History for Atheists on the Non Sequitur Show 4: Jesus Mythicism

History for Atheists on the Non Sequitur Show 4: Jesus Mythicism

My fourth appearance on the Non Sequitur Show was by request and I strove to explain why Jesus Mythicism is not parsimonious and why the majority of scholars conclude a historical Jesus most likely existed. We ran out of time before I could get through all I wanted to present, but judging from the irrational reactions of the show’s resident Mythicists, it would not have mattered what I said anyway. Indeed, online Mythicism seems to be rapidly becoming like a fanatical cult.

What a Question! How to Answer?

I have to admit that I was hesitant about accepting Steve and Kyle’s invitation for this show. Having seen their audience’s reaction when I touched on the historicity of Jesus the first time I appeared on the Non Sequitur Show, I knew just trying to cram any kind of coherent critique of Mythicism into one and a half hours would be near impossible, let alone going over the reasons a historical Jesus most likely existed as well. I toyed with the idea with avoiding Mythicism altogether and just tackling the question as “how did Christianity begin”, but given that I knew there were die hard Mythicist believers in their audience, I decided that Mythicism had to be addressed somehow.

So in the end I took the tack of trying to explain that parsimony was the key to historical analysis, showing in detail how Mythicist arguments are always less parsimonious than their alternatives and then giving some idea of the context for the historical Jesus and how that indicates he was a Jewish preacher of his time; most likely an apocalyptic prophet. This was pretty ambitious I have to admit and in the end it proved too much so, since I barely got to the historical context of Jesus when I ran out of time.

The Non Sequitur live chat prepares to listen with open minds

Evidence that Demands a … Definition

The result was, inevitably, a lop-sided presentation that focused mainly on the problems with Mythicism. Now, I strongly suspect that even if I had been able to complete what I wanted to present, the Mythicist true believers would not have been persuaded, though it does seem from the live chat reaction that some of the “undecided” were only just starting to get an inkling of who and what non-Christian scholars see the historical Jesus as when we had to call a halt. But since I ended up mainly critiquing Mythicism, a lot of the reaction was that I had not made the case for a historical Jesus. Well, I had – but it seems the argument that a historical Jesus is more parsimonious than the often ridiculously contrived and supposition-laden arguments of the Mythicists was a bit subtle for some. What they wanted was “evidence”. From the live chat and comments:

“Tim is clearly smart and well read. However, he didn’t present convincing evidence for the existence of Jesus”


“I expected him to at least try and show some evidence for historicity.”


“What evidence do you have to support your position?”

Again, my central argument was that if all the source material (Christian , Jewish and pagan) says Christianity had its origin in this man Jesus, this gives us a strong prima facie case that this is indeed what happened. As I noted, this does not in itself necessitate a historical Jesus therefore did exist, but it does mean that any alternative explanation of how these stories of an earthly, historical Jesus arose needs to be far more parsimonious than the fairly simple idea that there … was an earthly historical Jesus. And the problem is that, far from being more parsimonious than this idea, Mythicism is a crazed tangle of special pleading, weak excuses for lacking evidence, contrived readings, suppositions piled on suppositions and patently motivated reasoning, often of the most absurd kind.

This is why I took the time to hold up two Mythicist arguments to detailed scrutiny and show why most informed critics find them flawed, contrived and, frankly, ridiculous. Of course, the fact that I could barely touch on the material that indicates there was likely a historical Jesus before we ran out of time did not help make the parsimony of the alternative to Mythicism crystal clear, but for many the cry for “evidence” seems to have been little more than a dogmatic mantra anyway:

“We don’t have a shred of historical evidence that Jesus existed”


“There is no evidence of a historical Jesus—full stop.”


“Wanna know what counts as “evidence” for historical figures? Stuff they wrote. Plato’s Republic is evidence that Plato existed.”

Not all of the audience were repeating this stuff by any means, but enough were for one of the hosts, Steve McRae, to respond to the claims I was not presenting “evidence” with an exasperated “He HAS!”

A large part of the issue here is that the word “evidence” gets misused and misunderstood by many in this debate the way the word “theory” gets misused by those who accept Creationism. This seems to be because in colloquial usage, “evidence” is often used as a synonym for “proof” or at least “information that clearly indicates something is true or occurred”. It is certainly used in that latter sense in the sciences, which also seems to be a source of many people’s confusion when they hear it used in historical discussions like this one.

In historical analysis, however, “evidence” means “any material or source of information pertinent to the question”. So a historian goes through a structured heuristic to establish what sources of information are likely to help analyse the point in issue and then uses them to determine the argument to the best explanation for how that information came to be. The “evidence” therefore is not “proof” and is not even necessarily anything particularly indicative one way or the other. It is simply the raw material for analysis.

This naive confusion by many as to what the word “evidence” means leads to some reacting to any reference to “the evidence” in relation to the historicity of Jesus by a knee-jerk scream that “there is none”. And it leads to some others being confused by the fact that none of the material being analysed represents some kind of slam dunk or rock solid conclusion. Because few who approach this subject without historical training understand that questions of ancient history worth analysis rarely involve hard and fast “proof”, all this talk of parsimony and things being “most likely” just sounds wishy-washy and unconvincing. Yet again, the fact that many atheists come from science backgrounds means that the way a humanities discipline like history works is mysterious and more than a little puzzling.

That aside, it is also clear from some of the comments that the bar of what would be accepted as “evidence” was being deliberately raised to a level where a historical Jesus would simply never meet it. This, rather than simple naivete, seems to be the major motivation behind demands for “contemporary references to Jesus” or the one above about “stuff they wrote”. I have already tackled the “contemporary references” demand in detail (see “Jesus Mythicism 3: ‘No Contemporary References to Jesus'”), but the demands for writings by Jesus himself is rather like claims we should have inscriptions to him or even, bizarrely, “examples of his carpentry work”. At best, these silly demands just show how little many people understand about the kind of evidence we can expect for the bulk of ancient figures. As with the “contemporary references” argument, the yardstick by which we measure how much or what kind of evidence we can expect for someone in the ancient world is what we have for analogous figures. For Jesus, this means what we have for other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants. Which means we actually can not expect to have any contemporary references to him, let alone any surviving writings, coin portraits or statues, let alone a nice china cabinet he knocked together for Mrs. Cohen with “J. Christ, Main Street, Nazareth” written in pencil on the back.

So most of these calls for evidence are simply confused and many of them are made in bad faith anyway. And for others, any inclusion of Biblical texts in the analysis of evidence at all causes a kind of weird emotional aneurysm.

“You Can’t Use the Bible to Prove the Bible!”

If I could give an award for the dumbest comment that I tend to get in these discussions it would have to go to “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible!” This is an argument that makes sense in another context, but makes no sense at all in this one. Yet, right on cue, we got it and versions of it in the comments:

“Is this guy using the Bible to prove the Bible?”


“First century mystics writing down nonsense isn’t “evidence” of anything”


“Bible isn’t evidence Tim!”


“What we have are anonymous texts written by mystics NOT HISTORIANS!!!!!!!!!”


“Plutarch’s book about Isis and Osiris proves they existed LOL”

The argument that “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible” has its origin as a legitimate response to a very specific argument used by fundamentalist Christians to defend Biblical literalism, claiming that because 1Timothy 3:16 says that “all scripture is inspired by God” this means the Bible is all true. In that context, noting that using a Biblical text to “prove” the Bible is divinely inspired can be argued to be circular reasoning. Using that argument to dismiss any reference to Biblical texts in relation to the question of the historicity of Jesus, however, makes no sense.

To begin with, arguing that a historical Jesus most likely existed is not “proving the Bible”. A historical Jesus as the point of origin for the later Biblical stories about “Jesus Christ” does not get much beyond establishing a base line for the examination of those later claims, and does not even get close to “proving” them.

Secondly, those who use this weird argument (which is actually little more than a reflex catch-cry) still seem to have an oddly Christian conception of “the Bible” as a single coherent work, rather than as a collection of disparate ancient texts by various authors in a variety of genres written over a centuries-wide range of time. Historians who use Biblical texts (and non-canonical, apocryphal and Patristic Christian texts) in relation to the question of the historicity of Jesus are not treating them theologically, let alone as part of any single “book”. They are using them the way any historian uses ancient texts – by examining them critically and sceptically. As with any ancient text or source, a critical scholar asks key questions about these texts. Who wrote them? When? What might their sources have been? Who were they written for? Why? In what context? What was the author’s objective? What biases do they seem to have had? Historians and textual scholars treat all sources this way and do not take any of them at naive face value. This critical and forensic examination of texts is a fundamental part of what scholars of any question relating to the ancient world do. For many, it is pretty much all they do.

So the idea that these ancient texts have to be automatically ruled as inadmissible evidence simply because, centuries later, they became part of the canon of the Bible is boneheaded. To claim that, somehow, the very texts that give us the earliest references to and stories about Jesus cannot be used to examine how those stories arose is absolutely absurd – they are obviously the key pieces of evidence as to the origins of those stories. By establishing how they inter-relate with each other, examining how the parallel stories they tell about Jesus evolve and change and working out why, we can extrapolate backward and come to conclusions about where these stories came from. These texts are solid evidence of something very important – what their writers and intended audiences believed about Jesus. Given that they are written over almost a century, starting in the 50s AD and extending into the early second century, they also give us a series of snapshots in time, indicating how these beliefs about him evolved. To claim we somehow “cannot” use  this information critically to work out the origins of these beliefs is totally ridiculous. Many of those who make this claim simply do not understand how critical analysis of these texts is done. And others just want to exclude this material because they do not like the conclusions most critical scholars draw from them. Strangely, they do not seem to have a problem with their favourite Mythicist writers use the same texts, but that seems to be because they draw conclusions that the true believers like. Emotion drives many of these people, not reason.

“That’s Not (True) Mythicism!”

One point that got some of the more hysterical and the less attentive viewers agitated was my observation that many people find Mythicism appealing because it gives them the biggest stick with which to hit Christianity. Anyone who spends any time interacting with Mythicism true believers knows what I am referring to here. It is fairly clear that for many of these people, the primary motivation – consciously or otherwise – is finding a way to debunk Christianity. This is why we see people raising the bar of what they will accept as evidence to absurd heights. I regularly point out that if we consistently applied the standards of evidence I often see demanded for the historical Jesus in these debates, this would result in about 90% of ancient figures being ruled as “mythical”. And this observation is usually met with shrugs. They do not actually care about the methods and standard of historical standards or about history generally – they just want Jesus to not exist and Christianity to be as wrong as possible.

Of course, this observation that many Mythicist true believers are driven mainly by emotion was met with … well, emotion:

“That’s not what Mythicism is Tim.”

“It’s hard to take you seriously when you start out with a complete lie.”

“Wrong!”

“Mythicism is not emotionally based.”

Some later tried to claim I had said that all Mythicists were motivated purely by the desire to debunk Christianity, ignoring the fact that I repeatedly stressed words like “many”, “often” and “some” and even went on to repeat and stress that I actually was not attributing this motivation to every Mythicist. At 21.36 I explicitly point out “this is obviously not every Mythicist“. Then at 22.14 I strongly emphasise that “I am not saying these are the only reasons people accept Mythicism”. I also made it clear I was talking about people who accept Mythicism, and not (necessarily) the main proponents of the Mythicist thesis. I could not have been more clear, but the reaction just proved my point. Emotionally-invested people tend to hear what they think they hear. As the hosts noted and several observers commented later, the slightly crazed reaction of some of the true believers to this point and pretty much everything else I said proved their emotional motivations better than anything I could say.

“He’s Just Bashing Carrier!”

Definitely the weirdest reaction came when I took the time to go into a couple of Mythicist arguments to show how contrived and unparsimonious they have to be to keep the whole thesis from collapsing. I could have chosen any number of arguments from any number of Mythicists. Given the varieties of Mythicims embraced by most atheists, it would not have been very useful to use the incoherent New Age ramblings of “Acharya S” or one of the kooky pseudo historical conspiracy theories of Joseph Atwill or Francesco Carotta. No Mythicist theory is particularly good, but – unlike the ones just mentioned – some at least try to play by the rules of scholarly analysis.

So it made far more sense to use a version of the “Celestial Jesus” form of Mythicism championed by Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and, of course, Dr. Richard Carrier PhD. This is, after all, about as scholarly as Mythicism is ever going to get and it is the form of Mythicism I usually get parroted at me by online true believers.

Given that in the short time available I could not tackle the whole of or even much of this thesis, I had to select a couple of arguments that illustrated why those who know the material and its background do not find this theory convincing. Most of the time when I discuss this topic I can guarantee that someone will invoke Carrier within minutes and I cannot count the number of times I have been informed that “you need to read Carrier’s book” (though it is always amusing how often, when I show I have read his book, the person I am talking to reveals they actually … have not). And, again, the first time I appeared on Steve and Kyle’s show the live chat and the comments section were abuzz with people insisting that Carrier was the very man to refute my naughtiness, that he was the gold standard of Mythicist argument, that he was an Ivy League graduate with a peer reviewed book, a towering academic colossus bestriding the world of scholarship etc.

So it is indeed curious that when I went to the effort of taking apart Carrier’s hilariously bad argument about how Paul is refering to a “cosmic sperm bank” in the sky in Romans 1:3 suddenly this great enthusiasm for Carrier as the mighty standard bearer of Mythicism … collapsed.

Suddenly, my choice of Carrier as my example was declared unrepresentative and we were told that debunking Carrier was somehow missing the point:

“The issue I have is that Tim’s entire time was all talking about Carrier as if Carrier were the only person he could have rebutted”


“I was VERY disappointed that no actual argument was put forward… Just “Carrier is wrong” over and over for an hour…”

Of course, we saw something similar when Bart Ehrman took the time to debate Robert M. Price on this topic in October 2016. Despite great anticipation by Mythicists, the debate was easily won by Ehrman, as even the Mythicist true believers had to admit. But then, of course, the complaint was that it was Price who was not representative of Mythicism and that it was Carrier who was the real doughty champion of the cause. It seems no matter which Mythicist you defeat, it is apparently the wrong one.

Even stranger was the sour insistence by some that all I did was “attack Carrier”. Again, the hosts objected strongly to this claim; even going to lengths to state outright that I had kept solely to attacking Carrier’s arguments. As I pointed out later off-air, if anyone bothers to note what I say about Carrier as a person on the show, it is all actually quite complimentary: I say he is a smart guy, well trained, with good knowledge of most of the sources, good linguistic facility etc. Keep in mind that I am talking about the same Richard Carrier who consistently calls me a “liar” and says I am “an asscrank …. a hack …. a tinfoil hatter …. stupid …. a crypto-Christian, posing as an atheist …. a pseudo-atheist shill for Christian triumphalism [and] delusionally insane”, so I should not have to note that I was actually being pretty restrained. But this was because I do not care about all that childish stuff he indulges in – I care about the arguments. His arguments are bad and they are demonstrative of how bad Mythicism is as a thesis. And that is the point. 

But when people cannot respond to that with reason, they have to resort to emotion. Some of the stuff in the live chat was astoundingly stupid (I mention Paul and angels – a commenter says “so this guy believes angels are real?!”) But much of it shows that, for many, Mythicism is a substitute set of faith-based beliefs, propped up by apologist style parroted arguments and invocations of books they have not read and texts they have never even seen. For these people it is fundamentalism in another form and their cultish devotion to it is, for rationalists, simply weird.

102 thoughts on “History for Atheists on the Non Sequitur Show 4: Jesus Mythicism

  1. That comment about Plato is particularly silly: The relevant analogy here would be whether the Dialogues and non-Platonic references are evidence that *Socrates* existed. It’s certainly true that Plato’s Socrates is heavily fictionalized, and AFAIK there are no writings attributed to him — maybe there should be a Socrates Mythicism theory? (I bet someone who knows more about the subject than I do could do a damn convincing job of coming up with one, as a parody of Jesus Mythicism).

    1. In 1827 Jean-Baptiste Pérès wrote a parody of the Jesus Mythicism of his day called “Grand Erratum: The Non-Existence of Napoleon Proved”. More recently there has been a similar parody using the methods of Carrier et al to prove that Richard Carrier also doesn’t exist.

      23
        1. A lot of it is nonsense. The whole section on Joseph of Arimatea is basically fiction. We have no idea if any such person existed, since he seems to be mainly a narrative device to get Jesus off the cross and into a tomb. The whole tomb element in the stories is dubious in itself, so this otherwise-unmentioned Joseph who pops into the narrative for a couple of lines to kindly provide this tomb is unlikely to be historical. And all that stuff about him effectively faking the resurrection because he felt sorry for Jesus’ distraught followers is so silly it’s barely worth noting.

          That Paul was instrumental in spreading Christianity beyond its Jewish sectarian roots is not controversial. But any absolutely statement about how it would definitely have died out if it wasn’t for Paul is overstating things. Judaism had spread into an Empire-wide diaspora long before Jesus’ time and even if Paul never converted, it is very likely Christianity would have spread well beyond Judea anyway.

          But the Constantine section is the silliest. Christianity certainly was a small sect, but it was definitely not “losing in its competition with various pagan religions”. On the contrary, it was expanding exponentially for reasons outlined by Bart Ehrman in his recent book The Triumph of Christianity. Even if Constantine had not converted, Christianity’s inherent exclusivity meant that it would have most likely become a dominant faith for pure demographic reasons. And Christianity was definitely not losing any battle for dominance with Mithraism, which was always a very small, very exclusive and male-only gentleman’s club that was invitation only. It was never a mass faith and was not any kind of great rival to Christianity.

    2. I can’t remember where, but I have actually read the serious claim that there is less direct evidence for the existence of Socrates than for Isu ben Isep. The criticism would almost certainly also apply for Pythagoras.

      1. Xenophon refers to Socrates several times in his historical writings. Given that he was a younger contemporary and a student of Socrates, that makes it pretty clear the guy existed. Aristophanes also lampoons Socrates in The Clouds. Of course, we could use Mythicist “logic” and say those writings were about a “celestial Socrates” or rule them out on other specious grounds, but people only seem to reserve those arguments for Jesus.

        11
      2. I’m guessing the person who claimed that about Socrates was a Christian apologist. According to some, there seems to be more evidence for Jesus than for pretty much all historical figures combined, pre-1900 (I exaggerate. A bit).

        (Aside: I googled “isu ben isep” and the only hit I can find is Thony deploying it with amusing effect against a clueless Christian who is offended by the “CE” dating convention).

  2. I doubt that people who say “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible” would be aware of what 1 Timothy 3:16 says or fundamentalist Christians use of it.

    1
    2
        1. Think you’re misding the point, Graham. No one needs to be aware of what is in first Timothy. The loint was to show where the criticism originated.

          Unfortunately, atheists str no more immune to reciting what sounds good than Christians are. The question is whether using the NT as a source or more precisely sources for examining the question of historicity is a circular argument or ” using the bible to prove the bible”
          As Tim pointed out, concluding there was a historical Jesus, doesnt prove the Bible. So the next question is whether atheists are any better at recognizing their errors than their fundamentalist counterparts.

          1. I’d say no, especially on internet. Even more so than in daily life tribalism results in the most radical position becoming the most popular one and group thinking. For some reason I can emotionally but not intellectually relate to a mythical Jesus being the most radical anti-christian position atheists can think of. It’s fun – again, especially on internet – to upset apologists, especially the arrogant bombastic ones. But anyone who reflects on the reaction of christians too iso reveling in his/her own smartness will learn that promoting JM doesn’t cut the ice. They know they have the facts on their side this time.
            Recognizing your own errors takes a lot of effort, especially when it’s the error of the group you belong to. And even when you make that effort success is not guaranteed. That applies to me as much as to anyone else.

  3. The contrived nature of mytherism seems to be it’s biggest weaknesses. To get around references to a human historical Jesus you have to imagine a group of Christians who believed in a Celestial Jesus, but left no evidence. You have to postulate an unknown group who called themselves Brothers in the Lord. You have to believe in a sperm bank in the sky. To get around Tacitus you have to ignore his general reliability and say he isn’t satisfactory as a source because he was not contemporary to a historical Jesus ( yet you don’t dismiss the rest of his writings for that reason) Occam’s Razor shaves this garbage to the bone.

    13
    1. And that it needs a several-hundred page book to explain it. The cosmic sperm bank has to literally be read into the text with enormous effort and more mental gymnastics than one who has to explain a global flood when geology outright disproves one. Also these fanatics never give me an answer as to why Peter and Paul were not call “brother of the Lord/Jesus”, just James (who coincidentally was listed among his siblings in Matthew 13:55). Also when I point out that Paul referenced the Last Supper, they’re silent.

    2. The sperm bank in the sky is unlikely to be a mainstream mythicist proposition or ‘doctrine’ (and it’s likely it’s proposer means it allegorically).

      If Tacitus’ Annals 15 is not original, it wouldn’t matter if Tacitus as a contemporary or not.

      1. “The sperm bank in the sky is unlikely to be a mainstream mythicist proposition “

        Which means the Mythicists who (understandably) don’t resort to Carrier’s ridiculous argument are stuck with Romans 1:3 – a reference to Jesus as a descendant of a human, historical king. It is pretty much impossible to reconcile that with any claim that Paul did not therefore also see Jesus as human and (recently) historical.

        “and it’s likely it’s proposer means it allegorically”

        No he doesn’t. He makes it quite clear he means it literally.

        “If Tacitus’ Annals 15 is not original, it wouldn’t matter if Tacitus as a contemporary or not.”

        Except it is original.

        10
        1. Romans 1:3 – a reference to Jesus as a descendant of a human, historical king.

          Yep, though there’s no way of knowing if He is.

          Paul [saw] Jesus as human and (recently) historical.

          Certainly there’s a few passages that suggest that, but how reliable are they?

          1. “Yep, though there’s no way of knowing if He is.”

            That’s irrelevant. If Paul says he believes Jesus to be the descendant of a human king, he clearly saw Jesus as human. Romans 1:3 even has him saying he was a descendant of David “according to the flesh” – i.e. in his human aspect, since Paul also saw Jesus as having a heavenly pre-existence and a post-resurrection heavenly existence.

            “Certainly there’s a few passages that suggest that, but how reliable are they?”

            They don’t just “suggest” that. And what makes you think they are somehow “unreliable”?

          2. Romans 1:1b-3
            “set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh”

          3. Unreliable how?

            If they attest to what Paul believed, then they are reliable as to what the beliefs of Paul, our earliest writer discussing the matter, were. We also need to give enough time for Christianity to start in Rome, since Paul is sending his letter TO pre-existing Roman Christians.

            Generally speaking, Jesus is believed to have died around 30 AD. For Paul, we have to give him enough time to persecute Christians, stop persecuting Christians, go to Arabia, found churches there, come back, found more churches, write letters to them, and then head to Rome.

            That busy of an itinerary doesn’t give us much time for there to exist a form of Christianity that doesn’t believe in a historical Jesus.

        2. Romans 1:3 – a reference to Jesus as a descendant of a human “according to the flesh”

          I just looked that up. It has genomenou ek spermatos Dauid κατὰ sarka/ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα/ “having come of [the] sperm/seed of David according to the flesh” https://saintebible.com/text/romans/1-3.htm

          The variation γίνομαι or a derivative of it can be used too: ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ https://saintebible.com/thayers/1096.htm

          1. Yes. And? “Of the seed of David” is a figurative expression meaning “a descendant of David”, as shown by about 75% of the uses of the word σπέρμα in the Septuagint. He is saying that Jesus was a human descendant of a human king.

          2. Yes, and I do not need to be an erotic fiction author to tell you that “seed” can apply to human, ah, ‘sperma’ too…

          3. It can. But reference to how the phrase is used in the Septuagint makes it clear that this is not how it’s being used here. Understand?

      2. Do you have any particular reason to think it isn’t authentic?

        From Annals 15

        “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

        Immediately we can by reading this that Tacitus did not have a good view of Christians so it is highly unlikely he would have consulted them. Also this passage is clearly not written by Christians as it insults Christianity and has nothing positive to say about the religion. Hardly something one would suspect of a pious forgery.

        So we know this came from the ancient historian Tacitus, but could it be hearsay?

        Not according to Tacitus

        Here was why he wrote down his history

        “My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.

        So its not a pious forgery, it is not simply what Christians claimed and it is not hearsay so in the end that leaves it is a historical account. So it shows beyond any reasonable doubt a historical Jesus existed.

        I have been an atheist for almost 20 years. I have no need whatsoever for a historical Jesus to exist. I accept it because it makes the most sense.

        1. [</.Annals 15.44] insults Christianity and has nothing positive to say about the religion. Hardly something one would suspect of a pious forgery.

          It could be a nuanced attempt to portray how Christianity might have been perceived in the time of Tacitus i.e. following the persecution theme.

          Tacitus wrote the second passage you quote (Annals 4.11) in relation to another scenario: the poisoning of Drusus [after drinking from a cup handed to him by Tiberius].

          1. “It could be a nuanced attempt to portray how Christianity might have been perceived in the time of Tacitus i.e. following the persecution theme.”

            So the fact it looks genuine is actually evidence it isn’t? Give us a break.

            “Tacitus wrote the second passage you quote (Annals 4.11) in relation to another scenario”

            Yes. So? He regularly noted when he was simply reporting hearsay, or what was “the popular report” or simply what was “said”. He was highly sceptical and careful about what he reported. So what he says there condemning dependence on hearsay is completely in keeping with his attitude across the board.

          2. It could have been, do you have any actual evidence to support this claim though? Many things could have been after all. Also exactly what motive would an ancient Christian forger have for this?

          3. Kris, re

            what motive would an ancient Christian forger have

            To shore up the notions of a historical Jesus (& his execution by Pilate), and of Nero persecuting Christians.

            do you have any actual evidence to support this claim

            I have previously seen some arguments for it, but would need to re-read them before using them.

          4. “To shore up the notions of a historical Jesus (& his execution by Pilate), and of Nero persecuting Christians.”

            No-one questioned the existence of Jesus until the eighteenth century, so there was no impetus to “shore up” that idea. And Tertullian confidently assures his pagan critics to “consult your records” on Nero’s persecution of Christians, so it doesn’t seem that needed any “shoring up” either. Nero’s persecution of Christians is also referred to by Suetonius.

            “I have previously seen some arguments for it, but would need to re-read them before using them.”

            I analyse and answer those in detail here.

          5. No-one questioned the existence of Jesus until the eighteenth century, so there was no impetus to “shore up” that idea.

            Weren’t there disputes about that the nature of Jesus’ existence in the first few centuries? Via various texts such as the Gospel of Peter? Sects that Irenaeus referred to?

            Tertullian confidently assures his pagan critics to “consult your records” on Nero’s persecution of Christians, so it doesn’t seem that needed any “shoring up” either. Nero’s persecution of Christians is also referred to by Suetonius.

            The “records” Tertullian referred to could have been Suetonius which is more vague in that it just refers to Christians.

            Interestingly the Gospel of Peter attributes the crucifixion to Herod, so the circumstances of Jesus crucifixion and it’s key protagonists was in dispute via that, at least. Having an earlier text would help there (though Annals doesn’t seem have bee employed to counter such issues).

            1
            4
          6. “Weren’t there disputes about that the nature of Jesus’ existence in the first few centuries? Via various texts such as the Gospel of Peter? Sects that Irenaeus referred to?”

            Yes – the nature of his historical, earthly existence. There are no mentions anywhere of anyone claiming he didn’t have a historical, earthly existence.

            “The “records” Tertullian referred to could have been Suetonius which is more vague in that it just refers to Christians.”

            So he is confident that the Neronic persecution happened. And Suetonius is not “vague” on Nero persecuting Christians – he is quite clear. And the Neronic persecution is also referred to by Melitius of Sardis.

            “the Gospel of Peter attributes the crucifixion to Herod, so the circumstances of Jesus crucifixion and it’s key protagonists was in dispute via that, at least.”

            Wrong. This is just another Mythicist claim that people keep repeating without checking the text. Peter just takes the earlier gospels’ tendency to shift the blame for the death of Jesus from Pilate and the Romans to the Jews and extends it. So Pilate appears in the very first line of that gospel, washing his hands after condemning Jesus to death. This gospel then has Herod taking charge of the actual execution and “the people” carrying it out. It emphasises that Pilate washes his hands of Jesus’ execution, but also notes that this was not done by “Herod [or] any one of his judges”. It also presents Joseph of Arimathea not as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin but as “the friend of Pilate and the Lord”. And throughout its depiction of the execution and burial the emphasis is on how it’s “the Jews” who are the bad guys and leaves Pilate to one side, with no mention of any Roman involvement. But Pilate is still the one who condemns Jesus to die.

  4. Those mythicist responses seem to be the same responses I hear from new atheists about literally every topic. Perhaps those calling themselves “freethinkers” aren’t at all bothered by the fact that their thinking is done by their heroes (like Carrier) for them.

    6
    1
  5. Are you gonna explain the evidence for Jesus next time you’re on Non Sequitur or talk about something else in history?

    1. If they have me back I’ll talk about what I think the historical Jesus was (an apocalyptic preacher) and why. That will include why I conclude there are a few things about Jesus that are likely and plenty more which are merely possible.

      1. Hey Tim, you mentioned that there weren’t actual Romans in Judea but Greek and Syriac mercenaries standing in for Roman legions (Pilate was a Roman though right)?
        Also you said about David, “Whether he existed or not, that’s another question…”. Why would he not have?

        1. “Pilate was a Roman though right”

          Yes. And the other higher ranking officials and military officers in Judea would also have been Romans. But Pilate was a subordinate to the legatus of Syria and was of equestrian rather than consular rank, so he was not high ranking enough to command legionaries. So the troops stationed in Judea were auxilia – mainly Greek-speaking Syrians and Aramaic-speaking Samaritans.

          “Why would he not have?”

          For the same reason King Arthur may not have – our only clear references to him come from semi-legendary stories recorded centuries after the time he was supposed to have ruled.

    2. It’s just my opinion but I’d rather that Tim moved-on to more interesting historical clangers that unfortunately too many new atheists believe. Such as the silly one about “Hitler’s pope” or the church enforcing a flat earth.

      I know he didn’t get time to really present a comprehensive case for Jesus historicity in this episode but I’m not sure if there’s another full-episode’s worth left for him to complete it. I could be wrong though…

  6. “Wanna know what counts as “evidence” for historical figures? Stuff they wrote. Plato’s Republic is evidence that Plato existed.”

    So Karl der Große (Charlemagne) didn’t exist!

    7
    1
    1. And the 99.99% of the historical population of the planet who were illiterate were also non-existent. It must be thrilling to be a Mythicist and believe these remarkable things.

      18
    2. “Wanna know what counts as “evidence” for historical figures? Stuff they wrote. Plato’s Republic is evidence that Plato existed.”

      Isn’t that is not the case with Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey ?

    3. You don’t get it. This logic only applies to Jesus. ‘Cuz Jesus is sooooo important and special that he justifies all sorts of ad hoc arguments. Capisce?

  7. Comments sections are a bit of a bear pit at times. Kudos for getting involved.

    I’m going to pick up on something we’ve chatted about before, and which I’m beginning to read round more. That is the description of Jesus as “an apocalytpic preacher”. I don’t think this is particularly helpful in the long run. We’ve had fads that look at “Jesus the stoic sage” (Butron Mack) “Jesus the healer and miracle worker” (Marcus Borg), “Jesus the wise sage” (can’t remember just now) and others. Each one, by making a pigeon hole expects the pigeon hole to describe the individual accurately. That’s never true. Similarly, Jesus the apocalyptic preacher catches some elements of truth but the label then also misleads.

    I think its better to say the Jesus of history was a Jewish rabbi who preached the kingdom of God which
    – contained element of egalitarianism and liberation (cf Crossan) which resonated with the poor
    – contained elements of eschatology and apocalyptic (cf Ehrman) which resonated with the marginalised and oppressed Jewish population
    – contained elements of anti-temple teaching (cf NT Wright) which resonated with non-Jerusalem Jews.
    – contained elements of wisdom teaching and morals for life
    -contained elements of being famous for healing and miracles (cf Borg) attracting the sick and needy

    He was all of these things and not just one. Even with the shade of historical uncertainly we can point to more than one label. And if we were to chose just one label, I don’t think “apocalyptic preacher” is the best summary. For me Borg, Crossan and Wright capture a fuller picture “A jewish rabbi renowned for healing and miracles, that spoke of the kingdom of God in the present and to come”

    5
    1
    1. “Similarly, Jesus the apocalyptic preacher catches some elements of truth but the label then also misleads.”

      “Misleads” how?

      “I think its better to say the Jesus of history was a Jewish rabbi who preached the kingdom of God which
      – contained element of egalitarianism and liberation (cf Crossan) which resonated with the poor”

      Which was part of the apocalyptic theology of the time, so that fits “Jesus the apocalyptic preacher”.

      “– contained elements of eschatology and apocalyptic (cf Ehrman) which resonated with the marginalised and oppressed Jewish population”

      Obviously that too fits “Jesus the apocalyptic preacher”.

      “contained elements of anti-temple teaching (cf NT Wright) which resonated with non-Jerusalem Jews.”

      Which was part of the apocalyptic theology of the time, so that fits “Jesus the apocalyptic preacher”.

      “– contained elements of wisdom teaching and morals for life”

      Which was part of the apocalyptic theology of the time, so that fits “Jesus the apocalyptic preacher”.

      “-contained elements of being famous for healing and miracles (cf Borg) attracting the sick and needy”

      Which was part of the apocalyptic theology of the time, so that fits “Jesus the apocalyptic preacher”.

      “He was all of these things and not just one.”

      One of these things encompasses all of them – apocalyptic preacher.

      ” I don’t think “apocalyptic preacher” is the best summary.”

      See above – it is.

      ” For me Borg, Crossan and Wright capture a fuller picture “A jewish rabbi renowned for healing and miracles, that spoke of the kingdom of God in the present and to come””

      Borg, Crossan and Wright all try to dance around the apocalyptic preacher idea’s awkward implications by accepting the clearly later adjustments to the apocalyptic preaching that softened it and made it about “the present”. That’s because a Jesus who declared the kingship of God was coming soon and was wrong can’t be fitted with their desire for Jesus to remain relevant today. Again, most of modern NT studies has been a reaction to the realisation that he was an apocalyptic preacher who was wrong.

      1. You ask how a label like “Apocalyptic Preacher” can mislead. Well, its like calling Ehrman and “Internet blogger”. He is, but his scholarly work goes much beyond that. Even calling him an “Atheist New Testament Scholar looking at Jesus” doesn’t really distinguish him from Carrier (for example). The label is
        a/ Too narrow (it misses a lot else of what Jesus was)
        b/ Assumes all in the label are the same.
        Ehrman’s webpage http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/bartehrman.html) points out that John the baptist, Paul, and the whole Jewish milieu were |apocalyptic (to which we could add Simon bar Kocbha, the Essenes and others). This lumps so many together that if we assume the label tells us that they were all on the same page, we’re sadly mistaken. E.g. You say healing was part of apocalyptic theology Did John the Baptist heal? Did Bar Kochba? Did the Essenes?
        The label is too broad and too inaccurate to be of much use. Its as useful, and as useless, as the other all embracing labels.

        I realise you’ll be writing on Apocalyptic later, so we wait to see how this is laid out. I look forward to it with interest.

        1. “You ask how a label like “Apocalyptic Preacher” can mislead. Well, its like calling Ehrman and “Internet blogger”. He is, but his scholarly work goes much beyond that.”

          I don’t think this is analogy is correct. It would be more accurate if instead of saying he was an apocalyptic preacher I said he was a faith healer. He was, but his theology went much beyond that. He was primarily an apocalyptic preacher. The other things he was derived from that.

          “You say healing was part of apocalyptic theology Did John the Baptist heal? Did Bar Kochba? Did the Essenes?”

          What I said was healing was part of HIS apocalyptic theology. So yes, he seems to have been a faith healer. But it seems to have been part of the “signs of the kingship of God”. See above about how saying “he was a healer” is actually more analogous to calling Ehrman a blogger. Ditto for any social justice elements in his message. Or criticism of the Temple priesthood. Or his ethical teaching. They all derive from his apocalypticism.

          “The label is too broad and too inaccurate to be of much use.”

          No, it isn’t. It is the fundamental element from which everything else derives.

          “I realise you’ll be writing on Apocalyptic later, so we wait to see how this is laid out. I look forward to it with interest.”

          Good to hear.

        2. ” E.g. You say healing was part of apocalyptic theology Did John the Baptist heal? Did Bar Kochba? Did the Essenes?”

          Well obviously there was some variation in apocalyptic expectations but the Essenes did actually believe that arrival of the Messiah would mean that the sick were healed and the dead were raised:

          “[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
          Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
          All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
          For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
          Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
          And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
          He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
          And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
          And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
          And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
          For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor
          . . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)” (4Q521)

          Especially compare the second last sentence to Luke 7:22-23/Matthew 11:4-5.
          With Bar Kochba I don’t know of any claims of healing though. We do have references to him claiming “that he possessed wonderful powers” (Eusebius, Church History 4.6.2.) and being able to breath fire (Jerome, Against Rufinus 3.31), though this is all late

  8. For me, the fact that Jesus existed historically but as a mere man and not a god is satisfying to undermine most forms of Christianity. It undermines Jesus’ divinity as claimed by Christians and thus “Jesus Power” is also debunked. There is no need to declare that Jesus didn’t exist to debunk Christianity. Undermining his divinity is enough.

    1. Surely you could carry that argument further? The mere fact there are atheists out there who seek to prove he couldn’t have existed at all suggests they are fearful that once you concede his existence you have to concede his divinity. Therefore, by pushing an implausible thesis of their own they undermine their own intellectual position.

      In fact, by conceding the likely existence of Jesus you can build a much stronger case against Christianity – because it shows you are working on a clear reading of the evidence, not from religious zealotry.

      It was said not that long ago that it seemed possible Carrier was an Evnagelical sleeper agent trying to make atheists look foolish. He isn’t, but you wonder what more he would be doing if he really was.

    2. Well yes. Proving that Jesus was a mere man and not the divine “Son of Man” would indeed undermine historic Christianity that holds that Jesus was not just a mere man. That’s pretty much a tautology.

      However Tim here is not dealing with claims that Jesus was divine. He might well say that that is beyond the ability of historians to determine, and he’d probably be correct.

      Tim is dealing with the historians’ view of whether an individual, Jesus of Nazareth, around whom the Jesus movement formed, existed at all. That is a question that, irrespective of their beliefs about his attributed divinity, historians have near universal agreement on. “Yes, yes he did.”

      As a Christian I have no qualms about linking people to Tim’s work because I know him to be an honest historical scholar and researcher.

  9. The big stick is exactly right. If you look at Jerry Coyne’s posts on mythicism that longing for a big stick is very clear. It’s an example of Hofstaedter’s 100% mind at work (the inability to tolerate the faintest taint of doubt in an argument) — the most famous example of course being biblical literalists!

    I have never yet had a good reply to a simple argument. Year 20 no evidence of a Jesus cult anywhere. Year 50 lots of evidence of a Jesus cult, centered in Jerusalem. What’s the simplest theory here?

    3
    1
  10. Do any mythers dispute the existence of Paul? I assume not, but don’t follow these things closely. It seems very weird though to accept Paul as real but not a guy Paul talks about as real and recent. I believe in Robert Caro, but this “LBJ” guy is a myth!

    1. “Do any mythers dispute the existence of Paul?”

      The most prominent proponents don’t, but I have come across online Mythicism enthusiasts who do. Then there are the ones who go “full loon” and seriously argue that the whole first three centuries of Christianity were invented as a fiendish plot by the wicked Eusebius and the perfidious Constantine. So all the figures of the NT are inventions, as are all the ante-Nicean Patristics and their works (Eusebius was a busy man). There is a guy called Peter Brown aka “Mountainman” aka “KookaburraJack” who infests various online history fora ranting about this silly idea.

      1. Which amply puts paid to the idea that “atheist” is synonymous with, or even a proper subset of, “rationalist” (and I’m beginning to doubt that there’s even a strong correlation). That’s full-on conspiracy theory whack-jobbery, and should be filed as such along with 911 truthism, UFOlogy, JFK conspiracism, and the rest.

      2. There are even serious theologians who dispute when Christ’s Resurrection became a core belief in Christianity. Markus Vinzent, who is a Professor at KCL with a particular interest in Early Christianity and Patristics, argues that it did not happen until the middle of the second century when Marcion put together Paul’s letters and a Gospel, like the present-day Luke but shorter, to support his teaching. He lays out his reasoning in his 2011 book “Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity”

        https://www.amazon.co.uk/Christs-Resurrection-Christianity-Markus-Vinzent/dp/1409417921

    2. If you’re in for some crazy conspiracy theories I can recommend

      http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
      http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/peter.htm

      In a way this is consistent. How the historical Paulus and Petrus combined with a mythical Jesus can make any sense always has been beyond my comprehension. From the frontpage of Crazy Ken: ” There were many Jesuses ….”
      Eehhh yeah, then why collectively create a mythical character?
      Being consistent in a way doesn’t exclude crazy stuff. That quote continues with “…. but the fable was a cultural construct.”
      What exactly justifies the “but”? Since when is it impossible to build cultural constructs on historical characters?
      Of course JM diehards never deign to answer such questions.

    3. Ken, on the existence of Paul I mostly agree with Tim here — hardcore Paul mythicism is one of the weirder amateur branches of internet Jesus mythicism you can encounter. But I must mention the slight caveat that their is a slightly-more-credible scholarly variant, albeit one that is discordant with Carrier’s views.

      Robert M. Price sort of dabbles with (but does not fully embrace) Paul mythicism in his long book on Paul (the Amazing Colossal Apostle), where he is extremely suspicious of the authenticity of the bulk of the epistles, and he seriously questions the early dating of the rest of them, obfuscating the biographical traits of the historical Paul to such a degree that one could take a watered down “Paul Mythicist” view (or Paul Agnostic view) as the implicit, half-stated conclusion of the text. He kind of suggest that Paulism is a heavily catholicized redaction of an obscure heretical movement more typified by a founder like Marcion or Simon Magus. His final line makes this point:

      “But the amazing colossal apostle [Paul] to whose sky-filling authority they appeal turns out to be no more real than the radioactive giant in the old science fiction, The Amazing Colossal Man: it was all just a trick of the light with cheap special effects.” (Price, 2012, Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 536)

      In effect, Price uses the common mythicist trope of the Spiderman analogy, but applies it to Paul instead of Jesus.

      2
      1
  11. The irony is that one of the strongest arguments against Christianity (or at least the traditionalist forms of it) is the historical Jesus. Jesus expecting an imminent day of judgement hardly helps Christian Orthodoxy. The idea that a historical Jesus is a slippery slope leading to Christianity being true is simply wrong.

  12. When does the Mythicist chronology place The Ascension of Isaiah? Because that had to have been written in the second half of the first century because in 4:1, Beliar is clearly said to come in the likeness of Nero (“a lawless king, the slayer of his mother”).

    1. Carrier places its earliest Christian form (he accepts the arguments of those who think it may have originally circulated as an earlier Jewish text) in the later first century. This is earlier than most scholars, who consider it more likely mid second century or even later. But the problem is that there is no single “text” of the Ascension, because we have it in several very late translations which all have layers of additions. This makes dating it a bit of a nightmare.

        1. He says the part about him coming to earth at least reflects what the original text said, but then tries to downplay and then dismiss this. At best, all the Mythers and their apologists can say is we can’t be certain the original text had him come to earth. Which means this text fails as actual evidence for their Celestial Jesus thesis.

          1. Btw, does McDonald’s theory that the Gospel of Mark has parallels to the Osyssey have any merit whatsoever? Or just another crackpot theory like Caesar being Christ or something?

          2. As FH Sanders has said, it’s a scholarly thesis, but pretty strained. Daniel Gullotta has summarised most critical responses to McDonald’s ideas: “MacDonald’s list of unconvincing comparisons …. has been noted by numerous critics. Despite MacDonald’s worthy call for scholars to reexamine the educational practices of the ancient world, all of the evidence renders his position of Homeric influential dominance untenable.” As already noted, if gMark’s dependence on Homer is so obvious, it’s very odd no-one noticed it before McDonald. Most of his “parallels” are fanciful and many of the others are more a function of how stories resolve themselves into similar narrative shapes. I like to point out that when the Coen Brothers first wrote the screenplay for O Brother Where Art Thou? several people they showed it to commented on the clever way it parallels the story of Homer’s Odyssey. The only problem was … the Coens had not intended that at all – it was pure co-incidence. Though once it had been pointed out they re-wrote the screenplay to make the parallels a major part of the story (including changing the name of the main character to Ulysses and adding a scene with a one-eyed Bible salesman cum klansman/cyclops). Parallels are not always signs of derivation.

  13. My sister is a mythist. And I won’t say that she is like every other mythist but she definitely colors my view of them. She has a deep rage and hatred towards religion, Christianity in particular. I’m not sure why, we were raised by atheists, maybe it was just programming but it definitely exists. She is not unintelligent but I have never heard her say the words I don’t know. If something crosses her mind that she doesn’t understand she will make something up on the spot. And then smile at you and say I bet that’s how it works and that forever more is ‘her’ truth. All her knowledge is built on that shaky scaffolding and any questioning will send her into a rage. She thinks everyone that doesn’t agree with her is either stupid or crazy. When I see how random mythist act I can see her in them. I could never change her mind about anyting and to be quite frank I wouldn’t try but I admire you for giving it a shot. It takes a sturdy and obstinate spirit and I always admire that in people

    1. Most mythicists I’ve come across are clearly people damaged by religious indoctrination (but who can’t change their proverbial spots).

      But yes there’s going to be many who aren’t. From the sounds of things; your sister’s position is more about an inferiority complex. That’s something I’ve noticed in a lot of flat-earthers or holocaust deniers, whose beliefs are rooted in a fantasy that there’s a conspiracy that they’ve managed to discover and not in any actual science nor facts.

      One thing that always makes me laugh is when these mythicists try this nonsense on of pretending that they’re open-minded about it or aren’t taking any position (when it’s obvious that they’re not).
      One of the idiots in Milwaukee who’s pushing mythicism reached out to me recently and tried this “Oh I’m open to either” on. But I pretty much proved from his behaviour that he was really looking for ANY remote excuse to disregard the consensus for historicity and accept any scrap for mythicism. As you might expect: He suddenly got rather angry and broke it off.

      1. I was just taking to one member of MM last night (forgot his name but he had long hair and a goatee) and he’s starting to become disillusioned with Mythicism. Hopefully

    2. >and that forever more is ‘her’ truth.
      >She thinks everyone that doesn’t agree with her is either stupid or crazy.
      Me thinks there’s a contradiction here, to be honest

    3. Whitney, if your sister is in her early 20’s or younger, it’s possible she may just be going through a rebellious phase, and opposing Christianity and siding with mythicism is her way of rebelling. While atheism and hostility to religion are not inherently immature, the behaviors you describe sound typical for a smart rebellious teen who isn’t mature enough to recognize that the truest sign of intelligence is recognizing the limitations of your own knowledge. If that’s the case, it may be best to just wait it out…I did and believed all sorts of stupid shit as a rebellious teen, and I suspect the same is true of Tim and others who comment here.
      I’m not as knowledgable as Tim and others on this topic, so hopefully this recommendation isn’t a butchered version of history. People are more willing to listen to those who they viscerally disagree with if their views are given some shred of legitimacy and empathy; many Christians favorably cite Tim even though he’s an atheist who disagrees with them because he clearly takes the Bible and early history of Christianity seriously, even if he doesn’t agree with our views. Offering legitimacy to conspiracy theories like mythicism or 9/11 truthers can be a rather difficult move to pull off, unfortunately. Perhaps one way you could go about it is acknowleding that her skepticism isn’t completely baseless; the evidence we do have for events and people in the ancient world is quite scant, and it’s possible (but not likely, or even probable) that this Jesus guy and a host of other things in the ancient world didn’t happen. If you point her to these articles while acknowledging that her skepticism isn’t baseless, and then explain why historians believe it most likely that Jesus existed as an historical person, you may have more success. Pointing out that the author of this blog is a fellow atheist who rejects the theological conception of Jesus and is hostile to Christian apologetic bad history may also give Tim’s views a shred of legitimacy that wouldn’t be offered to a Christian.

      1. I definitely agree. As a teen I was a super right-wing conservative and held various bad ideas which I no longer hold. My whole worldview at 29 is utterly different (for better or worse) from my worldview at 19.

        I’m an atheist (and a leftist) and I’m convinced that mythicism is bunk. I think there is reasonably good evidence for a historical Jewish preacher from Nazareth. (And although he was wrong about the coming apocalypse, I like some of his ideas about poverty and injustice.)

      2. I agree that her manner is highly immature but unfortunately she is pushing 60 and we are 3rd Generation atheist. I called her type of atheism syllogistic atheism;

        Atheist are smarter than everyone else,
        I am smarter than everyone else,
        Therefore I am an atheist.

  14. In Law School we learn evidence is a brick not a wall.

    The historians view of evidence is very close to the US legal view of relevant evidence.

    US federal rule of evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as:

    “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

    I think my experience as a lawyer is similar to yours when talking to lay people. They seem to think many or most cases will only have evidence for one side because it would be impossible for evidence to support something that is not true or something like that. Of course just because some evidence supports a claim that does not mean it is true. Even if the majority of evidence supports a claim it does not mean it is true.

    I did a blog about it here:
    https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/12/23/no-evidence/

    3
    1
    1. Oh okay you work in the legal profession. How would you regard a historian who tried to tell you what’s what about the legal profession?

      In this (non) debate of Jesus historicity v mythicism: There’s evidence and that evidence strongly supports the hypothesis for Jesus historicity and that’s why historicity’s become the consensus.
      Mythicists usually attempt to discredit this evidence, and their attempts don’t stand-up to much scrutiny because they’re always ad-hoc and often far-fetched & desperate. Mythicists sometimes try and use the evidence to prove their case for mythicism but that fails even more as it’s usually very far-fetched.
      Very rarely do mythicists try and present any evidence for their position (Carrier’s far-fetched interpretation of the ascension of Isiah is one of these rarities) and these also generally fail much testing and analysis.

      2
      1
      1. “Oh okay you work in the legal profession. How would you regard a historian who tried to tell you what’s what about the legal profession?”

        Ummm, this seems like a needlessly aggressive response to what Joe said. He simply drew an analogy between how lawyers define evidence and how historians do. An analogy which is, as far as it goes at least, pretty valid. You may want to chill out a bit Daniel.

        1. Still Daniel has a point too. As a Dutchman and a non-lawyer I’m far from an expert on the American legal system, but it seems to me that in court tricks are allowed that are (or should be) forbidden for scholars. At the other hand I know a Dutch historian of Antiquity (Jona Lendering – fine reason for you to learn reading Dutch) who has no problem looking at a source from both a maximalist and a minimalist view without trying to convince a judge and/or a jury.

          1. “it seems to me that in court tricks are allowed that are (or should be) forbidden for scholars.”

            But the (limited) analogy Joe made was between how lawyers see evidence and how historians do – nothing more. What “tricks” lawyers get up to anything else involved in the legal system are not relevant here. The analogy is purely about the definition of evidence.

          2. Actually looking back; while I didn’t feeling angry or anything when I posted it, I felt a negative reaction after looking at his Christian apologetics blog where he was trying to claim something along the lines of “evidence is overrated” in the face of the lack of evidence for god. It was a case of rolling my eyes and thinking ‘oh here we go again”. It’s why I felt the need to also let him know that actually there is evidence for an historical Jesus.

            Reading it now a few days later: I do come across a lot more hostile than I intended.

        2. I think Daniel might have misconstrued Joe’s intent here. This is a classic example of the limits of the comment thread as a medium of communication. Context can be a bit vague. A discussion about the ambiguity of the “evidence” concept could be marshaled for or against any given use of evidence, i.e. it is not absolutely clear which side Joe is arguing, although I have my gut instinct. Like Tim, my first reading here was that Joe is simpatico and not playing devil’s advocate. But I can see how Daniel might read the comment differently, as defending mythicists against the tyranny of evidence from historicists.

  15. Biosaber wrote
    “Btw, does McDonald’s theory that the Gospel of Mark has parallels to the Osyssey have any merit whatsoever? Or just another crackpot theory like Caesar being Christ or something?”

    It’s a scholarly theory, but not widely supported as far as I know. The parallels look a bit vague. And if MacDonald is right in arguing that Mark basing his gospel on Homer, than Mark must have been the worst writer in history, because apparently no one in 2,000 years of history picked up on it (despite both knowing Mark and Homer)

    1. Last time l checked, the gospels were written in the style of Greco-Roman biographies and Mark in particular reads like an action movie. Nothing really Homeric about it from what l can tell. The connection with Legion and the swine that the heroes of the Osyssey escaped under the cover of, is also kinda exaggerated

    2. But that, in turn, opens up for the Homer Mythicists…. Not to mention the centuries of Christians who read Homer, not to mention Virgil, as crypto – Christian symbolism.

  16. “In historical analysis, however, “evidence” means “any material or source of information pertinent to the question”. So a historian goes through a structured heuristic to establish what sources of information are likely to help analyse the point in issue and then uses them to determine the argument to the best explanation for how that information came to be.”
    You know, mutatis mutandis this is what Experimental Physicists do as well. Nobody has ever seen an elementary particle with his/her bare eyes ….. So the question where the evidence is for quarks is exactly as justified (ie not at all).

  17. Hi Tim. I just listened to this interview — although I’ve listened to several interviews with you, all of which I enjoyed. I first found out about you on the Serious Inquiries Only podcast and meant to write to you at some point but never got around to it until now. I just wanted to say I appreciate your work, and although I once found the Mythicism theory persuasive at one time, thanks to you I don’t give it any credence any more. I’ve also learned about a lot of other interesting topics from you, and you really changed my image of the Middle Ages. You were also one of the people that led me to my disenchantment with the “new atheists.” I was irritated by the responses you got in this last interview, and though you seem like a tough guy and were not phased by those people, I wanted to let you know you do good work and have a positive impact on people.

    Listening to this last inteview, it occurred to me that these folks treat Mythicism like a null hypothesis — in other words, they think that if there isn’t sufficient evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, then by default Mythicism must be true. In fact, Mythicism is itself a set of claims that need to be justified, and as you show, the arguments for it are not very good.

    As you show above, they clearly do not understand that history is a way of reading documents from the past. Even works we might consider fictional, religious, or mythical can be read in a way that they tell us something about the lives of people in the past, even if they’re not literally true. This appears to go over their heads.

    These responses reinforced my disillusionment with online “skeptics”, who seem like a pretty toxic community at this point. Real skepticism should lead us — not to arrogance — but to humility, openmindedness, and an understanding of our own limitations. They reinforce their own dogmatism with ritualistic invocations of words like “reason”, “rationality”, etc. Moreover, your interview wasn’t just about the historicity of Jesus, but also a good general introduction to the historical approach, but this went over their heads, and so they missed out on opportunity to learn something.

    Anyway, sorry for the overly long response, but thanks again for all the good work you do, and I look forward to hearing future interviews!

    1. Thanks Jimmy. The point about them assuming Mythicism as the null hypothesis is a good one. As I have pointed out in the past and tried to emphasise in that show, all the sources say Christianity was founded by a historical Jesus. All of them. This does not therefore mean this is what happened, but it makes a strong prima facie case that it did. This means Mythicism has to present a much stronger case that it did not – something it totally fails to do, given the suppositions it constantly resorts to. The idea that non-existence is the default position is absurd – 99.99999% of the time when someone is casually referred to as a historical person, as Jesus is, it is because … they existed. So there is actually a heavy onus on Mythicism to show that this is one of the 0.00001% of times someone is referred to as historical when they aren’t. Mythicism consistently fails to meet this burden of argument.

      Online “skeptics” tend to be people who are heavily emotionally invested in a bundle of ideas that, for many, have hardened into dogmatic orthodoxies. Many are former Christians, often of the fundamentalist variety, so they tend to embrace any anti-Christian idea, often uncritically. And in the US in particular, to be an atheist and/or anti-religious sceptic you need to be something of a contrarian, given how deeply religious American culture is. All that often adds up to a level of cocky bluster that has little to do with actual knowledge of the material, let alone genuine rationalism. That “Godless Engineer” guy is a classic example of braying dogmatism parroting rote-learned talking points with little to no learning (or even much intelligence) behind it.

  18. Mythicists, for some reason I’ve never quite understood, don’t seem to grasp that you can accept that a historical Jesus is the most likely possibility without believing in all the miracles in the gospels.

    They’re very black-and-white thinkers, they don’t understand that a historical source can be imperfect but somewhat accurate. A source is either 100% truth or a 0% lie to them. The idea that the gospels are say 33% true – they record an actual Galilean preacher’s journeys, record some of his actual sayings, record the way in which he died – yet also contain exaggerations escapes them.

    I’ve spoken to Mythicists online, pointed out that historians don’t take all the accounts of Roman Emperors at face value and neither do they take the gospels at face value, and they say “you must be a believer”.

    1. Maybe my suspicion is wrong; I suspect most JMs are former christians. See, what strikes me is that they still think the NT special. For me it’s just another written source, subject to the same methods as all written sources from Antiquity.

    2. >don’t seem to grasp that you can accept that a historical Jesus is the most likely possibility

      to many (all?) of them This was the historical Jesus.

  19. What is needed is to explain historical analysis like you did in this post, PLUS compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence for other historical figures, like Leonidas, Hannibal Barca, Spartacus, Muhamed, Buddha, Rollo, etc.

    The people screaming “no evidence” will have to realize either we don´t know ANYONE in the ancient world existed (ok, only some) or that the evidence for Jesus is as sound as for those.

  20. Or contemporary Jewish prophets like honey the circle drawer o the Egyptian or another juice prophet I don’t know his name I think his name is lidice the evidence for these people it’s about the same all we know about is the Egyptian is what we get from Josephus all we know about through this is what we get from Josephus an book of Acts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *