Jesus to the "there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin" aspect of the Assassination of JFK was wrong!
"I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." - Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives of 1979
Ehrman can't even make comparisons that make sense with regards to events that happened in his lifetime and we are expected to take him seriously regarding events of nearly 2,000 years ago?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)