A Review of Brian Flemming's DVD The God Who Wasn't There

10/27/2016 answeringinfidels.
com
Home AnsweringSkeptics Others AReviewofBrianFlemming'sDVD"TheGodWhoWasn'tThere"
Sunday,10March2013
AReviewofBrianFlemming'sDVD"The
GodWhoWasn'tThere"
MainMenu
Home This is the lastest attempt by the hyperskeptical community to
AnsweringSkeptics advancethethesisthatJesusneverexisted.Inthisreview,Mike
Liconatakesalookattheircase.
AcharyaS
Clickherefortheofficialmoviewebsite,andhereforaclip.
DanBarker
RichardCarrier
EarlDoherty
LennyFlank
ElainePagels
JohnLoftus
Others
AnsweringMuslims
OtherTopics
TheGodWhoWasntThere
RelatedLinks byBrianFlemming
YourRebuttals BeyondBeliefMedia,2005
ContactUs Movie running time: 62 minutes including special features: 259
TopicalMenu minutes
Bible
ReviewedbyMikeLicona
Jesus
Science
Philosophy TableofContents
Reviews
1.IntroductoryComments
2.ChristianMorality
3.TheGospels&PaulCriticized
4.Parallelmania!
5.Folklore&UrbanLegend
6.AnIntervieww/EarlDoherty
7.FromVillageChristiantoVillageAtheist
8.AnIntervieww/RichardDawkins
9.MoreFailedAccusations
10.Conclusion

The God Who Wasnt There is the latest attempt by the hyperskeptical
community to advance the thesis that Jesus never existed. The DVD
includes a main video, which is approximately one hour in duration and
severalancillaryfilesavailabletotheviewer.These files include extended
interviews from which Flemming selected portions for his main work,
commentaries in audio format that mainly include interviews with Earl
Doherty on his book The Jesus Puzzle (approximately one hour) and a
secondcommentary,whichisprimarilyaninterviewwithRichardDawkins
withshorterinterviewswithRichardCarrier,RobertPrice,andtheRanting
Atheist. Flemming regards these interviews as the documentary evidence
for the claims he makes throughout his main video.One can also watch a
PowerPoint type presentation with further comments, most of which are
reiterationsofwhatwaspresentedinthemainvideo.Finally,biographiesof
Flemmingandhisguestsarepresented.
Flemming is an amateur film producer. It will become obvious to all
viewers that he is embittered against Christianity. However, his sourness
https://web.archive.org/web/20130310124417/http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answeringskeptics/others/areviewofbrianflemmingsdvdthegodwh 1/39
10/27/2016 answeringinfidels.com
extends to religion itself. In this review, I will comment briefly on the

qualityoftheproductionandthenmoveontoitscontents.
The filming is poor.This is most likely the result of Flemmings working
fromashoestringbudgetandeitherhisinexperienceorlackofgifting.The
poorqualityissometimesdistracting.Forinstance, intwo interviewswith
Robert Price and David and Barbara Mikkelson, there is a distracting
reflectionofcameralightandsunlightintheireyeglasses.Intheinterview
with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is
directly in front of him.Changing the angle would have easily eliminated
this. Flemming did not bother to straighten the tilted lampshade in his
interview with Price. The quality of the filming reaches its low in
FlemmingsinterviewwithScottButcher.Becauseofbacklighting,Butcher
looksverydark.Flemmingusesonlyonecamerathroughouthisinterviews
and asks his questions from behind the camera, producing the impression
thatoneisviewingahomemadevideoratherthanaprofessionalproduction.
The graphics are very repetitive, seldom change, and are of a low
quality.Yet,asweshallsee,thefilmstechnicaldifficultiesaretheleastof
itsproblems.
ThethesisofthefilmisthatJesusneverexisted.Thefirstwordsthatappear
on the screen claim that the video is a documentary. However, viewers
expecting to encounter uptodate scholarly research will surely be
disappointed. With the exception of a telephone interview with Richard
Dawkins, who is not a scholar on the historical Jesus and is, therefore,
speaking outside of his field, no major or wellknown scholars are
interviewed.Additionally, Flemming finds it difficult to stay on topic. His
video goes back and forth between arguing that Jesus never existed and
pointing out atrocities committed in the name of Christ like the
Inquisition. This flipflopping between two theses is distracting, since his
secondandunstatedthesisisunrelatedtothefirst.ItisasthoughFlemming
issaying,Jesusneverexistedand,oh,bytheway,IhateChristianityand
allreligion.
ChristianMorality
Weseethisflipfloppingfromtheverybeginning.Flemming launches his
video with the statement that it was once believed that the sun revolved
aroundtheearth.Christianity was wrong about the solar system. What if
itswrongaboutsomethingelse,too?InhisinterviewwithEarlDoherty,it
becomesapparentthatheisreferringtothebeliefsoftheCatholicChurch
duringthetimeofGalileointhesixteenthcentury.Fromthere,heproceeds
toshowanumberofChristianswhosaytheyarehappybecausetheyknow
Jesus. He then says that Christianity also has a different face, and shows
CharlesManson,PatRobertson,DenaSchlosserwhocutherbabysarmoff
for God, and Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the authors of the extremely
successfulLeftBehindseries.ForLaHayeandJenkins,heliftswhatmust
beacitationfromoneoftheirbooksthatsaysthatChristianslookforward
tothedaywhenallnonChristiansarethrownintoalakeoffire,howling
andscreeching.(ThisstatementisnotfoundintheBible.Indeed,withthe
exceptionofafewCalvinists,onewouldbehardpressedtofindChristians
who would make such a statement.) He then mentions the 86 Branch
DavidianswhodiedintheWaco,Texasfireandcomments,So,Iguessits
kindofamixedbag.
Of course, none of this adds anything to the question of Jesus
existence. And one may answer Flemming by noting that a philosophy
should not be judged by its abuse. One could make a similar apologetic
againstatheismbynamingatheistslikeStalin,Mao,andtheKhmerRouge
whowereresponsibleforthekillingfieldsofCambodia.[1]Everyoneof
these despots and brutal governments embraced atheism and oppressed
people.OnecouldeasilyproduceadocumentaryshowingFlemmingand
hisguestssmilingandhappywiththeiratheism,thenturntophotographsof
Stalin who killed 7 million, Pol Pot who killed 1.2 million, and of course
Mao who killed more than 70 million. This is certainly a mixed
bag.However,thiswoulddonothingtoproveatheismwrong.
It is worth noting, however, that there is a major difference between

showcasingStalinasanexampleofanatheistandMansonasanexampleof
a Christian. Manson acted contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Thus, one
cannotfaultJesusorChristianityforthemisdeedsofcharlatansandlunatics
whomisrepresenthim.Ontheotherhand,onecannotsaythatStalinacted
contrarytotheteachingsofatheism,sinceatheismhasnomoralteachings
intrinsic to its worldview.But neither can one claim that Stalin acted in a
manner inconsistent with atheism. Atheists and theists alike usually agree
that if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Those
atheistswhostillclaimtobelieveinobjectivemoralitysimplyfailtograsp
themeaningofthewordobjective.Byobjective,Imeanthatsomething
is morally right or wrong irrespective of the opinion of a person or
society.Thisisnotanargumentfortheobjectivityofmorals.Ratheritisto
saythatifatheismistrue,moralsarenotobjective.Theonlystandardsare
those set by individuals or societies. People can choose to abide by those
standardsorenduretheconsequencesimposedbythesocietyinwhichthey
live if they are caught breaking those standards. Individuals can vary
significantly in their moral standards. But in a godless reality, no one is
obligatedtoabidebythemoralvaluesofanotherindividual.Giventhis,we
may think that Stalins brutal communist regime was morally
deficient. However, in a godless reality, to say so is merely to state our
opinionandnothingmore.Thisisbecauseweareusingourmoralvaluesto
judge his. In other words, his moral values are deficient when judged
accordingtoourmoralvalues.Buttheyarefinewhenjudgedaccordingto
Stalins.Wecanprovidereasonswhywebelievethatourethicsaresuperior
toStalins.However,whilethismaygainsupportfromothersinourglobal
community,itcanneverestablishthatourethicsareintrinsicallysuperiorto
Stalins.We may defeat him in battle and force our moral standards upon
him,butthatonlymeanswearestrongerormoreclever.Itwouldnotmean
thatweareright.
I want to be crystal clear at this point, since atheists are notorious for
misunderstandingthisargument,asFlemmingcertainlydoesinhisvideo.I
am not saying that atheists are evil due to the nature of their
worldview. Since atheism has no moral code that is intrinsic to its
worldview,ifanatheistiskind,itisbecauseheorshechoosestoactinthat
manner, not because atheism possesses a moral code that requires or
encouragesit.Inasimilarmanner,ifanatheistchoosestoactbrutally,that
personiseverybitasconsistentwiththeatheisticworldviewasanatheist
whochoosestoactkindly.
To illustrate, let us suppose that Flemming feels morally justified in
presentingfalseinformationinhisvideoinordertopromotehisagendaof
discrediting Christianity, whereas one of his guests Sam Harris does not
think this would be a good thing to do, even if it serves to accomplish an
endtheybothshare.Ifatheismistrue,onecannotjudgebetweentheethics
ofFlemmingandHarris.Harrismayarguethathisethicsservetopromote
the greater good of both the individual and society. Flemming may reply
thattheachievementofhisgoalofdiscreditingChristianityishischiefgoal
to which all other objectives he may have must submit to it. If this were
Flemmingsethicalsystem,onecouldnotsayheisobjectivelywrong,given
atheism.MostofusmayagreewithHarrisethics.But,inagodlessreality,
onecouldonlystatethatmorepeoplesidewithHarristhanFlemming.That
isdifferentthanstatingthatHarrisisright.Thus,therearetwomajorpoints
tomakehereinreplytoFlemming.First,despotslikeStalindidnotactina
manner inconsistent with atheistic beliefs, whereas Manson acted contrary
totheteachingsofJesus.Second,ethicsforatheistsaresubjectiveand,thus,
thereisnovantagepointforpeopletoadjudicatebetweenethics.Whenthey
attempt to do so, they are merely judging by their own ethics.But that is
differentfromhavinganobjectivereferencepointtowhichonecanappeal.
TheGospels&PaulCriticized
Flemmingasks,WhyisitthatChristianscanbesospecificaboutthelife
of Christ but theyre vague about what happened after he left? Arent
Christianleaderstellingthemthestory?Hethenlaunchesintoacritiqueof
theNewTestament.Markwaswrittenfirstandtheotherthreeareclearly
derived from Mark. Mark mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple
which happened in the year 70. So, the Gospels all came later than that
probablymuchlater.Theresagapoffourdecadesormore.Mostofwhat
weknowaboutthisperiodcomesfromamanwhosayshesawJesusChrist
cometohiminavision.HewastheapostlePaul,formallyknownasSaulof
Tarsus.
Flemming (in themain video) and Doherty (later inthe2ndCommentary)

assert that all of the Gospels derived from Mark. This is far from the
truth.AlthoughitisgrantedbymostscholarsthatMatthewandLukeused
Mark as one of their sources, they had other sources as well. The
hypotheticalQsourcewhichDohertyacknowledgesmaybeoneofthose
sources.[2] Luke reported that many had written accounts of what Jesus
saidanddidbeforehewrotehisGospel(Luke1:1).RegardingJohnsuseof
Mark,theprominentNewTestamentscholarLarryHurtadowritesthat
probablymost(butbynomeansall)scholarsnowadaysholdthatthe
author(s)ofJohn(atleastattheearlieststageoftheprocessthatled
toourpresenttext)eitherdidnotknowof,andreferto,anyofthe
SynopticGospelsor,attheleast,didnotusethemassourcesinthe
waytheauthorsofMatthewandLukeusedMark(andQ).[3]
Moreover, most of todays scholars believe that much of the tradition in
JohnisfromoneofJesusdisciples,althoughthereisnoconsensusabout
who that disciple was.Many believe the author was the apostle John or a
minor disciple who traveled with Jesus but was not one of the twelve.
[4]SomedetailsinJohn(e.g.,Jesusarrest&trial)actuallycoherebetter
with known historical conditions and are not related to Johns theology,
whichlendscredibilitybothtoindependenceandhistoricity.John likewise
contains very early tradition, although it is the last of the Gospels to be
written.JamesCharlesworthofPrinceton,whoisnofriendofevangelicals,
states that nearly all Johannine scholars have concluded that John may
containsomeoftheoldesttraditionsintheGospels.[5]
WhenweretheGospelswritten?InFlemmingsPowerPointpresentationhe
writes,TheearliestpossibledateforMarkwasusedonthistimeline[AD
70]. In fact, the 40year gap [between the death of Jesus (who never
existed!)andthetimeinwhichMarkpennedhisGospel]isprobablymuch
wider.ScholarshipshowsthatMarkcouldhavebeenwrittenaslateas85
90A.D.ThispositionderiveslargelyfromDohertywhosaysthefollowing
inhisinterview:ThefirstGospelwasntwrittenuntilalmosttheendofthe
firstcentury....Theothersfollowoverthenextseveraldecades.
Flemming is out of touch with scholarship and Doherty takes a radical
position.NearlyallmodernscholarsholdthatallfourGospelswerewritten
bytheendofthefirstcentury.[6]ThatisnotmuchlaterthanAD70as
Flemming claims. The dating of the four Gospels is a very involved
discussion and beyond the scope of this review. Arguments for particular
dates for the composition of the Gospels can be found in New Testament
Introductionsormostscholarlycommentaries.One would be hardpressed
tofindamodernscholarwhoisconvincedthattheGospelswerewrittenas
lateasDohertyandFlemmingpropose.Moreover,theyseemunawarethat
evenagapofsixtytoseventyyearsbetweenthewritingandtheeventsthey
purport to describe is quite early compared to what historians work with
whenitcomestootherancientbiographies.Forexample,historiansobtain
nearlyeverythingtheyknowaboutAlexandertheGreat(356323BC)from
foursources:DiodorusofSicily(6030BC),QuintusCurtiusRufus(?AD
53), Plutarch (AD 46c. 122), and Arrian of Nicomedia (c. AD 87after
144).ThebulkofourinformationonAlexandercomesfromPlutarch.Thus,
the earliest source for Alexander used by modern historians is more than
260yearsafterhisdeathandthemostreliablesourceismorethan370years
removed. Flemmings attempt to get his viewers to regard the Gospels as
unreliable because they were written 4070 years after the life of Jesus
would be laughed at by the large majority of modern historians of
antiquity.
ReferringtoPaulsletters,Flemmingstates,
These documents represent almost all we have of the history of
Christianityduringthisdecadeslonggap.Andhere'stheinteresting
thing: if Jesus was a human who had recently lived, nobody told
Paul.PaulneverheardofMary,Joseph,Bethlehem,Herod,Johnthe
Baptist. He never heard about any of these miracles. He never
quotes anything that Jesus is supposed to have said. He never
mentionsJesushavingaministryofanykindatall.Hedoesn'tknow
aboutanyentranceintoJerusalem.HenevermentionsPontiusPilate
oraJewishmoboranytrialsatall.Pauldoesn'tknowanyofwhat
we would call the story of Jesus, except for these last three
events.Andeventhese,Paulneverplaces[sic]Jesusonearth.Just
liketheothersaviorgodsofthetime,PaulsChristJesusdied,rose,
andascendedallinamythicalrealm.
ItisnottruethatPaulslettersareallwehaveaboutChristianityduringthe
decades that occurred between the death of Jesus and the writing of the
Gospels.The book of Acts is usually dated to have been written between
AD6185.EvenifwedateActsontheouterend,wehaveadocumentthat
isahistoryoftheChurchbetweenAD3061.That is, it was written only
2555yearsaftertheeventsitpurportstodescribe,giventheouterlimitsof
acriticaldating.Mostprofessionalhistorianswouldrejoiceatsuchashort
gap.Another issue to consider is whether Lukes intention was to write a
historicalaccount.MostmodernscholarsincludingtheagnosticcriticBart
Ehrman believe that Lukes intention was indeed to write a history of the
first decades of the Church. Although Ehrman believes there are fictional
elements in Acts, he states that it is best to conclude that Luke meant to
writeahistoryofearlyChristianity,notanovel.[7]Itisalsointerestingto
note that the early kerygma[8] indicates that there was an interest in the
historicalJesusandthatpeoplealreadyknewthestoriesofwhatJesusdid
andwhatwasdonetohim(Acts10:3443).
Flemmingalsostatesinhisvideothat
Paul doesn't believe that Jesus was ever a human being. He's not
even aware of the idea. And he's the link between the time frame
given for the life of Jesus and the appearance of the first Gospel
account of that life. This is why you don't hear many Christian
leaders talking about the early days of Christianity. Because when
youassemblethefacts,thestoryisthatJesuslived,everyoneforgot
and then they remembered. But it gets even shakier than
that.Allegoricalliteraturewasextremelycommonbackthen.
ContrarytoFlemming,thereareanumberofreasonsforbelievingthatPaul
was familiar with the historical Jesus. First, since Paul was a committed
Jew,hewouldhavebeeninJerusalemduringthePassoverasJesuswould
havebeen.Thus,thereisagoodpossibilitythatbothJesusandPaulwerein
Jerusalem at the same time and that Paul even heard Jesus teach. Second,
Paul declares that he opposed the Church to the point of persecuting its
believers.ActsreportsthatPaulhadheardthetestimonyofStephenabout
Jesus just before Stephen was martyred. And surely others, both the
persecuted and the persecutors would have shared information about the
historical Jesus with Paul. Third, Paul wrote, We have known Christ
accordingtotheflesh(2Corinthians5:16).Thisseemstoimplythathehad
someknowledgeofJesusearthlylife.Fourth,onthreeoccasionsinPauls
letters he shows that he is familiar with the sayings of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10
9:1411:1,2,2025).Fifth,Paulswordsmayindicatethatheknewthatthe
historicalJesuswasmeekandgentle(2Cor10:1)andthateitherhecame
from a poor family or lived a poor life, or both (2 Cor 8:9). Sixth, Paul
reportsthathewenttoJerusalemtovisitPeter.Thewordheusesforvisitin
Greekishistorsai,fromwhichwederivetheEnglishwordhistory.Thus,as
many scholars have noted, during Pauls first visit with the apostles as a
newbeliever,heiscertaintohaveaskedthemfordetailsabouttheLordhe
now served, details of both his earthly life and his teachings, the same
information each of us would be interested in if we were now in Pauls
place.Seventh, as Luke began to write his Gospel, he reported that others

hadpreviouslycompiledaccountsofthethingsJesusdid.Paulcouldhave
beenfamiliarwithoneormoreofthese.Thus,thereareanumberofgood
reasonsforbelievingthatPaulknewofthehistoricalJesus. This becomes
especially strong when all seven reasons are considered collectively. The
Australian New Testament scholar Paul Barnett writes, There can be no
doubtthat,bothbeforehewasadisciplebutalsoafterwards,Paulknewa
lotaboutthehistoricalJesus.TherecanbenosupportfortheideathatPaul
wassomeRobinsonCrusoefigurecutofffromhistoricalknowledgeand
entirelydependentonheavenlyrevelation.[9]
LetslookatafewmoreofFlemmingsclaimsaboutPaul.
He never quotes anything that Jesus is supposed to have said. This is
easilydebunked.In 1 Cor 11:24, Paul writes of Jesus that, when He had
giventhanks,Hebrokeitandsaid,Thisismybody,whichisforyoudo
thisinremembranceofme.PaulisobviouslyawareoftheJesustradition
knownbytheEvangelists(Mark14:22Matt26:26Luke22:19).Asnoted
above,therearealsoanumberofpassageswherePaulshowsheisfamiliar
with the sayings of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10 9:14 11:1, 2, 2025 2 Cor
5:16).PaulisfamiliarwithPilateandJohntheBaptistinhisspeechinActs
13:25, 28. Colin Hemer argues that the speeches in Acts are probably
summaries of what certain apostles taught on a specific occasion[10] as
doesCraigKeenerinhisforthcomingcommentaryonActs.Healsoknows
that Jesus had a brother, indeed several, which places the historical Jesus
withinPaulsgeneration(Gal1:191Cor9:5).FlemmingacceptsDohertys
explanation that the term brother of the Lord probably referred to a
specific group of Christians who named themselves brothers of the
Lord. However, no evidence is provided in support of this thesis and it
doesnotfitwellwithotherreportsthatJesushadbrothers(Matt12:4650
cf. Mark 3:3135 Luke 8:1921 Matt 13:5557 John 2:12 7:311 Acts
1:1314).(Seemoreonthistopicneartheendofthisreview.)
Just like the other savior gods of the time, Paul's Christ Jesus died, rose,
andascendedallinamythicalrealm.Thisstatementinthemainvideois
supportedbyRobertPriceinalaterinterview.(Fortherecord,IvemetBob
Priceandhaveexchangedafewcordialemailswithhiminthepast.Ireally
liketheguyandfindhimpleasantonapersonallevel.)Pricesaysthat
inthecaseofsomeonelikeCaesarAugustus,aroundwhommanyof
thesamemythsclustered,weknowtherenonethelesswasaCaesar
Augustus, because he's intricately tied into the history of the time
andmanysecularhistorianstalkabouthim.Youcan'trewritehistory
without Caesar Augustus. But at the very two points that Jesus
appears to be locked into history these stories are either still
mythicalliketheslaughterofinnocentsarrivedrightoutofthebook
of Exodus or they contain outrageous improbabilities, such as the
JewishsupremeCouncilmeetingonPassoverEvetogetridofthis
guy.It'sjustoutofthequestion.OrPontiusPilatelettinggoaknown
killerofRomansandinsurrectionist,Barabbas,andjustlettingJesus
being thrown to the mob after, however, trying to get him off the
hook, as if he has to have a vote on it. It just defies any kind of
historicalverisimilitude.Andthatwhenyourealize,well,youknow,
there were other ancient Jews and Jewish Christians that believed
Jesus had been killed a century before under King Alexander
Janaeus or in the Gospel of Peter it says that Herod had Jesus
killed.Wellhowcouldthisbeamatterofsuchdiversityifitwasa
recent event that people remembered? It just begins to make you
wonderisthismanreallypartofthehistoricaltimestreamordoesit
begin to look like someone has tried to put a figure originally
mythicalintoahistoricalframeworkandmadevariousstabsatit?
While the historicity of Herods slaughter of the innocent and the Jewish
trial of Jesus in the Passion accounts have been questioned, no decisive
argumentshavebeenpresentedagainstthem.Thisis,however,nottheplace
to provide a robust defense of the historicity of the biblical
accounts.Flemmingsvideodoesnotprovideanymorethanassertionsand,
thus,Iamnotobligatedtoreplywithadetailedrefutation.Iwillcomment
thatinthefirstcentury,Bethlehemwasprobablyasmallvillage.Thus, the
number of infants under the age of two would probably have been quite
small.WouldanactionbyHerodthatcausedthedeathsofasmallnumber
ofinfantsinasmallvillageinanunpopularsectionoftheRoman Empire
have caught the attention of a number of ancient historians? We do not
know.However,weshouldnotbesurprisedifonlyonesourcereportsit,in
thiscaseMatthew.ForagoodcaseforthehistoricityofJesustrialbythe
Jewish leadership, see Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary,VolumeTwo,108589.SeealsoRaymondBrownsTheDeath
oftheMessiah,Volume1,32883.
While Price is quick to tell his viewers about the deaths of pagan gods,
MartinHengelofTbingenlistsanumberofpagangodswhodiedviolent
deathsbutnoteshowtheydifferfromChristianreportsofJesus:notonly
did all this take place in the darkest and most distant past, but it was
narrated in questionable myths which had to be interpreted either
euhemeristicallyoratleastallegorically.[11]TheresurrectionofJesusis
notreportedtohavetakenplaceinthegrayanddistantpast.Rather,itwas
linked (1) to the time of Tiberius and Pilate, (2) to a specific location:
Jerusalem within Judea, and (3) to numerous eyewitnesses who were still
alive,includingJesusownfamilymembers.ThattheJesusofwhomPaul
spoke is a contemporary rather than a mythic figure from an unspecified
timeinthepastcouldnothavebeenanyclearer.[12]Thus,thereportsof
Jesuswereofacontemporarynaturethatcouldtosomeextentbechecked
at the time. Hengel goes on to point out that crucified gods can be
tormented for a while, but can never die. Greek heroes cannot on any
account be allowed to suffer such a painful and shameful deaththis can
only befall evildoers. . . . The hero of the romance is saved at the last
moment . . .[13] In the romances . . . crucifixion made for exciting
entertainment and sensationalism. Here the suffering was not really taken
seriously. The accounts of the crucifixion of the hero serve to give the
readerathrill:thetensionwasthenresolvedbythefreeingofthecrucified
victim and the obligatory happy ending.[14] Thus, the
contemporaneousness of Jesus to the reports about him and his fate
distinguisheshimfromthemythicalgodsandheroesknowntothepeopleof
thatera.
But it gets even shakier than that. Allegorical literature was extremely
common back then. It is true that allegorical literature was common in
antiquity.However,sowashistoricalliterature.Thequestiontobeanswered
here is what genre are the Gospels? Below we will see that they are
historicalratherthanallegoricalwritings.
Flemming interviews Richard Carrier who says that the earliest Gospel
Markwasnotwrittenashistory:Markhimselfprobablydidnotbelievehe
waswritinghistory.Hewaswritingasymbolicmessage.Hewaswritinga
gospel, you know, the good news and symbolizing it using Biblical
parallels,usingparallelstopaganreligionsandsoforth.[15]Carrierdoes
not support his assertion in the interview. However, he provides three
reasonsforhiscontentioninhischapterTheSpiritualBodyofChristin
TheEmptyTomb:JesusBeyondtheGrave.[16]Letslookatthese.
PsalmicOrigins.ChristianshavelongrecognizedthatPsalm22appearsto
describethecrucifixionofJesus.Carrierseesadditionalparallelsrelatingto
death and resurrection in Psalms 2324. For him, this indicates that Mark
invented the empty tomb and, thus, exploited these Psalms in order to
conveydeeptruthsabouttheGospel.[17]Afewpointsmaybemadein
reply.First,thereseemstobelittledisputeamonghistoriansofJesusthathe
thought of himself as Messiah and that his followers regarded him in this
manner. However, it is disputed whether Jews in Jesus day thought of a
sufferingMessiah.Themajorityoftodaysscholarstendtothinkthatmost
thoughtofMessiahinpurelyvictoriousterms.Ifthisistrue,whichseemsto
bethecasegiventheconfused,evenaghastresponseofthediscipleswhen
Jesus announced to them that he would soon be killed, then Jesus death
wouldhaveseemedterriblyoutoflinewithMessianicexpectations.Jesus
resurrection would likewise have appeared out of place, given the Jewish
belief that the resurrection would occur on the last day. Thus, Christians
would have searched the Old Testament scriptures in an attempt to make
senseofwhathadoccurredtotheirRabbi.Accordingly, we expect to find
parallelsbetweenJesusandtheOldTestament.IntheNewTestament,Jesus
is portrayed as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises regarding the
Messiah.PaulwrotethatAllthepromisesofGodfindtheiryesinhim
(2 Cor 1:20). We are not surprised, therefore, to find embedded in the
kerygmathattheearlyChristiansviewedsomeofthePsalmslike16and22
asprophesyingthecrucifixionandresurrectionofJesus.Sincethekerygma
predatesMarksGospel,atbestCarriercouldarguethatMarkwentfurther
in his rhetorical skills. However, this is not even close to justifying the
hypothesis that Mark invented the empty tomb as Carrier
contends.Therefore,hisfirstpointfails.
OrphicOrigins.TheancientGentilesbelievedthatthebodywasaprisonfor
the soul and, thus, viewed death as a liberation where the soul would
become a disembodied spirit. Prior to Plato, the Homeric view
dominated. The afterlife involved a gloomy existence, even for the
righteous.Thus,itisnotsurprisingthateveryonewantedtoputoffdeathas
longaspossible.Plato and Philo introduced a new view that held that the
righteous would have a blissful afterlife. Both held to disembodied
existence, however. Carrier writes that an empty tomb would therefore
symbolizeanemptybody,representingthefactthatthesoulhasrisen(into
a new body), leaving a mere shell behind, which was its tomb in
life.[18]Hegoesontosaythat
[t]hisisexactlywhatPaulcallsamystery,andlikeallmysteries,it
would not be written down in the cults sacred story but explained
through an oral exegesis, and only to initiates, while the outward
appearanceofthestorywouldservetoconcealthismysteryfromthe
uninitiated.ThiscouldwellbejustwhatMarkwasdoing.[19]
Thus, he believes that Mark may have encoded Gentile belief in a
disembodied spirit in a symbolic empty tomb account in order to conceal
whatPaulregardedasamysteryfromthosewhowerenotinitiates.Carrier
noteswhatheseesasafewparallelsbetweenMarksemptytombaccount
andtheOrphiccult,thenconcludes,
Thus, Marks empty tomb story mimics the secret salvation
narratives of the Orphic mysteries, substituting JewishMessianic
eschatology for the pagan elements. Only in an understanding that
Christisnothere(meaning:thelandofthedead,butalsothecorpse)
will the water of life be given.This is the fundamental underlying
messageofMarksemptytombnarrative.[20]
A few problems with this view immediately stand out. First, the early
ChristianswerenotGentiles,butJews.ItisgrantedthatJewsheldavariety
of views regarding the afterlife. But resurrection was a major view and it
was very clear that resurrection meant a returning of the corpse to life,
althoughthisbodywouldbetransformed.[21]
A second problem with Carriers view is that when Paul spoke of
resurrection,itiscertainthathemeantthatthemortalbodywouldreturnto
life,althoughtransformed.Carriertakesissuewiththisviewinhischapter
TheSpiritualBodyofChrist.But his interpretation of Pauls Greek and
thoughtselsewhereareseverelyflawed,asInotedinourdebate.[22] The
pointisthatifPaulbelievedthatresurrectionentailedthecorpsereturnto
life, he must have believed in an empty tomb. Thus, it seems implausible
thatMarkinventedit,sinceheislaterthanPaul.
AthirdproblemconcernsCarriersunderstandingofPaulsuseoftheterm
mystery. When Paul used this term, he usually meant that it was now
revealed that Gentiles were now included among Gods people. Salvation
was no longer available primarily to Jews. Gentiles had been grafted into
Godskingdom.[23]
A fourth problem with Carriers secret salvation narratives [in Mark]
hypothesis is that Marks Jesus wants everyone to know the Gospel. In
Mark4:11,Jesusexplainstohisdisciplesthattoyouisgiventoknowthe
mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those outside, everything is in
parables. At first look, this seems like a cryptic gospel as Carrier
contends. Unfortunately, there is no consensus among commentators
concerninghowthispassageistobeunderstood.Butafullerunderstanding
of Jesus use of parables can be helpful. New Testament scholar R. T.
Francewrites,
Thefocusthroughoutisnotontheaimoftheteachersomuchason
the receptivity of the hearers. And the appropriateness of the
parabolic method to this situation is that the parable, like the
cartoon, is by its very nature adapted to elicit the appropriate and
contrasting responses from the different kinds of hearer. Its
challenge to think through the significance of the image, and to
respond appropriately to its demand, will inevitably show up the
division which already exists between those who are open to new
insightandthosewhoareresistanttochange.Thusthesameparable
which to some brings an understanding of the secret of Gods
kingship will leave others cold. They are the ones who remain
[24]
[outside],andforthemthereisnothingbutparable.
It is also important to note that, immediately after making this statement,
Jesushadtoexplaintheparablestohisdisciples,theveryonestowhomthe
parables were supposed to have been clear, given a secretive
interpretation! He then adds that nothing will be hidden. Accordingly,
althoughMarkspassagemaynotbecleartomanymodernreaders,Carrier
is mistaken in his insinuation of Gods intent to hide the truth from those
genuinelyseekingtruth.Carrierssecondargumentfails.
The Reversal of Expectation Motif. Carrier notes nine examples in
MarksGospelwherereadersexpectonethingbutgetanother.
1. JamesandJohnasktositattherighthandofJesusandarereplaced
bytwothievesathiscrucifixion.(Thisappearstometobequitea
strain.)
2. SimonPeterwhowastoldtotakeuphiscrossandfollowJesusis
replaced by Simon of Cyrene, a foreigner who carries the cross of
Jesus.(AlthoughitisPeterscommentthatspursJesustoutterthe
statementabouttakinguponescross,Jesusisreportedtosaythisto
all of his disciples not just Simon Peter [Mark 8:34 Matt 16:24
Luke9:23].So,Carrierstrainstomakethisappeartobeaparallel.)
3. Simon of Cyrene is from the opposite side of Egypt, a symbol of
death?(Thisisgraspingatstrawsinordertofindareversal.)
4. Insteadofhisfamilyburyinghim,itishisenemies.
5. PilatesexpectationthatJesuswouldstillbealiveisconfounded.
6. Jesus own people deny him, while a Gentile military officer
acknowledgeshimastheSonofGod.
7. Jesusowndisciplesabandonedhimwhilethelowlywomenattend
his death and burial. The least shall be first. (This is
mistaken. The statement that the least [elachistn] shall be first
doesnotappearintheNewTestament.Instead,Jesussaidthatthe
last [eschatoi] shall be first [Matthew 20:16]. Last refers to
chronology, whereas least refers to quality. The only reference I
canthinkofthatwouldbeclosertoCarriersargumentisfoundin
Luke 9:48 where Jesus says, Whoever receives this child in my
namereceivesme,andwhoeverreceivesmereceiveshimwhosent
mefortheonewhoisleastamongallofyou,thisistheonewhois
great.ButhereJesusisspeakingofhumilityandthedisciplewho
wants to be great must be humble. Although this reference is
slightly closer to the point Carrier attempts to make, it still misses
the mark, since the women did not become major leaders in the
earlyChurch.ItistruethatthelowlywomenattendedJesusdeath
andburialwhilehisdiscipleswerenowheretobeseen,exceptthe
beloveddiscipleatthecross.Butthisissimplybecausethewomen
posednothreattoeithertheRomanorJewishauthorities,whereas
posednothreattoeithertheRomanorJewishauthorities,whereas
thedisciplesdid.)
8. The biggest reversal according to Carrier is when Marks Gospel
ends with the women fleeing and saying nothing, the opposite of
how Mark started with John the Baptist being the voice of one
cryinginthewilderness.
9. ThereaderexpectsthewomentoseethebodyofJesusbutthetomb
is empty. (Carrier adds that the parables are a reversal of
expectation. And so, the empty tomb story is probably itself a
parable, which accordingly employs reversal of expectation as its
theme. The tomb has to be empty, in order to confound the
expectations of the reader.[25] After all, it begs credulity to
suppose that so many convenient reversals of expectation actually
happened.Itismorecredibletosupposethatatleastsomeofthem
arenarrativeinventions.Andonesuchinventioncouldeasilybethe
emptytomb.[26]
Carriers reversal of expectation motif is possible but unconvincing as
evidencethattheresurrectionofJesusisalegend,sincehemaywellhave
employed the motif to illustrate examples by which he was himself was
fascinated.Moreover,wemayemployourimaginationandseeanumberof
striking reversals in almost any story.For example, lets consider a future
biographyofJohnF.Kennedy:
1. We expect the Catholic JFK to exhibit good morals. Instead, we
learnthathehasmultipleaffairs.
2. We expect JFK to die when his boat was sunk by the Japanese in
WWII.Instead,heleadsmostofhiscrewtosafety.
3. We expect to see the popular and young JFK live a long and
prosperouslife.Instead, he isbeset byabad back, wasneververy
healthy,andistheyoungestpresidenttobeassassinated.
4. AttheCubanmissilecrisis,weexpectawarwithaforeignnation
andthatmasseswilldie.InsteaditisJFKalonewhodieswhenhe
iskilledbyafellowAmerican.
5. JFKtellsAmericanstoaskwhattheycandofortheircountry.Heis
assassinated by an individual who probably believed the country
wouldbebetteroffwithouthimaspresident.
6. WeexpectOswaldtogototrial.Instead,heiskilledbycivilianJack
Ruby.
7. WeexpecttoseeRubytried.Instead,healsodiesbeforehistrial.
8. WeexpecttoseeJFKsbrotherreplacehimaspresident.Instead,he
isassassinated,too.
9. We expect the government to figure out what happened. Instead,
rumorssurfacethatthegovernmentisinvolved.
With a little thought, we can probably find reversals in just about any
story.The reader expects one thing to occur and instead is told something
else. Life itself is filled with reversals. These are the cause of both
disappointment and surprise. We want or expect something and get
something else. If Carrier had demonstrated that the reversal of
expectation was a common motif in first century GrecoRoman and/or
Jewishliteratureandhedidnotthiswouldhaveservedtostrengthenhis
case.[27] If several of his nine examples had required less strain on the
readers part so that they clearly showed that Marks intention was to
illustrate a reversal of expectation, this would have provided us with a
greaterimpetusforgivingCarriershypothesisseriousconsideration.
EvenifallofCarriersexamplesstood,Markcouldhavemodifiedafewof
thedataandemployedareversalofexpectationmotifinordertoimprove
the quality of his story telling. On one or more occasions, all of us have
altered stories of actual events we witnessed in order to emphasize a
particularpointormakethestorymorerelevanttotheparticularpersonor
audiencetowhichwewerespeaking.Normally,wewouldnotclaimthata
person doing this was being deceitful, unless an unreasonable amount of
liberty was taken that distorted the facts to be contrary to what actually
occurred.Thus, wholesale invention on Marks part would at best be only
anoption.Butitdoesnotfollowthatitismoreprobablethanotheroptions.
In fact, given Pauls view, which predates the writing of Marks Gospel,
that the postresurrection Jesus included his transformed earthly body,
https://web.archive.org/web/20130310124417/http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answeringskeptics/others/areviewofbrianflemmingsdvdthegodw 10/39
Carriers hypothesis that Mark invented the empty tomb is not

plausible.Thus,histhirdpointisincorrect.
Itisnotuncommonforscholarstoseeallsortsofinterpretationsaboutwhat
biblical authors really meant, rather than what seems plain on the
surface.CarrierhasprovidedacreativeinterpretationofwhyandhowMark
invented the empty tomb account, and we have seen that it is quite
problematic.Myriadsofscholarlyinterpretationsaresometimesinteresting,
but few are actually convincing. To illustrate, let us see what kind of
interpretationswecancomeupwithregardingJesusandJFK.Ofcourse,it
wouldbeanachronistictoclaimthatChristianspatternedtheiraccountafter
the life of JFK. Thus, we will postulate that the year is 4005 and a few
scholarsareadvancingthehypothesisthatJFKwasamythicalfigure,since
therearesomanyparallelswithJesus.Howmightthosehistoriansinterpret
JFK?
They may conclude that JFK was created as a type of Jesus.Many of the
ideas held by Jesus were likewise held by JKF (after all, JFK was a
Catholic). Anyone who holds these views will be persecuted. JFKs
honorable burial in a tomb and the fact that others mourned him serve as
signs that anyone who follows the ideology of Jesus will be
honored.Therefore,thecreatoroftheJFKmythmusthaveinventedhimin
order to make this ancient ideology relevant to midtwentieth century
Americans.
Let us try another interpretation. This time we will say that JFK is the
antithesis of Jesus. The creator of JFK was antiChristian, and wanted to
show that a leader could be the antithesis of Jesus and still be
effective.Kennedywasgoodlooking,married,hadchildren,cheatedonhis
wife, came from a wealthy family, and achieved power with the help of
bribes.Yet,hemanagedtobefairlyeffectiveandoneofthemostpopular
American presidents ever. Both of these interpretations (type of Jesus
antithesis of Jesus) are coherent and consistent with the facts. Both are
mutuallyexclusive.Andbotharecompletelywrong.
These examples bear a close resemblance to much of what we observe in
modernscholarship.MartinHengelandAnnaMariaSchwemerrefertothis
practice of imagining all sorts of interpretative constructs as modern
mythologizing.[28]TheyaddthatinthistypeofNewTestamentcriticism
everything seems possible.[29] However, most of these interpretations
areunprovable.Iamnotsuggestingthatnoneoftheinterpretationsoffered
arecorrect.Thescholarsuggestingthataparallelorcertaininterpretationis
true must make a case that it is the best explanation for all of the
data. Rarely is this attempted. Many times no conclusive case can be
made.Whenthisoccurs,thescholarshouldbehumbleandstatethatsuch
and such is a possibility, but that is as far as we can go. Instead, the
messageofthehyperskepticsfeaturedinFlemmingsworkisThisishow
itoccurredandwhatitmeans.
Returning to Carrier, we have seen that he is mistaken when he says that
Mark did not believe he was writing history. Indeed, his argument fails
everystepoftheway.Wecouldstopheresincehisargumentisdead.But
furtherflawsarerevealedwhenwesearchforpositiveevidenceagainsthis
thesis.So, is there any evidence that Mark intended to write history? The
answerisdefinitelyyes!Priortothe1990s,theconsensusofscholarship
wasthattheGospelsrepresentedasuigeneris,thatisagenreuniquetothe
Gospels and viewed as a type of mythology. Consider what the Jesus
Seminarwrotein1992:[T]hegospelsarenowassumedtobenarrativesin
whichthememoryofJesusisembellishedbymythicelementsthatexpress
thechurchsfaithinhim,andbyplausiblefictionsthatenhancethetelling
of the gospel story for firstcentury listeners who knew about divine men
and miracle workers firsthand. Supposedly historical elements in these
narrativesmustthereforebedemonstratedtobeso.[30]Inotherwords,
according to the Jesus Seminar at that time, the Gospels belong to a
mythical genre and, thus, anyone making a claim to historicity bears the
burdenofproof.
If the Gospels belong to mythical genre, then it is true that claims of

historicity bear the burden of proof. However, the converse is likewise
true.If the Gospels belong to a historical genre, then claims of myth bear
the burden of proof. What, then, is the genre of the Gospels? This is a
question which has received much attention over the past twenty years,
resulting in robust advances in our understanding of the issue.[31] The
consensusofscholarshiphaschangedsignificantlyfromtheopinionofthe
JesusSeminar.[32]ThisshiftwasinitiatedbyCharlesTalbertsbookWhat
isaGospel?followedbythemoreinfluentialandlessproblematicworkby
RichardBurridge,WhataretheGospels?Burridge is a classicist who set
out to disprove the thesis first proposed by Talbert and a few other
American scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of ancient
biography. During the course of his research, he reversed his opinion.
[33] Graham Stanton of Cambridge University writes in the foreword to
BurridgesbookthatveryfewbooksontheGospels...haveinfluenced
scholarly opinion more strongly and that it has played a key role in
establishing that the Gospels were read in the early centuries primarily as
biographies.He adds, I do not think it is now possible to deny that the
Gospelsareasubsetofthebroadancientliterarygenreoflives,thatis,
[34]
biographies. OfBurridgesbook,Talbertwrites,Thisvolumeought
to end any legitimate denials of the canonical Gospels biographical
character.[35] Throughout the entire book, Burridge shows that ancient
biographers were concerned with a number of issues pertaining to the
person who is the subject, including their history, especially their death,
theirmoralphilosophy,theirteachings,theirpoliticalbeliefs,storiestoldin
tribute and praise, and they presented all of this in a narrative
format.AlthoughtheGospelsdonotpossessalloftheinternalandexternal
features of ancient biography, they do not differ from the genre to any
greaterdegreethanother[worksbelongingtothegenreofbiography:bioi
bios for singular] in other words, they have at least as much in common
withGraecoRoman[bioi],asthe[bioi]havewitheachother.Therefore,the
gospelsmustbelongtothegenreof[bios].[36]
Was ancient biography concerned with history? Burridge answers that it
was a flexible genre having strong relationships with history . .
.[37] Craig Keener, a classicist and former atheist, who became a New
Testament scholar, writes, The central difference between biography and
historywasthattheformerfocusedonasinglecharacterwhereasthelatter
includedabroaderrangeofevents.[38]DavidAunewhoisaspecialistin
ancientgenrewrites,Whilebiographytendedtoemphasizeencomiumor
theonesidedpraiseofthesubject,itwasstillfirmlyrootedinhistoricalfact
rather than literary fiction.Thus while the [Gospel writers] clearly had an
importanttheologicalagenda,theveryfactthattheychosetoadaptGreco
RomanbiographicalconventionstotellthestoryofJesusindicatedthatthey
were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really
[39]
happened.
That the Gospels belong to the genre of ancient biography seems
secure.However, this doesnot ruleout thepossibility thattheEvangelists
were attempting to deceive their readers, which is an entirely a different
question. Neither does it establish that they intended every detail in their
biographies to be understood precisely in literal terms. Ancient
biographical genre allowed for flexibility on the part of the biographer to
interpretwhatthesubjectsaidandaccomplishedandencomiumwasoften
included. What is secure for our present purposes is that the Evangelists
intended for their readers to believe that their story of Jesus had actually
occurred.Thatiswhytheychosetowritebiography.Accordingly,Carriers
position that Mark himself probably did not believe he was writing
historyisgrosslymistakenandexhibitsanantiquatedviewoftheGospels,
i.e.onethathasbeenabandonedbythescholarlycommunity.
Idonotwanttobelaborthepoint.But there are reasons for believing not
onlythatMarkwantedhisreaderstobelievehewaswritinghistorybutalso
thathehimselfbelievedhewaswritinghistory.Having combed through a
number of ancient sources, Samuel Byrskog established that eyewitness

testimony was of firstrate importance to ancient historians and that Mark
demonstratesthisconcerninhisGospel.In11:21and14:72,Markseemsto
be reporting notes from Peter who has remembered things Jesus told
him.This is entirely compatible with the early report of Papias that Mark
reported what Peter had relayed to him.[40] In 15:40 Mark reports the
women as observers of the events.The women are at a distance, but they
observe. The verb used is theorein, which means to look at,
observe.Theirfunctionaseyewitnessesisfurtheraccentuatedasthreeor
fourofthemaresingledoutbyname.[41]Thesameoccursagainin15:47
where the women are listed by name and said to observe the burial
(theorein).Thenagainattheemptytombin16:1,45,thewomenappearby
name and observe that the tomb is empty (theorein, horan). Specifically
namedwomenarethuseyewitnessesofJesusdeathandofthelocationof
histomb,aswellasoftheemptytombitself.[42]Giventheimportanceof
eyewitness testimony, which Byrskogs research demonstrates, Marks
recurrent reporting of presumably eyewitness testimony in relation to the
burialandemptytombofJesusclearlyrevealshisintenttoreportaccurate
history.
Carriermentionsthesilenceofthewomenafterbeingcommissionedtotell
thedisciplesthatJesushadbeenraised.This passage continues to perplex
scholars and the reasons provided for the silence of the women are
legion. Carrier says that it is a reversal of the readers expectation. Dunn
says it is because Mark wants his readers to know that they are the
witnessesandthattheyshouldthereforegotellwhattheyknowhappenedto
Jesus.[43] Byrskog thinks that Mark deliberately silences the women so
thattheywillnotbetheprimarywitnesses:Thevoiceofthewomenwas
notpermittedtobeheardinitsownright,butitwasneverentirelyignored
or silenced.[44] Hurtado holds that the reporting of resurrection
appearanceswereneithernecessarynorimportant.Theemptytombandthe
angels announcement that Jesus had been raised are to be seen as
announcing the fulfillment of Jesus prophecies in 8:31 9:9, 31 10:34
14:28).[45]Thus,forreaderswhoaretolivewithtrustinGodfortheir
own vindication, it was sufficient to affirm that God has raised Jesus, the
paradigmatic figure for their own lives and hopes.[46] Hendriksen
believes the womens silence refers only to the fact that they stopped and
toldnooneuntiltheysawthedisciples.[47]Othernotablescholarssuchas
CraigA.EvansandR.T.FranceholdthatitisprobablethatMarksending
hasbeenlost.[48]
WemayneverknowwithcertaintywhyMarkreportedthatthewomenwere
silentorifasectionreportingJesuspostresurrectionappearanceshasbeen
lost. Carriers explanation that Mark is employing a reversal of
expectationneithernewnorconvincing,sinceitrequiresbeliefthatMark
was employing a reversal of expectation device throughout his Gospel
andthatthisliterarydevicewasresponsibleforhisinventionoftheempty
tomb. Again, we have seen that Carriers arguments for this are both
strainedandmistaken.
Parallelmania!
Throughout the DVD, Price, Carrier, and Doherty are preoccupied with
parallels, seeing them everywhere. Most scholars have abandoned the
religionsgeschichtliche or what was known as the history of religions
schoolthatregardedparallelsasconclusivesignsthatChristianitywascut
from the same cloth as ancient myth. Further research has revealed that
many of the parallels to which they refer postdate the Gospels.Thus, it is
mostlikelythatthoseparallelsweretheresultofotherreligionswhocopied
theChristianstoryratherthantheotherwayaround.Second,noexamples
citedexhibitallofthepointswefindintheGospels.Hence,anumberofthe
parallel accounts must be combined in order to mirror Jesus. Third, no
miracleworker per se existed within two hundred years on either side of
Jesus.[49]Fourth,manyoftheparallelscitedareweak.Fifth,parallelscan
be seen in just about anything. In less than an hour, I was able to put
together two lists of parallels more numerous and exhibiting a closer

similarity than those listed by Price, Carrier, and Doherty. Consider the
followingparallelsbetweenancientRomeandtheU.S.:
1. Bothnationswerefoundedbyrebellingagainstrulingnations
2. The peoples of the ruling nations began with an E (Etruscans,
Englanders)
3. BothRomeandtheU.S.wenttowarwiththem
4. andwon.
5. Bothhadanearlyandveryprominentleaderwhowasamale(Julius
Caesar,GeorgeWashington),
6. eachofwhomweregenerals.
7. Both of these leaders crossed a river with their armies (Rubicon,
Delaware)
8. beforebeingvictorious.
9. Bothwerebelovedbythepeopletheyruled.
10. BothnationsemployedaSenatethathadgreatpower.
11. Both Senates forced one of its later leaders to step down from
power.
12. BothofwhosenamesbeganwiththeletterN(Nero,Nixon).
13. Bothnationsallowedtheircitizenstovote.
14. Bothnationshadcapitalpunishment.
It would not take much effort to create a document filled with these
parallels. Perhaps a thousand years from now someone will claim that a
bulk of U.S. history was created to parallel the Roman Empire. But they
wouldbegrosslymistaken.Onecanlikewiseseestrikingparallelsbetween
thelivesofJesusandJohnF.Kennedy.
1. Bothhadfollowerswhoadoredthem.
2. Bothwereleadersofakingdom.
3. Bothwereopposed.
4. Bothwerekilledpublicly
5. inadramaticfashion
6. atthepinnacleoftheircareers
7. inthepresenceofthewomanclosesttothem.
8. Both received head wounds. A crown of thorns was placed on the
headofJesus.JFKwasshotinthehead.
9. Bothwerepronounceddeadbyauthorities(soldier,physician).
10. Bothweremourned.
11. Bothwereburiedinatomb.
12. BothhadnamesbeginningwiththeletterJ.
13. Bothwereinterestedinfreedom.
14. BothhadafathernamedJoseph
15. whowasselfemployed.
16. Both families had a prominent and immediate member who
providedwine.
17. BothJesusandJFKhadbrotherswhoweremurdered
18. aftertheirprominentbrothersweremurdered(James,RFK).
Here are eighteen parallels between Jesus and JFK that are more striking
than those cited by Carrier. Some even seem too bizarre to be mere
coincidence. Nevertheless, the entire comparison is true and no would
concludethatitistoomuchtobeacoincidence.Neitherarewecompelled
toconcludethatJFKwasamyth,inventedtoembodyChristianideologyin
the20thcentury!
ConsiderthefollowingoftencitedparallelsbetweenLincolnandKennedy:
AbrahamLincolnwaselectedtoCongressin1846.
JohnF.KennedywaselectedtoCongressin1946.
AbrahamLincolnwaselectedPresidentin1860.
JohnF.KennedywaselectedPresidentin1960.
ThenamesLincolnandKennedyeachcontainsevenletters.
BothoftheirwiveslosttheirchildrenwhilelivingintheWhiteHouse.
BothPresidentswereshotonaFriday.
Bothwereshotinthehead.
BothwereassassinatedbySoutherners.
BothweresucceededbySoutherners.
BothsuccessorswerenamedJohnson.
AndrewJohnson,whosucceededLincoln,wasbornin1808.
LyndonJohnson,whosucceededKennedy,wasbornin1908.
JohnWilkesBoothwasbornin1839.
LeeHarveyOswaldwasbornin1939.
Bothassassinswereknownbytheirthreenames.
Bothnamesarecomprisedoffifteenletters
Boothranfromthetheaterandwascaughtinawarehouse.
Oswaldranfromawarehouseandwascaughtinatheater.
BoothandOswaldwereassassinatedbeforetheirtrials.
BeforeLincolnwasassassinated,hevisitedMonroe,Maryland.
BeforeKennedywasassassinated,hevisitedMarilynMonroe.
BarbaraandDavidMikkelsonofSnopes.com,whomFlemminginterviews
in his video, explain on their web site that these coincidences are easily
explained as the simple product of mere chance. It's not difficult to find
patterns and similarities between any two marginallyrelated sets of data
[ital.mine].
Onecanbegintounderstandwhyparallelshavenotpersuadedthemajority
oftodaysscholars.ItisnotthatparallelscouldnotexposeChristianityasa
myth. On the contrary, if a number of religions contemporary with
Christianity (and especially if they preceded it) had clear reports of their
leaders experiencing a phenomenal birth, being miracle workers and
exorcists,providingsimilarteachings,dyingbycrucifixion,andrisingfrom
the dead, we may have to give serious consideration to these
parallels. However, such parallels are imaginary. They exist only in the
mindsofJesusmythers.
RobertPricecontendsotherwise.Hesaysthattheideathatthesonofahigh
Godcamedowntoearthhappenedmanytimesinantiquity.
Alexander the Great, Augustus, and others were said to have been
conceived miraculously if not via a virgin birth, the husband was
not involved. Then there is the child prodigy story, ancient and
modern, where the child is a god and already knows
everything.Asclepius was a major healer and Apollonius of Tyana
didalotofexorcisms.
Price appeals to Dennis MacDonald who suggests that Jesus messianic
secret could be taken from the Odyssy when Odysseus comes home and
tellseveryonetokeepitquiet.
ReversalsasnotedbyDundeswheretheyhailJesusonPalmSunday
then turn on him. The persecution of an infant by a tyrant is seen
with Caesar Augustus, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster. The Passion is
like other stories of dying and rising gods. Standing before the
authorities is like the story of Apollonius who stands before the
emperor Domitian and miraculously gets out of it. Romulus
disappears in battle and then reappears again as a god. Apollonius
appears in a doubting Thomas story. Apollonius appears to him,
thoughnooneelseseeshim.
I have addressed MacDonald earlier.[50] The story of Apollonius is
interesting.Butitisfarfromconvincing.ForApolloniusisthoughttohave
diedatthecloseofthefirstcentury.Theonlyaccountwehaveofhimwas
written by Philostratus 120 years after his death and more than 200 years
after the death of Jesus. Many believe that it was written in answer to
Christianity. It is written in the genre of a romantic novel rather than
biography.The story ends with the death of Apollonius.Then Philostratus
adds a section he calls stories. The story which a few like Price call a
resurrection is found in a single report of an appearance in a vision to a
sleepingmanthatoccurred175yearsafterthedeathofApollonius!Andit
isntevenabodilyappearance.So,itcannotbecalledaresurrection,which
involved the corpse. Moreover, the report came from a man whose
birthplace was supposedly Nineveha city that had not existed for 300
years! When we consider that Apollonius is normally showcased as the
chief parallel in the case for the mythic Jesus, we see how weak the case
actuallyis.
Price continues that [t]here are other similar savior figures in the same
neighborhood at the same time in history: Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Osiris,
Tamuz, and so forth and nobody thinks that these characters are anything
but mythical and their stories are so similar, most of them in fact having
somekindofresurrectionorother,sometimesevenwithcelebrationsafter
three days and so forth that it just seems like special pleading to say Oh,
well,inthisonecaseitreallyhappened.AtthispointaquotefromJustin
Martyr appears that reads, When we say that Jesus Christ was produced
withoutsexualunion,wascrucifiedanddied,androseagain,andascended
to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe
regardingthosewhomyoucallthesonsofJupiter.
Thescreenthensays,"SomeAttributesofPreviousSaviors:bornofavirgin
onDecember25StarsAppearedatTheirBirthVisitedbyMagifromthe
East Turned Water into Wine Healed the Sick Cast out Demons
PerformedMiraclesTransfiguredBeforeFollowersRodeDonkeysintothe
City Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver Celebrated Communal Meal with
BreadandWineWhichRepresentedtheSaviorsFleshandBloodKilled
on a Cross or Tree Descended into Hell Resurrected on Third Day
Ascended into Heaven To Forever Sit beside Father God And Become
DivineJudge.
Noevidenceisprovidedtoshowthatthesestorieshaveadatinganyearlier
than 100 years after Jesus. No other savior stories contain all of the
examplesprovided.Someofthepointsaredubious.Forexample,regarding
crucified saviors, even the hyperskeptics of Infidels.org, several of whom
appearinthisvideo,havemadethefollowingcomments:
Note: the scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by
numerous theists and nontheists alike the inclusion of his The
World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical
Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc.
Thisdocumentwasincludedforhistoricalpurposesreadersshould
beextremelycautiousintrustinganythinginthisbook.[51]
TheWorld'sSixteenCrucifiedSaviors:OrChristianityBeforeChrist
is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars
immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and
dismissGravesasuseless....Ingeneral,evenwhentheevidenceis
real,itoftenonlyappearsmanyyearsafterChristianitybegan,and
thus might be evidence of diffusion in the other direction. Another
typicalproblemisthatGravesdrawsfartoomuchfromwhatoften
amountstorathervagueevidence.Ingeneral,therearetenkindsof
problemsthatcropupinGraves'workhereandthere...[52]
Notwithstanding, Flemming just drops the parallel on his viewers without
supportorcaveat.
Doherty speaks of wouldbe messiahs and miracle workers that plagued
Palestine throughout the firstcentury. But there is a major problem with
Dohertys statement: Other than Jesus, there were no messiahs or miracle
workers in the firstcentury.Raymond Brown writes, One encounters the
affirmation that there were many wouldbe messiahs in Palestine at this
time.InfactthereisnoevidencethatanyJewclaimedorwassaidtobethe
Messiah before Jesus of Nazareth (or until a century after his
death).[53] Graham Twelftree, who is regarded by many to be the
foremost authority on the miracles of Jesus, writes, In the period of two
hundredyearsoneachsideofthelifeofthehistoricalJesusthenumberof
miracle stories attached to any historical figure is astonishingly
small.[54] To be certain, there are figures who may perform a single
miracle or two during their lifetime. But there are no workers of multiple
miracles within that 400year period. Citing Werner Kahls research,
Twelftreestatesthat
ofapproximately150miraclestoriesfromantiquitythatweknowof
only one other case in the entire miracle story tradition before
Philostratus Life of Apollonius (written after A.D. 217) of an
immanent bearer of numinous or preternatural power (and then in
only a singular version of his miracle)Melampous, according to
DiodorusofSicily(writingc.6030B.C.).[55]
Dohertyis,therefore,grosslymistakeninhisassertion.
Regarding resurrections, there are no clear parallels of a resurrection that
predate Christianity. One may site the account of Aristeas as a possible
parallel. But the differences involved make it look little like what we see
withJesus.Thefirstclearparalleldoesnotappearuntillongafterthelifeof
Jesus,probablyAdonisaroundAD150.Ifimitationisoccurring,itappears
thatitispaganswhoareimitatingtheChristianaccounts.
The statement by Justin is interesting.But when we note the weakness of
theparallelsJustincites,andthecontextofhiswriting,whichistoaddress
the specific problem of Christian persecution, then his comments on
parallels present nohistorical difficulty whatsoever.In our book The Case
fortheResurrectionofJesus,GaryHabermasandIwrite,
. . . since the details of the stories are vague and unlike Jesus
resurrection, todays scholars would not regard the stories as
parallels. Justin mentions the deaths and risings of the sons of
Jupiter: Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to
heaven after dying violent deaths, Baccus, Hercules, and a few
othersonsrosetoheavenonthehorsePegasus.Justinthenmentions
Ariadne and others like her, though unnamed, who have been
declaredtobesetamongthestars.Finally,hementionstheaccount
of the cremation of the Roman emperor Augustus, during which
someone swore that he saw Augustus spirit in the flames ascend
towardheaven.[56]
ConsiderthecontextinwhichJustinwrites.HisFirstApologywaswritten
to the Roman emperor entreating him to investigate the false charges of
impiety and wickedness made against Christians. In chapter 11, he says
Christians are not a threat to Rome because they are not looking for a
humankingdom.Infact,Jesustaughtcivilobedience(ch.17).Jesustaught
a higher level of morality than other religions. For example, not only our
worksbutevenourthoughtsareopentoGod(ch.15).Christiansaretaught
to love their enemies and pray for them (chs. 78). In chapter 20 Justin
contendsthatmanyChristianteachingsreflecttheteachingsofthosewhom
the emperor honors. Accordingly, if on some points Christians teach the
samethingsandonotherpointspresentanevenhighermorality,andifwe
aloneaffordproofofwhatweassert,whyareweunjustlyhatedmorethan
all others? Justins objective is to demonstrate to the emperor that
Christianity has a lot in common with other religions that enjoy Romes
approval.Therefore,thepersecutionofChristiansshouldcease.[57]These
commentsbyJustinfailtosupportPricescontentionthatJustinrecognized
theproblemofparallels.Tothecontrary,heattemptedtomakeparallelsby
straininghisexamplesinordertostopthepersecutionofChristians.
Priceprovidesanotherargumentinsupportofhispoint,aportionofwhich
isnotaseasilyanswered.Hesays,
The early Church fathers understood [parallels] as a problem
because they were already getting the same objections from
pagans. They said, What you say that Jesus weve been saying
about Dionysus and Hercules all the time. What's the big deal? I
mean they didn't believe in them either anymore. And so the

Christianapologiststhedefendersofthefaithwouldsay,Well,yea,
but this one is true. And you see Satan counterfeited it in advance
becauseheknewthisdaywouldcome.Boy, I'll tell you that tells
youtwothingsrighttherethateventheydidn'tevendenythatthese
other Jesus like characters were before Jesus or they never would
haveresortedtosomethinglikethatSatanknewitwouldhappenand
counterfeititinadvance?
The passage to which Price refers comes from Justins Dialogue with
Trypho(70):
Bewellassured,then,Trypho,Icontinued,thatIamestablished
intheknowledgeofandfaithintheScripturesbythosecounterfeits
which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among
the Greeks just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and
othersbythefalseprophetsinElijahsdays.Forwhentheytellthat
Bacchus,sonofJupiter,wasbegottenby[Jupiters]intercoursewith
Semele,andthathewasthediscovererofthevineandwhenthey
relate,thatbeingtorninpieces,andhavingdied,heroseagain,and
ascended to heaven and when they introduce wine into his
mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the
prophecyannouncedbythepatriarchJacob,andrecordedbyMoses?
AndwhentheytellthatHerculeswasstrong,andtravelledoverall
the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to
heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which
speaksofChrist,strongasagianttorunhisrace,261hasbeenin
like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward
Aesculapiusastheraiserofthedeadandhealerofalldiseases,may
Inotsaythatinthismatterlikewisehehasimitatedtheprophecies
[58]
aboutChrist?
WemayfirstnotethattheparallelscitedbyJustinareweak:
Jupiters son Bacchus was the result of Jupiters sexual intercourse with
Semele.ThestoryisthatJupiter(i.e.,Zeus)cheatedonhiswifebyhaving
sexwithSemelewhoislaterdestroyed.
Bacchuswastorninpieces,died,roseagain,andascendedtoheaven.The
rising and ascending to heaven does not resemble what happened to
Jesus. Bacchus was escorted to heaven on the horse Pegasus. There was
probablythebeginningofadisembodiedexistenceforBacchus,sincethisis
thetypeofpostmortemexistencethatwasbelievedbypagans.Thereisno
indicationthataresurrectionofthebodywasbeingdescribed.
WinewasinvolvedintheJupitercult.ButwhataboutaparallelwithJacob
as recorded by Moses? I could only find a few references to which Price
couldrefer,noneofwhichcomeclosetobeingaparallel.[59]
Hercules, another son of Jupiter, was strong, traveled the world, died, and
ascendedtoheavenonthehorsePegasus.Again,theparallelswithJesusare
veryweak.JustinnotesaparallelwithJesusinPsalm19:5:Whichisasa
bridegroom coming out of his chamber It rejoices as a strong man to run
hiscourse.Justinhastostrainhardtogetaparallelfromthis.ForPsalm19
isnotspeakingofJesus.
TheheavensaretellingofthegloryofGod
AndtheirexpanseisdeclaringtheworkofHishands.
Daytodaypoursforthspeech,
Andnighttonightrevealsknowledge.
Thereisnospeech,noraretherewords
Theirvoiceisnotheard.
Theirlinehasgoneoutthroughalltheearth,
Andtheirutterancestotheendoftheworld.
InthemHehasplacedatentforthesun,
Whichisasabridegroomcomingoutofhischamber
Itrejoicesasastrongmantorunhiscourse.
Itsrisingisfromoneendoftheheavens,
Anditscircuittotheotherendofthem
Andthereisnothinghiddenfromitsheat.(Psalm19:16NASB)
The psalmist David is writing poetically that the sky speaks of Gods
glory. God has made the sky a tent for the sun, which is glorious, runs a
coursefromoneendoftheskytotheotherandimpactseveryone.This is
notaparalleltoJesusbyanyreasonableassessment.
Who was Aesculapius, raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases? He
was believed to be the son of Apollo who had great skills in practicing
medicine. His first teacher was a centaur named Chiron. He became so
skilledthathecouldraisethedead.Hades,thegodofthedead,becameso
concerned over this that he had Aesculapius killed with a lightening
bolt. This story occurs in the foggy past with no marks of historicity. Is
thereahistoricalcoreofamanwhowasaskilledpractitionerofmedicine
whoselifewascutshortwhenhewasstruckbylightening?Wemaynever
know. But this is hardly a strong parallel to Jesus. This example cited by
Priceisverypoor.
Carrier says that many aspects of the story of Jesus appearance to the
Emmaeus disciples is almost an exact inversion of the Romulus story, the
foundingmythofRome.Romuluswasagodwhobecameamanandwas
tornapart(executed)bytheSenate,rosefromthedeadandappearedtohis
friendProculusontheroadtoAlbalongafromRome.Hesaysthatitseems
likeLukegotthisstoryfromsomeonetellingtheRomulusstorybutplacing
Jesusinhisplace.Insteadofaworldlyempire,hespreachingakingdomof
God.TheproblemwithCarriersthesisisthatthestoryoftheappearanceof
Romulus was not a resurrection. There are significant differences of what
occurred.Forexample,anotherstoryisthatRomulusdisappearedinbattle
thenreappearedatalaterdate.Thereisnoambiguityinthestorythathehas
returnedfromtheafterlife.Butisthisaresurrection?Iamnotattemptingto
splithairs.Resurrectionmeantthatthecorpsethathaddiedwasreturned
tolifeandtransformedintoanimmortalbody.Ifwevieweverystoryofa
postmortem appearance as a parallel to Jesus, then we have to include
everyghoststoryandgriefhallucination,frompasttopresent.
All of this eliminates the claim that the early Christian reports of Jesus
resurrection were cut from the same cloth as other stories of the
period.Why?Becausestoriesofpostmortemappearancesarenotlimitedto
theGrecoRomanera.Theyhaveneverstoppedandcontinuetoday.If one
ofmysistersclaimedthatourdeadgrandfatherappearedtoherlastnight,I
would not consider that as a parallel to the resurrection reports of
Jesus. That there is a similarity cannot be denied. But is the similarity
enoughtodemonstratethatresurrectionreportsandgriefhallucinationsand
dreams are cut from the same cloth? And when one has to postulate
inversionsandalterationsinordertohidetheparallel,asMacDonalddoes,
theimpressivenessofpurportedexamplesdeclinesevenfurther.Wearenot
surprised to find that the large majority of todays scholars do not use
alleged parallels as a reason for rejecting the ancient reports of the
resurrectionofJesus.
FolkloreandUrbanLegend
CloselyrelatedtosupposedparallelsistheclaimthatthestoriesofJesusare
folklore.FlemminginterviewsthelateAlanDundes,ProfessorofFolklore
atUCBerkeleytomakehispoint.Dundessays,
There are these other Gospels and there are the Apocrypha after
all. There are apocryphal New Testament and apocryphal Old
Testamentstoriesthatwerefranklyweretoofolkloristicandtheygot
thrown out because people thought these couldn't have happened
and therefore we got rid of them. But, of course, some of the
apocryphalstoriesareasinterestingastheregularBible....Ifyou
takeawaythefolkloreawayfromtheBible,youdon'thaveaheckof
alotleftexceptbeget,beget,beget,beget.
In support, Dundes notes twentytwo points common to ancient hero

traditions.HedoesnotsayhowmanypointsmatchwithJesus.However,he
commentsonrememberingthatJesussharedalotofthem.Flemmingthen
provides a chart on which he lists the twentytwo points of interest
mentionedbyDundes,afterwhichFlemmingnoteseitheramatchorano
match.
1. His mother is a royal virgin. Flemmings evaluation: Match. My
evaluation:Virgin,yes.Royal,no.(0.5match)
2. Hisfatherisaking.Flemming:Match.Myevaluation:Josephwasa
carpenter,notaking.IthastobenotedthattheGospelsreportJesus
calling God his father.But this is not similar to the hero tradition.
ButIllbegenerous:(0.5match)
3. His father is a relative of his mother. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:WewonderhowFlemmingseesinthisamatch.Perhaps
Joseph and Mary are distant relatives as Jews. But this is
unimpressiveandastrainatbest.Moreover,ifJosephisregardedas
thefatherofJesus,hewasnoking.So,therewouldbenomatchin
numbertwo.Nomatch.
4. Circumstancesofhisconceptionareunusual.Flemming:Match.My
evaluation: This seems to be a bit of an overlap with the first
point.However,Illbegenerous:(1.0match)
5. Hes reputed to be the son of a god. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:Match(1.0match)
6. At birth, an attempt is made by his father to kill him. Flemming:
Match. My evaluation: Herod was not the father of Jesus. Notice
thatFlemminghasemploysthreedifferentfathersforJesusinorder
tofindhismatches(God,Joseph,Herod).Nevertheless,anattempt
wasmadetokillJesus.(0.5match)
7. Heisspiritedawayandsaved.Flemming:Match.Myevaluation:I
dontknowwhatDundesmeansbyspiritedaway.Althoughthere
wasnoetherealescape,JesusparentsfledwithhimtoEgypt.(1.0
match)
8. Foster parented in a foreign country. Flemming: No match. My
evaluation:Nomatch.
9. Were told nothing of his childhood. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation: Although Lukes Gospel mentions little of Jesus
childhood, the amount is insignificant compared to his
adulthood. This is easily explained given that the genre of the
Gospels is ancient biography, which typically only spoke of the
subjectsadulthood.Thus,thisattemptisunimpressive.Nomatch.
10. Upon reaching manhood, he returns to his future
kingdom.Flemming:Match.My evaluation: Although Jesus spoke
ofGodskingdombeinginthepresent,herealizedthatthekingdom
inwhichhewouldreignwasinthefutureandnotofthisworld.No
match.
11. Hehasavictoryoveraking,giant,ordragon.Flemming:Nomatch.
My evaluation: Match 1.0). Jesus did resist Satan and Paul later
speaksofJesushavingdefeatedSatan.
12. He marries a princess. Flemming: No match. My evaluation: No
match.
13. He becomes king. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Heroes
becomekingonearthduringtheirlifetime.Thisisnotthecasewith
Jesus.Nevertheless, since he was considered at least a king by his
disciples,Illbegenerousandassignitafullmatch(1.0match).
14. Reignsuneventfully.Flemming:Match.My evaluation: The life of
Jesuswasfilledwithconflict,whichledtohisexecution.Nomatch.
15. Prescribes laws. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: Match (1.0
match).
16. He later loses favor with his subjects. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:Jesuswasnotkingonearth.Thus,itisdifficulttolose
favor with subjects you do not have. Granted, early in Jesus
ministryhishardteachingsledmanytoabandonhim.Butthisisnot
aparalleltoakingwholosesfavorwithhissubjects,havingreigned
forawhile.OnemaypointtoJesuspositivereceptioninJerusalem
onPalmSundayfollowedbythosewhocalledforhiscrucifixionon
GoodFridayasbeingalossoffavor.(1.0match)
17. He is driven from the throne of the city. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:Jesuswasnotdrivenoffofhisthronetoaplaceoutside
ofJerusalem.Nomatch.
18. He meets with a mysterious death. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:Death,yes.Mysterious,no.(0.5match)
His death is often at the top of a hill. Flemming: Match. My
19. His death is often at the top of a hill. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:Match.(1.0match)
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him. Flemming: Match. My
evaluation:Jesushadnochildren,unlessyoubelieveTheDaVinci
Code.Thatthisisamatchisastrainatbest.Nomatch.
21. His body is not buried. Flemming: Match. My evaluation: All
accounts, from the early creed in 1 Cor 15:37 through all four
GospelaccountsreportJesusburial.Nomatch.
22. Nevertheless, he has one or more holy sepulchers. Flemming:
Match. My evaluation: Today there are two sepulchers thought to
havebelongedtoJesus.Butthegardentombwasnotdiscoveredand
thoughttobethepossibletombofJesusuntilthelate1800s.Most
archaeologists believe that Jesus actual tomb is located in the
ChurchoftheHolySepulcher.Nomatch.
Flemmingaddsup19matchesoutofapossible22andlistsJesusascoming
in third place. My evaluation, given 2.5 matches out of generosity plus
grantingamatchthatFlemmingdidnot,revealsonlytenmatches.Areten
matchesof22enoughtonoteadefiniteparallel?GregBoydhasnotedthat
WilliamWallacemeetsnearlyeverycharacteristicofafolkheroandyetwe
know Wallace was a historical person and that most of the points are
true. Caesar Augustus was a historical person and a contemporary of
Jesus. He has ten matches.[60] Thats the same as Jesus. But no one
questionstheexistenceofAugustusasaresult.
DundesprovidesafewexamplesoffolktalessuchasthestoryofWilliam
TellandclaimsthesederivefromthetaleofOedipus,whosawhimselfin
competition with his father for his mothers attention.Is there any hint of
this in the Gospels? Are the Father and Son vying for the attention of
Mary?Suchwouldseemtobeastretch.
Flemming also interviews Barbara and David Mikkelson, who run the
aforementioned web site on urban legends: Snopes.com. Flemming asks
themforanexampleofastorythatstartedasfictionandthencametobe
regarded as real. Barbara responds that there are what are called glurge
stories on snopes.com. Glurge is a term coined by one of their
viewers.Thesearestoriesthatwerewrittenandpostedasfiction,onlytobe
referredtolaterbyothersasfactualaccounts.Now,ofcourse,noonewould
deny that glurges and urban legends occur. But merely showing that they
existdoesnothingtoestablishthatJesusistheproductofthemakingofan
urban legend. A similar argument to what Flemming proposes is the
following: Fiction movies exist. The God Who Wasnt There is a
movie.Therefore,TheGodWhoWasntThereisafictionmovie.
FlemmingInterviewsEarlDoherty
FlemmingreferstoDohertyasahistorianandclassicalhistorianandone
ofthemostimportantfigureswritingontheJesusmyth.Astheinterview
progresses, the viewer becomes increasingly aware that Flemmings
presentation has been largely influenced by Dohertys work. Notice the
following statements by Doherty seen earlier in this review: The first
Gospel wasnt written until almost the end of the first century. . . . The
others follow over the next several decades. Its almost impossible to
believe that they were writing what they were presenting as accurate
history. And we can tell by the fact that Matthew, Luke, and John they
rework Mark in ways which are just a wholesale change of the situation.
ThewordsthatweresupposedtohavebeenspokenbyJesus.Theywouldnt
feel that they have the right to do that if they were presenting it to their
readers as strict historically accurate accounts. Paul never places Jesus
deathandresurrectioninanhistoricalsetting.Heneveridentifiesatimeora
place.
I explained earlier in my critique of Carrier that it is not uncommon for
scholars to see all sorts of interpretations about what biblical authors
reallymeant,ratherthanwhatseemsplainonthesurface.Dohertyshowshe
hascreativeskillsinthisarea,too.OfthestoryofJesusmultiplyingofthe
loavesandfishes,hewrites,Thesearedirectreworkingsofthemiraclesof
ElijahandElisha.DohertythinksoftheNewTestamentasMidrash,anew
wayofseeingspiritualtruth.HeclaimsthattheEvangelistswenttotheOld
Testament and created a Jesus based on certain Old Testament
passages. Thus, they were using Old Testament passages to create the
story. Most scholars see things differently. They recognize that the New
Testament writers attempted to make sense of Jesus by going back to the
Old Testament to see what it may have said about him. Midrash was an
attempt to take old stories and make them relevant to the people of the
writers own time and culture. But we can note that those writing the
midrashbelievedthestoriestheywereaddingto.Whenweconsiderthata
number of ancient nonChristian sources mention a historical Jesus, it is
easytoknowwhichoptiontoprefer.NodoubtDohertywillclaimthatthese
areallinterpolationsbylaterChristianeditorsorthattheirsourcesforthis
data were Christians. But the majority of Josephus scholars see good
reasons for holding that Josephus knew of and mentioned Jesus is his
writingsanditisunlikelythataRomanhistoriansuchasTacituswhohad
norespectforChristianswouldrelyontheirreportsaboutJesusforhisown
writingofhistory.
Doherty questions whether the apostles died as martyrs: . . . there is no
evidence in the early record that any of the apostles were actually
martyred.Paulmakesnomentionofanyoftheonesthatheknewasbeing
killed, even when he speaks about the hardships that he and others had to
endure.ThatsamuchlaterChurchtraditionanditwasapopularmythin
itself. He says that Paul was not aware of any of the disciples who had
died. But this seems unlikely. Paul said that he had consented to the
executionsofChristians. Luke reports that Paul consented to the death of
Stephen(Acts7:578:39:1).ThespeechesattributedtoPaulbyLukevery
clearly say that Paul was aware of Christians who had been martyred and
wasinvolvedintheprocess(Acts22:426:10).Scholars are divided as to
whether Paul uttered these speeches or if Luke is reporting early Church
tradition in narrative format by placing these traditions about Paul in the
mouth of Paul himself. Few believe that the content of the speeches was
inventedbyLuke.Eitherway,wehaveearlytraditionaboutPaul.
WhatdoesPaulhimselfsay?IntwoofPaulsundisputedletters,hemakes
statementsthatarecompatiblewithwhatLukereportshesaid(1Cor15:9
Phil3:6).Moreover,Paulmayhavebeenoneofthefirstapostlestodie.In
this case, he would not have reported the deaths of other apostles. His
martyrdomisattestedbynolessthansevenancientsources,theearliestof
which is Clement of Rome (c. AD 95) who was most likely a disciple of
PeterwhodiedaroundthesametimeasPaul.[61]
That Christians were being executed by the middle of the first century is
certain. The Roman historian Tacitus reports that in the time of Nero, a
multitude[62] of Christians suffered martyrdom: Covered with the
skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to
crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly
illumination, when daylight had expired (Annals 15:44). Many scholars
believe that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom during the Neronian
persecution.
Thereportsconcerningtheindividualmartyrdomsofmostofthedisciples
arelate.However,inthecaseofPeter,Paul,andJames,theyarenot.And
wehavemultiplereportsregardingthewillingnessofthedisciplestosuffer
continuously and even die for their conviction that Jesus had been
raised. Only the hyperskeptics to whom we are responding question the
sincerityoftheapostlesclaimtohaveseentherisenJesus.Afterall,ifyou
do not believe that Jesus ever existed, you must likewise deny that a
historical Jesus had apostles who saw him die and who were transformed
whentheysawhimaliveagain.
Doherty attempts to dismiss the dual passages in Josephus that mention
Jesus by claiming they are both interpolations. But this is not as easy as
Dohertyimagines.Ihaveansweredasimilarattemptbyanamateurscholar
to dismiss Josephus as an authentic first century source who mentions the
historicalJesus.(See both critiques of the book by Acharya S, The Christ
Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold at

http://www.answeringinfidels.com/content/category/5/73/49/.) By far, most
scholarsholdthatJosephusknewofJesusandmentionedhimtwiceinhis
works.
DohertybelievestherewasaQcommunitythatdidnotbelieveinthedeath
andresurrectionofJesus.TheJesusinQisnotconsideredaSaviorfigure,
butbearsastrongresemblancetotheGreekcynicsoftheperiod.Doherty
thinks the documentary record shows that todays Christianity is a
combination of the Christianities of both the Q community and Paul and
that this combination took place in the Gospel of Mark.It is not a mix of
oraltraditionthatMarkhastiedtogether.
InLarryHurtadosrecentworkonChristology,whichisquicklybecoming
themajorworkonthetopic,heinteractswithJohnKloppenborgsworkon
Q. Kloppenborg seems to agree with Doherty that Qs failure to note any
passion narratives or redemptive interpretations of the death of Jesus
indicatesthatQdoesnotknowthem.ButHurtadopointsoutthatitisnot
credibletoimaginetheseQpeopleassomehowremainingignorant,while
all about them interpretations of Jesus death as redemptive, and belief in
Jesus resurrection as well, were circulating among followers of
Jesus.[63]Paulisclearthatwhathepreachesisessentiallyinagreement
with what was coming out of Jerusalem (Galatians 2:110). Moreover, the
Semitismsinsomeoftheoraltraditionsfoundinhisletterslikewiseseemto
pointtoaJerusalemorigin.WeknowthattheJerusalem apostles and Paul
werepreachingthedeathandresurrectionofJesus(1Cor15:11).Thus, if
therewasaQcommunity,andthisisquestionedtoday,[64] we must ask
why this document, if it was a document rather than an oral tradition, did
not mention the death and resurrection of Jesus. We may postulate a few
options. First, it could be that, for reasons unknown to us, Matthew and
Lukepreferredtouseothersourceswhenitcametothesestories.Second,it
couldbethatQwascomposedduringthelifetimeofJesus.Inthiscase,we
wouldnotexpectpassionandresurrectionnarratives.Thebottomlineisthat
QmayormaynothaveexistedandthereisfarmoreskepticismovertheQ
community, to which Doherty refers to as fact, than there is for a Q
source. If Q indeed existed, the absence of a passion and resurrection
narrativeiscurious.ButIhavepresentedtwopossibilitiesforwhythismay
beso.Moreover,ifMarkusedQasoneofhissources,wemustaskhowwe
may detect this in his Gospel. After all, scholars identify Q by tradition
common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark! Thus, Dohertys
argumentthatMarkcombinedQandPauldoesnotmakemuchsense.
Dohertysayshehastwosmokinggunswhenitcomestoshootingdown
thepositionthatJesuswasahistoricalperson.Hisfirstiscomprisedoftwo
passagesinHebrews(8:410:37).Hebrews8:4reads,IfJesushadbeenon
earth, he would not even have been a priest (Dohertys
translation). Doherty comments, if Jesus had been on earth . . . Now
those words in the context convey the clear implication that he never
was. He then cites a scholar who says that the normal interpretation of
thosewordsallowthisinterpretation.ButsincethiswouldmeanthatJesus
neverexisted,weshouldpreferotheroptions.Thisshowsyouthekindof
thinking and interpretation of texts that goes into regular New Testament
scholarship. It just doesnt allow you to see what the texts are actually
saying.
DoesthetextactuallyimplythatJesusneverexisted?Lets look at how it
fitsintoitscontext.In7:14theauthorsaysthatJesuscamefromthetribeof
Judahandthenofferedhimselfasasacrifice(7:27).Beingfromthetribeof
JudahtiesJesustoanearthlylife.In8:1hesaysthatJesusisahighpriest
who took his seat at the right hand of God. In 8:4, the verse under
consideration,hesaysJesuswouldnothavebeenapriestifhehadbeenon
earth.In8:6hesays,ButnowHehasobtainedamoreexcellentministry,
byasmuchasHeisalsothemediatorofabettercovenant,whichhasbeen
enactedonbetterpromises(8:6).[65]
Incontext,theauthorofHebrewsissayingthatifJesushadcontinuedtobe
onearthratherthangoingtoheaven,hewouldnotbeservingasapriestas
henowdoes.Instead, he sacrificed his life in order to inaugurate the new

andheavenlycovenantandservesasourpriestinheaven.
Whenthisverse(8:6)isconsideredinitscontext,Dohertysinterpretationis
very awkward. But there is another reason for rejecting Dohertys
interpretationthatweighsevenmoreheavily.Elsewhere,Hebrewspresents
Jesus as one who lived on earth (2:9, 14, 17 5:7 7:14 10:5, 10 12:23
13:12). Thus, it seems very unlikely that he would speak of the earthly
existence of Jesus on a number of occasions, then contradict himself by
speaking of his nonexistence on two other occasions. This is why New
TestamentscholarshipwillneveradoptDohertysinterpretation.
DohertymentionsasecondpassageinHebrewsaspartofhisfirstsmoking
gun:10:37.Hetranslatesit,theonewhoistocomewillcomeandsoon,
thencomments
bysayingthattheMessiahiscomingsoon,thisshowsveryclearly
thatthewriterhasnoknowledgeofhimalreadyhavingalreadybeen
hereinthepersonofJesus.NowChristiancommentatorshavetodo
abitoftwistingtodenythesamemeaningofthatpassage.Butthey
do that all the time. Theyve developed a real proficiency in
obscuringwhatthetextsarereallysaying.
Once again, it is very clear that Doherty does not bother to read the
context. Nor does he seem familiar with the ancient Christian belief that
Jesus would return from heaven very soon. In context, the author is
encouraging Jewish Christians, who have begun to be persecuted by
imprisonmentandhavingtheirpropertyconfiscated.Heencouragesthemto
remain steady in their faith and that they will be rewarded. It is in this
immediate context that he then writes, For in a very little time, the one
comingwillcomeandwillnotdelay.Itisjustlikeencouraginganinjured
caraccidentvictimbysaying,Hanginthere!Theambulancewillbehere
verysoon!Dohertyhastotallymissedthemeaningoftheseverses.Aswe
saw, the author of Hebrews is familiar with a historical Jesus. Thus,
Dohertystwobulletsinhisfirstsmokinggunhavebackfired.
HissecondsmokinggunisfoundinanapologybyMinuciusFelix,whichis
a debate between a pagan named Octavius and a Christian Minucius. The
AnchorBibleDictionarydatesthisworkssometimebetweenthelatesecond
andearlythirdcenturies.[66]Octaviusprovidesalistofaccusationshehas
heardabouttheChristians,suchas,theyadoretheheadofadonkey,have
secret and nocturnal rituals, worship the genitals of their priests, are
incestuous,worshipawickedandcrucifiedmanandhiscross,killaninfant,
lick its blood and divide its limbs, etc.[67] He thinks there is probably
sometruthtotheaccusationsbutdoesnotknow.Felixdeniesitallandsays
that Christians are not even allowed to hear of such horrible things, much
lessdothem.Headds,Forinthatyouattributetoourreligiontheworship
ofacriminalandhiscross, youwanderfarfromtheneighbourhoodofthe
truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being
was able, to be believed God.[68] In other words, Felix says that
Christians neither worship a criminal nor his cross. For a criminal is
unworthyofworshipandanearthlybeingcannotbethoughtofasGod.By
nomeansisFelixsayingthatChristiansbelieveJesuswasacriminalorthat
hewasmerelyahumanorthatheneverexisted.
TheseareDohertystwosmokingguns.Buttheyarenothingmorethana
childs capgun. It makes noise, but it cannot deliver what it threatens. I
stronglyrecommendthatDohertystayawayfromgunfights.
FlemmingcomparesDohertysworkwiththatofGalileo.Galileopresented
evidence that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way
around, yet others refused to look into the telescope.In a similar manner,
FlemmingclaimsthatpeoplewontlookatDohertysworkbecauseitwill
destroy the assumptions of biblical scholarship over the past 1900
years.Dohertysaystheideahasbeenaroundfor200yearsandthathehas
contributedonlyafewnewideastoit.Headdsthatavantgardescholarship
isperhaps1015yearsawayfromgivingseriousconsiderationtotheidea.
He also says he is not the only one writing on the subject. There are
others. But he admits that these writings are found on the internet by
amateurscholars,acommunitywithwhichheidentifieshimself.Hedefines
an amateur scholar as one who has not come up through the established
ranksbuthasdoneprivateresearch.Flemmingbuttsinandsaysthisisnota
problem, since Galileo was an amateur. (Flemming is mistaken. Galileo
receivedformaleducationinphysicsandmathematics.He made a number
ofnotableinventions,includingthepumpandthetelescope.Anyonewitha
grandfather clock in their home can also thank Galileo. He was appointed
ProfessorofMathematicsattheUniversityofPadua.)
When Flemmings asks Doherty if there have been any attempts to refute
TheJesusPuzzle,Dohertyanswersthattherehavenotbeenanyattemptsto
refutehisworkontheinternetbyrecognizedscholars.Whileheiscorrect
that recognized scholars have not given his work any attention, he and
Flemmingareincorrectthatnoattemptshavebeenmade.Anumberofgood
critiques are posted online.[69]While it is true that Doherty would label
mostifnotalloftheseasamateurscholars,whyshouldheorFlemming
balkatthat?JustafewminutesearliertheyattemptedtojustifyDohertys
statusasanamateurscholar.ThisisdoubletalkonthepartofDohertyand
Flemming. They seek recognition for the work of amateur scholars while
refusing to recognize the work of amateur scholars who offer critiques of
Dohertyswork.
WhileprofessionalscholarshavepaidnoattentiontoDohertyswork,they
have certainly responded to the hypothesis he proposes, namely, the idea
thatJesusneverexisted.
GntherBornkamm:todoubtthehistoricalexistenceofJesusatallwas
reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into
whichitisnotworthwhiletoenterhere.[70]
RudolfBultmann:OfcoursethedoubtastowhetherJesusreallyexistedis
unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus
standsasfounderbehindthehistoricalmovement.[71]
Michael Grant: To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the
Christmyththeory.It has again and again been answered and annihilated
byfirstrankscholars.In recent years no serious scholar has ventured to
postulate the nonhistoricity of Jesusor at any rate very few, and they
have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very
abundant,evidencetothecontrary.[72]
Paul Maier: the total evidence [for the existence of Jesus] is so
overpowering,soabsolutethatonlytheshallowestofintellectswoulddare
todenyJesusexistence.Andyetthispatheticdenialisstillparrotedbythe
village atheist, bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the
FreedomfromReligionFoundation.[73]
Michael Martin: Wells thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial
andnotwidelyaccepted.[74]
RobertVanVoorst:ContemporaryNewTestamentscholarshavetypically
viewedtheir[i.e.,Jesusmythers]argumentsassoweakorbizarrethatthey
relegatethemtofootnotes,oroftenignorethemcompletely.[75]
FlemmingandDohertyneedtorealizethatprofessionalscholarsspendtheir
lifetime in research. This involves interacting with the works of other
professionalscholarswhobothagreeanddisagree.Interactingwithamateur
scholarsisnotagooduseoftheirtime,unlessaparticularworkhasbecome
influential.Thisisnotatalltoclaimthatamateurscholarsdonotproduce
good work. To the contrary, several amateur scholars have distinguished
themselves as very sharp thinkers.However, unless an amateur scholar or
one or more of their contributions have become influential to a wide
audience, why should professional scholars feel obligated to interact,
especially if an adequate reply has been provided by another amateur
scholar?
There comes a point when a conspiracy theory has been investigated and
rejected so many times that one cannot be expected to open a new
investigationeverytimesomeonecriesconspiracy,unlessthereisagood
amount of new information that accompanies that claim. Doherty himself
says that the hypothesis that Jesus never existed has been around for 200
years and that he has only contributed only a few new ideas to it. Thus,
since scholars have totally rejected the Jesus myth hypothesis again and
again and little new information is offered, we are under no obligation to
giveitnewconsideration.
ThisendsFlemmingscaseforthenonexistenceofJesus.
FromVillageChristiantoVillageAtheist
Flemming goes further than merely attempting to make a case against the
existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth. He also attacks religion in
general. For thousands of years, humanity has been obsessed with blood
sacrifices. Is it an accident that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus gave
Christiansasufferingherowhosefleshtheycouldeatandwhosebloodthey
could drink? Of course Christians today arent obsessed with blood
sacrificing. Except that they are. Clips from Mel Gibsons movie The
PassionoftheChristarethenshown.FormanyChristians,ThePassionof
theChristwasthesinglemostpowerfulexperienceoftheirlives.Henotes
thatthismoviemade$370millionandstillcounting.
FlemmingturnstoCarrierandsays,Letmeproposesomething:Religion
doesnoharmatall.Carrierlaughsthencomments,
Well of course the evidence of history and even contemporary
eventsrefutesthat.Evenifwesetasidetheobviousconflictviolence
that has always plagued society and has gotten particularly worse
under the JudeoChristian religions, even if we set that aside, we
have ordinary everyday things that are gone wrong. The sort of
dehumanization and mistreatment of homosexuals for example is a
prominentexampleanditsgettingworseinthiscountryactually.It
wasgettingbetterforawhilebutnowthere'sthisbacklashandthat's
bad, that's bad for humanity. And religion that encourages or even
allowsthatiswrong.
Laterhesays,
I do have serious concerns. . . . I'm seeing more and more the
attitudeofChristianstowardsecularhumanistsandatheistsisvery,
very similar to the attitudes of prewar Nazis to Jews. And its
almostasifatheistsarethenewJews.Andtheclassicexampleof
thisisthisbookbyBenjaminWikercalledMoralDarwinism,thatis
essentially Mein Kamph, except he just took out Jew and put
atheisminitsplace....Whatsgoingtohappenwhenwehavelike
another depression, like we had right before World War II in
Germany where the economy collapsed. Whos gonna get
blamed?WhenwehavetheseChristiansinpower,whoreallythink
atheists are responsible for everything that's wrong, persuasion
doesn'tfixtheproblem,societyisgoingsouth,theeconomyisgoing
south...Whoareyagonnakill?Well,thesamepeoplethatHitler
killed, which is the Jews. . . . If we get into a situation where
ChristianslikeBushbasicallygainapermanentfootholdinpowerin
society like they have now. . . if that stays that way and then
something really bad happens . . . whats going to happen is that
atheistsaregoingtoenduponthe$@!#endofthestick.
Carrier seems to forget that the greatest slaughters in our worlds history
camefromatheistregimes.Theywerenotreligiouswars. Consider Stalin,
Mao,andthekillingfieldsofCambodia.[76]Thesealoneadduptomore
than80millionpeoplekilledbyatheistsinthetwentiethcentury,whenthey
cameintopowerforthefirsttime.Thisdoesnotincludethosekilledbythe
aggressive governments of North Korea and North Vietnam who were
actually attempting to eliminate religion and even now continue to work
towardthatend.Thus,itseemsthatifanyoneshouldbeconcernedfortheir
safety,itisthosewhomaintainreligiousbeliefs,ratherthanatheists.Inhis
interview with fellow radical atheist Richard Dawkins, Flemming himself
comments, Often what atheists are after is an intolerance of religion and
itsveryhardtogetacross.
IlikeRichardCarrier,respecthim,andregardhimafriend.Butheappears
paranoidhere.DuringtheGreatDepressionortherecessionofthe70sor
evenourveryrecentrecession,wasthereaseriousefforttoblameatheists
fortheeconomicproblemsintheU.S.?HasBushwhomCarrierfearshinted
thatatheistsaretoblameforourcountryswoes?Therearecertainlyafew
Christians who say that God is trying to get our attention and is, thus,
responsiblefordisasterslike9/11andKatrina.Buttheseareaminorityand
most Christians are rightly embarrassed by them. So, let us stop with the
alarmistrhetoric.
Carrier finds Lee Smolins arguments persuasive that there are multiple
universesandthatwehappentoliveintheonewhereeverythingisinplace
forlife.(SeeDavidWoodsdecisivecritiqueofCarriersuseofSmolin:A
CarriocentricUniverse)Hethensaysthatifthedesignargumentemployed
by theists works, it would actually prove that God built the universe for
black holes, not for humans. He continues by arguing that if Christianity
were true, the universe would be as Paul and other early Christians
believed: only one solar system, not zillions of galaxies billions of years
old.Therewouldbetonsofevidencethattheuniversewascreated6,000
10,000 years ago. We wouldnt have any evidence for evolution. We
wouldntneedallthephysicalconstantsorsubatomicparticles.We would
only need the five particles which Paul and Aristotle thought there
were.Theearthwouldbethecenteroftheuniverse,sinceitisthecenterof
Godsattentionandthepurposeforwhicheverythingelsewascreated.Why
would he make it any other way? Thus, the universe we have is not the
universewewouldexpectifChristianityistrue.
Even if Paul believed that the sun revolves around the earth, that there is
only one solar system rather than the nearly one trillion galaxies now
thoughttoexist,andthattheuniverseisonly6,00010,000yearsoldinstead
ofaround15billionyearsold,whywouldthisdisproveChristianity? Paul
is,infact,silentonthesematters.TodaysChristiansdebatetheageofthe
universeandearth.Many,ifnotmost,oftodaysChristianphilosophersand
scientistshavenoproblemholdingthattheuniverseis1215billionyears
old and that the earth is probably 4.5 billion years old, and they see no
tensionwiththebiblicalrecord.So,onedoesnotneedtobecommittedtoa
certainageoftheuniverseinordertobeaChristian.
Carrier says that if Christianity is true, then we would not have any
evidenceforevolution.Aswenoticedpreviouslywithinterpretations,data
can be interpreted in a number of ways and evolutionary theory is no
different.I am not at all persuaded by arguments for macroevolution. Not
only do I find them highly problematic, but also the crusades by
evolutionary activists like Richard Dawkins have persuaded me that the
issue is more related to ones worldview than to the scientific
data. Dembski, Behe, Gonzalez/Richards, and others have provided a
compelling case based on science that an intelligent Designer is the best
explanation for the observable data. Atheists like Carrier apparently
recognizethestrengthoftheircase.Otherwise, there would be no need to
postulate undetectable multiverses. It is the appearance of design and the
extreme unlikelihood of life in the only universe known to us that forces
thissortofhypothesis.
Carrierthenarguesthatthehumanbrainhastobelargeinordertoperform
the function of consciousness. In fact, it is so large that, without modern
medicine, it has to kill one in five women who give birth to children. (I
cannotunderstandhowthisrelates.)The brain is very inefficient and very
vulnerabletoinjury.Itsnotwhatagodwoulddesign.Godcouldhavejust
givenusamindwithoutabody,sinceheisamindwithoutabody.Thus,if
agodexists,wewouldnotneedabrainthatkillsitsmothersandrequiresso
muchenergyandbesovulnerabletoinjury.Ifitisimpossibleforamindto
existwithoutabrain,thenitfollowsnecessarilythattheonlywaytohavea
conscious being is to have a brain. Thus, if we assume that there is no
disembodied mind, it necessarily predicts that the only way that we could
haveamindistohaveabrain.Weneedbrainsifatheismistrue.Thus,the
existenceoflargebrainsispositiveproofthatatheismistrue,becausethe
ChristianGodwouldbuildsomethingdifferently.
LetsdissectCarriersargumentandseewhatitlookslike:
Ifwehavelargebrains,atheismistrue.
Wehavelargebrains.
Therefore,atheismistrue.
This is a standard modus ponens argument. The logic is valid. Thus, if
Carriers premises are true, we have an airtight deductive argument for
atheism.Havingstatedhisargument,Carriersaysthatitmaynotbeproof
or settle the issue, but it is evidence for the truth of atheism. However,
sincethisisadeductiveargument,ifanyofhispremisesareincorrect,his
argumentfails.
Letslook,then,atRichardspremises.Accordingtohisfirstpremise,ifwe
have large brains, atheism is true. In order to support his view, he argues
thatthebrainisveryinefficientandveryvulnerabletoinjury.Itsnotwhata
god would design. God could have just given us a mind without a body,
since he is a mind without a body. Thus, his supporting argument can be
statedasfollows:
Necessarily,aperfectbeingcreatesaperfectproduct.
Thebrainisnotaperfectproduct.(Itislarge,inefficient,andvulnerableto
injury)
Therefore,thebrainwasnotcreatedbyaperfectbeing.
TheproblemwithCarriersargumentisthatthereisnoreasonforholding
his first premise, that a perfect being must always create a perfect
product.We might imagine a number of reasons why this may not be the
case.Forexample,whenarestaurantpreparesamealforapatron,itdoes
notprepareitforalongshelflife.Thecookhasnointentionofmakingthe
food so that it lasts past the night. What if a perfect being, for reasons
unknowntous,didnotwantforhumanstoliveforever?Orwhatifhehad
originallyintendedforhumanswithfreewilltoliveforeverbutallowedsin
toresultineventualdeathforourbenefit?Sucha possibilityis implicitin
theChristianviewand,thus,isnotadhoc.LetsalsosupposethatGodhad
createduswithfargreaterabilities.Wouldweusethemwiselyorwouldwe
striptheplanetbynow?ImagineaworldwithaneternalHitler,Stalin,and
Mao.Givenaworldoffreebeings,theremayhavebeenverygoodreasons
forwhyGodimposedtimelimitsonourlives.
Accordingly,therearenosoundreasonsforacceptingCarriersfirstpremise
and,thus,hisargumentfallstopieces,evenapartfromconsideringwhether
his second premise holds.Remember that if Carriers argument fails, then
hisevidenceforatheismfails.
FlemmingturnstotheInquisition:
If the Bible is right, arent the stakes as high as they can be? If a
little suffering here on earth saves more souls for all eternity, isn't
thatagoodthing?TheInquisitionwasnotaperversionofChristian
doctrine.TheInquisitionwasanexpressionofChristiandoctrine...
.Imagineifyoukilledyourownchildlikethefatherandthepeople
you[sic]thatyoudiditfordidn'trecognizeyoursacrifice.Ofcourse
youwouldn'theartheirprayers.MelGibsonwasrighttoportraythe
Jews as evil. These must be the most despicable people on earth
unless this book [the Bible] is wrong. And if this book is wrong,
whatthehellismoderateChristianity?Jesuswasonlysortoftheson
ofGod?Heonlysomewhatrosefromthedead?Youreternalsoulis
at stake but you shouldnt make a big deal out of it? Moderate
Christianity makes no sense.Is it any wonder that so many people
choosetheChristianleaderswhoactuallyhavethecourageoftheir
convictions?
HereisFlemmingsargumentbrokendown:
IftheBibleisright,thentheInquisition&Christianityarejust.
TheInquisitionandChristianityareunjust.
Therefore,theBibleiswrong.
Thisisamodustollensargumentandfollowsthesamelogicofthemoral
argumentfortheexistenceofGod.
IfGoddoesnotexist,thenobjectivemoralvaluesdonotexist.
Objectivemoralvaluesexist.
Therefore,Godexists.
In both arguments, the logic is valid. Thus, the strength of the premises
determines the strength of the argument. The weakness of the moral
argument lies in the difficulty of proving the second premise: objective
moralvaluesexist.Mostpeoplebelievethatthereissomethingintrinsically
wrongwithrapeandtorturingbabiesforthefunofit.Yet,wecannotprove
this to be true. Thus, to the extent that one believes that morals are
objective,i.e.thatsomethingsarereallywrongirrespectiveofwhatothers
orasocietythinks,onewillfindthemoralargumentpersuasive.
What about Flemmings argument?His logic is valid. But once again, his
firstpremiseisincorrect,sinceagreatstrainisrequiredinordertointerpret
JesusteachingsinamannerthatiscompatiblewiththeInquisition.Itwas
Catholic leadership that had gone way off track that brought about the
InquisitionandtheCrusades.OnecannotfindanyteachingofJesusstating
thattorturingapersonatonesfortheirdenialofChrist.Accordingly, since
theteachingsoftheBiblewouldnotsupporttheInquisitionortheCrusades,
thereisnoreasontobelievethatiftheBibleiscorrectthattheInquisition
and Crusades were justified. Thus, Flemmings argument from the
Inquisitionfails.
Flemming turns to a discussion of issues of eschatology. He interviews
Scott Butcher of RaptureLetters.com who describes his beliefs in a
pretribulationviewofthereturnofChristandaddsthathebelievesthiswill
occur during his lifetime. Atheist Sam Harris says this interpretation is
maladaptiveregardingavoidingglobalconflict,whichistheprecursorto
the return of Christ. It is a terribly dangerous state of affairs when
Christiansofthisconvictionareelectingourstateofficials.
Throughoutthevideo,Flemmingexhibitsimmensesarcasmthatmakeshis
work seem more like an impassioned justification of his atheism than a
documentaryaboutJesus.Onesuchstatementappearsinhisinterviewwith
SamHarriswhenhesays,WhenpeoplestopbelievinginGod,theytendto
havesexwithsheep.Harrispresentssomesoberingthoughtsthatrelateto
problemscausedbyMuslimswhodesiretobemartyred.He asks how we
can be neighbors with this mentality? Flemming asks Harris if we are
doomed. Harris answers that Its hard to see a basis for real
optimism.ThisconcludesFlemmingscasethatreligionisbadforsociety.
HethenprovidesashortaccountofhispastasafundamentalistChristianin
a Christian school named Village Christian School. He states that for the
Christian, hell is a real place where you really go if you do not have
salvation from Jesus. Jesus will forgive you from anything, except
blasphemyagainsttheHolySpirit,theunforgivablesin(Luke12:10Mark
3:29).
Andasluckwouldhaveit,theHolySpiritistheeasiestthinginthe
entire doctrine to doubt. God is out of your reach. Jesus was two
thousandyearsago.ButtheHolySpiritiswithyourighthere,right
now. So, you better really actually feel the Holy Spirit. You can't
deny it inyour thoughts, because Jesus is inyourthoughts.And if
yourmindstartstowandertothefactthattheresnomoreevidence
fortheexistenceofthisHolySpiritthanthereisfortheexistenceof
unicorns, guess what you may have done? The greatest crime in
fundamentalist Christianity is to think. And when I was at Village
ChristianIwasterrifiedthatIhadactuallydonethis.
FlemmingsdefinitionofblasphemingtheHolySpiritisbizarre.Forhim,if
IquestioninmymindtheexistenceoftheHolySpirit,Ihavecommittedthe
unpardonablesin.MostexegetesrecognizethatMark3:30providesclarity
ofwhatitistoblasphemetheHolySpirit.Thescribeswhocametodestroy
Jesus were attributing to Satan the works of the Holy Spirit done through
Jesus.Thus, in essence they were insulting the Holy Spirit by calling him
Satan.It is not the mechanical words by which the sin is committed. It is
becausetheycomefromaheartthathashardeneditselftotheauthorityof
Jesus,acompleterejectionthatcausedpeopletowanttodestroyhim.This
is the precise opposite of the statement that Jesus is Lord that results in
salvation(1Cor12:3).Thewordsarenotamagicalformulathatresultsin
salvationbyitsmererecitation.Itisonlywhentheyaretheresultofaheart
thathassubmittedtoChristasLordthatthewordscarrymeaning.
FlemminggoesbacktoVillageChristianSchoolandasksthecurrentschool
superintendentRonaldSipussomequestions.Hereadsafewoftheschools
doctrinal statements. The infallibility of the Bible, the nature of Gods
existenceinthreepersons,andthebeliefintheresurrectionofbelieversto
eternallifeandnonbelieverstoeternaljudgmentarestated.Flemmingthen
asks, Tell me, what hard scientific evidence do you have that the world
worksthisway?"Sipusanswersthatthereisgoodevidenceforthetruthof
Christianity,suchasthehistoricalevidencefortheresurrectionofJesus.But
ultimatelyitisamatteroffaith.Flemmingjumpsonhimforthefaithpart
and exhibits a misunderstanding of the matter as his interview with Sipus
continues.Sipus is clear throughout that he thinks there is good historical
evidence for the truth of Christianity. Fleming replies that earlier he said
therewasnoevidenceforitandthatitwasamatteroffaith.Sipussays,no,
hethinksthereisevidence.[77]ButFlemingrepliesthathehadsaidwhen
itcomestomattersofthefutureresurrectionandjudgmentofthedeadthat
it'samatteroffaith.Sipusanswersthatheagrees.ButFlemingaskswhyhe
is then teaching that this is the way the world operates. Let's look at it
anotherway:
1. Flemming: Do you think there is any scientific evidence for your

theologicalstatements?
2. Sipus:ThereisscientificevidenceforthetruthofChristianity. But
theologicalstatementsareamatteroffaith.
3. Flemming: Then why are you teaching that Christianity is
scientificallytrue,whenyousayitisamatteroffaith?
4. Sipus: You misunderstood what I said. Im not saying that I have
scientificprooffortheologicalstatements.
5. Flemming:Butyousaidamomentagothatits(theitiswherethe
switch occurs) a matter of faith. So why are you teaching
theologicalstatementsasthewaytheworldoperates?
6. Sipus:Imnot.
Sipusisclaimingthattheologicalmatters,suchasthetriunenatureofGod
andfutureresurrectionandjudgmentcannotbetestedscientificallyandare
acceptedonfaith.Iagreewithhim.Wecanexaminethescientificevidence
foranintelligentDesignerandthehistoricalevidencefortheresurrectionof
Jesus and many of his sayings. But scientific arguments do not apply to
matters of doctrine. Sam Harris who is another of Flemmings authorities
answers by saying that if one cannot provide justification for ones
convictions, youre laughed out of the room.I agree. But this would be a
misunderstanding of Sipus statement. If you were to ask him for a
justificationofhisconvictions,hewouldanswerthatChristianityhassome
very good scientific and historical evidence in its favor, which establishes
the truth of Christianity. The Bible is a trustworthy source and, thus, the
Christianisrationallyjustifiedinacceptingtruthsoffaithpreciselybecause
therearetruthsofreason.[78]
Flemming then asks Sipus if he believes the Bible should be interpreted
literally.HeanswersthattherearecertainpartsoftheBiblethatmaynotbe
takenliterally.NearlyallChristianswouldagreewithhim.Jesus taught in
parables.Were the storiesand persons mentionedin the parablesmeantto
be understood as historical figures? We may almost certainly answer
no.ThepersonificationofwisdominthebookofProverbsisanobvious
rhetoricaldevice.Sipus notes that there are a number of interpretations of
Genesis,rangingfromacreationofeverythingwithinsix,24hourdaysto
believingthatthesedaysrepresentverylongperiodsoftime.Hesaysthat
thesearethingsuponwhichChristiansdebateandheiscorrect.Theagesof
theuniverseandtheeartharenotfundamentaldoctrinesofChristianity.
Inaninterestingturnofevents,SipusgraciouslyrequeststoaskFlemminga
question off camera. Flemming refuses. Sipus charges Flemming with
being dishonest in setting up the interview because Flemming was not
discussing what he had originally communicated to Sipus. Instead, Sipus
seems to believe that Flemming is there to make himself feel better about
the discipline Flemming underwent while attending the school, perhaps
tryingtogetsomepayback.ItbecomesapparentthatSipuswantstodiscuss
this privately with Flemming, rather than to present it to Flemmings
viewers.Flemmingrefuses,andSipusendstheinterview.
FlemminggoestothechapelwherehesayshereceivedJesusthreetimes,
holds the camera up and says Here in this chapel where I first accepted
Jesus as mypersonal savior, I just want tosayone thing: Idenythe Holy
Spirit.Themainvideoendsonthisnote.
AnInterviewwithRichardDawkins
InaninterviewwithRichardDawkinsinhissecondcommentary,Dawkins
makes the following statement: Science, scientific reason, the
Enlightenment, rationalism, are in their way powerful weapons against
religion and all other forms of superstition. Those people who are well
enougheducatedtounderstandscienceandreasontendtobetheoneswho
have dropped religion. And so, by spreading science and rationality we
would be combating religion and all other forms of superstition. . . . it's
worth noticing that if you take the elite of American scientists, and one
measure of that thats [sic] being taken as those being elected to the
National Academy of Sciences, these are the cream American scientists,
more than 90% of them do not hold any supernatural religious belief. So,
among the best American scientists, religion is almost dead. And thats a
veryencouragingsign.ThisisstrongrhetoricfromDawkinswhoisona
crusadeagainstnonatheisticscience.ElsewhereDawkinscomments,It is
absolutelysafetosaythatifyoumeetsomebodywhoclaimsnottobelieve
in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but Id
rathernotconsiderthat).[79]
The facts speak contrary to Dawkins grandstanding. Evolution is in a
period of serious crisis and it is becoming apparent to all who remain
informed of the issues that there is a closedmindedness, even an anti
intellectualclimate,[80]embeddedinthecommunitiesinwhichDawkins
roams.EvolutionisnottheselfevidentaxiomthatDawkinsandotherslike
him preach. Consider the following small sampling from a plethora of
commentsbyprominentscientists:
[There]isformepowerfulevidencethatthereissomethinggoingon
behinditall.
Theimpressionofdesignisoverwhelming.[81]
PaulDavies,Ph.D.,TempletonLaureate
Astronomyleadsustoauniqueevent.Auniversewhichwascreatedout
ofnothing,
anddelicatelybalancedtoprovideexactlytheconditionsrequiredtosupport
life.
Intheabsenceofanabsurdlyimprobableaccident,theobservationsof
modernscienceseemtosuggestanunderlying,onemightsay,supernatural
plan.[82]
ArnoPenzias,Ph.D.,NobelLaureatewhoconfirmedtheBigBangTheory
Anhonestman,armedwithalltheknowledgeavailabletousnow,could
onlystatethatinsomesense,theoriginoflifeappearsatthemomenttobe
almostamiracle,somanyaretheconditionswhichwouldhavetobe
satisfiedtogetitgoing.[83]
FrancisCrick,Ph.D.,NobelLaureatewhodiscoveredDNA
Imapersonwhosaysinthisbook[HumanDiversity]thatwedontknow
anythingabouttheancestorsofthehumanspecies.Allthefossilswhich
havebeendugupandareclaimedtobeancestorswehaventthefaintest
ideawhethertheyareancestors....[84]Despitetheexcitedandoptimistic
claimsthathavebeenmadebysomepaleontologists,nofossilhominid
speciescanbeestablishedasourdirectancestor.[85]
RichardLewontin,DistinguishedProfofZoology,Harvard
FormerPresidentoftheSocietyfortheStudyofEvolution
Geneticist,Marxist,Atheist
Wepaleontologistshavesaidthatthehistoryoflifesupports[thestoryof
gradualadaptivechange],allthewhilereallyknowingthatitdoes
not.[86]Nowonderpaleontologistsshiedawayfromevolutionforso
long.Itneverseemstohappen....Evolutioncannotforeverbegoingon
somewhereelse.Yetthatshowthefossilrecordhasstruckmanyaforlorn
paleontologistlookingtolearnsomethingaboutevolution.[87]
NilesEldridge,PhD,Paleontologist,AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory
Indeed,againandsofarasIknow,noonehasyetproducedaplausible
conjecture
astohowanyofthesecomplexmoleculesmighthaveevolvedfromsimple
entities.[88]
AntonyFlew,Ph.D.PhilosopherandFormerAtheist
IsArchaeopteryxtheancestorofallbirds?Perhapsyes,perhapsno:
thereisnowayofansweringthequestion.Itiseasyenoughtomakeup
storiesofhowoneformgaverisetoanother,andtofindreasonswhythe
stagesshouldbefavouredbynaturalselection.Butsuchstoriesarenotpart
ofscience
forthereisnowayofputtingthemtothetest.[89]
ColinPatterson,SeniorPaleontologist,BritishMuseumofNaturalHistory.
Theknownfossilrecordfailstodocumentasingleexampleofphyletic
[gradual]evolutionaccomplishingamajormorphologictransition
andhenceoffersnoevidencethatthegradualisticmodelcanbevalid.[90]
StevenM.Stanley,Ph.D.,ProfessorofPaleobiology,
JohnsHopkinsUniversity
Weconcludeunexpectedlythatthereislittleevidencefortheneo
Darwinianview:itstheoreticalfoundationsandtheexperimentalevidence
supportingitareweak.[91]
RichardCoyne,Ph.D.,Dept.ofEcologyandEvolution,Universityof
Chicago
MichaelBehe,Ph.D.,Dept.ofBiochemistry,LehighUniversity,pointsout
thattheJournalofMolecularEvolutionisrunbyaboardofmorethanfifty
prominentscientistsinthefield,adozenofthemmembersoftheNational
Academy of Sciences. Over 2,500 papers have been written on various
aspectsofmolecularevolutionsincethejournalwasstartedin1971.Behe
writes, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its
life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex
biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, stepbystep
Darwinianfashion.[92]
PhysicistsDyson,Kleban,andSusskindofStanfordandMITwroteapaper
in2002titledDisturbingImplicationsofaCosmologicalConstant.In it,
thescientistsdiscusstheextremedifficultiesofhavinglifeanywhereinour
universe aside from a miracle. They conclude that our understanding of

physicsmustbewrong.
TheDiscoveryInstitutehasalistofmorethan400scientistswhomaintain
seriousdoubtsoverevolutionarytheory.ItisclearthatattemptsbyDawkins
andotherstostatesimplythateducatedpeopleacceptevolutionandreject
religionareunfounded.
MoreFailedAccusations
Robert Price falls short of saying that Jesus never existed. But he comes
veryclosewhenhesays,Jesusmaynothaveexisted.Healsocomments,
The hidden assumption is they [i.e., Christians] say that we might be
dealingwithaGodwhoisanornerytheologyprofessorandonedaywhen
youdieandgoupthere,yourecalledtotheofficeoftheprofessor,hesays,
Well,IgotyourtestbackforyouandI'mafraidyougotanF.Youregoing
to hell because your opinions were incorrect. And thats what they think
God is. You dont have the right answers? Youre damned. And so they
dont dare think for themselves, because they might make mistakes. . . .
ThatseemstomeanobviouslysillyandchildishviewofGod.
IagreewithPricethathisperceptionoftheChristianviewofGodissilly
and childish. But I dont think that he presents the Christian view of
God.Pricesviewisthatifyoudonthavetherightanswers,youregoing
to hell. This seems to me to be a distortion of the Christian view. The
ChristianviewisthatmanisinastateofestrangementfromGod,andthat
thiswillinevitablyresultineternalseparationfromGod.Goddoesnotwant
this and did what was necessary in order to make it possible to have a
relationshipwithhim.Thisrelationshipismadeavailabletoall.Thus,ifone
rejects this relationship, God gives him what he wishes. C. S. Lewis said
thatGodhonorsthechoicesofindividuals.Afamousstatementinhisbook
TheGreatDivorceis,Thereareonlytwokindsofpeopleintheend:those
who say to God, Thy will be done, and those to whom God says, in the
end,Thywillbedone.AllthatareinHellchoseit.[93]
Twoissuesariseinreply:Whataboutthosewhohaveneverheardandwhat
aboutthosewhowantevidencebutjustdonotthinkitisthere?Whatabout
those who have never heard? This is a fair question that has a number of
possibilities. For what I consider to be a sufficient answer, please see my
article(forthcoming).
Whataboutthosewhorequireevidencebutdonotthinkasufficientamount
is there for belief? I think this is also a fair question. Atheists should be
preparedtoanswerhowmuchproofisrequiredforbeliefandwhethertheir
burden of proof is reasonable. Few have thought through these questions,
much less justified their answers to them. Of course, this failure is not
limitedtohyperskeptics.Few professional historianshave thoughtthrough
the process of how they come to know something (i.e., hermeneutics) and
themechanicsbywhichtheygetthere(i.e.,historiography).
DavidWoodhasdemonstratedquiteconvincinglythattheburdenofproof
held by many hyperskeptics is unreasonable. See his comments on
ShermersLastLaw.Shermerrendersbeliefimpossiblebythecriteriahe
provides. What this line of thinking does is to rule out a priori the
possibility of having evidence that would overthrow metaphysical
naturalism.Thisisnotreasonablescholarship.Itishyperskepticism.
TheSecularWebisfilledwithexamplesthatreflecttheviewthatallthatis
needed to reject a supernatural explanation is a possible natural one, no
matterhowunlikely.Inotherwords,apossiblenaturalexplanation,evenif
unreasonable is to be preferred over a supernatural one. This would be
reasonable if we knew that God does not exist or that deism is
true.However,thisisnotthecase.Asaresult,weseeallsortsofliberties
takeninordertoexplainawaydata.Forexample,notewhatDohertydoes
toexplainthemultiplereportsthatJesushadbrothers:
Josephus mention of James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20:200) is a
Christianinterpolation.[94]
brothersoftheLordreferredtoaJewishbrotherhoodofapostlesof
brothersoftheLordreferredtoaJewishbrotherhoodofapostlesof
the spiritual Christ, located in Jerusalem, the one referred to in 1
Corinthians9and15.Asasecttheymayhavebeenknownasbrothersof
theLord[95]
Regardingthefirst,thatthispassageisaChristianinterpolationisafringe
position.
Thisisnottheplaceforadetaileddiscussionofthispassage.Mayitsuffice
tosayatthemomentthattodaysleadingJosephusscholarLouisFeldman
writes,"ThepassageaboutJames[AntiquitiesBook20,Sections197200]
hasgenerallybeenacceptedasauthentic."[96]Elsewherehementionsthis
text and "the authenticity of which has been almost universally
acknowledged."[97] Another Jewish scholar, Zvi Baras, states that this
passage"isconsideredauthenticbymostscholars."[98]EdwinYamauchi
comments,"Fewscholarshavequestionedthegenuinenessofthispassage."
[99] Robert Van Voorst writes, "The overwhelming majority of scholars
holdsthatthewords'thebrotherofJesuscalledChrist'areauthentic,asis
theentirepassageinwhichitisfound."[100]
RegardingDohertysinterpretationofbrothersoftheLord,thisseemsto
me an exampleof amphiboly, where one exploits aslightambiguity. Take
for example a man smoking a cigarette in front of a sign that says No
Smoking Allowed. When asked why he is not respecting the order, he
answers, I am respecting it. If someone does not want to smoke, that is
allowed here. But that does not forbid me from smoking. Im justified in
interpretingthesignasIhavebecauseiftheywerereallyconcernedabout
forbiddingpeopletosmokehere,theywouldhavemadeitclear.Thesame
isoccurringwithDohertysbrother(s)oftheLordexplanation.He takes
aninterpretationthatseemsobvious,findsasmallloopholeandexploitsit
inordertoformadifferenthypothesisthatisanythingbutobvious.
However,whenmakinghistoricaldecisions,thehistorianlooksforthebest
explanationforthefacts.Thisisdeterminedbyanumberofcriteria,such
as
Whichexplanationaccountsforallofthefacts?
Which explanation accounts for all of the facts without having to strain
them?
Given a particular explanation, would we expect to see all the knowable
facts?
Whichexplanationisthesimplest?
All four Gospels and Acts report that Jesus had brothers and sisters and
JosephusreportsthatJesushadabrother.Considerthefollowingpassages:
Matthew12:4650(cf.Mark3:3135Luke8:1921):NoticethatJesushere
contrastsfather,mother,brother,andsisterbybirthwiththosebyspiritual
association.MatthewisveryclearherethatJesushadbrothers.
Matthew 13:5557: That his mother, brothers, and sisters were part of his
ownhouseholdisinteresting.
John 2:12: Here his brothers are distinguished from his disciples. So, the
explanationthatPaulsreferencetoJamesasabrotheroftheLordandthe
phrase brothers of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 9:5 refer to a group of
discipleswillnotdo.
John 7:322: Here again the brothers of Jesus are distinguished from his
disciples.Moreover,itisdifficulttocallthebrothersoftheLorddisciples
whenitsaysthattheydidntbelieveinhim!Theywouldhavetobeagroup
ofpiousJewswaitingforMessiah.But then it is curious that they are not
mentionedanywhereelse,suchasbyJosephus.
Acts 1:1314: Those present include the closest disciples of Jesus, the
womendisciples,hismotherMary,andhisbrothers.
Also see 1 Corinthians 9:5 where the brothers of the Lord are
distinguished from the apostles and Peter. Thus, the explanation that
brothersishereusedastheequivalentChristiansismistaken.
ItisalsoastraintodefinetheGreekwordadelphosascousin,sincethe
Greekwordisnotemployedinthismanner.Infact,cousinisnotlistedas
a possible meaning in either of the two major Greek lexicons (BDAG,
LS). Moreover, elsewhere Paul uses anepsios (cousin), not adelphos.
Chances are pretty good that he would use anepsios when speaking of
James in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 instead of the typical
adelphos (brother), if James was Jesus cousin. Furthermore, there is no
evidence anywhere of a group referred to as "brothers of the Lord." The
theorythatJesushadbrothersbetterexplainsallofthereferencestoJesus
havingabrotherinallfourGospels,Galatians1:19,1Corinthians9:5,and
in Josephus (Ant 20:200). The "cousin" theory has to strain and come up
with a number of subtheories in order to explain it. So, its not the
simplest.Therefore,the"brothertheory"passesallfourcriteriaeasilywhile
the"cousintheory"failscriterion2,3,and4.Granted,the"brother"position
is not airtight. Few historical positions are. But the historian should
embrace the best historical position rather than one that is merely
possible. It is clear that the best historical position is that James was the
brotherofJesus.
Iwanttoissueacalltorealism.Christianshavebeensospoiledbythegood
evidence for the truth of Christianity that it is easy to be drawn into
accepting the burden of proof demanded by hyperskeptics: Unless
Christianscanproveitbeyondalldoubtandwithoutanyotherexplanation
having even the slightest possibility, I wont believe. If Flemming,
Doherty, Carrier and others in their camp want to embrace this sort of
burdenofproof,theyarefreetodoso.Butthisdoesnotobligatethoseofus
whoaremoreprudentinourthinkingtoembracetheirburdenofproof.As
responsiblehistorianswearelookingforthebestexplanation.
Thisunreasonableburdenofproofonthepartofhyperskepticsseemstome
anactoftheheartthatsaysIdontwanttobelieveratherthanacritical
mindwillingtoconsidertheextantdatawithintegrity.Godvaluesfreewill
and is not required to go beyond reasonable evidence. If a hyperskeptic
wants to find a reason for rejecting the data, he will, even if it means
distortingdataandforminglogicallyflawedargumentsinordertodoit.The
DVD we are here considering is a prime example of this attitude and the
methodthataccompaniesit.
Conclusion
Thisfilmisarehashingofthesamehypercriticalskepticismthathasfailed
to convince even most skeptical scholars for decades. The Jesus mythers
wonderwhynoscholarswanttointeractwiththeirwork.Itisbecauselittle
newmaterialintermsofdataorargumentsisbeingpresentedintheircase,
acasethathasbeendecisivelyrefutedtimeandagain.Itisfarweakerthan
theconspiracytheoryconcerningwhoshotKennedy.Asmentionedearlier,
there comes a time when conspiracy theorists no longer command an
audiencewhentheyrehashthesameoldarguments.Thefewnewarguments
presented in this DVD are unconvincing. Bultmann and others had no
respect for the arguments of Jesus mythers and neither should we. These
arguments strain data and historical method to the extent that scholarly
discussionwithJesusmythersbecomesimpossible.
(Earl Doherty wrote a Rebuttal to this review to which Mike Licona
Replied.)
[1]ThatHitlerwasanatheistisdebatable.Foraninterestingarticlethatcanbeviewed
online that has a number of interesting quotes from Hitler, see
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html.
[2]AnumberofscholarsarenowquestioningwhetherQexisted.Foragoodstatementof
the contrary view, see Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, Questioning Q: A
MultidimensionalCritique(DownersGrove:IVP,2004).
[3]LarryW.Hurtado,LordJesusChrist:DevotiontoJesusinEarliestChristianity(Grand
Rapids:Eerdmans,2003),35556.
[4] More scholars including conservatives such as Witherington and the late Raymond
Brown hold that the eyewitness testimony in John is probably from a minor
disciple.However,strongcasesforJohannineauthorshiphaverecentlybeenproposedby
CraigS.KeenerinhismassivetwovolumecommentaryonJohn,TheGospelofJohn:A
Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) and Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical
ReliabilityofJohnsGospel(DownersGrove:IVP,1998).
[5] James H. Charlesworth, Scrolls & Gospel, in Exploring the Gospel of John: In
Honor of D. Moody Smith, R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black, eds. (Louisville:
WestminsterJohnKnow,1996),66.
[6]BartD.Ehrman,TheNewTestament:AHistoricalIntroductiontotheEarlyChristian
Writings,ThirdEdition(NewYork:Oxford,2004),49.
[7]Ehrman(2004),134.
[8] By kerygma I am referring to what scholars recognize as certain remnants of the
teachingoftheapostlesembeddedintheoraltraditionsfoundinPaulsletters,severalof
thesermonsummariesinActs(especiallyfromtheearlierchapters),andafewversesinthe
Gospels. Since the word kerygma refers to a formal and official proclamation, we may
think of kerygma as the official and formal proclamation or teaching/preaching of the
apostles.Accordingly,kerygmaisthoughttobepreredactioncontent.
[9]PaulBarnett,Crux,September1994,Vol.XXX,No.3,4.
[10]ColinHemer,TheBookofActsintheSettingofHellenisticHistory(WinonaLake,
Indiana:Eisenbrauns,1990),41826.
[11]MartinHengel,Crucifixion(Philadelphia:Fortress,1977),56.
[12]Hurtado(2003),266.
[13]Hengel(1977),8182.
[14]Hengel(1977),88.
[15] See also Flemmings interview with Doherty who says, Its almost impossible to
believethattheywerewritingwhattheywerepresentingasaccuratehistory.Andwecan
tellbythefactthatMatthew,Luke,andJohntheyreworkMarkinwayswhicharejusta
wholesalechangeofthesituation.Thewordsthatweresupposedtohavebeenspokenby
Jesus.Theywouldntfeelthattheyhavetherighttodothatiftheywerepresentingitto
theirreadersasstricthistoricallyaccurateaccounts.
[16]RobertM.PriceandJefferyJayLowder,eds.,TheEmptyTomb:JesusBeyondthe
Grave(Amherst,NY:Prometheus,2005),105231,esp.158165.Inmy2004debatewith
Carrier,heprovidedthreeadditionalreasons.HeincludeshispointaboutJacobswellin
hisfirstpointinhischapterunderPsalmicOrigins.Inthatdebate,Inotedthathistheory
seemed heavily influenced by a book he had endorsed by Dennis MacDonald: The
HomericEpicsandtheGospelofMark(DennisMacDonald,TheHomericEpicsandthe
GospelofMark[NewHaven,CT: Yale, 2000]), a thesis that has many problems. Carrier
deniedhisendorsementorthatithadinfluencedhisposition.Thus,itisinterestingthathe
writesonthisverytopicinthischapterthatMarkmayhavehadsomeinspirationfrom
Homer(Carrier,158).Intheendnotetothatstatementhewrites,ThatMarkemulatedand
transvaluedHomerisdemonstratedbyDennisMadDonald,TheHomericEpicsandthe
GospelofMark(Carrier,219).CarrierdeniedendorsingthebookwhenInotedanumber
ofmajorflawsinMacDonaldsthesis.Butnotehiscommentswrittenpriortoourdebate:
MacDonald'scaseisthorough,andthoughmanyofhispointsarenotasconclusiveashe
makesthemouttobe,whentakenasacumulativewholetheevidenceissoabundantand
clearitcannotbedenied.Andbeingaskeptictothethick,Iwouldneversaythislightly.
Severalscholarswhoreviewedorcommentedonithavesaidthisbookwillrevolutionize
the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of
Christianity,andthoughIhadtakenthisforhype,afterreadingthebookInowechothat
very sentiment myself (See
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html).Mycriticisms
ofMacDonaldincludedthefollowing:Manytimes,MacDonaldhastostrainandcontort
the text to find his parallels, especially when he comes to the death, burial, and
resurrectionofJesus.IntheIliad,Hectorsbodyisburnedandhistombholdshisremains
forever,whileJesusbodyisresurrectedthreedayslater.Resurrection is mentioned three
times in the Iliad twice regarding its impossibility and once as a metaphor for Hectors
survival[avoidance]ofcertaindeath.Moreover,MarkdiffersinmanywaysfromHomer.In
ordertoaccountforthis,MacDonaldclaimsthatMarkhidhisdependencebyavoiding
Homeric vocabulary, transforming characterizations, motifs, and episodes, placing the
episodesoutofsequence,andemployingmultipleliterarymodels,especiallyfromJewish
scriptures(170).Inotherwords,MacDonaldisclaimingthatallofthecharacteristicsthe
historianwouldlookforinordertoshowaborrowingareabsentbecauseMarkchanged
everythingintentionallytokeepfrombeingdetected!
[17]Carrier,161.
[18]Carrier,162.
[19]Carrier,162.
[20]Carrier,163.
[21]SeeN.T.Wright,TheResurrectionoftheSonofGod(Minneapolis:Fortress,2003).
[22]April14,2004atUCLAfortheVeritasForum.800attended.
[23]FollowingiseveryuseofthetermmysteryinthePaulinecorpus:Romans11:11
26,esp.25(wheremysteryreferstotheGentilesnowbeinginthebodyofChrist)16:25
26(wheremysteryreferstoGodsbeingmadeknowntoallthenations)1Corinthians
2:7 (where mystery probably refers to knowledge not achieved by human intellect
alone)15:51(wheremysteryreferstothefactthatsomeChristianswhoarealiveatthe
Parousia will have their moral bodies transformed into immortal resurrection bodies
without going through death) Ephesians 1:9 (where mystery refers to our having an
inheritanceinMessiah)3:39,esp.6(wheremysteryreferstotheGentilesbeingfellow
heirs)5:2833,esp.32(wheremysteryreferstomembersoftheChurchasbeingonewith
Christjustasawifeisonewithherhusband6:19(wheremysteryoftheGospelisnot
explained) Colossians 1:2627 (where mystery refers to Messiah being available to
Gentiles)2:2(wheremysteryreferstoalltreasureandknowledgebeinginChrist)4:3
(wheremysteryisnotexplained)2Thessalonians2:7(themysteryoflawlessness)1
Timothy3:9(themysteryofthefaithisprobablythatsameasthemysteryofgodliness
inafewverseslater,sinceitisinthecontextofagodlylife),16(anoraltraditionthat
speaksofthestoryofJesusbeingthemysteryofgodliness).
[24]
CommentsonMark4:11inR.T.France,TheGospelofMark:Acommentaryonthe
Greektext(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2002).
[25]Carrier,164.
[26]Carrier,16465.
[27]SupportforreversalofexpectationmotifisnotfoundinhischapterTheSpiritual
BodyofChristwhereheemploysitinmakinghisformalcasethattheemptytombwasan
inventionofMark.PricenotesReversalsasnotedbyDundes.PerhapsCarrierreceived
hisideafromDundes.
[28]Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch:
TheUnknownYears(London:SCM,1997),147.
[29]HengelandSchwemer(1997),119.
[30]Funk,Hoover,andTheJesusSeminar1993,45.
[31]ThemostsignificantcontributionshavecomefromCharlesTalbertwhowasfirstto
suggest that the Gospels belong to the genre of GrecoRoman biography (What is a
Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). Other
significantcontributionshavecomefromDavidAune,PhilipShuler,RobertGuelich,and
AlbrechtDihle.ThemostrecentandmostinfluentialbyfaristhecontributionofRichard
Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with GraecoRoman Biography, Second
Edition(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2004).
[32]Fiftyyearsagoweweredrilledinthecriticalorthodoxyoftheformcriticalschool
whichinsistedthatthegospelswerenottobeseenasbiographies,butsincethentherehas
beenamassiveswinginscholarlyopiniononthispoint,andincreasinglysophisticated
study of the nature of biographical writing in the ancient world has led to a general
recognition that, for all the distinctiveness of its Christian content and orientation, in
terms of literary form Marks book (and those of Matthew, Luke and John) would have
seemedtoaneducatedreaderinthefirstcenturytofallintoroughlythesamecategoryas
the lives of famous men pioneered by Cornelius Nepos and soon to reach their most
famousexpressionintheParallelLivesofPlutarch(R.T.France,TheGospelofMark:A
commentaryontheGreektext(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2002).
[33]Burridge(2004),101.
[34]Burridge(2004),viiiix.
[35]Talbert,Review,715,citedbyKeener,12.
[36]Burridge(2004),250.Keenerwrites,TheGospelsare...toolongfordramas,which
maintainedaparticularlengthinMediterraneanantiquity.Theyalsoincludefartoomuch
prosenarrativeforancientdrama(Keener,10).However,Keeneraddsinagreementwith
WitheringtonthatJohnisprobablyabiographyusingthemodeoftragedy(1011).
[37]Burridge(2004),67.
[38] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John, Volume One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2003),12.
[39]DavidAune,Biography,125.
[40] Papias is now believed to have written during the first decade of the second
century. His writings are no longer extant. However, they have been preserved in
fragments. On the topic we are considering, see Eusebius Ecclesiatical History
3:39:16.HerePapiasisquotinganevenearlierauthoritywhoisprobablyJohntheapostle.
[41] Samuel Byrskoog, Story as History: History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the
ContextofAncientOralHistory(Boston:Brill,2002),7677.
[42]Byrskog,78.
[43]JamesD.G.Dunn,JesusRemembered(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2003),833.
[44]Byrskog,82.DunnagreesinJesusRemembered,830.
[45]LarryHurtado,LordJesusChrist:DevotiontoJesusinEarliestChristianity(Grand
Rapids:Eerdmans,2003),311n138.
[46]Hurtado(2003),311.
[47] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids:
Baker,1975),commentsonMark16:8.
[48]CraigA.Evans,Mark8:2716:20inWBC,Volume34b,commentonMark16:8R.
T. France, The Gospel of Mark in NIGTC, comment on Mark 16:8.Also see N. Clayton
Croy,TheMutilationofMarksGospel(Nashville:Abingdon,2003)whoarguesthatboth
thebeginningandtheendofMarksoriginalGospelhavebeenlost.
[49]GrahamH.Twelftree,Jesus:TheMiracleWorker(DownersGrove:InterVarsity,1999),
247.
[50]Seenote15above.
[51] http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/preface.html.
[52]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html.
[53]RaymondE.Brown,AnIntroductiontotheNewTestament(NewYork:Doubleday,
1997),820n6.
[54]Twelftree,247.
[55]Twelftree,247.
[56] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
(GrandRapids:Kregel,2004),90.
[57]SeeHabermasandLicona(2004),296n18.261Ps.xix.5.
[58]
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. 1997. The AnteNicene Fathers Vol.I :
TranslationsofthewritingsoftheFathersdowntoA.D.325.Theapostolicfatherswith
JustinMartyrandIrenaeus.LogosResearchSystems:OakHarbor.
[59]Gen.27:2528Deut.33:28.
[60] According to Suetonius, the circumstances of Augustus conception were very
unusual.HismotherAtiawasinthetempleofApolloatmidnightandfellasleep.Apollo
tooktheformofasnake,crawedintoAtiaandimpregnatedher(1.0match).Thus,asSon
ofApollo,AugustusisthoughttobeaSonofagod(1.0).Hewasfosterparentedinanother
country in the sense that his great uncle Julius Caesar took him made him his heir
probablyinhismidteensandtookhimtowarwithhim(0.5match).Wearetoldlittleof
hischildhood(1.0match).Uponobtainingmanhood,hereturnstohisfuturekingdom(1.0
match).Althoughhedidnothaveavictoryoveraking,giant,ordragon,hisvictoryover
MarkAntonywashuge.Antony was a much stronger opponent with the authority and
backing of the Senate behind him (0.5 match).Hebecameking(1.0match). He reigned
uneventfully. The Pax Romanos or glory days of Rome occurred during the reign of
Augustus (1.0 match). He prescribed laws (1.0 match). His child was not his
successor. Rather his son in law Tiberius succeeded him (1.0 match). His body was
crematedratherthanburied(1.0match).
[61]Fordetailsanddocumentationonthefateofthedisciples,seeHabermasandLicona
(2004),56626569.[62]Latinmultitudo.
[63]LarryHurtado,LordJesusChrist:DevotiontoJesusinEarliestChristianity(Grand
Rapids:Eerdmans,2003),230.
[64] Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique
(DownersGrove:IVP,2004).
[65]ThesebiblicalcitationsarefromtheNASB.
[66]AnchorBibleDictionary,Volume4,page842.
[67]TheOctaviusofMinuciusFelixinTheAnteNiceneFathers,VolumeIV,chapterIX.
[68]TheOctaviusofMinuciusFelix,chapterXXIX.
[69] See (in alphabetical order) Bede and Christopher Price:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm Bernard Muller:
http://www.christianorigins.com/dohertymuller.html Christopher Price:
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_doherty.html Doxa website:
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Myth/Jpuzzell1.htm J. P. Holding:
http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html Patrick Narkinsky:
http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/jesusmosaic.html
http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/jesuspuzzle2.shtml.Atleastthelastofthesereviews
wasunavailableattheproductiontimeofFlemmingsvideo.
[70]JesusofNazareth,28.
[71]JesusandtheWord,13.
[72] Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels (New York: Collier
Books,1992),200.
[73]DidJesusReallyExist,anarticleonwww.4Truth.net.
[74]TheCaseAgainstChristianity,67.
[75]JesusOutsidetheNewTestament,16.
[76]ThatHitlerwasanatheistisdebatable.Foraninterestingarticlethatcanbeviewed
online that has a number of interesting quotes from Hitler, see
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html.
[77] At the end of the video, Sipus rightly notes that evolutionists share the same
problem. While scientific evidence exists for microevolution, evolutionists make a
metaphysicalleapwhentheyclaimthatalllifeistheresultofmacroevolution. In other
words, microevolution plus a lot of time will produce macroevolutionary changes. As
many have pointed out, there is a paucity of scientific evidence in support of
macroevolution,whichisdefendedwithavengeance.
[78] Craigs description of Aquinas bifurcation between truths of reason and truths of
faithishelpful.SeeWilliamLaneCraig,ReasonableFaith(Wheaton:Crossway,1994),20
22.
[79]NewYorkTimes,4/9/89,sec.7,p.34.
[80]Foragoodexampleofcensorshipofapeerreviewedscientificjournalarticlewritten
byaCambridge educated biologist, see http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?
c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784461&ct=982987.
[81]PaulDavies,TheCosmicBlueprint:NewDiscoveriesinNaturesCreativeAbilityto
OrdertheUniverse(NewJersey:Simon&Schuster,1988),203.
[82]H.MargenauandR.A.Varghese,eds.,Cosmos,Bios,andTheos.(LaSalle,IL:Open
Court,1992),83.
[83] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New Jersey: Simon & Schuster,
1981),88.
[84]Harpers,2/85,61.
[85] Richard Lewontin, Human Diversity (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company,
1995),163.
[86]TimeFrames:TheRethinkingofDarwinianEvolutionandtheTheoryofPunctuated
Equilibria(NewJersey:Simon&Schuster,1985),Appendix.
[87] Niles Eldridge, Reinventing Darwin : The Great Debate at the High Table of
EvolutionaryTheory(Wiley,1995),95.
[88]AntonyFlew,InapersonallettertoGaryHabermas.
[89]Harpers,2/85,49.
[90]StevenStanley,Macroevolution,PatternandProcess(W.H.Freeman&Co.,1980),
39.
[91] H. A. Orr and J. A. Coyne, The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment, in
AmericanNaturalist,140,726.
[92] Michael J. Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
(NewYork:TheFreePress,1996),176.
[93]C.S.Lewis,TheGreatDivorce(NewYork:MacMillan,1946),72.
[94] See Dohertys comments:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm#Here%20in%20summary.
[95]SeeDohertyscomments:http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm.
[96]LouisH.FeldmanandGoheiHata,eds.,Josephus,Judaism,andChristianity(Detroit:
WayneStateUniversityPress,1989),434.
[97]Ibid.,56.
[98]Ibid.,341.
[99]EdwinYamacuhi,"JesusandtheScriptures,"53.
[100] Robert Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000),83.

A Review of Brian Flemming's DVD The God Who Wasn't There

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Review of Brian Flemming's DVD The God Who Wasn't There

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10/27/2016 answeringinfidels.

Home AnsweringSkeptics Others AReviewofBrianFlemming'sDVD"TheGodWhoWasn'tThere"

extends to religion itself. In this review, I will comment briefly on the

It is worth noting, however, that there is a major difference between

Flemming (in themain video) and Doherty (later inthe2ndCommentary)

place.Seventh, as Luke began to write his Gospel, he reported that others

Carriers hypothesis that Mark invented the empty tomb is not

If the Gospels belong to mythical genre, then it is true that claims of

number of ancient sources, Samuel Byrskog established that eyewitness

together two lists of parallels more numerous and exhibiting a closer

mean they didn't believe in them either anymore. And so the

In support, Dundes notes twentytwo points common to ancient hero

Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold at

henowdoes.Instead, he sacrificed his life in order to inaugurate the new

1. Flemming: Do you think there is any scientific evidence for your

universe aside from a miracle. They conclude that our understanding of

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen