Tim, i don’t know how you have the patience to deal with mythicists. i’ve dealt with them for the last week and am already getting pissed off. all their arguments are based off of “well all we have is hearsay”. i quoted ehrman’s book about how virtually all scholars except jesus’ existence and all i got was “that’s just a claim with no proof” i even linked you blog and got no response. hats off to you tim and all your work.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 There’s gotta be a reason why all scholars agree, though. You can’t just say “that’s an argument from authority” without providing any reason why they are all wrong.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 ok but i’m not talking about people teaching theology. i’m talking about ancient History professors. i’ll look into his work but i would be hard pressed to think that universities are making professors of ancient history that aren’t in any sort of religious school sign obligations to teach jesus was a historical figure. doesn’t seem like something that is that big of an issue. again, i’ll look into his work to further read. thanks
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 maybe people teaching a class dedicated to jesus studies. from my excellence in college history courses on western civilization they talked a little about christianity and it’s spread. about how it started with a man who was a preacher named jesus around 30 bc. they never said he was the son of god or whatever. and it wasn’t a class dedicated toward religious studies
I’ve met that unhinged obstinacy too Ben. I wouldn’t bother much if they just admitted “the evidence is not sufficiently convincing for me”. But rather, they insist “there’s no evidence”, and then proceed to explain away every piece of evidence. It’s really circular reasoning.
Since I griped about it over yonder... for the record, the sound levels on this video are good. Also, enlightening. Tacitus alone suffices to convince.
Meh, I think Tacitus is unconvincing since I am convinced his information is second-hand. There is no reason to think he would have Roman records, plus we know he was in locales where Christians were, and he was in contact with Pliny the Younger. So, we have little reason to consider any of his evidence independent. I personally consider Paul to be the convincing aspect. I think the extrabiblical sources don't validate historicity. What they do is actually show that early Christians were not mythicists. So they are still helpful (sans Josephus, Thallus, and Phlegon, who are at best hypothetical sources in their current conditions), but they do not validate Jesus' historicity imo. They just invalidate mythicism among early Christians.
Rez Tacitus fails to convince. There's a very strong case to be made that suggests christian tampering, which doesn't tax the imagination. Even if it hasn't been..... "By the time I produced OHJ, I found that in the end it doesn’t matter whether the passage in Tacitus is authentic or not. It still adds no probability to the historicity of Jesus, as it evinces no awareness of any independent sources. In all probability, in fact, Tacitus would have only gotten his information (directly or indirectly) from Christians, who took it in turn from the Gospels. It therefore only evinces the Gospels were circulating in the early 2nd century, which we already knew. This does nothing to corroborate anything in those Gospels. It doesn’t even support the conclusion that Christians in the 60s A.D. were preaching that version of the creed; as Tacitus does not say he learned that fact from any source of that period, rather than from Christians of this own time. And unknowns, remain unknowns. To argue otherwise is ad ignorantiam." www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14643
@@chrish4309 do they though? Pliny tells us the Christians gather before dawn on a fixed day and sing a hymn to Christ as to a god. Why would it be significant that they meet before dawn if not to witness the sun rising? Sounds to me like they associated Christ with the sun, which in no way disproves mythicism. There is no proof that the "Chresto" in Suetonius is Jesus. He seems to place this person in Rome among Jews in the time of Claudius, which is odd. How do these prove historicity or disprove mythicism? Interestingly none of the historians show knowledge of "Jesus of Nazareth", only Christ.
@@stimorolication9480 the Chresto in Suetonius is most certainly Jesus. There is no reason to think otherwise. Also the language seems to be him confusing people doing things in Christ's name, as Christ being an instigator. And I never said they prove historicity. I said that the authentic sources, like Pliny and Tacitus, indicate that there were not early celestial Jesus theories. Pliny is consistent with all of them (also the phrase "quasi deo" indicates "as if to a god" so... human).
@@chrish4309 you just ignored everything I said. While Suetonius could be referring to Jesus, there absolutely are reasons to "think otherwise", so your statement is wrong. The Suetonius passage doesn't give us enough information to conclude anything with certainty. Mythicism is ahistoricity. If they don't prove historicity they don't disprove ahistoricity. Pliny telling us the Christians met before sunrise indicates the rising sun being of importance to them, which of course does not hurt a mythicist view in any way.
Tom Harpur wrote "The Pagan Christ" (2004). On March 30, 2004 Dr. Paul L. Maier said on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Toronto, Ontario): "And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person. They may not say that Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom [Harpur] has very grave doubts about this, so he claims. Now that floored me right there. Because, we have copious evidence for Jesus’ existence. If you don't like the gospels, go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the Christians. This Roman historian says that they are named for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the historicity of Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with the riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber. Pliny, the younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up on Sunday morning and sing hymns to Christ as to a God. The Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own language. What more do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are trying to turn fact into fiction." Easter Discussion -- Dr. Paul Maier -- 1/2 ruclips.net/video/mBmAWwpZqXk/видео.html Good Friday: "It is probably the day on which we have more historical detail, both inside and outside of scripture than any other day in history. Which amazes me because there's so many attacks recently on the Christian faith and they center on, oh, computer blogs come along and they say Jesus as a man never lived and this kind of thing. Oh, what stupidity! I mean, anyone who makes these claims is just flaunting his ignorance." Easter Discussion -- Dr. Paul Maier -- 2/2 ruclips.net/video/-kMrZX4trE0/видео.html Read: "The Genuine Jesus: Fresh Evidence from History and Archaeology" (2021) by Paul L. Maier.
What do you think of Carrier's argument that there was a lost Scripture (quoted in Matt. 2.23) that said the messiah would be a "Nazorean", which Mark simply reified into a home town for Jesus?
I sincerely doubt there was any such lost scripture. gMatt has a consistent theme that Jesus was a fulfilment of prophetic scriptures, even though this often means roping in some pretty dubious texts and applying them to Jesus or depicting Jesus doing some odd things (like riding two donkeys at once) so he fits certain scriptures. Matt 2:23 is particularly dubious because (i) no such scripture is known and (ii) the gospel writer is vague about exactly *who* said this: he attributes it to "the prophets" (plural), which is a oddly general way to reference a particular prophetic text, if it existed. It's more likely there is no such text and the GMatt author has invented this to make the awkward Nazareth element in the narrative somehow seem ordained and fitting. But the main problem with Carrier's take is the same one with all of these various "it was originally a title and the gospel writer/s changed it to a town name". The question has to be asked - why? Why would they do this? If the original idea was that he was a Nazarite or a "Nazorean" (whatever that is), why don't the gospel writers depict him as ... that? Why change what this means? And why make it the name of a (non-existant?) town, especially given the Messiah was meant to be from Bethlehem? This creates the whole problem that the gMatt and gLuke writers then have to get around of Jesus being from the wrong town. This argument makes no sense. I go into more detail on the tangles Mythicists get themselves into to avoid the implications of Nazareth being a stubbornly awkward element in the narratives here: historyforatheists.com/2019/10/nazareth-myth/
Thanks for this wonderful video cutting right to the heart of the historicity question. While I am not a professional historian, I did receive a BA in history. While almost all of the history courses on events, movements, times and places were interesting and enjoyable, perhaps none has the lasting impact as a graduate course I took on “The Historians Craft”; essentially how to study history. It was truly enlightening and has practical value not only studying the past but providing perspective on the present.
Thanks. I'm constantly being told that my acerbic wit is a bad thing and that it puts people off, so for this one I restrained myself. I'm sure it will emerge occasionally though.
@@historyforatheists9363 this "acerbic wit" of yours was indeed what kept me from watching your video or listening to your arguments for so long. And I must say that I find them very convincing now. You obviously do what you want but for people like me that don't like to see insults and personal attacks in the middle of an intellectual argument these kind of videos are the perfect format.
No this is not sarcastic it’s just true most atheists have no clue how to do historiography. The new atheist at least obviously atheists like ehrman do know how to do history but some like Aron ra do not. Thanks Tim for the accessibility of the content
(i) Probably Mary and Joseph. I can't see any reason the gospel writers would make up those names and they are mentioned in all four gospels, even if Joseph doesn't appear outside of the infancy stories in gMatt and gLuke. (ii) We don't know. Probably not much, given he was a peasant from a poor village. The fanciful ideas that he went off backpacking in India etc are total nonsense.
Matt Dillahunty should watch this video. Anyway, I've appreciated your work for years now. I don't agree with everything you say -- I'm an Evangelical -- and I think you're a bit too dismissive of Christian scholars at times, but every time I've read one of your articles I can confidently say I'm a lot better off intellectually for it than if I hadn't read it. They're always very thought-provoking.
There are some Christians scholars who I think do excellent work and go where the evidence takes them, even when other Christians don't like where they end up. James Dunn and, especially, Dale C. Allison are two good examples of this. But I have little time for conservative Christians scholars like N.T. Wright who, without fail, just happen to end up where orthodox Christian belief would like them to be. They are clearly swayed by strong confirmation bias. And I have no time at all for apologists who pretend to be objective scholars, such as the consistently awful William Lane Craig. He's worse than most Mythicists. People with biases make for bad scholarship and people with rigid agendas make for junk pseudo history, every single time.
@@historyforatheists9363 I get the distaste for Christian apologists. (Well, at least for a lot of them.) They do make absurd arguments and claims that are rightfully laughed at by serious scholars and intellectuals. I wish guys like Frank Turk and other popularizers would drop the history stuff. They don't do it justice. But the conservative Christian scholars you lambast like Wright generally aren't even inerrantists. They're not even theologically orthodox a lot of the time either. (I'm sure you know how controversial the NPP has been in the scholarly world and amongst Christians.) Most of the time they just think the Gospels are more or less historically reliable and probably apostolic in origin. Even Richard Bauckham rejects the traditional authorship of two of the Gospels. This is mostly a moot conversation, because you've made it clear that the anti-Christian polemical stuff isn't your deal, but lastly I'll just say this: even "critical" scholars have biases. A lot of them are atheists or at least hostile to "traditional Christianity." Some of them even have an emotional or financial investment in disproving orthodox Christianity. The vast majority subscribe to Humean presuppositions about the world. Christian scholars are just one side of same coin. You can have the last say. I appreciate the interaction.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I've made clear which Christian scholars I respect and why. Others I just think have unconvincing arguments. Bauckham on the gospel authorship or Goodacre on Q, for example.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl If you do things like conflate orthodox christian belief with inerrantism and the Lutheran perspective on Paul (which you do by implication with what you say about N. T. Wright), you're just going to come across as ignorant. I don't mean that in terms of sensibility, I mean it in terms of knowledge. American evangelicals tend to equate American evangelicalism with Christian orthodoxy - but when you realize that technically, orthodoxy is "defined" so to speak by the early ecumenical creeds and not much more, you'll be disabused of any such notion. To you, Wright and Baukham may seem these nuanced, mediating scholars - but to people outside looking in, there is nary any distinguishing feature between them and a rabid fundamentalist. In any event, while I have distaste for, oh, quite a bit of the "scholarship" of N. T. Wright, he's firmly rooted within the orthodox faith by any worthy definition (which is why Tim senses what he does). If, as an evangelical, you want to get anywhere - my advice to you is don't try to play the game of "mediating" scholarship and feigned academic neutrality. Pick your poison, own up to it, and try to do good honest work (who cares what people think - and I mean people in your church, or atheists on YT). F. F. Bruce is a much better place to look for an "evangelical" (if you must) who was rightly acknowledged by the spectrum of the professional guild in his day (and after) as doing good critical work (of course, this must be understood - good British critical work - which tended towards conservatism even in its more liberal expressions).
@@user-tb2vc3gd5w I'll try to keep this brief. I'm aware that men like Wright and Bauckham largely agree with most historic orthodox beliefs. (Although I wonder how "orthodox" Wright even is these days.) But I stressed their demurral from inerrancy primarily because that's the biggest barrier between critical and Evangelical scholars. They aren't committed to believing the Bible is always right. It's not that they're "moderates" -- that's not my point -- but it's to highlight that despite their concessions to critical higher criticism, they still arrive at largely conservative conclusions about the New Testament while repudiating inerrancy. A real moderate would be someone like John Meier or Maurice Casey. And I *do* appreciate Evangelical scholars like Peter Williams who are forthcoming about their biases and still produce excellent work.
Philo of Alexandria was born 20 before Jesus ,if he existed , and died 20 years after he died, was a Jewish scholar that wrote about the Messiah craze going on and listed those trying to fill those shoes but NEVER mentioned a Jesus Christ , plus he visited Jerusalem too .
"Philo wrote about the Messiah craze going on and listed those trying to fill those shoes but NEVER mentioned a Jesus Christ" Philo did not write about any Messiah craze and did not do any listing of Messiahs. So this is totally wrong and complete garbage. I can tell you have never actually read any of Philo's works. Stop parroting erroneous claims.
I would definitely take issue with the idea of Paul having an idea of Jesus being a personal existing entity as opposed to simply a conceptually existing entity
"Given that there is no evidence that anyone expected an executed messiah before the rise of the Jesus Sect"... except Daniel 9 (parts of which are cited in the Gospels), which explicitly predicts an executed messiah.
NO, that's a bit of *post facto* Christian interpretation. No Jewish person in Jesus' time interpreted it that way and no Jewish person does so now either.
Warning for anyone looking for new arguments. It’s mostly „most scholars agree“ and strange linking of passages. It’s too vague as well, quoting verses without going into them. A few good points. All in all a bit of a let down.
"It’s mostly „most scholars agree“ ... " Nonsense. I note that scholars agree on several things and explain WHY. Deal with the substance, not a straw man of what I say. "and strange linking of passages" "Strange" how, exactly? "It’s too vague as well, quoting verses without going into them. " "vague" how, exactly? What do I not "go into" that you need clarification on? "All in all a bit of a let down." It's a summary of larger arguments. I can expand any point you need further explanation of.
Good and sober video. I am so old that I prefer a 10.000 word written text to a 30 minutes video, but I know the kids nowadays want that audiovisual element 😊
great work. i hope with the help of videos you reach more people. I already watched all the videos. the question is how often are you planning to post? I can't wait.
@@grantsmythe8625 History communication. All academic fields have a responsibility for public education, from science to the law. This is especially true if there's popular misinformation going around. Unfortunately, the people best placed to communicate to the public often aren't research academics. This is why we need people like Tim.
Hey Tim add a conversation with a friend you had a falling out with Christopher M. Hansen she claims both Josephus Jesus quotes are forgeries here's what she says about the testimonium I definitely would not agree on much here. As far as the Testimonium Flavianum is concerned, I do not think there is a coherent case to be made that Origen actually read it. This is, as far as I know, based entirely on the presupposition that his statement that Josephus rejected Jesus' messianism (i.e., didn't think he was the "Christ") implies that Origen read a TF that originally was negative or rejected Jesus as Christ, i.e., that it read "believed to be the Christ" instead of the textus receptus which reads "he was the Christ." The problem here is that Origen's statement does not actually require any TF at all. Origen rather routinely notes that Jews reject Jesus as Christ, or that other authors are non-Christians, including authors who never even wrote about Christianity or Jesus. Anyone with basic familiarity with Josephus, as Origen had, would be able to see he was an ardent Jewish individual, and thus would have rejected Jesus. As such, nothing in Origen implies he read a TF. It is just a logical error that a bunch of scholars make here's a quote on the James passage If so, it is pretty clear (in my opinion) that Origen is claiming that Josephus thinks James' death caused the fall of Jerusalem to Vespasian. IMO, this is probably caused by Origen arguably not actually looking directly at Josephus' text here. He has probably read the name James in book 20.200, and it is the closest and only possible figure that could be James the brother of Jesus, so he makes the identification and attributes a bunch to Josephus on this. Alice Whealey in her book Josephus on Jesus notes that Origen did this elsewhere as well
I think the idea that the copy of Josephus that Origen had did have some reference to Jesus at that point in Bk XVIII is completely compatible with Origen not referring to it directly. And no, I don't think his reference to Josephus not recognising Jesus as the Messiah means this reference was negative. It's true that "Origen's statement does not actually require any TF at all", but the key word there is "require". Origen's statement is perfectly compatible with a Jesus reference being where the TF now stands. And if that reference had no apologetic purpose for Origen and just stated that Jesus was a teacher who got executed, there would be no reason for Origen to make explicit notice to it. So what he says doesn't mean there was a proto-TF in Bk XVIII, but it's also not incompatible with that. More detail here: historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
Several of the Twelve Disciples appear only as names in the lists found in two of the gospels, and we know nothing more about them. Paul does mention "the Twelve" though, but who exactly they were is far from clear and the stories about most of them are much later and probably more legend than history. Magdalene appears in all four gospels and early traditions and is most likely historical. And pretty much no scholar doubts the existence of Paul. We have seven letters attributed to him which are consistent in their language and their theology and so are generally regarded as by him. We have others which are supposedly by him but probably aren't. That in itself indicates he existed - people generally forge writings by people who existed and so had authority.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thank you very much for your long answer so if i can ask you about death of figures like Paul, Peter, Philip, Andrew and my favorite Jude Thaddeus how history about death of this people is reliable? And second question to you think that Ignatius of Antioch really know John Apostle?
@@stanisawjarczyk5995 As I said, most of the stories about those figure's death date to centuries later and are not reliable. Peter's execution is hinted at in the gospels and so it's likely he was executed, but we can't be sure of the details. Paul's execution is hinted at in Acts and references to it are early, so it's likely that happened too. James son of Zebedee's execution is referred to directly in Acts, but that's the only one found in any NT document. The others are all highly uncertain and could simply be legends.
Nothing. That's kind of the point. Why people go to such lengths to come up with tangled arguments that he didn't exist is the mystery here, given that the Jesus we're talking about is just a Jewish preacher, not the Jesus of Christianity. So why bother?
Actually Muslims almost uniformly agree there was a historic Jesus. Even many rabbis would agree. However, Muslims and Jews do not agree that Jesus was divine, was resurrected, or was the Messiah.
One thing that I still wonder is Romans 13, It's unexpected to me that Paul would say that about "the authorities" after Jesus was crucified by also "authorities", can someone explain that?
Some have tried to argue that Romans 13:1-7 is a later interpolation, written in the wake of the Jewish War to calm anti-Roman sentiments among Christians or at some much later date to accommodate Christianity with the Roman Empire. But most scholars find this unlikely and Robert Stein argues it is too carefully constructed and too connected to the previous arguments in the epistle to be anything but authentic (see “The Argument of Romans 13:1-7.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 31, no. 4, 1989, pp. 325-343). It makes more sense that, despite having been on the receiving end of some Roman oppression himself, Paul did see the Empire as something which was, ultimately, supported by the rule of God in the short term, and so not something Christians should resist while waiting for the coming apocalypse. In that context, short-term resistance was pointless and counterproductive. The author of Revelation, writing somewhat later, appears to have had a different and much less accommodating view.
t.l carter, neil elliott, and others make a pretty compelling case that, while paul is urging pragmatic compliance with roman authority, that much of his rhetoric in romans 13 is deeply ironic. thom stark theorizes that it's an example of what james c. scott calls "dissembling" or the "politics of disguise and anonymity". where what the oppressed really think about the ruling elites is expressed in a way that offers plausible deniability. so you have paul insisting that the roman authorities are ultimately subject to god. but consider this in the context of the real world: the authorities of the roman empire at any given time were just the last group to win a civil war for control of the empire - that is, a product of rebellion against god's previous established authorities. the authorities 'bear the sword', ruling by fear and intimidation. think of this in the context of the flattering self-image of a roman elite that thinks its rule is in accord with justice and Natural Law.
Sorry but this host is dead wrong when he says it's silly to say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Reason being that the books of the Bible are all written by religious people. None of the books in there are written by atheist. Therefore it's 100 percent accurate to say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Also, the host mentioned that about a hundred years after Jesus death, some secular writer wrote that Jesus existed, and he didn't get that info from Christians. This is comical that the host would say that. Reason being that how the F would anyone living after Jesus and all his followers died know if Jesus was ever a real person or not, so of course that writer based his info on what Christians of his day told him.
"None of the books in there are written by atheist. Therefore it's 100 percent accurate to say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible." This is absurd. As I explain, no-one here is "proving the Bible". We are using the texts that, centuries later, came to be included in the Bible to work out the origins of the stories in those texts. This is what historians do with any ancient text. To claim we "can't" analyse these texts about their origins is completely absurd. "how the F would anyone living after Jesus and all his followers died know if Jesus was ever a real person or not" All kinds of ways. They would use the materials and sources any ancient historian used: previous accounts, records, memories and oral traditions. In this case, Tacitus had plenty of aristocratic Jewish exiles at the court of Titus that he could consult about what they knew of the origins of a Jewish sect. "of course that writer based his info on what Christians of his day told him" See above. You have no basis for limiting his potential sources to Christians and there are good reasons to conclude he didn't get his info from them, as I explain.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 We have as much evidence as we would expect for Jesus -- messiah or no messiah. You clearly didn't watch the vid to see how your objections don't make any sense.
Tim I’ve recently heard the argument in favor of mythicism that Josephus’s father wrote about preachers of the time but doesn’t mention Jesus. Have you heard this before?
No. But given we have no writings by his father and no idea what any such writings might contain, I have no idea what such an argument would be based on.
@@historyforatheists9363 i think it’s talked about in here deusdiapente.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/the-history-of-early-christianity-part-1/#comments and they reference the Babylonian Talmud for some of it. the person i was conversing with also said they were going to mention a book that mentions it
@@historyforatheists9363 yea i guess maybe their main point was “they mentioned all these people but why not jesus of the bible”. so would you consider something like that to fall under the “no contemporary sources” argument?
Kind of. Most of the people they mention are only known to us from Josephus. So they can only maintain the "Jesus wasn't mentioned like these people were" argument by totally dismissing *both* of the references to Jesus in Josephus. They only bother to mention the "Testimonium" reference in BK XVIII and then dismiss the majority view that its partially authentic without much argument. And they completely ignore the other reference - the Jesus-James reference in AJ XX.200 - which virtually all scholars regard as authentic. They also make a great deal of various "Yeshu"/Jesus references in the Talmud. Whether these were references to Jesus of Nazareth or to other people with the same first name is not clear, but pretty much all scholars agree that at least some of them are to the founder of Christianity. This guy just assumes none of them are and then expresses surprise that the Talmudic writers don't mention Jesus. His whole article is a weird pastiche of things most critical scholars would agree with (e.g the depiction of Pilate in the gospels is at variance with how he is depicted in Philo and Josephus), and totally crackpot stuff. It's a complete mess as a result.
Paul's Jesus vs Gospel Jesus. The basic point is that in all of the pre-Gospel material, namely the epistles of Paul, James and to the Hebrews, there is no description of teachings or deeds of Jesus. There is nothing that describes why a person would be worshipped. The Jesus described in all of those early works is clearly a god, he is “the Lord Jesus Christ”, who can destroy the world, create a new world in heaven, overcome death, bring divine justice to the world, absolve people of all their sins, etc. Clearly these are the reasons that the pre-Gospel Jesus was worshipped, and all of those things are attributes of a god (or demigod or archangel or what have you), not a person. There is no discussion of the worship of a pre-Gospel Jesus for any reasons other than godly divine powers. If the “real Jesus” is “just a person”, then why would this real Jesus have been worshipped? Paul says he worships Jesus because he overcame death and is capable of absolving believers of their sins and giving them immortality in a perfect world. What possibly could a real person have done to inspire the belief he could do those things? James says to believe in Jesus because he will bring divine justice to the world. Hebrews talks about absolution of sins for the world. None of these reasons why Jesus was being worshiped talk anything about teachings or deeds of a person, they all talk about divine powers. The Jesus of the Gospels, again, was worshiped due to belief in his divine powers. There are no real teachings or meaning even in the Gospel of Mark, as Dykstra also notes. GMark mostly presents mysteries that are never revealed, and what anyone may try to take away as “teachings” from Mark are really from Paul. In terms of Occam’s razor, you have to either believe that somehow a group of people were led to believe that a normal person was able to “overcome death” and had obtained massive godly powers, or that a group of people were worshipping the idea of a divine being who was later cast in a story as a real person. Oh, and also the people who worshipped the normal person who they were convinced was a god didn’t write down anything about what this normal person said or did. Clearly Occam’s Razor is in favor of the second position. - RG Price
The comment above is riddled with errors of fact. As I note in the video you're commenting on, Paul refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor 7:10), on preachers (1Cor 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor 2:8, 1Thess 2: 14-16) that he was crucified (1Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4). So the claim Paul doesn't mention any teachings or deeds of Jesus is factually incorrect. He doesn't mention them much because he assumes his readers know them already - the letters that survive to us surivive because they were mainly theological in content. They are not retellings of material the preservers of these texts already had in the gospels. The idea that Jesus in these early works "is clearly a god" is nonsense. James and Hebrews AREN'T early works. And the Jesus in the seven letters of Paul that are considered authentic actually isn't presented as God at all. He is presented as God's exalted Messiah, worthy of veneration second only to God. Any critical scholar on Paul could explain this. The fact that Mythicists have to use Christian apologist arguments to claim otherwise is both hilarious and deeply ironic.
@@historyforatheists9363 It sounds like you're fusing theology with history. Paul stated that the 'Lord' said those things, not Jesus. In the examples you gave, he is using the word 'Lord' he is speaking in the context of receiving information from a divine Lord, not an earthly Jesus. It's true that Jesus isn't portrayed as 'clearly a god' but he is portrayed as an exalted or divine being and sometimes earthly and divine together but in those cases, Paul is still making a theological point not stating historical facts. Just because something sounds historically plausible, doesn't mean it's historically true. Paul is not an historian, nor his works free from tampering (or anything from the bible for that matter). Even when Paul mentions statements from Jesus, almost all of those statements are derived or inspired from the OT or other Jewish and Hellenistic sources and traditions, otherwise they're from Paul who's saying they originated from the Lord (to give his statements authority). As for James and Hebrews dating, it could go either way, pretty much like the dating of all Christian documents, even papyrologists squirm at some of the dating from NT scholars. But I know you like to go with the consensus, which in NT studies is rife with its own problems. www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/3283-2/#_Toc127352262 www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/introduction-to-hebrews/#_Toc125987129 As for Christian apologetics, isn't New Testament studies just one big, long convoluted exercise in Christian apologetics?
@@Mr_T. "In the examples you gave, he is using the word 'Lord' he is speaking in the context of receiving information from a divine Lord, not an earthly Jesus." He is? Please show us where he says that.
You're taking things too literal. All you have to do is read the preceding and following passages of each verse you gave me, to understand that Paul isn't focused on an historical Jesus but how the crucified and risen Lord or Christ is the central authority of his church and theology. Most of the stuff he says (that he attributes to the Lord or Christ Jesus) has roots in the OT and other Jewish and Greek texts and traditions. An historical Jesus isn't even necessary for his theology to work.
@@Mr_T. I'm simply going with the evidence. There is clear evidence in Paul's writings that he knew there had been a historical, earthly Jesus. There is literally NO evidence that he or anyone else believed in a purely celestial, non-earthly, non-historical Jesus. That's just a fantasy that Mythicists have invented. It's garbage. Go away.
Hi Tim I am a student of Price and Carrier and I would love to come on to represent their case in the strongest way. I'm not certain of mythicism but I think it is more probable than historicism
I'm not interested. Online "debates" are not useful ways to examine historical issues. I'm completely familiar with the arguments of Price and Carrier and perfectly capable of presenting them and why they are not convincing without your assistance. Thanks anyway.
@@historyforatheists9363 I'm not doubting your ability and I don't mean to be confrontational. All I'm saying is the best way to address mythicism is to steel-man their arguments then argue against that. In this video you did no-such thing. Price has a very strong argument against the brother of the lord being biological and Carrier has arguments against the Josephus passage being about a different Jesus character not the one in the bible. You did not address these arguments in this video. I get it you don't buy mythicism, I'm 50/50 on it myself but this video misses out on so much of what carrier and price argue that it cannot be taken seriously as a rebuttal.
@@wingedlion17 " In this video you did no-such thing." How many more times do I have to point out to you that THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT MYTHICISM? What part of that don't you understand? I don't do more than mention Mythicism in passing because this video isn't about Mythicism. Try to get that into your head. "Price has a very strong argument against the brother of the lord being biological and Carrier has arguments against the Josephus passage being about a different Jesus character not the one in the bible. " yes. They are both terrible arguments that don't work. As I explain in detail in the article I linked to for you. "You did not address these arguments in this video." Because THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT MYTHICISM. "this video misses out on so much of what carrier and price argue that it cannot be taken seriously as a rebuttal.' Because it ISN'T a rebuttal. THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT MYTHICISM. Read that sentence until you grasp what it means. Before we all die of boredom.
@@historyforatheists9363 Hi Tim, I read somewhere that secular historians have supposedly confirmed the darkness at Jesus’s crucifixion? Of course I'm skeptical of such claims. Do you know anything about it?
@@LM-jz9vh This is usually referring to a claim by Tertullian that his pagan opponents "have the account of the world-portent still in your archives". There is no indication of what he's referring to and it is very likely he was just making this up. Origen also referred to some eclipses in the reign of Tiberius which he claimed corresponded to the "darkness" story, but elsewhere he argues the "darkness" was just a local event in Palestine, so he seems to have been aware that the whole story was dubious. The ninth century Byzantine historian George Syncellus quotes the third century Christian writer Africanus who in turn mentions the darkness and says a certain "Thallus" dismissed it as an eclipse. But we have no copy of this "Thallus" work and so we can't tell if he actually addressed the issue at all. If he did, he was clearly sceptical of it and didn't accept it. So no, there isn't any such confirmation.
From what I've read (not the bible), he existed. The influence is too grate and pervasive to be dismissed, but after his death (whatever and whenever that was), some turned him into a god.
While I was looking at utube regarding pharaoh's carvings I realized everyone was bearing a ring and cross, even carved letters, at their bottoms alway cross connected to ring, How this later developed in Christianity that every one has his cross...
What text outside of the Bible explicitly addresses Jesus? The Bible is a narrative not a historical book of reference. After watching a few of your videos, I don’t believe that you are an atheist. This maybe wrong but that is my impression of your content. I do recognize that all atheist are different.
Tacitus and Josephus refer to Jesus as a historical person. The Bible is not a “narrative”, it’s a collection of many different types of text, including narratives such as Acts or the gospels. I have no idea what you mean by “a historical book of reference” but no scholar simply accepts what any Biblical book says as factual history - we read them critically. And you’re completely wrong: I am an atheist. You seem very confused.
@@ameynamjoshi741 You can be "half an atheist" the same way you can be "half pregnant". In other words, you can't. I AM an atheist. So stop making stupid comments.
Why don’t you try watching and paying attention to the video? He goes over extrabiblical evidence for Jesus. And yes of course you can’t believe that Tim O’Neill is atheist (*rolls eyes*).
Paul refers to Jesus his teachings? or are the gospel writers using Paul's idea's? for example the last supper story could have never came from Jesus. it's a greek/roman tradition. the jews are against blood sacrifice. you can not conclude that Paul refers to Jesus teachings when Paul wrote before the gospels... i do agree that he probably existed
Basically boils down to Paul’s one brother of James passage as the the joesepfus James passage passage is another Jesus with the Christ reference a redaction and tasitus got it from pliney who got it from a Christian deacon a century later. So one Paul passage is it. Nothing else. Including Philo.
"Basically boils down to Paul’s one brother of James passage as the the joesepfus James passage passage is another Jesus with the Christ reference a redaction " Nope. That failed argument is garbage. Details here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/ "and tasitus got it from pliney who got it from a Christian deacon a century later." Gosh. And you *know* this how, exactly? "Nothing else. Including Philo." Philo had no interest in people like Jesus and makes no mention of ANY early first century preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants like Jesus. So where exactly would you expect Philo to mention Jesus? Citations please.
@@historyforatheists9363Tacitus his reference is way too late and he could have gotton his information from christians, so you can't use that as a source. how do you know he didn't got his information from christians? the James the brother of the lord tradition in the only thing that holds weight for the historicity of Jesus. certainly not anything that's in the gospels.. you can not conclude anything from a story written by an unknown writer in a different language in a different country atleast 40 years after the event. mythical stories made to make people believe. you can't use them as biographies. no way of knowing if those stories where not completely made up.
The idea that Paul didn't exist and yet we have extensive evidence of texts written to cash in on the prestige of his authority makes no sense. Pseudepigrahical literature only arises when there is an authoritative figure to lend it credibility. So excuse me if I don't find your subsequent "difficulties" very interesting.
Don't worry about the obnoxious attitude but he is right, there are no good arguments for the non existence of Paul. Unlike Jesus his prior probability of existing is very high.
Tim, I’ve heard a theory that in Josephus’s Book 20 reference to Jesus, Josephus saying “who was called the Christ” was a title that was actually meant for James and not Jesus. The theory then goes on to say the whole paragraph is about the priesthood and the Jesus mentioned was actually Jesus son of Damnius. The theory, to me, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense considering how Josephus introduced people but i had never heard of the theory that “the Christ” title was mean for James.
That "theory" makes no sense if you understand the Greek. The phrase τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστο ("the brother of Jesus who was called 'Messiah") is all in the genitive case. That means the του λεγομενου Χριστο ("who was called 'Messiah'") agrees grammatically with Ιησου ("Jesus"), not with Ιακωβος ("James"), which is in the nominative. This is one of those dumb arguments that only works in English. There is a reason why no-one with any grasp of the Greek has proposed this stupid idea. It's wrong.
@@historyforatheists9363 yea i agree. i don’t know where the person got that theory from cause i have never heard it before. also have heard the whole james reference is a marginal note argument but that one seems very suppositional
@@benthompson421 I deal with Carrier's convoluted "marginal note" argument in the second half of my article here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
@@mikaeljohansson7921 Did you actually listen to what I said in the video? By referring to the texts that CENTURIES LATER got included in "the Bible" I'm not using "the Bible". I'm using ancient texts and I'm using them the way any historian uses ancient texts - to work out what they were trying to say, who they were saying to and why and what this can tell us about the origin of these texts and therefore what this can tell us about the past. And I'm not "proving the Bible". I'm establishing what the writers of these texts were saying, what this tells us about what they believed and therefore how these beliefs arose. This is historical analysis. It's not remotely like what Christians are doing when they use the Bible to make theological claims. Do you understand now or do I need to use smaller words?
@@mikaeljohansson7921 What the hell are you talking about? Make some sense or you'll be banned from this channel. I'm not here to waste my time on trolls.
Very well presented video, I enjoyed it. And I do not claim to be a historian but I read a lot. I agree there is some evidence that he existed but some of it such as Josephus's text is thought to have been altered. The books of the bible seem questionable to me since they were written years later, and not by the eyewitnesses themselves. I cant see how these things can be accepted as proof. I'd also like to comment that it is my understanding that the Romans kept meticulous records of court trials and sentences, and that there is mention of Jesus in their records.
" ... some of it such as Josephus's text is thought to have been altered" I make very clear in the video that the reference to Jesus in Josephus that I'm using - *AJ XX.200 - is NOT the one there is debate about. So, wrong. "I cant see how these things can be accepted as proof. " I don't use them as "proof". I note elements in them that are very difficult to make sense of unless they depend on memories of a historical Jesus. Elements that became *awkward* later. Are you sure you watched the video? You don't seem to have understood it. "it is my understanding that the Romans kept meticulous records of court trials and sentences, and that there is mention of Jesus in their records." No Roman "records of court trials and sentences" exist. So yes, they kept records, But no, we don't have them to consult. So your understanding is faulty.
Yes, there were. But the evidence indicates the sect that developed into Christianity was based on a particular one. One who came from Nazareth, was baptised by John, had a brother called James and was crucified by Pilate. So I’m talking about that particular Jesus, not any of the others.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 This is garbage, from a linguistic, evidential and archaeological point of view. Read and learn: historyforatheists.com/2019/10/nazareth-myth/
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 All archaeologists who excavated there agree it was inhabited in the EARLY Roman Period. Based on multiple pottery and coin finds. That’s smack bang when guess who was around. So pay attention to the experts and not that crackpot piano player from Oregon, you idiot.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 _"I read books by PhD's not blogs by undergrads."_ Too bad you don't read books by actual authorities. And do you understand what an "undergrad" actually is?
"Your Pauline references are completely debatable." As I said, Mythicists have ways to read those references to try to make them conform to their theory. It's just that these readings are contrived, convoluted and - in some cases - laughably bad. "Paul did think Jesus was a human." Okay. Then that's a major problem for Mythicism, given how early Paul's testimony is. Which is why most Mythicists try to claim he didn't. But fail to make this case convincingly.
@@historyforatheists9363 but why make a video where you basically straw man the mythicists position. Robert M Price has countless videos and podcasts where he goes into detail for these arguments. Maybe buy his book or play his arguments then respond to them. You are just constantly brushing them aside as strained without actually addressing them in any detail. The brother of the lord issue has a much stronger defense by mythicists than the one you present
@@wingedlion17 "why make a video where you basically straw man the mythicists position." I've done nothing of the sort. Obviously I can't give full justice to the Mythicists' (various) positions in a brief 28 summary, especially one that actually isn't about Mythicism at all and so only touches on its arguments in passing. Nothing I say when I do mention them "straw mans" them, so don't be ridiculous. "Maybe buy his book or play his arguments then respond to them. " I've been studying this stuff for 35 years. I know his arguments. And I know why almost all scholars reject them and why he is a fringe figure that no-one takes very seriously. There will be later videos here that address Mythicist arguments. This video isn't about them. "You are just constantly brushing them aside as strained without actually addressing them in any detail." Again, that's because this video isn't about them. Pay attention. "The brother of the lord issue has a much stronger defense by mythicists than the one you present" I take apart that supposedly "strong" defence here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/ Read an learn. I know far more about this stuff than any online Myther kiddie, so give me a break.
@@wingedlion17 Robert M. Price has countless videos of him making methodologically dubious and specious claims, to an extent that any "methodology" he has is thrown out the window by his own inherent lack of self reflection, i.e. his eternal proclivity to contradicting everything he says within 20 pages of saying it. I've spotted him doing this especially on his interpolation theories. For instance, he holds that 1 Cor. 15's creedal statement is an interpolation, and he bases this partly on a contradiction in Galatians... except that he holds that 1 Cor. was written by a gnostic, and Galatians written by Marcion (who was likely not even docetic according to more recent observations). So... it can't be a contradiction, because they are not the same author. His arguments are pathetically bad, and that is why not a singular Pauline scholar on god's green and forsaken earth take him seriously, and why only crackpot atheist and secularist presses, with nothing better to do than jerk off to the sound of god's death publish his methodologically incoherent screeds, which he calls "books."
@@chrish4309 if you actually listen to Price without the huge hate glasses on you would know his position is that the Pauline letters, particularly Corinthians and Romans are all patched together. a mish mash of letters first collected by gnostics and marcionites..and then later edited with interpolations by an redactor to make them more palatable for orthodoxy. This is hardly an extreme view. I mean 'scholars' who take an oath of inerrancy on the first day of seminary will disagree. But there are plenty of truly secular scholars who have made reconstructions of what the original Galatians text was like and so one. Any interpolation theory relies on some degree of speculation but in the Pauline letters there are many arguments some, strong some weak for quite a number of them.
The texts in Iosefus referring to "JC's brother" are clearly insertions, apocrypha. Wrong context, unrelated with the chain of events written in the original text.
"Wrong context, unrelated with the chain of events written in the original text." Really? Then please back that up with evidence-based argument and reference to the relevant scholarship. How is AJ XX.200 somehow in "the wrong context"? How is it "unrelated with the chain of events written in the original text"? Details please. Let's see if you know what you're talking about. Edit: Since it seems the commenter above has run away, I should note he's using/parroting a standard Mythicist argument against the Testimonium Flavianum, i.e. AJ XVIII.63-4. But the reference to Jesus' brother James is a later passage, AJ XX.200. So he's muddled up the two passages. And in my video I quite clearly acknowledge the controversies over and arguments against the authenticity of the AJ XVIII.63-4 passage, and then equally clearly say I'm talking about the AJ XX.200. So what we see on display here is the mindless kneejerk nature of most online commentary by Mythers, as well as example of their basic incompetence. It seems many of these people really aren't terribly bright.
Notice how Tim, like a lot of historicists, has to read information into Paul that is simply not there! 12:56 "flesh & blood brother" is not there in the text, at all. Neither do competent mythicists think Paul is lying or fantasising! It says only: "James, the brother of the Lord" This is very possibly an example of fictive kinship as was very common in the earliest sect. All these proto Christians became the brother of the Lord upon baptism, it seems Cephas was of a higher rank than this James, whoever he was. Paul shows absolutely no awareness whatsoever that he needs to distinguish between baptised Christians and the fruit of Mary's loins! Hence Tim needs to read material into Paul that is simply not there.
It's weird how you call normal people who rely on experts "historicists" - it's a bit like when climate change deniers call normal, rational people "warmists".
@@topologyrob It's a bit subjective for you to think they are "normal" isn't it? and a massive assumption to think that they are relying on " experts " after they may only be relying on history for Atheists and he's no expert. Carrier, Price, Lataster etc surely they are entitled to be considered experts? or are experts defined here as people who you agree with?
@@ghostriders_1 Experts are peer-reviewed scholars who convince other peer-reviewed scholars, who teach at leading institutions like Harvard, Oxford etc (and no, definitely Carrier etc in your list don't qualify - they fail to impress any experts). They are not persuaded by this crankery any more than biologists are convinced by creationists, despite the latter's efforts to label them as "evolutionists", nor than climate scientists convinced by contrarians who call them "warmists" or engineers by 9/11 truthers, nor epidemiologists by anti-vax nuts.
@@topologyrob one false analogy after the other. Mythicism is a challenge to that consensus, you can't cite the consensus to defend it and for your information Carrier is peer reviewed.
I will concede all day long that a normal man/men may of been the basis for the Jesus character. But the Jesus as depicted in the bible...no way he existed. No scholar or historian worth his salt will attest to that. And not that i need them to tell me, but it helps in the credibility department. Theist's however, have their work load ahead of them trying to show the Jesus as depicted in the bible is even a plausible hypothesis. Good luck with that.
What do you mean by "as depicted in the bible"? There probably are a lot of similarities between the Jesus that existed and the one depicted in the Bible. You probably mean the supernatural claims. Don't worry...historical analysis does not deal with the supernatural.
@@Alnivol666 Hi,thanks for the reply: "What do you mean by "as depicted in the bible"? There probably are a lot of similarities between the Jesus that existed and the one depicted in the Bible." If i am in a conversation with a believer in christianity i am happy to speak about a mundane jesus character that the gospel stories may of been derived from. But personally i lean towards a celestial jesus/angel. I feel it fits the narrative better. Also if a believer agrees that the stories are based on a mundane guy, then the jig is up, no god/demigod. "You probably mean the supernatural claims. Don't worry...historical analysis does not deal with the supernatural. Yes the supernatural claims. But you seem to imply that supernatural claims can occur, but are not granted when looking into history? Is that a fair assessment? If so, how can supernatural claims be assessed then or now? If not, then all good. cheers G
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 "a celestial jesus/angel" - no, it doesn't ...not at all. You are very biased when you look into this. Probably you have read too much Carrier. Carrier is not a good scholar. Ancient history is filled with supernatural claims (not just Christian texts) because the way people saw the world back then was much more different than the way we see it today. Supernatural claims are outside the object of study of historical analysis. They are simply not even looked at because there is no way to assess their veracity so a historical scholar regardless of his religious views does not take them into account (if he is a scholar worth his salt). The historical method does not deal with assessing the veracity of supernatural claims.
@@Alnivol666Hi, thanks again for the reply: ""a celestial jesus/angel" - no, it doesn't ...not at all. You are very biased when you look into this. Probably you have read too much Carrier. Carrier is not a good scholar". Yes i do lean towards Carriers work, but i am not dogmatic. I have read his Historicity of Jesus book and a will admit i had initial doubts as to what the hell this guy was on about. But after years of watching countless debates with him and others going back and forth on the subject i gave in and conceded he made more sense of the source material. In every video debate about the historicity of jesus that he has been on with other scholars he has made more sense then the other guy and given a better understanding of the source material in nearly every case. If you can point to other scholars peer reviewed books on the subject i will happily buy it and also check out his or her videos on the subject. And as much a i like Bart Ehrman his Historicity book was at best 'lacking'. "Ancient history is filled with supernatural claims (not just Christian texts) because the way people saw the world back then was much more different than the way we see it today. Supernatural claims are outside the object of study of historical analysis. They are simply not even looked at because there is no way to assess their veracity so a historical scholar regardless of his religious views does not take them into account (if he is a scholar worth his salt). The historical method does not deal with assessing the veracity of supernatural claims." Yep, o.k ., but you did not answer my question. I asked: 'But you seem to imply that supernatural claims can occur, but are not granted when looking into history? Is that a fair assessment? If so, how can supernatural claims be assessed then or now? If not, then all good'. To be more clear do supernatural events happen? If so, how can supernatural claims be assessed either then or now? If they do not happen, then we are all good. cheers G
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 The question is irrelevant when it comes to academically engaging in historical analysis. The existence or non-existence of supernatural events is never even looked at. And if you think Carrier makes sense, I am really sorry for you. The guy has no traction in the field he is supposedly a scholar in. He does not engage with other academics in the field. He holds no position in any university. If he did have a point, the field he is working in seems to not really consider it good enough. And why wouldn't we expect that his scholarship would suck since he really does not engage with the top tier scholars in the field? I have no idea what debates you watched, but in any way, that is not how you decide if somebody's ideas are good or not. Why are you asking me to provide you with the names of scholars? For sure, if you are interested in the subject you would have no trouble finding these people. How the hell did you find Carrier? He is a nobody in the field and yet you swallowed his ideas like candy. Me thinks you have arrived here with a particular set of biases and are engaging in a process of confirmation bias. What can I say? Good luck with that. By the way, I am also an atheist but could never be a Carrier follower. The man is obviously so anti-theistic it is affecting his work. His butchering of original sources is beyond amazing. But to see how much butchering he is doing, you have to actually be familiar with what Carrier is talking about. I think a lot of atheists fall for Carrier because he really looks like he knows what he is talking about. Meanwhile, people who actually know one or two things about this subject are shaking their heads in disbelief.
I love your work but not trying to judge but be more enthustiastic my guy lol show me more of that fasicinating persona my dude and you should try putting sources in the vid or try different ways to make vids like IP does experiment with it have fun and be happy God bless informatiive!!
@@historyforatheists9363 let's also not forget that mythicists like Richard Carrier literally only started doing this because people paid off their college loans and then raised $20,000 dollars for him to write a book on this... just saying, if there is a case of bribery going on, I think we know who is getting bribed and by whom here.
This is sophism, specious and self serving to suit pre determined beliefs. There is NO contemporary evidence of Jesus. These claims are gobsmacking delusional exaggerations of a fairytale.
"This is sophism, specious and self serving to suit pre determined beliefs." Nice handwaving. Explain how what I say is "sophism". Ditto for "specious". And "self serving" how, exactly? Do you even know what that term means? And how do you know what my "predetermined beliefs" would be? Throwing around bombastic terms is not making an argument. Either make an argument or shut up and go away. "There is NO contemporary evidence of Jesus. " No. And? We have no contemporary evidence for most ancient figures. Big deal. We also have none for any of the other analogous early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants of this kind, so why would we expect any for this one? We wouldn't. I deal with that bad argument in detail here: historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/ . Read and learn. "These claims are gobsmacking delusional exaggerations of a fairytale." Gosh. I hope this silly blurting made you feel better. Unless you can back it up with detailed argument addressing what I say, we can treat it like all the rest of the flatulence we get around here.
Just some Jewish dude, which their were lots at the time raving on about the Jewish Apocalypse which was all of the rage at the time. Not one word written about Jesus during his life time even after all those miracles, that's all you need to know really 'he was no one special'. When Spartacus just 70 years before Jesus has his name plastered all over the roman history books.
"Just some profit Jewish dude" He seems to have been quite poor and so not much "profit" was involved. Unless, of course, the word you meant was "prophet". Yes, he was just some Jewish prophet. "which their were lots at the time raving on about the Jewish Apocalypse which was all of the rage at the time." Yes. "Not one word written about Jesus during his life time even after all those miracles" No. Though who said anything about him performing "miracles"? Are you sure you watched my video? "that's all you need to know really 'he was no one special'" Who said anything about him being "special"? You realise I'm an atheist, right? I think you may be a bit confused about what's being said here. "When Spartacus just 70 years before Jesus has his name plastered all over the roman history books." Given he led one of the biggest slave rebellions in Roman history, that's hardly surprising. Why do you think this peasant preacher in Galilee would be "plastered all over the roman history books"? No other Jewish preacher of the time was mentioned by any contemporary writing, so why would you expect this one to be? I think you need to read my article on this point: historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/
Spot on! I often argue these points with mythicists to no avail
Tim, i don’t know how you have the patience to deal with mythicists. i’ve dealt with them for the last week and am already getting pissed off. all their arguments are based off of “well all we have is hearsay”. i quoted ehrman’s book about how virtually all scholars except jesus’ existence and all i got was “that’s just a claim with no proof” i even linked you blog and got no response. hats off to you tim and all your work.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 There’s gotta be a reason why all scholars agree, though. You can’t just say “that’s an argument from authority” without providing any reason why they are all wrong.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 are you talking about people in christin colleges or in regular universities?
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 ok but i’m not talking about people teaching theology. i’m talking about ancient History professors. i’ll look into his work but i would be hard pressed to think that universities are making professors of ancient history that aren’t in any sort of religious school sign obligations to teach jesus was a historical figure. doesn’t seem like something that is that big of an issue. again, i’ll look into his work to further read. thanks
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 maybe people teaching a class dedicated to jesus studies. from my excellence in college history courses on western civilization they talked a little about christianity and it’s spread. about how it started with a man who was a preacher named jesus around 30 bc. they never said he was the son of god or whatever. and it wasn’t a class dedicated toward religious studies
I’ve met that unhinged obstinacy too Ben. I wouldn’t bother much if they just admitted “the evidence is not sufficiently convincing for me”. But rather, they insist “there’s no evidence”, and then proceed to explain away every piece of evidence. It’s really circular reasoning.
welcome back Tim! Let the dialog commence!
This channel is criminally underrated.
To me, at really seems like Jesus-mythasism is a conclusion in search of an argument.
Basically, yes.
Since I griped about it over yonder... for the record, the sound levels on this video are good.
Also, enlightening. Tacitus alone suffices to convince.
Meh, I think Tacitus is unconvincing since I am convinced his information is second-hand. There is no reason to think he would have Roman records, plus we know he was in locales where Christians were, and he was in contact with Pliny the Younger. So, we have little reason to consider any of his evidence independent.
I personally consider Paul to be the convincing aspect. I think the extrabiblical sources don't validate historicity. What they do is actually show that early Christians were not mythicists. So they are still helpful (sans Josephus, Thallus, and Phlegon, who are at best hypothetical sources in their current conditions), but they do not validate Jesus' historicity imo. They just invalidate mythicism among early Christians.
Rez Tacitus fails to convince. There's a very strong case to be made that suggests christian tampering, which doesn't tax the imagination. Even if it hasn't been.....
"By the time I produced OHJ, I found that in the end it doesn’t matter whether the passage in Tacitus is authentic or not. It still adds no probability to the historicity of Jesus, as it evinces no awareness of any independent sources. In all probability, in fact, Tacitus would have only gotten his information (directly or indirectly) from Christians, who took it in turn from the Gospels. It therefore only evinces the Gospels were circulating in the early 2nd century, which we already knew. This does nothing to corroborate anything in those Gospels. It doesn’t even support the conclusion that Christians in the 60s A.D. were preaching that version of the creed; as Tacitus does not say he learned that fact from any source of that period, rather than from Christians of this own time. And unknowns, remain unknowns. To argue otherwise is ad ignorantiam."
www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14643
@@chrish4309 do they though? Pliny tells us the Christians gather before dawn on a fixed day and sing a hymn to Christ as to a god. Why would it be significant that they meet before dawn if not to witness the sun rising? Sounds to me like they associated Christ with the sun, which in no way disproves mythicism. There is no proof that the "Chresto" in Suetonius is Jesus. He seems to place this person in Rome among Jews in the time of Claudius, which is odd. How do these prove historicity or disprove mythicism? Interestingly none of the historians show knowledge of "Jesus of Nazareth", only Christ.
@@stimorolication9480 the Chresto in Suetonius is most certainly Jesus. There is no reason to think otherwise. Also the language seems to be him confusing people doing things in Christ's name, as Christ being an instigator.
And I never said they prove historicity. I said that the authentic sources, like Pliny and Tacitus, indicate that there were not early celestial Jesus theories. Pliny is consistent with all of them (also the phrase "quasi deo" indicates "as if to a god" so... human).
@@chrish4309 you just ignored everything I said. While Suetonius could be referring to Jesus, there absolutely are reasons to "think otherwise", so your statement is wrong. The Suetonius passage doesn't give us enough information to conclude anything with certainty.
Mythicism is ahistoricity. If they don't prove historicity they don't disprove ahistoricity. Pliny telling us the Christians met before sunrise indicates the rising sun being of importance to them, which of course does not hurt a mythicist view in any way.
Tom Harpur wrote "The Pagan Christ" (2004). On March 30, 2004 Dr. Paul L. Maier said on the "100 Huntley Street" telecast (Toronto, Ontario): "And you realize that 99.9% of scholars across the world will acknowledge that Jesus is an historical person. They may not say that Jesus is the Son of God, but they will say there was an historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth. But Tom [Harpur] has very grave doubts about this, so he claims. Now that floored me right there. Because, we have copious evidence for Jesus’ existence. If you don't like the gospels, go to the Roman historian, Tacitus, who talks about the great fire of Rome and how Nero got blamed for it. To save himself, he blames the Christians. This Roman historian says that they are named for a Christus, who was crucified by one of our governors, Pontius Pilate. What more do you need? That quote alone would establish the historicity of Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christ in connection with the riot of those for or against Jesus across the Tiber. Pliny, the younger, Governor of Asia Minor, says that these Christians get up on Sunday morning and sing hymns to Christ as to a God. The Jewish rabbinic traditions mention Jesus of Nazareth in their own language. What more do we need of witnesses? Josephus mentions Jesus twice. I want to point out that Christian faith is based upon fact and not on fiction. The problem nowadays is that so many people are trying to turn fact into fiction."
Easter Discussion -- Dr. Paul Maier -- 1/2
ruclips.net/video/mBmAWwpZqXk/видео.html
Good Friday: "It is probably the day on which we have more historical detail, both inside and outside of scripture than any other day in history. Which amazes me because there's so many attacks recently on the Christian faith and they center on, oh, computer blogs come along and they say Jesus as a man never lived and this kind of thing. Oh, what stupidity! I mean, anyone who makes these claims is just flaunting his ignorance."
Easter Discussion -- Dr. Paul Maier -- 2/2
ruclips.net/video/-kMrZX4trE0/видео.html
Read: "The Genuine Jesus: Fresh Evidence from History and Archaeology" (2021) by Paul L. Maier.
What do you think of Carrier's argument that there was a lost Scripture (quoted in Matt. 2.23) that said the messiah would be a "Nazorean", which Mark simply reified into a home town for Jesus?
I sincerely doubt there was any such lost scripture. gMatt has a consistent theme that Jesus was a fulfilment of prophetic scriptures, even though this often means roping in some pretty dubious texts and applying them to Jesus or depicting Jesus doing some odd things (like riding two donkeys at once) so he fits certain scriptures. Matt 2:23 is particularly dubious because (i) no such scripture is known and (ii) the gospel writer is vague about exactly *who* said this: he attributes it to "the prophets" (plural), which is a oddly general way to reference a particular prophetic text, if it existed. It's more likely there is no such text and the GMatt author has invented this to make the awkward Nazareth element in the narrative somehow seem ordained and fitting.
But the main problem with Carrier's take is the same one with all of these various "it was originally a title and the gospel writer/s changed it to a town name". The question has to be asked - why? Why would they do this? If the original idea was that he was a Nazarite or a "Nazorean" (whatever that is), why don't the gospel writers depict him as ... that? Why change what this means? And why make it the name of a (non-existant?) town, especially given the Messiah was meant to be from Bethlehem? This creates the whole problem that the gMatt and gLuke writers then have to get around of Jesus being from the wrong town. This argument makes no sense.
I go into more detail on the tangles Mythicists get themselves into to avoid the implications of Nazareth being a stubbornly awkward element in the narratives here: historyforatheists.com/2019/10/nazareth-myth/
Thanks for this wonderful video cutting right to the heart of the historicity question.
While I am not a professional historian, I did receive a BA in history. While almost all of the history courses on events, movements, times and places were interesting and enjoyable, perhaps none has the lasting impact as a graduate course I took on “The Historians Craft”; essentially how to study history. It was truly enlightening and has practical value not only studying the past but providing perspective on the present.
This is so good and I’m glad I found it. Thank you for explaining Jesus mythicism.
Was hoping for more of your customary acerbic wit haha
Good job.
Guess I would have said "very probably"
Thanks. I'm constantly being told that my acerbic wit is a bad thing and that it puts people off, so for this one I restrained myself. I'm sure it will emerge occasionally though.
@@historyforatheists9363 this "acerbic wit" of yours was indeed what kept me from watching your video or listening to your arguments for so long. And I must say that I find them very convincing now.
You obviously do what you want but for people like me that don't like to see insults and personal attacks in the middle of an intellectual argument these kind of videos are the perfect format.
Jesus who cares, the most important question is did Brian exist.
He's more authentic than Jesus....
Blessed are the cheese makers
Tim you should write a book, titled “The collective writings of Tim O’Neil” subtitled the man who single handedly pissed off all other atheists
No this is not sarcastic it’s just true most atheists have no clue how to do historiography. The new atheist at least obviously atheists like ehrman do know how to do history but some like Aron ra do not. Thanks Tim for the accessibility of the content
@@scienceexplains302 what? Who said you were pissed of? Jesus certainly did exist if your denying that. Then I have no use conversing with you.
@@scienceexplains302 no I converse regularly with people who disagree with me, I don’t church beverage with fringe theorists
@@scienceexplains302 yeah well then you wouldn’t be a mythicist now would you
@@scienceexplains302 what? It’s not 50/50 at all it’s more like 100/0
Who were jesus parents? What did he do ages 1 - 30?
(i) Probably Mary and Joseph. I can't see any reason the gospel writers would make up those names and they are mentioned in all four gospels, even if Joseph doesn't appear outside of the infancy stories in gMatt and gLuke.
(ii) We don't know. Probably not much, given he was a peasant from a poor village. The fanciful ideas that he went off backpacking in India etc are total nonsense.
@@historyforatheists9363 where abouts in g.Mark is Joseph referenced?
@@ghostriders_1 Nowhere. Why?
@@historyforatheists9363 “those names are mentioned in all four gospels”. Joseph is not mentioned in Mark. You’re welcome.
@@OrtyTyor Talk about clutching at straws. What about if Mary is mentioned in gMark? Because if she is: Then whoops Tim O’Neil is correct.
Thank you. Really interesting
Matt Dillahunty should watch this video.
Anyway, I've appreciated your work for years now. I don't agree with everything you say -- I'm an Evangelical -- and I think you're a bit too dismissive of Christian scholars at times, but every time I've read one of your articles I can confidently say I'm a lot better off intellectually for it than if I hadn't read it. They're always very thought-provoking.
There are some Christians scholars who I think do excellent work and go where the evidence takes them, even when other Christians don't like where they end up. James Dunn and, especially, Dale C. Allison are two good examples of this. But I have little time for conservative Christians scholars like N.T. Wright who, without fail, just happen to end up where orthodox Christian belief would like them to be. They are clearly swayed by strong confirmation bias. And I have no time at all for apologists who pretend to be objective scholars, such as the consistently awful William Lane Craig. He's worse than most Mythicists. People with biases make for bad scholarship and people with rigid agendas make for junk pseudo history, every single time.
@@historyforatheists9363
I get the distaste for Christian apologists. (Well, at least for a lot of them.) They do make absurd arguments and claims that are rightfully laughed at by serious scholars and intellectuals. I wish guys like Frank Turk and other popularizers would drop the history stuff. They don't do it justice.
But the conservative Christian scholars you lambast like Wright generally aren't even inerrantists. They're not even theologically orthodox a lot of the time either. (I'm sure you know how controversial the NPP has been in the scholarly world and amongst Christians.) Most of the time they just think the Gospels are more or less historically reliable and probably apostolic in origin. Even Richard Bauckham rejects the traditional authorship of two of the Gospels.
This is mostly a moot conversation, because you've made it clear that the anti-Christian polemical stuff isn't your deal, but lastly I'll just say this: even "critical" scholars have biases. A lot of them are atheists or at least hostile to "traditional Christianity." Some of them even have an emotional or financial investment in disproving orthodox Christianity. The vast majority subscribe to Humean presuppositions about the world. Christian scholars are just one side of same coin.
You can have the last say. I appreciate the interaction.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I've made clear which Christian scholars I respect and why. Others I just think have unconvincing arguments. Bauckham on the gospel authorship or Goodacre on Q, for example.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl If you do things like conflate orthodox christian belief with inerrantism and the Lutheran perspective on Paul (which you do by implication with what you say about N. T. Wright), you're just going to come across as ignorant. I don't mean that in terms of sensibility, I mean it in terms of knowledge. American evangelicals tend to equate American evangelicalism with Christian orthodoxy - but when you realize that technically, orthodoxy is "defined" so to speak by the early ecumenical creeds and not much more, you'll be disabused of any such notion.
To you, Wright and Baukham may seem these nuanced, mediating scholars - but to people outside looking in, there is nary any distinguishing feature between them and a rabid fundamentalist. In any event, while I have distaste for, oh, quite a bit of the "scholarship" of N. T. Wright, he's firmly rooted within the orthodox faith by any worthy definition (which is why Tim senses what he does). If, as an evangelical, you want to get anywhere - my advice to you is don't try to play the game of "mediating" scholarship and feigned academic neutrality. Pick your poison, own up to it, and try to do good honest work (who cares what people think - and I mean people in your church, or atheists on YT). F. F. Bruce is a much better place to look for an "evangelical" (if you must) who was rightly acknowledged by the spectrum of the professional guild in his day (and after) as doing good critical work (of course, this must be understood - good British critical work - which tended towards conservatism even in its more liberal expressions).
@@user-tb2vc3gd5w
I'll try to keep this brief.
I'm aware that men like Wright and Bauckham largely agree with most historic orthodox beliefs. (Although I wonder how "orthodox" Wright even is these days.) But I stressed their demurral from inerrancy primarily because that's the biggest barrier between critical and Evangelical scholars. They aren't committed to believing the Bible is always right.
It's not that they're "moderates" -- that's not my point -- but it's to highlight that despite their concessions to critical higher criticism, they still arrive at largely conservative conclusions about the New Testament while repudiating inerrancy.
A real moderate would be someone like John Meier or Maurice Casey.
And I *do* appreciate Evangelical scholars like Peter Williams who are forthcoming about their biases and still produce excellent work.
Philo of Alexandria was born 20 before Jesus ,if he existed , and died 20 years after he died, was a Jewish scholar that wrote about the Messiah craze going on and listed those trying to fill those shoes but NEVER mentioned a Jesus Christ , plus he visited Jerusalem too .
"Philo wrote about the Messiah craze going on and listed those trying to fill those shoes but NEVER mentioned a Jesus Christ"
Philo did not write about any Messiah craze and did not do any listing of Messiahs. So this is totally wrong and complete garbage. I can tell you have never actually read any of Philo's works. Stop parroting erroneous claims.
@@historyforatheists9363 to my knowledge, Philo almost never mentions any messianism, except on very rare occasions.
Philo made notices about Essenes. Nothing about christians. Christians were mostly hellenistic Jews and had some similitudes with Philo’s ideas.
Excellent video and superbly laid out the evidence
I would definitely take issue with the idea of Paul having an idea of Jesus being a personal existing entity as opposed to simply a conceptually existing entity
And why would you “take issue” with that?
"Given that there is no evidence that anyone expected an executed messiah before the rise of the Jesus Sect"... except Daniel 9 (parts of which are cited in the Gospels), which explicitly predicts an executed messiah.
NO, that's a bit of *post facto* Christian interpretation. No Jewish person in Jesus' time interpreted it that way and no Jewish person does so now either.
Do you think 1 Thessalonians 2 13 to 16 is authentic I think it is but what do you think
Warning for anyone looking for new arguments. It’s mostly „most scholars agree“ and strange linking of passages. It’s too vague as well, quoting verses without going into them. A few good points. All in all a bit of a let down.
"It’s mostly „most scholars agree“ ... "
Nonsense. I note that scholars agree on several things and explain WHY. Deal with the substance, not a straw man of what I say.
"and strange linking of passages"
"Strange" how, exactly?
"It’s too vague as well, quoting verses without going into them. "
"vague" how, exactly? What do I not "go into" that you need clarification on?
"All in all a bit of a let down."
It's a summary of larger arguments. I can expand any point you need further explanation of.
Good and sober video.
I am so old that I prefer a 10.000 word written text to a 30 minutes video, but I know the kids nowadays want that audiovisual element 😊
great work. i hope with the help of videos you reach more people. I already watched all the videos. the question is how often are you planning to post? I can't wait.
They do take some time to produce and I still need time to write articles for the History for Atheist site. So probably one video every month or two.
"....reach more people...."??? What is this, some kind of Evangelicalism or something?
@@grantsmythe8625 History communication. All academic fields have a responsibility for public education, from science to the law. This is especially true if there's popular misinformation going around.
Unfortunately, the people best placed to communicate to the public often aren't research academics. This is why we need people like Tim.
Hey Tim add a conversation with a friend you had a falling out with Christopher M. Hansen she claims both Josephus Jesus quotes are forgeries here's what she says about the testimonium I definitely would not agree on much here. As far as the Testimonium Flavianum is concerned, I do not think there is a coherent case to be made that Origen actually read it. This is, as far as I know, based entirely on the presupposition that his statement that Josephus rejected Jesus' messianism (i.e., didn't think he was the "Christ") implies that Origen read a TF that originally was negative or rejected Jesus as Christ, i.e., that it read "believed to be the Christ" instead of the textus receptus which reads "he was the Christ." The problem here is that Origen's statement does not actually require any TF at all. Origen rather routinely notes that Jews reject Jesus as Christ, or that other authors are non-Christians, including authors who never even wrote about Christianity or Jesus. Anyone with basic familiarity with Josephus, as Origen had, would be able to see he was an ardent Jewish individual, and thus would have rejected Jesus. As such, nothing in Origen implies he read a TF. It is just a logical error that a bunch of scholars make here's a quote on the James passage If so, it is pretty clear (in my opinion) that Origen is claiming that Josephus thinks James' death caused the fall of Jerusalem to Vespasian. IMO, this is probably caused by Origen arguably not actually looking directly at Josephus' text here. He has probably read the name James in book 20.200, and it is the closest and only possible figure that could be James the brother of Jesus, so he makes the identification and attributes a bunch to Josephus on this. Alice Whealey in her book Josephus on Jesus notes that Origen did this elsewhere as well
I think the idea that the copy of Josephus that Origen had did have some reference to Jesus at that point in Bk XVIII is completely compatible with Origen not referring to it directly. And no, I don't think his reference to Josephus not recognising Jesus as the Messiah means this reference was negative. It's true that "Origen's statement does not actually require any TF at all", but the key word there is "require". Origen's statement is perfectly compatible with a Jesus reference being where the TF now stands. And if that reference had no apologetic purpose for Origen and just stated that Jesus was a teacher who got executed, there would be no reason for Origen to make explicit notice to it. So what he says doesn't mean there was a proto-TF in Bk XVIII, but it's also not incompatible with that.
More detail here: historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
But what about Apostles Mary Magdalene or Paul? Are there historical debate about existance of these figure?
Several of the Twelve Disciples appear only as names in the lists found in two of the gospels, and we know nothing more about them. Paul does mention "the Twelve" though, but who exactly they were is far from clear and the stories about most of them are much later and probably more legend than history. Magdalene appears in all four gospels and early traditions and is most likely historical. And pretty much no scholar doubts the existence of Paul. We have seven letters attributed to him which are consistent in their language and their theology and so are generally regarded as by him. We have others which are supposedly by him but probably aren't. That in itself indicates he existed - people generally forge writings by people who existed and so had authority.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thank you very much for your long answer so if i can ask you about death of figures like Paul, Peter, Philip, Andrew and my favorite Jude Thaddeus how history about death of this people is reliable? And second question to you think that Ignatius of Antioch really know John Apostle?
@@stanisawjarczyk5995 As I said, most of the stories about those figure's death date to centuries later and are not reliable. Peter's execution is hinted at in the gospels and so it's likely he was executed, but we can't be sure of the details. Paul's execution is hinted at in Acts and references to it are early, so it's likely that happened too. James son of Zebedee's execution is referred to directly in Acts, but that's the only one found in any NT document. The others are all highly uncertain and could simply be legends.
Even if Jesus exists no one could prove he is son of God, what makes him different to other people nowadays that claim they are new mesiah?
Nothing. That's kind of the point. Why people go to such lengths to come up with tangled arguments that he didn't exist is the mystery here, given that the Jesus we're talking about is just a Jewish preacher, not the Jesus of Christianity. So why bother?
Actually Muslims almost uniformly agree there was a historic Jesus. Even many rabbis would agree. However, Muslims and Jews do not agree that Jesus was divine, was resurrected, or was the Messiah.
Yes. Though I have no idea what that has to do with anything I say in the video above.
One thing that I still wonder is Romans 13, It's unexpected to me that Paul would say that about "the authorities" after Jesus was crucified by also "authorities", can someone explain that?
Some have tried to argue that Romans 13:1-7 is a later interpolation, written in the wake of the Jewish War to calm anti-Roman sentiments among Christians or at some much later date to accommodate Christianity with the Roman Empire. But most scholars find this unlikely and Robert Stein argues it is too carefully constructed and too connected to the previous arguments in the epistle to be anything but authentic (see “The Argument of Romans 13:1-7.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 31, no. 4, 1989, pp. 325-343). It makes more sense that, despite having been on the receiving end of some Roman oppression himself, Paul did see the Empire as something which was, ultimately, supported by the rule of God in the short term, and so not something Christians should resist while waiting for the coming apocalypse. In that context, short-term resistance was pointless and counterproductive. The author of Revelation, writing somewhat later, appears to have had a different and much less accommodating view.
t.l carter, neil elliott, and others make a pretty compelling case that, while paul is urging pragmatic compliance with roman authority, that much of his rhetoric in romans 13 is deeply ironic. thom stark theorizes that it's an example of what james c. scott calls "dissembling" or the "politics of disguise and anonymity". where what the oppressed really think about the ruling elites is expressed in a way that offers plausible deniability. so you have paul insisting that the roman authorities are ultimately subject to god. but consider this in the context of the real world: the authorities of the roman empire at any given time were just the last group to win a civil war for control of the empire - that is, a product of rebellion against god's previous established authorities. the authorities 'bear the sword', ruling by fear and intimidation. think of this in the context of the flattering self-image of a roman elite that thinks its rule is in accord with justice and Natural Law.
Sorry but this host is dead wrong when he says it's silly to say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Reason being that the books of the Bible are all written by religious people. None of the books in there are written by atheist. Therefore it's 100 percent accurate to say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Also, the host mentioned that about a hundred years after Jesus death, some secular writer wrote that Jesus existed, and he didn't get that info from Christians. This is comical that the host would say that. Reason being that how the F would anyone living after Jesus and all his followers died know if Jesus was ever a real person or not, so of course that writer based his info on what Christians of his day told him.
"None of the books in there are written by atheist. Therefore it's 100 percent accurate to say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible."
This is absurd. As I explain, no-one here is "proving the Bible". We are using the texts that, centuries later, came to be included in the Bible to work out the origins of the stories in those texts. This is what historians do with any ancient text. To claim we "can't" analyse these texts about their origins is completely absurd.
"how the F would anyone living after Jesus and all his followers died know if Jesus was ever a real person or not"
All kinds of ways. They would use the materials and sources any ancient historian used: previous accounts, records, memories and oral traditions. In this case, Tacitus had plenty of aristocratic Jewish exiles at the court of Titus that he could consult about what they knew of the origins of a Jewish sect.
"of course that writer based his info on what Christians of his day told him"
See above. You have no basis for limiting his potential sources to Christians and there are good reasons to conclude he didn't get his info from them, as I explain.
Tim O'Neill doesn't exist. Change my mind.
I can vouch for his existence. nobody who doesn't exist makes his fellow atheists that irate on a daily basis!
@@HeroQuestFans Carrier doesn't exist, as proven by Tim McGrew and Elephant Philosophy
Some one that ordinary has to exist
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 We have as much evidence as we would expect for Jesus -- messiah or no messiah.
You clearly didn't watch the vid to see how your objections don't make any sense.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605
100% of the time
Can't wait to watch Tim scalp some mythicists in the comment section! Take no prisoners!
Lol the mythicists are the only logical ones
@@FatMenace Yes, because Carrier's cosmic space sperm gibberish is completely logical and reasonable.
@@FatMenace Ahahahaha ah no.
Awesome. (framing is very good, check white balance on your key)
So, so good.
Great vid!
Tim
I’ve recently heard the argument in favor of mythicism that Josephus’s father wrote about preachers of the time but doesn’t mention Jesus. Have you heard this before?
No. But given we have no writings by his father and no idea what any such writings might contain, I have no idea what such an argument would be based on.
@@historyforatheists9363 i think it’s talked about in here deusdiapente.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/the-history-of-early-christianity-part-1/#comments and they reference the Babylonian Talmud for some of it. the person i was conversing with also said they were going to mention a book that mentions it
@@benthompson421 I just read that confused ramble and found nothing it its crappy argument about Josephus’ father.
@@historyforatheists9363 yea i guess maybe their main point was “they mentioned all these people but why not jesus of the bible”. so would you consider something like that to fall under the “no contemporary sources” argument?
Kind of. Most of the people they mention are only known to us from Josephus. So they can only maintain the "Jesus wasn't mentioned like these people were" argument by totally dismissing *both* of the references to Jesus in Josephus. They only bother to mention the "Testimonium" reference in BK XVIII and then dismiss the majority view that its partially authentic without much argument. And they completely ignore the other reference - the Jesus-James reference in AJ XX.200 - which virtually all scholars regard as authentic.
They also make a great deal of various "Yeshu"/Jesus references in the Talmud. Whether these were references to Jesus of Nazareth or to other people with the same first name is not clear, but pretty much all scholars agree that at least some of them are to the founder of Christianity. This guy just assumes none of them are and then expresses surprise that the Talmudic writers don't mention Jesus.
His whole article is a weird pastiche of things most critical scholars would agree with (e.g the depiction of Pilate in the gospels is at variance with how he is depicted in Philo and Josephus), and totally crackpot stuff. It's a complete mess as a result.
is the astrolabe real?
Yes. Both of them. Well, real reproductions anyway.
@@historyforatheists9363 great! you must "believe in philosophy" ;)
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
Paul's Jesus vs Gospel Jesus.
The basic point is that in all of the pre-Gospel material, namely the epistles of Paul, James and to the Hebrews, there is no description of teachings or deeds of Jesus. There is nothing that describes why a person would be worshipped. The Jesus described in all of those early works is clearly a god, he is “the Lord Jesus Christ”, who can destroy the world, create a new world in heaven, overcome death, bring divine justice to the world, absolve people of all their sins, etc.
Clearly these are the reasons that the pre-Gospel Jesus was worshipped, and all of those things are attributes of a god (or demigod or archangel or what have you), not a person. There is no discussion of the worship of a pre-Gospel Jesus for any reasons other than godly divine powers.
If the “real Jesus” is “just a person”, then why would this real Jesus have been worshipped? Paul says he worships Jesus because he overcame death and is capable of absolving believers of their sins and giving them immortality in a perfect world. What possibly could a real person have done to inspire the belief he could do those things?
James says to believe in Jesus because he will bring divine justice to the world.
Hebrews talks about absolution of sins for the world. None of these reasons why Jesus was being worshiped talk anything about teachings or deeds of a person, they all talk about divine powers.
The Jesus of the Gospels, again, was worshiped due to belief in his divine powers. There are no real teachings or meaning even in the Gospel of Mark, as Dykstra also notes. GMark mostly presents mysteries that are never revealed, and what anyone may try to take away as “teachings” from Mark are really from Paul.
In terms of Occam’s razor, you have to either believe that somehow a group of people were led to believe that a normal person was able to “overcome death” and had obtained massive godly powers, or that a group of people were worshipping the idea of a divine being who was later cast in a story as a real person. Oh, and also the people who worshipped the normal person who they were convinced was a god didn’t write down anything about what this normal person said or did.
Clearly Occam’s Razor is in favor of the second position.
- RG Price
The comment above is riddled with errors of fact. As I note in the video you're commenting on, Paul refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor 7:10), on preachers (1Cor 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor 2:8, 1Thess 2: 14-16) that he was crucified (1Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4). So the claim Paul doesn't mention any teachings or deeds of Jesus is factually incorrect. He doesn't mention them much because he assumes his readers know them already - the letters that survive to us surivive because they were mainly theological in content. They are not retellings of material the preservers of these texts already had in the gospels.
The idea that Jesus in these early works "is clearly a god" is nonsense. James and Hebrews AREN'T early works. And the Jesus in the seven letters of Paul that are considered authentic actually isn't presented as God at all. He is presented as God's exalted Messiah, worthy of veneration second only to God. Any critical scholar on Paul could explain this. The fact that Mythicists have to use Christian apologist arguments to claim otherwise is both hilarious and deeply ironic.
@@historyforatheists9363 It sounds like you're fusing theology with history. Paul stated that the 'Lord' said those things, not Jesus. In the examples you gave, he is using the word 'Lord' he is speaking in the context of receiving information from a divine Lord, not an earthly Jesus. It's true that Jesus isn't portrayed as 'clearly a god' but he is portrayed as an exalted or divine being and sometimes earthly and divine together but in those cases, Paul is still making a theological point not stating historical facts. Just because something sounds historically plausible, doesn't mean it's historically true. Paul is not an historian, nor his works free from tampering (or anything from the bible for that matter). Even when Paul mentions statements from Jesus, almost all of those statements are derived or inspired from the OT or other Jewish and Hellenistic sources and traditions, otherwise they're from Paul who's saying they originated from the Lord (to give his statements authority).
As for James and Hebrews dating, it could go either way, pretty much like the dating of all Christian documents, even papyrologists squirm at some of the dating from NT scholars. But I know you like to go with the consensus, which in NT studies is rife with its own problems.
www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/3283-2/#_Toc127352262
www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/1-2-timothy-titus-philemon-hebrews-james-1-2-peter/introduction-to-hebrews/#_Toc125987129
As for Christian apologetics, isn't New Testament studies just one big, long convoluted exercise in Christian apologetics?
@@Mr_T. "In the examples you gave, he is using the word 'Lord' he is speaking in the context of receiving information from a divine Lord, not an earthly Jesus."
He is? Please show us where he says that.
You're taking things too literal. All you have to do is read the preceding and following passages of each verse you gave me, to understand that Paul isn't focused on an historical Jesus but how the crucified and risen Lord or Christ is the central authority of his church and theology. Most of the stuff he says (that he attributes to the Lord or Christ Jesus) has roots in the OT and other Jewish and Greek texts and traditions. An historical Jesus isn't even necessary for his theology to work.
@@Mr_T. I'm simply going with the evidence. There is clear evidence in Paul's writings that he knew there had been a historical, earthly Jesus. There is literally NO evidence that he or anyone else believed in a purely celestial, non-earthly, non-historical Jesus. That's just a fantasy that Mythicists have invented. It's garbage. Go away.
Hi Tim I am a student of Price and Carrier and I would love to come on to represent their case in the strongest way. I'm not certain of mythicism but I think it is more probable than historicism
I'm not interested. Online "debates" are not useful ways to examine historical issues. I'm completely familiar with the arguments of Price and Carrier and perfectly capable of presenting them and why they are not convincing without your assistance. Thanks anyway.
@@historyforatheists9363 I'm not doubting your ability and I don't mean to be confrontational. All I'm saying is the best way to address mythicism is to steel-man their arguments then argue against that. In this video you did no-such thing. Price has a very strong argument against the brother of the lord being biological and Carrier has arguments against the Josephus passage being about a different Jesus character not the one in the bible. You did not address these arguments in this video. I get it you don't buy mythicism, I'm 50/50 on it myself but this video misses out on so much of what carrier and price argue that it cannot be taken seriously as a rebuttal.
@@wingedlion17 " In this video you did no-such thing."
How many more times do I have to point out to you that THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT MYTHICISM? What part of that don't you understand? I don't do more than mention Mythicism in passing because this video isn't about Mythicism. Try to get that into your head.
"Price has a very strong argument against the brother of the lord being biological and Carrier has arguments against the Josephus passage being about a different Jesus character not the one in the bible. "
yes. They are both terrible arguments that don't work. As I explain in detail in the article I linked to for you.
"You did not address these arguments in this video."
Because THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT MYTHICISM.
"this video misses out on so much of what carrier and price argue that it cannot be taken seriously as a rebuttal.'
Because it ISN'T a rebuttal. THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT MYTHICISM. Read that sentence until you grasp what it means. Before we all die of boredom.
@@historyforatheists9363 Hi Tim,
I read somewhere that secular historians have supposedly confirmed the darkness at Jesus’s crucifixion?
Of course I'm skeptical of such claims. Do you know anything about it?
@@LM-jz9vh This is usually referring to a claim by Tertullian that his pagan opponents "have the account of the world-portent still in your archives". There is no indication of what he's referring to and it is very likely he was just making this up. Origen also referred to some eclipses in the reign of Tiberius which he claimed corresponded to the "darkness" story, but elsewhere he argues the "darkness" was just a local event in Palestine, so he seems to have been aware that the whole story was dubious. The ninth century Byzantine historian George Syncellus quotes the third century Christian writer Africanus who in turn mentions the darkness and says a certain "Thallus" dismissed it as an eclipse. But we have no copy of this "Thallus" work and so we can't tell if he actually addressed the issue at all. If he did, he was clearly sceptical of it and didn't accept it.
So no, there isn't any such confirmation.
From what I've read (not the bible), he existed. The influence is too grate and pervasive to be dismissed, but after his death (whatever and whenever that was), some turned him into a god.
While I was looking at utube regarding pharaoh's carvings I realized everyone was bearing a ring and cross, even carved letters, at their bottoms alway cross connected to ring,
How this later developed in Christianity that every one has his cross...
What you're talking about is an "ankh" - an ancient Egyptian symbol of life. It is not a cross and has no connection with Christianity.
What text outside of the Bible explicitly addresses Jesus? The Bible is a narrative not a historical book of reference. After watching a few of your videos, I don’t believe that you are an atheist. This maybe wrong but that is my impression of your content. I do recognize that all atheist are different.
Tacitus and Josephus refer to Jesus as a historical person. The Bible is not a “narrative”, it’s a collection of many different types of text, including narratives such as Acts or the gospels. I have no idea what you mean by “a historical book of reference” but no scholar simply accepts what any Biblical book says as factual history - we read them critically. And you’re completely wrong: I am an atheist. You seem very confused.
He is half an athiest
@@ameynamjoshi741 You can be "half an atheist" the same way you can be "half pregnant". In other words, you can't. I AM an atheist. So stop making stupid comments.
Why don’t you try watching and paying attention to the video? He goes over extrabiblical evidence for Jesus.
And yes of course you can’t believe that Tim O’Neill is atheist (*rolls eyes*).
Second! He uploaded! Hell yay!
Paul refers to Jesus his teachings?
or are the gospel writers using Paul's idea's?
for example the last supper story could have never came from Jesus.
it's a greek/roman tradition.
the jews are against blood sacrifice.
you can not conclude that Paul refers to Jesus teachings when Paul wrote before the gospels...
i do agree that he probably existed
Basically boils down to Paul’s one brother of James passage as the the joesepfus James passage passage is another Jesus with the Christ reference a redaction and tasitus got it from pliney who got it from a Christian deacon a century later. So one Paul passage is it. Nothing else. Including Philo.
"Basically boils down to Paul’s one brother of James passage as the the joesepfus James passage passage is another Jesus with the Christ reference a redaction "
Nope. That failed argument is garbage. Details here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
"and tasitus got it from pliney who got it from a Christian deacon a century later."
Gosh. And you *know* this how, exactly?
"Nothing else. Including Philo."
Philo had no interest in people like Jesus and makes no mention of ANY early first century preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants like Jesus. So where exactly would you expect Philo to mention Jesus? Citations please.
@@historyforatheists9363Tacitus his reference is way too late and he could have gotton his information from christians, so you can't use that as a source.
how do you know he didn't got his information from christians?
the James the brother of the lord tradition in the only thing that holds weight for the historicity of Jesus.
certainly not anything that's in the gospels..
you can not conclude anything from a story written by an unknown writer in a different language in a different country atleast 40 years after the event.
mythical stories made to make people believe.
you can't use them as biographies.
no way of knowing if those stories where not completely made up.
I don't believe Paul existed and so I have difficulties with how much you accept of what he wrote about Jesus...
The idea that Paul didn't exist and yet we have extensive evidence of texts written to cash in on the prestige of his authority makes no sense. Pseudepigrahical literature only arises when there is an authoritative figure to lend it credibility. So excuse me if I don't find your subsequent "difficulties" very interesting.
Don't worry about the obnoxious attitude but he is right, there are no good arguments for the non existence of Paul. Unlike Jesus his prior probability of existing is very high.
@@ghostriders_1
I think there is very good reason to accept Jesus as a historical figure.
@@Mike00513 what would that reason be?
@@ghostriders_1 Ahahahaa so can you break down your analysis of how you determined these “probabilities”.
There may or may not have been a Jesus, but the miracles never happened. That's a undeniable fact.
In other news, Alexander the Great didn't cut an overly-complex knot.
@@DeGuerre Really? I thought the Gordian knot episode really happened, unlike the stories about Superjew.
Tim, I’ve heard a theory that in Josephus’s Book 20 reference to Jesus, Josephus saying “who was called the Christ” was a title that was actually meant for James and not Jesus. The theory then goes on to say the whole paragraph is about the priesthood and the Jesus mentioned was actually Jesus son of Damnius.
The theory, to me, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense considering how Josephus introduced people but i had never heard of the theory that “the Christ” title was mean for James.
That "theory" makes no sense if you understand the Greek. The phrase τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστο ("the brother of Jesus who was called 'Messiah") is all in the genitive case. That means the του λεγομενου Χριστο ("who was called 'Messiah'") agrees grammatically with Ιησου ("Jesus"), not with Ιακωβος ("James"), which is in the nominative. This is one of those dumb arguments that only works in English. There is a reason why no-one with any grasp of the Greek has proposed this stupid idea. It's wrong.
@@historyforatheists9363 yea i agree. i don’t know where the person got that theory from cause i have never heard it before. also have heard the whole james reference is a marginal note argument but that one seems very suppositional
@@benthompson421 I deal with Carrier's convoluted "marginal note" argument in the second half of my article here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
@@historyforatheists9363 thanks Tim!
Existed or not it still doesn’t prove there is an invisible man in the sky
Thanks for that deep and penetrating insight.
@@historyforatheists9363 👏👏
Can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true.
In some circumstances, yes. But since I'm not "proving the Bible" and I'm not using "the Bible", it's a moronic comment here.
@@historyforatheists9363 the only source that is written about Jesus...
@@mikaeljohansson7921 Did you actually listen to what I said in the video? By referring to the texts that CENTURIES LATER got included in "the Bible" I'm not using "the Bible". I'm using ancient texts and I'm using them the way any historian uses ancient texts - to work out what they were trying to say, who they were saying to and why and what this can tell us about the origin of these texts and therefore what this can tell us about the past. And I'm not "proving the Bible". I'm establishing what the writers of these texts were saying, what this tells us about what they believed and therefore how these beliefs arose. This is historical analysis. It's not remotely like what Christians are doing when they use the Bible to make theological claims.
Do you understand now or do I need to use smaller words?
@@historyforatheists9363 if you want to be sure, use my first language...
@@mikaeljohansson7921 What the hell are you talking about? Make some sense or you'll be banned from this channel. I'm not here to waste my time on trolls.
Very well presented video, I enjoyed it. And I do not claim to be a historian but I read a lot. I agree there is some evidence that he existed but some of it such as Josephus's text is thought to have been altered. The books of the bible seem questionable to me since they were written years later, and not by the eyewitnesses themselves. I cant see how these things can be accepted as proof. I'd also like to comment that it is my understanding that the Romans kept meticulous records of court trials and sentences, and that there is mention of Jesus in their records.
" ... some of it such as Josephus's text is thought to have been altered"
I make very clear in the video that the reference to Jesus in Josephus that I'm using - *AJ XX.200 - is NOT the one there is debate about. So, wrong.
"I cant see how these things can be accepted as proof. "
I don't use them as "proof". I note elements in them that are very difficult to make sense of unless they depend on memories of a historical Jesus. Elements that became *awkward* later. Are you sure you watched the video? You don't seem to have understood it.
"it is my understanding that the Romans kept meticulous records of court trials and sentences, and that there is mention of Jesus in their records."
No Roman "records of court trials and sentences" exist. So yes, they kept records, But no, we don't have them to consult. So your understanding is faulty.
Good video
There was many people named jesus. During that time.
Yes, there were. But the evidence indicates the sect that developed into Christianity was based on a particular one. One who came from Nazareth, was baptised by John, had a brother called James and was crucified by Pilate. So I’m talking about that particular Jesus, not any of the others.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 This is garbage, from a linguistic, evidential and archaeological point of view. Read and learn:
historyforatheists.com/2019/10/nazareth-myth/
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 Find me an archaeologist who says there was no Nazareth in the Early Roman Period, you moron. Go away.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 All archaeologists who excavated there agree it was inhabited in the EARLY Roman Period. Based on multiple pottery and coin finds. That’s smack bang when guess who was around. So pay attention to the experts and not that crackpot piano player from Oregon, you idiot.
@@matthewsmolinsky5605 _"I read books by PhD's not blogs by undergrads."_
Too bad you don't read books by actual authorities.
And do you understand what an "undergrad" actually is?
Your Pauline references are completely debatable. Btw Paul did think Jesus was a human. It's just where he was.
"Your Pauline references are completely debatable."
As I said, Mythicists have ways to read those references to try to make them conform to their theory. It's just that these readings are contrived, convoluted and - in some cases - laughably bad.
"Paul did think Jesus was a human."
Okay. Then that's a major problem for Mythicism, given how early Paul's testimony is. Which is why most Mythicists try to claim he didn't. But fail to make this case convincingly.
@@historyforatheists9363 but why make a video where you basically straw man the mythicists position. Robert M Price has countless videos and podcasts where he goes into detail for these arguments. Maybe buy his book or play his arguments then respond to them. You are just constantly brushing them aside as strained without actually addressing them in any detail. The brother of the lord issue has a much stronger defense by mythicists than the one you present
@@wingedlion17 "why make a video where you basically straw man the mythicists position."
I've done nothing of the sort. Obviously I can't give full justice to the Mythicists' (various) positions in a brief 28 summary, especially one that actually isn't about Mythicism at all and so only touches on its arguments in passing. Nothing I say when I do mention them "straw mans" them, so don't be ridiculous.
"Maybe buy his book or play his arguments then respond to them. "
I've been studying this stuff for 35 years. I know his arguments. And I know why almost all scholars reject them and why he is a fringe figure that no-one takes very seriously. There will be later videos here that address Mythicist arguments. This video isn't about them.
"You are just constantly brushing them aside as strained without actually addressing them in any detail."
Again, that's because this video isn't about them. Pay attention.
"The brother of the lord issue has a much stronger defense by mythicists than the one you present"
I take apart that supposedly "strong" defence here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/ Read an learn. I know far more about this stuff than any online Myther kiddie, so give me a break.
@@wingedlion17 Robert M. Price has countless videos of him making methodologically dubious and specious claims, to an extent that any "methodology" he has is thrown out the window by his own inherent lack of self reflection, i.e. his eternal proclivity to contradicting everything he says within 20 pages of saying it.
I've spotted him doing this especially on his interpolation theories. For instance, he holds that 1 Cor. 15's creedal statement is an interpolation, and he bases this partly on a contradiction in Galatians... except that he holds that 1 Cor. was written by a gnostic, and Galatians written by Marcion (who was likely not even docetic according to more recent observations). So... it can't be a contradiction, because they are not the same author.
His arguments are pathetically bad, and that is why not a singular Pauline scholar on god's green and forsaken earth take him seriously, and why only crackpot atheist and secularist presses, with nothing better to do than jerk off to the sound of god's death publish his methodologically incoherent screeds, which he calls "books."
@@chrish4309 if you actually listen to Price without the huge hate glasses on you would know his position is that the Pauline letters, particularly Corinthians and Romans are all patched together. a mish mash of letters first collected by gnostics and marcionites..and then later edited with interpolations by an redactor to make them more palatable for orthodoxy. This is hardly an extreme view. I mean 'scholars' who take an oath of inerrancy on the first day of seminary will disagree. But there are plenty of truly secular scholars who have made reconstructions of what the original Galatians text was like and so one. Any interpolation theory relies on some degree of speculation but in the Pauline letters there are many arguments some, strong some weak for quite a number of them.
The texts in Iosefus referring to "JC's brother" are clearly insertions, apocrypha. Wrong context, unrelated with the chain of events written in the original text.
"Wrong context, unrelated with the chain of events written in the original text."
Really? Then please back that up with evidence-based argument and reference to the relevant scholarship. How is AJ XX.200 somehow in "the wrong context"? How is it "unrelated with the chain of events written in the original text"? Details please. Let's see if you know what you're talking about.
Edit: Since it seems the commenter above has run away, I should note he's using/parroting a standard Mythicist argument against the Testimonium Flavianum, i.e. AJ XVIII.63-4. But the reference to Jesus' brother James is a later passage, AJ XX.200. So he's muddled up the two passages. And in my video I quite clearly acknowledge the controversies over and arguments against the authenticity of the AJ XVIII.63-4 passage, and then equally clearly say I'm talking about the AJ XX.200. So what we see on display here is the mindless kneejerk nature of most online commentary by Mythers, as well as example of their basic incompetence. It seems many of these people really aren't terribly bright.
Nice video.
Notice how Tim, like a lot of historicists, has to read information into Paul that is simply not there! 12:56 "flesh & blood brother" is not there in the text, at all. Neither do competent mythicists think Paul is lying or fantasising!
It says only: "James, the brother of the Lord" This is very possibly an example of fictive kinship as was very common in the earliest sect. All these proto Christians became the brother of the Lord upon baptism, it seems Cephas was of a higher rank than this James, whoever he was. Paul shows absolutely no awareness whatsoever that he needs to distinguish between baptised Christians and the fruit of Mary's loins! Hence Tim needs to read material into Paul that is simply not there.
Garbage. Those Mythicist weak arguments simply don't work. Read and learn: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
It's weird how you call normal people who rely on experts "historicists" - it's a bit like when climate change deniers call normal, rational people "warmists".
@@topologyrob It's a bit subjective for you to think they are "normal" isn't it? and a massive assumption to think that they are relying on " experts " after they may only be relying on history for Atheists and he's no expert. Carrier, Price, Lataster etc surely they are entitled to be considered experts? or are experts defined here as people who you agree with?
@@ghostriders_1 Experts are peer-reviewed scholars who convince other peer-reviewed scholars, who teach at leading institutions like Harvard, Oxford etc (and no, definitely Carrier etc in your list don't qualify - they fail to impress any experts). They are not persuaded by this crankery any more than biologists are convinced by creationists, despite the latter's efforts to label them as "evolutionists", nor than climate scientists convinced by contrarians who call them "warmists" or engineers by 9/11 truthers, nor epidemiologists by anti-vax nuts.
@@topologyrob one false analogy after the other. Mythicism is a challenge to that consensus, you can't cite the consensus to defend it and for your information Carrier is peer reviewed.
10,too religions of 1,000,000,000 gawds. All about Bragger right's, sorry ALIEN CONTACT STORY IS LAME AND UNVERIFIABLE.
I will concede all day long that a normal man/men may of been the basis for the Jesus character.
But the Jesus as depicted in the bible...no way he existed. No scholar or historian worth his salt will attest to that.
And not that i need them to tell me, but it helps in the credibility department. Theist's however, have their work load ahead of them trying to show the Jesus as depicted in the bible is even a plausible hypothesis. Good luck with that.
What do you mean by "as depicted in the bible"? There probably are a lot of similarities between the Jesus that existed and the one depicted in the Bible.
You probably mean the supernatural claims. Don't worry...historical analysis does not deal with the supernatural.
@@Alnivol666 Hi,thanks for the reply:
"What do you mean by "as depicted in the bible"? There probably are a lot of similarities between the Jesus that existed and the one depicted in the Bible."
If i am in a conversation with a believer in christianity i am happy to speak about a mundane jesus character that the gospel stories may of been derived from. But personally i lean towards a celestial jesus/angel. I feel it fits the narrative better. Also if a believer agrees that the stories are based on a mundane guy, then the jig is up, no god/demigod.
"You probably mean the supernatural claims. Don't worry...historical analysis does not deal with the supernatural.
Yes the supernatural claims. But you seem to imply that supernatural claims can occur, but are not granted when looking into history? Is that a fair assessment? If so, how can supernatural claims be assessed then or now? If not, then all good.
cheers
G
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 "a celestial jesus/angel" - no, it doesn't ...not at all. You are very biased when you look into this. Probably you have read too much Carrier. Carrier is not a good scholar.
Ancient history is filled with supernatural claims (not just Christian texts) because the way people saw the world back then was much more different than the way we see it today. Supernatural claims are outside the object of study of historical analysis. They are simply not even looked at because there is no way to assess their veracity so a historical scholar regardless of his religious views does not take them into account (if he is a scholar worth his salt). The historical method does not deal with assessing the veracity of supernatural claims.
@@Alnivol666Hi, thanks again for the reply:
""a celestial jesus/angel" - no, it doesn't ...not at all. You are very biased when you look into this. Probably you have read too much Carrier. Carrier is not a good scholar".
Yes i do lean towards Carriers work, but i am not dogmatic. I have read his Historicity of Jesus book and a will admit i had initial doubts as to what the hell this guy was on about. But after years of watching countless debates with him and others going back and forth on the subject i gave in and conceded he made more sense of the source material. In every video debate about the historicity of jesus that he has been on with other scholars he has made more sense then the other guy and given a better understanding of the source material in nearly every case. If you can point to other scholars peer reviewed books on the subject i will happily buy it and also check out his or her videos on the subject. And as much a i like Bart Ehrman his Historicity book was at best 'lacking'.
"Ancient history is filled with supernatural claims (not just Christian texts) because the way people saw the world back then was much more different than the way we see it today. Supernatural claims are outside the object of study of historical analysis. They are simply not even looked at because there is no way to assess their veracity so a historical scholar regardless of his religious views does not take them into account (if he is a scholar worth his salt). The historical method does not deal with assessing the veracity of supernatural claims."
Yep, o.k ., but you did not answer my question.
I asked: 'But you seem to imply that supernatural claims can occur, but are not granted when looking into history? Is that a fair assessment? If so, how can supernatural claims be assessed then or now? If not, then all good'.
To be more clear do supernatural events happen? If so, how can supernatural claims be assessed either then or now? If they do not happen, then we are all good.
cheers
G
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 The question is irrelevant when it comes to academically engaging in historical analysis. The existence or non-existence of supernatural events is never even looked at.
And if you think Carrier makes sense, I am really sorry for you. The guy has no traction in the field he is supposedly a scholar in. He does not engage with other academics in the field. He holds no position in any university. If he did have a point, the field he is working in seems to not really consider it good enough. And why wouldn't we expect that his scholarship would suck since he really does not engage with the top tier scholars in the field?
I have no idea what debates you watched, but in any way, that is not how you decide if somebody's ideas are good or not.
Why are you asking me to provide you with the names of scholars? For sure, if you are interested in the subject you would have no trouble finding these people. How the hell did you find Carrier? He is a nobody in the field and yet you swallowed his ideas like candy. Me thinks you have arrived here with a particular set of biases and are engaging in a process of confirmation bias. What can I say? Good luck with that.
By the way, I am also an atheist but could never be a Carrier follower. The man is obviously so anti-theistic it is affecting his work. His butchering of original sources is beyond amazing. But to see how much butchering he is doing, you have to actually be familiar with what Carrier is talking about. I think a lot of atheists fall for Carrier because he really looks like he knows what he is talking about. Meanwhile, people who actually know one or two things about this subject are shaking their heads in disbelief.
I love your work but not trying to judge but be more enthustiastic my guy lol show me more of that fasicinating persona my dude and you should try putting sources in the vid or try different ways to make vids like IP does experiment with it have fun and be happy God bless informatiive!!
I'll be myself thanks. And I put in references where needed in this one, so I have no idea why you say "try putting sources in the vid".
@@historyforatheists9363 I was just trying to give you advice all I said was be more happy but okay do what you think that is best
Some scholars could be bribed?
By who? And we aren't talking about "some scholars", we're talking about thousands of them. So they are all "bribed"? Don't be stupid.
@@historyforatheists9363 let's also not forget that mythicists like Richard Carrier literally only started doing this because people paid off their college loans and then raised $20,000 dollars for him to write a book on this... just saying, if there is a case of bribery going on, I think we know who is getting bribed and by whom here.
Oh okay. Resort to conspiracy theory.
No bro all the Paul references are clearly space Jesus, can’t you see that Richard carrier has refuted this. Lmao the mind of a mythicist
Nope, please don't bring up the cosmic sperm bank excuse
@@jackcimino8822 I’m joking lol
@@gabepearson6104 I've been woooshed
@@jackcimino8822 lol
Paul had a very sensible modern mind, just like yours, when it suits you....
Nah, there wasn't this consensus back then.
That doesn't make any sense.
@@historyforatheists9363 There wasn't consensus back then, 0-300CE.
@@alittleofeverything4190 Did I say there was "consensus back then, 0-300CE"? No. So what are you talking about?
First!
NO. Carry on.
It seems all the geniuses are out commenting today. If that's your best response, you should probably shut up.
This is sophism, specious and self serving to suit pre determined beliefs.
There is NO contemporary evidence of Jesus.
These claims are gobsmacking delusional exaggerations of a fairytale.
"This is sophism, specious and self serving to suit pre determined beliefs."
Nice handwaving. Explain how what I say is "sophism". Ditto for "specious". And "self serving" how, exactly? Do you even know what that term means? And how do you know what my "predetermined beliefs" would be? Throwing around bombastic terms is not making an argument. Either make an argument or shut up and go away.
"There is NO contemporary evidence of Jesus. "
No. And? We have no contemporary evidence for most ancient figures. Big deal. We also have none for any of the other analogous early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants of this kind, so why would we expect any for this one? We wouldn't. I deal with that bad argument in detail here: historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/ . Read and learn.
"These claims are gobsmacking delusional exaggerations of a fairytale."
Gosh. I hope this silly blurting made you feel better. Unless you can back it up with detailed argument addressing what I say, we can treat it like all the rest of the flatulence we get around here.
Just some Jewish dude, which their were lots at the time raving on about the Jewish Apocalypse which was all of the rage at the time. Not one word written about Jesus during his life time even after all those miracles, that's all you need to know really 'he was no one special'. When Spartacus just 70 years before Jesus has his name plastered all over the roman history books.
"Just some profit Jewish dude"
He seems to have been quite poor and so not much "profit" was involved. Unless, of course, the word you meant was "prophet". Yes, he was just some Jewish prophet.
"which their were lots at the time raving on about the Jewish Apocalypse which was all of the rage at the time."
Yes.
"Not one word written about Jesus during his life time even after all those miracles"
No. Though who said anything about him performing "miracles"? Are you sure you watched my video?
"that's all you need to know really 'he was no one special'"
Who said anything about him being "special"? You realise I'm an atheist, right? I think you may be a bit confused about what's being said here.
"When Spartacus just 70 years before Jesus has his name plastered all over the roman history books."
Given he led one of the biggest slave rebellions in Roman history, that's hardly surprising. Why do you think this peasant preacher in Galilee would be "plastered all over the roman history books"? No other Jewish preacher of the time was mentioned by any contemporary writing, so why would you expect this one to be? I think you need to read my article on this point: historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/