Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

One of the more common arguments among online supporters of the Jesus Myth thesis is an argument from silence: “There are no contemporary references to Jesus, therefore he did not exist”. Unfortunately this naïve argument is based on an ignorance of the nature of ancient source material and of how an argument from silence is sustained. As a result, while it may initially seem to have some rhetorical force, it is not an argument that would be accepted by historians.

Jesus Facepalm

“Contemporary or STFU!”

Given that many online news and opinion articles have comments sections, it is interesting to read the comments on any article that mentions Jesus as a historical person. It usually does not take long to find comments like these, found on a (not particularly good) article about why we can accept that a historical Jesus existed (see Simon Gathercole, “What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?”, Guardian, Fri 14 Apr 2017)

“The Romans are pretty well known for keeping good (though obviously biased) records at the time that JC was supposed to have been around, especially when it came to anyone they considered a threat to their empire, and we can find meticulous records off all kinds of criminals and trials, yet not a single whisper of this prominent Jesus figure. …. Sorry, but there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus at all.” (goldenbollocks, 14 April 2017, 23:39)

“the earliest surviving works of josephus are from the 11th century and if they are genuine would still have been written 40 years after jesus’ death. tacitus some 80 years afterwards.no contemporary records.and jesus of nazareth? there was no nazareth.” (Fez Parker, 15 April 2017, 0:07)

“For me, the key doubt as to Jesus’ existence is the lack of any contemporary Roman records, from an empire that kept extensive records. That Pilate, whose existence is beyond doubt, never reported the turmoil in his province or that it was not otherwise noted seems odd. That Josephus, a century later, is the first Roman other than St Paul to comment on Jesus is at odds with the detailed knowledge we have of minor figures in some of the most remote parts of the empire. For example, know what rank & file troops eat, did or wrote home about while stationed on Hadrian’s Wall. We have intimate knowledge of the invasion and suppression of the British tribes just a decade or so after Jesus’ death but nothing such from Judea.” (HarringtonJaquet, 14 April 2017, 23:47)

“But there isn’t [ evidence for his life]. There is not a single contemporary mention of him, nor even of any of the events that supposedly happened.” (Poppy Palais, 15 April 2017, 0:11)

“[Gathercole] admits that there is no contemporary Roman account of Jesus, even though there were plenty of Romans writing about everything under the sun.” (TonyChinnery, 15 April 2017, 0:27)

And so on. And these are just a sample of such comments from a single article; examples could be multiplied almost endlessly. Like most Mythicist arguments, the idea that the lack of contemporary references to Jesus should make us at least somewhat suspicious about his historicity has a long pedigree. Writing in his 1909 book The Christ, the American sceptic John Remsburg famously listed 42 ancient authors who he says were “mysteriously silent on this god-son saga”. Remsburg was not himself a Mythicist and noted in his opening chapter “it is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology” (Remsburg, p. 13). So his list was not so much “mysterious silence” about the existence of Jesus, but silence about a Jesus who performed the wondrous deeds detailed in the gospels. Despite this, his list and versions of it have been taken up with great enthusiasm by a range of actual Mythicists, including the New Age writer “Acharya S”/Dorothy Murdock, amateur polemicist David Fitzgerald and biologist Frank Zindler.

Resmburg’s list was recently expanded greatly by an aerospace engineer, Michael Paulkovich, whose hobby is writing books about how bad Christianity is and always has been. One of these is No Meek Messiah: Christianity’s Lies, Laws and Legacy (2012), which is mostly a catalogue of Christianity’s many historical sins (both real and imagined) mixed in with some eccentric and predictably weird private theories about the origins of various Christian beliefs (the Buddha, Krishna, Attis and others were involved, apparently). Paulkovich hedges his bets slightly on the existence of a historical Jesus, saying “Jesus may indeed have been a real man wandering around desert towns in the first century” but he goes on to say “I simply find it fascinating that, among the horde of reliable writers of the times and of that very region none who is credible ever recorded his life, interactions with the Jewish or Roman world, or any ‘Biblical’ event.” (Paulkovich, p. 200) Obviously this is closer to Remsburg’s position than full Mythicism per se, but he goes on to note not only that there are no references to support the miraculous, divine Jesus of Christianity but also that there is not “even proof of Jesus simply being a charming chap dunked in a river by one of the many first century Johns, preaching to masses two thousand years ago in a jerkwater and largely illiterate region of Judea”. So while he makes a grudging admission that a historical, non-miraculous Jesus may have existed, he still expects there to have been contemporary mention of him and is surprised there is none. He then gives a greatly expanded version of Remsburg’s list, running to a full 126 writers who he says “should” have mentioned Jesus. And he made this list the centrepiece of his publicity for his book, writing an article focused on it for Free Inquiry, vol 34 issue 5 and an introduction to it for jesusneverexisted.com’s predictably gleeful Kenneth Humphreys, where he aligns himself rather more closely with key Mythicists. His list got enough publicity for him to be cited as a great authority on the matter ( a “historian”, no less) by that august scholarly journal, the Daily Mail (3 April 2015).

A slightly more modest list can be found in David Fitzgerald’s self-published book Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All (2010). In a section entitled “They Should Have Noticed”, Fitzgerald mentions 12 contemporary writers or other figures who he claims “should” have mentioned Jesus and discusses six of them in detail: Seneca, Gallio, Justus of Tiberias, Nicolaus of Damascus and Philo of Alexandria. He follows this with a further 14 near contemporary writers or works whose silence on Jesus he also finds suspicious. And he does not hold back in assuring his readers that these writers “should” indeed have mentioned Jesus:

“There were plenty writers, both Roman and Jewish, who had great interest in and much to say about (Jesus’) region and its happenings …. We still have many of their writings today: volumes and volumes from scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several failed Messiahs.” (Fitzgerald, p. 22)

Strong stuff. So, given these lists of writers who “should” have mentioned Jesus but did not and given their enthusiastic endorsement by Mythicists, it is small wonder people find this argument persuasive. After all, the argument makes at least some kind of  prima facie sense. Unfortunately, there is a valid way to construct this kind of argument and the Mythicists and their friends fail to do it every time.

Silence

Arguments from Silence

Of course, legitimate arguments from silence certainly can be made coherently and usefully in historical analysis and such arguments are often made by historians. It needs to be noted, however, that historians always use such arguments with caution and try to construct them with due care. This is because, as we will see, a poorly constructed and weakly supported argument from silence has no weight. Several historiographers have outlined the proper structure for such an argument. For example:

“To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfil two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.” (Gilbert Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, 1946  p.149)

Langlois and Seignobos formulate this kind of argument in much the same manner, though perhaps constrain it more strictly:

“That which is conclusive is not the absence of any document on a given fact, but silence as to the fact in a document in which it would naturally be mentioned. The negative argument is thus limited to a few clearly defined cases. (1) The author of the document in which the fact is not mentioned had the intention of systematically recording all the facts of the same class, and must have been acquainted with all of them …. (2) The fact, if it was such, must have affected the author’s imagination so forcibly as necessarily to enter into his conceptions. (C. V. Langlois and C. Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, transl. G. G. Berry, 1898, p. 256)

In his classic paper on the subject, John Lange comments on Langlois and Seignobos’ formulation and is careful to note that these more restrictive conditions “are proposed with respect to the conclusiveness of a given instance of the argument” and says that some sound arguments from silence may not meet these exacting criteria and so not be said to be totally conclusive but may still be persuasive (Lange, “The Argument from Silence”, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288–301, p. 290 pp. 290-1). What is essential to all historiographical formulations of an argument from silence, however, is that it is not the silence that is key, it is the argument that there should not be silence. The strength of this kind of argument lies in showing that there is silence in the sources where silence should not exist. Any attempted argument that does not do this or does not do it competently will immediately fail. And here is where the naïve Mythicist argument always collapses.

The naïve form of this argument, as found in most the examples from the Guardian article quoted above, usually simply notes the absence of any contemporary references to Jesus and leaps straight to the conclusion that, therefore he did not exist. This seems to make sense to many people who have not studied ancient history, given that pretty much all modern people have a long paper trail of contemporary documentation of their lives, both material and digital, that stretches back to their birth. But this naïve form of the argument is, of course, a non sequitur. The ancient world had far lower levels of literacy, far less bureaucracy, far fewer documents about anything and, therefore, many millions of ancient people were born, lived and died without a single scrap of papyrus or parchment noting anything about them.

Even if they were noted in some way, the gulf of time between us and them means we have only a microscopic fraction of the far fewer documents that existed. Proponents of this form of the argument consistently overstate how many such records existed (e.g. “the Romans are pretty well known for keeping good records at the time”) but more importantly they also vastly overstate how many records survive to us. So one of the Guardian comments above notes that we “know what rank [and] file troops [ate], did or wrote home about while stationed on Hadrian’s Wall” and seems to think this means we have this level of detailed information for all places and all periods of the Roman Era, not realising that they are referring to a single chance find of wooden tablets from Vindolanda which are remarkable precisely because they are exceptional – we do not have this kind of material and therefore this kind of detail for most other places and periods of Roman history. Another commenter declares confidently that “we can find meticulous records off [sic] all kinds of criminals and trials” from the Roman era, when, in fact, we most definitely cannot. We have no such surviving “meticulous” records – what few references we have are fragmentary and their survival is totally accidental. Contrary to what this kind of comment seems to assume, there is no archive somewhere with the records of the trials held by Pontius Pilatus between AD 26-36 neatly stacked where a researcher could notice no mention of one “J. Christ of Nazareth”. These naïve Mythicists do not seem to realise exactly how scanty our surviving sources are even for highly prominent events and famous people, let alone for the minor doings of a Jewish peasant preacher.

Take, for example, the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. This was a major catastrophe, resulting in the total destruction of two entire provincial Italian cities – Pompeii and Herculaneum – with a total population of up to 20,000 people and causing the death of many thousands of those inhabitants. Its impact would have been massive, with tens of thousands of refugees flooding surrounding areas and the local region devastated for years to come. Yet not only do we have no contemporary references to the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum, we actually have no direct references to the cities by name at all.

Our ancient references to the eruption of Vesuvius consist of:

(i) Two detailed descriptions by Pliny the Younger in letters to Cornelius Tacitus – Letters VI.16 and VI.20.

(ii) Two passing references to the volcano and its eruption in Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, III.209 and IV.507, written circa 90 AD.

(iii) One longer mention of the disaster in Martial’s Epigrams, IV.44, witten in the late 80s or early 90s AD:

“Observe Vesuvius. Not long ago it was covered with the grapevine’s green shade, and a famous grape wet, nay drowned the vats here. Bacchus loved the shoulders of this mountain more than the hills of Nysa [his birthplace], satyrs used to join their dances here. Here was a haunt of Venus, more pleasant than Lacedaemon to her, here was a place where Hercules left his name. It all lies buried by flames and mournful ash. Even the gods regret that their powers extended to this. “

The mention of “… a place where Hercules left his name” seems to be an rather oblique reference to Herculaneum and the closest thing we have to a mention of the two destroyed cities.

(iv) One reference to the disaster by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XX.141, that says that the grandson of Herod Agrippa and his wife died in the disaster:

” … that young man (Agrippa), with his wife, perished at the conflagration of the mountain Vesuvius, in the days of Titus Caesar … “

He says he will detail this later in his work, but unfortunately he does not actually do so.

(v) Suetonius mentions the disaster in passing in his short biography of the emperor Titus:

“There were some dreadful disasters during his reign, such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania, a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights, and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before.” (Titus, VIII.3)

All of these references mention the eruption but none of them make any explicit mention of Pompeii, Herculaneum or any towns being destroyed. The closest any of them come to this is the part in Pliny’s first letter where he says “this lovely stretch of coast was thickly populated”. Beyond that there is only one general reference to towns being buried (in Tacitus) and no direct mention of Pompeii or Herculaneum by name at all. Of course, this does not mean that no such references were made. It is almost certain that there were thousands of accounts, letters, diaries, official records, imperial orders and so on that did so. But the key point is that none of these survive.

Another illustrative example can be found in our earliest references to the Carthaginian general Hannibal. As one of the greatest military commanders in the ancient world and the general who came close to defeating the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War, Hannibal (247- c. 182 BC) was justly famous in his own time and has remained so ever since. His career was also fairly long, beginning at around the age of 18 in 229 BC and spanning about 40 years until at least 190 BC. Yet, despite all this, we have precisely zero references to him in any literary source dating to his lifetime. Of course, as with the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum, there would have been plenty of such references. And in the case of Hannibal we can be absolutely certain of this, given that we have citations of them and even quotes from them in later accounts of his career. But none of these works actually survive in their own right; as with Jesus, all of our surviving references to him date to decades after his death. The only surviving reference that actually dates to his time is a fragmentary inscription – an epitaph of the Roman consul and general Quintus Fabius Maximus that mentions that “he besieged and recaptured Tarentum and the strong-hold of Hannibal”. This is the only contemporary reference to Hannibal of any kind (* see the note below). So if someone as vastly famous and renowned as Hannibal is mentioned in no surviving contemporary literary sources at all and is only attested in one solitary fragment of an inscription, does it make any kind of sense to base an argument on the lack of any such contemporary references to Jesus? Clearly it does not. The scanty and highly fragmentary nature of our surviving sources on anything or anyone is such that this argument simply makes no sense at all.

Not the Messiah

Who “should” have mentioned Jesus?

Other slightly less naïve Mythicists at least try to construct their argument from silence coherently; not just by imagining that we have a vast number of complete sources and records that do not mention Jesus, but by noting sources we do have which they claim “should” mention him but do not. In many cases this claim is completely ludicrous. Most of the list compiled by the aerospace engineer Michael Paulkovich mentioned above, for example, is padded by pretty much anyone who wrote anything in the period around the time of Jesus, which makes his claim that his 126 writers somehow “should” have mentioned Jesus rather ridiculous. To begin with, Paulkovich claims writers that “should” have mentioned Jesus, despite the fact we do not actually have any writings by these people at all – the emperor Titus, for example. How Paulkovich could assess the lack of  mentions of Jesus in the completely non-existent writings of Titus I have no idea. And Titus is not an isolated example: no less than 47 of the writers Paulkovich lists have no surviving writings at all.

Only slightly less silly than this are writers who feature on the list despite having died before Jesus was born. So Paulkovich lists a “Lysimachus”, without noting which of several writers of that name he is referring to. Not that it matters, given that they all died in the BCs and so, unless they invented time machines, could not really have mentioned Jesus given that he had yet to be born. Then we have people like Silius Italicus and Gaius Valerius Flaccus, who were at least born in the ADs but who wrote works that focused on events long before Jesus’ time. So Silius Italicus wrote a poem about the Second Punic War, and so set centuries before Jesus’ time, while Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica (referred to above because it allues to the eruption of Vesuvius) was about Jason and the Argonauts and so, similarly, had no reason to mention Jesus. Equally ridiculous are the claims that Soranus, who wrote on gynaecology, Frontinus, who wrote a book on aqueducts, or Decimus Valerius Asicatus, whose only known writing is a letter about a stolen pig, all “should” have mentioned Jesus. Most of Paulkovich’s list is so patently stupid that I find myself wondering if he wrote it as a satirical parody of just how bad this kind of argument can be.

He does get to some people who at least plausibly could have mentioned Jesus, but that does not mean that they should have done so. Here we find a few of the same figures we see in David Fitzgerald’s book noted above: Seneca, Gallio, Justus of Tiberias, Nicolaus of Damascus and Philo of Alexandria. These people lived in the right part of the first century, a couple of them were actually Jewish and most of them wrote works that at least mentioned contemporary figures rather than books on gynaecology or letters about pigs. Unfortunately there is still no reason to conclude they “should” have mentioned Jesus. Taking the figures on Fitzgerald’s list in turn:

Seneca? – Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – AD 65) was a prominent Stoic philosopher who wrote philosophy and tragic plays, and so is a rather better potential prospect as someone who “should” have mentioned Jesus. But Fitzgerald’s arguments to that effect are extremely weak. Firstly, he says Seneca was famous for his writings on ethics yet “he has nothing to say about arguably the biggest ethical shakeup of his time” (Fitzgerald, Nailed, p. 34). Fitzgerald does not bother to explain what “ethical shakeup” he is referring to, but we would have to assume it somehow refers to the existence of Jesus. Exactly why Seneca, writing in far off Rome, would see the existence and brief career of a Jewish preacher as some kind of massive “ethical shakeup” is left unexplained.

Similarly weak is his argument that because Seneca’s cosmological treatise Questiones Naturales makes no mention of the alleged natural phenomena claimed to mark key points in Jesus’ career according to the later gospel accounts (the so-called Star of Bethlehem, the earthquake reported in gMatt’s resurrection narrative and the darkness that was supposed to have marked his death on the cross), somehow this means Jesus did not exist. This may be a reasonable argument that these reported phenomena did not occur, but that does not, therefore, necessarily mean Jesus did not exist. Here, as in many other places, Fitzgerald confuses “the existence of a historical Jesus” with “the existence of the Jesus of conservative orthodox Christian belief”.

But Fitzgerald’s strangest argument is the one about which he is most bombastic:

“[I]n another book, On Superstition, Seneca lambasts every known religion, including Judaism. But, strangely, he makes no mention whatsoever about Christianity, which was supposedly spreading like wildfire across the empire.” (p. 34)

Here Fitzgerald gives breezy assurances about the content of another work which no longer exists. On Superstition survives in just a few sentences quoted by Augustine in his City of God, written four centuries later. So how on earth can Fitzgerald claim that it covers “every known religion” but leaves out Christianity? Given the fact we do not have the work in question, we have no idea what religions it did or did not cover. That aside, Seneca famously took his own life on order of Nero in 65 AD, and this was at a time when Christianity was not “spreading like wildfire”, but was actually a tiny and insignificant sect, especially in Rome and the western half of the Roman Empire (see “Review: Bart D. Ehrman – The Triumph of Christianity” for a longer discussion on how small and unimportant Christianity was in this early period). Finally, even if Seneca did have any awareness at all of Christianity in the 60s AD, which is unlikely, he would have no reason to consider it to be anything other than what it was at that stage: a small sect of Judaism. All this makes his lack of mention of it entirely explicable. Fitzgerald notes that Augustine made excuses for Seneca’s lack of notice of Christianity, and on this at least he is correct. It is also unremarkable that a fifth century Christian would overestimate how prominent, noticeable and significant Christianity was in the mid first century and so try to explain the omission. Augustine has an excuse for not understanding Seneca’s cultural and historical context. Fitzgerald, however, does not.

Gallio? – Fitzgerald’s argument here is even more confused. He claims that Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus somehow “should” have mentioned Jesus. But, although Gallio was Seneca’s brother and studied rhetoric under his adoptive father and namesake, we have no works of his at all. So what is Fitzgerald talking about here? In a rather tangled line of argument, he notes that Gallio appears in Acts 18:12-17 as the Roman judge of Paul, who he acquits. Fitzgerald finds it significant that Gallio did not mention “this amazing Jesus character” to his brother and concludes this means Jesus did not exist. He does not bother to consider alternatives, such as (i) Jesus existed but was not so “amazing” as Fitzgerald keeps assuming he has to have been if he existed, (ii) Jesus existed but a learned Roman official did not regard people like him as very interesting or important, (iii) Jesus existed and Gallio did mention him to his brother but Seneca did not regard people like him as very interesting or important or even (iv) the whole Gallio-Paul trial scene is a piece of fiction reported or even created by the writer of Acts to emphasise Paul’s credibility. Fitzgerald skips over all these quite plausible alternatives and leaps gymnastically straight to the conclusion Jesus did not exist.

Justus of Tiberias? – Fitzgerald is on marginally firmer ground with this example, but his argument still does not make sense. Justus of Tiberias was a Jewish aristocrat from Galilee who wrote a (now lost) account of the Jewish War and a history of the rulers of Israel from Moses down to the time of Agrippa II. As Fitzgerald notes, in the ninth century Photios of Constantinople complained in his Bibliotheca (see “The Lost Books of Photios’ Bibliotheca”) that Justus “makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, or what things happened to him or the wonderful works that he did”. Therefore, Fitzgerald concludes, Justus must have neglected to mention Jesus because he did not exist. But, again, while a devout Christian like Photios may have assumed Justus “should” have mentioned Jesus, we have no valid reason to do so. This is because Justus’ work no longer survives. As a result, we can make no assessment of how interested he was in wandering peasant preachers and prophets. If Justus’ work did survive and was full of references to other such figures – Theudas, for example, or the Egyptian Prophet, or John the Baptist – but did not mention Jesus, then Fitzgerald would have a solid argument. But given that we have no idea how many other such figures Justus mentioned, if any at all, we simply cannot say if his lack of a mention of Jesus is in any way significant.

Nicolaus of Damascus? – That Nicolaus of Damascus, a Greek scholar who was a friend of Herod the Great and tutor to the children of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra, did not mention the adult Jesus is hardly surprising given that he was born around 64 BC and so would have died well before a historical Jesus was more than a child. But Fitzgerald presses him into service by claiming that “if the nativity story in Matthew really happened, it is somewhat incredible that none of it was mentioned by Nicolaus” (p. 36), noting that Nicolaus should have witnessed the Wise Men causing Herod “and all Jerusalem” concern and recorded the massacre of the innocents etc. But this is another of Fitzgerald’s weird non sequiturs. Nicolaus’ silence on these alleged events may very well cast some considerable doubt on those particular episodes in one particular gospel, but that does not mean Jesus therefore did not exist. Even many Christians do not accept the Infancy Narratives in gMatt and gLuke, but non-historical stories get told about historical people. This example simply does not support Fitzgerald’s conclusion.

Philo of Alexandria? – If there is a writer who generally gets brought up in this form of the Mythicist argument from silence it is Philo of Alexandria, so it is no surprise that Fitzgerald places emphasis on the supposed significance of his silence about Jesus. Philo was a Jew who lived in the right period (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD) and who left an extensive corpus of writings, many of which are still extant. Fitzgerald notes, correctly that this theological writer produced many “philosophical treatises on Judaism”, but assures us that Philo also wrote “commentaries on contemporary politics and events of note affecting the Jews” (p. 37) This claim is not actually wrong, but as even a brief survey of Philo’s surviving works shows it does not give an accurate picture of the content of Philo’s work. Of the 43 or so works included in Charles Duke Yonge’s standard edition of Philo’s collected works, just two – Against Flaccus and the Embassy to Gaius – are anything other than theological or philosophical treatises. These two works do mention a few relevant figures from his time – Herod Agrippa, for example, or Pontius Pilate – but they have a fairly narrow focus and so there is a vast number of people who we know existed in Philo’s time who do not get mentioned by him. These two non-philosophical/theological works have a particular subject focus, so it is hardly surprising that they only mention a few historical figures who are relevant to the rather specific political points Philo is trying to make. This means that any claim that if Philo did not mention a figure of his time in these two particular works, so they therefore did not exist is utterly ridiculous. Nowhere in either of these works do we find a reference to the 19 or so high priests of the Temple in Jerusalem who held that office in his lifetime, but no-one would pretend this somehow casts some doubt on their existence – it is just that there is no context in either of these two works in which we would expect to see them mentioned. Similarly, he makes no mention of the nine figures in his time who we could characterise as Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants, which means any argument that he “should” have mentioned Jesus when he made no mention of any other figure like him is equally absurd. Yet this is the claim Fitzgerald and many other Mythicists make.

Fitzgerald presses on to assure us that Philo “wrote a great deal on other Jewish sects of the time, such as the Essenes and the Theraputae, but nothing on Jesus, or on Christianity either” (p. 37). Again, anyone who has actually read Philo knows this is nonsense. He did not write on “other Jewish sects of the time, such as the Essenes and the Theraputae”, as though these are just two examples of many – they are the only such sects he mentions. Nowhere does he mention any other Jewish sects, including major ones such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees, both of which were far more prominent and numerous than the Essenes and the Theraputae. Fitzgerald misrepresents his source, yet again, by pretending Philo gave some comprehensive or even extensive discussion of Jewish sects when he actually just mentions two in passing.

Fitzgerald also makes characteristically extravagant claims about how Philo should have mentioned Jesus because “he had strong connections to Jerusalem” and claims “he didn’t just spend time in Jerusalem – his family was intimately connected with the royal house of Judea” (p. 37). Leaving aside the fact that we have evidence for just one brief pilgrimage visit to Jerusalem by Philo (see On Providence II.64), even the gospels depict Jesus’ career as taking place in the backwater rural areas of Galilee and only have him going to Jerusalem briefly in the days before his execution. So the idea that Philo was somehow a regular visitor there and so should, by some remarkable coincidence, have been there on the particular Passover week in which Jesus was there before he died is highly fanciful stuff. For all Fitzgerald’s bombastic claims, the idea that Philo somehow “should” have mentioned Jesus collapses on multiple fronts.

Fitzgerald’s arguments do not get any better when he turns from contemporary figures who he claims “should” have mentioned Jesus to some slightly later writers who he thinks should not be silent about him. Here we find an odd collection of mainly second and third century writers, but it is hard to see why any of them “should” have mentioned Jesus, given their total lack of interest in anything to do with Judaism, let alone the obscure founder of a tiny offshoot Jewish sect. Indeed, Fitzgerald loses track of his own argument with several of these, drifting from noting that they did not mention Jesus to their lack of mention of “Christianity”. This may tell us something of the tiny size and relative obscurity of Christianity in this period (which is already clear from other evidence), but that tells us precisely nothing about the existence or otherwise of its founder.

So Fitzgerald’s grand pronouncements essentially boil down to … nothing at all. He completely fails the test for a valid and convincing argument from silence, in that none of his writers can be shown that they “should” have mentioned Jesus. It is worth, therefore, going back and looking again at the bold assertion with which Fitzgerald begins his arguments on this point. Here it is again:

“There were plenty writers, both Roman and Jewish, who had great interest in and much to say about (Jesus’) region and its happenings …. We still have many of their writings today: volumes and volumes from scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several failed Messiahs.” (Fitzgerald, p. 22)

As we have just seen, this is abject nonsense. There are, in fact, remarkably few writers with much interest in Jesus’ region and its happenings, and the claim we have “scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine” is total and complete garbage. As is the claim that these “scores of writers” included mentions of “several failed Messiahs” in the early first century. We have barely any such references and pretty much all of them come from just one writer – Josephus – who DID mention Jesus at least once and perhaps twice. When I brought this to Fitzgerald’s attention in my critical review of his book back in 2011, I got this sneering but remarkably feeble response:

“Incidentally, perhaps this is a good time to mention the real reason I didn’t list them all out: Nailed was distilled down from a manuscript that was originally not 250 pages, but nearly a whopping 700 pages. So in fact, there’s a lot of information that I don’t mention, and many hard choices I had to make about what to include and what to leave out in a book that’s intended to be a reader-friendly intro to the subject. ” (“Nailed: Completely Brilliant or a Tragic Waste of Trees? YOU be the Judge…“)

But as I noted in my detailed reply to his response, if the problem was merely a lack of room in his final manuscript, why did Fitzgerald not demolish my criticism by listing these supposed many writers who detailed the various other failed Messiahs but neglected to mention Jesus? Here he responds that he simply did not have room to do this in his book, but when he has the chance to do so in reply to me he … does not. Why? Because he is talking garbage. These “scores of writers” detailing “several failed Messiahs” simply do not exist. I will leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide if this makes Fitzgerald woefully and hilariously incompetent or simply deliberately deceptive.

We worship you O Brian!

How Famous was Jesus Anyway?

It is interesting how many of these failed attempts at an argument from silence to show the non-existence of Jesus are predicated on the spectacular miracles depicted in the gospels being historically true. As we have seen with several of Fizgerald’s weakest arguments, this means that unless someone does not simply accept a historical Jewish preacher at the origin point and core of the Jesus traditions but also argues for a “maximalist” Jesus of Faith, complete with water walking, levitation, water into wine and a resurrection or three, these arguments lose all their force. But other attempts at this kind of argument simply assume that Jesus was “a big deal” or “widely famous” and so concludes that he “should“, based on this Sunday School conception of Jesus, have been mentioned in his time by … well, someone. Of course, it is very hard to get a firm handle on any but the broadest details of Jesus’ life and only a handful of elements from the later stories are deemed highly likely to be historical, so it is difficult to gauge exactly how “famous” he was. But even a face value reading of the gospels shows the assumption that he “must” have been noticed is on shaky ground.

The earliest gospel, gMark, illustrates this rather neatly. Here is a work that is making great claims for Jesus and concludes triumphantly with the realisation (by a Roman) that he was God’s anointed one. Yet when, early in the narrative, the gospel writer wants to assure his readers that Jesus was widely famed, he says:

“The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, ‘What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.’ News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee. (Mark 1:27-28)

Later, in Mark 6:14 the writer tells us that “Jesus’ name had become well known”, but he gives this as an explanation for why Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, had come to hear of him. So the earliest gospel largely depicts Jesus’ “fame” as something of a local affair in the rather tiny region of Galilee – a territory you could stroll across in a day – one slightly dubious and likely exaggerated reference in Mark 3:8 to his renown spreading to people in Judea, Idumea, the coastal cities and the Transjordan region being the exception here. Even then he depicts Jesus preaching in small towns and rural villages, and never shows him entering any of the cities of Galilee or any major urban centre at all until he journeys south to Jerusalem for Passover and is killed. So his “fame” is largely restricted to a very small area of roughly 150 square kilometres and one that was considered a backwater even by other Jews, let alone by Roman or Greek historians in cities far away from this utterly inconsequential corner of the Empire.

The writer of the later gospel of gMatt seems to have noticed this, so he boosts the brief Mark 3:8 reference to wider fame considerably in his version of it:

“Jesus traveled throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness among the people. News about him spread throughout all Syria. …. Large crowds followed him from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.” (Matt 4:23-25)

This expands Jesus’ supposed sphere of influence substantially to “all Syria”, though there is nothing anywhere else in gMatt or any of the other gospels to support the claim his fame spread through the whole Roman province of Syria, which extended north as far as modern Turkey. Again, this seems to be a deliberate expansion of the more modest claims in gMark, which are likely exaggerated but are at least more plausible. So even if this Marcan claim were true, it is hard to see why this very unfamous level of “fame” would attract much attention from writers of the time.

Then we have the problem of guessing exactly how long Jesus’ preaching “career” was. The traditional answer is that he preached for three years, but this is based entirely on the fact that the latest gospel, gJohn, contradicts the three earlier gospels by depicting three separate Passover journeys to Jerusalem, while they depict only one. If we do not accept that this is historical, then the events in the earlier gospels can actually be compressed into only a few months, or even a few weeks. gMark in particular seems to depict a fairly rapid sequence of events, and both gMark and gMatt often link episodes with variants of words like εὐθέως (“immediately”), giving a strong impression of these events happening in fairly quick succession. If indeed his “career” was a couple of years or even much less, the window for any “contemporary” attestation is extremely narrow. Recall that above we saw that Hannibal is barely directly attested at all in his lifetime, yet his far more prominent career spanned the Mediterranean world and lasted over 40 years.

Finally, we have good evidence of other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and perhaps Messianic claimants who, by the accounts given in Josephus, were much more prominent and famous than even the Jesus depicted in the gospels, yet who were not mentioned by anyone at all until Josephus wrote at the end of the first century – decades later. Around 44 AD Theudas reportedly had a following of “a great part of the people” and led them to the Jordan with the promise that he would miraculously divide the waters. His following was apparently large enough that the procurator Cuspius Fadus had to dispatch a cohort of cavalry to disperse it. How many contemporary mentions do we have of these events? Zero. Then there is the Egyptian Prophet, who is said to have led “30,000 men” out of the wilderness to the Mount of Olives with the promise that they would see the walls of Jerusalem miraculously fall down. All they actually saw were the swords and lances of the several cohorts of both auxiliary infantry and cavalry that the Roman procurator Antonius Felix sent out to kill them, but how many contemporary references do we have to these large scale disturbances? Absolutely none at all.

So the idea that Jesus somehow “should” have been famous enough and that his “career” “should “have been long and noticeable enough to pique the interest of or even come to the attention of writers of his time becomes completely unconvincing. Even the gospels, which are clearly striving to depict him as highly significant, only show him as a local preacher who, when the time came to suppress him, was arrested by a body of Temple guards in a minor scuffle. The idea that some aristocratic writer in Rome, Corinth or even Damascus would have heard of him, let alone felt moved to write about him is deeply unlikely.

So both the simpler naïve form of this argument and the more detailed attempts by people like Fitzgerald fail dismally. Those who find this argument most convincing vastly overestimate the amount of surviving source material that exists and fail to understand that most people in the ancient world are only known by much later references, often in passing. Those Mythicists who actually try to show that certain writers “should” have mentioned Jesus consistently mishandle (or actively and, possibly, deliberately misrepresent) the material in question and fail to make a coherent and convincing case as a result. It is perhaps significant that this is the by far the most commonly seen argument against the existence of Jesus, yet it is also one of the very worst such arguments. The fact that it looks so convincing to those with little understanding of ancient history and yet it so easily dismissed by anyone with a solid grasp of the period and how it is studied means it is, in a way, a symbol for Mythicism generally.

(* Note: Whenever I use the example of Hannibal when talking about the scarcity of surviving contemporary references to anyone in the ancient world, as I have done above, there seem to be many who misunderstand the argument. So here, for their benefit, are some relevant points of emphasis:

  1. To be absolutely clear once more, I am not saying that there never were contemporary mentions of Hannibal. As I say above, we know there definitely were, we have references to them and even quotes from a couple of them preserved in later works. The point is that none of these works survive and we only know of them via later works that are not contemporary.
  2. Nor am I saying that the evidence for Hannibal is not as good as that for Jesus or even that they are comparable in any way. They are not. As we would expect, we have vastly more and entirely better evidence for one of the ancient world’s most famous men (Hannibal) than we have for a Jewish peasant preacher. The analogy is solely with the amount of surviving literary mentions, which is the same for both: we have none.
  3. Yes, I am aware that a papyrus fragment of  Sosylus’ The Deeds of Hannibal does survive and that this work was a contemporary account of Hannibal’s campaigns. But the fragment contains only a few lines of this work and it does not actually refer to Hannibal himself. So my point stands.
  4. Likewise, I am aware that we have coins probably issued by Hannibal and at least one piece of statuary depicting him that probably date to his lifetime. Unfortunately, as likely as it is that these artefacts are associated with Hannibal, they are only reasonably surmised to be so and do not mention him in any inscription or attribution.
  5. Finally, yes I am also aware of the epitaph of the Etruscan warrior Felsnas Larth which claims he fought with (or, perhaps, against) Hannibal in his Italian campaign. But, leaving aside the fact that this could be a tall tale (Felsnas Larth also claimed to be 106 years old after all), the inscription is dated to around 130 BC, so well after Hannibal’s death in c. 183-181 BC.

So that leaves us with no surviving contemporary literary references to Hannibal at all and just one clear reference to him in the fragmentary inscription dedicated to Quintus Fabius Maximus. As I say above, given his fame, the geographical range of his career and the fact that he fought in one war or another for up to 40 years, this paucity speaks volumes about how scanty our sources are for pretty much everyone in this period.)

323 thoughts on “Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

  1. For major figures with a lack of contemporary sources one could just as easily mention Arminius who lead the only successful revolt against the Roman Empire. I only found a single contemporary source for him. If the man who destroyed three Roman legions and lead a successful revolt against Roman left only one source to demand a small time Jewish preacher to leave contemporary sources is absurd.

    By the way why don’t mythers accept Paul as a contemporary source? After all Paul lived at the same time period as a historical Jesus. Paul does discuss a historical Jesus for reasons you have discussed before.

    I used to enjoy researching the US Civil War. On occasions I could only find a source for the existence of various Confederate soldiers being regimental rolls. So if sources from 150 years ago are spotty why should sources from 2000 years ago be excellent?

    14
    3
    1. For major figures with a lack of contemporary sources one could just as easily mention Arminius who lead the only successful revolt against the Roman Empire. I only found a single contemporary source for him.

      Who? Paterculus?

      If the man who destroyed three Roman legions and lead a successful revolt against Roman left only one source to demand a small time Jewish preacher to leave contemporary sources is absurd.

      Exactly. Boudicca is another example along the same lines.

      By the way why don’t mythers accept Paul as a contemporary source?

      Because he was writing after Jesus’ death. Strangely though, I get people objecting that Polybius should be counted as a “contemporary” source for Hannibal because their lives overlapped a little, yet when I say I’d conceded that if they do the same for Paul’s letters they suddenly don’t like that argument so much. They simply can’t apply the rules they try to use consistently and constantly try to fix them to exclude Jesus.

      22
      1
    2. Well at 23:00 in this video:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7IiKyHGlak
      Carrier says that there are reasons to doubt the historicity of Buddha and Muhammad. Maybe he doesn’t believe in Hannibal, Arminius, or Boudicca either. Maybe the Romans made up all of their enemies to justify the Military Industrial Complex. Maybe they’re all later Christian interpolations invented to make the peaceful pagan era seem brutal and warlike.

      10
      1
      1. Carrier is pretty clear that Hannibal existed and uses that against the (stupid) claim that we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for Hannibal. We don’t and Christian apologists really need to stop using this dumb argument and its variants (“We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for Julius Caesar” is another common but even more idiotic version). The evidence for the Buddha is much less clear than many other such figures (including Jesus), so that claim has some merit. The idea that Muhammad didn’t exist is about as incoherent as Jesus Mythicism and depends on the same kind of arguments. This is probably why Carrier favours it – that and his general anti-religious biases.

        Just for fun, I’ve used Mythicist-style arguments to argue that Hannibal actually didn’t exist and was a literary creation invented to explain away a series of otherwise unconnected but humiliating military set backs for Rome by various Carthaginian, Celtic and Spanish enemies. It’s amusing to watch Mythicist apologists scramble desperately to fend off their own arguments being used against them. In 1819 Archbishop Richard Whately wrote a satirical essay along the same lines entitled “Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bounaparte”, concluding that it is very unlikely he existed. Of course, in 1819 Napoleon was still alive and living imprisoned on the island of St Helena, which was kind of the point of the joke.

        16
        1
        1. I’m gonna guess that Fitzgerald and Carrier’s “Muhammad Don’t Real” conspiracy theory approaches Abu Mikhnaf’s referencing Husayn Ibn Ali and the Battle of Karbala with the same intellectual honesty they approach Josephus referencing the execution of James…not so sure I want to suffer through their hubris to confirm whether that’s the case.

        2. What do you make of the argument that Mecca Mohammad lived in is not current Mecca? Tom Hollad had a documentary on that subject.

          1. Antimule, if you’re interested in a more fleshed out version of Holland’s arguments, you might appreciate Patricia Crone’s “Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam”. Holland has noted her as a strong influence, and outside of Holland, Crone had an enormous influence on the development of a more skeptical approach to our sources on the origins early Islam. However, her work is decades old, and runs into the same problem that much revisionist scholarship does-it raises legitimate issues, but the conclusion put forward is even less parsimonious and more absurd than the consensus view they seek to replace. This critique can be extended to much of Holland’s work on the topic of early Islam, as well, although Holland is appealing to a different audience than Crone.

          2. Forgot to end that with the important caveat “I lack Tim’s qualifications and training on any historical subject, let alone Early Islam, so take what I say with a grain of salt unless you confirm it to be the case”

        3. Tim, while this is related to your comment, it may violate your request that the audience stick to the topic of this blogpost. Feel free to not approve this reponse if that’s the case; apologies as well if this is a double post on my end.

          I manage to be even more ignorant of Dharmic traditions than I am of fellow Abrahamic faiths, so I’m curious, what has led you to conclude that it’s possible the Buddha never existed historically?

          1. Yes, it is off topic, so I’ll be brief. I strongly suspect that a historical Siddhārtha Gautama existed, but the evidence that he did is closer to that for the existence of King Arthur than that for the existence of Jesus.

        4. Give Carrier a thousand dollars and he’ll make a case that Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard didn’t exist

          3
          5
          1. Again, you can say a lot of things about Carrier, but “he’s in it for the money” is not one of them. Give it a rest.

            11
            2
        5. A humorous digression : an hilarious satirical demonstration of misapplied mathematical logic purported to prove that “Alexander the Great did not exist and has an infinite number of limbs. ” I can only remember the second argument( it’s been 60 years since I read it): Alexander was warned if he crossed a certain river he would die. To be forewarned is to be forewarned. This gives him two legs and four arms: six limbs is an even number, but an odd number for Alexander the Great. The only number that can be both even and odd is infinity. Therefore…

          [4] Cohen, Joel E. (1961), “On the nature of mathematical proofs”, Worm Runner’s Digest, III (3). Reprinted in A Random Walk in Science (R. L. Weber, ed.), Crane, Russak & Co., 1973, pp. 34-36

      2. I tend toward Buddhism but care not whether he existed in fact. Same for a historical Jesus: It matters for naught.

        But I am a bit mystified that Almighty God did not make it clear to everyone in all times by providing some useful evidence that Jesus existed. Some proof would, and would still today, have been a matter of no small interest and would seem to have fit his salvific plan for humankind.

        If Jesus were walking Earth today, I think it would not matter to him whether there was proof that he once existed or even that he be known today. And especially nonconsequential is the intellectual banter between Christian apologists and those you call the Jesus mysticists. Because to make of Jesus a kind of Son-of-God, Believe-in-me, saving rock-star, either as real in the past or of some spiritual “substance” today –and to argue against the argument of silence –is irrelevant.

        I am sure that you think otherwise. But does Jesus care?

        1. Well you seem to struggle with the (very) basic concept that Jesus Christ is the mythologising of a mere mortal apocalyptic preacher.

          So that explains why you think that it’s merely Tim O’Neill here calling this fringe who indulge in believing that he’s instead an entire fabrication; Mythicists. And why you also think that the vast majority of humanity that is not within this fringe, and which would include most atheists (like myself), are somehow “Christian apologists”….

          1. “Well you seem to struggle with the (very) basic concept that Jesus Christ is the mythologising of a mere mortal apocalyptic preacher.”

            What evidence do you have that Jesus was merely mortal? I dont need an arm waving response. I need simple evidence to support your claim. I feel pretty confident that the only response that you can give is to presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural. But this type of presuppositional attitude is not an evidence based explanation. It is merely a blanket denial of a thing, that is evident that you have not experienced.
            I truly have no issue with you denying the supernatural . What I do have a problem with is folks making claims they cannot possibly defend.

            2
            17
          2. “I need simple evidence to support your claim.”
            Always nice to ask the impossible, isn’t it? First you should wonder how evidence (which is by definition natural) for a supernatural phenomenon (like being more than merely mortal) is supposed to look like. Until then it doesn’t even make sense to try to answer your question. Spoiler: you very well might conclude that you’re quilty of a category error (applying something natural to something supernatural).
            Btw this kind of error is exactly why I insist on historical science being called science. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural, so neither has history. Just like a an atheist commie (Alexander Friedmann) and a catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre) both can arrive at the hypothesis of the Big Bang both an atheist and a christian historian can arrive at a historical Jesus.

            3
            1
          3. Jarrod.

            Your argument in regards to a supernatural Jesus seem very weak to me for the following reasons:

            1.) At most you accept only a few people were supernatural so the burden of proof has got to be on you to demonstrate Jesus was among those few.

            2.) Even if you accept supernaturalism you have to admit many people who claimed or were claimed to be supernatural were the product of deception of delusion.

            3.) Even if we accept at an absolute face value the accounts of Jesus from the New Testament it doesn’t prove he was supernatural; it simply proves the supernatural worked through him. That makes Jesus no different than a faith healer of any time period.

            4.) What we do have from Jesus is consistent with him not being supernatural. He was mistaken about when his second coming would happen. He was mistaken about the existence of Moses. He was mistaken about the existence of Adam and Eve and he was mistaken when he considered Noah’s flood to be a historical event. He misquoted the Old Testament in Mark 2:25-27. This is far more consistent with him being natural.

            So if you want people to think Jesus was supernatural demonstrate it, but don’t demand we demonstrate he wasn’t. The burden of proof is on you.

            13
        2. “but care not whether ….”
          Which raises the question why you visit this blog at all, because exactly that – and the methods used – is a main subject.

          “Almighty God did not make it clear to everyone in all times by providing some useful evidence that Jesus existed.”
          Define useful or you display nothing but your prejudices, so that any christian may claim that you’re impossible to satisfy. You remind me of a little joke about a guy whose house is flooded and rejects being saved by a boat, a helicopter and some more because he relies on his god. When he dies and meets his creator he asks why he wasn’t saved. The answer: “Who do you think send that boat and helicopter etc.?”
          You look too much like that guy.
          Of course for atheist it’s me it’s simple. No god provided any evidence whatsoever; I think it’s an incoherent idea to assume that an supernatural entity can provide any evidence, which is natural by definition.

          “But does Jesus care?”
          No, because he’s been dead for almost 20 Centuries.

          1. Perhaps it was my style of writing (and thinking), but I think, we agree. Especially vague, I suppose, was my query as to whether “Jesus cares.” I was attempting to answer in the negative. But this was not with the preassumption, by me, that he exists or even existed.

            On a slightly larger plane, my purpose was to question whether the question is even relevant.

        3. I am not convinced Jesus did not exist, in fact, Yeshua Bar Yusuf has been found on quite a few ancient Jerusalem burial sites. was a common name. What if he did exist? There is no reason why the son of a carpenter couldn’t become a preacher, is there? The question anybody cares about is was he god?’ If so, proof.

          2
          1
          1. He would’ve been called Yoshua ben Yosef. And they would’ve also known him as a Nazarene.
            And his remains would’ve been thrown in an unmarked common grave with all the other executed about the same time.

            The conclusion reached via the historical method is that a historical Jesus existed. The Mythicists who like to believe that Jesus is an entire fabrication can’t accept that conclusion and their belief is on the fringe and does not remotely align with the evidence. It is them who care so much about their fanciful fantasy that no historical Jesus existed and who keep trying to push it.

            Nobody in secular scholarship considers whether Jesus was any fabrication nor do they lend any consideration to whether he was god or not. They’ve got more compelling research to do.

            4
            2
  2. Yeah Paterculus

    That makes zero sense on Paul. I was 14 years old when David Koresh and his cult went under siege in Waco, Texas. I remember all that like it was yesterday. Yet by their standards I would not be a contemporary source or able to discuss it because Koresh is dead.

    Basically they want something that doesn’t exist. A document from a historian who was alive and writing in Judea when Jesus was alive. The document would have to discuss Jesus and it would not be enough that it discusses him; the historian would have had to met him. Truth be told if that was ever produced they would demand two more such documents by other similar hypothetical historians and they would demand these documents be clearly certified by Emperor Tiberius, Caiphas, and Pontius Pilate. To dismiss the evidence we have because we don’t have their hypothetical evidence is absurd. Their demand is irrational.

    17
    2
    1. Don’t forget, this historian also couldn’t have become a follower of Jesus because then he’d be biased.

      21
  3. Re: Gallio. Are you telling me Fitzgerald believes Acts is historically accurate enough to correctly record a meeting between Gallio and Paul but the same author, Luke, was so incompetent as to believe the main subject of his first volume was an historical person when, in fact, he never existed?

    12
    1. It’s rather difficult to work out exactly what Fitzgerald is arguing there. It seems to be “if the story of Paul and Gallio is true then Gallio should have mentioned Jesus to Seneca and he didn’t therefore … Jesus didn’t exist”. It doesn’t take much thought to see what is wrong with that argument.

      11
  4. Are there pieces of similar quality to this one that argue for the divine Jesus against others who find such claims the ravings of the credulous?

  5. On Philo, as far as I can see in his Embassy to Gaius he had very good reasons not to mention Jesus. Philo is trying to persuade the emperor and others that Jews are law abiding folk whose ancient customs should be respected; mentioning Jews claiming to be kings not appointed by the emperor would defeat the purpose of the letter.

  6. Another fantastic post. Well done.

    Just one small point though (which doesn’t take away from your overall thoroughly researched post), Philo does mentioned that he visited Jerusalem once (Prov 2.64). Although this was likely as a pilgrimage, so probably just a passing visit while Philo was in his youth.

    Regarding Fitzgerald, I also left the following comment on his blog years and years ago, which he never responded to in any meaningful way. It touches on some of the areas you covered.

    “You seem unaware that a commonly assigned dating for Seneca’s De Superstitione is 31 C.E. [see L. Hermann “Seneque et la superstition” 1970 389-396; although others have suggested perhaps 41 C.E. and many others.] So, depending on your dating of Jesus’ life, he had either just begun or just ended his ministry. Given that Christianity wouldn’t have had the chance to fledge into a religious movement when Seneca was writing, I find the rest of your argument, and flights of imagination about monks selectively removing books, rather superfluous. But there are other problems that arise in your discussion that I think deserve an airing.

    You claim: “In his book on Superstition, Seneca the Younger took aim at every known religious sect of his time, pagan and Jewish.”

    Unless you are physic (but given your association with several skeptical societies I think not), or you have secretly discovered Seneca’s lost essay you just cannot know what you just claimed. The text is heavily, heavily, fragmented (you can see the 14 remnants in F. Haase’s L. Annaei Senecase Opera quae supersunt III), and no writer tells us what its overview was. All we know is that he critized several foreign cults and the Jews- which was a common practice in Roman intellectual circles to pick a few groups and -rhetorically- spear them. Presenting Seneca as offering an extensive (indeed you claim every known!) list of religions and sects might function to establish your argument’s relevance to your readers, but it is bogus.

    You claim: “Remarkably, Augustine’s quotation is all that survives from this particular book. It is very curious that it wasn’t saved, since nearly everything else Seneca wrote was preserved. Christians should have loved a text that attacked Jews and pagans…It is also the only Senecan text we would expect to mention Christianity, the disappearance of this particular book out of well over a hundred surviving writings of Seneca seems suspiciously like the work of snubbed Christian monks.”

    There are two rather blatant errors with this argument:

    1) If you want to try and suggest someone who would have removed Seneca’s work the likely candidate would have been under someone like Emperor Julian, who would have objected to work, that any Christian, who, as you say, would have presumably been delighted with the work and have just removed or redacted the section on Christianity. You even mention a fact that should have precluded you from assuming that Monks destroyed it. Indeed, your argument seems to hang on assuming the medieval process of producing books. But if Augustine testifies in the early 400’s that his work didn’t include a section on Christian then this was still when the book trade and manuscript tradition was controlled by the a free market of book traders, public libraries, and scribes. You have to wait for centuries before the Church’s monks were responsible for preserving and producing of manuscripts.

    2) “Your argument that so anamolous is the lack of this work of Seneca that it is suspicious is a conspiracy of your own making. The numerous lost works of Seneca include his 1) Aegyptiorum; 2) Exhortationes; 3) De Immatura Morte; 4) Libri Moralis Philosophiae, 5) De Matrimonio, 6) De Forma Mundi; 7) De Situ Indiae, while the 8) De uita beata and the 9) De Otio are lacunosed. I mean there is even a book by Dionigi Vottero that collects the fragments from lost books from Seneca! Conte, Fowler, Most, and Solodow, in their history Latin Literature (p.422) even state: “a number of his [Seneca’s] philosophical works that were most popular in antiquity have not survived.”

    We can also have a discussion about your obvious lack of knowledge about Arrian, Sextus Empiricus etc.

    1. Thanks Erlend – I’ll amend that point in my article. I recall your exchange with Fitzgerald at the time. It was remarkable that most of your points seemed to bounce straight off him. Like many Mythicists, his self esteem and high regard for his own knowledge far outruns his actual capacity for anything resembling scholarship. It’s not remarkable that these people are fanatics, it’s more amazing that they are such insufferably smug and self-assured fanatics.

      14
      1. It’s not remarkable that these people are fanatics, it’s more amazing that they are such insufferably smug and self-assured fanatics.
        Dunning–Kruger.

  7. Tim,
    Excellent article!

    I have a strong feeling that I am going to be linking to this article quite often!

    For some time I had a bit of familiarity with the problem of contemporary references regarding Hannibal but I had no idea, until today, that it also extended to Pompeii and Herculaneum’s destruction. I want to do myself a favor and study the problem of contemporary references in further depth. Would you be willing to recommend some excellent sources? I don’t need a complete library (that’s my responsibility, though) but maybe a few of the best experts out there just to get started?

    I don’t know if I thanked you for this but if not, you deserve credit for something. A while ago I asked you for an academic source with regards to the infancy narratives in gMatt and gLuke and didn’t want to rely on Carrier’s work. You recommended the late Raymond Brown. Well, not only did I purchase and start reading his *Birth of the Messiah* but I was so impressed with his work that I also purchased both volumes of *Death of the Messiah* and started reading those, too. I appreciate the recommendation. I also say this to encourage you: your work on this page is definitely having in impact!

    Warm regards!

    Matthew

    1. I don’t think there is any kind of book on “the problem of contemporary references”. It’s just something that becomes clear when you study the sources for … pretty much anything at all in the ancient world and much of medieval history as well – you rarely find yourself using contemporary material. I’m glad you found Brown’s stuff useful. Unlike some Christian scholars (e.g. N.T. Wright), he goes where the evidence leads rather than starting with a faith position and trying to find ways to make the evidence fit it.

  8. Thanks for writing this, but you covered that ground already. Also mysticism is something of a dead horse by now. I would rather read something about Richard Carrier’s couple of new books on ancient science. (I think I asked you to review it already)

    thanks

    1. I think I’ll write and review what I choose to cover thanks. Mythicism is not “a dead horse” and I have never covered this particular argument in this kind of depth anywhere before. I’d be more inclined to give priority to Carrier’s books on ancient science if I saw arguments from them all over the web. I see this argument from silence every single time I see Jesus mentioned as a historical figure. Every single time.

      16
      1. I see what you mean. It is just that I was already aware that “contemporary references” is terrible argument (largely thanks to you) so I felt like another post is not needed. But I apparently fell prey to typical mind fallacy to think what is obvious to me now is obvious to everyone. On the other hand, Carrier doesn’t seem as obviously wrong on ancient science (probably only because I know little about the subject) and would thus like someone to debunk him.

        1. I am reviewing his work, either in a scholarly journal, or (if I make a more extended review) somewhere online. His work on ancient science is not terrible, but it is extremely slanted, and surprisingly he is not really that well acquainted with a lot of scholarship in this area. To give you two examples he repeatedly insists Christians were to blame for the lack of preservation of ancient philosophical texts from the Stoa, Peripatetic (etc) schools. That is nonsense. Any reasonable scholarly work will tell you it was the dominance of Platonism in the third-fourth centuries that meant the writings from others schools were abandoned. For example read Michael Frede, or Richard Goulet. Secondly he isolates Christians who critique philosophers for being interested in (what to laymen seem like) arcane matters, and so colours Christians as being anti-philosophy/science, when we have literally hundreds of references from Graeco-Roman writers who note their laymen have equal disdain for these subjects. Carrier though never mentions that.

          (My just completed PhD thesis is on ancient philosophy and laymen, so the field that Carrier’s work touches on.)

          13
      2. The case against Yeshua’s existence is a dead horse. The ideology that seeks to erase him from history however is still a problem. Like the anti-evolution shit

        1. Yes the case against Jesus existing is dead. The ideology that ultimately seeks to erase him from existence was created by the Christian religious right. You cannot be surprised if people lash out against against that hateful ideology.

    2. I agree with Tim. Carrier’s work on science is not quoted much so it doesn’t merit that much attention. But as a sidenote, the failings in his work on that topic do provide a way for readers who are confused over who to trust regarding Jesus mysticism with another avenue to see how Carrier’s arguments are discordant with genuine scholarship, e. g his claiming the philosophical works (apart from Platonic corpus) were destroyed/devalued by Christians is sheer playing into the new atheist polemical handbook, but it is, again, nonsense (e. g. read the work on the transmission of ancient philosophy from the likes of Frede or Sedley.)

  9. Fitzgerald simply cannot be serious with his argument from Nicholas of Damascus.

    A Christian apologist would have a field day with the claim he should have wrote about the alleged Massacre of the Innocents by Herod.

    Why should he mention something unflattering about his friend Herod. He was also friends with Herod Archelaus, why would he mention something unflattering about his father?

    Lastly almost all of his works have been lost? How does Fitzgerald know it wasn’t discussed in the lost works?

    I don’t think the massacre happened for a flipping second however this argument against it is simply weak.

    I have to wonder how sincere Fitzgerald is with these arguments.

  10. Kim Jong-Il didn’t really control the weather, therefore Kim Jong-Il didn’t exist.

    Saddam Hussein didn’t really own a stargate, therefore Saddam Hussein didn’t exist.

    Idi Amin wasn’t the last King of Scotland, therefore Idi Amin didn’t exist.

    1. Brother Reg, I’m not sure whether to thank or curse you for introducing me to the “Saddam had a stargate” rabbit hole. There goes the rest of my Saturday morning…

      Along similar grounds, while I’ve identified as Oriental Orthodox over the past few years, I’m fairly confident the story of Pope Shenouada III miraculously appearing before a Muslim man who intended to kidnap and rape a Christian woman who accidentally knocked on his apartment door and having the Muslim free her never happened. Ergo, Pope Shenouada III never existed. My theory is he was just a Muslim fantasy invented by Yasser Arafat to trick the Coptic Church so they would oppose Anwar Sadat’s recognition of Israel and return of the Sinai. I look forward to my $5 grant from the Richard Carrier Foundation For Couch Surfing Unemployed Bloggers so I can pursue this important theory that will completely upend all academic work on the Camp David Accords.

      I similarly doubt that rapper DMX ever actually communicated with God like he claimed on those Prayer tracks-X is similarly a figment of my imagination. On the other hand, it’s a miracle that Lil Wayne managed to have a platinum selling career, so I think we’ve found the one true God and Messiah. In Weezy we trust.

  11. Excellent. Can’t wait for your debunking of the Ascension of Isaiah argument, they really think that’s a good one.

      1. The Ascension of Isaiah is Carrier’s biggest blunder. Carrier is a known liar, or a delusional fool. Probably just a liar. He lies about what the text says. (Just using the language of Carrier.) It really destroys his theory whether he likes it or not if his interpretation is wrong. Without it, he is left with a bunch of bizarre conspiracies about how the evil Christians wiped out any trace of the original church. It’s his only ground for interpreting Paul in a celestial sense. Not only does it not say what Carrier says it does, but actually confirms otherwise. GDon did an excellent review on the AoI, but definitely looking forward to your take on it. Carrier recently called NT scholar N.T. Wright a “hack”. I don’t subscribe to every N.T says, but he’s certainly not a hack. I would love to see him say that in front of scholars like Dom Crossan or the late Marcus Borg. They’d disagree very much so. Another way of Carrier showing himself to be a complete fool. If you keep pushing against Carrier you will be called “Tim, the fake atheist Liar for the Lord.”

        3
        1
        1. Well, he already dismisses any mention of me or my criticisms of his stuff with a fantasy about me “lying” about him that he’s been peddling for a decade now. He’s been shown that this “lie” was just Carrier misreading a post from a now long defunct discussion board, but he doesn’t care. So far, though, he has not gone down the “fake atheist” path. Nor has he declared me “insane” – a tactic he uses for critics who really annoy him, as well as for the women who have accused him of sexual harassment. His poor scholarship aside, he is a very odd and deeply unpleasant little man.

          10
          1. I applaud your patience in dealing with his rants. I agree that this contra-mythicism isn’t a waste of time. History is important, and mythicism is a growing problem on the internet. You can’t even go on the Ehrman blog anymore without some arse of a mythicist on there trying to take everyone off topic.

            As you have shown, Carrier can’t even be trusted to interpret plain English. Why in the world should anyone trust his interpretations on complicated Greek texts?

          2. True. I actually don’t read much of his stuff; just the material relevant to my Jesus Mythicism series. I find his weird self-obsession, his repeated creepy references to “my girlfriends” and his repetitive verbosity tedious reading. And then there is his strange staccato syntax, whereby he chops up his sentences. Like this. All the time. Like, for emphasis. Or something. It’s been interesting to see how his childish behaviour and his capacity for alienating people has led to his stocks in the “atheism community” sinking lower and lower. He still has his wide-eyed fan club, but his name get as many boos and as cheers these days.

          3. How such a toad like Carrier could ever have a “wide-eyed fan club”, let alone “girlfriendS”, I’ll never know. They remind me of Ken Ham followers

            6
            1
        2. There is a divergence between the Ethiopic and the Slavonic versions of the Ascension of Isaiah at the point where the descent of Jesus brings him to earth. This *might* suggest that the original version of the text differed from any of the versions we have now. But that would be pure speculation. It would be far more speculative to say what the “original” version was. And it would be complete lunacy to base a theory of Christian origins on these speculations.

          Furthermore, The Ascension of Isaiah is not a document which tells us how Christianity began. It does not claim to tell us this. There is nothing in it about events that were happening around AD 30. This is the problem with Carrier’s approach. He says that Christianity began with people receiving revelations and claims to find corroboration for this in Paul’s letters, which mention various spiritual experiences. But what was the context? In what circumstances did people begin to receive revelations? The answer is in Acts, which tells us that the revelations began after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Of course, Carrier doesn’t accept this. But which historical source tells us what the “real” background was? It certainly isn’t the Ascension of Isaiah. There is no such historical source. And Carrier’s entire work is based on the assumption that he doesn’t require one. This is the approach of a complete crank.

          In fact, the Ascension of Isaiah clearly undermines Carrier’s theory. Firstly, the implication of the text is that someone could experience a vision of the heavenly Christ and yet the vision remains a secret for centuries. The vision on its own is not enough to launch a Jesus movement. A second point is apparent in this extract from chapter three of the text:

          “For Beliar was in great wrath against Isaiah by reason of the vision, and because of the exposure wherewith he had exposed Sammael, and because through him the going forth of the Beloved from the seventh heaven had been made known, and His transformation and His descent and the likeness into which He should be transformed (that is) the likeness of man, and the persecution wherewith he should be persecuted, and the torturers wherewith the children of Israel should torture Him, and the coming of His twelve disciples, and the teaching, and that He should before the sabbath be crucified upon the tree, and should be crucified together with wicked men, and that He should be buried in the sepulchre.”

          Notice that this starts in a way that might seem congenial to mythicists. It talks about the Beloved descending from the seventh heaven and then taking on human likeness. Surely this is Carrier’s celestial Christ?! But then come the allusions to historical facts, such as the twelve disciples and the crucifixion before the Sabbath. So there is an important lesson here. When someone speaks in a way which might imply that Jesus is a celestial being, we cannot assume that this person would not have known about the historical Jesus. Therefore, we would need to have absolutely explicit evidence before we could accept Carrier’s interpretation. Reading between the lines won’t cut it.

          Incidentally, that excerpt is not from chapter eleven, where there is the textual problem. So no one could say that one person wrote the first half of the paragraph and another person wrote the second.

  12. We know that from the beginning that there was considerable hostility between orthodox Jews and the new Christian sect. However, we find no Jewish sources in those early centuries that deny the existence of the person proposed by the Christians as the son of God. If Jesus had not existed, there would have been plenty of Jewish sources pointing this out (if it were true).

    1. Not only that; Flavius Josephus would’ve known that Jesus was a fabrication and wouldn’t have recorded him in the Testimonium Flavianum. Nor would’ve he referenced Jesus as the brother of James when recording James getting executed by Ananus ben Ananus.

      The entire “non-contemporary sources” justification is an ignorant convenient cop-out. Because Flavius Josephus would’ve been taught his history of Judea by people who were contemporaries of Jesus.
      And the aforementioned execution of James the just actually occurred during the early adulthood of Flavius Josephus. Josephus would’ve recalled the by now late middle-aged James as being the brother of the earlier proclaimed messiah.

      5
      1
  13. Good, but I think you implicitly concede too much here:

    “As we have seen with several of Fizgerald’s weakest arguments, this means that unless someone does not simply accept a historical Jewish preacher at the origin point and core of the Jesus traditions but also argues for a “maximalist” Jesus of Faith, complete with water walking, levitation, water into wine and a resurrection or three, these arguments lose all their force.”

    Actually, even with those things, they have no force at all. One can search standard modern histories in vain for reports of even the most charismatic, popular preachers about whom signs are reported — say, Mark Driscoll, or some folks I have met personally. The naïve assumption is that miracle reports will all be credulously passed along as “gospel” by unbelievers.

    1. Maybe. But I will leave the counters to the argument from silence from the perspective of those who believe in the “maximalist” Jesus to those who accept that all the miracles etc. happened. I don’t.

  14. Even if we exclude gJohn with its three Passover visits to Jerusalem, it is difficult to argue that Jesus’ ministry was much shorter than a year. gMatt 12:1-8; gMark 2:23-28; and gLuke 6:1-5, all of which are tellings of the same story, begin with the disciples plucking and eating ears of corn on the Sabbath. Since the feast of Shavuot (Pentecost) was the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, the incident must have taken place at about this time.

    Apart from this one minor point, I do not have any criticism of your article.

    1. Why would this incident have had to have happened at Pentecost? In the Middle East barley ripens before wheat and is ripe as early as the beginning of April. There is nothing to prevent the incident in Mark 2:23-28 being set just weeks before Jesus’ fateful final Passover.

      1. No, your argument lacks logic. First, you cannot separate the grain from the husk of barley just by rubbing it in your hands (the detail in Luke’s version of the story). See for example, https://www.jpost.com/Not-Just-News/A-festival-of-barley-403546 which is based on a longer article in the Jewish Encyclopedia (‘omer = sheaf).

        Secondly, if Jesus and his disciples had been eating barley before Passover, the allegation against them would not have been that they were working on the Sabbath, but the much more serious one that they were eating the new harvest before the firstfruits had been consecrated to God (the waving of the ‘omer).

        1. “you cannot separate the grain from the husk of barley just by rubbing it in your hands”

          Yes, you can. I’ve done it myself. Barley requires somewhat more threshing and winnowing than wheat, but if you claim they physically could not have done with ripe barley what the gLuke account says I can only suggest you find a field of ripe barley and try it. You can.

          ” if Jesus and his disciples had been eating barley before Passover, the allegation against them would not have been that they were working on the Sabbath, but the much more serious one that they were eating the new harvest before the firstfruits had been consecrated to God “

          Sorry, but the whole point is that the barley had not been harvested at all – that’s why they were plucking it from the fields. So you’ll need to show me a first century prohibition that ruled gleaning a few ears before the harvest counted as “eating the new harvest”. I think you’ll struggle to do this.

          Look I really don’t care if the events of gMark span a few weeks or a year and I don’t much care for getting into a Biblical literalist style debate on this point. But your arguments are not really very compelling. Let’s agree to disagree.

  15. A lot of mythers are former Christian fundamentalists. They went from the absolute conviction Jesus rose from the dead to the absolute conviction Jesus never existed. Basically these guys cannot handle nuance.

    I know the mythers would never admit it but part of me thinks the reason they go the myther path is they are deep down afraid that fundamentalist Christianity is true; so they take the biggest whip to it. As long as Jesus lived it is possible the views they now loathe are true; so from a psychological perspective Jesus must go.

    Fundamentalist Christianity is psychologically abusive ( I still got nightmares from it ) so perhaps mytherism is simply a psychological defensive measure.

    12
    1
    1. If course that’s the reason. It’s not a sincere regard for history. If they already don’t believe in a higher power, Christianity is _already_ null and void since Yeshua wouldn’t have been who he said he was and even Paul stressed that. Financial gain (in the case of Carrier) is also a factor

      1. Sorry, but I sincerely doubt Carrier is in it for “financial gain”. If he is, he needs to get a new scam. He can barely sustain his current below-the-poverty-line existence via his paltry Patreon income.

          1. Ego. He gets validation for his unique genius by couch surfing around the country preaching his thesis to his fanboys. I’ve had a lot of exposure to conspiracy loons, crackpot theorists and self-declared experts peddling fringe theories. Most of them are sustained by their iron conviction that they understand something most people don’t and that they know better than those silly old experts. When you add audiences of convinced believers to that mix, it makes for a heady cocktail, especially for a narcissist like Carrier. All that would be enough to convince him it’s worth living on ramen noodles.

        1. Hmm I dunno.
          His entire blog is covered in advertisements for his overpriced self-published books. And he offers “workshops” (whatever those are supposed to be is something I got an ill feeling beginning to ponder) for a not exactly small price. I can’t imagine that he makes these appearances over North America for the more gullible atheist groups for free. He’s certainly got the character traits of a swindler.

          Maybe this shilling is a desperation thing (as I understand it; he’s recently resorted to self-publishing his old PhD thesis disguised as a book).
          Or maybe his intention is/was actually to make money. And maybe he’s just also completely alienated from reality/suffers a mental illness? Or maybe he thought it would be a lucrative scam to pull back in 2005 and now, even though it’s really gone nowhere, has no other option but to continue committing to it ?

    2. I don’t think that they’re so much afraid of Christian fundamentalism proving true so much as their minds are simplistic. They see everything in black-and-white. I used to be a fundamentalist too but, in my early 20s, I started evolving into a more mainstream Evangelical. These apostates have never left the stadium in search of greener grass; they have merely switched teams. They now bat for the team that they formerly opposed. I call these apostates “atheist fundamentalists”. They may be atheists but the fundamentalist mentality remains.

      10
        1. JP Holding unless things have really changed is a Young Earth Creationist and a believer in Inerrancy. He is also a preterist. Him calling someone else a fundamentalist is like the pot calling the kettle black.

          4
          1
      1. We have talked before online around 2003-2004. You used to be a fan of James Patrick Holding ( he apparently got his name legally changed so it is his name now ) and William Lane Craig. You stopped being a fan of Holding when you saw him get skinned alive by Farrell Till. ( that happened often) You also stopped being a fan of Craig over his Old Earth Creationism.

        I was raised a religious fundamentalist and became a skeptic around the age of 21.It was pretty easily till I was 23. The love bug bit me big time; unfortunately it was with a Christian fundamentalist. We both admitted we would have gotten married had things been different. I am a bookish person by nature so I went through a period of basically trying to convince myself skepticism was wrong by studying apologist like Holding, Craig and NT Wright. As much as I wanted it and wished it I couldn’t dismiss the fact the arguments of skeptics simply made more sense. Jesus Christ never existed. Rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph existed and his story was simply embellished into Jesus Christ. I knew it was true but damned I didn’t want it to be.

        It was a rough time in my past, and I really blamed myself for while however in the end I realized things really were not my fault. I grew up. She didn’t. I reexamined everything I thought I knew. She didn’t. What more could I do?

        I certainly did not like Christianity for awhile but more and more I put that aside as I realized Christianity is far far bigger than the fundamentalism I grew up with. I still consider myself a skeptic but I learned atheists are often times no more open minded then the fundamentalists and it is just not the religious who have caused human misery. I kept on growing up. I stand up to bigots of all stripes now,not just the religious ones.

        I stand by my comment as I have talked with mythers who have told me they are afraid of “back sliding” into religion.I do agree with you some simply are black and white thinkers. Others are simply twits. Ones such as Carrier are self deluding frauds.

        1. Holding got “skinned alive”? Hm. Even as a skeptic rather than a trademark “Skeptic”, l think you might like Heiser

          1. I guess I was being kind by saying Holding got skinned alive. I would more say he was crucified, skinned alive and set on fire by Farrell Till. Then dissolved in acid. Then diluted in water. The water then was split into hydrogen and oxygen. Till couldn’t do anything else without violating the principles of the conservation of matter so he had to leave it at that.

            You can read Holding fail again and again here-http://web.archive.org/web/20130115214213/http://theskepticalreview.com/MainMenu.html

            Holding might ridicule “fundamentalist atheists” but his “talent” seems to be parroting fundamentalist scholars. So Holding make fun of anyone for being a fundamentalist is rich indeed.

            Thank you for Heiser though. He does seem interesting.

  16. Hey Tim, what do you normally say to those who claim that eye witnesses are not evidence, (because humans are fallible, they are prone to many fallacies, and they can wholehearted believe in what they say as they spread a lie). That the amount of eyewitness to the Loch Ness monster or Big foot is not evidence for either, only for the incredulity of the witnesses.

    1. I don’t think anyone actually says eyewitness accounts are worthless, just that they can’t be taken at face value because human perception is fallible and human memory of perceptions is also fallible and remarkably plastic. This is even more relevant when we are talking about supposed eye witness accounts of things which are extremely improbable, such as the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. There are usually much better explanations for what they think they saw.

  17. Unless Holding has changed his colors he is a YEC.

    See his website-http://www.tektonics.org/JP-Holding.html

    He clearly states he has published on the website https://creation.com/

    All this is current.

    He has published with the Creation Research Journal-http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/

    He is cited by creationist-https://answersingenesis.org/bios/james-holding/

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims in water it is a duck.

  18. @ Tim

    Do you think it would be rational to expect a contemporary source for the resurrecting, miracle working Jesus. Just curious.

    1. That makes more sense, but it is still possible to argue that such a “maximalist” Jesus may not have attracted enough attention for mention in a contemporary source that survives to us. To begin with, there were actually quite few writers of history, or even just writers who noted current historical events, working in the very brief window of Jesus’ career (see my article on just how short that may have been). Philo I suppose. Paterculus maybe. Secondly, with a few exceptions like the supposed “feeding of the five thousand”, only a few of the reported miracles were performed before large crowds. The more spectacular ones – calming the storm, the Transfiguration etc. – were rather private affairs and the Resurrection takes place off stage even in the gospels. So what would a Roman or Greek historian somewhere else in the Mediterranean hear? That some peasant was faith healing and performing exorcisms in a backwater region of an eastern province and there was talk he had raised a couple of people from the dead? Maybe that there was a rumour that he had risen from the dead and flown off into the sky? The first would probably be too unimpressive to note and the second more likely to be dismissed, given that even in the gospel depictions most people in Jerusalem at the time didn’t witness this and dismissed it.

      So even with the “maximalist” Jesus of a naive literalist reading of the gospels we have a similar problem. I’ll leave Christians to ponder why these supposedly remarkable signs and miracles were, when it comes down to it, local wonders witnessed by almost no-one and therefore kind of pointless. And no, please don’t anyone take that as an invitation to discuss that here.

      7
      1
      1. I’m curious, Tim, as to what your perspective on the Bible is as a whole. As an atheist without bias, do you acknowledge its historical, cultural, and aesthetic significance, as opposed to extremist dismissal of it all as “no damn good” or “worthless fairy tales written by desert sheep-herders and savages” as perpetual sophists like Carrier and Aron Ra so eloquently dismiss it as? Or do you have sort of a mixed view on it?

        1. I see it the same way as I see all kinds of other ancient texts – indications of what people centuries ago believed. Some of it is very beautiful, some of it contains genuine wisdom, some of it is rather alien and some of it is repugnant. I could say the same about the corpus of Old Norse texts as well. Or texts from Sumeria. It’s hard to have much more than a very general perspective on “the Bible as a whole”, because – as I often have to remind my more emotional fellow atheists – it isn’t a book, it’s a library of texts of different kinds, dates, genres, languages and intentions. The traditional Christian conception of “the Bible” as a coherent instruction manual from God has clear “historical, cultural significance” and certain translations (the Vulgate, the King James) have “aesthetic significance”. But the dismissal of it as “worthless fairy tales written by desert sheep-herders and savages” is just anti-theistic reaction against the way it has been and still is used and interpreted by many Christians. A rationalist can mentally separate the ancient texts from the way they have been interpreted and look at them for what they are.

          12
          1. I agree with you but at the same time see this as somewhat apples versus oranges. Nobody to the best of my knowledge is using the Gilgamesh, Beowulf or the writings of Homer to justify oppressing people. On the other hand especially in the US we have people using the Bible to “justify” bigotry toward homosexuals, women, and non Christians in general. We have people who use it to “justify” opposing universal health care. We have it used as a weapon to attack science.

            Your stance makes perfect sense in academia or private reflection but when facing the above you are pretty much stuck with “hitting” the Bible hard. If the religious right stopped acting this way people would stop hitting the source of their alleged “authority” in such a manner. If Wiccans gained such power in the US and tried to use their um sacred scripture to abuse people people such as me would hit their sacred texts just as hard.

          2. That’s why I was careful to say “a rationalist can mentally separate the ancient texts from the way they have been interpreted“. I was asked about my “attitude to the Bible”, so I emphasised that I see “the Bible” essentially as a collection of ancient texts and not as “a book”. Because it isn’t. I do this while well aware that Christians do see it (wrongly) as “a book” and that some of them use it as such to justify terrible things. But that is only peripheral to my “attitude to the Bible”. If I was asked about my “attitude to fundamentalist Christian views of the Bible” then I would have given a very different answer.

          3. On a related note, would you say the JEDP theory has any merit at all or is it just another conspiracy theory like mythicism that many New Atheists jump onto because they think it disproves Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?

          4. I can’t really see how that question is “related” to my article. OT studies is not my area, but as far as I can tell the composition theory you mention is fairly old fashioned, though modern scholarship still accepts multiple authorship of and several layers in the first five books of the Bible. Only Protestant conservatives of the fundamentalist type resist this perfectly sensible idea. And I am baffled as to how this “disproves Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”. And no, since it is off-topic here, I am not interested in further discussion. Please keep your comments focused on the subject of the article you’re commenting on.

          1. If their atheism leads them to be intrinsically hostile to religious belief, sure. That’s by no means a given, and the blog we’re posting on is evidence that many atheists can approach religious texts with fairness and an open mind. I’ve learned more about the rich traditions and history of our faith from atheists like Ehrman, Casey, and Tim than I have from many protestant preachers I grew up listening to. I doubt I’m unique among Tim’s Christian fans in that regard.

            10
  19. Thanks again, Tim.

    Even if we accept the maximal portrayal of Jesus in the gospels, letters, etc, he was still, as you say, a man who never moved more than a few days journey from his hometown, and whose fame (during his lifetime) extended maybe a few dozen kilometers beyond that.

    Given the general contempt among Romans for Jews, to expect the average educated Roman to be particularly interested in the life and death of a Jewish preacher is roughly equivalent to expecting a British Colonial Governor to care about an African witchdoctor from Outer Wogistan.

    Jesus was important to his family, friends, and followers, a fairly small group of people. He, or more specifically specifically his movement, wouldn’t become significant enough to deserve Roman mention until it made its way to Rome. Even then, for a long time, it was just regarded as another Jewish sect. Tolerated, but generally disdained.

    1. All good points. I’ve sometimes used a similar argument to note that aristocratic Romans or Greeks would probably pay about as much attention to any such reports about someone like Jesus as we would to unconfirmed reports of a water-walking, dead-raising miracle man in the Amazonian rain forest.

    2. Isn’t this rather disregarding any possible supernatural aspects to Jesus?
      Tim, (maybe you’ve seen this) although Einstein didn’t believe in a Christian God he did say “I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene”. There’s a full 1929 interview here by George Viereck, http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf where he also has a go at Emil Ludwig’s 1928 book The Son Of Man The Story Of Jesus.

      Viereck “Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
      Einstein “Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!”

      Viereck “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
      Einstein “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

      On a little Googling you get this from Ludwig’s Foreward “My aim is to convince those who regard the personality of Jesus as artificially constructed, that he is a real and intensely human figure”. Yet Einstein dismisses even this characterization as “shallow”. Maybe Einstein only considered Jesus as a much greater human than this characterization with no supernatural aspects as he did not believe in a Christian God.
      But I know he did believe in God as a “superior reasoning power”.

      1. I pay attention to Einstein on physics. On the historicity of Jesus he was about as informed any average, well-read person in the early twentieth century, and his opinion carries little weight as a result. And in the discussions on this blog we accept the things that can be agreed on as likely by historians and leave faith in things such as alleged “miracles” and the supposed “supernatural” at the door.

        1. Ok, I did wonder at Einstein’s views on Jesus and maybe some overlap with his comment on his idea of God I gave above.

      2. Brother Alan, if i’m reading Tim and Duke right, they aren’t disregarding the miracles of Jesus in their argument (although Tim’s an atheist and obviously doesn’t believe they occurred). Their argument seems to be that even a Jesus who performed all these supernatural events would’ve been as noteworthy to a learned Greek or Roman as, say, an Igbo shaman who cures cancer patients and parted the Imo River would be to a fundamentalist Dixie pentecostal. As such, we would still expect there to be scant evidence (or interest) for a Jewish peasant preacher performing miracles on the periphery of the Roman world.

        The next two sentences from Einstein in that interview would seem to confirm that Einstein did not consider Jesus to have supernatural characteristics, but did believe he was an historical figure with wise moral teachings:

        “How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

        Then, when asked about a critique of Jesus offered by Ludwig Lewisohn, Einstein notes:

        “No man can deny that Jesus existed, or his sayings are beautiful. Even if some of them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

        I don’t believe there’s any material from Einstein dealing with your question after this post, unfortunately.

  20. I’m not sure what point mythicists are trying to make with the argument from silence. In theory, they might be saying, “Why didn’t anyone notice Jesus at the time?” But we know that people did notice Jesus at the time; a Jesus movement started in the first century. To which the mythicists reply, “Ah but the Jesus on whom the movement was centred is a *different* Jesus!”

    If mythicists have conceded, as most of them do, that a Jesus movement started at just the time that you would expect if Jesus really existed, then the argument from silence has already failed. The question then is not why there is silence, but whether the Jesus who is being talked about is the same Jesus as the one we think it is. Of course, that isn’t really a question at all, because now mythicists are actually trying to deal with the fact that there *isn’t* silence and their “solution” to the problem is probably the most ad hoc idea that anyone has ever come up with.

    1. The “no contemporary references to Jesus” argument is predominantly a rebuttal to the assertion that ‘there is good evidence for the historical [human] Jesus’.

      It is not a complete argument against a historical Jesus.

      It’s hard to know “If mythicists have conceded… that a Jesus movement started at just the time that you would expect [as proposed based on the NT].”

      1. “It’s hard to know “If mythicists have conceded… that a Jesus movement started at just the time that you would expect [as proposed based on the NT].””

        There are a variety of Mythicist positions on many things, but most have to concede that we have no evidence of any Jesus sect prior to the second half of the first century AD – i.e. just after the time we would expect it to arise from an early first century historical Jesus.

  21. Hi. “As such, we would still expect there to be scant evidence (or interest) for a Jewish peasant preacher performing miracles on the periphery of the Roman world.”
    Sure, on reading Tim’s site on this issue, I agree.

    “The next two sentences from Einstein in that interview would seem to confirm that Einstein did not consider Jesus to have supernatural characteristics, but did believe he was an historical figure with wise moral teachings”
    Really, I could not agree with that with certainty. Can you? If Jesus actually performed real exorcisms and Einstein must have read of this, it surely would have raised questions in his mind he probably would not want to openly discuss. Who would?
    Still, I’m personally fascinated in his view of God as a “superior reasoning power” and how that could somehow intersect with us (or life in general).

  22. The issue is really not whether Jesus the person existe, but rather the mythology that grew from the stories of his alleged deeds. His divinity is the mythology. Those who are spending time establishing the probability of his existence are ignoring all the real work before them in favor of the low fruit.

  23. Just a note: Tacitus does appear to refer to the burial of towns around Vesuvius in the prologue to his Histories (1.2):

    “Moreover, Italy was distressed by disasters unknown before or returning after the lapse of ages. Cities on the rich fertile shores of Campania were swallowed up or overwhelmed…”

    You have to supply some context, because the passage doesn’t overtly mention a volcanic eruption. But since Tacitus states that the cities were on the shores of Campania, “buried” (obrutae), and that this happened during the rough time period in which Vesuvius would have erupted, it’s pretty clear that he is referring to towns like Pompeii and Herculaneum (if not them specifically).

    Of course, this still would not be a contemporary reference, since Tacitus was writing decades later. I’m just mentioning this in regard to your statement:

    “Beyond that there is no clear indication of any buried towns and no direct mention of Pompeii or Herculaneum by name at all.”

    It’s true that Tacitus doesn’t name the towns, but he does seem to mention “buried towns,” at least. Just a small point.

    1. True. I’ll amend my article and take out the part about “no clear indication of any buried towns”. The main point though is that we have no references to the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum at all, contemporary or otherwise.

      1. Tim,
        You say we have no contemporary references concerning the destruction of Pompeii. Have I failed in understanding the context of what you wrote concerning the destruction or is Pliney the Youngers eyewitness account of Vesuvius not considered contemporary?
        Sorry, am I missing something?
        Thank you,
        Jarrod

        1. Yes, you’re missing something. Read what I actually said again and see if you can work out what you’ve missed. ;>

          1. I read it several times. The sentence ” The main point though is that we have no references to the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum at all, contemporary or otherwise.” Seems pretty straightforward to me. So what am I missing?

          2. Okay, what you’re missing is that neither Pliny nor any of the other sources mentions Pompeii or Herculaneum directly. That’s why I say “not only do we have no contemporary references to the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum, we actually have no direct references to the cities by name at all.” None of the sources mentions the cities by name.

  24. While most of the mainstream Mythicist have been mentioned and deservedly bashed upon the rocks of rationalism, no one has seen fit to introduce the Lord Mythicist Supreme, Robert Price Almighty, into the conversation. IMO, if there is anyone out there dancing for dollars, it is the esteemed Dr. Price.

    It appears to me that Price persued Bart Ehrman for months before their debate finally took place. Then enter the Mythicist Milawaukee group , who also saw dollar signs, and the fiasco finally took place. I have never seen or heard the entire debate as for several months, the only way to do so was to line the coffers of Mythicist Milwaukee. I don’t know if it is now being offered free of charge.

    I do admit that I have a hard time sitting through the arguments presented by Price, Harris, or Fitzgerald as their arrogance causes my “deaf meter” to peg out.

    As to the actual historicity of Jesus, I don’t care. Much like the argument concerning God’s existence, it’s a moot point. We all have an opinion that can not at this time be proven. The argument that if Jesus had existed, the great historian _______ (insert your favorite name here) would have mentioned him, doesn’t hold water. They most likely would not have given any notice to some mendicant street hawker that knew enough slight of hand tricks to woo a crowd. Now if there had been actual miracles, as in people being healed, raised from the dead, or had there been an earthquake with Zombies roaming the streets, you can bet your sweet buttocks, that would have been noticed and recorded.

    2
    1
    1. Kate,
      You say that “As to the actual historicity of Jesus, I don’t care. Much like the argument concerning God’s existence, it’s a moot point.”  But it seems to me you spent an awful lot of condescending effort, pressupossing what a hypothetical historian should have written about . You claim something is a moot point, only to remain unmoot about the particular point.
      I’m not saying you’re right or wrong about what you believe or don’t believe. I just find it ironic that you spend a considerable effort in an area that you have declared supposedly moot. Why waste your time on the flying spaghetti monster?

      1. Jarrod, my not so moot point was that those claiming to know have little evidence one way or another. However if there had been some great miracle worker, there would have been some mention of him within the time frame of Jesus alleged existence.

        As to the flying spaghetti monster, I never mentioned that icon that some atheist adopt. That makes about as much sense to me as wearing a replica of a medieval torture device.

        1. Cate,
          You say, “Jarrod, my not so moot point was that those claiming to know have little evidence one way or another. However if there had been some great miracle worker, there would have been some mention of him within the time frame of Jesus alleged existence.”

          Come again? I’m not sure what you mean by this in regards to “those claiming to know him” “evidence” and “some mention of him”.
          Who are you referring to when you say “those who claim to know him”? And, what do you mean by “little evidence one way or another ” Is it one way? Or another?
          When you say “Jesus alleged existence”, that tells me you probably should simply remain moot about the topic until you have done a little more homework.
          Not believing in Jesus as the son of God and a miracle worker is one thing. However, Jesus of Nazareth existence is a very well settled fact of history. So, I’d need some clarity and specificity on what you are trying to say. Its vague.
          Jarrod

        2. Very original Cate, very original. You forgot the pink unicorn and the Martian teapot. We have as much evidence as we would expect for a Galilean preacher in 1st century Judea, Messiah or no Messiah. The evidence Mythicists demand is more than that of any other so no amount would satisfy you. It’s all or nothing for those commited to ideological positions

  25. Hello, sorry for my English. I have a question. What are the most accepted date of the composition of each gospel. Thank you.

      1. I’m curious as to what you think of the Casey-Crossley dating of Mark to c. 40 AD, as outlined in Maurice Casey’s magnum opus “Jesus of Nazareth”. I found it somewhat persuasive, but I’m conscious that it hasn’t persuaded most scholars and so I wouldn’t be prepared to express a firm view on the matter.

        It does seem to me that Casey and Crossley may, at least, be right that the references to the destruction of the Temple in Mark don’t clearly date it after 70 AD. If I remember rightly (though I don’t have the book in front of me), Casey points out inter alia that the prophecy is not actually that accurate – it says for instance that no stone will be left standing, when in fact an entire wall was and is still standing. Casey and Crossley instead link Mark’s prophecy to the Caligula affair of 39 AD, when the destruction of the Temple may well have seemed like an imminent possibility (but didn’t actually occur). But as I say, I’m conscious that this hasn’t convinced the majority of scholars.

        (I’m also conscious that this argument could be misused by Christian apologists – but that’s no reason not to make it. Casey made plenty of other arguments which would not be acceptable to a Christian apologist, including his wholesale – and surely correct – rejection of the historicity of John.)

        1. I really liked Casey’s book and was persuaded by him about many things. But not that. The references to the destruction of the Temple in gMark are not explicit precisely because the writer is trying to make the reference without making it explicit. In the period directly after the Jewish Revolt a sect seen as Jewish that venerated a crucified Jew would hardly want to associate itself with the rebellion, thus the notes to the reader after the cryptic (to most Romans) reference to “the Abomination of Desolation” which say “(let the reader understand)” (Mark 13:14; Matt 24:15-16). gLuke is more explicit, probably because its writer was at more of a temporal and perhaps political distance from association with the uprising, so he refers openly to the siege that preceded the destruction – “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near” (Luke 21:20).

          The “no stone left standing” argument is overly literal – for Jews of the second half of the century the destruction of the Temple was total and catastrophic. And the Caligula idea is pretty strained as well, since the threat to the Temple there seems to have been fairly brief and involved its desecration, but not its physical destruction. So I’d say the traumatic events of 70 AD fit the cryptic references in Mark 13 and Matt 24 far better and stick with the consensus dating.

          1. Even if it was meant to be literal that simply means it didn’t describe it correctly. If I find an undated account that claims to be a prophecy about the destruction of Hiroshima that gets the square mileage and total amount of damage wrong that doesn’t mean it was written around 1900, 1934 or 1943. It simply means the author got it wrong.

          2. True. Though there is nothing much in the gMark/gMatt references, brief and deliberately cryptic as they are, that is even substantially wrong. Roman standards bearing the figures of pagan gods were raised in the Temple (the “Abomination of Desolation”) and then the Temple was destroyed. The fact that one wall survived and so the ” stone here will be left on another” prediction is not strictly true is a pretty weak basis for thinking the “prophecy” was written before the events of 70 AD rather than after.

          3. Fair enough. I don’t have a firm view on the dating of Mark (not being an expert myself) but your points seem persuasive.

            I really enjoyed Casey’s book too, especially his insightful Aramaic reconstructions of passages from Mark and Q. I was very convinced by his “chaotic model” of Q. As I recall he illustrated, for instance, that the difference between Matthew’s “mint and dill and cumin” and Luke’s “mint and rue and every herb” is best explained by Luke misreading the Aramaic word for “dill” as the similar Aramaic word for “rue” (sh-b-th-a versus sh-b-r-a). Implying of course that they were both translating from an Aramaic text. (Sorry if I’m getting this wrong – it’s from memory and, like most people, I don’t read Aramaic!)

            My (admittedly non-expert) guess is that Q was not a single text, but multiple texts – some of those sources must have been in Greek (otherwise we wouldn’t see the verbatim agreements) but others must have been in Aramaic. It seems to me that that would also explain why no trace of the Q-text survives.

            Admittedly I haven’t read Mark Goodacre’s book opposing Q altogether, which I really should. I gather he makes a persuasive case.

            (To be clear, I am the same David as above – I have expanded my username to differentiate myself from the other David who posted below. I also post at Bart Ehrman’s blog. Sorry for the digression.)

    1. Jaun,
      I’m not sure what historians use as a benchmark for the original Gospel dates. It seems Tim’s date must be somewhat consensus. However, there is no mention of the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in any of the gospels. This is for me a piece of evidence that says that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were originally composed prior to 70 ad. Jesus makes prophetic comments concerning the destruction of the temple circa 27 to 30 ad, and if the gospels were composed after 70, it is probable that at least one of them would have said so.
      The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by Titus in 70 ad, was no small matter.

      1. “I’m not sure what historians use as a benchmark for the original Gospel dates.”

        They tend to be anchored on the Two Source Hypothesis and the cryptic but very likely references to the Jewish War in Mark 13. That places gMark after 70 AD and so gMatt and gLuke later still. gJohn makes an anachronistic reference to the Christians being excluded from synagogues, which places it sometime after 90 AD and probably later than that. Since the Rylands Fragment of gJohn is dated to the early second century AD, that forms a terminus ante quem for gJohn, though exactly what that is depends on whose dating of the Rylands papyrus you accept. Most works put it at c. 120 AD, though there are good reasons to think it may be later.

        ” It seems Tim’s date must be somewhat consensus”

        It is.

        “However, there is no mention of the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in any of the gospels.”

        Yes, there is. See my other comment responding to your query about Casey’s re-dating of gMark.

        “This is for me a piece of evidence that says that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were originally composed prior to 70 ad.”

        Given what is said in Mark 13 and cognates, that is pretty fanciful.

        1. Tim,
          You say…
          “Yes, there is. See my other comment responding to your query about Casey’s re-dating of gMark”

          I did query about Casey.

          You say…
          “though there are good reasons to think it may be later.”

          You know that just simply begs the question.

          You say….
          “Given what is said in Mark 13 and cognates, that is pretty fanciful.”
          I simply made a comment that it was my opinion that the gospels were originally composed before 70 ad, because there is no mention of the destruction of the temple in the gospels. Meaning that it had not happened yet. It is mention being destroyed prophetically in Mark 13. But not in the sense that it had been actualized.
          You cite, Mark 13. Ok. Are you saying you think Mark 13 is written after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad? The passage as read is clearly prophetic.
          Mark 13 kjv
          ” And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
          Jesus spoke these words to the disciples somewhere between 27 and 30 AD, the Temple wasn’t destroyed until 70 ad.
          And the Mark 13 passage clearly states that they had just exited the temple.
          So once again, I will opine, since I’ve read the gospels hundreds of times over 40 years that it is my opinion, opinion being the operative word, that the gospels were originally composed prior to 70 ad, because there is NO mention of the destruction of the temple as a matter of history. Its destruction is mentioned only prophetically.

          1. It was me, not Jarrod, who asked the question about Casey.

            Jarrod: Do you really think that John is dated earlier than 70 AD? That strikes me as a very radical view (given its developed theology and highly legendary nature).

          2. “I did query about Casey.”

            Yes, I know. Which is why I directed you to my response to that query where I detailed why I don’t find Casey’s arguments on the earlier date for gMark convincing.

            “You know that just simply begs the question.”

            Pardon? What question does it “beg”? You asked about the consensus dates for the gospels and I gave you a summary of the reasons for them. As I said, the terminus post quem for gJohn is 90 AD and the temrinus ante quem is whenever we date the Rylands fragment to. That is often given as 120 AD, but that is the earliest possible date and, as I said, there are good arguments for it being later. So what question do you think I’m begging by noting all this? That’s a very strange comment.

            “I simply made a comment that it was my opinion that the gospels were originally composed before 70 ad, because there is no mention of the destruction of the temple in the gospels.”

            And I noted that there is such a mention, by way of prophetic references by Jesus. I understand that you don’t think they are actually referencing the destruction and are predictions about a destruction made before the 70 AD events took place, but I have given the reasons I don’t think this works.

            “Ok. Are you saying you think Mark 13 is written after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad? “

            I would have thought it was pretty obvious that this is precisely what I’m saying. And what most scholars accept as well, for the reasons I’ve given.

            “Jesus spoke these words to the disciples somewhere between 27 and 30 AD, the Temple wasn’t destroyed until 70 ad.”

            Jesus is depicted as speaking these words then. Whether he actually said anything like them is another question. But your argument that just because the writers of gMark/gMatt don’t follow them with an explicit statement like “and he was right because the Temple was destroyed by the Romans 40 years later!” means that this was written before 70 AD doesn’t actually follow. As I said, there would have been good political reasons for the gMark/gMatt writers not to be overt in their references to the failed revolt and associating their sect with it – which is why they use the oblique references to the “Abomination” and note “let the reader understand” what this referred to. And the depicted prophecy would have been pretty obvious to a post-70 AD audience in the same way that someone writing in 2002 and depicting a prophet saying “lo, the Twin Towers will fall” in 1961 would not need to labour the point to a post-2001 audience by explicitly noting 9/11.

          3. “Yes, there is. See my other comment responding to your query about Casey’s re-dating of gMark.”

            “Yes, I know. Which is why I directed you to my response to that query where I detailed why I don’t find Casey’s arguments on the earlier date for gMark convincing.”

            To be clear, Jarrod did not ask the question about Casey – I did. (I suspect Jarrod may have intended to type “I did *not* query about Casey” above.)

            My views are entirely different from Jarrod’s. I am not committed to a particular date for Mark – I found the Casey-Crossley argument intriguing but am agnostic on the point – and I don’t think John can be any earlier than the very end of the first century, considering its developed theology and highly legendary content. And I’m an atheist.

            Thank you for the Kirby link below. That raised an interesting point I didn’t know about – the two thousand pigs as an allegory for the Tenth Legion – and that seems to strongly support a post-70 dating of Mark. On the whole, I suspect the consensus dating is likely to be right, but I’m ultimately agnostic on the point.

          4. “To be clear, Jarrod did not ask the question about Casey – I did. “

            Sorry – these things happen when I reply to comments at 5.30 am.

  26. this only confirms one thing for me, both parts tend to extreme
    some people like carrier or other atheist like the idea of “jesus dosnt exist”
    in my case im atheist i dont have have a problem with the existence of jesus however many times “the other part” by that i mean some christians who like to exaggerate their religion argument like:
    “the born of jesus was the most important sucess in history”
    “my religion is true because mention historic facts”

    reading the last part of this website you realize that is not like the christian pretend to be
    it reminds me a debate of hitchens with prager and dinesh, dinesh ask hitchnes why he doubt the historicity of jesus since most sources of others historic characters share the same amount of refences
    Why belive they exist at all?
    i understand that, is a valid argument this post use this argument with hannibal
    the hitchens response was “we dont have enough evidence of socrates either, but thats important?”
    the socratic method will loose relevance if socrates dosnt exists?
    of course not, this however could not be the case with jesus
    he also mention with alexander at least we have coins some christian will say “oh you know jesus he wasnt a king”
    i mention this because is true in the case of philosophers even if they don exist at all their argument could be still valid

    1. I should just clarify that this David is a different David from me. Perhaps I should have chosen a more distinctive username!

  27. Tim,

    Yes and that is why I said it was my opinion that it was written pre 70 ad. And I disagree with you, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the gospels were written pre 70 AD by omission of the destruction of temple. It only doesn’t follow if you presuppose prophecy is not possible. And, you take a stance, that you almost know for sure that Mark was originally composed after 70 ad, based on what? Arguments of authority? Ehrman, says we don’t have the copies of the copies of the copies of the original. Therefore, I opine, that because Ehrman says we don’t have the originals, I can just as easily assert 69 ad as you can 71 ad. And the omission of the temple destruction is perfectly reasonable deduction to earlier date the gospels.

    The reason why it was left out, I opine, is because Mark and Matthew were already in circulation, in the early churches of Turkey, Syria, Greece, Rome, etc before the temple destruction. Paul was instructed to go take the gospel to the gentiles, pre 70 AD actually circa 33 ad, and no one has any proof to the contrary.

    I think you take a faulty position in what you think ” let the reader understand” as well as thinking the abomination is somehow oblique and covert. The reason being that somehow the author was worried about reprisal from the roman Government? That does not follow, nor can you really infer cryptic intent of the author in this case, except to take the quotes at face value. That in fact, Jesus was warning his Jewish temple goers about a sign of tribulation that was to come, similar to the abomination of desolation spoke by Daniel the Prophet that had already come to pass.

    The statement Jesus is alleged to say both in Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15 ” When you therefore see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet” is anything but covert. It is a direct in your face warning that referred those particular Jews to Daniels prophecy in Daniel 12:11, concerning Epiphanes sacrifice of a pig in the Temples holy of holy’s in the 170s bc. That this type of thing was going to happen again. The Jews knew their own history regarding the temple. Jesus was explicitly warning them, it happened once, and it is going to happen again. That statement concerning the temple makes no sense to you or I, unless a student of historical prophecy, and it certainly would not have had any meaning to the new, non Jewish Christians in Turkey, Greece, Rome, and Asia post 70 ad. Christians do not and never have sacrificed. But to a pre Christian, Jewish/Israeli , PRE 70 ad, the abomination that makes desolate would have significant implications to that specific group of pre Christians Jews.
    It was a prophetic warning to those whom it mattered the most. And I take a stance, that if all of the 4 gospels were written post 70 ad, then I think it would be highly probable that one of them would have inserted, “and it happened like Jesus had said”. This would have directly affirmed, to a Christian Roman audience, 2500 miles away, and decades after the fact, who wouldn’t have a clue what had happened concerning the temple, that Jesus prophecy concerning the temple had come to pass. Telling Christians about temples and abominations that make desolate means nothing, especially if the temple was destroyed many years previously.
    The phrases are not covert, rather a reaffirmation of what was written by Daniel 600 years previously.

    1. “And I disagree with you, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the gospels were written pre 70 AD by omission of the destruction of temple.”

      Did I say this was somehow “illogical”? It’s entirely possible, but I (and most scholars) just don’t think it’s most probable.

      ” It only doesn’t follow if you presuppose prophecy is not possible.”

      Also not true. It could be that Jesus made an accurate prediction of the coming destruction of the Temple without this being anything mystical. Some such predictions happen to turn out to be true, after all, even if only by luck or coincidence. It’s also entirely possible that Jesus did make some kind of prediction about the destruction of the Temple given (i) this was a prophetic trope in his time, (ii) he believed an apocalyptic event was coming and that the Herodians and the Sadducees would not be among the saved and (iii) the garbled accounts of his trial seem to preserve some memory of such a prediction being among the accusations against him. So it is possible that the gospel was reflecting this and was written pre-70 AD. Or it’s possible that it is reflecting this and is written post-70 AD.

      “you take a stance, that you almost know for sure that Mark was originally composed after 70 ad”

      Where did I say anything about “almost knowing this for sure”? You need to pay much more careful attention to what I actually say.

      ” Arguments of authority? “

      No. Just arguments that make sense. The fact that they are accepted by the majority of scholars is beside the point, but should indicate something about what arguments are most persuasive to the widest range of scholars.

      “I think you take a faulty position in what you think ” let the reader understand” as well as thinking the abomination is somehow oblique and covert. The reason being that somehow the author was worried about reprisal from the roman Government? That does not follow”

      I don’t think you know what the phrase “that does not follow” actually means. The gMark author refers to the “Abomination of Desolation” and then asks the reader to be sure to understand what this means. This is a clear reference to Daniel 9:27, which in turn refers to a very specific form of desecration of the Temple – the worship of pagan images within the Temple compound. And we know this happened in August 70 AD, when the Romans deliberately set up their standards in the ruins of the Temple and sacrificed to them to profane the site for the Jews, before demolishing the building. So the “Abomination” reference makes most sense as a reference to this, to Jews, shocking event. And, again, the oblique reference to it makes most sense in a post-70 AD context.

      Your argument depends on Jesus actually having supernatural access to knowledge of future events. Sorry, but I don’t accept that can happen. I am still open to the possibility that Jesus made some kind of prediction about a coming destruction of or retributuion upon the Temple and so I am even open to the idea that gMark pre-dates 70 AD. But the “Abomination” reference means I find it most likely that it dates to after the Temple’s profanation in August 70 AD. Peter Kirby’s useful notes on the date of gMark summarises this and other reasons why a date of 70-75 AD is the most widely accepted range.

    2. Jarrod:

      And I take a stance, that if all of the 4 gospels were written post 70 ad, then I think it would be highly probable that one of them would have inserted, “and it happened like Jesus had said”.

      I don’t think this is a particularly good argument. Given the uncertainty about when and where the Gospels were written, it seems very risky to predicate your arguments on assumptions about what the Gospels’ audiences would or would not have known, or about what information the authors would or would not have included if it were available to them. We just don’t know that.

      With regard to the dating of Mark there seem to be good arguments on both sides, as discussed above. But I don’t see how you can sensibly propose an early date for John. (Do you know of any scholars who do so?) My take on John is that it’s late, highly legendary, and reflects the developed theology of its author and his community, not anything the historical Jesus did or said.

      The phrases are not covert, rather a reaffirmation of what was written by Daniel 600 years previously.

      Daniel wasn’t written 600 years previously. It claims to have been written during the exile, but almost all scholars date it to the Maccabean period, mid second century BC. (But I don’t think this affects your point, so perhaps I’m being pedantic.)

      1. JAT Robinson – Hardly an evangelical and definitely a scholar argued for the primacy of John and placed it before 70, thus pulling the rest of the NT into the first century. His view is of course contested and hasn’t commanded a consensus – but in NT studies even more than other fields you do tend to get people building on an existing edifice of scholarship rather than starting from scratch and that consensus is harder to shift as it tends to be based on methodical presuppositions rather than the emergence of new evidence. Just look at the reaction Bauckham got for his Jesus and the eyewitnesses in which he dared to pull at the tablecloth of form and redaction criticism that underlies most NT scholarship including that of the Jesus Project which applies ludicrous levels of scepticism about the sources that would never be applied to other ancient texts by reputable historians

        1. I haven’t read Robinson, but to say his ideas are “contested” and haven’t “commanded a consensus” is a monument to understatement. People may indeed build on existing ideas rather than reworking everything from scratch, but if there was a really solid case for the primacy of gJohn, there would be many people who would just love to embrace that idea, for theological reasons if nothing else. The fact that they don’t should tell you something.

          And Bauckham got the reaction he did because most scholars simply didn’t find his arguments very convincing. Imputing everything to bias and conservatism doesn’t work well when Mythicists do it and isn’t very compelling in any circumstance.

        2. “methodical presuppositions rather than the emergence of new evidence.”
          I’m pretty sure last 20 years no new direct evidence has been found regarding that gospel, so that part of your statement is pretty irrelevant. I mean, if a copy had been found dating from 50 CE using radiometry it would have been global news, don’t you think?
          Historians, like all scientists, test their methods to increase their reliability (JMs typically don’t, if only because they are interested in only one specific case). So JAT first of all has to demonstrate that his method is more reliable than the common one regarding the Gospel of Johannes.
          Unfortunately many sensationalists regarding history do not specify, let alone test their method but instead want others to accept their own assumptions at face value. That’s not going to happen like ever.

  28. Hi Tim– have you given any thought to reply to Carrier’s ad hom filled diatribe of July 11th? Just curious about your response to his technical criticisms (i.e. after you slog through the heavy-handed insults).

    Thanks for everything you do.

    1. Yes, I will be responding, though largely because the few points he manages to fit in among all the weird hysteria are so remarkably weak. No wonder he delayed writing any kind of reply to my critique of his “Josephus/James” article if that feeble reply is all he has. I do hate internet psycho-drama, so I will not bother much with the hysterical parts, other than to note how bad it makes him and his creaking thesis look. I do have a couple of other, much more interesting articles in draft though, so I think I will publish at least one of them first while it is still relatively topical. But I won’t delay my response to Carrier too much, because otherwise he and his minions will think they have scored some vast victory – such is the way of tiny, petty minds.

      1. Yes — you are wise in the ways of the net. Much gloating will ensue simply because you didn’t whip the perfect response out of your brain in real time. They don’t converse. They try to bury you with enough shrill invective to demoralize you and claim the reason you didn’t respond immediately was in fact because of the towering intellectual ‘merits’ of the screed. It is unfortunately now normal for online debates, and it is arguably sadder than any of the other unfortunate aspects of this scene.

  29. Perhaps there should be an annual Alexander Hislop Prize for Tendentious Bilge, to be awarded for the year’s worst distortion of historical evidence.

  30. I agree with you that Jesus mythicism is incredibly silly. But a couple nitpicks:

    the latest gospel, gJohn, contradicts the three earlier gospels by depicting three separate Passover journeys to Jerusalem, while they depict only one”

    This is not even remotely a contradiction, since the synoptic gospels never assert that this was Jesus’ only pilgrimage to Jerusalem. At best it is an argument from silence, which is unconvincing unless there is reason to believe that the 3 synoptic gospels would have mentioned every single religious pilgrimage Jesus took.

    Note that pious Jewish men were supposed to pilgrimage to Jerusalem 3 times every year (for Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles), so Jesus and his disciples would almost certainly have taken multiple trips to Jersualem not mentioned specifically in any of the Gospels.

    And yes, this religious obligation does give a good reason to believe that Philo would be in Jerusalem during Passover week, although not a good reason to think he would therefore have written about Jesus.

    1
    2
    1. “This is not even remotely a contradiction, since the synoptic gospels never assert that this was Jesus’ only pilgrimage to Jerusalem.”

      It is. It would be very strange for not one of the other three gospels to mention any other visits to Jerusalem. If even a fraction of the interactions gJohn depicts Jesus having with the Jewish authorities there on those other two trips happened (or rather, were thought by the synoptic writers to have happened) they would be included. Yet … silence. The only element we find from gJohn’s other Jerusalem visits in the synoptics, is the “cleansing of the Temple” episode, which all of the synoptics have as a critical element in the final days of Jesus’ life and which gJohn places at the beginning of his ministry.

      ” At best it is an argument from silence, which is unconvincing unless there is reason to believe that the 3 synoptic gospels would have mentioned every single religious pilgrimage Jesus took.”

      See above. There is very good reason to think they would. Yet they don’t.

      “Note that pious Jewish men were supposed to pilgrimage to Jerusalem 3 times every year (for Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles), so Jesus and his disciples would almost certainly have taken multiple trips to Jersualem not mentioned specifically in any of the Gospels.”

      “Supposed to” and “could and did” are not the same thing. Obviously the whole population of Jews in the region could not and did not keep this obligation. It is unlikely that even the very devout were materially able to do so every year or even most years.

    2. @Aron

      Actually at least the Book of Luke Acts does exclude the possibility of Jesus visiting Jerusalem more than once.

      From Acts:

      1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

      Notice that “Luke” said he wrote about all Jesus “began to do” and teach. Kinda hard to believe he had other accounts of Jesus in Jerusalem yet choose to not use them. Especially John’s account as it clearly indicates Jesus teaching about his resurrection.

      The 2nd Chapter of John has Jesus clearly teaching about his resurrection.

      1. Tim & Kris,
        The Gospels were severely limited by space (given the need to copy them by hand) and it is completely unreasonable to think that they were under an obligation to mention every single aspect of Jesus’ ministry, especially Jesus performing common religious obligations and attending festivals. The synoptics emphasize his Galilean ministry, while John emphasizes on his Judean ministry. That is not a contradiction, only a difference of focus. Saying more about his Judean ministry would have required them to say less about his Galilean ministry.

        It is not as though the synoptics are completely silent on this point either. We are told that Jesus was in Judea for his baptism. Luke mentions that Jesus’ family was in the habit of going to Jerusalem every year for Passover, and also states in 4:44 that Jesus taught in synagogues in Judea. And Matthew 23:37, if not interpreted as Jesus asserting his divinity, seems on its face to imply that Jesus had attempted to win converts in Jerusalem on multiple previous occasions.

        Kris, I think your interpretation of the word “all” in Acts 1:1 is overly literal and not sensitive to the wide range of meanings that the original Greek word πάντων can have. And “Destroy this Temple and I will raise it again in 3 days”, spoken in the Temple in Jerusalem, can hardly be characterized as clear teaching about Jesus’ own Resurrection. According to gJohn it was, not surprisingly, immediately misunderstood as referring to the Temple building.

        Tim, you seem to be shifting the question from “do the synoptics assert that Jesus’ ministry included exactly one Passover?” to “is everything the gospel of John says about Jesus’ Judean ministry historically accurate?” but the former question is the one more relevant to your top level post, and the answer to this question is obviously no. As a Christian I’m sure I see more of historical value in gJohn then you do, despite its major differences in style and content, but that is a debate for another day. However, the mere assertion that Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, frequently took religious trips to Jerusalem is, taken by itself, perhaps the most historically plausible thing in the entire gospel, and IMHO would be quite probable even if gJohn had never been written. And that Jesus would conflict with the Jewish leaders there is also not very surprising given what the Synoptocs tells us about his Galilean ministry.

        Also note that John 6:4, the second Passover mentioned by gJohn, does not even state that Jesus went to Judea; it merely mentions as an aside that the festival was near (in the context of a Galilean event described in all 4 Gospels). How can that verse possibly be read as a contradiction with the synoptic narrative of events?

        “Supposed to” and “could and did” are not the same thing.

        Here I concede you are correct, that likely many Jews (especially in the diaspora) did not in fact have either the resources or the scrupulosity to make these trips every single year. Philo lived in Alexandria, not Palestine, and I don’t know how often Alexandrian Jews made it to Jerusalem. But (weaking my claim) he did have a pretty good reason to be in Jerusalem on that particular week, even if we can’t by any means be sure that he was.

        1
        3
        1. Most of what you are saying is the usual tenuous and rather tedious apologetic game of harmonisation. Matt 23:37, for example, is a typical prophetic lament and does not even hint that Jesus had “attempted to win converts in Jerusalem on multiple previous occasions”. This is fanciful stuff. Luke’s infancy narratives are riddled with ahistorical elements and can’t be given any weight at all; not much in them is even connected to the later main narrative (John the Baptist seems, strangely, to forget he’s Jesus’ kinsman for example), to an extent that many scholars think it is a later addition or even by another author. Luke 4:44 is a textual cognate with Matt 4:23 and Mark 1:39, which both have Jesus going “throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues”, and the Lucan reference is bracketed by Jesus preaching in Capernaum (Luke 4:31-43), which is in Galilee, and then the miracle of the fish on the Sea of Galilee(Luke 5: 1-11), which is, obviously, also in Galilee. So the idea that Luke 4:44 represents a sudden and jarring reference to a journey to and preaching in synagogues in Judea makes no sense given the Galilean context and the synoptic parallel texts. Here “Judea” makes more sense in its more generic sense of “places where Jews live” – i.e. the heavily Jewish Galilean village hinterland as opposed to the more mixed cities of Galilee.

          “Tim, you seem to be shifting the question from ‘do the synoptics assert that Jesus’ ministry included exactly one Passover?’ to ‘is everything the gospel of John says about Jesus’ Judean ministry historically accurate?’ “

          I’m not “shifting” anything – the second question is clearly relevant to the first. The additional Jerusalem elements in gJohn are part of a wider pattern whereby the author shifts the emphasis of Jesus’ ministry away from the peasant villages of the backwater areas of Galilee and closer to the more significant region of Judea and the metropolitan centre of Jerusalem. I’m in the process of mapping this transition and how it fits with gJohn’s de-emphasis of the apocalyptic message we find predominant in the synoptics and the shift to a focus on Jesus himself as divine, as a saviour figure and as the focus of the message. I’m doing this because the Mythicist conception of Jesus as being “historised” into a historical human from a purely mythical, celestial, divine saviour figure would require this kind of figure to be found in the earlier texts, not the latest one. Yet this is not what we find. And the idea that Jesus was a historical apocalyptic preacher from Galilee would find he depicted as such in the earliest texts and the emphasis on this – both theological and geographical – would change later as conceptions of Jesus evolved. And this is precisely what we find when we compare the Jesus of the synoptics to that of gJohn. gJohn’s Jesus becomes far more of a “Jesus of Judea” than a “Jesus of Galilee”.

        2. This has got to be one of the silliest explanations available for discrepancies in the Bible. Yahweh’s chosen didn’t have enough scroll material to include all the accounts of Jesus. Seriously the All Mighty Creator of the universe who parted the Red Sea, stopped the sun from moving, reversed the sun, resurrected Jesus and a huge etc couldn’t scrounge up enough scroll material to make his “inspired word” not look like contradictory mish mash. If that is true then “God” is omni stupid.

          So I got some questions about this lack of scroll material argument that you are trying to use here.

          How much money did the authors of the Synoptics and John have?

          What was the length of their scrolls? How wide were they? How many words did they get per inch? If they moved the words over to the edge of scroll just a little more could they have gotten the rest of the accounts of Jesus in them?

          If they needed additional scroll material why couldn’t they attach more material?

          Unless you can answer all of those questions then you simply have no way to know if they had enough scroll material or not. Seriously this is the silliest argument around for discrepancies in the Bible and it makes your deity look stupid.

          Also if Matthew and Luke were so concerned with space and lack of scroll material why did they copy so much of Mark instead of simply attaching their extra material to that Gospel?

          So “all” doesn’t mean “all” now and teaching only refers to ” clear teachings”. Give me a break.

          Of course Luke’s account would not be orderly if he choose not to mention a major trip to Jerusalem as Theophilus would have been left with the impression from Luke Acts that Jesus only visited Jerusalem once during his ministry.

          1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

          This is a discrepancy between the Synoptics and John. Deal with it and quit peddling these absurd apologetics.

          4
          4
          1. I know this is years later,
            Perhaps this explains why Mark left out something like the sermon on the mount because he didn’t have enough parchment for the pigs story?

  31. This has got to be one of the silliest explanations available for discrepancies in the Bible. Yahweh’s chosen didn’t have enough scroll material to include all the accounts of Jesus. Seriously the All Mighty Creator of the universe who parted the Red Sea, stopped the sun from moving, reversed the sun, resurrected Jesus and a huge etc couldn’t scrounge up enough scroll material to make his “inspired word” not look like contradictory mish mash. If that is true then “God” is omni stupid.

    So I got some questions about this lack of scroll material argument that you are trying to use here.

    How much money did the authors of the Synoptics and John have?

    What was the length of their scrolls? How wide were they? How many words did they get per inch? If they moved the words over to the edge of scroll just a little more could they have gotten the rest of the accounts of Jesus in them?

    If they needed additional scroll material why couldn’t they attach more material?

    Unless you can answer all of those questions then you simply have no way to know if they had enough scroll material or not. Seriously this is the silliest argument around for discrepancies in the Bible and it makes your deity look stupid.

    Also if Matthew and Luke were so concerned with space and lack of scroll material why did they copy so much of Mark instead of simply attaching their extra material to that Gospel?

    So “all” doesn’t mean “all” now and teaching only refers to ” clear teachings”. Give me a break.

    Of course Luke’s account would not be orderly if he choose not to mention a major trip to Jerusalem as Theophilus would have been left with the impression from Luke Acts that Jesus only visited Jerusalem once during his ministry.

    1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

    This is a discrepancy between the Synoptics and John. Deal with it and quit peddling these absurd apologetics.

    2
    2
    1. As someone who holds that the bible is inspired by God but not the infallible _Word_ of God (there’s just no way), there’s a little nitpicking from both of you. Each Gospel had a common story to tell but different approaches to different audiences. Matthew for instance is dripping with Jewish themes and style. Mark is the most blunt and to-the-point.
      Even the genealogies with Matt and Luke were deliberately stylistic. One of the gospels even stressed that not even half of Jesus’ deeds were recorded down. Etc.

      3
      2
  32. I remember seeing one blog years ago single out Philo and Plutarch as people who would have mentioned Jesus if he existed. In addition to what you already said about Philo, Plutarch was not that interested in Judea, I think I even once observed that in all our ancient sources on Pompey’s military career, Plutarch literally says the least of all of them about his taking Jerusalem.

    But also both have know works that were last that happen to be exactly where they would have most likely mentioned Jesus if they were going to. You alluded to Embassy to Gaius and Flaccus, well Philo wrote 5 books on that subject but 3 are lost, one of the 3 may have been about Sejanus who was at the height of his power in 30 AD. And Plutarch wrote lost biographies of the Julio-Claudian Emperors.

    Nicolaus of Demascus only survives via being a source material of Josephus. And if the Slavonic Josephus is closer to the original then there is good reason to think the magi coming o Herod was recorded, but two decades before when most Christians would assume it to have happened.

    Are you familiar with a book that argued Seneca wrote a play about Jesus that was the source material for the Passion Narratives in the Gospels? I disagree with the theory but it was an interesting read.

    1. “if the Slavonic Josephus is closer to the original”

      It almost certainly isn’t.

      ” then there is good reason to think the magi coming o Herod was recorded”

      No, there isn’t. Please take your crackpot fundamentalist theories elsewhere.

      1. The only things in my comment you responded to are what you found offensive.

        I’m trying very hard not to let our obvious areas of disagreement seep into my comment here. I don’t think acknowledging we have a textual variant of Josephus is that fringe. If I wanted to flood our blog my crackpot fundamentalism I’d talk about how much of a Velikvosky fan I am. On the subject of the Historicity of Jesus I try very hard not to overstate the case the way many of my fellow Christians do.

        1. “I don’t think acknowledging we have a textual variant of Josephus is that fringe. “

          Did I say it was? Read what I said.

          ” If I wanted to flood our blog my crackpot fundamentalism I’d talk about how much of a Velikvosky fan I am.”

          I’m glad you’re restraining yourself. Keep it up. Because while I do have some Christians who comment here, I have little time for apologism and even less tolerance for stupid theories. Tread carefully.

      2. Without wishing to encourage Jared’s eccentric contributions, I’m now curious about the Slavonic Josephus manuscripts he mentions, which I had never heard of.

        I googled them and found no reliable/scholarly overviews of the subject – just Wikipedia, some forum posts, and some books by Daniel Unterbrink (whom I seem to remember is a crank / conspiracy theorist?). And all the scholarship I could see on Google Scholar was decades out of date. But Wikipedia does at least cite some reputable modern scholars like Feldman and Baras.

        I get the impression that these manuscripts are regarded by Josephus scholars as late Christian pseudepigraphies? When are they usually dated? I’m guessing you (Tim, that is) have some scholarship on the issue at your fingertips.

        1. Pretty much all scholars agree the material in the Slavonic MSS of Josephus is much later pseudiepigraphy and only crackpots take any of it as original. So yes, the fact that it is used by loons like Unterbrink should tell you something. It is very difficult to put a date on when it was added, but everyone agrees it is early medieval at the very earliest.

      1. I just think it’s amusing how Mythers have very little to offer outside the repetitive talking points. Except when to compare Jesus to another “dying and rising god”.

  33. The “no contemporary references to Jesus” argument is predominantly a rebuttal to the assertion that ‘there is good evidence for the historical [human] Jesus’.

    It is not a complete argument against a historical Jesus.

  34. I recently discovered this blog, and find it really interesting. Unfortunately I find that when I try presenting your arguments to some, even rationally and politely, they don’t always seem as willing as I’d hope to consider them.

    I had a brief exchange with a gentleman on Quora just now. It was all very civil and at no point did he or I get heated (sadly I can’t say the same for the other commenters on his post).

    …But his post began by suggesting there was no evidence for Jesus’ existence. After I suggested to him this wasn’t quite true, and we discussed it a little, he ended up disabling comments and editing his post to add “Let’s squash this now. There is no contemporary, first-hand account or evidence of Jesus.”

    …This even after I’d mentioned to him that we don’t have contemporary, first-hand accounts of a lot of historical figures.

    1. Well, he’s right that there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus and no first hand evidence of him either. But he is wrong that there is no evidence of him at all. As with most ancient figures, we are dealing with non-contemporary and non-first hand evidence. These people don’t seem to be able to grasp that this situation is absolutely normal for most pre-modern figures who were not prominent in their lifetimes (i.e. pretty much everyone except aristocrats, rulers and generals, with a tiny handful of chance exceptions).

      1. What do you mean when you assert that there is no first hand or contemporary evidence of Jesus?
        Is this assertion a personal opinion of yours, or do you have evidence that backs up your claim?

        1. That’s the opinion of all critical scholars and is disputed by no-one except the most conservative scholars and by fundamentalist apologists. And even they say there is no contemporary evidence. Where is the contemporary evidence you seem to think exists? There is none at all. And where is the “first hand” evidence?

  35. This is nothing more than a deflective/question begging answer, with the stench of argument from authority. But you are a smart guy and already know this.

    I don’t know who “all” the critical scholars are, and I highly doubt you have a roll call of “all” critical scholars or even a list of fundamental apologists “who say there is no contemporary evidence.”

    Regardless, I would simply like a definition, from you, as to what you mean to say when you say contemporary evidence. I think this is a relatively reasonable question.

    I am happy to ATTEMPT to give you an answer to your question, provided I have a definition of what you mean by”first hand and contemporary evidence.”

    1
    4
    1. “This is nothing more than a deflective/question begging answer, with the stench of argument from authority.”

      What total nonsense. You asked me if others hold my position and when I told you it was held by most scholars, you declare that an “argument from authority”? That’s absurd. I’m not “deflecting” anything or begging any question. I answered the question you asked. If there is some other question you want answered, perhaps you should ask it.

      “I don’t know who “all” the critical scholars are, and I highly doubt you have a roll call of “all” critical scholars or even a list of fundamental apologists “who say there is no contemporary evidence.””

      Which is precisely the kind of thing Mythicists say when the consensus of scholarship on the existence of Jesus is noted.

      “I would simply like a definition, from you, as to what you mean to say when you say contemporary evidence.”

      A “definition”? The meaning of the word is perfectly clear – “dating from the time of the person in question”. We have no sources that mention Jesus that date to his (likely) lifetime. The earliest mentions come in the Pauline letters and date to about 20 years later.

      “I am happy to ATTEMPT to give you an answer to your question, provided I have a definition of what you mean by”first hand and contemporary evidence.””

      See above. Do I need to define “first hand” as well or can you work out those simple English words for yourself?

    2. “Arguments from authority” are not, contrary to general Net usage, inherently fallacious – if they are from a valid authority.

  36. I see. So Matthew isnt contemporary?
    He was an eye witness tax collector, and a chosen disciple. Some of the early church fathers knew him, and his account was canon by 170 ad at Muratorian.
    Jesus chose Matthew and John, John discipled, Polycarp and Ignatius.
    There is scholarly work concerning an unbroken chain of custody from Jesus to the present.
    Lee Strobel was as much as an athiest as you. He searched the scholars, among other things, and came to the opposite conclusion as you.
    Your stuck on your presuppositions, and really offered no evidence except to say “all” scholars.
    That type of answer doesnt cut it.
    Regardless if you like it or not, two of the four gospels are pre 70 ad eyewitness attestations, and the other 2 are pre 70 ad accounts of eyewitnesses.
    You really haven’t done your homework as much as youd like to think. Your like a church goer who believes atheists are going to hell because their pastor said so. Except your the atheist, and you believe what you do because “all” scholars say so.
    Do you jump off bridges because someone else says so too?
    You really don’t truly know the answer for yourself.

    You should make opinionated statements, rather than claims you cant defend.

    1
    5
    1. “So Matthew isnt contemporary? He was an eye witness tax collector, and a chosen disciple.”

      All of which is assuming the Matthew in the gospels wrote the gospel that bears his name today. I agree with the scholars (again, a majority) who don’t think he did.

      “Lee Strobel was as much as an athiest as you. He searched the scholars, among other things, and came to the opposite conclusion as you.”

      Lee Strobel is a tendentious apologist who just happened to only “search the scholars” who support a highly conservative evangelical form of Christianity. If he’d been less carefully selective he would have got a far wider rang of opinions. So either he started with the position he want to conclude and his whole “I objectively analysed the evidence” schtick is all an act or, by a remarkable coincidence, the scholars he spoke to all just happened to come from one ideological position. I think it’s the former.

      ” two of the four gospels are pre 70 ad eyewitness attestations”

      I’ll stick with the majority opinion of scholars who aren’t shackled to a fundamentalist ideology on those points thanks – none of the gospels are by eyewitnesses and all are post-70 AD.

      “You really haven’t done your homework as much as youd like to think. Your like a church goer who believes atheists are going to hell because their pastor said so. Except your the atheist, and you believe what you do because “all” scholars say so.”

      Absolute garbage. I go where the evidence leads after reading widely on a range of opinions. And being accused of blindly following “pastors” by a fundie is pretty amusing.

      “Do you jump off bridges because someone else says so too?”

      How old are you, 10?

      “You should make opinionated statements, rather than claims you cant defend.”

      My patience with your pathetic rants is over. You can fuck off now.

      5
      1
      1. Matthew the tax collector obviously didn’t write gMatt. Whatever Papias was talking about, it is not the gMatt we know today. It doesn’t fit his description at all – it isn’t a collection of sayings and was originally composed in Greek, not Hebrew. And it’s vanishingly unlikely that Matthew would have been able to compose a sophisticated work of Greek literature, or even write Greek at all. Plus, the unknown author relied on Mark for much of his material, not his own memory.

        I suppose, though, that if Casey is right that parts of the Q-material were composed in Aramaic, it’s just possible that some Q-sayings go back to Matthew. Assuming that Matthew could write at a basic level in Aramaic (which is a big assumption). But it does involve some speculation.

  37. Philo should have mentioned Jesus because Philo was listing the Bad Things Pilate did. The implicit assumption Philo approved of the execution of Jesus is dubious.

    And Josephus should have mentioned Jesus because Josephus hated revolutionaries and was writing a political history about a rebellion. Revolutionary demonstrations such as the cleansing of the Temple were his subject, which is why he’s the one who mentioned Judas, Theudas, etc. in the first place. The implicit assumption that you can simply re-write in your head the event into a minor scuffle is unacceptable.

    And lastly of course, there is a mention of Jesus in Josephus. But the arguments for considering it a forgery, er, interpolation, are overwhelming. Everyone knew that someone writing about rebels in Palestine in that period would have mentioned Jesus if there was any historical truth to the later gospel accounts. That’s why it was necessary to revise Josephus’ text.

    The general approach where you equate your rationalizations, however plausible they may seem, with the historical Jesus, as opposed to a mythical Jesus beloved of Sunday School teachers is a little mystifying. Actual clergy, not just part-time amateurs, believe such things, for one. But it’s really so very much like someone trying to “explain” miracles earthquakes in the Sea of Reeds. Or like the guy I read once who explained the miracle of the loaves and the fishes as the divine love taught by Jesus’ miraculous example opened people’s hearts so they all shared the food they had selfishly hidden. I sort of like that one for the strenuous athleticism in the contortions.

    1. “Philo was listing the Bad Things Pilate did.”

      Wrong – Philo was not “listing” all the bad things Pilate did at all. That work was highlighting the friendly relations between the Jews and various predecessors of the emperor Caligula, including Tiberius. So Philo tells about how Tiberius rebuked Pilate over one incident regarding votive shields. That’s it. Where in that is there any opportunity for him to mention Jesus? It sounds like you have never even read the text.

      “And Josephus should have mentioned Jesus because Josephus hated revolutionaries and was writing a political history about a rebellion. “

      He does mention Jesus, in his Antiquities, possibly twice. And Jesus lived decades before the rebellion anyway. Josephus’ Jewish War begins its narrative long after Jesus’ lifetime. Again, it seems you don’t actually know the sources you’re referring to.

      “And lastly of course, there is a mention of Jesus in Josephus. But the arguments for considering it a forgery, er, interpolation, are overwhelming. “

      The majority view of actual Josephus scholars is that it is partially authentic. So much for “overwhelming”.

      “Everyone knew that someone writing about rebels in Palestine in that period would have mentioned Jesus if there was any historical truth to the later gospel accounts. That’s why it was necessary to revise Josephus’ text.”

      All evidence indicates that he was a preacher-prophet, not a “rebel”.

      “The general approach where you equate your rationalizations, however plausible they may seem, with the historical Jesus, as opposed to a mythical Jesus beloved of Sunday School teachers is a little mystifying. “

      It’s actually pretty standard stuff, accepted by pretty much all mainstream non-Christian scholars. Maybe if you bothered to read their stuff rather than the Mythicist crap you’ve clearly been relying on you would understand why.

  38. You tell me Philo was falsifying the historical record in Pilate’s favor. Perhaps you’re right on that one? Or do you in fact mean that Philo, while discussing Pilate’s relations with the Jews, deemed the execution of Jesus a Good Thing then, but not a useful precedent? Seems too close to reading a dead man’s mind to me. I still suggest the best explanation for someone writing on that specific topic not mentioning it was that it didn’t happen. Shameless, I know.

    I have no idea why you would imagine Josephus’ politics disappeared when he switched books. There were no favorable references to Jesus in Josephus, not even in the Antiquities. And we know this, not because we are reading Josephus’ mind, but because we read The Jewish War.

    As to the notion that Josephus’ original text can be reconstructed by assuming that anything favorable must be an interpolation? That’s exactly the sort of rationalization you shouldn’t rely upon. I say it is risky to swear Josephus would have been an acceptable source to Christians despite negative remarks about Jesus and that nobody else who read him ever remembered the original when Christians talked. I still say there isn’t really a way to explain how a partial interpolation falsified an authentic, negative original. That is, that your notion of a “partially authentic” reference is on its face nonsense. Yes, I do attribute its popularity to groupthink. It’s not really different from the people who think it’s all authentic.

    The “evidence” is nonexistent for a start. But even if you are so mainstream you think the gospels are historical sources, then the evidence is that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. But maybe he was tried by a Herod. But maybe he was condemned by the Jewish people who preferred the Son of the Father. (Which actually sounds to me like the crowd was for Jesus.) And the title King of the Jews was on the cross.

    The evidence is that Jesus was a rebel. The only way to explain how a mere preacher-prophet was executed for purely non-political reasons is to accept the Sunday School version, wholesale.

    1. “You tell me Philo was falsifying the historical record in Pilate’s favor. “

      What? I said nothing remotely close to that.

      “Or do you in fact mean that Philo, while discussing Pilate’s relations with the Jews, deemed the execution of Jesus a Good Thing then, but not a useful precedent? Seems too close to reading a dead man’s mind to me”

      I didn’t say that either. Try to focus and try to actually read what I DO say. You claimed “Philo was listing the Bad Things Pilate did.” You were wrong. As I noted, if you read the whole of The Embassy to Gaius (rather than just a context-free snippet from some Mythicist, which is what you seem to be working from) you’ll see he is not listing “the bad things Pilate did” at all. He mentions one bad thing Pilate did, largely so he can then point out that Tiberius then rebuked Pilate. That’s it. There is nothing in this account of one incident that means Philo should have mentioned Jesus. You just haven’t read the source material and so don’t know what you’re talking about.

      “I have no idea why you would imagine Josephus’ politics disappeared when he switched books.”

      Again, you need to actually read what I said. You said Josephus should have mentioned Jesus because “he was writing a political history about a rebellion”. But that history of the rebellion was in his Jewish War, which skims over the period of the early first century and only begins its detailed account decades after Jesus’ time. He does detail the lead up to the War in his later work, the Antiquities, but that’s where he does mention Jesus – at least once and possibly twice.

      “There were no favorable references to Jesus in Josephus, not even in the Antiquities.”

      Garbage. Most actual Josephus scholars accept that the TF is partially authentic, though added to by Christians later. Then there is the second reference in the Jesus-James passage in Book XX.

      “As to the notion that Josephus’ original text can be reconstructed by assuming that anything favorable must be an interpolation? That’s exactly the sort of rationalization you shouldn’t rely upon. “

      You don’t get to just refer to it as a “rationalisation”. Josephus scholars who, unlike you, actually know what they are talking about, accept that key parts of that passage are authentic for sound linguistic and stylistic reasons that you clearly don’t even know. I do. And they are not “rationalising” anything to prop up the existence of Jesus, because most of them are Jews and so really don’t care. Again, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

      ” I still say there isn’t really a way to explain how a partial interpolation falsified an authentic, negative original. “

      That’s because, yet again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is nothing to indicate that the original passage in Book XVIII was “negative”. On the contrary, it seems to be mildly positive to fairly neutral – much like Josephus’ passage about John the Baptist. He was generally positive about preachers, just negative about rebels. Jesus seems to have fallen into the former category for Josephus.

      “That is, that your notion of a “partially authentic” reference is on its face nonsense. Yes, I do attribute its popularity to groupthink. It’s not really different from the people who think it’s all authentic.”

      It’s that statement that is “nonsense”. Critical scholars, most of whom are Jewish, don’t deal in “groupthink”. If you actually read the work of real scholars rather than getting a garbled, second-hand and warped account of it via Mythicists, you would know how stupid your comment above really is.

      “The evidence is that Jesus was a rebel. The only way to explain how a mere preacher-prophet was executed for purely non-political reasons is to accept the Sunday School version, wholesale.”

      I am about the last person who you can accuse of “accepting the Sunday School version wholesale”, so that’s another stupid comment. Again, if you had any detailed grasp of the evidence and its context you would understand how a preacher-prophet could come to be executed by the Romans. Given that what apocalyptic preachers like Jesus were preaching was the coming of an army of angels to sweep away the Romans and their Jewish quislings and the establishment of a Jewish kingdom, any Roman prefect in Jerusalem to keep a lid on things during Passover would be stupid not to make an example of any firebrand preacher proclaiming this message. You didn’t need to take up arms against Rome for the Romans to regard you as worthy of death – they were happy to hand out death to anyone who they regarded as a threat.

  39. The sidelight posts like this shine on the process of doing history is what I especially like. What we know is interesting, but how we know what we know (and what we don’t) is fascinating whether it’s in history or paleontology.

    So, many thanks, Tim, for this and the others.

  40. Timmy,
    Jesus-mythicists I come across try to claim that Christianity doesn’t need a historical Jesus, because the core doctrine was already found in Daniel 9, Isaiah 53, Zach 3 and 6…..and that the Jewish philosopher Philo supposedly reached a similar conclusion with Christians…. “Imagine that some Jews who calculated the Daniel timeline and started believing that the heavenly Jesus (of Zachariah 3 and 6) descends to the lower heaven where Satan and his angels reside, assume a form of “flesh”, and gets crucified by them, for the “forgiveness of sins”…. and imagine those early Christians who believe this also get visions or revelations from that “Lord”.”.
    That Paul never tells any story or quote from Jesus as part of his argument or proof of doctrine, not as examples, nothing… that all he had was OT scripture, and “revelations” he claim he received.
    Have you read Paul and Hebrews from a mythicist perspective?
    They say it makes better sense…so why are there the Gospels? They claim that Mark historicized Jesus for purposes of edification of the church and later gospel authors expanded on that original material.

    They claim they were all aware that there was no historical Jesus and that’s why they felt so free in changing stories they received from the earlier gospel author…”they felt free to invent stories”. They’re willing to dismiss the fact that scholarly consensus matters because of this?

    They’ll often point to the case of Lazarus…. first he is part of a story Jesus tells about a dead Lazarus that gets resurrected by Abraham….. and in later gospels he becomes someone Jesus resurrects. Or the story of Barabbas (“son of the father”), the scapegoat that’s set free…. “How convenient is that?” Or the chiastic structure of the gospels… “How can history be chiastic?”.

    They point to “Jesus” being in Zachariah 3 and 6. When I pointed out that “Jesus”, or Joshua, was the high priest, they say “But not if you are looking for any “signs” from the scriptures, and you are willing to ignore the context, because you have faith in the magic of the scripture”.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Essenes also have a messianic reading of Zachariah’s Jesus?

    The problem with those OT prophecies is that they are ambiguous and open to all sorts of interpretation, and they can be turned into fantastic things in the hands of a people who are willing to play with words, force metaphorical meanings, and things
    so you can get something like a heavenly Jesus being killed for Israel’s sins.

    Apparently before Christianity, perhaps a hundred years beforehand, there was another similar sect with a Jesus, that was perhaps a cosmic Jesus that was later historicized too….. supposedly, that earlier sect is where this word “nazarene” comes from. Is there any truth to this?
    Or that since that word “Nazarene” is associated with “Jesus”, the gospel authors wanted to say he was “from Nazareth” but since it would be interesting if he was also from Bethlehem, that made Matthew and Luke invent bizarre stories about censuses, kings killing all male babies, etc, to reconcile it all into a coherent story…. but that they didn’t mind fabricating stuff, obviously, because they contradict each other and they don’t care — likely because they were aware that this is all for edification purposes. Or something.

    They don’t seem to be talking about the right way of interpreting scripture but about the possibility that some ancient Jews may have interpreted scripture “the wrong way”.
    Talking about the possibility that it may be even appealing to read scriptures out of context
    especially when One is bent on finding “signs” of a future redemption of the nation. Supposedly, it’s a psychological thing, and perhaps it was even the norm for a certain type of Jewish sect, the one that is more messianic or apocalyptic, like with the Essenes and their reading of isaiah 53 as a messianic text…. nowadays Jews will reject such a reading, right?
    And the Jews are right… I’m skeptical as to whether Isaiah ever intended chapter 53 to be read messianically, but people do, so they think reading Zach 3 and 6 about an archangel Jesus
    in the Septuagint it is translated as “Jesus Rising”. would make sense…is there any merit to this explanation? Supposedly, with enough imagination, one can read this as a prophecy that Jesus will be resurrected, that Jesus will die as per Daniel 9, and resurrected as per Zach 3 and 6, for the forgiveness of sins “in one day”, they claim that was the basis of Paul’s and Peter’s Christianity.

    I have a hard time believing that some atheists are convinced of this stuff and find it even remotely possible, could you help me understand why?

    1. “I have a hard time believing that some atheists are convinced of this stuff and find it even remotely possible, could you help me understand why?” Maybe because faith in supernatural entities is the same as faith in dwarves and elves. This is a compromise for the intellect in the 21st century.

      1. As an historical Jesus was someone who was later mythologised: What on earth has that got to do with “faith in supernatural entities”?

        2
        1
          1. Jarrod: I think the point is simply that one can believe in the existence of a historical Jesus without believing in the supernatural. Roman is setting up a false dichotomy between mythicists and believers.

          2. Well I could point out that the sources to be considered mythology (the Gospels) contradict each other in several places…
            …but the fact is that the claims within these sources such as a man walking on water, conjuring up bread from tin air, being born to a virgin, coming back from the dee, etc are physically impossible (like all other iron age mythology).

            And that’s as far as I’m willing to discuss that tangent.

          3. For the mythologizing? Begin with the infanticide from Mattheus. End with the Resurrection.
            History of Antiquity: the science of separating fact from fiction. With reliable and well tested methods.
            That’s another stupid hence funny aspect of JM – it’s almost as antiscientific as creacrap (and the worst variations, like “the Roman conspiracy” may be on the same level).

      2. Actually, more people believe in bloody elves in the 21 century than in the 20tieth. There is, in fact, an entire subculture of people who think they ARE elves – google otherkin.

    2. “They claim that Mark historicized Jesus for purposes of edification of the church.”
      For which there is exactly zilch evidence. Which raises the question: why would he (and the author(s) of the Q-document, which is an independent source also found in the NT) pull a historical character from their *bleep* if there wasn’t exactly a shortage of messias claimants then and back there?
      I’ve asked this a couple of times.
      Crickets.

      “They claim they were all aware that there was no historical Jesus.”
      In other words: JM is nothing but a conspiracy theory. JMs are in the same league as 9/11 Truthers, Illuminati fans etc. etc.

      “The problem with ….”
      How exactly is that a problem for a historical Jesus? Why would I assume he and the authors of the Gospels were above this? That’s one more stupid thus funny aspect of JM – it assumes the reverse logic of a christian fallacy. Iso ‘Jesus was historical hence divine’ we get ‘Jesus was not divine hence not historical either’. Follow a few discussions between JMs and staunch christian apologists and you’ll see that this is correct.

      “Apparently before …..”
      The funny thing with conspiracy theories like JM is that they tend to become more complicated and absurd the more they are “developed”. Evidence, please. Otherwise I’ll conclude that the source is a not too hygienice part of the human body.

      “I have a hard time ….”
      Accept that atheists (and I’m a 7 on the scale of Dawkins) are not smarter than believers, but are susceptible to all kinds of goofy stuff as well (and yes, that includes me). Then their (il)logic becomes clear: ‘we atheists dislike christianity and the best way to discredit it is to deny that Jesus actually lived.’ It’s just as stupid as that, because they even’t realize that this attitude actually makes many christians laugh. Of course internet is the ideal medium for this kind of stuff.
      Bottom line: skepticism is only worth that name is it’s applied to yourself. JMs spectacularly fail in this respect.

  41. Concerning the argument from silence: One of two authors from that period might be credible, but all of them? That’s stretching your point little bit.

    1
    5
    1. Why? The way we assess how many contemporary authors “should” have mentioned someone is by looking at how many mentioned analogous figures. In this case, the analogous figures are other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants. How many of these others were mentioned by contemporary writers? None. So how many contemporary writers should we expect to mention Jesus? Zero. Basic logic.

      6
      2
  42. “How many of these others were mentioned by contemporary writers?”

    Why? The people you mention didn’t have claims about them rising from the dead, ascending to heaven, rumors of them raising people from the dead, rumors of prophets rising from their graves and walking around Jerusalem upon their death, the earth going dark for 3 hours when they died, ad infinitum.

    3
    6
    1. “The people you mention didn’t have claims about them”

      Wrong – several of them clearly did. Theudas convinced thousands of people that if they followed him to the Jordan, he would part the waters miraculously. People clearly would not have believed that claim if there were not already stories circulating about Theudas’ miraculous powers or at least his ability to know that God was going to perform this miracle. Likewise, the Egyptian Prophet convinced thousands that if they followed him to the Mount of Olives the walls of Jerusalem would miraculously fall down so they could storm the city. Again, you don’t get thousands of people to march with you on the basis of that kind of promise without already having a reputation for divine miracles. The only difference is that we don’t have any writings by their later followers, so we don’t know what else people believed about these guys. Then there is Onias/Honi, who was renowned for miraculously breaking droughts and who knows what else with the others of the time. Like Jesus, none of these miracle working preachers and prophets were mentioned in any contemporary sources. So, you were saying?

      4
      3
  43. Above you mentioned people (Theudas & Egyptian Prophet) that are proven to be false prophets. This is not the case with Jesus (I’m not a believer). If people want to look these people up simply go to Wikipedia. Josephus mentioned them while he didn’t mention Jesus. And if you think Josephus’ statements about Jesus are true and not interpolations your reading deciphering is lacking. Also, none of the people you mention have claims I mentioned about Jesus. Surely you can see the difference. Definitely not in the league of God.

    3
    7
    1. Above you mentioned people (Theudas & Egyptian Prophet) that are proven to be false prophets. This is not the case with Jesus (I’m not a believer).

      I mention people who, like Jesus, were preachers, were considered to be prophets and/or were Messianic claimants. And like him, none of them were attested by any contemporary writers, despite several of them also being widely considered to have miraculous powers. In fact, several of them seem to have had much larger followings than Jesus. Theudas and the Egyptian needed whole cohorts of troops to defeat and scatter their followers, whereas even the gospels – which exaggerate Jesus’ fame and impact – depict a handful of Temple guards doing the same for Jesus’ small following. Yet still these much more famous and supposedly miracle-working preacher/prophets were not attested by any writers of the time. Getting the picture?

      If people want to look these people up simply go to Wikipedia. Josephus mentioned them while he didn’t mention Jesus.

      Strange – I see two references to Jesus in Josephus – in Antiquities XVIII.63-4 and again in XX.200.

      And if you think Josephus’ statements about Jesus are true and not interpolations your reading deciphering is lacking.

      Gosh. Considering the majority of Josephus scholars accept that the XVIII.63-4 reference is partially authentic and pretty much all of them accept that the XX.200 one is wholly genuine, I think I’m pretty comfortable with my “deciphering skills’ thanks, random, confused internet guy.

      Also, none of the people you mention have claims I mentioned about Jesus. Surely you can see the difference. Definitely not in the league of God.

      Then that may be good evidence that he didn’t actually perform the miracles you find in the much later accounts by his believers, but it does not follow that it is evidence he didn’t exist. Again, if we are just talking about a Jewish preacher, we would not expect him to be mentioned by contemporary writers, for the same reason no other such Jewish preachers were – writers of the time weren’t very interested in Jewish preachers.

      7
      3
  44. “Yet still these much more famous and supposedly miracle-working preacher/prophets were not attested by any writers of the time.”

    Read Wikipedia about Theudas & Egyptian Prophet and you can plainly see why they weren’t mentioned by anyone. Much more famous? Where are you getting that?

    “Strange – I see two references to Jesus in Josephus – in Antiquities XVIII.63-4 and again in XX.200.”

    The first, clearly an interpolation. The second mention of Jesus by Josephus is not about the god Jesus. Have you not read the correct explanation of this?

    “Gosh. Considering the majority of Josephus scholars accept that the XVIII.63-4 reference is partially authentic and pretty much all of them accept that the XX.200 one is wholly genuine”

    Gosh. Considering there are two billion Christians in the world does that make them correct? “Confused Internet guy?” Who is confused? Getting the picture?

    “writers of the time weren’t very interested in Jewish preachers.”

    I can see why they weren’t interested in Theudas & the Egyptian. But the greatest man that ever lived? I’m on the fence about Jesus’ historical existence but your argument doesn’t convince me that he did exist. I forget who said this and I’m paraphrasing “When scholars admit they can’t be sure about Jesus’ historicity then biblical scholarship will get some respectability.”

    2
    10
    1. Read Wikipedia about Theudas & Egyptian Prophet and you can plainly see why they weren’t mentioned by anyone.

      Sorry, what is it that I am supposed to “plainly see”? Josephus, our only detailed source on both, says they had reputations as miracle workers, made prophecies which thousands of people believed and the Romnas found both movements enough of a threat that they had to dispatch large units of troops to break them up.

      Much more famous? Where are you getting that?

      I told you – from the fact that the Romans needed to dispatch whole cohorts of auxilia to disperse their followers, who numbered in the many thousands. Not even the gospels claim that kind of thing about Jesus – who they depict being arrested by a handful of guards. Jesus was small fry by comparison to these other preachers. Yet they, like him, were not mentioned by contemporary writers.

      The first, clearly an interpolation.

      Gosh. This is not actually “clear” at all, which is why leading Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes and leading Josephus scholars like Steve Mason are among the majority of scholars who regard it as partially authentic. You think you know better than these leading experts do you, random confused internet guy?

      The second mention of Jesus by Josephus is not about the god Jesus. Have you not read the correct explanation of this?

      The “correct” explanation? I assume you mean the explanation that you happen to like. If you mean the “explanation” that the Jesus at the beginning of the passage is actually the “Jesus son of Damneus” mentioned at the end, then yes, I’m aware of that weak argument. It is wrong. Josephus never calls someone by two different identifiers in the same passage, which is what he would have to do here if he called this person “called the Messiah” in one line and then “son of Damneus” a few sentences later. If you don’t believe me, try to find any other passage in any of his works where he does this. I’ve done the analysis on this and I’m telling you now that you will fail. So that argument is garbage, which is why pretty much all Josephus scholars accept this second reference as genuine. You really don’t have a clue.

      Not that the Josephan references to Jesus are relevant here since your argument was that Jesus should have contemporary references to him. Josephus’ mentions of Jesus and the other early first century Jewish preachers etc are not contemporary. Therefore the claim that an early first century Jewish preacher like Jesus “should” have contemporary attestation is wrong, given that none of the others do. So your argument fails. Please try to focus – you seem very confused.

      “Considering there are two billion Christians in the world does that make them correct? “

      I’m afraid the consensus of peer reviewed Jewish scholars who have no reason to be biased on this issue is not analogous to the beliefs of Christians.

      “I can see why they weren’t interested in Theudas & the Egyptian. But the greatest man that ever lived?”

      I have no belief that Jesus was “the greatest man who ever lived”. The historical Jesus was simply another Jewish preacher, like the others I mentioned. And, like them, they are not attested by contemporary writers, so your original argument fails. If you want to make an argument about how the Jesus of Christianity – “the greatest man that ever lived” – should have been attested then I suggest you go find yourself a Christian and have that argument with them. I’m an atheist and you’re wasting my time with this confused crap.

      8
      3
    2. “The second mention of Jesus by Josephus is not about the god Jesus.”

      You’re not very smart are you Charles?

      Have you never appreciated that Flavius Josephus was not a Christian (he was a former Judean Cohen priest) and this would not write about Christ as any god?

      Here’s what the passage actually says:
      “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”

      So yes as any Jew would, Josephus identified James as the Brother of Jesus who is himself identified as “Was CALLED Christ” thus a mortal man merely called as such and not any god.

      “Have you not read the correct explanation of this?”

      Well most (normal_ people would regard the consensus of credible secular scholars as the “correct explanation”, and that consensus has concluded that this passage can be regarded as authentic.

      The only people bumbling about against that consensus are pseudo-scholars with no credibly and whose refutations of authenticity are easily debunked such as Robert Price or that Richard Carrier clown.

      7
      3
      1. “Have you never appreciated that Flavius Josephus was not a Christian (he was a former Judean Cohen priest) and this would not write about Christ as any god?”

        Who doesn’t know that? Old hat, bright boy.

        “Here’s what the passage actually says:”

        Read my explanation above about this being an interpolation.

        “Well most (normal_ people would regard the consensus of credible secular scholars as the “correct explanation”, and that consensus has concluded that this passage can be regarded as authentic.”

        I’m not a follower as you are, Tim fan boi. I try to make my own decisions.

        “authenticity are easily debunked such as Robert Price or that Richard Carrier clown.”

        And you’re calling me stupid. Debunk something of theirs, then. Start with the Josephus passage we’re discussing. You sure didn’t do it above.

        4
        8
        1. “Who doesn’t know that? Old hat, bright boy.”
          You expertedly don’t realize that this remark actually puts you in a bad light, not DE. Thus you nicely confirmed his question about you being smart …..
          Let me spell it out for your. DE just told you that we on a historical Jesus would expect FJ not talking about “the god Jesus”. Your argument supported the opposite of what you wanted it to support.
          The correct term, I think, is epic fail. It applies to you.

          6
          1
        2. Pardon me for asking, Charles, but are you a King James Onlyist? It is just that, for example, your going on about “the greatest man in history” comes across as being a bad habit picked up from fundies, rather than anything relevant to this particular discussion.

        3. “Read my explanation above about this being an interpolation.”

          I see no “explanation”. You state that there is a “correct explanation” for Josephus referencing Jesus in Antiquities boom XX but you shy from actually providing this explanation.

          “I’m not a follower as you are, Tim fan boi”

          I’m stunned at the fact you can’t manage to spell the basic word “boy” properly. But to address this ad-hominem; I’ve actually disagreed with Mr. O’Neill here on other topics.

          “I try to make my own decisions.”

          You could’ve fooled me.

          “And you’re calling me stupid.”

          Yes I certainly am. Do you question the academic authorities on Evolution or Cosmology? Of course you don’t. So why do you question he secular NT scholarship?

          “Debunk something of theirs, then. Start with the Josephus passage we’re discussing. You sure didn’t do it above.”

          And you never said exactly how this evidence is questionable.

          Robert Price’s theory is that somehow the passage in book XX got changed to “the Christ” from a previous “anointed” which he speculates could’ve meant any old priest. This does not stand up to the scrutiny of Origen quoting the passage in Contra Celsus nor of the basic style of Flavius Josephus where he’ never ambiguously declared anyone so valuably as “annointed” for a priest. The word “Christos” meant messiah in Koine greek.

          As for Carrier; his theory of an accidental interpolation of an original reference to Jesus ben Damneus is (as is to be expected) even worse! It depends upon:
          1) Either: For the only time ever, Josephus introducing a character twice (and coincidentally in this page?) or a scribe themselves recognising Jesus ben Damneus again – for no reason.
          2) Someone writing his hypothetical sidenote “was called Christ” – again for no actual reason ever to. And most likely in a time period the Christians were a pariah cult not likely to be getting their hands on Antiquities.
          3) A scribe somehow mistaking this hypothetical sidetone for the text. And then another scribe deciding to eliminate this hypothetical first identification of Jesus ben Damneus (instead of the logical latter one).
          4) All the above coincidentally happening with the forerunners of the manuscripts which we now source.
          5) Origen somehow getting Josephus confused with Hegesippus despite clearly knowing exactly who Flavius Josephus was and even directly quoting him.

          Rather ironic how the “man” Carrier promoting this theory of highly unlikely events also tries to shoot down the accepted evidence for historicity with Bayes’ theorem probabilities…..

    3. “But the greatest man that ever lived?”
      Thanks for confirming what I wrote elsewhere on this page – JM make the same important assumption as the apologists they claim to counter: that Jesus was very, very, very imporant, both back then (sorry, no, he wasn’t) and now (sorry, no, he isn’t – the USA is an exception in this regard). Jesus was just another messias claimant; he just had the “luck” that a few decades after he died he was used to found a religious sect that became very successful. Otherwise he was nothing special, even if he is for you.

  45. What exactly does this mean?

    and brought before them the sister of Cavanaw, who was called “the ultimate body”, whose name was Dolly,

    What is the slang name for the sister of Cavanaw? Let me answer that. It is “the ultimate body.” Whose actual name was Dolly.

    You agree? Now read this.

    and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,

    The above reads like the brother of Jesus is called Christ. Whose actual name is James. Everybody has their “assumers” on that reads this.

    That’s why “who was called Christ” is a forgery, redaction or interpolation. And why this part of Josephus is not about the greatest man that ever lived.

    5
    10
    1. “The above reads like the brother of Jesus is called Christ. Whose actual name is James. Everybody has their “assumers” on that reads this.”

      Oh dear. You really don’t have a clue. It can only “read” that way if you read it in English translation. Josephus wrote in Greek. And given that Greek is an inflected language which relies on grammatical inflections rather than word order, the Greek can’t be read that way. Which is why absolutely no-one who has any idea about the linguistics interprets it that way. Here is the Greek:

      τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω

      Note the endings of the key words Ιησου, λεγομενου and Χριστου all agree with each other. This is because it is Jesus (Ιησου) who is “called Messiah” (λεγομενου Χριστου) so all three words take the genitive case. If James was the one being “called Messiah” his name would take the genitive. But it takes the nominative. You just don’t have the faintest idea about the relevant linguistics and so make stupid blunders as a result.

      “That’s why “who was called Christ” is a forgery, redaction or interpolation.”

      What? That doesn’t make sense given your argument above, where you seem to be trying to claim that “who was called Christ” refers to James. Now you’re trying to say it’s an interpolation? Make up your mind what dumb argument you’re trying to make, please.

      11
      5
  46. “Sorry, what is it that I am supposed to “plainly see”?”

    Does Josephus give a source for the 1000s of followers. Wonder where he got his info from? And why does he write about it and contemporary writers didn’t? Or is there another source for this?

    “Jesus was small fry by comparison to these other preachers.”

    How do you know Jesus was small potatoes? Where is this stated? The bible doesn’t say this at all.

    “This is not actually “clear” at all, which is why leading Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes and leading Josephus scholars like Steve Mason are among the majority of scholars who regard it as partially authentic.”

    I think there are other scholars that think the opposite. The reason I said, quoting Philip R. Davies, “I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.”

    “If you mean the “explanation” that the Jesus at the beginning of the passage is actually the “Jesus son of Damneus” mentioned at the end, then yes, I’m aware of that weak argument.”

    I sent one explanation of this. There are others. Take “who was called Christ” out of that passage and try to focus.

    “I’m an atheist and you’re wasting my time with this confused crap.”

    Is this you’re usual exit? I saw another forum that you said basically the same thing.

    5
    11
    1. “Does Josephus give a source for the 1000s of followers. Wonder where he got his info from? And why does he write about it and contemporary writers didn’t? Or is there another source for this?”

      More confused rambling. No, like most ancient writers, Josephus doesn’t give his source. But what reason would we have to think he was lying? And if the numbers weren’t substantial, why would the Roman commanders Fadus and Felix need to dispatch several cohorts of troops to disperse them? You ask why don’t “contemporary sources” mention all this – well, for precisely the reason none mention Jesus. Roman and Greek writers had very little interest in the affairs of these backwater Jewish territories and none at all in kooky Jewish preachers. We only get references to this stuff later in the one writer we have who had any interest in this kind of stuff – Josephus.

      “How do you know Jesus was small potatoes? Where is this stated? The bible doesn’t say this at all.”

      The gospels try to make him out to be significant, yet say things that make it clear that, even in their exaggerated account, he is not. gMark says he was famous “through all of Galilee”. Wow. Galilee was a backwater of a backwater which you could walk across in a day. That’s not very famous. And, as I’ve noted, all of the gospels have Jesus being arrested by a small group of Temple guards. Compare that to Fadus and Felix mobilising several units of Roman troops to deal with Theudas and the Egyptian. Even according to the gospels Jesus was a lesser figure.

      “I think there are other scholars that think the opposite.”

      Of course there fucking are. But the fact that they are opposed by a larger body of scholars who are experts in the field and most of whom are not even Christians means your bald assertions that the TF is “clearly an interpolation” is nonsense. If it was “clearly an interpolation” there would not be a division among the scholars on the question. So it’s not “clear” at all.

      “I sent one explanation of this. “

      Yes. It was hilariously wrong and just shows how clueless you are.

      “Take “who was called Christ” out of that passage and try to focus.”

      You can’t just decide to take bits of the evidence that don’t fit your theory out so that the text then fits your theory. What reason do we have to take that element out of the text?

      “Is this you’re usual exit? I saw another forum that you said basically the same thing.”

      I have to say the same thing because idiots keep trying to use arguments against me that only work on Christians. And I’m making no “exit”. Smacking you around is too much fun.

      14
      5
    2. “The bible doesn’t say this at all.”
      Funny. Again. The self declared skeptic wants historians to accept the Bible at face value.

      5
      3
  47. “You really don’t have a clue. It can only “read” that way if you read it in English translation.”

    Well, translate it as it should be then. Let’s hear it. It can’t done? You’re attempting with your reply so translate it then. Do you always attack people so spitefully when they disagree with you. Sounds like I’m touching a nerve.

    “That doesn’t make sense given your argument above, where you seem to be trying to claim that “who was called Christ” refers to James. Now you’re trying to say it’s an interpolation?”

    That’s what I said from the beginning. It’s an interpolation. Read what I said again. It’s not that difficult. I gave the example because as it reads in English it’s saying James was called Christ. Not that familiar with English I guess. Used to writing in Greek (waiting for your translation as it should read).

    5
    15
    1. “Well, translate it as it should be then. Let’s hear it. It can’t done?”

      What? Of course it can be done. It translates as “the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah, named James”. Grammatically, Jesus is the one called Messiah. It can’t be translated any other way – that’s what the grammar means.

      “Do you always attack people so spitefully when they disagree with you. Sounds like I’m touching a nerve.”

      I’m just laughing at you. If you had any grasp of Greek you would understand why. You are hopelessly out of your depth.

      “That’s what I said from the beginning. It’s an interpolation. “

      So what was that crap about “it reads in English it’s saying James was called Christ” all about if you you don’t think the “called Messiah” part is even part of the text? And you still need to explain WHY “λεγομενου Χριστου” is an interpolation. You can’t just decide that it is because it doesn’t suit what you want to believe. Where is the EVIDENCE that it is an interpolation? Who interpolated it and when? Try actually making an coherent argument.

      16
      7
  48. “More confused rambling. No, like most ancient writers, Josephus doesn’t give his source. But what reason would we have to think he was lying?”

    I’m not saying he is lying. You need to read what I wrote again. I looked that up and didn’t see that Josephus said anything about 1000s of followers. In Acts it says something about 4000. Is that where you got your information? Wonder why you would believe the bible on that part but disbelieve the other parts? A tall tales teller (bible) by any other name is still a tall tales teller. If I’m wrong about your source please direct me to it.

    “gMark says he was famous “through all of Galilee”. Wow. Galilee was a backwater of a backwater which you could walk across in a day.”

    Didn’t Jesus have a grand welcoming as he came into Jerusalem?

    “Compare that to Fadus and Felix mobilising several units of Roman troops to deal with Theudas and the Egyptian.”

    I’d love to have your source on this for my own information.

    “Of course there fucking are.”

    Yes, I’m touching a nerve I suspect.

    “If it was “clearly an interpolation” there would not be a division among the scholars on the question. So it’s not “clear” at all.”

    And I’ll repeat this again. Because we don’t know anything about Jesus. Philip R. Davies, “but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.”

    “Yes. It was hilariously wrong and just shows how clueless you are.”

    O, Learned One, send me the translation in Greek.

    ” What reason do we have to take that element out of the text?”

    Take out “who was called Christ” and see how it reads. It reads as it should and clearly shows tampering/forgery.

    “And I’m making no “exit”. Smacking you around is too much fun.”

    Funny that. Don’t feel a thing. You’re like a politician. Way down in the polls but trying to appear that he winning. Sorry I’m upsetting you.

    7
    13
    1. “If I’m wrong about your source please direct me to it.”

      Try actually reading Josephus rather than doing some Googling. On the Egyptian he says “an Egyptian false prophet …. got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives” (Jewish War 2.259-263). And in Antiquities he says “Felix …. came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive.” (Antiquities 20.169-171). On Theudas he says “Theudas persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan” and then says “Fadus … sent a cohort of horsemen out against them” (Antiquities 20.97-98).

      “Didn’t Jesus have a grand welcoming as he came into Jerusalem?”

      Allegedly. Strangely, this great crowd vanishes as soon as he is arrested. Again, the gospels try to make him out to be a big deal, but they can’t help but contradict themselves on this point. Clearly they are exaggerating.

      “And I’ll repeat this again … Philip R. Davies”

      Stop trying to change the subject. You claimed that Ant. XVIII.63-4 was “clearly an interpolation”. It is not “clearly” anything, given there is a strongly divided opinion on its status. Your claim was wrong.

      “O, Learned One, send me the translation in Greek.”

      The “translation in Greek”? What the fuck? The text is in Greek so how can I send you a “translation in Greek” of something that is already in Greek? You’re getting increasingly confused. And the fact that you think you are somehow “winning” here is simply hilarious.

      14
      7
  49. “It translates as “the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah, named James”.”

    How about this.

    the sister of that Cavanaw who was called beautiful, named Aphrodite.

    You left out a comma. Wonder why the translators put it in?

    Now as you can see the sister of that Cavnaw is clearly referred to as beautiful. But her real name is Aphrodite.

    Now as you can see the brother of Jesus is clearly referred to as Messiah. But his real name is James.

    Now that’s correct grammar. “the brother” is the subject, not Jesus. But you won’t see it because you’ve got blinders on.

    I’m going to watch “The Deuce.” Be back in the morning (TX- USA) if you want to continue.

    6
    13
    1. “You left out a comma. Wonder why the translators put it in?”

      What? The translators put a comma between “the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah” and “named James” precisely because it is JESUS who is “called Messiah”, NOT James. Because that is the only way the GREEK grammar can be read.

      “Now as you can see the brother of Jesus is clearly referred to as Messiah. But his real name is James.”

      WRONG. The Greek simply can’t be read that way. It is JESUS who is called Messiah, because all the key words there are in the genitive. You can’t just pretend this isn’t the case – it’s a hard cold FACT.

      “Now that’s correct grammar. “the brother” is the subject, not Jesus. But you won’t see it because you’ve got blinders on.”

      This is hilarious. You’re trying to make an argument based on a misreading of the English translation because you don’t have a clue about the Greek. Again, “the brother” is in the genitive. “James” is in the nominative. James is the subject, but the person who was “called the Messiah” is Jesus, which is why “τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου” is all in the genitive. You are utterly clueless and so totally wrong.

      15
      6
  50. I can’t say it hasn’t been entertaining, but this is like reading a debate between two Harry Potter critics. All very interesting if you’re into that kind of stuff, but what’s the real relevance? I’m sure there have been many like Jesus, but their timing was not quite in that historical sweet spot. There have certainly been others since Jesus, but the more modern they are, the easier it is to dismiss them as loony toons.

    1. “All very interesting if you’re into that kind of stuff, but what’s the real relevance?”

      The relevance to what, exactly? I happen to be “into that kind of stuff”, so long as “that kind of stuff” refers to the origins of the largest religion on earth. I’m into “that kind of stuff” called “history”, you see. Most of us here are, though a few confused passers-by like our friend “Charles” above don’t have much of a clue about it.

      “I’m sure there have been many like Jesus, but their timing was not quite in that historical sweet spot. There have certainly been others since Jesus, but the more modern they are, the easier it is to dismiss them as loony toons.”

      It seems many people dismissed Jesus as loony toons as well. But all it takes is for a few people to regard him as something else and his sect survives and then turns into an Empire-wide religion and then becomes the state religion of that Empire, the dominant religion of Western Europe and then – et voilà! – the world religion we see today. How that happened and how this all began is pretty interesting to those of us who are “into that kind of stuff”.

      15
      7
    2. HP, very clever and original. Gonna compare LOTR critics to see of Frodo or Gandalf is the real hero. Or Twilight to see if sparkling vampires or shapeshifting werewolf Indians are more badass?

  51. “Grammatically, Jesus is the one called Messiah. It can’t be translated any other way – that’s what the grammar means.”

    Good morning. I’ll try to express myself and let you get on with your ad hominem attacks. We keep going over the same old thing. I’ve translated the following passage “and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,” and what I say is grammatically correct. As I’ve shown. Pay attention. And read it like any middle school student would do. Your translation is no different from the one above except you’ve left out the comma (on purpose I suspect) and changing Christ to Messiah.

    “and brought before them the brother of James, who was called Christ, whose name was Jesus,” Getting the picture about grammar? And if the genitive and nominative are different from the above why wasn’t it written as such? Insert your ad hominem here when replying because it’s all you got.

    Also, I’ve looked up the Egyptian failed prophet, on the greatest library in the world (Internet), and found what you say about him to be true. Proves nothing concerning the silence about Jesus from his contemporary writers. Seems a lot more is known about any Tom, Dick or Harry than is known about Jesus (if Josephus is correct as there’s no source). The bible knows a lot more but who believes in that? Therefore more reason to believe that the silence about Jesus from his contemporary writers points to his non-existence. And I’m on the fence about Jesus’ historicity. I just resent people who say they know about his existence when there’s nothing to know.

    “Clearly they are exaggerating.”

    I agree. Why believe anything in the bible? Unless it suits your purpose, of course.

    “It is not “clearly” anything, given there is a strongly divided opinion on its status. Your claim was wrong.”

    If the scholars are divided how am I wrong? Only the side that you are on is correct, I guess? So I’ll say my version of the Josephus passage is the correct one and a forgery. And you have nothing to go on but your opinion. And I’m not trying to change the subject? The topic is the historicity of Jesus isn’t it? This is what Davies is commenting on. Another example of you not being able to decipher what is written.

    “The “translation in Greek”? What the fuck?”

    That should have been “translation in English.” Cut me some slack. You posted your translation and I commented above.

    5
    17
    1. “And if the genitive and nominative are different from the above why wasn’t it written as such?”

      It is “written” just fine. You’re just choosing to misread the English translation. Again THE GREEK makes it clear that the person who was “called Messiah” (that’s what “Christ” means – from Χριστός, meaning “the anointed one”, the Greek translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Mašíaḥ or Messiah) was JESUS, not James. Your misreading of the English cannot be sustained by the what the Greek grammar says. You are wrong.

      I’ve looked up the Egyptian failed prophet, on the greatest library in the world (Internet), and found what you say about him to be true.

      Yes, so you were wrong about that too. No surprises there, but it’s nice that you’ve finally realised what the rest of us have known for several comments now.

      Proves nothing concerning the silence about Jesus from his contemporary writers.

      Since the whole point is that no-one was very interested in any of this kind of Jewish preacher apart from Josephus, that doesn’t matter much. The fact that Theudas and the Egyptian seem to have been a bigger deal than Jesus was a side issue anyway. The fact remains that we would not expect to find a contemporary reference to Jesus for the same reason we find none for these others – no-one cared about these obscure peasants ranting about weird Jewish stuff in an obscure corner of the Empire.

      Therefore more reason to believe that the silence about Jesus from his contemporary writers points to his non-existence.

      Nonsense. If he was no more mentioned than any other analogous figure, that is not the conclusion we “therefore” draw at all. We “therefore” conclude that he wasn’t mentioned by contemporaries for the same reason all the other such Jewish preachers weren’t – because no-one was very interested in them. Your conclusion above is irrational and stupid.

      “I just resent people who say they know about his existence when there’s nothing to know.”

      I have never claimed I “know” Jesus existed. In fact, I am very careful not to make that claim. History is about assessments of likelihood, nothing more.

      “Why believe anything in the bible? Unless it suits your purpose, of course.”

      No, because I and many others are trained in how to apply the historical method to any ancient text, including the ones which later got collected into “the Bible” and work out what is likely to be historical and what isn’t. It’s what historians do.

      “If the scholars are divided how am I wrong?”

      For the third time – you are wrong because you claimed that the TF is “clearly” a wholesale forgery. It is not “clearly” a forgery, otherwise the majority of scholars would not be of the opinion it is partially authentic. It is not “clearly” anything – thus the ongoing debate.

      “So I’ll say my version of the Josephus passage is the correct one and a forgery. And you have nothing to go on but your opinion. “

      The difference being that I have read the scholarship on the matter and understand the debate and the relevant linguistics and textual analysis where you obviously haven’t and don’t. Some “opinions” are worth more than others. Yours is utterly worthless.

      “And I’m not trying to change the subject”

      When challenged over your erroneous claim that the TF was “clearly” a forgery you kept circling back to that Philip R. Davies that had nothing to do with the first Josephus reference to Jesus. That’s changing the subject.

      “The topic is the historicity of Jesus isn’t it? Another example of you not being able to decipher what is written.”

      The subject of discussion at that point was the debate about the first Josephus reference to Jesus. So you were changing the subject, because that wasn’t going well for you. I can decipher your weaselly wriggling quite well thanks.

      “Cut me some slack. “

      No. People like you who come here and display a bizarre combination of vast ignorance, bumbling incompetence, boneheaded bias and pompous arrogance don’t get cut any slack. And your time here is over. Go away.

      18
      7
      1. “I have never claimed I “know” Jesus existed.”
        Again like creacrappers Charles only accepts “knowledge” from his opponents if they can prove the Absolute Truth. When we define knowledge like for instance physicists do (ie deductive conclusions being the same as inductive ones, – derived from empirical evidence) we know indeed that Jesus was historical. It’s quite like knowing that our Universe started with a Big Bang (which ironically in the end is also a historical claim).

        4
        3
    2. “your ad hominem attacks.”
      Again you’re talking like a christian apologist, though I’ve to admit this is quite rare among JMs.
      Nope.
      ToN may be insulting you, but he doesn’t so because of your personality, but of your comments. Hence the insults are relevant for the discussion.

      5
      8
  52. “It is “written” just fine. You’re just choosing to misread the English translation.”

    No, it’s not written just fine at all. And you are wrong about this. Sorry. Face the facts. Let me point out the reading again.

    “and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,”

    They brought before them the brother of Jesus. Who’s being talked about? And it ain’t Jesus. Let me tell you because you simply can’t understand. It’s the brother of Jesus. What? The brother of Jesus is called Christ? Must be, he’s the subject of this conversation. What was Christ’s name? No, it’s not Christ as you’re probably guessing right now. It was James. That’s how the passage reads. At least for those that can understand a sentence and how they are formed.

    And that means the passage should read like this before it was edited:

    “and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James,”

    This sentence is a forgery. And this means the passage is not about the greatest man that ever lived at all. Cancel that passage (and the TF as well). Two less historical references for Jesus (AKA the greatest man that ever lived). Josephus wrote nothing about Jesus or wrote nothing about hero of the NT. When people see Jesus, such as yourself, you say, “Ah, the greatest man that ever lived.” Did you know that Jesus was a very common name like Tim is? 🙂

    “Yes, so you were wrong about that too.”

    Again you’re reading into my words and what you want to be true as you usually do. I never denied that wasn’t true. I asked for sources as I recall.

    “The fact that Theudas and the Egyptian seem to have been a bigger deal than Jesus was a side issue anyway.”

    I like that, “seem to have been bigger.” Does that mean you don’t know? It’s good to cover your back.

    “If he was no more mentioned than any other analogous figure, that is not the conclusion we “therefore” draw at all.”

    Take that silence into a courtroom and see how far it gets you.

    “It’s what historians do.”

    What do you do?

    “Some “opinions” are worth more than others. Yours is utterly worthless.”

    May I say the same about yours? Got a few bloggers to back me on that as well. I’m sure you’ve read how they, what were your words, “Smacking you around is too much fun.”

    “And your time here is over. Go away.”

    Oh, are you not going to post my comments? I’ll post them at Vridar, then. Good day, Jerk.

    6
    17
    1. One last time with this guy …

      “That’s how the passage reads. At least for those that can understand a sentence and how they are formed.”

      That is NOT HOW IT READS IN THE GREEK. You clearly don’t understand how an inflected language works, but we KNOW who was being referred to as “called Messiah” in that passage from the way the words are inflected. The phrase is “τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου” and, as I’ve patiently explained to you twice already, the key words Ιησου, λεγομενου and Χριστου all agree with each other – they all take the genitive case. This means it is “Ιησου” who was called “Χριστου”, NOT “Ιακωβος”. You can misread the English translation the way you are trying to, but you can’t read the GREEK that way. Which is why no-one with a clue about the linguistics does so.

      And that means the passage should read like this before it was edited: “and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James,”

      Wrong. Because your whole argument can’t be sustained by the grammar of the Greek passage. That aside, if the passage originally read “and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James” this means Josephus has done something he does nowhere else. He always uses an identifier when he refers to someone with a common first name (“Jesus”) if there is someone else with the same name mentioned in the same passage. And in this passage there is – “Jesus son of Damneus”. So Josephus would normally use an identifier for both to differentiate between the two people called “Jesus” to avoid confusion. This is, in fact, what the passage does when he calls one Jesus “who was called Messiah” and the other “the son of Damneus”.

      And if you try to get around that consistent pattern by claiming that the Jesus, the brother of James, and Jesus son of Damenus are the same person (as many Mythicists try to), you break another consistent pattern in Josephus. Because he always uses the identifier when he introduces someone and then only refers to them by their first name once he’s made it clear who he’s referring to. But to have him just call this person “Jesus” when he is first mentioned and then only later identify him as “Jesus son of Damenus” is completely the opposite of his consistent style. So however you cut it, your attempted reworking of the text to fit your a priori conclusion fails totally.

      “I never denied that wasn’t true. I asked for sources as I recall.”

      You: “If I’m wrong show me the sources”
      Me: “Yes, you are wrong – here are the sources”

      Take that silence into a courtroom and see how far it gets you.

      What? You tried to make an argument from silence. You failed. Case closed. The way an argument from silence works is you not only have to show that there is a silence, but also that there should not be. You have failed to show the latter. Given that we have a similar silence for all the other analogous early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, the fact that we have one for Jesus is exactly what we would expect. Your argument therefore fails. Case dismissed.

      “May I say the same about yours? “

      Ummm, no. Unlike you, I actually know the scholarship on this question. You don’t. Which is why you bumbled around saying the TF was “cleatrly” an interpolation and later had to admit that there was a long and ongoing debate on the issue, so it is not “clearly” fake at all.

      “Got a few bloggers to back me on that as well.”

      Oh God. Let me guess – the Butthurt Brigade over at Ol’ Grandpa Godfrey’s Treehouse Club called “Vridar”?

      “I’ll post them at Vridar, then. Good day, Jerk.”

      You’ll fit in with the other incompetents and kneejerk contrarians there just fine.

      17
      6
      1. For his next trick, Charles will argue that Isaiah can’t be taken seriously because he believed in unicorns. I mean, Isaiah 34:7 in the KJV says so. And as we all know, the best way to judge the meaning of an ancient text is to read a modern English translation of it and take it at face value, rather than bothering to understand the original language in which it is written.

        19
        6
    1. Not really. Only the most conservative scholars accept the Pauline authorship of 1Timothy and there is good reason to think it was written as late at the very late first century or the first half of the second century. 1Tim 1:4 and 1Tim 4:3 seem to be refuting proto-Gnostic ideas, which makes it very unlikley this is an early text. This puts in the same time period as gJohn and well into or after the period that Mythicists claim Jesus had been “historicised” or “euhemerised”, so the 6:3 reference to Pilate is, to them, no more historical than the Pilate-trial sequences in gJohn. We have to stick to the seven Pauline epistles, which even the Mythicists (mostly) accept as genuine and the earliest Christian texts, for evidence their contortions are wrong. 1Timothy doesn’t help us.

  53. Rants and raves, scrolls and books do not prove any gods!
    They prove that the books exist – But not any gods!!!

    The Bable for example is simply a historical novel, a book of fables – nothing more…

    You will need more to prove the existence of a god….

    14
    1. You seem to be highly confused. No-one here is “proving gods”. I’m an atheist. Perhaps you’re lost – maybe you need to find a Christian blog to rant against.

      14
        1. “If don’t believe in unicorns, then why don’t you prove your ‘not unicorn’.
          Door swings both ways.”

          Please go and study the concept of the burden of proof. Don’t come back until you understand.

          11
          1
          1. We aren’t talking about unicorns you ass hat. I understand burden of proof very well.
            You need to grasp logic and the law of non contradiction.
            God is or is not. There are no other options.
            YOU, default to a position of indefensibilty and call it profound.
            At least the theist has evidence for you to deny.

            1
            13
          2. We aren’t talking about unicorns you ass hat

            Charming. And it seems the stupid is strong with this one.

            I understand burden of proof very well.

            It seems you don’t understand it at all. In my unicorn analogy (another concept you don’t seem to grasp), I assumed you have no belief in unicorns. Which means you should be able to understand that this does not mean it is up to you to, somehow, prove some “not unicorn”. The onus of proof is on the person who claims unicorns exist. Unless they produce good evidence for unicorns that you find convincing, it is perfectly reasonable for you to continue to be without any belief in unicorns. The burden of proof in on the claimant. Always.

            At least the theist has evidence for you to deny.

            I don’t “deny” their evidence, I just find it unconvincing. Just like you do when it comes to unicorns. If you understand why you have no belief in unicorns you can understand why I have no belief in gods.

            12
            1
          3. Ah, as to unicorns – they may not be the best example of “obviously fabulous creature”. Various healing powers aside, unicorn making has been practiced for centuries – it is a matter of surgically manipulating the horn buds at an early age, I believe.
            Would like the Hircocervus, from Plato, to take its place – common usage is all very well, but in this case it is misleading.

  54. This article creates something of a straw man: there are no contemporary references to Jesus because he was just a minor preacher in a rural backwater. How could Philo have noticed him?
    But that is not the story. The myth theory is saying that if the Jesus that has been handed down to us by Christian tradition existed then contemporary sources should have mentioned him.
    This is a man born of virgin at a time when the first born in the country were slain. He preached, performed miracles, inflamed the Jewish authorities so much they had him arrested and executed. He then came back from the dead, an event witnessed by hundreds. He founded a church that preached his good news from that point on, it grew so large so quickly that Nero persecuted and executed his followers.
    What the myth busters are arguing is ‘that’ Jesus never existed. That Jesus and his impact on the world would, surely, have created a stir big enough for contemporary writers, historians or legislators to have noticed.
    To say that Jesus isn’t a myth because he could well have been a mendicant preacher in an obscure region doesn’t really stack up. Of course nobody can disprove that an unimportant Rabbi called Josh walked the dusty streets of the 1st century. But Jesus’ obscurity and inconsequential impact on the world is not the story being attacked.
    That the supernatural Jesus worshipped by Christians never existed seems undoubted. That a human figure lurks behind the myth is possible, even probable but that doesn’t really change the fact that the figure from the Bible is romantic fiction.
    P/Saul? Really? How are we dating that? Nobody references Paul’s letters until Marcion sucks them out of his thumb.
    You have relied on the evidence of the rarity and fragmentary nature of survivals of ancient texts. Yet Paul’s angry, ranting letters are dutifully preserved almost in their entirety. And not a word of them is out of place with orthodox thinking.
    And Josephus doesn’t mention Jesus.
    All of the arguments in the articles I have read so far seek to belittle the intellectual honesty of writers putting forward the myth theory. It seems a little bit personal and unnecessary.
    In order to trump them they seem to adopt Christian propaganda without question. Paul wrote all his letters in the 50s, Josephus really did mention Jesus, they affirm that Nero persecuted Christians because Tacitus said so.
    It seems to be a position based on the premise that it must be true because most scholars agree… but most ‘scholars’ in this field are believers, they earnestly yearn for this all to be true.
    Where that wish for Christianity to have substance sits with academic rigour is highly questionable. Can faith be allowed to dictate the terms of the debate?
    Finally, many putting forward the Jesus myth theory are not hard working academics supported by extensive support structures and peer review. I am sure that many admit making mistakes. But there are a number of academics working this field and more and more of them are raising questions about the dating of the gospels and Paul, questioning sources and the absence of archeological evidence and coming to the conclusion that whatever the truth of the obscure teacher theory the Jesus of the New Testament never existed.

    1. “The myth theory is saying that if the Jesus that has been handed down to us by Christian tradition existed then contemporary sources should have mentioned him.”

      No, the “Myth theory” says that even if Jesus was not “the Jesus that has been handed down to us by Christian tradition” and was just a Jewish preacher, we still don’t have evidence of him. And some Mythicists, including the ones I cite and quote above, claim that we “should” have references to this preacher – in Philo etc. – but don’t and so we can conclude no such person existed at all.

      “P/Saul? Really? How are we dating that? Nobody references Paul’s letters until Marcion sucks them out of his thumb.”

      Since I suspect noting that pretty much every critical scholar on the planet accepts the dating of the seven letters of Paul to the 50s AD won’t cut any ice with you, I’ll direct you to the arguments of this prominent Mythicist, who, in part, argues:

      “[The letters of Paul] all make arguments and interact persuasively in a context where the Jewish temple was still standing and its cult operating. And in a context where views of Jesus and the Church that appear in the Gospels have not yet come to exist (not even to denounce or counter or rebut, much less use or co-opt or transform). This is very unlikely unless the letters were written before the year 66 A.D. (when the Jewish War began, an event wholly unknown to the author), and before the Gospels were written (which could be as early as 70 or 75 A.D. for Mark). [This] point is important, because the letters explicitly present themselves internally as having been written in the 50s A.D.”

      If even Mythicists like Carrier accept the standard dating, you are going to have an uphill battle arguing for something else.

      “And Josephus doesn’t mention Jesus.”

      Again, scholarship disagrees with you. A majority of Josephus scholars accepts that Ant. XVIII.63-4 is partially authentic to Jospehus (though with some later additions) and almost all accept that Ant. XX.200 is wholly authentic. So, wrong again.

      “All of the arguments in the articles I have read so far seek to belittle the intellectual honesty of writers putting forward the myth theory. “

      No, nowhere do I question their “intellectual honesty”. To do that I would need to question their sincerity and say they actually believe Jesus existed but claim they don’t. Nowhere do I say this, because they seem very, very sincere. You don’t seem to understand what the term “intellectual honesty” means.

      “It seems to be a position based on the premise that it must be true because most scholars agree”

      No, it is based on the fact that there are good reasons most scholars agree that a historical Jesus existed. If all was doing was noting the consensus and making no further argument, my articles would be a lot shorter than they are.

      “but most ‘scholars’ in this field are believers”

      And, as I’ve noted before, that doesn’t matter. Even if we completely ignore the Christians and only focus on the non-Christians in the field, we find the consensus remains. If we look at relevant non-Christian scholars, both current and recent, we find people like Maurice Casey, Zeba Crook, James Crossley, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Robert Funk, Jeffrey Gibson, Michael Goulder, Amy Jill Levine, Gerd Ludemann, Jack Miles, Christina Petterson, Alan Segal and Geza Vermes. None of these people accept or accepted Mythicism and they include some of the most prominent recent scholars in the field. Then there are all the thousands of Jewish scholars of Second Temple Judasim – none of them are Mythicists either, despite being untainted by any desire to uphold Christian beliefs. Your argument is simply nonsense and it just a weak excuse to try to avoid the fact that Mythicism is what it is – a fringe theory with no credibility among scholars.

      “many putting forward the Jesus myth theory are not hard working academics supported by extensive support structures and peer review. I am sure that many admit making mistakes.”

      Doesn’t the fact that it is put forward mainly by these bumbling amateurs tell you something? No alarm bells ringing for you there?

      “But there are a number of academics working this field and more and more of them are raising questions “

      Yes, and I’ve been hearing about these “more and more” questioning academics and the coming dawn of a new age of Mythicist respectibility for … almost 20 years now. Like the Second Coming of Jesus, this is apparently always just around the corner. Yet it never comes. Mythicism is a form of faith.

      13
    2. “Can faith be allowed to dictate the terms of the debate?”
      Now this is a strawman ….. except for the few christians passing by now and then nobody here let’s faith dictate anything.

      “the Jesus of the New Testament never existed.”
      Such a nice catchphrase. Sounds so good. So of course you carefully don’t specify what you mean with “Jesus of the New Testament”.
      It’s simple, you know. Scholars ask: was there a rural preacher called Jesus who claimed to be a messias and who inspired several decades later to write the New Testament? The answer is equally simple: highly probably yes. JMs insist no.
      Of course this can be disproven. Find yourself a document written at that time that details the Roman conspiracy (Joseph Atkins), a meeting of the four authors of the Gospels or something similar and voila.
      Next question: what can we tell about Jesus’ life? Now that’s a difficult one and several points are disputed. As an amateur I don’t take any side. It helps that I don’t find Jesus terribly interesting – not any more than other messias claimants of his time.
      But what I think funny is that people like you make such big deal of this guy, to the joy of all christians. For the religious movement he inspired (and only started in the narrowest way possible) other people were far more instrumental. So in their ardent desire to attack christianity JMs don’t even manage to find the vulnerable spots …. they only manage to make atheism look silly, again to the joy of many christians.

  55. I actually confronted Michael Paulkovich about his stupid list. He basically said the Josephus reference was a forgery and that the Jewish historian was referring to a different James.

    Unsurprisingly, he wouldn’t allow me to refute him, especially when I pointed out there was no way he could’ve checked the sources that have lost works (such as Justus).

    Such is the way of the Mythicist.

  56. About the Josephus reference I assume you are referring to the Testimoium Flavianum. This has been considered an interpolation by scholars for more than 100 years. It was most likely fabricated by Eusebius in the 4th century. The text is written in a different style of Greek from that which Josephus used, is inserted in a section where it makes no sense and, when removed, the text flows much better. Origen, from Eusebius obtained his copies of Josephus, made no mention of this passage in any of his writings and he was trying to use Josephus to argue for Jesus existence. If the TF had existed, he would have used it. The other reference in Josephus, the ‘Jesus, who is known as the Christ’ but, is a likely scribal insertion as the rest of the passage shows that actually it is referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, who later became high priest. Sorry, Josephus does NOT mention Jesus. Only apologist literature claims that he does.

    1
    8
    1. I love it when drive-by Mythers come here to lecture me on stuff I’ve studied in detail for 35 years. And to do so by stating Mythicist claims as though they are facts.

      “This has been considered an interpolation by scholars for more than 100 years”

      Er, no. It’s certainly been recognised that at least some elements in it are interpolated, but the majority of scholars think it is partially authentic and that an original reference to Jesus was added to and edited, not that it is a wholesale interpolation. There is a minority which consider it a wholesale interpolation and a solid case can be made for that too. I’m inclined to agree with the majority. So your very first statement – bold and assertive as it is – is wrong.

      “It was most likely fabricated by Eusebius in the 4th century.”

      The changes made or the wholesale interpolation were clearly done then. But there is no way of determining how “likely” it is that Eusebius was the culprit. So, wrong again.

      “The text is written in a different style of Greek from that which Josephus used”

      Nonsense. In fact, the fact that it contains several words and turns of phrase that are actually distinctively Josephan and yet are not found in any ante-Nicean Patristic writings is one of the reasons the majority of scholars consider it partially authentic. You can find a good analysis of the language and the elements which do look genuinely Josephan by esteemed Josephan scholar Steve Mason in his Josephus and the New Testament, pp. 169-170. Mason notes that, while there are a couple of words which are unusual, “much of the rest is perfectly normal”. He follows this by detailing no less than six examples of distinctively Josephan language in the passage.So, you’re wrong for the third time.

      “It is inserted in a section where it makes no sense and, when removed, the text flows much better”

      Another bold claim. Unfortunately, the section does make sense in its context – it is included in a sequence of anecdotes regarding Pilate and “[calamities that] put the Jews into disorder” (Ant. XVIII.65) in the early 30s AD. As for being able to remove the section without it disrupting the narrative, that is simply a function of Josephus’ style. He tends to go off on slight tangents, so there are plenty of examples where he does this and we could easily remove the digression. See Antiquities XIV.21-28; XIV.415-430; XVII.271-272; XVII.273-277; XVII.278-284;XX.5; XX.97-98; XX.161; XX.169-171; XX.188; VIII.46-49; Jewish War I.304-313;. II.56; II.57-59; II.60-65; II.235-235 and II.259-263 as examples. So, yet again, you’re wrong.

      “Origen, from Eusebius obtained his copies of Josephus, made no mention of this passage in any of his writings and he was trying to use Josephus to argue for Jesus existence.”

      He was? What makes you say that? It’s not like anyone in Origen’s time doubted his existence – no Jesus Mythicists were going to appear for another 500 years. What Origen wanted to argue for was that Jesus was the Messiah. And he tells us several times that “[Josephus] did not accept our Jesus to be Christ (Matthaei X.17 and again in Contra Celsum I.4). How could he be so clear on that point if his copy of Josephus had nothing to say about Jesus at all? He makes no mention of the Testimonium, but if it, as the majority of scholars agree, was originally simply a brief reference to Jesus being executed, why would he? That fact was not in dispute and of no use to Origen’s apologetic or exegetical purposes. Of course, the Testimonium would have been useful to Origen if it had its current form and content in his time. But all that tells us is that it clearly didn’t. So Origen’s lack of reference to it does tell us that it didn’t have the claims that Jesus “was the Christ” or “rose on the third day” etc. But it does not tell us it was a wholesale interpolation. So wrong again.

      “The other reference in Josephus, the ‘Jesus, who is known as the Christ’ but, is a likely scribal insertion as the rest of the passage shows that actually it is referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, who later became high priest. “

      That is garbage and almost no actual scholars doubt the Jesus-James reference in Ant. XX.200. Your claim is based on the flawed arguments of the inevitable unemployed blogger, Richard Carrier and I detail why they are wrong HERE. Read and learn. So, wrong yet again.

      “Sorry, Josephus does NOT mention Jesus. Only apologist literature claims that he does.”

      And, with a final flourish, you make yet another claim that is … wrong. As I’ve said, the majority of Josephus scholars accept that the Testimonium is partially authentic and did originally contain a brief account of Jesus. And almost all Josephus scholars accept that the Ant. XX.200 Jesus-James reference is genuine, with only a tiny handful of dissenters. I’m sure Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes and Louis Feldman would be amused to find their work described as “apologist literature”.

      So you made seven bold claims and every single one of them was wrong. That’s rather impressive. You seem to be a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect – someone who knows just enough to think they are competent but not enough to realise they aren’t. You need to stop relying on Mythicist crap for your “information” and go read the actual scholars. You’ll need to read books, not watch YouTube videos. Go educate yourself better.

      1. You must be desperate to mention the James Ossuary, something with the name of James, brother of Jesus on it, wow it must be Jesus, it’s not like there were hundreds of other people with such names in that period, Jesus (Joshua) and James were common names. We have Josephus mentioning the death of a different James brother of Jesus (yes I went back and re-read that part of Josephus and it is clearly talking about Jesus son of Damneus). I would argue against the Josephan reference, having read the passage it is clearly not talking about Jesus of Nazareth, the context is wrong, the manner of James’s death is different from every Christian description of James’s death and elsewhere it names Jesus the son of Damneus, high priest. Also the word ‘Christ’ would never have been used by Josephus, he was not a Christian and if he had used the word he would have had to define it for his readership which he did for many other terms elsewhere in his texts. He was not writing for a Jewish audience, but a Roman one.

        1
        5
        1. Our latest drive-by Myther is back and, as usual, he’s completely ignored the fact that I just showed everything he claimed is wrong. So now he fumbles desperately for some more online Myther tropes:

          “You must be desperate to mention the James Ossuary,”

          Ummm, no. If that thing isn’t a fake it proves nothing much. It’s not evidence for Jesus and anyone who claims it is is an idiot. So, wrong again. We’re seeing a pattern with you kiddo.

          “We have Josephus mentioning the death of a different James brother of Jesus (yes I went back and re-read that part of Josephus and it is clearly talking about Jesus son of Damneus) …”

          Garbage. Again, I deal with all of those crappy arguments HERE. It seems you didn’t read that, so go and do that now. The claim that the only “Jesus” in Ant. XX.200 is the “son of Damneus” simply does not work, for the detailed reasons I explain. If you come back here again and just repeat crap I’ve already refuted in detail you’ll go straight to the spam file.

          “Also the word ‘Christ’ would never have been used by Josephus, he was not a Christian and if he had used the word he would have had to define it for his readership which he did for many other terms elsewhere in his texts.”

          Bullshit. Josephus simply tells his readers what Jesus was “called”. Nothing more. We have several other examples where he tells us what people, places and things were “called” and doesn’t bother to explain why or what the cognomen meant. Why was Joseph “called Cabi” (Ant. XX196)? Josephus doesn’t say and doesn’t explain what “Cabi” meant. Why was Matthias “called Ephlias” (Vita, I.4)? Josephus doesn’t say and doesn’t explain what “Ephlias” meant. He just says that these this were cognomens for these people – what there were “called”. Yet again you show that you simply don’t know the source material and are just brainlessly parroting crappy Mythicist arguments. You’re like a Creationist who thinks they understand evolutionary biology because they’ve read some stuff by Ken Ham. You are completely out of your depth.

          Go away and educate yourself better. Or just go away.

          11
          1. The TF doesn’t really make any sense in its context. The previous passage was talking about Pilate killing a bunch of Jews who were protesting him, and then in the passage after the TF it says “about this time another tragedy occurred for the Jews”. But what he just wrote an entire paragraph about Jesus. The passage after the TF seems to be referencing the passage before it. It also is very telling that Origen makes no reference to this notorious passage even though he had the works of Josephus. Origen cited the James reference and the John the Baptist reference but makes no mention of the TF. You would think that Origen would have said that Josephus wrote Jesus being executed by Pilate and he brother James being executed but he doesn’t. You would think that Origen would at least reference the TF to inform his audience just like he did with the James and the John the Baptist reference, but he doesn’t. I believe that there actually were people who didn’t believe in a historical Jesus back then such as the docetics, Marcionites and the Gnostics.

          2. “… then in the passage after the TF it says “about this time another tragedy occurred for the Jews”. But what he just wrote an entire paragraph about Jesus. The passage after the TF seems to be referencing the passage before it.”

            If the original paragraph about Jesus (before the Christian additions to it) described how a “wise man a wise man [who] was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly” was executed by the Romans, how is that not “a tragedy [that] occurred for the Jews”?

            “Origen makes no reference to this notorious passage “

            Where and why exactly would Origen reference a pre-interpolations version of this passage that simply said Jesus was a teacher who was executed? There were no Jesus Mythicists prior to the eighteenth century, so these facts were not disputed by anyone. So where would Origen need to reference them from Josephus? And if his copy of Josephus’ Antiquities didn’t contain any reference to Jesus at all, how could Origen state categorically, twice, that “he (Josephus) did not accept our Jesus to be Christ”? Clearly his copy of Antiquities did have some account of Jesus on which Origen could base that observation.

            “You would think that Origen would at least reference the TF to inform his audience just like he did with the James and the John the Baptist reference”

            Origen was making a exegetical point when noting the references to James and the Baptist. What point would he be making by noting a passage that just said Jesus was a teacher who was executed?

            “I believe that there actually were people who didn’t believe in a historical Jesus back then such as the docetics, Marcionites and the Gnostics.”

            Then you’re wrong about that too. All those people believed in a historical Jesus. You need to educate yourself better so you can prevent yourself from making these basic errors.

          3. I seem to have done a great deal more study that you if you think Jesus was a historical figure. I have read works by many historicist and mythicist authors, I have read first to fourth century texts by various authors and commentators. I have studied the Bible and how it came to be written in great detail for many years.

            1
            10
          4. “I seem to have done a great deal more study that you”

            Your weak and bungled defences of a crappy fringe theory that is rejected by virtually all scholars doesn’t indicate you’ve done much “study” at all. You are just another drive-by Myther who knows just enough to get everything wrong. If you just repeat more boring and easily debunked Mythicist talking points here you’ll be on a one way trip to the spam folder. This is not a forum for Mythicist parrots to squawk their rote-learned garbage. Go away.

            12
            1
          5. The majority of scholars do agree that Jesus existed, but there is a growing minority of a different opinion. This is similar the situation a few decades ago when most historians, archeologists and biblical scholars slowly had to acknowledge that Moses never existed. Now the majority view of scholars is that Moses was a fictional character and that the Exodus never happened.

            I have read Ehrman’s book and Carriers (et – al there were several scholars writing the rebuttal) book tearing Ehrman’s argument apart. I also saw that debate between Ehrman and Price, and Ehrman lost in my opinion. Every debate I have seen in loving Carrier has been won by him. There are modern scholars taking Carrier seriously, the number of serious scholars taking the mythicist position is increasing. People want Jesus to be real because of their upbringing and prejudice. A cold bar analysis of the evidence leads you to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus’ existence is doubtful. I predict that within a decade or two this this will be the majority view of scholars in the field. Just like what happened with Moses and Solomon. Have you read Carrier’s work? I suggest you read his reply to Ehrman’s attention to defend historicity. It is extremely effective in demolishing the historical position. Ehrman acknowledges the lack of evidence and I will be willing to bet that he like others will go over to the mythicist l side in time. I strongly recommend you read https://www.amozon.co.uk/Ehrman-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Nazareth-ebook/dp/B00C9NOWBI/ref=st_1_8?keywords=richard+Carrier&qid=1559549832&s=gateway&sr=8-8

            I used to accept that Jesus existed until I read analyses of the evidence by Price, Ehrman, Fitzgerald and Carrier. Now I have a serious doubt that Jesus existed. Even if he did exist which I will admit is possible (just not plausible) I don’t believe that the gospels are true. My atheism is based on the lack of any evidence for a god.

          6. “The majority of scholars do agree that Jesus existed, but there is a growing minority of a different opinion. “

            Garbage. Poor Carrier tried to come up with a list to illustate this supposed “growing minority” and couldn’t even get it into double figures. Out of tens of thousands of scholars in relevant fields. That’s utterly pathetic.

            “This is similar the situation a few decades ago when most historians, archeologists and biblical scholars slowly had to acknowledge that Moses never existed. “

            Yes. I’ve had you guys telling me that for 20 years now. Yet the tiny number of Mythicist scholars still stays … tiny.

            ” I also saw that debate between Ehrman and Price, and Ehrman lost in my opinion. “

            That’s another “opinion” that is not widely shared. Even most Mythicists had to admit Ehrman wiped the floor with poor old Bob Price.

            “Every debate I have seen in loving Carrier has been won by him. “

            So? When will you clowns grasp that “debates” are not how scholars determine what theories make the most sense? Debates are just exercises in who is prepared with better one liners and rhetorical flourishes. Carrier “wins” debates because they are about all he does. Creationists “win” debates a lot for the same reason. They are still wrong.

            ” I predict that within a decade or two this this will be the majority view of scholars in the field. “

            Utter bullshit. Again, I’ve been hearing that for 20 years, so what is suddenly going to change? Mythicists are just recycling the same crappy arguments that they have been using for a fucking century. Are they suddenly going to magically became more convincing?

            “Ehrman acknowledges the lack of evidence and I will be willing to bet that he like others will go over to the mythicist l side in time. “

            You’re utterly delusional.

            ” I strongly recommend you read “

            That cobbled together collection of crap? The one with the contributions by such “scholars” as the nutty New Ager “Acharya S”? The one with a contribution by Rene Salm, the self-educated piano teacher? The one where Zindler reproduces an email exchange with Ehrman that just shows Zindler up as a irritating loon? I’ve read it. That fact you found that feeble garbage convincing speaks volumes.

            “I used to accept that Jesus existed until I read analyses of the evidence by Price, Ehrman, Fitzgerald and Carrier.”

            You found that incompetent amateur goober Dave Fitzgerald convincing?! This is getting hilarious.

            “My atheism is based on the lack of any evidence for a god.”

            So’s mine. What the fuck has that got to do with the existence of Jesus, you moron? Go away.

            13
          7. You should read about the docetic tradition and the ascension of Isaiah having Jesus crucified, just not on earth. You really need to read the sources about heaven, earth and the celestial plane between earth and the moon that were current at the time. I recommend reading Carrier at als in reply to Ehrman’s book. It destroys Ehrman’s position. You should read Carriers book at least if you haven’t. At the very least I would recommend reading Carriers work on the historicity of Jesus, Ehrman’s attempt to show Jesus existed and then Carriers rebuttal to this. That will bring you up to date on pretty much everything as between them they cover all the main points.

            10
          8. “You should read about the docetic tradition and the ascension of Isaiah having Jesus crucified, just not on earth.”

            I’ve been studying this stuff for 35 years – I know about both those things, thanks. No docetic tradition had Jesus being crucified in the heavens. Neither does the Ascension. You need to read the actual texts and scholarhip, not Carrier’s twisting of them to fit his silly theory.

            “That will bring you up to date on pretty much everything as between them they cover all the main points.”

            I’ve read all that too. Unlike you, I know much more of the background and scholarship and so can see through Carrier’s smoke and mirrors. I’m tired of you lecturing me as though you have a clue. You don’t. Goodbye.

            12
          9. “there is a growing minority of a different opinion.”

            The JM version of Dissent from Darwin. At least the Discotute tries to back up the claim with a list that can be signed.

            “Every debate I have seen in loving Carrier has been won by him.”

            Scientists do research, quacks like JMs and creationists do debates.

            “People want Jesus to be real because of their upbringing and prejudice.”

            Yeah and evilutionists want to deny the chreationist god because of similar reasons.

            “I predict that within a decade or two this this will be the majority view of scholars in the field.”

            Like creationists have been predicting that evilutionism will fall apart since Darwin wrote Origins.

            “Have you read Carrier’s work?”

            Like evilutionists should read Michael Behe and Stephen Meier, you mean.

            “I used to accept that ….”

            Like the creationists who used to be atheists and accept common descent, until ….

            Thanks for your strong support for my pet hypothesis: JM is the atheist version of creacrap. Keep on soldiering, Soldier Man.

          10. By “Soldier Man”:

            “This is similar the situation a few decades ago when most historians, archeologists and biblical scholars slowly had to acknowledge that Moses never existed. Now the majority view of scholars is that Moses was a fictional character and that the Exodus never happened.”

            I’ve often wondered: Is there any actual truth to this? It seems to be an often-repeated justification from Jesus Mythicists. So I immediately suspect that it’s at best a gross simplification.

          11. The idea that Moses is a mythical figure actually is the consensus view and that is a situation that has developed over the last few decades. But this is something Mythicists clutch hold of in the hope that one that their fringe idea will have the same trajectory. In the almost 20 years I’ve been watching Mythicism closely I have seen no sign of this acceptance happening. It’s something Mythicists invoke in much the same way all crackpots think they are a Galileo or Copernicus and so will eventually be vindicated. The problem is that for every Galileo who is vindicated there are tens of thousands of crackpots who are rightly rejected.

            As Sagan observed, “Yes, they laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

          12. @Tim

            What I’m really alluding to though, is more whether the idea that Moses was historical was really universally accepted.
            I just expect that people, especially scholars, in the 18th and 19th century would’ve at least questioned it.

          13. I can’t comment in detail but I’m pretty sure anyone who says it was “universally accepted” is overstating things. But seems to have been the consensus until fairly recently. This is what the Mythicists cling to.

  57. There might be some historical Moses behind the story of Exodus as the idea of a small band of slaves getting their freedom during a series of natural disasters in Egypt is far from impossible. However what the Book of Exodus presents as history certainly is impossible. So Moses is basically like King Arthur.

    1. Yeah. [Ra]moses was probably a rogue Egyptian priest who led the Levites out of Egypt, lived among the Midianites for a time, and introduced their idea of God (Yahweh) to the Israelites when they became assimilated into the 12 tribes

      1
      1
      1. “Yeah. [Ra]moses was probably a rogue Egyptian priest … “

        I don’t think you can use the word “probably” in that sentence.

        1. Barring a major discovery it seems one can fairly hold to the position that the story was a complete myth or that it was something akin to the Authurian legends that it has a tiny sliver of historical material.

          I suspect neither position is too comforting to Christians but if they were forced to choose one they would take the Authurian legend view as the other arguments requires them to do some fantasy explaining with the Transfiguration and numerous other things.

          2
          1
          1. Even from a secular standpoint, both extreme positions – that the Exodus narrative happened word-for-word & Moses was exactly as depicted, or that it was all made up & Moses was just a myth – are equally ridiculous. Especially the strong cultural memory of them being slaves in Egypt throughout the OT (which they rationalized treating foreigners as their native-born) and the fact their central figurehead had an Egyptian name — and had a Minianite wife (little stuff like that they couldn’t make go away).
            And more.
            But l think we’re getting out in the weeds.

            Point is, mythers selectively go with consensus on Moses being a mythical figure (but overlook another part of said consensus that says there likely was a Moses-like figure who inspired the legend) but deny consensus when it comes to Jesus. And wishfully think the shift in historicity will happen with Jesus.

  58. It seems to me the change in view of Academia on the historical Moses undercuts mytherism. It shows academia can change their views when presented with good arguments. Mythers should ( but won’t) wonder why Academia has not changed their mind when presented with the arguments for a Mytherism.

    1. Ah, but they will! It will happen any day now, I’m assured. And I’ve been assured that for … twenty years now. As with all fundamentalists, the Mythicists’ coming of the Kingdom of God is always just around the corner.

      1. Now that will be an interesting day indeed!!

        Mythers would call the new academic consensus the Kingdom of Carrier for starters. If for some reason they didn’t Carrier would insist they do.

        Carrier would be exalted to sainthood.

        On the other hand you would be exposed to be the Vatican operative they all knew you were….

        Now if there was a god and it was the Christian god this would be the day for Jesus to return, just to see the look of the mythers. And to see how many remain mythers.

      2. Sort of like how “Darwinism” is on the way out*, and will be replaced by Intelligent Design (if not full-on YEC) Real Soon Now.

        *Which has been predicted since like, 25 November 1859.

  59. According to the archaeologist Jodi Magness, there are no contemporaneous Greek or Jewish accounts of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Holy Land.

  60. Hey Tim, you say in the article that we only have a few surviving accounts for the destruction of Vesuvius but you say that it is doubtless that other records existed that have been lost. I have two questions. One, would those records have been contemporary? And two, would this strengthen the Christian argument that Jesus truly was something more than just a mere man because there could have been other documents from his life that were contemporary that have been lost that also mentioned his supposed miracles? I’m just asking this because I feel like Christian apologists try to twist this argument around by saying that even atheists admit that there were other documents that documented the destruction of Vesuvius, therefore, they say, there could have been other documents that documented the life of Jesus and all of the supernatural things that he did, therefore strengthening the case for the divinity of Jesus because there doubtless would have been other records mentioning him. I was just wondering how you would respond to this.

    1. would those records have been contemporary?

      Given the scale of the disaster, almost certainly yes.

      would this strengthen the Christian argument that Jesus truly was something more than just a mere man because there could have been other documents from his life that were contemporary that have been lost that also mentioned his supposed miracles?

      I don’t see how it “strengthens” it, but it potentially allows for it to some extent. There are still serious problems with this line of argument for why we have no non-Christian references to a genuinely wonder-working, risen-from-the-dead Jesus though.

      I feel like Christian apologists try to twist this argument around by saying that even atheists admit that there were other documents that documented the destruction of Vesuvius, therefore, they say, there could have been other documents that documented the life of Jesus and all of the supernatural things that he did

      They certainly utilise this line of argument (though I can’t see how it’s them “twisting it around” – they just using it as is). The problem with it is the more remarkable the Jesus they argue for is, the less this reasoning works. If we have a Jesus who is just a preacher or just a guy who perhaps did some faith healing and exorcisms, we would not expect any contemporary references to him; because we have none for any of the other such Jewish figures of the time that we are aware of. But if we’re talking about a guy who walked on water, miraculously fed 5,000 people, raised several people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself before flying into the heavens, the idea that no-one would mention any reports of all this gets increasingly more difficult to accept. This difficulty is multiplied by the fact that the survival of any ancient documentation of anything depends in part on chance but also on who had an incentive to preserve and copy these documents. Clearly there would be a very, very strong incentive for Christians to preserve any non-Christian reports of these amazing events. Yet we have none.

      This still doesn’t mean necessarily that none ever existed. But it makes the chances they did remarkably small. This is why apologists usually take the line that these things did happen but were still mostly or entirely ignored for various reasons and so not documented. Given the noteworthy nature of the supposed events, this argument is also very difficult to take seriously.

  61. I agree with everyone you said, but Christians could still try to make the argument that Jesus only appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, which they say would explain why we have no surviving extra biblical non Christian accounts, because no one ever knew about it.

    1. but Christians could still try to make the argument that Jesus only appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, which they say would explain why we have no surviving extra biblical non Christian accounts, because no one ever knew about it.

      Unfortunately the gospels these apologists are trying to defend don’t allow that argument to be easily made. Unless those Christians are prepared to dismiss the gospel accounts of how the guard placed at the tomb witnessed Jesus rising from the dead (matt 28:2-4) and reported it to the Jewish leaders (Matt 28: 11-15), they can’t make that argument. And that’s just regarding the resurrection of Jesus. The alleged feeding of 5,000 people and various other miracles including the raising of people from the dead were supposedly performed before large crowds. So that line of argument is going to be strained at best and essentially unsustainable unless the apologists reject parts of their own gospels.

      1. Well technically the text doesn’t say the guard “witnessed Jesus rising from the dead”; It simply says that the angel came and rolled the stone away but I still agree.

    2. Even if christian apologists manage to overcome all the problems mentioned several philosophical issues remain.
      Historical research is a branch of science, ie uses methodological naturalism. Ao this means that historical theories must be consistent with other branches of science. So when apologists use history to argue for the Resurrection (that’s the big topic of course) and Jesus walking on water they want to have it two ways. They use methodologican naturalism (all written sources belong to our natural reality and so did their authors) to argue for a miracle. But they reject it when it (specifically biology and physics) concludes it’s impossible. Because science (ie methodological naturalism) suddenly must remain silent on supernatural events. The first one to write about this issue was probably David Hume with Of Miracles.
      Another problem is that claiming “miracle!” doesn’t explain anything (something historical research tries, like all branches of science). Why does gravity always attract? “Miracle!” adds nothing to our understanding. And that’s because apologists and theologians never have succeeded in developing a reliable method to research a supposed supernatural realm. To gain credibility they have to parasitize on methodological naturalism.
      That would actually be OK with me if they were honest enough to admit that their conclusions on the Resurrection and on Jesus walking on water are faith based. As the Flying Spaghetti Monster shows it’s totally possibly to develop theologies (including islamic and hindu ones) that are consistent with science and hence with history. However they shouldn’t use history as a support for miracles. Believe that Jesus walked on water if you want to. Just never expect that you can ever convince me. Because I don’t have faith.

      2
      1
      1. Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
        The FSM in particular is a retarded rhetorical device usually by those who have no argument. It was invented as a reaction by Bobby Henderson so that’s not even in the same ballpark as what is being discussed

  62. FrankB I think that’s well said. I would agree that historians use methodological naturalism when trying to studying history. Historians should always try to be as unbiased, critical, and objective as they can when examining any subject, especially when it comes to miracles. As an atheist but also as someone who loves studying history properly for what it is, I think we should always strive to find other explanations for things rather than just appealing to incredulity.

  63. I agree with everything that you said Tim except for the walking on water and ascending into the heavens which were only seen by Jesus’s disciples, so again, they could make the argument that we wouldn’t expect to find mentions of them in other historical records if they were only witnessed by his followers.

  64. Tim,

    For a really strong example, we can even look at the political leaders of Judaea during Jesus’ life. Same place and same time as him.

    Roman governors:

    Coponius governed 6-9 CE
    Marcus Ambivalus governed 9-12 CE
    Annius Rufus governed 12-15 CE
    Valerius Gratus governed 15-26/27 CE

    None of these four men are referenced in any contemporary sources. Josephus is our only detailed source, who was born after all of them were likely dead and writing in the mid 70s and early 90s. They also are briefly mentioned as essentially footnotes by some later Roman historians. I think Tacitus briefly mentions Gratus’ career as a soldier under Quirinus before becoming prefect. Pilate is the rare exception, having a brief mention by his contemporary Philo.

    Jewish high priests:

    Ananus Ben Seth was high priest 6-15 CE
    Eleazar Ben Ananus was high priest 16-17 CE

    No contemporary sources for these men, just mentioned in Josephus decades later. Caiaphas’ name on sarcophagus was found, but we got nothing for Ananus Ben Seth and Eleazar Ben Ananus.

    Of course, mythicists are the type to not realize how uninformed they are of what they’re talking about. I bet every single scholar in this area knows off the top of their head who Valerius Gratus was, but these four Roman governors and two Jewish high priests would go completely over the heads of the people who repeat this “no contemporary sources” nonsense.
    They’ve somehow convinced themselves they know more than every single expert on first century Roman Judaea, but would stare blankly when told the names of the Roman governors before Pilate.

  65. Oh Tim – kudos and sympathy in equal measure.
    Before I read the comments to your posts, I thought it was a hard and thankless task to enlighten Voynich theorists about history and art.
    Reading some of the comments above, I feel I’ve been too unkind about Voynichero-types.

  66. Amusing, defensive article that doesn’t address my concern, at all. As an agnostic (in three simple words, “I don’t know”), I do not care about proving Jesus or any part of the Holy Trinity false – that would make me more of an atheist, and it’s very difficult to impossible to prove a negative, anyway. I simply require proof. I would require proof from an atheist to back up those beliefs as well. Fantastic claims require fantastic proof, and contemporary accounts are about all that exist for extraordinary events past a certain point of time.

    1. I have no idea what makes my article “defensive”. I simply explain why the “if there are not contemporary references to him, we can conclude he didn’t exist” is a non sequitur and a bad argument. It certainly didn’t set out to address any personal concern of yours, since I have absolutely no idea who you are. We aren’t talking about “any part of the Holy Trinity” here. We’re talking about the existence of the historical Jewish preacher who the later stories and much later theology (like “the Holy Trinity”) was based on. So no “fantastic claims” are being made here. That a Jewish preacher existed and theological ideas developed about him later is a very ordinary claim. Things like that happen all the time. And no historian requires contemporary accounts or even necessarily considers them superior to non-contemporary ones when it comes to assessing the likely existence of an ancient figure like this one. So it seems you are very confused about what is being said, what is being discussed and what is required here. Very, very confused.

    2. ” I do not care about proving Jesus ……”
      Nonsense. It’s perfectly possible to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was historical while being a staunch atheist. In case your interested (which would surprise me): Herman Philipse accepts this in the same book he disproves god and also the Resurrection. It’s called God in the Age of Science.
      Apparently you are like one of those fundagelicals who maintains “accepting a historical Jesus means accepting that he’s the Son of God”. That’s a non-sequitur, no matter from which side it comes – and a rather stupid one.

  67. You’re right on all counts, but please, we must all bare in mind the cultural context we live in. The majority of historians doing work on biblical history are Christians. So there will be a tilt where the “consensus of scholars” is always more Christian than it really ought to be.

    This is easy to see when you look at other examples. Almost no western scholar believes Rama was a real person. But in India there are many, many trained historians who argue Rama was real and write books about it. If I grew up in India i would likely be like “well, who can say. It seems like there’s plenty of healthy debate about this.” While in a non-Hindu country there really wouldn’t be. The same about Emperor Jimmu in Japan, or similarly ideologically charged figures.

    No historians believe Hercules really existed. I bet if Paganism never died out though, there would be plenty of historians talking about a historical Hercules, and smart people throwing arguments out on both sides.

    I think if far in the future Christianity becomes an extinct religion, people would on the whole accept mythicism as more likely than not. Once there isn’t a huge cohort of people who are ideologically committed to saying the opposite, people will tend to consider such a fabulous figure to just be a old myth.

    BTW we have examples in our own times of completely fictional people becoming objects of religious veneration and then believed to be real, just by the process of rumor and urban legends spreading. See: the cult of St. Jesus Malverde.

    1. “The majority of historians doing work on biblical history are Christians. So there will be a tilt where the “consensus of scholars” is always more Christian than it really ought to be.”

      The consensus is consistent even if we factor that in and ignore all the scholars who are Christians. So that stupid line of argument doesn’t actually work, sorry.

      BTW we have examples in our own times of completely fictional people becoming objects of religious veneration and then believed to be real, just by the process of rumor and urban legends spreading. See: the cult of St. Jesus Malverde

      It’s not clear if the Jesus Malverde legend has a person at its point of origin or not. Even if it does not, the cases where a person is elevated to a high status in later legend are vast while the cases of someone being regarded as existent when there was no such person at all are few. The former are always more likely than the latter.

      1. “the cases where a person is elevated to a high status in later legend are vast while the cases of someone being regarded as existent when there was no such person at all are few.”

        This seems to be an assumption more than anything actually provable. We only can verify Malverde is fake precisely because it happened so recently that we would expect contemporary records to certainly exist if he did. If it happened much longer ago in the past, you could simply say “the documents were probably lost”, and conclude he was real. So the fact is, we have no idea at all how many fictional people have come to be considered real.

        I disagree as well that you can just remove all the Christian scholars and then treat the remainder as objective. Atheist historians still studied with Christian scholars, read books by Christian scholars, and were influenced by Christian scholars in 100 different ways. As I said before, an atheist in India is far more likely to believe in a historical Rama than an atheist in the USA. Why, because they are a “crypto Hindu”? No, because they lived and grew up in a cultural context where such a thing was held by the majority to be plausible, and that influenced their whole process of thinking.

        Another example: when white supremacy was endorsed by the majority of people, the consensus of scientists was that Africans were less intelligent. These were hard scientists but because there was a prevailing cultural attitude they couldn’t get past, all their work was for naught, and irredeemably tainted by bias.

        It would take the end of Christianity as a majority religion and probably a hundred years afterwards, for people to get enough of a clear head on this issue to have consensus be meaningful.

        By the way I am not a mythicist. I think Jesus was a cult leader Ala David Koresh and I believe you hold the same position.

        1. This seems to be an assumption more than anything actually provable.

          No, it’s provable. We have literally thousands of historical people who have come to be regarded as gurus, bodhisattvas, Messiahs, holy prophets, divine beings or gods in human form. I can think of only about three figures who were claimed to live fairly recently, like Jesus, but don’t seem to have lived at all. And two of those may have actually been based on someone anyway.

          I disagree as well that you can just remove all the Christian scholars and then treat the remainder as objective.

          That’s not what I said, so you’ve just tried to move the goalposts.

          Atheist historians still studied with Christian scholars, read books by Christian scholars, and were influenced by Christian scholars in 100 different ways.

          Another weak and stupid argument. We are talking about critical scholars who have studied this stuff and are working within an academic, peer-reviewed environment. These include atheist, agnostic, Jewish and other non-Christian scholars, and there are thousands of them. They all present ideas about Jesus which completely contradict standard orthodox Christian beliefs about Jesus and present a historical Jesus that most Christians would find alien and completely unacceptable. Yet you’re trying to tell us that, despite having absolutely no problem with doing this, for some strange reason they stop short of accepting that Jesus existed because of the huge influence that Christianity has on them? That is ridiculous. Why would this huge influence not stop them from arguing Jesus wasn’t God, didn’t rise from the dead, didn’t do miracles, was probably a failed Jewish apocalyptic preacher etc. but – somehow – it would suddenly kick in an prevent them from accepting he didn’t exist? They don’t accept this because the arguments of Mythicism are flawed and stupid. That’s it.

          By the way I am not a mythicist.

          Amazing, because you argue as badly as they do and use the same idiotic arguments.

          1. My premise is thus: Christianity is so absolutely baked into the marrow of our bones in the west that everyone assumes there must be SOMETHING worthwhile about it.

            And nobody wants to go out to dinner with their Christian colleague at the University and say “I think you’re an idiot and your faith is a joke.” They feel fine saying that about mythicists, however, because they tend not to be fellow scholars that they have to be agreeable with. And I will offer a simple proof of this. Set aside our shared position and instead look at the two other alternative positions, the mythicist and the Christian:

            1. Jesus is a myth
            2. Jesus was a God who came back from the dead

            Which one is the most implausible of the two? The first at least is in line with the laws of the universe. The second is complete fairy tale nonsense.

            But which one is called fringe in academia? The first. The ones who believe the second can still get invited to speak at conferences even though what they believe is impossible. Not improbable but in violation of all known science.

            How is that not institutional bias?

          2. I understand your stupid “premise” and repeating it doesn’t make it any less stupid. I’ve already explained why it makes no sense. These scholars DO work alongside their Christian colleagues every day while openly teaching, publishing on and declaring things that say “I think your faith is wrong”. So your dumb idea that they would not do this with Mythicism is flatly and demonstrably idiotic. Again, they reject Mythicism because it’s a bad idea, not for fear of offending their Christian colleagues.

            But which one is called fringe in academia?

            The one that is fringe – Mythicism. You and I can agree that the second idea, that Jesus was a God who came back from the dead, is wrong, but it is at least supported by some of our sources. The Mythicist scenario isn’t found in any source. At all. It’s pure hypothesis. The fact we agree that the second idea is implausible has nothing to do with whether it’s a fringe idea. “Fringe” simply means “held by few scholars and almost no mainstream professionals in the field”. And like it or not, the second idea above is held by many scholars and by many mainstream professionals in the field. Whether this is reasonable, whether it should be or whether this is purely because of cultural norms and historical factors are totally different questions. But the fact is that Mythicism is fringe and the more orthodox Christian conception of Jesus is not. This is a matter of fact.

          3. “Which one is the most implausible of the two?”
            Funny guy with your funny joke.
            Apply your question to

            1. BCS theory is correct;
            2. God juggles magnets.

            Background: BCS theory describes superconductivity and predicts it’s impossible above 36 K. Still it happens. And unlike the case of Jesus there is no third option – thus far physicists keep on using BCS theory because they don’t have anything better.
            What this illustrates is that your non-argument is pointless. Methodological naturalism remains silent on the god question. You can research superconductivity (or the origin of life or the origin of our Universe) whether you believe or not (that a creator god juggles magnets as a hobby). The same for Jesus. But just like too many christians are butt hurt when historians of Antiquity do “present ideas about Jesus which completely contradict” their faith too many atheists are equally butt hurt when the same experts conclude that Jesus actually existed.
            The key word is method. Scientists may be subjective, scientific methods are not. And the methods used by historians of Antiquity only allow one conclusion regarding Jesus’ historicity, just like the methods used by cosmologists only allow one conclusion regarding the Big Bang. None of those methods says anything about any god.
            You only demonstrated that you don’t understand the difference between a proof and a category error.

    2. Who are these Indian Historians who write about Rama as a historical person? Are their books peer reviewed? What are their evidences for him being historical?

  68. “And like it or not, the second idea above is held by many scholars and by many mainstream professionals in the field.”

    Right and that is my entire point. The fact that is the case casts an aspersion over the entire field. Hiring faculty who believe impossible things are reality demonstrates their “consensus” doesn’t mean a thing. Having a Christian fundamentalist be a history professor is like hiring a flat earther to be a geology professor — it would prove the department doing the hiring is full of crap and their “consensus” also is.

    My opinion is that any theory that relies on supernatural causes automatically has zero plausibility. Apparently, the historical community doesn’t consider this a valid axiom for their work. That is why I don’t consider their work very reliable. The wildest hypothesis someone pulled out of their ass has more prior plausibility than the resurrection does. Let me be frank: do you agree my assertion in the prior sentence is true?

    1. The fact that is the case casts an aspersion over the entire field. Hiring faculty who believe impossible things are reality demonstrates their “consensus” doesn’t mean a thing.

      Whether these actually are “impossible things” is a position you (and I) hold, but it’s not an objective fact, sorry. Nor do most of the scholars in the field of NT studies tend to state openly that these things genuinely happened, since they are outside the scope of that field of study and lie within Theology. You don’t seem to know much about the relevant fields.

      Having a Christian fundamentalist be a history professor is like hiring a flat earther to be a geology professor

      You’re now talking about another field – history. Historians leave aside questions of whether miraculous events actually occured, because that is outside the purview of history. They do this even if they happen to believe the miracle in question did occur. Again, you don’t seem to understand the relevant fields.

      My opinion is that any theory that relies on supernatural causes automatically has zero plausibility. Apparently, the historical community doesn’t consider this a valid axiom for their work.

      Wrong. They do. Or rather, they see any claim to the supernatural to be outside the purview of history and so just look at the evidence for belief in these phenomena and the effect that belief had. See above.

      That is why I don’t consider their work very reliable.

      Then you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

  69. “Around 44 AD Theudas reportedly had a following of “a great part of the people” and led them to the Jordan with the promise that he would miraculously divide the waters.”
    You just played yourself and didn’t realize it.

  70. GoldenBollocks [pseudo], comment on “History for Atheists “Jesus Mysticism 3: No contemporary references to Jesus” posted on 14 April 2017. Tim Could you please check and see if I have this reference correct as I am writing my PhD and am double checking the references I have. I believe the year should be 2018. Thank you very much.

  71. “Similarly weak is his argument that because Seneca’s cosmological treatise Questiones Naturales makes no mention of the alleged natural phenomena claimed to mark key points in Jesus’ career according to the later gospel accounts (the so-called Star of Bethlehem, the earthquake reported in gMatt’s resurrection narrative and the darkness that was supposed to have marked his death on the cross), somehow this means Jesus did not exist. This may be a reasonable argument that these reported phenomena did not occur…”

    Don’t Thallus and Phlegon record the darkness? I could be mistaken, but the referenced text from Thallus from Julius Africanus does mention this darkness as taking place in Judaea specifically, but the Phlegon one (to my knowledge) is much more problematic.

    1. We have no idea what THallus wrote, because we have is vague, third hand reference via George Syncellus referencing Julius Africanus. We can’t be sure if Thallus actually connected any eclipse to Jesus or if this is just Africanus’ (or some earlier Christian’s) interpretation.

  72. A note on Jesus’s fame in the gospels: Matthew seems to have sourced his claim on Mark 3:8 – “Hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great numbers from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon.” As you say, of course, this can’t be taken at face value, but Mark does indeed depict Jesus as being famous outside of Galilee.

    1. True. But my point was that most of the earliest gospel and the synoptics generally have him as being a local phenomenon in a very small and out of the way region.

      1. I suppose you’re right, as Matthew expands on the list by mentioning Syria and Jesus generally doesn’t go far afield. Still, the claim that “the earliest gospel does not depict Jesus’ ‘fame’ spreading beyond the rather tiny region of Galilee” is a bit misleading.

        This off topic, but I just stumbled across your review of Stephen Greenblatt’s “The Swerve”. I had to write a report on that book for a European History class, and I think your critiques were spot-on.

        1. Fair enough. One silly nitpicking critic in the past jumped the fact I don’t refer to Mark 3:8 and link it to Matt 4:23-25 as a way to dismiss my argument here, so I’ve now edited my article to take Mark 3:8 into account. Thanks for your comments on this.

          1. I don’t mean to be a nitpicker, but I just happened upon a post by that same critic arguing that, in mentioning Seneca and Gallio, Fitzgerald was referring to Jesus’s fame rather than his existence per se. Your objections to the arguments from silence obviously still stand, but you might want to edit in a mention so as to not be accused of “misrepresenting” Fitzgerald.

  73. I’ve heard this argument described as taking dozens of books from a library written between 1934 and 1996, finding that none of them mention Carl Sagan, and therefore concluding that there was no Sagan. Is that a fair comparison?

  74. Fitzgerald’s Gallio argument is already paper-thin, but it gets worse (or, from the perspective of someone mocking him, better) – if you look up the scene in Acts, it never comes to a trial. Indeed, before Paul says *anything* in his defence, Gallio said that Jewish religious disputes were not a legal matter and thus of no interest to him and thus dismissed the case. Again, the mythicists rely on people not reading the relevant texts.

  75. I may be wrong here, but this struck me as odd. I was skimming one of the old response articles at Vridar and came across this reference from Fitzgerald:

    Eusebius mentions that Philo also wrote a book on Pilate’s persecution of the Jews (Historia Ecclesiastica, book 2, ch.5) – one more book where Jesus certainly should have been mentioned, but obviously wasn’t, since neither Eusebius nor anyone else ever cites this book for historical documentation of Jesus and his famous execution under Pilate’s watch. (p. 44)

    I decided to check both Eusebius and Philo, and (once again, I may well be missing something) it seems that Fitzgerald accidentally invented a lost work of Philo.

    In Church History 2.5, Eusebius discusses two works by Philo: the Embassy to Gaius and On the Virtues, both of which are extant. He says:

    “Meanwhile in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crime against the Savior was committed, made an attempt on the temple in Jerusalem, contrary to the privileges accorded to the Jews, and harassed them severely,…”

    This incident is detailed in Embassy to Gaius beginning at 38.299. This is the only explicit connection that Eusebius makes between Pilate and a work of Philo in Church History 2.5. Either I have misread Eusebius or Fitzgerald mistakenly thought that the depredations of Pilate were in a work separate from Embassy to Gaius.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *