Who should we trust for historical info about Jesus?

33 Comments

1. Wonderful blog you have as i enjoy reading it when i take a break from writing my manuscript of a Gospel Harmony writtten in 3 text types.Biblical Greek in both Greek letters & transliterated into English letters while also including the verses in English from the World English Bible as it is in the Public Domain & in modern English. I plan to publish it after I complete it as it meant to function as both a conversion tool as well as a tool to start learning Biblical Greek.

2. Thanks. Glad you have enjoyed it. Please let us know when you have completed your Gospel Harmony.

3. I will make sure to let you know when i am done. I am using BIC 4 colo(u)r pen to help differentiate where the Gospel portions come from. Matthew is Red, Black is Mark, Luke is Blue, & John is Green. I’m just waiting for 4 colo(u)r pen to come back in stock in town as i like to pay with banknotes & coins whenever possible. Currently I’m at the Genealogies of Jesus & trying to decide whether to use Matthew’s or Luke’s.

4. Thanks for the info. All the best!

5. The gospels are anonymous, and written in Greek, almost certainly in lands far away from Judea, almost certainly not eye witnesses or in communication with witnesses. They are contradictory, copied, edited, and preposterous mythology.

   Paul only wrote of his dreams of Jesus, so detached from reality that he thought having a dream about X person was actually meeting and hearing from X person. Today we recognize such people as mentally ill and delusional, hardly a significant source for anything related to Jesus.

   There are no contemporaneous records of Jesus. Somehow, nobody thought to write anything down at the time. So, the most important man ever preaches publicly for years, possessing infinite powers of creation, yet neither he nor anybody else write a single word about him at the time?

   The stories about, say, his birth are absurd. There was no census as described.

   Jesus fulfils no OT prophecies, just ask any Jewish scholar, any expert in what the ancient Hebrew texts actually say, not the mistranslated versions in the Christian OT.

   The evidence for an historical Jesus is virtually non-existent, and the evidence against an historical Jesus is overwhelming.

6. Hi Neil, thanks for reading my blog, and for commenting. Would you like to discuss this a little?

   Maybe I could start with a couple of questions for you please.

   (1) With all that you have said here, why do you think the majority of secular historians believe that there is good evidence for the historical Jesus (not necessarily all the facts written about him, but enough)?

   (2) You say “Paul only wrote of his dreams of Jesus”. What do you make of the several times when Paul wrote about an actual Jesus, his life and family and friends?

   Interested to hear what you have to say.

7. (1)Most supposed “secular” historians are former graduates of seminary, or former evangelicals. The situation varies from individual to individual, but most depend on remaining within a broad mainstream to protect their academic positions.

   The evidence and critical thinking have advanced far enough for academics to realize Moses, Abraham, the exodus, and nearly all the people and events in the books attributed to Moses are fiction.

   The next step will be to recognize that the NT is equally fictional, but there is a very great deal of social inertia and pressure to simply repeat the traditional views in academia.

   Historians have been slow to adopt a mathematical and critical approach to taking the non-traditional view.

   (2)Such as? There are many brothers of the Lord. Every Christian male is a brother of the Lord. I paid dues to the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Men refer to each other as “brother” regularly without being blood relatives.

   The author of Paul was clearly delusional, and thus untrustworthy in general. He was a person who took his dreams literally. We all have dreams. We all have conversations with ourselves. We all have at least some vague sense of the good angel or bad angle on each shoulder internal conversation.

   Sane people understand that all these dreams and visions and internal conversations are just that, internal, just our own thoughts.

   Insane people are convinced that the visions and voices we all experience are external in origin. If you think your dreams and your internal voices originate from actual external beings you have lost your mind, and are no longer to be taken at all seriously about testimony in general.

   Which is more likely, that a man dreaming and writing that he met god and god’s family really did meet god and god’s family, or that man is psychotic?

   You can go to any mental institution, or walk around skid row to meet such people as the author of Paul.

   David Koresh said he was the lamb of god, and people believed him so much they died with him. Many died with Jim Jones, and again with Heaven’s Gate. The god men of India are believed and followed by millions. L Ron Hubbard told stories of space ships and body thetans. The Quran is supposedly the recitation of multiple visitations from the archangel Gabriel. Joseph Smith claimed to have been visited in the woods and then translated golden tablets using stones in his hat. Paul claimed to have been visited by god and met god’s family.

   Nobody with fully functioning critical thinking and reasoning skills believes these stories.

8. Hi Neil, thanks for answering my questions. I hope you won’t mind if I ask for some clarification please?

   1. You say: “Most supposed “secular” historians are former graduates of seminary, or former evangelicals.” (i) What statistics do you have for this? (ii) What evidence do you have that such a background necessarily affects their historical judgment? (iii) Does this mean you disbelieve all scholars from those backgrounds and only take notice of ones with a different background?

   2. You say: “most depend on remaining within a broad mainstream to protect their academic positions” (i) What evidence do you have for this? (ii) What do you say about those who challenge the mainstream and remain in academia?

   3. You say: “There are many brothers of the Lord. Every Christian male is a brother of the Lord.” (i) Wouldn’t it be fairer to say: “The mainstream accepts the plain meaning of biological brother, but I accept the minority view that Paul is referring to a spiritual or christian brother”? (ii) Why do you think your modern western example of a professional guild is relevant to this first century middle eastern case?

   4. (i) Do you think that everyone who has a vision or voices is “insane”? (ii) What is your evidence for that?

   5/ You say: “Nobody with fully functioning critical thinking and reasoning skills believes these stories.” (i)Do you mean literally “nobody”? (ii) What is your evidence for that?

   Please feel free to take several comments to answer. Thanks.

   PS I’d probably find it interesting to hear a little more sometime about your interesting line of work.

9. 1(i) Can you name some who are not? For example, Bart Ehrman. Just keep going down the list of “secular” bible scholars. The reason is simple, very few people who are not religious care enough about religious studies to devote their career to that field.
   (ii) Strawman, I never said “necessarily”. Human nature is that change is slow and incremental, while we remain more influenced by our early years than we might wish to admit.
   (iii) The greater the emotional attachment and financial dependence the less reliable the attachment to orthodoxy.

   You don’t seem to be engaging with skeptical arguments at all, just your assessment of authority.

   Your sources are deeply embedded in orthodoxy and religious education.
   From your page:
   “several names come up over and over again in the 6 sources I used”
   NT Wright, Pauline theologian and Anglican bishop
   Bart Ehrman, Princeton Theological Seminary
   Paula Fredriksen, converted from Catholicism to Judaism
   Dale Allison, Princeton Theological Seminary.
   Amy-Jill Levine, Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, the first Jew
   Richard Bauckham, English Anglican scholar in theology
   Craig Keener, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Central Bible College
   Influential older scholars:
   EP Sanders, Union Theological Seminary
   James Dunn, licensed as a minister of the Church of Scotland
   Larry Hurtado, Central Bible College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
   John Meier, Catholic priest

   2(i) That is how academics works, if you don’t understand that, you don’t understand academic culture.
   (ii) Like who on the subject of historicity of Jesus? Tenure helps, but getting tenure is a long process.

   3(i) No, because English translations have been bent to falsely support a variety of Christian claims. The plain meanings of legends are that the legendary figures are real. Accepting those plain meanings is unsound. Accepting the words of a dream believer is also unsound.
   (ii) We did not invent the notion of “brotherhood” in modern times. You apparently do not understand that.

   4(i) We all have visions and hear voices. Nearly all of us understand that they originate from within ourselves. Some people believe the voices they hear really are from god, and unfortunately that sometimes leads to criminal actions, or less destructively, bizarre writings of those delusions.
   (ii) The content of such visions are mutually contradictory and never contain any true prophecies or information not available to existing human knowledge or guesswork.

   5(i) I have never encountered a religious person who is capable of reasoning clearly regarding the evidence and likelihoods for their assertions. Human thinking is highly segmented, divided, multifaceted, and interrelated across subjects in complicated ways. A person can be a genius in one aspect and very lacking in other aspects, I am no exception to that condition.
   (ii) All religious people I have ever engaged with, or read, always employ irrational thought processes on the subjects related to their religious beliefs. Since those considered the very most rational, say, as a few examples, W L Craige, Thomas Aquinas, Edward Feser, Luke Barnes, Alvin Plantinga, persist in patently irrational arguments, the universality of that condition is strongly in evidence.

10. Hi Neil, thanks again for your answers. You have been admirably brief, not an easy achievement! Here is my response.

    1. I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer any of my three questions. Can I assume (i) you don’t have statistics, (ii) you don’thave evidence of a necessary bias in historical judgment, and (iii) you don’t have a set of principles that determines which backgrounds you accept and which you don’t?

    I think it is quite reasonable if you don’t, but I don’t think it is reasonable to make strong unqualified statements as you have done without that evidence.

    I’m sure there are more scholars who meet your negative criteria than don’t, but I can in fact name a number of respected scholars who have written in Jesus & the NT who are not (as far as I can ascertain) “former graduates of seminary, or former evangelicals”: Robin Lane Fox, Michael Grant, Maurice Casey, Helen Bond, Geza Vermes, Candida Moss, L Michael White, Steve Mason, Dennis McDonald, Richard Miller.

    So I can’t see how your assertions on this matter can be sustained.

    2. Again, I’m sorry, but you haven’t answered my questions and thus haven’t justified your assertion. I’ve no doubt that at many tertiary institutions, you are right that staff have to toe the line (I know of a few examples), but to justify your assertion you have to show that it happens at the prestigious institutions. Perhaps you should read (if you haven’t already) what Maurice Casey says about this on pages 22-23 of his “Jesus of Nazareth” book. I take his words and experience as good evidence of independence in many institutions, contrary to your assertions.

    3. Again, you haven’t supported your position with evidence or even accepted that there is a discussion to be had. Of course I know that “We did not invent the notion of “brotherhood” in modern times.” That is the point. It is a fundamental trap for modern non-experts like you and I to apply modern understandings to ancient culture. We have to understand as they did, not as we do!

    4. So you agree that many who hear voices are not “insane”, it is only believing they come from God makes the person insane? The APA says “insanity” is a legal term about a condition of the mind. Or if we used the term “mental condition” we are talking about a pathological health problem. So are you saying a person who has a vision or hears voices is quite normal, but if, on reflection, they believe God spoke or appeared to them they suddenly develop a pathological condition of the mind? I’m sure you can’t believe that, so maybe you’d like to re-phrase your comment?

    Perhaps also, you might to offer actual evidence rather than your opinion? I in turn can offer evidence contrary to your opinion, but I’ll leave that until next comment.

    5. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any evidence in your assertion here that ““Nobody with fully functioning critical thinking and reasoning skills believes these stories.” “ In fact the names you mention (e.g. Luke Barnes, Alvin Plantinga) or others like Isaac Newton seem to prove the opposite of your claim. Perhaps you could elaborate please on your criteria for “irrational thought processes”?

    So I feel you haven’t justified by evidence a single one of your assertions. But I’d be interested to continue the discussion. Why don’t you pick any one of the above five points and elaborate a little more on the evidence you see? Thanks.

11. “So I feel you haven’t justified by evidence a single one of your assertions”
    I have, but you choose to ignore it. For example, all of the sources you list as most recurring in your studies have a background in seminary, bible college, or are themselves priests or pastors. You ignored that fact.

    Luke Barnes and Alvin Plantinga are prime examples of people who lack “fully functioning critical thinking and reasoning skills”.

    Luke Barnes is a generally respected physicist, until he starts arguing for fine tuning as an argument for god, at which point his reasoning falls apart.

    Alvin Plantinga sounds like a sophisticated philosophical thinker, until he starts arguing for EAAN, at which point his reasoning falls apart.

    But, you seem rather pre-occupied with argument from authority, and gathering statistics about the perceived authority of those you read, as opposed to the rationality of arguments presented.

    There is virtually zero sound evidence for the historicity of Jesus. There are no contemporaneous accounts, no contemporaneous likenesses, no eyewitness accounts, nothing written by Jesus himself, no court or civil records, no archeological evidence, no grave, no remains, no artifacts, no contemporary criticisms.

    And this is for god incarnate! The creator of the cosmos comes to Earth, performs miracles, yet he writes nothing at the time, and nobody thinks to write anything about him at the time. Yet you somehow find that entirely believable.

    You mention Julius Caesar and Hannibal, but in truth the Jesus story is like the Romulus and Remus story. Romulus and Remus were also conceived by a male god and a virgin woman, sound familiar? Romulus and Remus are also vastly “attested” with numerous authors, a long tradition, even coins and marble carved in their honor.

    Jesus is multiply attested just as Romulus and Remus are multiply attested. See how that works?

    What we have for Jesus are contradictory and nonsensical accounts of his birth written a lifetime after the supposed events. The gospels are anonymous and clearly written in a foreign language and place distant from the supposed events a very long time after they supposedly happened.

    Julius Caesar and Hannibal are known to be historical figures because of the evidence for their historicity, whereas Romulus, Remus, and Jesus are known to be mythological because of the lack of such evidence when we would expect to have it, combined with the clearly fictional nature of the accounts we have.

12. Hi Neil,

    You say: “all of the sources you list as most recurring in your studies have a background in seminary, bible college, or are themselves priests or pastors. You ignored that fact.”

    That isn’t in fact the case. I directly addressed this statement by asking you: “What evidence do you have that such a background necessarily affects their historical judgment?” I asked this question because until you show how a particular background invalidates a scholar’s work, the facts of their background are largely irrelevant.

    So may I ask you again, why do you think a person’s background invalidates their present day scholarship? How do you recommend we assess a scholar’s independence and the value of their work?

    I have addressed this latter question in my post, where I argue the best assessments are based on relevant qualities and qualifications and respect and influence among their peers. I have just done an internet search on this question and found that these qualities are indeed what makes a scholar in any field a respected and trusted source. In order, it seems to be (1) peer review, reputation and citation, (2) impact and influence of work, (3) the institution they work in, and (4) credentials and qualifications. I can send you links if you want.

    Few sources rated academic degrees as very important – current work was much more important. None suggested background was an issue.

    My post was titled “Who should we trust for historical info about Jesus?” I have given an answer that fits with current practice on other fields such as the physical and social sciences. The value of someone’s work comes from the recognised quality of that work, not from some vague accusation about their upbringing or original study.

    So perhaps you could continue the discussion with a clear statement of your criteria, some reasons and evidence for those criteria and a short list who rates well on those criteria?

    If we can reach some understanding of each other’s views on this, we can maybe address the other issues you raise (critical thinking and the actual evidence for Jesus). Thanks.

13. Merry Christmas!!!
    Hope you are having a good holiday.

14. Thanks, and yes!

15. “1. You say: “Most supposed “secular” historians are former graduates of seminary, or former evangelicals.” (i) What statistics do you have for this? (ii) What evidence do you have that such a background necessarily affects their historical judgment? (iii) Does this mean you disbelieve all scholars from those backgrounds and only take notice of ones with a different background?”

    1(i) was clearly addressed using your own examples. I am somewhat surprised you were, apparently, not already aware of this clear fact.

    1(ii) is a strawman, framed as an absolute I did not assert. The statement of faith required to enter seminary or the clergy is the antithesis of a critical scientific approach to the historicity of Jesus. Such an individual starts out by stating as a matter of deeply convinced faith that Jesus not only existed, but also is god. Such a profession of faith turns scientific inquiry on its head. Of course it is destructive to historical judgement because historical judgement requires an open mind and a scientific approach, both of which are absent given such a profession of faith on the specific topic of historicity of Jesus.

    1(iii) I disbelieve all scholars generally. The very title of your post seems to be an acquiescence to the fallacy of argument from authority.

    You seem uninterested in the paucity of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I suspect your fixation on the believability of scholars is related to your apparent disinterest in the specific evidence for the core question of historicity. For a believer, belief and believability of scholars are very important issues. For a non-believer, evidence is key, whereas credentials and personal believability are tertiary or introductory considerations.

    No eyewitness accounts. Nothing written by himself. No contemporaneous accounts. No contemporaneous criticisms. No court, legal, birth, death, or any such records. No contemporaneous images, carvings, or likenesses. No artifacts. Nothing written in the local language even decades later.

    What little is written was done so a lifetime later, in a foreign language, probably in distant locations, by anonymous gospel authors, plus a few scraps of likely forged mentions.

    Evidence, rationally analyzed evidence, is what matters to me, and for the historicity of Jesus, there simply is virtually none, and I challenge you or anybody else to present strong evidence for historicity.

16. Hi Neil,

    (i) You describe this as a “clear fact”, but this misunderstanding is exactly why I asked the question. Keeping in mind your original statement; “Most supposed “secular” historians are former graduates of seminary, or former evangelicals. “, consider the following:

    (a) I have nominated ten scholars (Robin Lane Fox, Michael Grant, Maurice Casey, Helen Bond, Geza Vermes, Candida Moss, L Michael White, Steve Mason, Dennis McDonald, Richard Miller) who do not meet your criteria.
    (b) In addition, add Bauckham (Cambridge Uni isn’t a seminary & Anglican isn’t really “evangelical”) plus Meier, Levine & Fredriksen who you say are Catholic (which isn’t “evangelical” either).

    The picture isn’t anywhere as clear as you claimed.

    (ii) As far as I can determine, neither Princeton (Ehrman, Allison, Fredriksen) nor Union (Sanders) require students to sign any doctrinal statement. You have made an assumption here that doesn’t appear justified.

    So the number of scholars who may plausibly have the bias you maintain has now reduced to about four (Wright, Keener, Hurtado, and maybe Dunn), while the number for whom it is apparently not the case is now about 18. We can argue about individual scholars, but your suspicion is on the verge of being almost totally disproven.

    You accuse me of “the fallacy of argument from authority” But you have misunderstood the fallacy, which refers to logical argument, not to matters of fact and knowledge. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: “the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is either not really an authority or a relevant authority”

    All knowledge, especially science, medicine & history, depend on us accepting the results of experts’ work. Rather than try to lay out a complete case for an issue (which may require hundreds of pages) is it appropriate to quote experts who have established some facts so the issue can be discussed efficiently. This is particularly important when the experts know things that we cannot know – for example, a historian will be familiar with ancient languages, culture and documents and is much more able than you or I to assess the evidence on a particular question. And that was what my post was about.

    You say: “You seem uninterested in the paucity of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.” Actually I am very interested in evidence for the historical Jesus. You haven’t yet established that there is a “paucity” of evidence, and the scholars I have quoted don’t agree with you. So you have a job to demonstrate that you know enough about history to make a judgment on what constitutes a paucity, and then whether the history of Jesus meets these requirements.

    So what criteria are you using to dismiss the historical evidence for Jesus?

    To sum up: your statements about scholars and bias appear to be NOT based on fact. Your understanding of fallacies seems mistaken, and you haven’t nominated clear historical criteria for evidence about Jesus. Do you see why I have asked you questions?

    Thanks.

17. This is a blog post, not a formal academic paper. If you are willing to engage with the point of what is said, fine. If you just want to mince words, parse for rare exceptions, or score debating points I am not interested.

    Whether seminary, evangelical, bible college, clergy, or similar background, the point is that everybody on your list in your post has made a statement of faith, either as an entrance requirement, or as part of the process of whatever their particular journey has been. If only one of them is now claiming to be secular that only reinforces my point.

    That statement of faith is antithetical to the scientific approach. All of the people you cite as most important in your original post suffer from this defect of analytical approach, your later ad hoc list of contrary examples not withstanding.

    The fallacy of argument from authority is not limited to formal logical arguments. It extends to accepting conclusions based primarily on belief in the authority of the individual, be they clergy, an academic, or author.

    You continue your fallacious fixation on authority in seeking my authority to claim a paucity. Again, evidence, not authority, is what matters for a sound judgement.

    I already gave you the evidence for a paucity, address that lack of evidence for historicity, not the authority of the one presenting it to you. I don’t care if your scholars disagree with me, what matters is the evidence, but you refuse to address that, probably because you can’t, so you are reduced to making this a pointless contest of disagreement between authorities.

    No eyewitness accounts. Nothing written by himself. No contemporaneous accounts. No contemporaneous criticisms. No court, legal, birth, death, or any such records. No contemporaneous images, carvings, or likenesses. No artifacts. Nothing written in the local language even decades later.

    It’s not up to me to prove that fits the definition of some particular descriptive word, the point is you still have not cited any such evidence for the historicity of Jesus, because there isn’t any.

    You cannot give me a strong argument for the historicity of Jesus because there isn’t one.

    You are providing an example of the advice to a criminal defense lawyer as to how to argue a case.
    If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
    If you don’t have the facts on your side, argue process.
    If you can’t argue the process, pound on the table.

    If you don’t have any facts, actual evidence for the historicity of Jesus, to present, I am not interested in your arguments for process or listening to you pound on the table.

18. Hi Neil,

    ” If you just want to mince words, parse for rare exceptions, or score debating points I am not interested.”
    I wrote a post about scholars who we should trust for historical information. You made a number of objections. My questions showed that some of your objections weren’t based on evidence. If “rationally analyzed evidence” is important to you, you should be glad to have learnt the truth about some matters you raised.. So if we have disposed of those points, we can move on.

    “Whether seminary, evangelical, bible college, clergy, or similar background, the point is that everybody on your list in your post has made a statement of faith, either as an entrance requirement”
    I have established, and you haven’t refuted, that that is true of some scholars and not true of others. The statement isn’t true unless you demonstrate it.

    “or as part of the process of whatever their particular journey has been.”
    I wonder what you are referring to here? Can you make an argument here that I can see is relevant to the question?

    “That statement of faith is antithetical to the scientific approach. All of the people you cite as most important in your original post suffer from this defect of analytical approach”
    You can assert that, but can you demonstrate it? If it was true, no reputable scientist could be a Christian, which is manifestly not true. How would you make that argument?

    “No eyewitness accounts. ….. No contemporaneous accounts.”
    OK, now we get to the guts of the matter. I’ll start by asking a simple question: How do you know those statements are true?

    Three bolded questions. I’d be interested in your answers, because I believe they will help settle some of the matters between us. Thanks.

19. “You can assert that, but can you demonstrate it?”
    I already did. I gave a brief listing of the backgrounds of your OP sources.
    Every one of the authors you list in your OP has a background in seminary, bible college, evangelism, clergy, or other similar form of expressed and deeply held faith that not only was Jesus a real man , he was and is also god.

    You have not established anything to the contrary.
    The only secular author on your OP list that I recognized is Bart Ehrman, which demonstrates both that you depend mostly on devout Christian sources, and on the rare occasion you consult a secular source, that source is deeply rooted in evangelical faith. A simple search returns this:
    “Bart Ehrman’s theological background is rooted in a conservative evangelical upbringing, marked by a born-again conversion, leading him through institutions like Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, then to advanced studies at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS)”

    “You can assert that, but can you demonstrate it? If it was true, no reputable scientist could be a Christian, which is manifestly not true. ”
    No Christian who applies theological reasoning to scientific study can be a good scientist.

    The only way for a Christian to be a good scientist is if he or she walls off faith from science, separates the two mentally, and does scientific work on a secular basis, limiting Christian thinking to areas of life outside of direct scientific work.

    Sidney Harris provided us with a pithy cartoon on this subject:
    i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8owAAOSwhiZaf1XV/s-l1600.webp

    “No eyewitness accounts. ….. No contemporaneous accounts.”
    “OK, now we get to the guts of the matter. I’ll start by asking a simple question: How do you know those statements are true?”
    Because they do no exist in the literature. If they did, you would point them out to me instead of dancing around with your endless appeals to authority.

    Evidence is what matters, not authority or the conclusions of authors.

    No eyewitness accounts. Nothing written by himself. No contemporaneous accounts. No contemporaneous criticisms. No court, legal, birth, death, or any such records. No contemporaneous images, carvings, or likenesses. No artifacts. Nothing written in the local language even decades later.

    Your inability to cite evidence to the contrary, and your inability to make a strong argument for the historicity of Jesus, is noted, and quite telling.

20. Hi Neil,

    “I already did. I gave a brief listing of the backgrounds of your OP sources.
    Every one of the authors you list in your OP has a background in seminary, bible college, evangelism, clergy, or other similar form of expressed and deeply held faith that not only was Jesus a real man , he was and is also god.”

    This is quite wrong. It’s not true of Maurice Casey, Richard Bauckham or Helen Bond. And I have already shown that Princeton (Ehrman, Allison, Fredriksen) nor Union (Sanders) don’t require any doctrinal adherence, certainly not any “deeply held faith”.

    So let’s review. I posed the question “Who should we trust for historical info about Jesus?”, I gave some criteria of which the main one was peer recognition and then I assessed a bunch of scholars using that criterion. I specifically excluded people who might be classified as christian or anti-christian apologists.

    You accused the scholars I mentioned of supporting “traditional” views to protect their positions, and when I asked you about this, you argued that most were in institutions that required doctrinal adherence. I showed this wasn’t true for many of them. You made this claim without evidence and it was wrong. So naturally I want to see the evidence for your other claims.

    But I understand your objection. If a scholar was required to hold a particular view, their views wouldn’t be independent. And there are certainly scholars in that position. You may like to read Maurice Casey on this matter – here.

    But I think of the scholars I referenced, only Craig Keener is in that position. So the rest of the scholars don’t seem to qualify as christian apologists and you still haven’t explained why their views shouldn’t be accepted.

    So I invite you (accept it as a challenge if you like), (1) state clearly the criteria you are using to judge these scholars – in the form of a logical argument – then (2) name which scholars fail your test. It isn’t enough to say they attended a certain institution, you have to say why or how that affects their judgment so your claim can be assessed against the evidence. This is the key to this discussion, so I hope you have a go at it.

    “The only way for a Christian to be a good scientist is if he or she walls off faith from science, separates the two mentally, and does scientific work on a secular basis, limiting Christian thinking to areas of life outside of direct scientific work.”

    That’s what all good religious scientists do. It’s called methodological naturalism.

    “Because they do no exist in the literature. “

    Which literature are you referring to? And how do you know they do not exist in that literature?

    “If they did, you would point them out to me instead of dancing around with your endless appeals to authority.”

    I’m a very poor dancer! But my post was about scholarship, so that is what we are discussing. I’m happy to discuss the evidence but first we need to find what evidence you accept and don’t.

    Thanks.

21. “You made this claim without evidence and it was wrong”
    I have provided the evidence repeatedly. Your selective reading is boring.

    “Which literature are you referring to?”
    The term “the literature” is a common reference. I assumed you already understood that. It means the whole of available literature, and is most applicable when primary sources are limited, such that the whole of available sources is a somewhat manageable finite set.

    “I’m a very poor dancer!”
    Clearly, yet you persist.

    “I’m happy to discuss the evidence but first we need to find what evidence you accept and don’t.”
    Already listed multiple times. The items on my short form list, repeated above, start with the word “no”, as in “no examples exist in the literature”.

    Bart Ehrman is a clear example of an individual who began his career with a strong profession of faith, your absurd denials notwithstanding. He entered a journey toward rationality as he studied more and more and learned how much of the bible is anonymous, lies, forgeries, and mistranslations. Eventually his journey toward rationality has led to his profession of non-belief.

    But, when he speaks on historicity of Jesus, he has clearly not fully escaped the irrationality of his past beliefs, because he says nonsensical things in defense of historicity, for example, that Jesus is multiply attested.

    Of course, Jesus is not attested at all. There are no extant attestations for a historical Jesus, none whatsoever. If you wish to consider any existing writing as attestations then you would have to say that Romulus and Remus are multiply attested, Hercules is multiply attested, and every major mythological figure is multiply attested.

22. Hi Neil,

    I have tried to ascertain the exact argument you are making, but I haven’t been able to see any argument, just assertions. So I will put down here what I think your arguments are and my response, and you can correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

    On the christian bias of scholars, here is one form of the argument:

    1. Most scholars were educated in countries and institutions with a nominally christian worldview.
    2. An education and upbringing in a nominally christian context inevitably leads to some christian assumptions .
    3. It is impossible to escape from these assumptions.
    4. Therefore all/most of the scholars I have referenced cannot be trusted.

    #1 is true for most scholars, but #2 is demonstrably untrue. -Richard Dawkins had an Anglican minister for a father and identified as a christian until his mid teens; John Loftus trained as a christian pastor, and there are many other examples. It is certainly possible to escape one’s upbringing (#3) and you haven’t offered any reason to believe otherwise. So this argument doesn’t work.

    So let’s try making it less broad, something like:

    1a. Many scholars were educated and teach in institutions which require adherence to conservative christian doctrine.
    2a. This means they are unable to assess the evidence on its merits.
    3a. Therefore these scholars cannot be trusted.

    That seems to me to be a valid and justifiable argument. But it doesn’t apply to most of the scholars I referenced, as I have already shown. Most were and are not under such restraint.

    So maybe we can try an argument in between:

    1b. Scholars who hold supernatural beliefs cannot think logically.
    2b. Many scholars are christians with supernatural beliefs.
    3b. Therefore these scholars cannot be trusted.

    I see no evidence for #1b and you have offered nothing more than assertions. And of course many scholars don’t hold supernatural beliefs (e.g. Ehrman, Casey, Sanders, Grant, Fox).

    So I finally get to this argument:

    1c. Scholars Neil doesn’t like can’t be trusted.
    2c. Therefore scholars Neil doesn’t like can’t be trusted.

    That argument is of course logically valid, but it is unlikely to convince anyone or be justified by evidence!

    So I conclude that there isn’t an argument that achieves what you want it to. You have taken bits out of different ones of those arguments but they don’t hang together. But if you can offer a different argument, please do so.

    Now on your apparent disdain of scholars (“I disbelieve all scholars generally” and “evidence, not authority, is what matters for a sound judgement.”).

    I asked you how you know about eyewitness accounts, contemporary accounts, etc and your answer was “the whole of available literature” I’m assuming that, like me, you haven’t ever seen the actual primary sources, nor could you read them in the original languages. So both of us are dependent on scholars to translate, explain context, etc. But you “disbelieve scholars generally”!?

    So the same scholars who write the available literature are the ones whose credentials you refuse to accept. So I wonder how you resolve that dilemma? I’m guessing there are scholars you do accept, but I wonder what are your criteria for accepting them?

    So again, you haven’t actually shown how you resolve this dilemma. I’d be interested to hear.

    This comment is long enough. I’ll address your comments about sources shortly. Thanks.

23. Hi Neil,

    Here’s a brief response about sources for Jesus’ life. It is a simple dot point summary because I am going to write a full post on this topic, which will take me a few days to research and write.

    1. There are hundreds of ancient documents that refer to Jesus as a real person. The question is, which if any of these give reliable historical information?

    2. I don’t have the language skills to read any of these ancient documents, nor the historical or cultural knowledge to assess them. So I need experts to guide me, that is, people who have skills and objective perspective.

    3. The scholars use a number of criteria to assess the usefulness of a historical source. Your emphasis on strictly contemporary sources isn’t reflected in the literature, and if used, would mean we’d have to reject the histories of many other famous people.

    4. Based on a more complete set of historical criteria, the evidence of the four gospels, Paul, Josephus, etc, make Jesus’ life better attested than any other figure living in Palestine at the time (who else has four separate biographies dated within a generation or two?), and pretty much what we’d expect for such a figure.

    5. So we know enough to say :

    • Jesus was a real person
    • we can know a fair amount about his life and teaching
    • there are plenty of issues to be resolved about what parts of the gospels are reliable and what are not
    • none of this infers any belief about the miraculous – we are each free to decide for ourselves about that.

    More to come in a few days.

24. 1. Most scholars were educated in countries and institutions with a nominally christian worldview.
    2. An education and upbringing in a nominally christian context inevitably leads to some christian assumptions .
    3. It is impossible to escape from these assumptions.
    4. Therefore all/most of the scholars I have referenced cannot be trusted.

    1a. Many scholars were educated and teach in institutions which require adherence to conservative christian doctrine.
    2a. This means they are unable to assess the evidence on its merits.
    3a. Therefore these scholars cannot be trusted.

    1b. Scholars who hold supernatural beliefs cannot think logically.
    2b. Many scholars are christians with supernatural beliefs.
    3b. Therefore these scholars cannot be trusted.

    1c. Scholars Neil doesn’t like can’t be trusted.
    2c. Therefore scholars Neil doesn’t like can’t be trusted.

    *****
    Either you are intentionally creating strawmen to knock down, or you have not read what I have written, or you truly have difficulty reading what I have written.

25. Hi Neil, I’m sorry you feel that way.

    I have read every word you have written, sometimes several times.

    I have had difficulty reading what you have written, not because I didn’t understand it, but because I didn’t find much argument or evidence there, just assertions.

    But I didn’t intentionally create strawmen. Rather, I honestly tried to come up with arguments that expressed what you seemed to be saying. But I honestly couldn’t find an argument that worked. So I invited you to write your own argument.

    I don’t believe there is an argument that works, and that is why my arguments look like strawmen, and why (I believe) you haven’t written one. But I could be wrong.

    So I invite you again, instead of accusing me, please write out an argument that fairly expresses what you have been saying. Thanks.

26. 1. Most scholars were educated in countries and institutions with a nominally christian worldview.
    -The scholars on your OP list, the ones you primarily reference, were or are deeply committed to professions of faith such as in the context of seminary, bible college, evangelism, or clergy positions.
    2. An education and upbringing in a nominally christian context inevitably leads to some christian assumptions .
    -Such devout positions and declarations of faith requires Christian assumptions.
    3. It is impossible to escape from these assumptions.
    -Human nature makes those who possess such assumptions highly prone to Christian bias.
    4. Therefore all/most of the scholars I have referenced cannot be trusted.
    -Don’t trust scholars generally, irrespective of religious views. Listen to and read the evidence they present. Examine their citations. Compare their defenses of those evidence presentations when they interact with peers who disagree with them. Judge based on the quality of evidence provided, not trust in scholars conclusions.

    1a. Many scholars were educated and teach in institutions which require adherence to conservative christian doctrine.
    -True
    2a. This means they are unable to assess the evidence on its merits.
    -That means they are prone to Christian bias in their conclusions.
    3a. Therefore these scholars cannot be trusted.
    -Scholars should not be trusted generally. The quality of their evidence should be evaluated.

    1b. Scholars who hold supernatural beliefs cannot think logically.
    -False broadly, but supernatural beliefs are likely to be corrosive to scientifically sound conclusions.
    2b. Many scholars are christians with supernatural beliefs.
    -True
    3b. Therefore these scholars cannot be trusted.
    -Scholars should not be trusted generally. The quality of their evidence should be evaluated.

    1c. Scholars Neil doesn’t like can’t be trusted.
    -???
    2c. Therefore scholars Neil doesn’t like can’t be trusted.
    -Not worthy of further response.

    *****
    I have already made all these points on multiple occasions. How or why you created your straw man arguments is a mystery to me, but you did.

27. Hi Neil, thanks for your reply. I’m a little surprised you went with my hypothetical arguments rather than your own. but let’s examine them.

    First argument
    Premise 3 is demonstrably false. While it may be true of many scholars, it isn’t true of the following, who had strong christian commitments in early life but ended up atheists – Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Price, Hector Avalos, John Loftus. Even Richard Carrier was raised a Methodist. All of these people escaped their upbringing. The argument fails.

    Second argument
    I think the argument is true but useless for your purposes. Most of the most respected scholars don’t fit premise 1a. This argument doesn’t address my post.

    Third argument
    You agree that premise 1b is not true. The argument fails.

    Fourth argument
    I inserted it as a light-hearted way to suggest your arguments are circular. Because you think they have religious views you dismiss their views. Your evidence for them having christian is views is that you don’t like their conclusions.

    In all cases your conclusions are “Scholars should not be trusted generally. The quality of their evidence should be evaluated.” So in the end, you don’t like any scholars, those you accuse of being christian and those who clearly aren’t. So what has been the point of all your comments? But let’s look at this.

    I guess we’d have to decided what “trusted” means. If you mean “blindly trusted” then we are in agreement. But my post never mentioned blind trust. But if you mean something like “take seriously”, then you have shown inconsistency, because you do take notice of the literature which is written by the scholars.

    So let’s reset. Nothing you have said here changes anything in my post, and in fact agrees with quite a lot of it. So have you got anything to say (with evidence) against my post?

28. I am beginning to see how you are so confused. Reading skills and attention to detail are issues you would benefit from improving.

    “Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Price, Hector Avalos, John Loftus. Even Richard Carrier was raised a Methodist.”

    Pointing out that they are now atheists is just another one of your unending strawmen.

    1.Most of those are not on your OP list.
    2.Bart Ehrman proves my points quite thoroughly. He was an evangelist, he made professions of faith, he is rational in many respects but on the subject of historicity his arguments become scattered and nonsensical, a clear indication of residual Christian bias.

    Your strawman arguments fail, true. That is the purpose of a strawman, to set up arguments that fail.

    None of my actual arguments fail

29. Hi Neil,

    I think it is time to close this discussion, for several reasons.

    (1) “I am beginning to see how you are so confused. Reading skills and attention to detail are issues you would benefit from improving.” When insults are used instead of arguments and evidence, it is time to stop.

    (2) “Pointing out that they are now atheists is just another one of your unending strawmen.” I was addressing a premise in the argument, and using this fact to show the premise wasn’t supported by the evidence. That is how arguments are proven or disproved (in this case disproved).

    (3)“None of my actual arguments fail” I haven’t yet seen an actual argument, despite asking many times, only assertions. So I have no way of knowing what they are let alone how strong they are.

    We aren’t even connecting, so let’s stop now. Thanks for your time.

30. I enumerated some of my arguments 2 January, 2026 at 4:47 pm.

    Yet you say ” I haven’t yet seen an actual argument”

    That is an example of my statement “Reading skills and attention to detail are issues you would benefit from improving.” That is not an insult, it is friendly advice on how you can improve your interaction process.

    You repeatedly turned my statements into strawmen.
    When I clarified my statements you mixed up my arguments with your arguments to claim more strawmen.
    Then you claim not to have seen any actual argument from me.

    If your goal is to honestly engage with people who disagree with you, then my suggestion is to read what they write carefully, do not construct strawmen, and counter the actual arguments they make. So far you have not followed that process with me.

    If you want to engage with some of my actual arguments then read my words as written line by line 2 January, 2026 at 4:47 pm.

    Until you can use sound reasoning to refute my actual words my arguments stand as sound.

31. Thanks Neil. I won’t reply as that would only continue a discussion that is becoming repetitive on both sides. But I appreciate your interest and intentions in writing your comments.

32. Ok, so you are unable or uninterested in engaging with the actual arguments I made regarding the specific sources you cite in your OP.

    Well, in the process you did make a number of incorrect or at best poorly informed assertions.

    1. “There are hundreds of ancient documents that refer to Jesus as a real person. ”
    -Not independently sourced, no. Only a few are independent, the rest are just copies of previous sources, so irrelevant to historicity.

    2. “I don’t have the language skills to read any of these ancient documents, nor the historical or cultural knowledge to assess them. So I need experts to guide me, that is, people who have skills and objective perspective.”
    -Look at the evidence, not generalized conclusions. Evidence is best gauged by assessing the quality of competing expert evaluations.

    3. “The scholars use a number of criteria to assess the usefulness of a historical source. Your emphasis on strictly contemporary sources isn’t reflected in the literature, and if used, would mean we’d have to reject the histories of many other famous people.”
    -Ok, reject the historicity of those people then.
    The fact is that relative to famous historical figures Jesus has virtually no evidence for historicity.
    Claims to the contrary are wildly false.

    4. “Based on a more complete set of historical criteria, the evidence of the
    four gospels, ”
    -Not eye witness, not independent, anonymous, mythological, dishonest generally.
    “Paul,”
    -widely forged, not an eye witness, no direct testimony,
    “Josephus, ”
    -not independent, forged
    “Jesus’ life better attested”
    -There are zero attestations of a historical Jesus. Repeating an unidentified rumor is not an historical attestation. If you wish to count the available documents as “attestations” of Jesus, then most of the mythological ancient figures and pantheons of gods are similarly “attested”.
    “than any other figure living in Palestine at the time and pretty much what we’d expect for such a figure.”
    -there are many figures from that time and place with actual attestations, while Jesus has none.
    -I expect the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Son of Man to have more than a few vague implications and copied rumors written about him, which is all the supposed Jesus has. The supposed huge volume of attestations are really just copies of copies of copies of anonymous stories of unsourced stories.

33. Hi Neil,

    You say “you are unable or uninterested in engaging with the actual arguments I made” but this isn’t what I said. I said: “I haven’t yet seen an actual argument, despite asking many times, only assertions”.

    It would help if you believed I meant exactly what I said. It is often the case in discussions like this that adversaries make ambit claims that help them avoid their opponent’s arguments. I’m guessing you think that’s what I was doing, but I was being totally honest. Could it be you who is doing that?

    I imagine you know all I am about to say, but I want to make it very clear, so here’s why I made that statement. (I dislike adversarial discussion, but it seems I have to respond this way to clarify things.)

    In addressing an issue in a discussion, there things are required.

    1. A statement.
    2. An argument from evidence as to why that statement is true.
    3. An argument that shows why that statement is relevant to the issue being discussed.

    So let’s examine your statements of 2 January, 2026 at 4:47 pm.

    1. You made several statements in support of your belief that the scholars I referenced don’t give an impartial view:

    “The scholars on your OP list, the ones you primarily reference, were or are deeply committed to professions of faith such as in the context of seminary, bible college, evangelism, or clergy positions. ….. Such devout positions and declarations of faith requires Christian assumptions. “

    2. I see no evidence there that these statements are true of most of the scholars I referenced. They are just assertions with no evidence. And I offered some reasons to disregard those assertions. (i) Many scholars didn’t go to institutions that required deep christian commitment, and (ii) several of the scholars I referenced, and others I later mentioned have for many years identified as non-christians. So you haven’t justified your assertions.

    3. Your only justification for #3 is “Human nature makes those who possess such assumptions highly prone to Christian bias.” Again an assertion, no evidence. Hypothetically, I could make the equal and opposite assertion that: “Human nature makes those who one possessed such assumptions highly prone to anti-Christian bias.” I think my assertion is at least as plausible as yours, and probably more so.

    But such assertions are almost impossible to demonstrate from evidence, at least for the scholars we are discussing. That is why I wouldn’t make such an assertion – and why I suggest you shouldn’t either. And so you haven’t shown, and I believe cannot show, that these highly respect and qualified scholars have the strong bias you suggest.

    So those are the matters you’d need to attend to if you want to turn assertions into convincing argument. I don’t know why you’d want to keep discussing with me, but if you want to discuss, you need to give me a convincing argument, not assertions and mis-statement of what I am saying. Failing that, I’ll stick with my intention to close the discussion.

    Of course if you were willing to withdraw those assertions, we could move on to the other matters you raise.

    I hope that makes things clear. Thanks.