Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. While it is true Christian apologists try to push this black-or-white fallacy (example), mainstream scholars do not. They are well on board with the Gospels being fundamentally mythographic and mostly or even entirely fiction.

And I am not sure what “100% mythicist” means other than someone who believes more likely than not there was no real man at the core of the Jesus cult, which describes a lot of people, not “no one.” Only someone who has any inkling of a historical Jesus being more probable (like the Crossley and Keith version of “we can know nothing at all about him other than that he historically existed”) is “not” 100% mythicist.

But maybe you are using the word differently than everyone else. Or you mean to say “no one believes the probability of mythicism is 100%” which is true but not what your wording led me to think, and not a very substantive observation. The critics who accuse mythicists of being 100% certain always admit when pressed they do not mean literally 100% but some high probability—the error being that the probability they accuse us of maintaining is usually higher than we actually do (to straw man us). Which is also true but I have remarked on it often.

This list is very informative. Also, it provides a mirror to the “scientific mainstream’s” standard, dismissive, and stigmatizing “argument”—according to which mythicism is really a “fringe” (if not outright “crackpot”) notion supported by only two or three scholars.

However, there is another fact—equally important and rarely highlighted—that deserves emphasis. The “mainstream” strives desperately to draw a sharp line between historicism and mythicism, framing the issue in black-and-white terms. In reality, even within the (non-apologetic) mainstream, it is a commonplace observation that the Gospels are, to a significant extent, theologically (etc.) driven fictions. The various views actually exist along a continuum, with scholars differing in the percentages they assign to the fictional elements of the Gospels. Even among (non-apologetic) historicists, these percentages are remarkably high; a scholar like Ehrman might well place the figure comfortably above 50%, while representatives of the Jesus Seminar or scholars of comparative mythology or literature (such as R. Helms and D.R. MacDonald) might range between 60% and 90%. (Of course, quantifying this precisely is difficult.) Conversely, there is no such thing as a 100% mythicist; radical Questers remain thoroughgoing skeptics—indeed, they are often more acutely aware than historicists that the field offers no certainties, only probabilities.

He never completed his PhD. There are many competent scholars who are mythicists. But they are always dismissed as outsiders or unqualified. To combat that apologetic device, I built this list specifically to only be the list of qualified persons so that that argument could not be used against it. I’m thus not slighting those other authors. The disingenuous apologists this list refutes are.

If you read the article, you would know whether I was being serious. Because the article goes out of its way to literally explain that.

Your previous dishonesty therefore makes me suspicious that you lied again just now and did not read the article. You just rage skimmed it rather than paid attention to its thesis and the relevance of its thesis to your persistent dishonesty here.

This is just more eviodence of your refusal to take any of this seriously and lie your way out of every uncomfortable fact and confrontation.

You are, as proved, an immoral person. And your religion did this to you. It corrupted your character and made you into an arrogant, prideful liar. A Pharisee. A whitewashed tomb. And you refuse to see it. Because Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. And you have been ever so seduced by Satan’s light.

Yes, I read it years ago. It doesn’t square with Jason’s representation one bit. But I was more shocked than perhaps I should’ve been that the sentence itself wasn’t just part of a greater whole in the book, but that the immediate surrounding context, most notably the directly preceding paragraph, doesn’t leave any room for misinterpretation.

I read the article, I wasn’t sure you were being serious, it reads like a series of misrepresentations of Christian theology and practice, pretty similar to most of your anti-Christian pejorative.

You take passages out of context, misrepresent Jesus teachings equating synagogues and churches (churches didn’t exist when Jesus spoke those words for a start), your total exagération of Jesus’s teachings on violence and responding to agression, let alone your bizarre extension of this into rape.

Your article was bizarre and that’s being kind. So as I tend to avoid personal and pejorative attacks as argument, which you embrace, I kept it simple.

Alas, no. Media doesn’t care about this subject; they barely even understand what the dispute is. And letters are almost always useless.

But they are also too political now. It’s one thing to admit something in public that your peers and colleagues abhor; it’s another to shove their face in it with an attack letter (as that’s how apologists and dogmatists will perceive it).

It would also be dismissed as self-serving if I organized such a letter. It can only have any effect at all (if any at all) if it was spontaneously generated by a group of scholars who’ve actually had the last straw of the field’s dogmatism and are willing to make enemies saying so. But I encounter the opposite usually. When Davies was alive he kept his support quiet to avoid rocking the boat and taking on all the heat that would generate. I suspect this is where most scholars are. The field is a panopticon ready to punish anyone who offends its dogmas too egregiously, and everyone knows that—or believes it, even if it isn’t true. And perception is reality.

As for Adair, he is doing great work in the field, under peer review even, but he falls just short of the list criteria here (his PhD is not adjacent). Excluding him isn’t a criticism. It’s simply avoiding the straw man arguments that will ensure from critics offended that this list exists. They will then ignore all the other names, and claim I am naming people outside the field to dismiss the entire list. I won’t let them deploy that fallacy. So my criteria are overly strict.

Note the word “possible.” Now go and read his actual findings.

My extensive quotations already tell you what happens there. So you can’t quote-mine and misread sentences in English to overcome numerous explicit quotations to the contrary.

That’s apologetics. Evasion and lies. Not serious critique.

Lol. You evidently didn’t read the article I linked you to. Then you’d understand.

But nice try attempting a false tu quoque fallacy (I actually proved my point, you are the one evading it), and once again saying something irrelevant to distract from what actually happened.

I get it. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.