Since we are now a few days into the new year, I have been looking at the statistics for this blog over the last twelve months and thought I would post a short summary, with a few comments. History for Atheists has been running since October 2015, and so is now into its fourth year of operation. In that time, I am happy to say, it has built up a solid following and has gone some way toward its objective…
For over a century, scholarship on the origins of Christianity has been dealing with a fundamental issue – the Jesus in the earliest Christian texts is presented as preaching an eschatological message about an imminent apocalypse. Despite ongoing rearguard actions, the idea that the historical Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet remains the most likely interpretation of the evidence. A Galilean Peasant’s World If in the early first century AD a preacher appeared in a Galilean village proclaiming repentance in…
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…
Two years ago I wrote a detailed critique of Richard Carrier’s argument that Josephus does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth in Antiquities XX.200. Strangely, the normally hair-triggered Carrier has been slow to respond to my analysis. This did not go unnoticed by his fans, who repeatedly asked him why he had not replied to my criticisms. But now that he has finally done so, we can see the reason for his reluctance – the results are confused, inaccurate and…
New Atheist blogger and biologist, PZ Myers is an honest guy. He admits he finds the issue of the historicity of Jesus baffling and knows this is largely because he has no training in history. As a result, he declares himself to be “agnostic” about the existence of Jesus, but what does “Jesus agnosticism” actually mean? Not all “Jesus agnostics” are taking Myers’ modest and circumspect approach and some just seem to be trying to avoid Mythicism’s critical flaws. …
Yesterday I had a great conversation with Steve McRae and Kyle Curtis of the Non Sequitur Show about History for Atheists, atheist bad history and why non-believers need to get history right if they want to be taken seriously. This was the first of what we plan to be several conversations and this time around we discussed the myth of the Medieval flat earth, touched on Jesus Mythicism and talked a little about the myth of Pius XII as “Hitler’s…
One of the more common arguments among online supporters of the Jesus Myth thesis is an argument from silence: “There are no contemporary references to Jesus, therefore he did not exist”. Unfortunately this naïve argument is based on an ignorance of the nature of ancient source material and of how an argument from silence is sustained. As a result, while it may initially seem to have some rhetorical force, it is not an argument that would be accepted by historians….
It makes sense that the sect which survived Jesus’ execution would be more likely to leave an early historical trace than Jesus himself, given his relative obscurity in his lifetime. Seeing that this sect seems to have been led initially by his brother James, it also makes sense that we would get early historical references to James. This is why two references to Jesus’ brother, one contemporary and one by a non-Christian historian, represent a crucial flaw in the claim…
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was one of the most reliable of all Roman historians and many first century figures are known to us solely through his mention of them. This means his passing reference to Jesus in Annals XV.44 remains an fly in the ointment of the Jesus Myth hypothesis. Despite Tacitus’ reliability and the scholarly agreement that the reference is genuine, Mythicist ideologues have several ways by which they try to dismiss this reference; all of them characteristically weak. The…
The consensus of scholars, including non-Christian scholars, is that a historical Jesus most likely existed and the later stories about “Jesus Christ” were told about him. The idea that there was no such historical person at all and that “Jesus Christ” was a purely mythical figure has been posited in one form or another since the eighteenth century, but is not taken seriously by anyone but a tiny handful of fringe scholars and amateurs. Despite this, the Jesus Myth thesis…