People often ask me about Christian apologist James Bishop’s “41 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Really Existed.” Because it’s the highest number of reasons anyone has attempted to claim (apart from the 10/42 apologetic, which Matthew Ferguson thoroughly annihilated).
This piece doesn’t try that. Thank the Lords of Kobol! But it is still a travesty of being lost in the bubble of Christian distortion, of course. Bishop is in South Africa studying theology at college, and says enthusiastic things like, “I wish to exercise my faith in a powerful manner to reach as many people as possible.” Aww.
I’ll just be brief and explain where everything he says has already been refuted. So here we go…
1. “Nothing to the Contrary”
This argument has a correct Bayesian form: Bishop says, “If Jesus really were a non-existent figure of history it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would make this known.” Translation: if h, then it is improbable that e, so if mythicism, then it is improbable that no one talked about it. That would be sound if we were talking about the 20th century. But alas, all the records of what was happening in Christian history between Paul and the early second century have been erased. Gone. Completely. So we don’t know what any critics of Christianity were saying in those fifty to eighty years. And you can’t argue from evidence we don’t have.
This is the effect of b, or background knowledge, on the probabilities in Bayesian reasoning. Since we know the records are lost (we don’t even have references to them), we can’t build arguments on what was not in them. So the probability of the absence of evidence in this case is already 100% on h, simply because of b (see Proving History, pp. 219-24). If Christians had preserved their records for that half century, Bishop might be in a better situation. Alas, they didn’t. One can only wonder why (On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.4). The first Christian critics we get to hear from are mid-second century, nearly a hundred years after Paul. And they only know Christian history from the Gospels. By then, there wasn’t any way they could know Jesus was made up.
Not only do we not have any reason “it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would” mention Jesus was made up (On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.12), but we actually do have mentions of Christians who didn’t believe Jesus was a historical person (ibid., pp. 350-53), which demonstrate Christians tried very hard to destroy that evidence (doctoring the Ascension of Isaiah, e.g. OHJ, ch. 3.1; destroying all records of the sect being attacked in 2 Peter, e.g. OHJ, pp. 351-53; declaring all Christians who challenge the historicity of the Gospels anathema, e.g. OHJ, ch. 8.6; etc.). Which not only tells us they had something to hide, but that they were actively hiding it (e.g., OHJ, pp. 301-05).
Bishop also naively cites the Talmud here, evidently unaware that Talmudic Jews only knew of a Christian sect that taught Jesus had died a hundred years before Pontius Pilate (and by stoning, and in Lydda, not Jerusalem). This supposedly thorough research of Rabbis into the origins of Christianity…turned up that? This is a serious problem for someone who wants to claim historicity (OHJ, ch. 8.1).
2. “Scholars know that Jesus existed.”
Scholars claim that. But based on what?
The evidence sucks. I mean, really sucks.
So why are scholars saying such absurd hyperbolic things like “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence” (Paul Maier)?
This is cause for very deep suspicion (OHJ, pp. 21-26).
Hence, now that a peer reviewed book has been published by a major academic biblical studies press challenging this consensus, and the emperor has been found to have no clothes, it’s time to address the evidence, and to stop just repeating what past experts have been hyperbolically asserting. The claim that Jesus didn’t exist is now “on the table of historical scholarship.” And it has seven fully qualified experts admitting the historicity of Jesus is uncertain. Even the renowned biblical scholar Philip Davies said, “a recognition that [Jesus’s] existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.”
3. “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”
Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.
There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.
When Paul mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, he never places that event on earth. In fact, he doesn’t appear to even know about it having happened at the hands of Romans or Jews at all, but the demonic forces of evil (OHJ, ch. 11.4, 11.7-8), just as was originally said in the Christian Gospel known as the Ascension of Isaiah (OHJ, ch. 3.1).
Hence even if they actually mentioned Jesus (and this is actually doubtful: OHJ, ch. 8.9-10), Tacitus and Josephus are just repeating what Christians told them (or their informants), and those Christians were just repeating what the Gospels told them, and the Gospels are just repeating the story that first appeared in only one place: Mark. That’s not independent evidence. It’s useless.
Note that Bishop naively again cites the Talmud here as well. Which besides double-counting evidence (an obvious fallacy of reasoning), exposes his ignorance yet again, per my remarks about this source above: the Talmud records Jesus was stoned, not killed by crucifixion. He was “hung” only in the manner prescribed by Torah law: in Jewish law the corpse of all executed convicts was always to be hung up for display until sundown. Notably, if you count that as a crucifixion (and well you could), you now have to admit that it may also have been the only death Paul knew of as well, and thus we can no longer establish that Paul was referring to a Roman execution. He could even have been referring to the cosmic one portrayed in the Ascension of Isaiah. We can’t tell. Our only source attempting to tell us is Mark. A purely literary work of outlandish mythography (OHJ, ch. 10.4).
This means the crucifixion of Jesus is no better attested than the labors of Hercules.
That’s a problem. Don’t you think?
4. “The Gospels”
“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (OHJ, ch. 10.7).
Bishop even falls for Ehrman’s ridiculous fabrication of several sources that don’t exist and aren’t even plausible to propose. But I needn’t beat that dead horse further.
5. “The disciples’ deaths.”
There are no reliable sources for the disciples’ deaths. We have, at most, some ridiculous and late legends, based on no identifiable sources. We do not in fact know why or when they died. Or what they died for. This whole argument is therefore hosed from top to bottom.
6. “The minimal facts approach”
This is a double-count. It just repeats items 2 and 3. Double-counting evidence is a fallacy. But it’s even worse, because here Bishop relies on Habermas, who is lying to him.
7. “Creeds”
By which he means the gospel kerygmas reported in Paul’s letters. None of which ever mention Jesus ever being on earth. Ooops.
In fact, they conspicuously omit any mention of Jesus ever being on earth (OHJ, ch. 11.4). For example, according to 1 Corinthians 15, the first time anyone ever saw Jesus was after his resurrection. Which was in dreams and visions (Galatians 1). Corroborating Romans 10:14-17, which says Jesus never ever spoke to anyone except the apostles (OHJ, p. 554). Which means, by revelation (1 Cor. 9:1).
It certainly appears that as far as Paul and these creeds knew, Jesus never had a ministry on earth.
8. “The short time gap between the events of Jesus’ life, and when they were penned down in the form of the Gospels.”
Roswell.
How’s that for a decisive, single word refutation?
Fact is, wild legends grow and win converts very quickly. Even in the face of conclusive debunking! So there is no argument to be had here. Not least because the Gospels only appear forty years after the fact, then almost an average human lifespan (OHJ, pp. 148-52). Which is not rapid. At all.
I thoroughly cover this point in OHJ, ch. 6.7, “Rapid Legendary Development.”
9. “The rise of Christianity”
This is an attempt at an argument for causal-historical necessity. “If Jesus did not exist then we would not have Christianity in the first place.” But, um, that means “If Hercules did not exist then we would not have Hercules cult in the first place.” Or “If the angel Moroni did not exist then we would not have Mormonism in the first place.” Or “If the angel Gabriel did not exist and dictate the Koran to Mohammed then we would not have Islam in the first place.” Etc.
Obviously this argument is down the drain.
Paul only ever refers to Jesus as being just like Gabriel and Moroni: an eternal revelatory being only known through dreams and visions. So all we need to explain Christianity is the widely documented fact that religions routinely originate from purported visions of their founding deities (OHJ, pp. 124-41, 159-63). We don’t need a historical Moroni or Gabriel to explain Mormonism or Islam. We don’t need a historical Jesus to explain Christianity.
10. “The Apostle Paul’s epistles”
Bishop’s only use of these is that Paul mentions Jesus was buried (Paul actually does not specify a tomb burial, although the type of burial doesn’t matter). But people got buried in outer space (OHJ, pp. 194-97 & 563) in the Jewish cosmology Paul adopted (e.g. 2 Cor. 12). So where was this burial? Paul never says. The first time anyone ever heard of it occurring on earth, is that same one source: Mark. Written a lifetime after the fact. By authors unknown. Crafting a patently mythical hagiography (OHJ, ch. 10.4).
11. “Paul met Jesus’ brother James, and Jesus’ disciple Peter”
Paul never mentions anyone being a disciple. The word “disciple” is unknown to Paul. He only knows Peter as an apostle, and only knows apostles as those who received revelations of Jesus (Gal. 1; 1 Cor. 9:1; Rom. 16:25-26). And Paul only ever refers to baptized Christians as brothers of the Lord (Rom. 8:29). He shows no awareness of Jesus having biological brothers (OHJ, pp. 108 and ch. 11.10).
12. “Paul might have even seen and heard Jesus”
In visions (Gal. 1). Just like Mohammed claimed to have seen and heard Gabriel. That no more proves Gabriel exists than that Jesus exists. This is a dead argument.
13. “Paul was familiar with Jesus’ sayings”
By revelation (and hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures). Paul knew of no other way one could learn the teachings of Jesus (Rom. 16:25-26; OHJ, ch. 11.6-7). Just like Mohammed knew of no other way one could learn the teachings of Gabriel—which teachings the Koran is a record of. The existence of the Koran no more proves the angel Gabriel exists than Paul’s commands from the Lord prove that Jesus exists. This is a dead argument.
14. “Paul knew of the tradition of Jesus”
By which Bishop means the Eucharist ritual. Which Paul says he learned not from witnesses, but by revelation (OHJ, ch. 11.7). And accordingly, Paul mentions no one being present at the event.
15. “Luke’s mentioning of other accounts on Jesus”
Which were Mark and previous redactions of Mark. See item 4.
So this evidence is useless.
Bishop also tries to insist here that Luke wouldn’t lie. In fact, we have conclusively documented the fact that Luke lies repeatedly (OHJ, chs. 10.6 and 9.1).
16. “The Gnostic Gospels”
Just more redactions of Mark. Useless.
17. “Historical ripple”
This is just a duplication of point 9. Worse, this time Bishop essentially says you can’t explain the ridiculous fictions like the Infancy Gospels without a real Jesus. He may as well insist Hercules and Zeus existed by this point. There is just no valid argument here at all.
18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”
No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.
19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”
Actually, he probably didn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.
20. “Suetonius mentions Jesus”
No, he doesn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.11).
Bishop also deceptively quote-mines Van Voorst here, a dishonest apologetic tactic, for which Bishop should be ashamed. Bishop claims:
Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament studies, states that there is “near-unanimous” agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus refers to Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus, 2000. pp 31-32).
Here is what Van Voorst actually said:
Who is Chrestus? The near-unanimous identification of him with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled.
He then goes on to refute the certainty of this equivalence. In fact, he had already done so on page 31 (“Chrestus not only led an agitation [under Claudius, which would be a decade after Jesus was supposedly dead], but was himself an agitator”). Van Voorst goes on on page 32 to point out that “nothing in this sentence or its context explicitly indicates that Suetonius is writing about Christ or Christianity” and that “the simplest understanding of this sentence is that Chrestus is an otherwise unknown agitator present in Rome.” Van Voorst then summarizes many other experts who agree on that point.
Van Voorst himself tries (and using rather illogical arguments at that) to rescue this reference as being to Christ (pp. 32-39), but even he has to admit that it can only be a reference to Christ if Suetonius mistook a riot over the idea of Christ for a riot started by Christ, and therefore “his glaring mistakes should caution us against placing too much weight on his evidence for Jesus or his significance for early Christianity.”
In short, Van Voorst, Bishop’s own authority, concludes that this can only be at best a mistaken reference to a belief in a Christ figure—who could have then been just a revelatory being like Moroni or Gabriel—and not a direct reference to an actual historical Christ. Bishop is deceiving his readers by not communicating that, but dishonestly instead giving the impression that Van Voorst (and ‘nearly everyone else’) agrees this is evidence for a historical Jesus. It is not.
21. “Serapion mentions Jesus”
That’s both disputed and irrelevant. We cannot prove this source was written before even the mid-second century or that it is independent of the Gospels. It is therefore useless.
22. “Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus”
Only as a deity some people worshiped. He says nothing that places him in earth history as a man.
Bishop also says here that no one in 112 A.D. would die for a lie. But there is no way any Christian in 112 A.D. would know that historicity was a lie (that’s almost another average lifespan after Mark would have invented the idea). Nor any way for us to know if these Christians were dying for a historical Jesus, or a celestial revealed Jesus such as Paul was persecuted for. Nor is it true that they wouldn’t die for a lie: if the historical Jesus was an exoteric myth (OHJ, pp. 114-24) and the cosmic truth a sacred esoteric secret (OHJ, pp. 108-14), some would certainly die to protect that secret. As religious believers in other mystery cults would have (OHJ, pp. 96-108).
Although it’s worth noting, that most of the Christians Pliny encountered, were happy to renounce their belief, and many had already done so years before, on their own (Not the Impossible Faith, ch. 18).
23. “Lucian mentions Jesus”
Lucian wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Lucian’s source was his friend Celsus, whose only sources were the Gospels. Therefore, Lucian is not an independent source. This evidence is useless.
24. “Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud”
As having been executed by Jews, through stoning, in Lydda and not Jerusalem, a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. This actually counts against historicity. Not for it (OHJ, ch. 8.1). See items 1 and 3 again.
25. “Celsus attacks Jesus’s character”
Celsus wrote in the 150s-160s A.D. Far too late to be of any use. And Celsus only used the Gospels as his source. He knew no other sources to check. Therefore, Celsus is not an independent source. Nor could he have known the truth of what really happened over a hundred years before his time. This evidence is useless.
26. “Clement of Rome writes on Jesus’s existence”
Not on earth (OHJ, ch. 8.5). Clement seems only to know of a Jesus as a revelatory being who communicates through visions and having planted hidden messages in the Jewish scriptures. Just like Paul. So Clement’s letter actually counts against historicity.
27. “Ignatius of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”
Using only Gospels as his source. And nearly a century after the fact. Therefore, useless (OHJ, ch. 8.6).
28. “Quadratus of Antioch writes on Jesus’s existence”
29. “Aristides the Athenian writes on Jesus’s existence”
30. “Justin Martyr writes on Jesus’s existence”
Ditto. In fact, now we are a 130 years after the fact. And Justin’s only sources are the Gospels. This is useless.
Bishop doesn’t think Justin would lie about having checked census records. But, alas, those census records would not likely have still existed for him to consult (if they did, surely Christians would have quoted or preserved them). He was just assuming they existed (because he read Luke) and that the emperor he was writing to would somehow have access to them (if by some miracle they had survived a century and a half of wars, fires, and decay). Indeed, even if by some bizarre means Justin got to dig through Roman government archives (which is impossible), Jesuses born to Josephs were so incredibly common in Judea, how could Justin have known which one was his Jesus?
As I wrote in Not the Impossible Faith years ago (p. 353):
The closest [Justin] comes to citing any sources at all are one casual reference to the census returns under Quirinius, and a confident citation of the Acts of Pilate as a reliable authority. Yet the latter is an infamous forgery, and the fact that he trusts this document reflects very poorly on Justin’s competence to “check the facts” … But Justin doesn’t say he checked the records himself anyway. He doesn’t say where these records were kept or how he could gain access to protected government documents—and there is no plausible reason to believe he could (as explained in [NIF] Chapter 7, the Romans kept most government information secret, and surely did not allow citizens, much less suspected rebels, the opportunity to doctor or destroy official records). Rather, since Justin is writing to an emperor, he was probably assuming this tradition was a fact (his information appears to derive solely from Luke), and therefore assuming the emperor—who certainly did have access to government records—could confirm it. There is no evidence anyone ever actually checked these records, much less confirmed the claim. Indeed, beyond that, Justin makes it quite clear that if scripture “said” it, he believed it was true—period. He needed no further checking as far as we can tell.
In other words, this is not even remotely a reliable source. (I thoroughly document Justin’s bankrupt epistemology in that same book, ch. 13.4.)
Bishop also goofs when he says Justin’s reference to the “Jewish” claim that the disciples stole the body shows that “Justin’s awareness of the rumors concerning Jesus reveals his knowledge of extra-Biblical testimony.” Um, no. It shows that Justin read the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 27:62-28:15). Conspicuously, no ancient Jewish source (absolutely none, not even one) ever makes this claim. It only ever appears in a Christian source, in a manner that is an obvious Christian fabrication, of a Jewish polemic that was completely unknown to Mark decades earlier, and was obviously invented in response to Mark.
As I summarized in OHJ (p. 355, n. 121):
The one instance of Matthew claiming the Jews were spreading tales that the Christians stole the body of Jesus cites no source, no text, no name of anyone telling such a story (much less that they were present at the time, rather than from a later generation making up a skeptical explanation for what the Christians were by then claiming), and appears in an elaboration of the story in Mark that is certainly a fabrication and therefore never happened: see Carrier, ‘Plausibility of Theft’, in [The Empty Tomb], pp. 359 and 363, with Carrier, Proving History, pp. 199-204. In fact, as Mark shows no awareness at all that any such accusation of theft was being made, that accusation (if it even was made) appears to have been a response to Mark’s invention of a missing body and not to anything being claimed during the previous forty years of Christian evangelizing across three continents: Carrier, Proving History, p. 128.
So, there is no evidence here. This is just more Gospel embellishment on Mark.
31. “Hegesippus writes on Jesus existence”
A century and a half too late, in contexts that are patently ridiculous, and wholly unsourced (OHJ, ch. 8.8).
32. “Q Document/Source”
Doesn’t exist (OHJ, pp. 269-70, 470-73).
And even if it did, for all we know it was just another redaction of Mark.
Contrary to what Bishop claims, there is absolutely no evidence whatever that Q was written before Mark, or even that it didn’t use Mark as a source—that Q was separate from Mark is based solely on a circular argument.
33. “L Document/Source”
Doesn’t exist. See item 4.
34. “M Document/Source”
Doesn’t exist. See item 4.
35. “Pre-Markan source”
Doesn’t exist (OHJ, ch. 10.4). This is nothing but a speculative invention of Christian apologetics.
36. “Q, L, M, pre-Mark were likely multiple sources themselves”
There is absolutely no reason to believe this. Or that any of these sources even existed in the first place. Bishop simply deploys a possibiliter fallacy (Proving History, ch. 2, Axiom 5), arguing from what is merely possible, to what is somehow magically probable.
37. “Pre-John Source”
Doesn’t exist (OHJ. ch. 10.7). John is a free redaction of Mark and Luke. With even more ridiculous embellishments than were attempted by Matthew.
38. “The Gospel of Thomas”
This is just a redaction of Matthew and Luke. See Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels.
39. “Papyrus Egerton 2”
This is just a redaction of John (or vice versa), which is a redaction of Mark and Luke (OHJ, p. 492, n. 217).
40. “Mentioned in 75 sources”
Useless data. None of them are independent of Mark (all derive directly from and embellish Mark, or indirectly from Mark through embellishing intermediaries). Or they don’t ever place Jesus as a man on earth (e.g. Paul, 1 Peter, Hebrews, etc.; OHJ, ch. 11.3, 11.5, etc.).
41. “This topic is not even up for debate”
The debate has been published under peer review multiple times. I’ve debated it multiple times. Including at the Society of Biblical Literature this very year. Clearly, it is up for debate.
Another great article!!! It seems you are posting more to your blog and that is great news.
But I have a question that has been bugging me for a while. While I have no formal training in history, the evidence you present appears to be quite convincing that there is simply zero evidence (and a strong competing theory) that Jesus ever existed. I read the Matthew Ferguson article you linked above, and although he presents a devastating case against any contemporary attestation of Jesus, he still states, “I personally agree with the position that Jesus was more likely an obscure historical figure.” How? Why? And, perhaps more importantly, what will it take to get an honest discussion about this topic that isn’t biased by a consensus of bad scholarship?
I have been following your work with PH and OHJ, and I guess I was just more hopeful that there would be more of a reaction…but it seems to just be the same old response. Maybe the consensus just needs more time to react. At least I know you are doing what you can for rationality and evidence based skepticism!
Yes, that last point is correct.
As to your question…
Holdouts (among those who don’t worship Jesus as a god, for whom resistance is obvious to explain) are either (a) delusionally over-invested in needing Jesus to exist because they have invested too much of their careers in it and have associated doubting it with being a crank who will get fired or shunned (or have Christian friends and wives they don’t want to offend) or (b) not yet sure the minimal Doherty thesis is the simpler explanation of the origins of Christianity, because accepting it requires them to do a lot of work fact-checking that they have no time for and then requires them to take on a scale of self-defensive labor that is just easier to avoid taking on (in short, it’s professionally and personally easier to just give in to social pressure and accept a vague historicity position, because you don’t have to defend that).
Bishop and other Christian Apologists have a supernatural worldview that blinds them to any evidence that is contrary to their faith.
Thanks for all of that information. Bookmarked for future reference.
Worst rebuttal ever. Based on your logic for why Jesus didn’t exist, you would also assume that 90% of what physics says happen to form the universe is not factual.
The fact of the matter is you can’t 100% prove Jesus didn’t exist and wasn’t who he said he was. If anyone could this debate wouldn’t exist.
If your points are based purely on trying to use Greek mythology to show how silly Christianity is, you failed. That tactic is so old and proven to be a way for non-believers to justify their thoughts…”If Greek mythology wasn’t real, how can Jesus be real?”
It’s funny non-believers have to keep trying to prove Jesus didn’t exist but can’t. But believers can prove He did exist because science and history can’t prove He didn’t exist. If science is so perfect why are there so many theories but no absolutes? The only absolute is that we all will die and the truth will be revealed, my question is what happens if you’re wrong?
This article isn’t my case for the non-existence of Jesus. This article is a demonstration that the evidence this apologist presents for Jesus does not logically produce the conclusion that Jesus definitely existed. If you want to see the case taken to its full conclusion (that the existence of Jesus is not just questionable but actually improbable), you need to read my book written for precisely that purpose: On the Historicity of Jesus.
You will there discover that I do not claim “100%” that he didn’t exist. I come to a conclusion that his existence was at best 33% likely.
I don’t understand anything you are saying about science, however. That argument is unintelligible.
Richard,
I have tried various other methods to sort this out but have not got anywhere.
I have registered and paid for the Debate course but have received nothing to allow me to access the course.
Can you sort this out.
Regards
If the problem hasn’t been resolved yet, the issue has been your email address bouncing things sent to it (to test that I just sent you an email about this to the address you gave with this comment).
Lol….you’re polyamorous….you’re like, really close to Mormonism…..you should like, become a Mormon. I lived reading the many many blatant equivocation fallacies! If a then b, a is equal to cdefghipolyamorous, a —-> b. Lmbo!!!
This is one of the most incoherent troll comments I’ve ever read on my blog. I’ve blocked two veritable lunatics before. So that’s saying something.
What do you think of Gil Student’s analysis on the issue of Jesus in the Talmud? He thinks they’re complete misreadings, for instance supposed passages about Jesus boiling in hot excrement in hell originally said that it was Ballam (the guy with the talking donkey), but was alleged by some Christians in the Middle Ages to be a “codeword” for Jesus.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html
Some of that is correct, but that doesn’t relate to the passages I and Bishop are talking about. See my discussion in OHJ, ch. 8.1, and scholarship cited there.
Gil Student is a religious apologist, not a scholar, so his task is obscuring these texts, not illuminating them. For a scholarly take see e.g. Peter Schäfer’s Jesus in the Talmud.
Student’s basic methodology is flawed. He assumes, for example, that contradictions between the talmudic claims and the gospel claims (e.g. the Talmud talks about Yeshu ha-Notzri who lived much earlier than the one described in the gospels) prove that it must be a different person than Jesus the Nazarene. Of course, using an argument to contradictions would also establish that the four canonical gospels describe four different Jesuses – because there are irreconcilable contradictions between the gospels.
The basic facts remain: the Talmud describes a magician Yeshu ha-Nozri who wanted to lead Israel astray and was executed on the eve of the Passover and who was rumored to be the son of Pandira (now compare with Celsus, who, based on Jewish sources, writes about Jesus the son of Panthera, obviously meaning the gospel Jesus). The most basic details fit, the improbability that any other Jesus is meant is staggering.
In fact, as Dr. Carrier’s readers know, the detail about the Talmud’s Jesus appearing a century before the gospel Jesus actually proves by itself that the Talmud means specifically the Jesus of the gospels. Why? Well, because there was a sect of Jewish Christians that believed just that – that Jesus lived in the times of Alexander Jannaeus. This sect is mentioned by Epiphanius in his Panarion. It is therefore the beliefs of this Jewish-Christian sect that the Talmud refers to.
Also, the Talmud explicitly calls this Jeaus the “Nazarene” and explicitly identifies his mother’s name as Mary.
Richard,
Great rebuttal as always. I just listened to the podcast of you, Robert Price, and David Fitzgerald. It helps to keep drumming things in my head. Plus I got a lot of gardening done! As you know (I met you in Seattle), I am compiling a book of essays of women’s journeys to atheism. I have hired a private editor as most of us are not professional writers. Peter Boghossian (yes, I am aware of the controversy) said he would send to his editor and I am seeing Dawkins on June 5th when he is here. I would really like an agent to help out. Know of anyone? Here is a video of a presentation I made to a group of atheists about why I wrote the book and at the end, I read a few excerpts. If you need anything else, please let me know. I made a presentation to the Humanists of Greater Portland last week on “From Goddess to God: Expunging the Feminine from the Divine.” That video isn’t ready yet. Other advice? Thanks. https://youtu.be/EWxeaboZQQU
No. I don’t know any agents. Sorry. But good luck!
[Comment that wasn’t offensive but was too far off topic, deleted. I won’t be repeating notes like this eventually, but (a) WordPress does not have a comment relocate option and (b) that would defeat the purpose anyway: I don’t have time to moderate comments that continue beyond six days. Continued discussion must proceed elsewhere. Feel free to mention and discuss my past blog posts in other forums.–RC]
Thanks for the link to Matthew Ferguson’s article! Good stuff!
How is the reaction to PH and OHJ coming in the scholarly community? I mentioned to you about my interaction with an apologist who said, okay, maybe there are a couple of PhD historians who think Jesus might not have existed. But, that he could probably find more PhD geologists that believe in YEC than PhD historians that doubt Jesus existed.
If the evidence for Jesus were even a millionth as good as the evidence for an old earth and for the evolution of life, then he would have a point.
That the evidence for Jesus is in fact objectively sparse and terrible, yet few experts will admit this, has the opposite implication: it indicts those experts as divorced from logic and reality.
If only that were the case for YEC. Then they’d be right in all they say against the scientific establishment. But that it isn’t the case for YEC is precisely why the analogy to Jesus studies does not hold.
Who are the people he thinks would be writing that Jesus never existed? If he is going to make that claim as a counter to mythicism, surely he should be aware of what we would expect from a mythicist argument. This seems to be that the early Christians believed in a mythical Christ, and that around 70AD at least one author wrote a book re-purposing Old Testament tales with some other mythology thrown in, and possibly, though not necessarily some oral tradition setting the Jesus story on Earth in the recent past. Some time over the next 100 years, Christians began to view this as history and the mythological origin was largely forgotten and possibly suppressed.
In this story, when exactly are the people going to come along and say “This figure didn’t exist” How does he think they would know? If mythicism was still known, they might say “this is not what other Christians think”, but what historical records does he think people would check to show that a man Christians think was crucified never existed, and what would be their motivation?
I recently learned that in Catholic theology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm), the brothers are not literal brothers. Which I suppose shows that your interpretation is not some modern one that goes against what all others scholars think the words mean (as I have seen suggested). Their arguments might suffer a little from motivated reasoning though, so I don’t know it adds much weight.
Yes, the Catholic reasons for insisting the brothers of Jesus are half-brothers have no basis in any evidence and are purely of ideological necessity.
Catholics cannot admit the truth either that brothers of the lord is what baptized Christians were called. Because they need those brothers still to be half-blood brothers. Otherwise the Gospels are lying. And they can’t have that.
What are the errors associated with that result? P(J) = 0.33 plus/minus what?
As stated (“at least”) 33% is the upper bound of the error interval. The lower bound I found to be under 1 in 12,000 (and even that is optimistic). So the confidence interval (at the highest confidence level reasonably possible) is between about 1/12000 and 1/3 (or more roughly 0-33%).
Little off subject Dr. Carrier. Will you have any coming thoughts on the supposed burial ground of Jesus and his family “found” in Israel? My BS meter started pinging but it is supposedly being reviewed so I am trying to keep an open mind on it.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/470334/scitech/science/what-could-be-jesus-family-tomb-discovered
You are right. It is Class A Bullshit.
First, they are talking about this bullshit.
Second, this new bullshit is nothing more than “soil in the James ossuary is the same as in the whole region in which the others were found, a region in which thousands of other tombs and ossuaries have been.” Which is almost entirely useless a finding. It does not establish the James ossuary came from that one single same tomb.
Besides, that ossuary has been tampered with: the inclusion of the name of Jesus is almost certainly a forgery.
Those are pretty terrible, but the last one is stunning to me. “It’s not up for debate” … when I think something isn’t up for debate, I rarely make a list of reasons to support one side of the nonexistent debate.
Dr. Carrier, thanks for taking the time to create this blog as it addresses many issues and is very helpful.
On a side note, I notice that there’s no mention of the dating the the gospels and you may not realize it but you have never written one single blog on the topic of the dating of the gospels. In OHJ, it appears that you endorse the status quo dating of the gospels, which seems really confusing since there’s no serious or obvious mention or discussion of them until the 2nd century. In your review of Maurice Casey’s book you say:
“I favor the later end of mainstream ranges for these documents and concede the earlier end is possible”
In OHJ, you make repeated comments like “I will arbitrarily side with the earlier of those dates”
When you have time would you please explain your position of the dating of the gospels? I realize Van Voorst says mythicists tend to date all the gospels unreasonably late and that mythicism doesn’t require that but, for me it’s more about accuracy in the literary and historical timeline, which one would think a historian, such as yourself, would want to get right and not just “arbitrarily side with the earlier of those dates.”
I was disappointed with the dating of the gospels information in OHJ. To me it seems like it would be important to the gospel dates as accurate as possible.
I did write a blog on that. And when you read it, you will understand why I probably will never write another—and why I take the position I do instead (we cannot know when they were written but within a wide plausible range of possible dates; I personally think probably it’s on the late end of the plausible range; but when arguing a fortiori, I assume the early end of the plausible range, so no one can object on those grounds).
Your point about mentions is not effective, because we have no writers at all who survive to check for earlier mentions. Thus the absence of them is expected even if the Gospels were written early. Because all evidence to check that by has been erased.
Dr Carrier
Here is a bit of a loaded question for you, based on my exasperation the other day caused by reading yet another Biblical Studies graduate making truly stupid comments about JC historicity in general, and about your OTHOJ in particular. ( and, man, I’m just a dilettante on the topic… I can only imagine the frustration you experience):
Is there any reason to feel that Biblical Scholars (graduates of religious study or Theology degree programs) are even remotely qualified to address the issue of historicity? These people receive, as far as I can tell, little to no training in historical methodology, seem to have little to no grasp of standard concepts in the field; yet they are not hesitant to speak on the topic.
Granted, it is the argument, not the credentials, of the presenter which is important; but we are, it seems, beyond a 95% confidence level on the lack of value of a Biblical Studies degree when it comes to historical rigor. Until their curriculum corrects this problem, perhaps graduates of these programs really should be dismissed as unqualified unless proven up to the task?
That’s a fair point. It can’t be carried too far, but it works surely when they have the gall to claim I’m the one who isn’t qualified. I’ve made this point in my discussion of Ehrman (see and follow links in point 2; also 21, and 22).
Enjoyed your book on the Historicity of Jesus. I had a question. For the early christians, the celestical Jesus was ok and I am sure Paul was able to collect many supporters. At some point, Mark seemed to need to invent an earthly Jesus. What changed between the Paul and Mark years that made this invention necessary? Did the religious mindset change?
Read chapter four of OHJ, esp. the elements on mystery religion and why they all did this. All of them did the same thing. So odds are the reasoning was the same. Mark himself repeats that known reasoning in his chapter four.
Exoteric myths were created to disguise the truth (the esoteric myth) from the uninitiated, which only the initiated had earned a right to know. Thus, as Plutarch says for Osiris cult, exoteric myths placed Osiris in earth history as a subsequently deified man, but those were an allegorical disguise for the esoteric truth that he never was on earth but instead actually dies and resurrects only cosmically.
Subsequent redactors (esp. Luke and John) then used this as a system of double truth, which I quote Origen explaining: lower ranking Christians were told the Gosoels were literally true because they were too uninitiated and uneducated to be saved otherwise, while higher ranking Christians were told the actual truth, which is that the Gospels are allegories for deeper truths and not literally true stories.
Thus Luke, for example, strives to make his version look like a history. Yet he composes only in the mode of allegorical fiction (see chapters 9 and 10 of OHJ).
This version (there were others, placing Jesus in a completely different historical period: see OHJ, chapter 8) appears to have been necessitated by the destruction of the Jewish temple cult in 70 AD yet without the world ending soon after, two events that needed explaining, and in conjunction with providing a manual for missionaries to model (and draw models from) in their evangelism.