Tekton Research Associate Punkish asked me to have a look at what is supposed to be the latest and greatest advocacy for the “Christ myth” – an item by David Fitzgerald titled Nailed. Fitzgerald lays out ten “myths” that reputedly show that Jesus “never existed at all.” I’ll offer comments on these ten myths. As a preface, Nailed itself has apparently impressed the Christ-myth crowd, as there are endorsements from the high rankers of the set, including Earl Doherty, Robert Price, Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier. Of course, that’s also a fair sign that Nailed is a failure in what it proposes, since none of that gathering presents arguments for Jesus not existing that pass the test of scrutiny.
Myth #1: The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous! One would think that this would be something to be dealt with after all the arguments had been delivered rather than being put at the forefront. But it becomes clear at once that Fitzgerald sees a need to pad his material with rhetoric in order to obscure a lack of hard arguments. Most of this chapter is summary of what is to come, and sermonizing about how absurd it is to think that Jesus could not possibly have been non-existent. Then a few quotes from apologists decrying the Christ-myth as absurd is waved off as “bluster” and it is claimed that “since at least the 18th century a growing number of historians have raised serious problems that case Jesus’ historicity into outright doubt...” [16] Oh really? In the opening chapter of Shattering the Christ Myth, James Hannam showed that “historians” are not among those who raised the Christ-myth as an option. Rather, this thesis came from non-historians and non-experts. (Example: Bruno Bauer was a theologian.) But we’ll see if Fitzgerald ever comes up with specifics on this in later chapters. In terms of actual argument, when we finally get to it, Fitzgerald changes tracks and discusses not the mere existence of Jesus, but the Resurrection of Jesus, and attempts to analogize that event to Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. I have analyzed this analogy before (see here) and noted various pros and cons of it. But what does this have to do with Jesus merely existing? Nothing whatsoever.
Apocryphal acts and events are readily attributed to figures whose existence is historically certain. Indeed, I found this in a biography of Stonewall Jackson, the great Confederate military genius. The author asserts that a certain story from the beginning of the Civil War about how Jackson managed certain captured trains in the area of Harper’s Ferry is likely apocryphal. I will not here take a stance on this particular story; it is one of a handful that the author also thinks are apocryphal with respect to Jackson’s life. But no Civil War historian would think that any of these stories being apocryphal lends credence to the idea that Stonewall Jackson was himself a non-existent figure. In short, Fitzgerald’s first chapter doesn’t do a thing to support his thesis. He is attempting to arrive at a sort of “guilt by association” in which a leap is made from “this event can’t be proven” to “this person didn’t exist.” Of course, even in that respect, merely defeating a single analogy (Jesus vs Caesar on the Rubicon) isn’t doing much to show that the Resurrection was ahistorical. But that’s another matter – for now, we’ll stick to Fitzgerald’s case for the “Christ myth” – assuming he can even stick to it himself!
Chapter 2: Jesus was wildly famous – but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him/ There’s a “Beg your pardon?” in this at once: Jesus was wildly famous? Not in the least. I am with those who, like John Meier, find little reason for the gatekeepers of the first century’s history (those we have left) to mention Jesus. In this chapter, Fitzgerald takes two tacks, and we’ll deal with each one in a separate posting. The first tack is to argue that certain events in Jesus’ life “should have made history” but didn’t. As with the Chapter 1 premise we discussed, however, this is a non sequitur. Any number of events – whether amazing or mundane – could readily end up attached to persons who are otherwise completely historical. And that is indeed the case. The story of figures ranging from Alexander the Great to Socrates to Stonewall Jackson have been appended with what historians regard as sheer fabrication, with none thereafter reaching for the conclusion that this provides a step towards suggesting that these figures are non-existent. Even if Fitzgerald is right and all of the events he lists did not occur as recorded in the NT, none of this would lend a bit of assistance to a Christ-myth thesis. And what of those events? Well, it’s a collection that we’ve dealt with again and again – not one shred of news here. So we’ll have some comments to start, and links below.
The Lukan census – contrary to Fitzgerald, scholarship is now turning in the direction of seeing this event as more and more historical. Fitzgerald’s charge that it looks “suspiciously convenient” is one that could be raised against any number of claim; the simple fact is that much history turns on conveniences. In The Collected What If?, a book we reviewed this past week, historians recount a number of “convenient” incidents, such as a fog that just happened to come at the right time to enable Washington to escape capture by British forces, and a taxicab that just happened to hit Winston Churchill not hard enough to kill him. Appeal to a record being “too convenient” is a non-argument that ignores the realities of life and history – especially since Rome did indeed conduct frequent censuses. Certainly people did not stop being born or conceiving babies during those events. Fitzgerald also appeals to the alleged incongruity of the two nativity accounts, which we have dealt with. He also raises the standard objection about the alleged difficulty of travel for a pregnant Mary, which was also made by Robert Price. Our answers are the same:
First of all, where did the donkey come from? Price is confusing Nativity with New Testament here. (Added note: They more likely walked or perhaps had a wheeled cart.) Second, this comment does a grave disservice to ancient people. We modern couch-potato Americans who find even a hike to the fridge and back tiring would do well to remember that in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, fitness was paramount to survival. Walking was the usual mode of transport, especially for poor families like Jesus', and there is no reason why even the "most pregnant" woman (even today, in many cases) could not make such a trip. Third, and as a matter of speculation, if the census journey coincided with a Jewish feast - as I think it may have - then Nazareth would have been deserted, and all of Joseph and Mary's nearby relatives would be out, too. Would you want to be left alone in such circumstances? Would you want to be left alone anyway? Finally, we must notice that this "stupidity" was not optional. It was a Roman decree with military teeth in it, and travel with a pregnant wife is much simpler than travel with a newly-delivered wife and a suckling infant.
The second event Fitzgerald notes is the slaughter of the innocents. He makes the usual error of supposing that this involved an enormous number of deaths that should have been noticed. Third, Fitzgerald appeals to Jesus’ supposedly “famous” ministry. But he offers little grounds for arriving at a conclusion that Jesus was “famous,” particularly with those who were literate and capable of reporting. Indeed, Jesus’ “fame” with the poor and downtrodden, in a heavily stratified society like the New Testament world, would be seen as all the more reason for the elite and literate to snub him as an option. Fitzgerald also notes that Jesus healed certain people who were prominent, like the daughter of a synagogue ruler, but as none of these people left us any records, it is hard to see why this is in any sense meaningful. It is asked, “how is it that [Jesus] wasn’t whisked off to the royal court, or even Rome itself?” [24] Fitzgerald can hardly be serious here. What does he think a person like Tacitus or Nero would make of a report that came in that some backwoods Jewish preacher had healed someone? Does he think they would have given it a moment’s notice – even if it happened to be true? Rather, whoever made the report would be dismissed out of hand as deluded, or giving in to Jewish superstitions. Skeptics today certainly do not rush to be healed by Benny Hinn simply because they hear multiple positive testimonies about him!
The next event discussed is Jesus’ triumphal entry. Fitzgerald labors under the assumption that this event was a “momentous occasion” [25], which it would indeed have been seen by Christians. But as far as writers like Josephus and Tacitus were concerned, this was not a defining moment in Jesus’ career. Rather, the most defining moment for them would be Jesus’ shameful crucifixion as a criminal. The “Triumphal Entry” would be little more to such writers than a tragic farce and an example of precisely why Jesus got himself crucified. Once again, Fitzgerald approaches the text without the proper perspective of Jesus’ contemporaries. Fitzgerald’s further comment that the Romans “would’ve looked very dimly” on Jesus’ actions, and done something about it at once, also demonstrate a serious lack of perspective. Rome only had a limited number of troops in Judaea, and Jesus entered into town in what was clearly intended to be a peaceful gesture. His followers carried no weapons and were not fomenting rebellion. Given the expense of engagement, a “wait and see” approach is precisely the sort we would expect the Romans to pursue.
Fifth, we have the trial of Jesus, and the least that can be said is that at least Fitzgerald doesn’t appeal to alleged court records that do not actually exist, as many Skeptics do. But he does seriously overplay the trial as an event (eg, calling the arrest “dramatic” when it was doubtful that it was any more or less dramatic than the arrest of any suspected rebel figure, of which there were many) and calling the trial “illegal” (not in the least – see link).
As an aside, this last point is an example of precisely Fitzgerald is not to be trusted as a secure source. Countless books have been written on the trial of Jesus, but all we have from him is a mere sentence or so of assertion that assumes that the case is already proven.
Sixth, there is the crucifixion, and although this event is indeed confirmed by several sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian), Fitzgerald resorts to generally vague charges that the Gospels offer the story with different tones, a charge that could also be made for any four biographies of any figure (see link). His only specific charge is the “Passover” canard (see link).
Finally, there is a grouping of miracles, but nothing more than the usual misconceptions. The darkness at the crucifixion is taken to have been seen by the “whole ancient world” [27] but no such thing is shown in the text and the standard appeals are made to Pliny and Seneca (and others, but these would have even less reason to refer to it). (link) Also, the standard appeal to silence about Matthew’s signs at the crucifixion (link) Finally, the Resurrection and ascension are added to the list as supposed “immediate bombshell(s) on the consciousness of the first-century world,” [28] which is again a serious lack of perspective: These again are claims that would simply be dismissed as fiction, out of hand, by the likes of Tacitus, even if true – to say nothing of Jesus’ resurrection itself as anachronistic in context (link). In conclusion, Fitzgerald does little more than haul out arguments that have been refuted repeatedly. While this may have impressed those who judged his book on Rene Salm’s kangaroo committee awarding a prize for the best mythicist book, it is hardly impressive to those who are seriously educated in the subject.
The census – see our summary of the matter
The nativity accounts – Fitzgerald devotes a mere paragraph to this and does not even consider that Matthew and Luke are reporting events two years apart.
The Slaughter
The trial
Four biographies – as in, four of Lincoln, as I show
Darkness: Two items of relevance here and here
Anachronistic resurrection: Point 3, here
The rest of chapter 2 is devoted to a resuscitation of parts of Remsberg’s List, and while we are glad to see that Fitzgerald doesn’t use all of it (he leaves out such obvious non-starters as Columella), that he uses it at all is bad enough.
In some cases Fitzgerald goes off topic to ask why writers do not mention Christianity, which has nothing to do with why they do not mention Jesus. Here Fitzgerald fails to consider that Christianity was still considered a sect of Judaism by many writers, so that expecting Christianity to be mentioned separately is a case of misplaced expectations.
In other cases, as with Gallio and Seneca, or the Slaughter of the Innocents, the problem is the same as we noted in prior postings: Fitzgerald overstates Jesus’ fame as reported in the Gospels (or the impact of an event), and presumes that writers like Seneca would grant instant acceptance to reports about Jesus.
Fitzgerald wrongly designates Philo as a “huge influence…on Christian theology.” [37] This is incorrect; rather, both Philo and Christian theology were influenced by the same pre-Christian Jewish theology. It might be added that since Philo was mainly a philosophical writer, expecting him to report a wider range of historical events in misguided.
Fitzgerald’s use of Drews to explain why certain portions of Tacitus are missing has been negated by Van Voorst here. His other suggestions of texts missing because Christians were “embarrassed” by lacks of mention of Jesus is simply vain paranoia, especially after Fitzgerald has gone to so much trouble to argue that there are obvious gaps in other works that should have mentioned Jesus. If scribes were so intent on scrubbing these embarrassing portions that lack reference to Jesus, why was Remsberg able to compile his list in the first place?
On Remsberg’s list. Fitzgerald frequently resorts to the sort of vague reasoning used by “Iasion” to argue that Jesus ought to have been mentioned by this or that writer. Yet this is not effective as an argument unless a writers’ treatment of such subjects as “gods” or “sacred teachings” is purported to be exhaustive. Fitzgerald does not go into anything like enough detail to justify claims that someone like Athenaeus ought to have mentioned Jesus or the Christians.
For Chapter 3 on Josephus, please see Christopher Price’s chapter in Shattering the Christ Myth. I feel rather free to simply give such references to STCM, because it is missing from Fitzgerald’s bibliography – as are many other critical works such as Van Voorst’s.
Chapter 4 is merely a collection of summary claims regarding the inauthenticity of NT books of the sort I have responded to in Trusting the New Testament. Fitzgerald also refers to Marcan priority (though he seems to decline on the existence of Q), and the idea that Luke used Josephus.
One of the more amazing errors in this chapter has Fitzgerald thinking that Peter would not know what a “church” is (Matt. 16:18). The word used, ekklesia, referred to an assembly of persons of a given group and would have been immediately understood to mean those who were followers of Jesus; the equivalent Old Testament concept would have been the assembly of the Lord.
Other claims by Fitzgerald of anachronism or error in the Gospels are equally misinformed; he is even so insensate as to use the absurd Mark 7:31 “geography” error. It is difficult to take Fitzgerald seriously when he displays such amateurism and does not even bother to consult any reputable sources on the subject.
I’ll note in close from Ch. 4 that Fitzgerald picks up on an obscure argument that John’s reference to a catch of 153 fish is some sort of allusion to Pythagoreanism. I looked into this subject some time ago and found that there was no evidence that Pythagoreans had an interest in the number 153 prior to the Christian era. I can’t find my analysis right now, but here’s an analysis by the CADRE.
Nailed gets pretty dreary past this point. Of Chapters 5-8, only 8 really offers direct arguments for the Christ myth; the rest are again laundry lists of NT problems, and as we have noted, historical and other problems in a text do nothing to prove that the person who is the subject of that text did not exist. For that reason, all we’ll have today is a few examples from Chs. 5-7 of the sort of poor arguments Fitzgerald is offering, adding in anything we recognize as new to us (which is not much). Ch. 8 we will not bother with past this paragraph at all – it’s little more than a summary presentation of Earl Doherty’s “silence” argument, and needless to say, Fitzgerald shows no signs of having interacted with any criticisms of this thesis, much less any familiarity with the critical concepts of high and low context.
Chapter 5, “The gospels offer a consistent picture of Jesus” – main focus is to claim that Gospel portraits of Jesus are too different to all be true. In the main this is argued by either misinterpreting differences, or by refusing to recognize options as not mutually exclusive. Examples of misinterpretation include the “messianic secret” motif (which is badly misunderstood) and Matthew 27:46, and there are also a selection of the usual canards of contradiction, such as concerning the death of Judas.
Chapter 6, “History confirms the gospels,” is substantially a collection of canards about the trial of Jesus and from the bibliography, it is clear that few sources were used and that Haim Cohn (one of the sources we refute) was given inordinate credence. The one new objection I found is derived from Price, and claims Paul is in error to call the Pharisees the “strictest” sect of Judaism (Acts 26:5), for the Essenes were more strict. That’s a matter of opinion either way – whether Price’s or Paul’s – so it’s absurd to claim this is an erroneous statement; beyond that, the Pharisees would regard the Essenes as a deviant group, especially for their failure to support the Temple cultus. For this alone, Paul’s opinion holds a great deal more weight than Price’s, speaking over 2000 years later.
Chapter 7, “Archaeology confirms the gospels,” despite the title hardly mentions archaeology and is again mostly about problems in the text, though this time pride of place is given to McDonald’s Homeric epics thesis, which has rightly died an ignominious death from being ignored. Plus there are a host of refuted canards such as Joseph of Arimathea being a myth and hailing to Bart Ehrman on textual corruptions (while quietly ignoring his points of caution). Fitzgerald’s grasp of textual criticism is remarkably dim, and he falls for the typical trap of failing to judge the NT in comparative terms.
Ch 9 is just more of the same as before: A collection of past-refuted canards. Here Fitzgerald offers the theme of early Christian diversity, which is accomplished either by vastly overstating the significance of divisions related in the NT, or by giving credence to fringe, late expressions like the Gospel of Thomas. Fitzgerald also offers the standard error of dating the Acts 15 conference before Gal 2. Most of the rest is simply repetition of arcane theories from Zindler and Price, which we have addressed in various places; two particular oddities come of a treatment of the hymn of Phil. 2:8-11:
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Price is noted as saying that “even death on a cross” was not part of this hymn originally, because it “interrupts the meter of the rest.” That’s quite all right and may even be true, but it goes too far to then deduce that this means early Christians didn’t believe Jesus died on a cross! Besides, what about Phil. 3:18? Additionally, the early Christ-myther Couchoud is noted as arguing that:
1) The Son was given at death “the name above every name”.
2) “Lord” is not a name, but “Jesus” is.
3) Therefore, this hymn says that God gave his son the name “Jesus” after death, and this in turn is “fatal to the historicity of Jesus.”
No, I don’t see anything but an enormous non sequitur here, either. For one thing, even if this did say the name “Jesus” was bestowed on the death of Jesus, it does not thereby follow that he was not a historical person. The giving of a name at death doesn’t make a person non-historical. Second, Couchoud’s reading is idiosyncratic and neglects the point that “the Lord” is a circumlocution for YHWH in the OT. For that reason, “the Lord” is not merely a title, but also, in effect, a name. (See Witherington’s commentary on Philippians, p. 68.) One wonders why Fitzgerald is using someone like Couchoud as a source when there are so many more qualified and recent commentaries available.
I won’t look at Ch. 10, because I know of no one who is arguing, as it is titled, “Christianity was a totally new and different miraculous overnight success that changed the world.” Last I checked, it was, “Christianity was a continuation of Judaism that slowly overtook the Roman Empire, and is still overtaking the world even now.”
In Fitzgerald’s end matter, he discusses some of the secular sources, and here we will again treat one point as exemplary. For Tacitus, Fitzgerald spends most of the entry remarking on how absurd it would be to suppose that Tacitus would rifle through so many documents just for a casual mention of Jesus in some archive. That’s a “does not follow” in a few ways. For one, Tacitus was a competent enough researcher that he would know where exactly to look among records for what he needed; he wouldn’t need to rifle through “thousands” of documents.
That said, as I note in my article on Tacitus there were plenty of other potential written sources aside from a record of the crucifixion. For my part, I think Jesus’ existence and death was common knowledge and that Tacitus did not need to do any digging to find out what he reported in Annals 15.44. However, if he did lack any knowledge, he would have done what was necessary to check it and be sure it was accurate – that is shown by his nature and performance as a historian. Fitzgerald prefers to see Tacitus as merely asking Pliny or relying on Christian testimony, but as shown in the article, that severely underestimates Tacitus.
Thus we close our treatment of Nailed. I had estimated that this book would have nothing new in it, and I was even more correct on that count than I anticipated. Nailed seems to be little more than a rather vain attempt to win the “prize” awarded by Salm’s mythicist committee of himself, Price, Zindler, and Doherty by way of appeal to what the intended audience wanted to hear. It’s unfortunate for Fitzgerald that he didn’t win the prize – but nor did he provide what could be regarded as a winning effort.
Analysis of Nailed by Tim O'Neill (an atheist)