Mischievous Mythicists At It Again

Creative Commons License

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

by Neil Godfrey

We saw it first on Valerie Tarico’s website, and now, right on the eve of Easter, it pops up in full bloom on Alternet:



Or go to the original base:

What if Jesus Never Existed? An Interview with History Writer David Fitzgerald


The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

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

10 thoughts on “Mischievous Mythicists At It Again”

  1. • A required quote for any Easter posting:

    Neil Godfrey (28 October 2018). “Response #4: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, …. Your turn“. Vridar.

    [O]n the whole the “scholars” do not argue for the historicity of Jesus but work on other questions on the assumption that he existed. When asked to justify that assumption the responses are, too often unfortunately, logically invalid, question begging, divorced from normative scholarly approaches to sources, misrepresenting the questions posed, and…. condescending, abusive. On the principle that all authorities ought to be held to account, such responses deserve to be set aside and the question should be pursued.

      1. … everything that is said of him [Christ Jesus], everything that is known of him, belongs to the world of imagination, that is, of the imagination of the Christian community, and therefore has nothing to do with any man who belongs to the real world.

        There is often talk of Christ Jesus being a composite figure, but that could mean he was (and is) a composite of various communities’/sects’ beliefs in different Jesuses* or Christs^ [or Chrestuses^].

        ישוע / Yeshua, Ἰησοῦς / Iēsous

        1. • Every region or congregation had likely chosen one or another Gospel as its authoritative holy text

          Per Carrier (23 September 2016) [now bolded]. “Three Things to Know about New Testament Manuscripts”. Richard Carrier Blogs.

          As Trobisch points out, calling any book “The Gospel According to” was extremely unique and bizarre in the history of ancient literature, so much so that there is no possible way the four Gospels all came to have such a peculiar title form, consistently throughout all known manuscripts, by accident.

          Accordingly, this means whoever produced this singular c. 150 A.D. edition [of the New Testament] (I’ll just call it the C150 edition), also named the four Gospels.
          Since every region or congregation had likely chosen one or another Gospel as its authoritative holy text, then to bring in the most regions and congregations, the editor of C150 cobbled together a political alliance among the largest possible number of those, using the four Gospels found in our canon. Hence those four were chosen. Because when their constituents were added up, they far outnumbered Marcion’s.

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