First, I'm not good at English(I learn English as a second language), so be tolerant towards poor grammar and spelling.

Today, I was unfortunately searching about Jesus myth theory, and saw this.

In that blog post, the author says this,

In conclusion, while Christian apologists may find proof of Jesus as a historical figure in a few Classical authors, the professional Editors and Contributors of this long standing "Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World" would strongly disagree!

...What? I learned that almost every scholar who involved in Bible or history of early Christianity thinks that historical Jesus exists. Did I wrong? Perhaps. So how does the author know I'm wrong? saw this.

Under Josephus, Flavius, both the 1st (1948) and 2nd (1969) edition failed to mention any reference to Jesus ( note in 2nd, ed. , p.565), while a three page article on Jews (pp. 563- 565) also fails to reference either Jesus or the New Testament.

The 3rd. ed. continues the title: The Oxford Classical Dictionary: The Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World includes more than 6,200 entries, but again fails to provided any entry on Jesus nor has it any use for the New Testament as a historical record. Although the entry on Josephus is expanded in the newer editions, the Dictionary dismisses the Testimonium Flavianum account on Jesus as reliable history in just one sentence: “The famous testimonium to Jesus is partly or even wholly an interpolation.” (p. 798)

First time I saw that, I think it is some sort of joke or something, but the author is very serious. He really think that no entry about Jesus is the proof that historical Jesus isn't accepted by classical scholar. Of course, historical Jesus is questionable because he doesn't have his entry in one book(although that book is a dictionary dedicated for classical study). The consensus of scholar? historical evidence? What a stupid thing to say!

But, the situation gets better. Some intelligent, evidence-based atheist saw it too, was impressed with it, and linked it to r/atheism. And Oh, oh my flying spaghetti monster! That thread is the Dionysus festival which is smoked by Jesus Myth marijuana. disrespect to respectable scholars, exaggeration of evidences which supports Jesus Myth theory, and of course, The most great historian, Richard Carrier. Everything I hate about is in there. And unsurprisingly, Everyone who talk about consensus of scholar is killed like King Pentheus.

I know, I know. I'm not a stranger in Reddit and I know that is a typical r/atheism. but, don't we discuss about this thousand and thousand times?! I'm just a layman who like to read some internet threads and blog posts about history, but I read so many discussion about historical Jesus. It's everywhere. And every time I saw it, Mythicism was at least unpersuasive. Not because I was biased(I'm too historically illiterate to have bias), but their arguments usually had many logical fallacies, denial of facts, and so on. Although not too many to seem persuasive to some so-called skeptics. fucking terrific.

Whoo. Enough rant. Thanks for reading my poorly written post.

p.s. Just out of curiosity, How do you think why the Oxford Classical Dictionary does not make entry about Jesus? I think that blog post's assertion is poor, then I have some doubt for why.