In Case You Noticed All the Recent Comments…

103 thoughts on “In Case You Noticed All the Recent Comments…”

1. nonsupernaturalist

   I absolutely agree that “the lack of any mention in the historical record of any Christian venerating or even knowing about the location of the “Empty Tomb”” is a deeply curious problem for Christians, and particularly for the empty tomb/resurrection story. Frankly, I don’t know what to make of it, but it seems to me it is more of a challenge to the resurrection story than to the existence of Jesus.

   My guess would be that the resurrection story and the “empty tomb” were gradual developments, largely outside of Jerusalem, and that the earlier stories were probably much less specific. Remember, the gospels say that apostles fled and were not there to witness the crucifixion. This is almost certainly true. And since most (possibly all) victims of crucifixion were throw into a common grave where the dogs could scavenge them, then the “resurrection” story and appearances were probably more akin to visions that some of the followers eventually claimed to have had. The “empty tomb” would have been a narrative addition as the story moved far away from Jerusalem.

   Regarding “my response to Habermas’ claim that “seventy-five” percent of NT scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb is this: So what!”

   Your response should actually be “show me the data”, because the answer will be “no.” It exists on a document on his computer and nobody else appears to have ever reviewed it. Not even his co-author, Mike Licona.

   To his credit, Habermas has not included the empty tomb in his list of “minimal facts.” He just calls it “widely accepted.” William Lane Craig and others do include it, but Craig’s defense of that inclusion is a weak reference to some decades-old paper that simply claims most scholars accept the empty tomb.

   The thing is, I think it’s probably likely that most scholars who have written about his minimal facts do accept the historicity of many or most of the minimal facts identified by Habermas, but that does not tell us much. I could agree with most of them except for the part about being “willing to die” for their beliefs, which…

   Well, I could write for a long time about the methodological and interpretive problems with the minimal facts argument, but life is short, you know?

   LikeLiked by 1 person

2. Jon

   You make very good points, which I pretty much agree with. As I said earlier I am trying to keep an open mind on things.

   I am well aware of how much psychological factors such as, the anchor effect, presuppositions and confirmation bias affect our ability to reason. I know I am not immune to such effects.

   In regards to Dr Richard Carrier, he does not lack self confidence and can seem arrogant and overbearing in his approach to others. That being said, he is no crackpot, and has thought his position through. There has been a detailed review of his work recently published by another academic Raphael Lataser, who considered the debate on the historicity of Jesus:

   This is a blurb from his 2015 book on the subject:

   For a lay audience, and with help from historian Richard Carrier, religious studies scholar Raphael Lataster considers the best arguments for and against the existence of the so-called Historical Jesus; the Jesus of atheists. Parts 1 & 2 analyse the cases made by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, who assert that Jesus definitely existed. Their arguments are found to be riddled with errors, and dependent on unreliable, and even non-existing, sources. Parts 3 & 4 discuss the more sceptical work of Lataster and Carrier, who conclude that Christianity probably began not with a humble carpenter, but with ‘visions’ of a heavenly Messiah. This exciting collaboration makes it very clear why the Historical Jesus might not have existed after all, and, to those willing to adopt a commonsensical probabilistic approach, Jesus Did Not Exist.

   Though I suspect that many would question Lataser’s objectivity as he seems to be a Carrier “captive” with whom he cooperated on the 2015 work.

   The point I really want to make in these discussions is not that the Mythicist position is correct, but rather that it has more merit than say an anti vaccine campaign.

   LikeLike

3. Hi Jon,

   I like the way you think! Yes, you are right: Let’s see Habermas’ data!

   LikeLike

4. Peter,

   I believe that mythicists have a valid argument in questioning the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth but it is a non-starter in discussions with Christians. The minute they hear that you are a mythicist, they consider you an irrational, God-hating atheist and tune you out.

   I think we skeptics have much more fertile ground in our discussions with Christians going after the supernatural claims of Christianity.

   LikeLike

5. I think we skeptics have much more fertile ground in our discussions with Christians going after the supernatural claims of Christianity.

   I have never come across a Christian in cyberspace willing to have a genuine open discussion of this aspect of their make believe god-man as it ties in with the archaeological evidence as they all know they are on a hiding to nothing.

   For example, unkleE won’t touch Moses and the Exodus with a barge pole as he knows that the expert opinion simply consider the entire episode geo-political myth and he is perfectly aware this rubbishes the prophetic nature of the NT and his god man.

   This is why fundamentalists – and anyone who believes in miracles, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection is a fundamentalist – will always come at this by trying to establish their religions’ bona fides from the ”expert” angle and leave the supernaturalism of the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian on the Freudian couch.
   If they cannot establish as fact the basic tenets of their religion what value have any of their arguments?

   In fact, I would truly love Nate to do a post on the Exodus and see if unkleE is man enough to step up and accept the ‘experts’ findings and the dire ramifications it has on the make believe god- man Jesus of Nazareth.

   Ark.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

6. @ nonsupernaturalist

   The minute they hear that you are a mythicist, they consider you an irrational, God-hating atheist and tune you out.

   Interestingly I have a similar sort of response to any Christian who claims to be a Young Earth Creationist.

   I immediately conclude that they are folk who interpret evidence based on their preconceived conclusion, rather than determining a conclusion based on evidence. Thus I see little point in having discussions with such folk.

   LikeLike

7. When I suggest going after the supernatural claims of Christianity I don’t mean trying to prove them impossible, just very improbable. The average Christian has been taught that there is excellent evidence for the Resurrection. They have been told by their pastors that a resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the Empty Tomb and the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

   However, even if a tomb existed, there are several much more probable explanations for it being empty than a supernatural disappearance of a dead body, even if Matthew’s guard story is true. And tens of thousands of grieving family members and friends have reported “seeing” their recently dead loved one appear to them. The supernatural claims about Jesus are simply legends. Probability tells us that they didn’t really happen. Who cares if he existed and was believed to be a miracle worker. History is full of “miracle-workers”.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

8. With due respect, this is Old Hat, as far as an indoctrinated Christian such as Unklee is concerned and he has posted on his blog showing how the Resurrection of a dead make-believe god-man is the most likely explanation of the make believe Empty Tomb- even though there is always a caveat included pertaining to faith and skeptics not getting on board. He even has atheist Jeffery Lowder batting for his team concerning this very topic and he loves to drag old Jeff out of his closet and parade him a ”See, even an arch atheist like Lowder think it’s reasonable…. so there.”

   The claims of an historical character should be taken down as well.
   While fundamentalists are able to cite a ”real live person” (sic) they will always find an angle to push the superstitious.

   Once the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth can be shown to be a complete fabrication – and it really is not that difficult once people are truly prepared to be completely honest about what evidence there is – then what’s left will fade away.

   And an effective way to do this is ”force” Christians to face the truth concerning the Pentateuch.

   No Pentateuch, no Jesus of Nazareth.

   LikeLike

9. Unfortunately Christians like UnkleE will always find a way to wiggle out of the evidence. For example: “It may be true that no one has found any evidence for the Exodus, Forty Years in the Sinai, the Conquest of Canaan, King David, nor Solomon and his great temple and empire…yet. But it’s there. The Bible says so.”

   LikeLike

10. But I agree with you, Ark. Jesus believed that Moses, Adam, the Flood, etc. to be real people and events. If the evidence proves that they were not, Jesus made a mistake, and if Jesus made a mistake, he was just a man, not a god.

    LikeLike

11. Like Jesus did not make a mistake when he said he would be returning soon.

    LikeLike

12. I don’t have the history with UnkleE that you guys obviously have, but it seems like people here are being a bit unnecessarily caustic to the fellow and to Christians, generally. Frankly, I think Jesus mythicism is an absurd position held mostly by a few fringe pseudo-scholars, activists and people who don’t understand historical methodology. Should I begin ridiculing the people who hold that position?

    Sometimes you just have to accept that people come to different conclusions. Perhaps they reach those conclusions because of the evidence, perhaps they reach them for emotional and cultural reasons, perhaps they reach them because it is difficult to break out of the mindset they were raised in. Hell, who knows, maybe they are right about stuff. I have certainly believed things with all my heart that I later concluded were foolish and unjustified. I probably believe things now that are foolish and unjustified and I don’t know it yet.

    For the record, I think very highly of Lowder. He’s an intelligent, thoughtful and intellectually honest fellow, and I’ve learned a great deal by reading him.

    LikeLike

13. We are not being “caustic” with UnkleE for his views, but how he presents and defends those views. Stick around for a while and you will see what we mean.

    LikeLike

14. @Jon
    you are correct, you do not have the history.
    UnkleE has a reputation for condescension and gross bias. Ask anyone on this blog alone.

    That you do not hold with the belief that the character Jesus of Nazareth was not historical does not mean there is not validity in the claim.
    The paucity of so-called evidence makes any claim of historicity shakey at best.

    In fact the evidence against historicity should oblige everyone to question motives for claiming for Yeshua Ben Joseph.

    And for the record not a single scholar has ever produced enough evidence to make an outright claim.
    But feel free to demonstrate I am off my rocker. Surprise me with evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

    LikeLike

15. @nonsupernaturalist

    “It may be true that no one has found any evidence for the Exodus, Forty Years in the Sinai, the Conquest of Canaan, King David, nor Solomon and his great temple and empire…yet. The Bible says so.”

    But there IS evidence that the settlement of Canaan was by and large internal. The Israelites were there all along.

    And this is the view held by the consensus of scholars, rabbis, scientists and archaeologists and it is this what unkleE refuses to address honestly.
    He has stated that, ( paraphrase) it has little or no bearing on his belief and the way he follows the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth.
    And just how much effort did he/does he put in engaging on the prophetic nature of the Old Testament, here on Nate’s blog.

    LikeLike

16. Nonsupernaturalist

    We are not being “caustic” with UnkleE for his views, but how he presents and defends those views. Stick around for a while and you will see what we mean.

    I understand that you have a history that I do not. Still, I will try to follow the lead of Nate, whose graciousness and patience I have appreciated. If a discussion becomes too frustrating to remain pleasant, than I should probably not participate.

    Arkenaten

    That you do not hold with the belief that the character Jesus of Nazareth was not historical does not mean there is not validity in the claim.

    Yes, I understand that I only have an opinion about the facts, not authority over them.

    The paucity of so-called evidence makes any claim of historicity shakey at best. … And for the record not a single scholar has ever produced enough evidence to make an outright claim.

    I am uncertain what your second sentence means. It is the near-universal consensus of (relevant) scholars that Jesus was a historical figure. Can you name any biblical scholars who are actively working and have published peer reviewed articles supporting mythicism? Can you point to any peer reviewed articles in major journals? Carrier’s book is the closest thing, and it was published by a legitimate academic publisher, but it was not independently peer reviewed.

    Of course, you are more than welcome to reject the consensus position of scholarship, but your first sentence about “so-called evidence” makes me wonder whether you are using the methodology of historical study or some other standard that is not applicable to the study of history. The simplest evidence for the historicity of Jesus is the existence of multiple writings within a few decades of his death that attest to his existence, the existence of followers who believed that he existed, that he was the messiah and that he was made the son of god. It’s really hard to explain the existence of Paul and the believers in Jerusalem and the letters of Paul without SOME original figure who lived and died and became the basis for the legends.

    LikeLike

17. What methodology do you believe is used to assert historicity?

    The multiple writings? Are you referring to the gospels? If so these have no real bearing on establishing the historicity of the character,and I am surprised you would even mention them.

    Could you please list the contemporary evidence you have for the character Saul of Tarsus/Paul?

    It’s really hard to explain the existence of Paul and the believers in Jerusalem and the letters of Paul without SOME original figure who lived and died and became the basis for the legends.

    Is it, why?
    I imagine there are numerous religions where the central figure is mythological. This never stopped people claiming they were real of form them garnering substantial followers.

    Also, may I ask if you have any leanings towards Christianity? Just for the record.

    LikeLike

18. The study of history, historical figures and texts generally involves the historical method and textual criticism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

    Of course, different scholars may focus on different elements, but those are big picture methodologies.

    The multiple writings? Are you referring to the gospels? If so these have no real bearing on establishing the historicity of the character,and I am surprised you would even mention them.

    I was referring to the letters of Paul, the Gospels, other books of the NT, Clement, Josephus. Plus, there is Q (or whatever you want to call the source for the shared material of Matthew and Luke), and possibly the Gospel of Thomas.

    Mark was the only fully independent book of the synoptic gospels, but Matthew and Luke do contain additional material that is unique from Mark and from each other. Scholars are perfectly capable of working with books that are partially interdependent and contain much that is clearly legendary.

    Could you please list the contemporary evidence you have for the character Saul of Tarsus/Paul?

    Seriously? We have 7 letters he wrote. We have fairly early church writings, like 1 Clement (c. 95), that talk about him.

    I imagine there are numerous religions where the central figure is mythological.

    Don’t imagine. Share. Give a few examples of religions whose believers believed in a *recent* mythological figure, somebody who supposedly existed within their lifetime and who they believed was a real human person. I would imagine at least some examples exist, but there are far more examples of people ascribing miraculous stories to human figures. It was positively commonplace in the ANE.

    Also, may I ask if you have any leanings towards Christianity? Just for the record.

    I am an atheist. I do not think there are any compelling arguments for Christianity, although that does not mean that every criticism of Christianity is correct. The only even quasi-interesting argument for theism is the difficulty of the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Of course, that is not actually an argument for theism. It is simply an unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) question. Theism could conceivably be an answer to it, but I see no reason to believe that it is. Besides, “theism” does not answer the question. It just kicks the question back a step.

    LikeLike

19. I was referring to the letters of Paul, the Gospels, other books of the NT, Clement, Josephus. Plus, there is Q (or whatever you want to call the source for the shared material of Matthew and Luke), and possibly the Gospel of Thomas.

    ”Paul’s” letters do not attest to a real historical figure.
    Acts is these generally considered largely spurious.
    The gospels cannot be used as historical evidence. I am very surprised you included them.
    Q is hypothetical, there is no evidence whatsoever for this supposed document.
    The passage in Josephus is an interpolation and the earliest copies do not have the TF.

    Yes, I am perfectly serious. There are seven authentic letters that claim to be written by someone called Paul. I asked for contemporary evidence but I realise now I should have been more specific.So I will add, outside of the bible.

    In my research I have never found a single contemporary reference to him anywhere.

    LikeLike

20. ”Paul’s” letters do not attest to a real historical figure.”

    He says Jesus was “born of a woman”, that Jesus “died”, that Jesus was “killed”, that Jesus had a “brother”, that Jesus was a descendant of David, that he came to earth in the “likeness” or appearance of man.

    Acts is these generally considered largely spurious.

    So? The choice is not between inerrancy and total falsehood. I cited written records that refer to Jesus from in or around the first century.

    The gospels cannot be used as historical evidence. I am very surprised you included them.

    What in the world are you talking about?

    Q is hypothetical, there is no evidence whatsoever for this supposed document.

    “Q” is short for “quelle”, which is German for “source.” Either Luke copied Matthew, Matthew copied Luke or Matthew and Luke had a common source for the non-Markan material the two of them share in common. If they had a common source for the shared material, that is “Q”.

    The passage in Josephus is an interpolation and the earliest copies do not have the TF.

    Part of the passage is interpolated. The vast majority of scholars believe the rest of that passage and all of the other passage are authentic.

    I asked for contemporary evidence but I realise now I should have been more specific.So I will add, outside of the bible.

    Ah, so if we discount all of the evidence we have, then we have no evidence.

    You are moving the goalposts. You asked for evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus. I presented quite a few written references to him within a few decades of his life. You said those do not count.

    You questioned whether Paul existed, despite having actual written records not only during his life but BY him. But you say that does not count.

    Why don’t you define what counts as reasonable historical evidence for the historicity of a person? And as a follow up, tell me whether that is a scholarly standard or your own personal standard.

    LikeLike

21. Just by reading your last comment, it would appear you believe in the authenticity of the bible as you tend to reference it as “historical evidence.” I think this is where you and Ark differ. JMO.

    LikeLike

22. Although I believe there probably is sufficient evidence to believe in an historical Jesus, I seriously doubt whether Paul knew much at all about this historical Jesus.

    I accept the Christian argument that the purpose of Paul’s epistles were to address specific issues in specific churches but his almost complete silence regarding the historical Jesus is still very odd. Paul says plenty about himself and his life in his epistles. Why so little about the historical Jesus? Why not tie in some of Jesus’ parables or sermons to the issues affecting the churches to whom Paul was writing? When discussing how Christians should deal with persecution, hy not bring in the Sermon on the Mount? When discussing the doctrine of redemption and forgiveness of sins, why not mention examples of Jesus’ acts of forgiveness such as when Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery or the conversation with the repentant thief on the cross? Why never mention that Jesus was born of a virgin? Why never mention the details of the Trial before Pilate, the words spoken on the cross, the last instructions to the disciples before the Ascension?

    Did Paul really know about an historical Jesus or did he only know the “Jesus the Christ” whom he had invented in his head (private revelation)??

    LikeLike

23. You questioned whether Paul existed, despite having actual written records not only during his life but BY him. But you say that does not count.

    No, it doesn’t count as there is no mention of the character outside the bible.
    Anyone could have written the letters, thus there is no way to verify whether there is an authentic ”Paul” behind them.

    And bearing in mind his supposed stature in the church and his standing among the Jewish hierarchy prior to his Damascus experience, and what happened after, one would expect there to be some mention of him somewhere other than from the hand of christians.

    I am not purposely ”moving the goal posts”, merely clarifying the criteria. Sorry if it stretches your patience. Regarding Paul, we are talking about the most famous character in the development of christianity, are we not? Why is it unreasonable to expect to find extra biblical evidence of a non christian nature?

    Re: Gospels.
    Exactly what verifiable evidence re: establishing the historicity of the character Jesus of Nazareth can be found in the gospels?

    Re: Q.
    Yes I know what it stands for, thanks, and I know the hypothesis. But that is all it is. There is no evidence for the document in question. None whatsoever.

    Ah, so if we discount all of the evidence we have, then we have no evidence.

    Absolutely correct! The evidence we have where it pertains to the veracity of these characters is, from a true historical perspective, pretty much worthless.

    As an aside, do you know who was supposed to have been the discoverer of Paul’s ‘letters’?

    I apologize re: Historical attestation in the letters. I actually meant to write there is no way to verify the claims made.

    Re: the T.F.: I reiterate, the earliest copies did not contain this passage. Perhaps it would be better if you read someone like Carrier as his take is much more qualified than I could ever offer.
    But the passage was never quoted or referenced before Eusebius.
    A similar case with Tacitus, only the time gap was much much longer.

    Reasonable evidence should be contemporaneous and able to be corroborated.
    I’ll refer you back to the Wiki link you offered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#Core_principles_for_determining_reliability

    There is nothing pertaining to the character Jesus of Nazareth that matches these criteria.

    So, do we have any corroborating contemporaneous evidence for the two main characters of Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth and Saul/Paul of Tarsus?

    Answer: Not a stitch.

    LikeLike

24. Did Clement of Rome not mention Paul?

    Would that count as an external source?

    Personally, I agree with Jon, but I do not pretend to be very well educated on the matter. I can get that there’d likely be a real person (both Jesus and Paul) to base their embellishments and legends off of. And to me, I think it makes more sense to base these legends off of a real person, rather than “hey, remember Jesus that never existed, yeah, he’s god now.”

    I mean, does anyone question Anne Frank’s diary as being written by Anne Frank? I don’t think a back up source is always necessary.

    But I don’t care enough any more to argue over it.

    Real or made up, the religion has serious holes that can’t be ignored once you see them.

    LikeLike

25. Although, I guess Clement is only referencing Paul’s letters, and not really Paul himself, but I’d think that since Clement actually lived at the time Paul was alive would add some degree of authenticity or reliability, maybe.

    LikeLike