Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Co. at American Atheists were never known for their scholarship or good sense; even C. Dennis McKinsey, who is so awful that Farrell Till has washed his hands of him, got the cold shoulder from these guys because his work would have encouraged people to read and study the Bible, and Ms. O'Hair preferred the garbage-dump method of Biblical study. One of AA's stalwarts, and one of the few well-known Skeptics we have yet to highlight on this site, is one Frank Zindler. As we take it upon ourselves to have a look at Zindler's extended essay endorsing the idea that Jesus as a person never existed, it will be clear why we never attended to him before: there seems to have been little else available here at the bottom of the barrel. ;-)
And who is this chap? A website who likes him says: Frank R. Zindler, formerly a professor of biology and geology in the State University of New York system, for many years has been a linguist, senior editor, and analyst of biochemical literature for a major scientific publishing society. A veteran of more than 400 radio and television talk-shows, he has debated many creationists, theologians, and purveyors of the preternatural in defense of Atheism, naturalism, and evolutionary science. Since the brutal murder in 1995 of Robin Murray-O'Hair, the editor at that time of American Atheist Press, Zindler has succeeded her in the role of managing editor. That makes him eminently able to argue historical cases, doesn't it?
Zindler's essay contains much that is already refuted or addressed in our essays at this location, so for ease we will dispense with the typical extended essay format and deal out Zindler's fate by way of buckshot commentary.
Zindler tells us, "...I knew that some of the world's greatest scholars had denied [Jesus'] existence." Zindler is "hyperbolling" on two counts -- "some" is far too excessive for the number who denied that Jesus existed (the actual number of scholars was less than half a dozen; the remainder are populists and non-scholars, or else scholars of other fields like kidney medicine, which means they do not count under this rubric), and none of them could be counted among the world's greatest -- one may ask, regarded as greatest, by whom (other than Zindler?), and why? This is nought but pep-rally hyperbole made in an attempt to give the Christ-myth credibility.
On burden of proof, comparison is made thusly: "If someone claims that he never has to shave because every morning before he can get to the bathroom he is assaulted by a six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers better than a razor - if someone makes such a claim, no skeptic need worry about constructing a disproof." This is yet more sly hyperbole. The mere existence of a person named Jesus is not comparable to a large rabbit with a shaving fetish, and Zindler is challenged to say how this is so. It is not, so this is yet more pumping of the well to give the mythicist position unearned credibility.
Noting the dictum of N. T. Wright (whose work Zindler is certainly not competent to address!) that it would be easier to prove one of the Caesars a myth than Jesus, Zindler notes that there are coins with the images of these men. There certainly are, but these are of no more value than the Gospels if we wish to play the usual mythicist game. I say Tiberius never existed. The coins? They were produced by followers of Tiberius who believed he existed, or were trying to get others to believe he existed. So likewise the statues, engravings and gems with Tiby's likeness. The deeds attributed to him were done by the Roman Senate, who were in on the conspiracy, and even set up a villa where he supposedly lived in order to fool the masses into thinking there was a Tiberius. When a public appearance was needed, they had a man who would pose as Tiberius; in fact the coin images may have been based on this imposter to add versimilitude to the myth. As we have said elsewhere, being a Christ-myther is a matter of ease, and of explaining away evidence by any stretch possible. We will see that Zindler does the same in excusing away evidence for a historical Jesus.
Zindler offers a paragraph on "Old Testament 'Evidence'". I know of no "Christian apologists" who use the OT as a source for a historical Jesus, and Zindler does not name any, which leads us to suggest that he is making up this point for polemical purposes. Thomas Paine is cited as someone whose examination of OT prophecies is worth a look; Paine's painfully anachronistic and errant methodology is exposed here.
On the New Testament evidence: Zindler throws into the air the idea that Revelation is a reworked Jewish apocalypse, a theory not held by the vast majority of Revelation commentators (Aune, Gentry, Beale, etc. -- he cites one, Ford, in favor; though even here we have appreciated her work, this particular idea is on the same level as a Q hypothesis; see link below). It is said, "The main character of the book (referred to 28 times) would seem to be 'the Lamb,' an astral being seen in visions (no claims to historicity here!), and the book overall is redolent of ancient astrology." Revelation is not supposed to be an account of the historical Jesus (rather, the risen Jesus), so Zindler's point is a case of misplaced expectation; though one would suggest that a passage like Rev. 11:8 ("And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.") requires some explanation (beyond Earl Doherty's "Jerusalem in the heavens" circular reasoning). One wonders as well what Zindler means by "astrology" -- if he means symbols of an astral nature are used, that is correct, but there is no sign of a "stars and planets control things" paradigm, which is what the word means when used today. One suspects that Zindler would prefer not to clarify (he only cites a work of Malina without explanation), because to do so would not allow for the smear that the word "astrology" today carries.
Of Rev. it is said, "The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire book, Christ only four times, and Jesus Christ only twice!" Allowing for overlap this is only one off the actual total, but what does number of times named have to do with issues of historicity of a person? How many times would Rev. have to name "Jesus" to count him as historical? 25? 35? 50? This is a yet another non-relevant factoid thrown in the air by Zindler.
On the Gospels: There is nought but the usual summary form of late-dating/anonymity arguments of the sort we have dealt with here as well as the usual endorsement of Q/Marcan priority using ideas refuted here (notably the allegation that eyewitnesses would not plagiarize). Plus, the usual saws about Jesus' genealogies (see here and here), and the observation, "It is significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry." Ancient biographies seldom said anything about a person's birth or childhood (single episodes like Luke's and Matthew's were typical, because the ancients believed the personality was static, and full accounts of childhood told nothing extraordinary of a person; sometimes one particular event was chosen as exemplary of their life), and Mark does give a genealogy when he calls Jesus in 1:1 the "Son of God." John, as shown in the linked item above, was intended to supplement Mark and would not repeat the same details. The objection that we "can know nothing of Jesus' childhood or origin" is entirely irrelevant and neglectful of the methods of ancient biography, as well as offering a demand with no purpose -- why should lack of such knowledge be a problem in the first place? Is it a problem with the existence of other historical figures as well? Why is no comparison made to other figures? (The answer: Because Zindler has no actual rational argument to present in this regard, just quickly-delivered sound bites.)
On Mark: It is objected that his account is "skimpy" though no comparison is made to other ancient biographies, nor is the data dealt with concerning physical constraints of writing in this period (see here). Suetonius' accounts of each of the twelve Caesars are as a whole no larger than Mark; is their "skimpiness" an issue? The relative length of Mark and Luke is used to suggest, "Stories do indeed grow with the retelling." This is a cart-before-the-horse argument. Even given a one-year ministry, it is obvious that it is always possible to report more or less about a person that is still absolutely true. Zindler is bypassing proof of the requisite middle premise showing that the difference is indeed due to fabrication.
Mark is dismissed as unreliable, based on quotes from G. A. Wells who brings up an issue we have covered here, issues of geography covered in the link above, points covered here, as well as this claim:
One further evidence of the inauthenticity of Mark is the fact that in chapter 7, where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus is made to quote the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah in order to score his debate point. Unfortunately, the Hebrew version says something different from the Greek. Isaiah 29:13, in the Hebrew reads "their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote," whereas the Greek version - and the gospel of Mark - reads "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" [Revised Standard Version). Wells observes dryly [p. 13], "That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely." Indeed!
Indeed, NOT. Zindler (and Wells) is apparently unaware that the LXX was accepted for such uses (see here), and as the point of the Hebrew is the same (hypocrisy) for Jesus' purposes, it hardly matters which authoritative version he used.
John's Gospel is dismissed on issues we cover in the link above, and a vague claim that there is "no hint that Jesus ever wore diapers: pure spirit from the beginning." Pure spirit? John 1:14 ("the word became flesh") is just the start of the Gospel in which Jesus eats, weeps, bleeds, and suffers. Is "pure spirit" capable of this?
Zindler also makes much of fallible human memory, but needs to look into ancient oral memory practices (see here; see also here) and abandon his graphocentric prejudices (i.e., "We also might wonder why an eye-witness of all the wonders claimed in a gospel would wait so long to write about them!") once he learns about ancient orality.
Appeal is also made to literary theories of John as a composite document, which is a theory of no more credence that the Q thesis (other than John 21 being an addendum by John himself, which is perfectly in line with ancient literary practice, and which Zindler will need to deal with in more than a paragraph). Allusion is made to Dionysus turning water to wine (see here) and it is said, "Nor is there anything in the Signs Gospel that would lead one to suppose that it was an eye-witness account." What is missing that would, then, lead someone to suppose such a thing, and what are some contemporary examples of eyewitness accounts that have this factor, and why is it a problem for reliability in the first place? Zindler's arguments cannot be given an ounce of credence without such comparative study.
Paul is passed off first as an epileptic who had visions of Jesus; his other references are dismissed using Wells, who does not go as far as Earl Doherty but whose points are nevertheless refuted by the same response.
An objection is made about "hearsay" without explaining why it is problematic. (See here.)
Paul is robbed of all but 6 of his 13 letters based on the word of unnamed, undescribed "Bible scholars and computer experts" -- see points here, here, and here for an exposure of the flaws in such methodology.
The rabbis who thought Jesus was historical are conveniently dismissed, with no analysis of their intelligence or critical capability, as uncritical and taking Jesus' historicity for granted.
We are given the usual Trypho error.
Josephus and Tacitus are dismissed using few new reasons than those we cover in the link above. Among the ringers otherwise: "As late as 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which devoted three 'Codices' to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of the Antiquities in which one would expect the disputed passage to be found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of Antiquities of the Jews. The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting." A reader who has consulted Rylands' work notes that he offers no documentation for this claim concerning Vossius. This is probably Gerard Vossius (1577-1649) and I regard this claim as being as bogus as the Pope Leo X quote. For Photius the three "codices" were naught but summaries that give only thin slices out of all of Josephus' work, amounting to a few pericopes; lack of mention of the Jesus passages means nothing at all. Finally, this sound bite: "According to William Benjamin Smith's skeptical classic Ecce Deus, 15 there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts..." According to real Josephan scholars -- Smith is not one of them -- there are no manuscripts at all that lack the passages.
Here are a couple of Tacitus ringers: We have answered in a link above about Tacitus using the "incorrect" title for Pilate, but Zindler adds the little blurb, "without saying procurator of what!" Of what? Tacitus says Christ was executed in Judaea, by Pilate; does Zindler need a bigger pencil to connect the dots with? And: "According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger." Taylor is now outdated by copies of Tacitus from the 11th century, but should never be used as a source anyway, as he is profligate in his errors and/or fabrication; see an example here.
On Greek and Roman writers not writing of the darkness at the crucifixion or not otherwise noting Jesus, see link above for specifics and here and here for some general principles of ancient recording of history. Zindler also might consider this with reference to the forming of a new religion.
So how did Christianity arise without a historical Jesus, and how did the historical Jesus arise? Zindler passes the buck, supposing that further study of the "communal psychopathologies which infested the Eastern Mediterranean world" (i.e., in less prejudiced terms, religious movements) will eventually allow us "to reconstruct in reasonable detail the stages by which Jesus came to have a biography." Not having an explanation is apparently quite acceptable for a freethinker!
Appeal is made to "Remsberg's List", which we have dealt with here. It is doubtful Zindler even checked to see who any of these writers were.
Now we move into the footnotes. On the spread of Christianity, Zindler says, "A similar argument could be made, however, in the case of the earlier rapid spread of Mithraism. I am unaware of any Christian apologists who would argue that this supports the idea of an historical Mithra!" Nothing in Mithraism had anything to do with a historical figure or a historical fact (other than the procession of the equinoxes), so this comparison is illicit. See again here (including the supplemental essay on Mithraism).
Brief reference is made in support of Marcan priority: "...it may be noted that shortening of miracle stories is completely out of keeping with the principles of religious development seen everywhere today." Everywhere today? Upon such vague and blatant generalization is the scholarship of skepticism founded! Do not think for a moment that Zindler has actually examined the documentarian practices of any number of religious movements and found evidence of such development to any extent.
It is said that "at least one of these sayings [ascribed to Jesus] ("We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced…" Matt. 17:11; Luke 7:32) derives from Æsop's Fables, not from a sage of Galilee!" Zindler does not say where he gets this absurd factoid, much less does he say which fable of Aesop this is from, but he has the Matthean cite backwards (it is Matthew 11:17); no Matthean scholar knows of such a connection to Aesop, and the passage does translate back into a metrical pattern in Aramiac [Keener, 341].
Throw out your ideas about the canon and use this instead: "I say 'official gospels' because there are, in fact, many other gospels known. Once people started making them up, they sort of got stuck in over-drive. Only later on in Christian history did the number get pared back to four." Not that even one of these gospels is named or analyzed. We are not far here from Solomon Tulbure's even more expert commentary, "After Paul's writings, many other manuscripts started to appear all over the place." Why read Bruce Metzger or the Alands when you can read Zindler?
Brief appeal is made to the idea of a Gnostic Paul, based on analysis from a book written in 1929.
There are comments about Jesus being rude to his family as evidence of "a political struggle [which] had developed between apostolically governed sects" but we can polish off that mirror-reading here.
And again, it is reassuring to know that Zindler is more knowledgeable than others who have been trained in history, linguistics, and literature: On Tacitus it is said, "Latinists often dispute the possibility of the passage being a forgery on the grounds that Tacitus' distinctive Latin style so perfectly permeates the entire passage. But it should be noted that the more distinctive a style might be, the easier it can be imitated. Then too, there is a lapse from normal Tacitean usage elsewhere in the disputed passage. In describing the early Christians as being haters 'of the human race' (humani generis), the passage reverses the word order of normal Tacitean usage. In all other cases, Tacitus has generis humani." Zindler does not record all the other places where the order is reversed, much less find us a Latinist who finds this an issue, but assuming this is true at all, apparently we can have our cake and eat it too: If it has things not like Tacitus' work, it is a forgery; if it does look like Tacitus' work, it is a clever forgery. How is this any different from our idea above re fabricated coins and statues of Tiberius?
And, appeal to Nazareth not existing; see here.
So what more needs be said? Zindler has a lot of legwork to do before he can be regarded as more than the late O'Hair's methodological copyist.
