Tim O’Neill Misreads (Again) the Evidence on Nazareth

Having finally caught up with Tim O’Neill’s October 2019 post on his History for Atheists blog, JESUS MYTHICISM 5: THE NAZARETH “MYTH”, I have decided to address a new point he makes since I last responded to his Nazareth assertions. Most of his October post is a rehash of what I demonstrated was erroneous in … Continue reading “Tim O’Neill Misreads (Again) the Evidence on Nazareth”


Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah

This is why people like me when you read Carrier’s book you think, What the f*ck are you talking about? — Tim O’Neill Response #1: Motives Response #2: No fame outside Galilee Tim spoke those words seconds before leading listeners to infer that he had checked the ancient text that Carrier was misrepresenting, the Ascension … Continue reading “Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah


Response #1 to the Non Sequitur program with Tim O’Neill: MOTIVES

Last weekend I watched Tim O’Neill present his arguments against the idea that there was no historical Jesus. I said I would respond in a post to his points and expected to cover it all in one or two sessions. But time is getting away from me this evening so here I will address just … Continue reading “Response #1 to the Non Sequitur program with Tim O’Neill: MOTIVES”


A constructive exchange with Tim O’Neill on the question of the historicity of Jesus

Tim O’Neill has given up much of his time to write a detailed post (over 8,700 words) as a guide for non-historians to find their way through the mass of nonsense on the web about Jesus never having existed. Tim is responding to posts by biologist PZ Myers who is asking questions of a “professional … Continue reading “A constructive exchange with Tim O’Neill on the question of the historicity of Jesus”


PZ Myers on “the Tim O’Neill Treatment”: Jesus Mythicism and Historical Methods

PZ Myers has responded to some points by Tim O’Neill about the question of the historicity of Jesus and historical methods — Uh-oh. I get the Tim O’Neill treatment — and I cannot help but adding my own sideline remarks here. Perhaps it’s because I have only just a few hours ago completed a fascinating book … Continue reading “PZ Myers on “the Tim O’Neill Treatment”: Jesus Mythicism and Historical Methods”


More Nazareth Nonsense from Tim O’Neill

What Tim O’Neill has done in his attacks on René Salm earlier this year over his claims that there was no village of Nazareth at the time of Jesus is defend the very worst practices found among the most culpable of researchers. He is defending the right of academics to make pronouncements of breakthroughs and … Continue reading “More Nazareth Nonsense from Tim O’Neill”


David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed

David Fitzgerald‘s essay, Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus, that received an Honorable Mention in the 2010 Mythicist Prize contest has been expanded into a book, Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Showed Jesus Never Existed At All. The book is clearly a hit: Nailed continues to garner more fans and accolades, and generate cranky hate mail. … Continue reading “David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed”


Salm’s Nazareth Correspondence with Kuhnen Demonstrates O’Neill’s Falsehoods

This post is an important and necessary follow up to my previous one about the falsehoods of O’Neill’s attacks on Salm’s work. Any readers with a serious interest in the dating of Nazareth and the seriousness of René Salm’s study of the archaeological record should be aware of the evidence that demonstrates how carelessly false … Continue reading “Salm’s Nazareth Correspondence with Kuhnen Demonstrates O’Neill’s Falsehoods”


Final (#3) post responding to O’Neill’s Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

Three posts will be enough. The first one responding to Tim O’Neill’s Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet on his History for Atheists site is Examining the Evidence for Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet The second is Response #2 to History for Atheists’ “JESUS THE APOCALYPTIC PROPHET” In the first post we presented a case that there is no evidence to … Continue reading “Final (#3) post responding to O’Neill’s Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet


Richard Carrier & Lena Einhorn Discuss Shift in Time

Followers of Richard Carrier’s blog will have known of Richard Carrier’s review earlier this month of A Shift in Time by Lena Einhorn: Lena Einhorn on the Claudian Christ Theory I am glad I did not mention it here at the time now because the page became more interesting in the following week with an … Continue reading “Richard Carrier & Lena Einhorn Discuss Shift in Time


O’Neill-Fitzgerald “Christ Myth” Debate, #10: Josephus as Evidence & the Arabic Version of the Testimonium

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate –o0o– Tim O’Neill (TO) rightly says of some of the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus: After all, no-one except a fundamentalist apologist would pretend that the evidence about Jesus is not ambiguous and often difficult to interpret with any certainty, and … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald “Christ Myth” Debate, #10: Josephus as Evidence & the Arabic Version of the Testimonium”


O’Neill-Fitzgerald “Christ Myth” Debate, #9: Josephus, 1 – Dave Fitzgerald on the Testimonium

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate –o0o– Tim O’Neill (TO) expresses a most worthy ideal in an exchange with David Fitzgerald (DF): What a careful, honest or even just competent treatment of the subject would do would be to deal with all relevant positions throughout the analysis . . … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald “Christ Myth” Debate, #9: Josephus, 1 – Dave Fitzgerald on the Testimonium”


O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate, #6: Comparing Sources for Jesus and Hannibal

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– If Tim O’Neill (TO) is true to form he won’t let the fact that he insisted there is only one historian from antiquity who mentions anyone who might be considered a messianic claimant in the Jewish war of 66-73 CE dismay him. … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate, #6: Comparing Sources for Jesus and Hannibal”


O’Neill-Fitzgerald: #5, Should We Expect Any Roman Records About Failed Messiahs?

All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. Tim O’Neill (TO) writes some very true words that enable us to identify a “careful” and “honest” treatment of a work: What a careful, honest or even just competent treatment of the subject would do would be to deal with all relevant positions throughout … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald: #5, Should We Expect Any Roman Records About Failed Messiahs?”