The official blog of University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics

Book Review: David Fitzgerald’s “Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All”

Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!

Please join our group on Facebook.

Hello all; Dave Muscato here. In my post today, I will review David Fitzgerald’s 2010 book Nailed. This book was voted one of the Top 5 Atheist/Agnostic Books of 2010 (’s Readers’ Choice Awards), and I think it the honor is well-deserved, as we’ll see below.

I’ve heard about the mythicist case before, but admit that I was too skeptical to take it seriously. After reading this book, I realized I was, in fact, not being skeptical enough.

I didn’t read this book the way I read most books. Right off the bat, I realized that, in order to fact-check properly, I would need to pull out my “big guns” – my 5-volume encyclopedia of the Bible, my copies of Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, et al (it helps that I’m minoring in Latin), my Greek NT, my Oxford Essential Guide to People & Places of the Bible (ed. Bruce Metzger), my Cities of the Biblical World (DeVries), and so on. I’ve studied many of the Latin source works Fitzgerald talks about before, and he’s absolutely right that in most cases, these writers were either talking about Christians, not Jesus himself, or that the mentions of Jesus were interpolations (forgeries added into the text by later Christians); that there was definitely more than one Jewish guy named Yeshua walking around back then, and in many cases these writers were writing about other people with the same name; and finally, that literally all of the writers that Christian apologists prop up as credible witnesses were, in fact, born AFTER Jesus died – some decades, some a century or two more. There is a graphic on page 32 of the book, a timeline of alleged “eyewitnesses,” that makes this abundantly clear, and as I mentioned to Dave over Facebook message, that graphic alone makes the book worth the price of admission.

The book has the following format: It explores 10 different reasons the Christians (or for that matter, any non-mythicist) offers for belief in a historical Jesus, in ten sequential chapters, followed by a thorough conclusion, appendix of apologist sources, and finally endnotes, the bibliography, acknowledgments, and an about-the-author. The 10 myths are:

Myth #1: “The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous!”

Myth #2: “Jesus was wildly famous – but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him…”

Myth #3: “Ancient historian Josephus wrote about Jesus”

Myth #4: “Eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels”

Myth #5: “The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus”

Myth #6: “History confirms the Gospels”

Myth #7: “Archaeology confirms the Gospels”

Myth #8: “Paul and the Epistles corroborate the Gospels”

Myth #9: “Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles”

Myth #10: “Christianity was totally new and different miraculous overnight success that changed the world”

The book is 215 pages, not including the bibliography/endnotes, etc.

Myth #1 is, in theory, an easy one: It is a textbook logical fallacy, an argumentum ad ridiculum. Simply calling an idea ridiculous is not a logical refutation. You either have to demonstrate that the content of one or more of the premises of the argument contains factual errors, or that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises – or both –  in order to say that a conclusion is wrong.

Much of this information was not new to me. In fact, a lot of this book covers the same questions that led me to lose my faith in Christianity in the first place. In his dedication, Fitzgerald offers this book to “everyone who ever thought to themselves: ‘I wonder what Jesus was really like?'” This is a very important question to me personally, the very one that led me to my interest in classical Latin, and to read the Bible for the first time. Let’s dig in.

My primary issue with this book is actually not one of its conclusion nor its scholarship. My real concern is that it’s too short. By that I mean, I was not emotionally ready for the conclusion. I don’t mean that Fitzgerald omitted anything important, nor did he fail to be thorough enough in his research, but simply that the idea that there was no historical Jesus is too foundation-shaking, too upsetting to my emotional brain (as opposed to my rational brain, I mean), that I was not ready for it within the time it took me to read the book the first time, and, at first, I rejected the conclusion on account of cognitive dissonance. Despite studying these things for years on my own and being well-aware of the accuracy of his research, I just refused to believe it. It took time for me let the very idea into my head as a possibility, and as a result, I have spent the last 3 days solid reading source material and fact-checking, including about 6 straight hours at Ellis Library looking up stuff in their absolutely breathtaking 7-volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome (as an aside, I really, really, really want my own copy of that, but it’s $995 – ouch), because it just feels “wrong” to say that there was no historical Jesus. My skeptical mind kept saying, “But there has to be real evidence that Jesus existed.” Then something hit me: I realized I was being illogical; I was skeptical of the wrong side of the argument: The burden of proof for the existence of Jesus rests, of course, with those making the positive claim. Instead of approaching this argument by saying to myself, “Show me the evidence that Jesus did not exist,” I started thinking, “Show me the evidence that he did.” This was extremely eye-opening for me, and thankfully, completely logical, which was somewhat of a comfort in my dissonance.

I am still not willing to say that I believe positively there was no historical Jesus, but I am willing to say this: In my opinion, the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is too unreliable, too contradictory, and too far removed chronologically to pass the “burden of proof” test. Consequently, I have removed Jesus from the “People I believe really existed, though I don’t believe the supernatural claims in his biography” category to the “People for whom I consider the evidence for his existence to be inconclusive, and if he existed, I also don’t believe the supernatural claims in his biography” category. Others in this category are, for example, Odysseus, Achilles, and Homer.

I think that if I did not have the background I do from school in the works of Roman writers, I would not have been as willing to let go of my belief that Jesus was definitely a real person. Because I already knew, for example, that Josephus’ Testimonium was a forgery, that Mary as a literal virgin (virgo, virginis from Koine Greek παρθένος) was a mistranslation of the Hebrew עלמה (young woman/maiden) in Isaiah 7, etc, I was more ready to hear what Fitzgerald had to say. It seems that most people, Christians especially, simply assume there must be really good evidence for the existence of Jesus, even if they’ve never bothered to look into it personally. I have looked into it personally, and insofar as you’re willing to take my word for it, I’m telling you, it’s just not there. There are zero – ZERO – records from Jesus’ lifetime mentioning him whatsoever, or even from 10 or 15 years after his lifetime. The period was extremely well-documented and much material survives to the present from the geography where these events are alleged to have taken place. Writers of the time, if the stories were true, would have had plenty to say about him, and would have had plenty of motivation to write about him. But they didn’t write about him. Not a lick. Normally I would not agree that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence,” but in this specific case, considering that dozens of prolific writers had abundant means, motive, and opportunity to write SOMETHING about the guy – if he were real – but didn’t do so, tells us something. It also tells us something that we have many detailed writings of many other cult religions of the same era and geographic location, many about cult religions even smaller than Christianity was alleged to be at the time, but for some reason, we don’t have anything about Jesus or his followers until much, much later. And the earliest writer we do have – Paul, writing in the 50s or so – says such wildly different things about him that he can scarcely be said to be talking about the same person. Where is the virgin birth, Herod’s massacre, the flight to Egpyt, Jesus’ baptism, the feeding of the multitudes, Mary Magdalene, raising Jarius’ daughter from the dead, walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, the transfiguration, Jesus’ “triumphant” entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple, the Last Supper, the Mount of Olives/the betrayal from Judas Iscariot, Jesus’ ordeal with Caiaphas, Jesus’ trial before Pilate, the crown of thorns, carrying the cross, the earthquake the ripped the Temple curtain in half from top to bottom, the Jewish saints coming out of the graves and into the city, the lightning and darkening of the sky, etc? If these are real events and Paul was writing about Jesus very, very shortly after he lived, why doesn’t Paul know anything about any of it? Maybe because the Gospel writers (who were, of course, not really Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John anyway) made it all up?

I feel so much like I feel when I first stopped believing in Christianity and became an atheist. When I was a Christian, I believed what pastors said about who Jesus was and what he taught. When I decided to read the Bible cover-to-cover for myself, I realized that much of what they were saying was incorrect, even just internally, using the Bible as a reference. But what really made me stop believing that Jesus was the Messiah was when I started learning about where the Gospels came from historically. The more I read, the more I looked into it, the more obvious it became that I should not trust them as historically-reliable sources. The 4 canonical gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (in the case of Luke, explicitly so) or even by people within the same generation as eyewitnesses , and no credible modern scholar believes that they were. At least 6 of the Pauline epistles are forgeries, etc. The truth is, the NT was written generations later, by educated, literate Christians (whom the apostles definitely were NOT), living in a community of Christians, who had never met Jesus, writing in a totally different language, and from a different geographic area. They are simply not reliable as primary source documents when it comes to verbatim quotations, and they so disagree with each other in details of the chronology, locations, details of events, and other content that there is just no way they were written by people who were really there – and that’s the parts that WEREN’T simply ripped off from one another. This part, I knew already, though Fitzgerald puts it best, when talking about extrabiblical writers on page 62:

It is sobering to realize that in all of recorded history, for the first century the closest we have to historical support for the Gospels’ picture of Christ are an outright forgery [Josephus’ Testimonium], and a single disputed line that in all likelihood refers to someone else entirely… they are quite literally all there is [emphasis in original] to historically support the Bible’s account of Jesus in the first century. Yet how can this be? Jesus was supposed to have been bigger than the Beatles, single-handedly capturing the attention of all Judea and Galilee, and as far afield as Syria and the Decapolis. The gospels claim his teachings enraptured multitudes and outraged the establishment… if nothing else his (allegedly) controversial, (allegedly) new teachings alone should have left an impact in the historical record.

I think the truth about Myths 4 & 5 are common knowledge among educated atheists; in my own case they are part of what led me to atheism. I did learn a lot from the chapters on Myths 6 and 7, and simply reading the NT yourself will show you that Myth 8 is patently untrue, although Fitzgerald does a superb job of laying the case out in plain English.

I loved Fitzgerald’s contrast of Pontius Pilate (that’s Pwn-TEA-oose [as in “loose”] Pee-LA-tte [like latte, the Italian word for milk, with stress on the “LA”], by the way – if I hear one more person say “Pawn-tea-us Pilot,” I’m going to shake someone!) as portrayed in the Gospels – “an incredible pantywaist…  a dithering nancyboy” – as opposed to the real Pontius Pilate, who was an “arrogant, ruthless despot” who committed “acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims, and constant and most galling savagery” (Legatio ad Gaium 301). The whole idea of the trial with Pilate, and especially the bit about freeing Barabbas, is laughably historically implausible, for reasons Fitzgerald thoroughly explains. I am less familiar with the archaeological arguments than I am with the literary ones, but after fact-checking these things for myself, I can tell you that Fitzgerald’s scholarship is trustworthy. Also, on page 115, he includes a photograph of the P52 fragment, which was familiar to me – I used the same photo (from the John Rylands University Library) for a talk I gave called “Is The New Testament Historically Reliable?” about a month ago, and I discussed the significance of this fragment – namely, that even though it dates to the 2nd century, it’s the oldest piece of any part of the New Testament that we’ve ever found. I do disagree with Fitzgerald’s dating to circa 150 or in all probability later; he does mention that you can only date within a ~75-year window, but the Hadrianic script, in my humble opinion, would put it closer to the more-commonly accepted date (among Christian apologists, at least) of circa 125, although I admit that dating via script style is very imprecise. In any case, this is (at minimum) still about a century after Jesus is alleged to have died, so you can hardly call it significant as eyewitness testimony, not to mention the fact that content-wise, it’s a bit lacking (that’s an inside joke for those of you who saw my talk 😉 ). As Michael Shermer points out in the opening lines of his prologue to The Science of Good & Evil, “Scientific debates are not settled by consensus opinion.” It doesn’t really matter what most scholars believe (especially if most of these scholars have a different agenda; namely, they are Christian apologists); what matters is what the evidence shows, and the evidence here is lacking. I’m willing to say that I don’t know when P52 was written, but it definitely wasn’t even within a generation of the lifetime of Jesus! As Fitzgerald points out, the real question here anyway is not the age or consistency of these documents, but whether the content is true or not. As he points out, we have the first printings of the Book of Mormon, too, but so what? They are historically unreliable for other excellent reasons, and we disregard them on that basis.

The chapter on Myth 9, I think, makes clear some excellent arguments, especially with his discussion of the astrological elements of the Jesus story, the connection to the 12 “zodiacal accomplices” and the sun-god associations in the very beginning of the 3rd century. Fitzgerald’s analysis of the Kenotic Hymn (Philippians) is SPOT ON (see Isaiah 45). Some of this is probably familiar to you if you’ve seen the movie The God Who Wasn’t There, but I like it better in book form, because in The God Who Wasn’t There, this stuff is just scrolled by on the screen, and you don’t really get a chance to let it soak in, or really have it thoroughly explained to you – and this is really foundational stuff.

I don’t want to give away everything in this review, but the chapter on Myth 10, that Christianity was a totally new & different miraculous overnight success that changed the world, seals the deal. For the first several centuries of its existence, Christianity (which one?) was one (or rather, hundreds) among thousands of cult religions at the time, and it borrowed details about the “Life & Times of Jesus” quite freely from existing mythos. If you know your ancient history, you already know the “similarities” between the savior figures in other religions and the Jesus story, e.g. born to a virgin on December 25, stars appearing at his birth, a visit from astrologers from the East, turning water into wine, healing the sick/casting out demons, transfiguring, riding a donkey into the city (by the way, this is perhaps my favorite Gospel error, the laughable scene in Matthew [who is usually pretty good about correcting Mark’s ignorance] where the author totally misunderstands the Hebrew OT poetic device of synonymous parallelism, the restating of a line using a synonym, in Zechariah 9:9 [see Ehrman 2010 p.50] and has Jesus straddling a colt AND a donkey at the same time – maybe he just had really long legs??), being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, a final symbolic meal with bread & wine representing his body & blood, being crucified, descending into hell and rising again on the 3rd day, ascending into heaven to sit beside his father and become a divine judge, are ALL elements stolen from preexisting cult followings of the time, e.g. Osirus, Mithras, Horus, Bacchus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Thor, Adonis, Orpheus, Bacchus, Hermes, Dionysis, Hercules, et al.

Fitzgerald’s discussion of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts does a good job of explaining how the growth of Christianity was, in fact, nothing at all like Luke portrayed it. The discussion of Pliny the Younger’s letters to Trajan (note: link is in Latin, continues to 10.96.2) with notes by Carrier is excellent. A lot of the things mentioned here, about how Christianity was able to rise in popularity due to its appeal to the poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised, sinks in much more deeply if you’ve read Gibbon and David Thompson’s The Idea of Rome (which is, unfortunately, out of print and rather hard to find, but I have a copy if anybody is interested in looking at it; just let me know). I have to take a moment here to say that the fall of Rome must have been so utterly foundation-shaking to residents of the ancient world that even as an atheist, I don’t blame them for turning to the promises of Christianity to give them hope. Imagine that you found out Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Denver, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Dallas, Philadelphia, Kansas City, and St Louis were all annihilated by atomic bombs on what just happened to be the same day that your parents died in a car accident, you found out you had cancer, AND your significant other left you. That’s probably about what it felt like when Rome fell. I don’t think I would personally convert, but I would be empathetic to those who did. Has nothing at all to do with whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or not, though.

I do have one thing to say about this book: It seems to me that its purpose is to get you started. Fitzgerald (although there is definitely a measure of new scholarship) is giving us a clear, concise, and jarring peek into the main arguments for the mythicist case. As I mentioned above, if I had not already spent so much time with Roman writers, and with the history of the Gospels, I would have said, “Yeah, right” and set this book aside. But because I was “primed,” because I already knew from my own reading & research that everything he mentions which I was already familiar with is, in fact, true, I was able to let the idea sink in, and realize that his data do, in fact, agree with what I already know… and with the data from my fact-checking, see that, I’ll be damned, there really isn’t good, conclusive evidence that Jesus existed – or for that matter, even weak evidence that he did.

After careful consideration, I have come to the “conclusion” that the evidence for Jesus is inconclusive. As I mentioned during the opening statement of my debate with Brother Jed two weeks ago, one can say there are two broad categories when it comes to truth statements: True, and not true. Under the “not true” category, you have contradictory, paradoxical, false, and inconclusive. After reading Fitzgerald’s book and thoroughly checking on these things for myself, I can say that it is my position that the idea of a historical Jesus fits wholly into the “inconclusive” sub-category. I don’t know if a historical Jesus existed or not, but it seems unlikely, given everything that I’ve found to corroborate what Fitzgerald writes. As he puts it in the conclusion, if there was a historical Jesus, we would have on our hands a paradox (which is still in the “not true” category, by the way). It is my position that anyone making the case that there was a historical Jesus has a lot of explaining to do. As a skeptic, I would never say that it’s impossible, but the probability, in my mind, has tipped in favor of there not being one. There were possibly several people named Jesus whom history conflated (in fact there’s pretty good evidence of this), but I can’t say for sure, or even with reasonable certainty, that the commonly-known Jesus of Nazareth was any more of a real, single, human individual than Achilles, as I mentioned above.

Never thought I’d hear myself say that!

If you have ever asked yourself, “I wonder what the real Jesus was like?”… do yourself a favor, and buy the book.


About MU SASHA Administrator

University of Missouri SASHA (Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics) University of Missouri-Columbia

14 comments on “Book Review: David Fitzgerald’s “Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All”

  1. sfatheistfitz
    April 25, 2011

    Dave, thanks so much for such a tremendous, erudite and thoughtful review! I’m humbled and grateful. Incidentally, the original manuscript for this book was closer to 700 pages, so it feels a bit short to me too! You’re absolutely right (dare I say you Nailed it?) when you say this book is to get readers started.

    NAILED came about because I was simply fed up with apologists acting as though the Mythicist position was some crackpot theory refuted long ago, when it’s never been answered; only ignored with a loud chorus of Harrumps. The truth is, the Mythicist case is stronger than ever. The excellent work of even firm non-mythicists like Bart Ehrman are supporting the Mythicist case at least as well as his own – perhaps even better.

    I have no doubt that more able historians will be able to make this case more emphatically – Rbt. Price and Earl Doherty certainly blazed this trail long before me, and I know Richard Carrier’s forthcoming book On The Historicity of Jesus will make biblical historians stand up and take notice. But in the meantime I’m very grateful that so many readers and historians have found NAILED to be useful in helping them see better the real origins of Christianity, and just how surprising, amazing and wiggly the truth is.

    All the best,
    -David Fitzgerald

  2. Pingback: Some Christian arguments from today, and my refutations « The Official MU SASHA Blog, Updated Daily

  3. Tim O'Neill
    May 30, 2011

    With respect, I think you have fallen for the rhetoric of the book and not looked critically enough at the substance. I’ve written a long and detailed review from an atheist’s perspective here:

    Let’s just say I found the book deeply flawed and highly amateurish.

  4. Steven Carr
    July 29, 2011

    Tim O’Neill trashed Fitzgerald as an amateur, indeed ‘highly amateurish’, because Fitzgerald did not mention that there is a 16th century copy of a 12th century Christians paraphrase of a Syriac translation of Eusebius quote of Josephus.

    On such slender straws O’Neill built a house of cards, calling , asa 16th century copy of a 12th century Christians paraphrase of a Syriac translation of Eusebius quote of Josephus.

    Wow. O’Neill really sounds confident to his readers, totally forgetting to tell them that this ‘key counter evidence’ is a 16th century copy of a 12th century Christians paraphrase of a Syriac translation of Eusebius.

    But he actually tells his readers this is ‘key counter-evidence’ relying on them being marks who won’t wonder how a 16th century copy of a 12th century Christians paraphrase of a Syriac translation of Eusebius ‘quote’ of Josephus can be evidence of what Josephus wrote.

    Still, he can use it as a stick to beat Fitzgerald with, just like O’Neill can use the lack of contemporary writing about Alexander the Great as a stick to beat Fitzgerald with, even when people reminded him that there is contemporary writing about Alexander the Great.

    It does not suit O’Neill’s style to let his rhetoric be tainted with facts. If there exists contemporary writing about Alexander, that only gets in the way of hitting Fitzgerald over the head with the lack of contemporary writing about Alexander.

    ‘Yet, despite his fame then and now, we have precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal’

    But Tim overcomes such obstacles as documents directly contradicting what he writes. He is an Aussie, as determined and tough as they come. Obstacles are there to be beaten, not wimped at like a whinging Pom would…..

  5. Don
    July 29, 2011

    Reading your review I am reminded of when I became a creationist.Maybe you had this experience too; but I remember reading a book arguing for creationism, it was well-written, finessed, and aid out all this data, had charts and figures, asked thoroughly compelling questions, and well, just seemed to reveal that the whole academy of science was just wrong- demonstrably wrong. Thankfully, through reading peer-reviewed, academic scientific studies I am no longer a creationist. I realized the lines they were given me were rhetorical, the gaping holes they pointed out that seemed just so persuasive and ground breaking were, once I became more scientifically literate, a chimera of rhetorical making. The questions they strung together just did not make sense once you realized the field,-and I noticed that I would need to read several books just to reveal a error in one dot in their whole join-the-dots technique spread across a chapter. At the end of it I felt rather embarrassed that I listened to self-published, amateur scholarship, that I didn’t spot that despite the thousands of scientists there were in the world, it seemed to be only those with marginal nor tentative qualifications in the field though this was ground-breaking and became fawning enthusiastic devotees of pseudo-science.
    I imagine I could have replicated this experience by reading Fitzgerald’s well-written work, but this time I prevailed through being literate in the field that was being abused. I have read portions (hopefully I will find time to read all) of Fitzgerald’s work and well, I am hardly impressed. It string out these pearls and holes in the historical record, and in a curious historical employment of the god-of-the-gaps argument, exclaims ‘see there is must not have been a historical Jesus’! You might find it compelling, I find it thoroughly underwhelming. It completely misunderstands the scholarly understanding of Jesus that has taken centuries to formulate, preferring (especially evidence in Myth #2 and to attack the Jesus of the apologists. But I suppose that is fitting. His salvos are intended to reach and counter apologetics, and while his supporters cheer them on their trajectory with glee, they glide seamlessly over centuries of sober scholarship unnoticed.

    • Tim O'Neill
      August 3, 2011

      Good insights. When I was reading Fitzgerald’s book I was consistently struck by how he seemed to have no idea about the actual scholarship on any given question. He kept referring to fundamentalist Christian positions on something, as though they were the only alternative position to be considered, and then demolishing them (never hard to do) and holding up his Jesus Myth alternative. And he’d do so every time without so much as hinting at any other possible position.

      So he’d consistently show that a literal or face value reading of the gospels is not historically sustainable (which is not exactly hard) and then triumphantly conclude that therefore no historical Jesus existed at all (which doesn’t actually follow).

      He argues that if the Jesus of the gospels who walked on water, raised the dead and miraculously fed five thousand people existed then someone would have mentioned or noticed such an amazing guy. Since no-one did, he concludes that no historical Jesus existed at all. But this is only a good argument that the Jesus of the gospels who walked on water, raised the dead and miraculously fed five thousand people didn’t exist. If Jesus was simply a charismatic peasant preacher about whom people later told stories about raising the dead etc, we wouldn’t expect anyone much to mention him. Yet he’d still exist. Like many Mythers, Fitzgerald seems to be a former fundamentalist Christian who has reacted against his former absolutism by swinging to the opposite extreme, without the faintest understanding of any kind of middle ground.

      He seems so utterly unaware of the totally non-Christian, wholly Jewish, human Jesus noted by modern scholarship that, as you say, his salvos sail over that scholarship, leaving it totally intact. Since many of his readers are unaware of it as well, they don’t even notice that destroying some kind of fundamentalist reading of the gospels doesn’t lead you to the conclusion that, therefore, no historical Jesus existed at all.

      As you say, reading this odd little book was like reading many Creationist books on evolution. Many of them are clearly written by people whose only exposure to evolutionary biology is via other Creationists, so the arguments they make are simply ineffective because they leave actual evolution untouched. Fitzgerald’s book reads like someone whose only exposure to scholarship on the Jesus of history is via other Jesus Mythers and whose only conception of a “historical Jesus” is hopelessly tangled up with the Jesus of a literal interpretation of the gospels. As a result, his book might bother a fundamentalist Christian who believes in a literal reading of the gospels, but to anyone else it’s just odd. And to anyone who understands the idea that Jesus was merely a Jewish peasant preacher, his book is a complete waste of time and effort.

      • yesmyliege
        August 10, 2011

        “…He seems so utterly unaware of the totally non-Christian, wholly Jewish, human Jesus noted by modern scholarship that, as you say, his salvos sail over that scholarship, leaving it totally intact. “

        Surely by “noted” you mean to say ‘asserted’? Because “noted” implies historical evidence that was evaluated. But there is no evidence of Jesus Christ, the Anointed Savior, although, if I recall correctly, there are actual historical notations on six or seven other preachers called Jesus who amounted to next to nothing.

        Strange that these six or seven drew notice, yet Anointed Savior did not, don’t you think?

  6. Tim O'Neill
    August 3, 2011

    “Wow. O’Neill really sounds confident to his readers, totally forgetting to tell them that this ‘key counter evidence’ is a 16th century copy of a 12th century Christians paraphrase of a Syriac translation of Eusebius.”

    Wow. Carr really sounds confident to his readers, totally forgetting to tell them that the idea that this is “a 16th century copy of a 12th century Christians paraphrase of a Syriac translation of Eusebius” is merely a *hypothesis* of Ken Olson’s. Olson makes a very coherent case, but his hypothesis does rest on the rather awkward and unlikely idea that an orthodox paraphraser and/or translator would take a clear reference to Jesus as Messiah etc and then remove or tone down those elements in the text. He makes a case for parallels cases of something like this happening, but not everyone is convinced.

    So, sorry Steve, but the fact that *you* find it convincing doesn’t magically elevate a hypothesis to the level of fact.

    “It does not suit O’Neill’s style to let his rhetoric be tainted with facts.”

    I work with facts just fine Steve. I just don’t pretend that every hypothesis I find persusive is a “fact”. And I suppose I could explore every little nook and cranny and online argument and counter-argument in my review. Or I could keep it down to under 10,000 words.

    “‘Yet, despite his fame then and now, we have precisely zero contemporary references to Hannibal’

    But Tim overcomes such obstacles as documents directly contradicting what he writes.”

    There had been a discovery of a contemporary mention of Hannibal Steve? This is remarkable news! When was this amazing new discovery say and in what context does this newly found text refer to Hannibal.

    This should be good … *chuckle*

    PS Good of you to mention all this here and not just over at that over blog where your pal Tweedledee silences wicked dissenters by treating them as “spam”.

  7. Tim O'Neill
    August 3, 2011

    What happened to my reply to Steve Carr?

  8. yesmyliege
    August 10, 2011

    “…Normally I would not agree that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence,” …”


    Absence of evidence is INDEED evidence of absence. It is not proof of absence, but it most certainly is evidence, strong or weak, as the case may be.

  9. Tim O'Neill
    August 11, 2011

    yesmyliege :Surely by “noted” you mean to say ‘asserted’?

    Well, “noted” might not make what I did mean precisely clear, but no I don’t mean “asserted”. Terms like “argue for”, “present” and “detail from their analysis” would be closer to what I meant.

    Because “noted” implies historical evidence that was evaluated.

    Yes, exactly.
    But there is no evidence of Jesus Christ, the Anointed Savior

    No-one is talking about “Jesus Christ, the Anointed Savior”. I’m referring to the historical Jewish preacher on whom he is based, the one Josephus called “that Jesus who was called Anointed”.

    although, if I recall correctly, there are actual historical notations on six or seven other preachers called Jesus who amounted to next to nothing.

    See above.

    Strange that these six or seven drew notice, yet Anointed Savior did not, don’t you think?

    Except he did. See above and see Antiquities XX.9.1

  10. Pingback: RV and Michael the ex-atheist, Part I « The Official MU SASHA Blog, Updated Daily

  11. Pingback: On the alleged resurrection of Jesus « The Official MU SASHA Blog, Updated Daily

  12. Pingback: Dave’s Mailbag: Which Bible translation? « The Official MU SASHA Blog, Updated Daily

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: