13. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt.13

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Earl Doherty

Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 3: 1 Clement (with Addendum on the Epistle of Barnabas)

San Barnaba
San Barnaba (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
  • Issue of the authenticity of 1 Clement
  • Does 1 Clement know any Gospels?
  • Christ speaking out of scripture
  • Clement knows of the Passion through Isaiah 53
  • Christ’s sacrificial ‘blood’ and ‘flesh’ belong in the mythical dimension
  • Prophecy in scripture not fulfilled in history
  • Epistle of Barnabas: still lacking a written Gospel
  • Barnabas points to scripture as his source
  • New Testament math: 0 + 0 = ?
  • A progression from mythical to historical

Is 1 Clement in any way authentic?

Despite doubts going back to the Dutch Radicals of the late 19th century, Ehrman accepts the non-canonical epistle 1 Clement as authentic in regard to its ostensible purpose (a letter from the Christian community in Rome urging the settling of a dispute going on in the community in Corinth) and its traditional dating (the last decade of the first century), though its attribution to a Clement reputed to be the fourth bishop of Rome remains highly dubious.

With all of that I would agree, and have defended this degree of authenticity against a continuing radical view that the work is a much later forgery designed to encourage other Christian communities to acknowledge the hegemony of the Church of Rome. This issue need not be addressed here, except to say that I find the arguments for such a view quite unconvincing and unnecessary. (See the reasons given in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, note 169.) However, I will hereafter refer to the author as “Clement.”

Does 1 Clement know any written Gospels?

Some of those reasons will be evident in the present discussion. Ehrman makes the following admissions for 1 Clement:

The letter quotes extensively from the Greek Old Testament, and its author explicitly refers to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. But he does not mention the Gospels of the New Testament, and even though he quotes some of the sayings of Jesus, he does not indicate that they come from written texts. In fact, his quotations do not line up in their wording with any of the sayings of Jesus found in our surviving Gospels. (p. 104, DJE?)

If we agree on a reasonable dating of the 90s of the first century, or even the first decade of the second, we find here a similar situation to that of the Ignatian letters. At this period, even in Rome, there is no sign of actual written Gospels available in major Christian communities. When we see the same situation existing for Papias even later, we know that there is something wrong with the traditional view of the Gospels as historical documents all written before the first century was completed.

What does Clement know about a life of Jesus on earth? 

Despite this situation, Ehrman argues that “the author of 1 Clement, like Ignatius and then Papias, not only assumes that Jesus lived but that much of his life was well known.” The latter two writers may indeed have made such an assumption, but there is little sign that either one of them knew very much about their assumed Jesus’ life or teachings. As for 1 Clement, both of Ehrman’s claims are suspect. Here is what he offers as evidence that the author is speaking “about the historical Jesus” (I’ve altered Ehrman’s order for better efficiency in addressing them):

(1) Christ spoke words to be heeded (1 Clement 2.1).

This is first of all a misleading translation. Literally, it is “you paid attention to his words,” which eliminates the image of Christ standing before one and speaking. In any event, considering that spiritual figures such as Wisdom and the Holy Spirit are often presented as conferring advice and guidance, this statement in any form could easily apply to a spiritual figure.

Christ speaks out of scripture 

In fact, 1 Clement shares in a very common type of expression in the epistles, that Christ “speaks” out of scripture (and that he does it in the present tense, not in some past life). In chapter 22, Clement says, quoting Psalm 34:11-17:

For it is Christ himself who summons us through the Holy Spirit, with the words: “Come, children, listen to me, and I will teach you fear of the Lord.”

In 16:15 as well, he portrays Christ as speaking out of scripture (Psalm 22:6-8):

And again he says himself, “But I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and despised of the people.”

Teachings “spoken” by Jesus

Thus, when Ehrman lists the following —

(2) Jesus taught gentleness and patience; the author here quotes a series of Jesus’ sayings similar to what can be found in Matthew and Luke (13:1-2),

— an alternative source becomes evident. All these examples fit a heavenly Jesus who ‘teaches’ through scripture (“speaking” in the same way that the Holy Spirit in scripture does) or through the voices of preachers who saw themselves as channelling his directives, just as Paul did in offering his “words of the Lord” which he believed he had received through revelation—this being a common scholarly interpretation, as discussed earlier. In the case of the “sayings” in chapter 13, they are commonplace ethical maxims (here simply enlargements on the Golden Rule), of the same sort that were traditionally regarded as given by God, as in the “Two Ways” section of the Epistle of Barnabas. Belief in the Son often led to switching the source of such teachings to him, but still through spiritual channels.

Moreover, Clement of Alexandria quotes an almost identical block of sayings as those in 1 Clement (Stromata, II, 18) but assigns them to God. And any similarity found in the sayings in Matthew is much better seen as the next step in converting such general maxims by God or the Son into teachings of the Gospel Jesus. (The epistle of James contains similar maxims with no attribution to a Jesus of any sort.)

Clement has no Gospel accounts to draw on

The author of 1 Clement, like Ignatius, is another who fails to point to a written document as the repository of these teachings, something which Ehrman admits. But neither is it likely he can be presenting them on the basis of being familiar with a Gospel, since he later (14:14) quotes something strikingly similar to a Beatitude, yet instead of allotting it to Jesus he identifies it as “written,” meaning in scripture, in this case Proverbs 2:21-2. Clement also shows himself to be unfamiliar with the Gospel teachings of Jesus on many other topics discussed in his letter.

But the clincher that 1 Clement knows no Gospel is found in chapter 16. When he comes to describe Jesus’ sufferings, he can only reproduce the Suffering Servant Song of Isaiah 53. He obviously has no oral traditions either about Jesus’ death; his knowledge of the Passion comes from scripture, just as Jesus’ words do. It is only a small step from that to realizing that Clement knows of the ‘event’ of the crucifixion through scripture, just as Paul did, and not as an occurrence he can identify in history.

(3) Another quotation of “the words of our Lord Jesus” (46.8, comparable to Matthew 26:24 and Luke 17:2).

This saying? “Woe to that man; it would be better if he had never been born, than that he should lead astray one of my chosen ones.” This sounds as though it could have begun as a prophetic utterance in the community, regarded as channelled from the Lord in heaven.

 (4) Those who experience love in Christ should do what Christ commanded (49.1).

 Another reference to the teaching of the Son through scripture and Spirit.

Other items offered by Ehrman:

(5) His sufferings were “before your eyes” (2.1).

(6) The blood of Christ is precious to the Father, poured out for salvation (7.4).

(7) The blood of the Lord brought redemption (12.7).

(8) Out of his love, the Lord Jesus Christ “gave his blood for us, his flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls” (49.6).

None of this need speak of a life and death on earth. No effort has been made by Ehrman to engage with the case mythicism puts forward surrounding the epistles’ language of “blood” and “flesh” as a reflection of spiritual world counterparts, despite the extensive discussion presented in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man concerning such terminology and assorted higher world activities by divine figures. (Cicero’s “blood” and “body” of the gods and the “blood” brought into the heavenly sanctuary for Christ’s sacrifice in the epistle to the Hebrews are only two of the features of that discussion Ehrman ignores.)

(9) The Lord Jesus Christ came humbly, not with arrogance or haughtiness (16.2).

And what does Clement offer as a demonstration of this character trait of Christ? Something from the Gospels or an oral tradition about Jesus’ life, his behavior at his trial and crucifixion? Nothing of the sort. His source is “as the Holy Spirit spoke concerning him,” and he proceeds with his quotation of Isaiah 53. How can Ehrman claim that Clement knows about the historical Jesus and the events of his life when Clement points solely to scripture for everything he says about his Jesus?

Scripture as prophecy or revelation of the Christ event?

One aspect of the view that Christ speaks out of scripture is the question of prophecy. It is regularly maintained that scripture is the repository of prophecies about Christ’s life; the Gospel story represents the fulfillment of those prophecies. But in the epistles, including 1 Clement, no writer gives us the second side of this supposed prophetic equation. Does Clement quote a passage like Isaiah 53, style it a prophecy, and then give us the fulfillment of that prophecy by pointing to an actual earthly event, whether in the Gospel story or in some other historical tradition? Never.

Rather, scripture is the embodiment of the Christ event. That is all that these writers know (we will shortly see that this situation still exists in the epistle of Barnabas). There is no equation. The first side stands alone, in scripture. Christ is a “revealed” figure, as are his acts of salvation, something which the epistle writers constantly tell us (e.g., 1 Peter 1:20) with their exclusive use of revelation verbs to style knowledge of Christ and his ‘appearance’ in their own time.

(10) The Lord adorned himself with good works [and rejoiced] (33.7).

This reference to “the Lord” can only mean God, since in this chapter Clement has been entirely focused on the Genesis Creation. Compare the “and rejoiced” following on Ehrman’s quotation above, and verse 2’s “For the Creator and Master of the universe himself rejoices in his works.” Ehrman is being absurdly atomistic here, like prophecy-miners past and present, taking words out of context with no regard for their plainly intended application. Finally,

 (11) Jesus came from Jacob “according to the flesh” (32.2).

 This statement and its context is eerily like that of Paul in Romans 9:5, where he says that Christ is “from (the Israelites) according to the flesh (kata sarka).” This peculiarity of language common to the two is part of the picture that must be examined to recognize how the early Christ cult viewed and styled relationships between human beings and spiritual entities, and cannot be gone into here. It spans more than one chapter in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (chiefly chapter 13 and especially p.167-171), and I recommend it to the reader.

Thus Ehrman’s confident declaration that —

Here again we have an independent witness not just to the life of Jesus as a historical figure but to some of his teachings and deeds….the author of 1 Clement had no doubt about his real existence and no reason to defend it.  (p. 105, DJE?)

— has no support in the text when that text is read without Gospel assumptions being forced upon it.

What does the epistle of Barnabas say about an historical Jesus?

A little later after his discussion of 1 Clement, Ehrman revisits that epistle for a few summary comments, in which he also includes aspects of the Epistle of Barnabas. Usually dated to the first quarter of the 2nd century (though Ehrman prefers a date even later, around 135), the epistle of Barnabas carries us a step further in the development of an historical Jesus idea among the early Christian Fathers.

The writer of Barnabas again shows no knowledge of a written Gospel. For statements about Jesus’ passion he, too, can only draw on scripture (Isaiah and the Psalms). Barnabas actually states that Jesus had been on earth (5:8-11), teaching the people of Israel and performing miracles, though no examples are itemized. He says that Jesus chose apostles who were “sinners of the worst kind,” something he could hardly have taken from any Gospel portrayal of Jesus’ followers. (Dunces maybe, criminals hardly.) Rather, he bases this on a saying whose source he does not identify: “he came not to call saints but sinners,” showing that ‘biographical information’ about Jesus’ life on earth is now being produced on the basis of perceived written prophecy. (Nor could this be taken from Mark, since the latter’s application of the saying is toward Jesus’ audience, not his disciples.)

The only other Gospel-like saying he mentions is in 4:14: “It is written that many are called but few are chosen.” Here the saying is used in application to Israel’s history of falling out of favor with God culminating in their final abandonment in favor of the Christians, with no mention that this was a saying of Jesus. Those opening words indicate he is drawing from something regarded as a sacred writing (we don’t know what it was), but this is hardly a reference to Matthew which at such an early time, though probably written by then, would not yet be known or regarded as scripture.

Besides, any other knowledge of Matthew—or any other Gospel—by Barnabas cannot be perceived. He knows of no teachings of Jesus on the subject of dietary laws (on which he spends an entire chapter), or on what will happen at the End-time. Even for the Matthew-like sayings contained in the “Two Ways” teaching appended to the epistle, there is no attribution to Jesus; in fact, they are referred to as “the precepts of the Lord, as they are set forth in scripture” (21:1), a clear reference to God.

Knowledge of Jesus based on scripture

Barnabas actually seems to tell us where he gets his ‘knowledge’ about Jesus on earth:

For the scripture concerning him relates partly to Israel, partly to us, and it speaks thus: [Here a quote of two verses from Isaiah 53.] Therefore we ought to give great thanks to the Lord that he has given us knowledge of the past, and wisdom for the present, and that we are not without understanding for the future. [5:2-4]

He even suggests that we know the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death because scripture says so:

So then the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason, that he might complete the total of the sins of those [i.e., the Jews] who persecuted his prophets to death. For this cause he endured. For God says of the chastisement of his flesh that it is from them [the Jews]: “When they shall smite their shepherd, then the sheep of the flock shall be destroyed.” [5:11-12]

Barnabas appeals to more scriptural passages (5:13-14) to illustrate how Jesus suffered. In none of these cases, just as 1 Clement had failed to do, does he offer the second side of an equation between prophecy and fulfillment. While he clearly regards Jesus as having been on earth (a clarity Clement never supplied), he has no independent source of information about the events of that earthly life. He seems to simply assume it took place because scripture is now regarded as a prophecy of Jesus’ theoretical life. Perhaps needless to say, Barnabas makes no reference to any of the characters of the Gospel story, not even to the historical Pilate as the crucifier of Jesus.

Gospels missing in action

Concurrent with Ignatius (or his forger), with Papias, with 1 Clement, the writer of the epistle of Barnabas has no written Gospel to appeal to, despite being near or at the quarter mark of the second century. To that list we could add the other surviving Father, bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, whose single surviving epistle (usually dated 120-130) shares Ignatius’ and Barnabas’ conviction of a life on earth, but fails to make any mention of a written account of it. In referring to Jesus’ passion, he, too, is limited to quoting verses from Isaiah 53.

The point Ehrman seeks to make about the epistles of Barnabas and Clement is that they, like Paul, have virtually nothing to say about details of the life of Jesus, even though they “show clear and compelling evidence that they know about Jesus and understand that he was a real historical figure.” As we’ve seen, that can be disputed in regard to 1 Clement, while needing severe qualification in regard to Barnabas, since the latter shows no sign of knowing about a life of Jesus from any other source than scripture.

Silence supporting silence

Ehrman, paraphrasing Wells, gives us a truly impressive list of a host of Gospel details on which, like Paul, both 1 Clement and Barnabas are silent, from a birth in Bethlehem to a trial and crucifixion by Pilate. This is typical New Testament math, in which a multitude of zeros adds up to a secure number. And it is based on undemonstrated assumptions that Clement and Barnabas “know” all or most of these things about a real Jesus—from historical tradition and not solely from scripture.

What do such silences show? asks Ehrman. That “these traditions about Jesus were not relevant to their purposes.” The problem is, properly applying the argument from silence shows that this is simply not the case, and such a claim (a virtual mantra through centuries of attempted explanations for the silence in the epistles) ignores elements of the texts which point in the direction of a mythical Jesus who is being gradually historicized.

A picture of progression

Ehrman’s predispositions inure him to any other but his own explanation: such as that all three writers, Paul, Clement and Barnabas, are equally ignorant on such life details, but that those three records give us a picture of a progression over time. Paul presents a cultic salvation myth of a heavenly Son sacrificed at the hands of the demon spirits, in its basic form: death, burial, resurrection. It is all known from scripture and revelation, with prophets starting to claim personally revealed “words of the Lord” to guide certain aspects of the movement.

1 Clement a few decades later still lives in that cultic, scripture-based world, but the guidance by the Lord is more comprehensively developed; he is a living force (as Bishop Lightfoot put it), speaking and teaching through scripture. The influence of the Gospel story is yet to be felt. When we reach Barnabas, scripture is still the source of information, but the idea that Jesus had been on earth has taken root, teaching and working miracles, dying and rising, even if no extra-scriptural details are known and the source of the idea is unclear.

Moving sideways to Ignatius (or his forger, either of whom would have been more or less contemporary with Barnabas, though some distance away—from Alexandria to Antioch), a source in the Gospel story can be reasonably postulated, though actual written Gospels cannot yet be sighted among any of these writers. Papias, probably a little later than Barnabas, is less dependent on scripture and betrays some influence from Mark’s allegory, but he is still lacking written narrative Gospels.

Reading into the texts

What Ehrman and other entrenched historicists cannot recognize is that their presentation of the non-Gospel writers is simply not supported by the documents themselves. It takes a vast amount of ‘reading into’ and twisting of the texts (perhaps that is what Ehrman meant by “teasing out” meanings and evidence from them) to get those documents to support historicism. Whereas, the mythicist analysis works from what the texts actually say and what we can glean from them without presupposition or importation from the Gospels.

In other words, the mythicist exercise is anything but the common accusation of ad hoc, since with it we can create across all of the documents a coherent, consistent picture of the evolution of an historical Jesus.

. . . to be continued.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

19 thoughts on “13. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt.13”

  1. Why the focus on Jesus when we all know Paul is the founder of the religion? Prove that Paul didn’t exist and be done with it. Whether Jesus existed or not is a meaningless debate, since he is not the founder of the religion. The religion, after all, holds many doctrines contrary to his teachings in the gospels (or supposed teachings if he didn’t exist). For example Jesus says “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things” while Paul teaches ‘original sin’ and says “there is none good, no not one.” Prove that Paul didn’t exist. It shouldn’t be hard, since he didn’t.

  2. So much of this argument, as well as that of Ehrman, depends upon the authenticity of 1 Clement and Ignatius. In The Fabricated Paul, Hermann Detering said:

    The Catholic character of these letters [of 1 Clement and Ignatius] (among which was a letter from Ignatius to Mary!) was so obvious that it required no great scholarly effort to recognize that they represented pseudepigraphic products from a later time.

    1. If you are going to second Detering, please give us at least a summary of this “Catholic character” of 1 Clement and Ignatius that makes it so “obvious” that they are forgeries from a later time. I have never been able to see it.

    2. Detering’s discussion of the situation is very long. He characterizes the “letter” as really being of what, at the time, would have been a book-length item (9400 words) rather than a letter, which would have typically been a couple of pages, at most. The argument regarding the Catholic implications of the letter includes this:

      The tensions and obscurities revealed here are due to the contradiction between the situation presupposed in the writing and the author’s real intention. The real intention of the author, of course, is not the resolution of an actual conflict in a diplomatic way, but something quite different: his writing, that is directed not to one church, and also not to the church in Corinth, but to all the churches in the Catholic universe, is intended not to mediate, but to instruct and–here a typical Catholic tendency of the letter becomes visible–to warn against uprisings and disorder in the churches! The writings lead us into a time, most probably the middle of the second century, in which the distinction between priests and laity (40:5: there are much different rules for laity than for ecclesiastical officer-holders [I assume office-holders was intended]) already announces Roman clericalism. Against all inclinations to opposition, the authority of the church is enjoined in an impressive example.

      1. It would appear that the Detering ebook was the consequence of research that had been done some time ago because the fellow who translated the work into English died in May 2009, nearly three years prior to the publication of the ebook. Therefore, the work of Detering you read may have included the same arguments that are in the ebook. It seems a pity that Doughty is unable to respond here, as he may have been substantially in agreement with Detering. Doughty mentioned 1 Clement and Ignatius here.

      2. I’m afraid I can agree with none of this. The length of the epistle is a non-issue. If it is long and rambling, then that is equally a ‘fault’ of the alleged later forger and even less understandable in such a context. The latter wouldn’t have needed 60 some chapters to convey his supposed agenda. A long, rambling quality is much more feasible in regard to what the epistle purports itself to be. The writer is simply voluble, anxious to impress with his knowledge and scriptural expertise.

        As for that supposed ‘agenda’, it is so obscure in the epistle it is virtually undetectable. A forger would not be so vague about what he wanted to get across. There is nothing in the epistle which speaks clearly, or even semi-clearly, to advocating a Roman hegemony over other churches. The author’s advocation of the authority of the Corinthians’ own leaders is perfectly understandable within the ostensible purpose of the letter, and fits a plain reading. And so does the concern over the uprising in the Corinthian church.

        Could an author advocating such a thing in a period around 160 (most often dated by forgery advocates) have neglected in chapter 5 to associate Peter and Paul with Rome, let alone be so vague about whether they even underwent a martyrdom in that city? Such an association would be front-row-center in no uncertain terms. The lack of it reveals a dating before such legends about the two apostles were formulated. (The same vagueness toward Peter and Paul is found in Ignatius, which too suggests an early dating for those epistles.)

        Where are the Gospel elements, if this was a post-mid century writing? Why would the forger not have managed to find support for Roman authority, or against uprisings in churches in general, by appealing to sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels? (The so-called ‘speaking’ of Jesus–which I have shown is envisioned from scripture, not an historical life–in a couple of spots in 1 Clement has nothing to do with this supposed agenda.)

        In short, I find nothing compelling or necessary in Detering’s presentation of 1 Clement (including going on my fuzzy memory of what he himself had to say when I read him quite a few years ago) to support the later forgery contention. The same goes for reading a couple of articles on the subject by the Dutch Radicals, also many years ago. If someone can mount a new and more impressive case today, I’ll take a look at it.

    3. I really don’t see how the authenticity of 1 Clement and Ignatius is that relevant to this debate (between Ehrman and Doherty). Both of them believe the letters in question to be authentic.

      1. Then you miss the whole point of the dissertation.
        Which is: “[Ehrman] ignores elements of the texts which point in the direction of a mythical Jesus who is being gradually historicized.”
        Doherty’s text smoothes out the contrast between both interpretations. Thomas Paine would have used more forceful and vivid language to make the opposition sharper.
        The key word is “gradually”. Slowly, the spiritual figure of Christ is given earthly attributes, and physical appearances, with no real biography yet being hinted at. This will be the empty space that Mark will jump in, inventing the biography nearly out of whole cloth, but preserving and linking the few elements already taken for granted by the Epistle writers.

        1. Regardless of whether 1 Clement or Ignatius are authentic, Doherty still argues the same thing. Only if the dating is very late (much later than anything Ehrman would entertain) would this become an issue. It would be ironic (and sad) if mythicists were being accused of dating epistles too early or even accepting the authenticity that NT scholars normally attribute to them.

          Even if these letters were written later than Doherty contends, that would still not prevent the gradual historicization of Jesus. If anything it may give Mark more “empty space” to “jump in.”

          I understand Doherty’s and Ehrman’s points all too well. I just don’t see what you’re adding to them.

      2. Which is why I didn’t make an issue of the authenticity question in the present installment. It only becomes an issue when people date 1Clement much later, because historicists seize on this and say, well, if the epistle can show such a dearth of anything to do with the HJ and the details of his life and yet it comes from a time when such things must have been known, this undercuts the use I would make of the document.from a mythicist point of view.

        But apart from that, I continue to maintain that the evidence for later forgery is simply too weak. And yes, I’ve read Doughty on the issue and didn’t find him any more convincing than Detering. There really is no strong argument there, and I never find my objections even remotely adequately addressed.

      3. It seems to me that the opinions of Detering and Doughty with respect to 1 Clement and Ignatius might have been different if they believed in the authenticity of the Paulian Epistles. Detering, however, stated that the evidence for the historicity of Paul was like the evidence for the historicity of Jesus–nothing outside the New Testament. Was Detering being dishonest about this? I didn’t see any reason to suspect that. He seems intelligent, honest, and sincere; Doughty seems to have been also. It seems that they at least provide plenty of reason for skepticism concerning the authenticity of the Paulian Epistles, as well as for the earliness with which the Christian community encountered them. How is brushing off what these fellows have to say much different than Ehrman’s treatment of your books?

        1. Brushing off? I’ve given specific and substantive reasons why I do not subscribe to their arguments. That’s not “brushing off”. Nor have I accused either Detering or Doughty of being dishonest or not intelligent. All sorts of intelligent people are capable of coming up with opinions and theories which can be questioned and even discredited.

          Personally, I think that the tendency to date 1 Clement and Ignatius late is determined/required by the theory that there is no Pauline authenticity in the first century and maybe no Paul himself. But I regard Detering’s case in that direction to be equally difficult to support and equally problematic, though this is not to say that I have made a thorough study of his case. But I am familiar enough (or used to be) with it that I felt justified in setting it aside.

    1. The nastiness exuding from Joseph Hoffmann is nearly unbearable. Some of those aging scholars — real curmudgeons who are on an ego trip, thinking they are the salt of the earth and the voice of the oracle, and their critics or dissenters not sharing their ideas only scum — are truly obnoxious and not fun to read. Their bitterness drips all over the page.
      Maurice Casey is not much better, although he seems, like Ehrman, not to have had time to prepare himself adequately to do a first-class refutation job.
      As for the lady, she has not had time to age, and prefers a non-stop string of denigrations and debasing vituperations. She provided the background research material on mythicists for Casey.
      A most amazing set of articles.

  3. One of the major mistakes scholars make is not to separate the samaritan prophet, Joshua/Jesus, from the real Christ of the first century, James the Just. If one just makes an small effort to venture outside christian Jesus mythology for data concerning the Christ it doesn´t take one long to find the story that was the foundation of the resurrection saga later applied to christian Jesus mythology. It took place nearly a decade before the samaritan prophet Jesus was executed by the troops of Pilate on Mount Gerizim and it shows the conflict between Paul and the Christ, James the Just.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading