History for Atheists on MythVision
Derek Lambert, the enthusiastic and open-minded host of the MythVision podcast and video channel, was kind enough to have me on as a guest. Derek is someone who has been both a Christian and then a Jesus Mythicist, but is now exploring ideas about the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity with a broad range of guests. It was a pleasure to speak with him and explore the problems with Jesus Mythicism in a fairly long and wide ranging conversation.
Not all of Derek’s viewers were pleased to hear that Mythicism has problems, and the comments on the video featured many of the less rational responses we often see from Mythicist true believers. These included standard rote-learned Mythicist talking points, attempts at dismissal (“he’s been mean to Richard Carrier, so we should ignore him”), straight up abuse (“jerk”, “crazy”, “world’s biggest douche” and even “an alcoholic”!) and, of course, the silly claim I am actually a “closet Christian masquerading as an atheist”.
But these were the noisy minority, including several well-known usual suspects. So far the “likes” on the video are at 85%, so the quieter majority seem to enjoy a different perspective. Derek and I have since recorded a follow-up episode on the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, which should launch in a few weeks. We also plan to have some conversations about other topics, such as the Great Library of Alexandria and some other common pseudo historical fables from my Great Myths series.
17 thoughts on “History for Atheists on MythVision”
Hey Tim, I heard an argument against Jesus’s crucifixion that if Jesus was crucified, Pilate wouldn’t just have Jesus killed. He would also target the disciples. What do you think?
It’s difficult to make hard and fast assertions about what “would” have happened, given the nature of our information. Pilate had certainly shown he was happy to order wholesale violence when he wanted to, though that was in response to mass protests and civil disobedience. Josephus’ accounts of Theudas and the Egyptian Prophet also detail how the Roman authorities of the time unleashed troops to break up a challenge to their rule but, again, these were mass movements involving thousands of people. So it is hard to say exactly what Pilate would do in response to a much smaller disturbance. Of course, the gospels depict Jesus being greeted by “crowds”, but given that even in their account these “crowds” rapidly disappear from the story, we can safely assume them to be embellishment.
One thing we do know (independently of the gospels) is that Pilate does seem to have had a decent working relationship with the Sanhedrin generally and especially with the high priest Caiaphas. The high priest was appointed (or at least approved) by the Roman Prefect in this period and governed Jerusalem and, effectively, day to day affairs in Judea generally, at the Prefect’s pleasure. Unusually, Caiaphas served as high priest for whole of Pilate’s circa ten year tenure and was removed when Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36 AD. By contrast, his three predecessors had been high priest for just on year each, as had his successor. It seems Pilate and Caiaphas had, perhaps after a rocky start to Pilate’s governorship involving the incident of the standards (Josephus, Ant. XVIII.55-60), a good arrangement when it came to keeping the peace.
So, while the gospels work hard to make Pilate seem as innocent as possible and put the blame for Jesus’ death on “the Jews” so as to make Jesus more palatable to a Roman audience, the idea that the Jewish leaders would work with Pilate to remove Jesus from the picture and thus defuse any trouble he was causing at Passover makes some sense. John 18:14 notes “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people” and this is actually a very likely scenario – better to arrest the ringleader and hand him over to the Prefect than have Pilate unleash his troops more indiscriminately, as he had done in the past. Pilate was in Jerusalem at Passover specifically to keep a lid on any trouble, so he is likely to have been happy with this arrangement as well.
The gospels also make no bones about how the disciples reacted when Jesus was arrested – there was an initial scuffle and then they ran and hid. Apart from some episodes where Peter and John creep out to eavesdrop on Jesus’ trial, the rest are described as staying in the “upper room” of the safe house they are depicted scouting at before they enter Jerusalem. At the crucifixion it is mainly “the women” who are depicted observing the execution and even that seems to be at a distance. Again, how much of any of this is historical is impossible to tell, but it does make a degree of sense. It also makes sense that if they kept an understandably low profile until after the execution and after Passover had ended and Pilate had marched back to Caesarea, the danger to Jesus’ followers would largely have passed.
Hollywood has given many people the impression that Judea and Galilee were under some kind of heavy Roman military occupation, with soldiers stationed on every street corner like Nazis in occupied France. The Romans actually left much of the governing to the local elites. Galilee didn’t see any Roman troops at all until after the uprising in 66 AD – the client king Herod Antipas did the work for them. And in Judea, as I’ve mentioned, Pilate had some cohorts of auxilia (not legionaries – he was too low ranking to command regulars), but they were largely kept in barracks at Caesarea, unless there was trouble. So with Jesus removed, Pilate out of town and the remaining disciples in hiding or scattered back to Galilee, there was little incentive for the Sanhedrin to pursue matters further and pretty much none at all for Pilate. The problem had been solved.
All of this is reconstruction, of course, but it’s based on what we know and what bits of the gospel accounts therefore make the most sense. So, no, it is actually unlikely Pilate would have bothered with some demoralised and scattered Galilean peasants. Jesus was dead and even he had not been a big deal in the first place. End of story, as far as Pilate was concerned.
All I can say is reading the comments from mythers is simply painful. They truly think they are the most brilliant creatures in the universe for engaging in evidence free speculations and engaging in a level of hyper skepticism that could be used to reject almost any figure from antiquity. They have never once heard the adage ” that which proves ( or disproves) too much, proves ( or disproves) nothing”.
“hyper skepticism that could be used to reject almost any figure from antiquity”
In a discussion with JMs it’s fun to apply their “method” to characters like Socrates. The first thing you’ll notice is their lack of interest – JM is one big ad hoc argument.
We see the same from the Shakespeare Authorship crowd, making arguments that could be at least as well applied to any other Elizabethan playwright. But Thomas Kyd Authorship debates just aren’t sexy.
I dug into the Shakespeare Authorship debate a few years ago, and found the parallels with Mythicism fascinating. A few individuals online keep popping up in every discussion. A couple of books appear to be the main sources of information for the anti-Shakespeare crowd. The few actual scholars who accept the fringe theories are held up as oracles of wisdom while the rest of the field of Shakespearian studies is made up of drones and idiots who can’t see the truth. Major publishing and theatrical interests are suppressing the truth! The tide is turning and soon the whole world will see what only the few can now see – that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays and it was really Sir Francis Bacon/Edward de Vere/Christopher Marlowe/William Stanley/Queen Elizabeth/Insert candidate here! Etc.
The intensity, virulence, vitriol and pettifogging detail of the arguments of the “sceptics” was amusingly familiar. There are some people who will die in a ditch over their hapless belief that they are the lone geniuses who have discerned the truth and they are surrounded by fools.
I see these as two manifestations of the same psychological phenomenon. In both, we have a provocative and sexy thesis that allows our self-appointed hero to bravely stand against the establishment. Both rely heavily on the Argument from Silence, without doing the legwork to establish what we genuinely should expect to see. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro. It is only incidentally about arguing the case. Mostly it is a history of the Shakespeare Authorship movement. It is fascinating.
You might also take at look at the Ricardians. Richard III and the Princes in the Tower aren’t nearly as widely known as Shakespeare or Jesus, but there is a long tradition, operating at a lower level, that has a very similar vibe.
I haven’t read Shaprio’s book, but the episode on the Shakespearean authorship fringe theories on the excellent Our Fake History podcast referenced its arguments and its history of the subject extensively. It’s interesting that many of these fringe history and pseudo historical theories have very similar outlines. A much more extreme and sinister example is Holocaust Denial. Obviously that is not analogous in that the evidence for the Holocaust is vastly extensive, where the evidence for a historical Jesus or even for Shakespeare’s authorship or the murder of the Princes is scanty and uncertain by comparison. But the way the zealots argue, the creative ways they find to misread, twist or dismiss relevant evidence, the way they create a fantasy alternative scenario and the way they invent conspiracies to explain why no-one agrees with them are all the same. There is a clear pattern in all these cases, despite some obvious differences.
The same mentality — of denying reliable evidence, while seizing on every tiny anomaly — is, unfortunately, currently on display in the US at the moment, where large numbers of Americans are unable to accept that Their Hero lost the election fair and square. When it’s Shakespeare, it’s merely pathetic and amusing. In other contexts it’s bloody dangerous.
Mythers remind me a lot of MAGA supporters tbh
They seem cerebral narcissists. They genuinly believe they are so intelectual, so pro science, think following a atheist channel or figures make them smarter. They have this notions of believing that if there no religions that world would be a better place ( which is partially true but they are forgetting the amount of cognitive biases and mental fallacies we have as species and now matter how intelligent , what title you may have, how rational or critical thinking you can be prone to fall trap to nonsense and misinterpration of reality because are easily maleable and emotional than rational). I think we need to be more humble and shut our mouth or say ” we do not know” or ” It is out of my expertise” when we do not know said subject and talk with expert to consult in order to avoid misinforming people.
Hi Tim!!!
Remember me from the IMBd Agora board when whe demolished the supposed historical accuracy of that film against Richard Carrier and his acolytes? Ten years have passed! Congratulations for this remarkable blog. It surpasses in every respect the old Armarium Magnum. 😉
Regarding the particular subject of Jesus historicity, I think that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic. If we remove the 3 or 4 unequivocal Christian interpolations from the text (made perhaps by Eusebius of Caesarea or some scribe working for him), I believe it fits perfectly, both in content and in language, within the work of Flavius Josephus, from which I’ve read the whole Jewish War and parts of Jewish Antiquities.
But, besides Josephus, there is another Jewish historian from the 1st century, Justus of Tiberias, that rarely is mentioned in the debates about the historical existence of Jesus Christ. As he was from Galilee, he should probably be more acquainted with Jesus and his movement than Josephus and therefore should have mentioned him, but according to Patriarch Phothius of Constantinople who read his chronicle of the history of Israel from Moses to Agrippa II, still extant in the 9th century, he didn’t make any mention of Jesus, which is odd. What do you think?
Thanks. Yes, that was the board where I wryly noted a misspelling by that “Valjean” person that Carrier decided was me saying he had misspelled the word, thus sparking his decade long petty vendetta against me. The internet is a strange place.
“Regarding the particular subject of Jesus historicity, I think that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic. ”
I’m most inclined toward that interpretation, but believe there is no way to be sure enough. See my article on the issue here.
Justus does get mentioned sometimes – usually by Mythicists, who argue his lack of any mention of Jesus means Jesus didn’t exist. Of course, you can only make this kind of argument from silence if you can show that he should have mentioned Jesus but didn’t. This is impossible to do, given that we have no surviving copies of Justus’ work. Mythicists like to make a similar argument about Philo, who also doesn’t mention Jesus in his extensive writings. But given that (i) Philo wrote theology and philosophy, not history and (ii) he mentions barely any historical people from his own time, (ii) didn’t mention a vast number of people far more important than a peasant preacher and (iii) didn’t mention any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants of the time, his silence on Jesus doesn’t count for much.
So before Justus could be invoked in an argument from silence it would have to be shown that, unlike Philo, he was sufficiently interested in people like Jesus ( i.e. early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants) to mention a fairly minor one with what seems to be a brief career. Without access to Justus’ work, this argument simply can’t be made. It could be that Justus, like Philo, had no interest in people like Jesus or, even if he did, that Jesus was such an inconsequential example as to be beneath his notice.
Hi Tim!
Thanks to Roger Pearse’s excellent website tertullian.org I was finally able to find what Photius of Constaninople really said about Justus of Tiberias.
Here as his words:
“XXIII. Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus’ style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem. ”
So, according to Photius, it seems that Justus was not a very reliable historian and was only interested in the lives of Jewish rulers and kings, therefore it is no surprise that he didn’t mention Jesus.
Glad you spoke there seen as how you mentioned there are die hard Mythicist there Also speaking about richard carriers phe went there just
while a go to explain why he believes in the dark ages , that i find hilarious how ever he also said the Romans were close to a scientific revolution as they loved efficiency and science and had it not been for christianity this natural development would have continued this does sound like Whig history but it would be good to review his claims if you could about the Romans
42:50 “John the Baptist and Jesus were both suppressed by Jewish authorities” *quizzical look*
John the Baptist was suppressed bny Herod Antipas. Jesus was arrested and executed by the Romans, but multiple lines of evidence, including Josephus, indicate collusion or lat least acquiescence by the Jewish authorities.