Skeptic: Promoting Science and Critical Thinking

34 responses to this post.

1. carefullytread says:

   May 26, 2009 at 1:03 pm

   Zeitgeist is full of bad information, but you make some false assertions about the historicity of Jesus.
   Josephus is not an accepted account of Jesus as an historical figure. We have no translations of Antiquities that predate Christian translations. Of Josephus 2 passages, the first has not been seriously considered as genuine for 3 centuries. The second is by no means held as genuine, and even those who accept it can only point to a another writer’s (Origen) assertion that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ and deducing therefore that Josephus must have known of Jesus…so the passage is valid. Assumption is not evidence.
   Citing the struggle to place Jesus in Galilee as evidence that he must have actually existed is quite a stretch, and again, built around a seed of falsehood. Nazareth did not exist in Galilee, or anywhere else, until after Jesus. The first historical appearance of “Nazareth” as a place name is the gospels (70 AD at the earliest). We do have quite thorough documentation of the region’s villages and towns for this period, and earlier. Indeed, the ruins discovered in Galilee during Constantine’s reign were named Nazareth to accommodate the biblical stories. The “true cross” was discovered at the same time, as was “Jesus tomb”. “Nazrene” refers to a specific group of Essenes, not a place. It is this particular error in the Gospels that demonstrates that the authors knew little of Judean geography, and probably never set foot in Judea.

   Reply
2. Stone says:

   June 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm

   I think it time to talk turkey once and for all on the inherent flaws in the position taken by some that Jesus never existed, not even as a simple non-miraculous human being. In fact, positing that he was indeed a simple non-miraculous human being is not at all ludicrous.

   So it’s time for a reality check here. I found two sets of remarks on the Net written by an atheist concerning the James passage in Josephus’s Antiquities, XX. The writer’s name is Tim O’Neill. O’Neill writes:

   1. Zealots with an axe to grind can find a way to “deconstruct” the data for even the most reasonable ideas if they try hard enough. Their deconstructions are contrived and forced and usually only convincing to fellow zealots, but they can do it with ease. See Holocaust Deniers and Creationists for examples of this.

   This is precisely what we find with the Jesus Mythers. Yes, the James mentioned by Josephus could be some other James who, like the one mentioned in the Christian tradition, just happened to also have a brother called Jesus who was also called “Annointed” and he could also have been executed by the Jewish priesthood just like the James who Paul claims he met. This remarkable sequence of coincidences are all possible. But the application of Occam’s Razor to this idea shows anyone other than a blinkered Myther zealot that this idea strains credulity. It makes far more sense that what we have here is a confluence of evidence indicating that Jesus did exist and did have a brother called James.

   This is why you can count the number of professional scholars who think Jesus didn’t exist on the fingers of one hand and the Myther position is dominated by amateur polemicists like Doherty and Carrier and New Age loons like Dorothy “Acharya S” Murdock. (http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-decision-about-jesus-project.html)

   And in the other passage, O’Neill starts off by citing a previous poster and then proceeds to make his additional point:

   2. “Historian Richard Carrier talks about the James/Josephus passage and about how it probably was never intended to refer to the Christian James. After all, this James was killed over a violation of some minor Jewish law, which the Sanhedrin was none too pleased with. This would be very odd if this James was a leader of heretical Jewish cult.”

   Carrier is a guy who needs to make up his mind whether he wants to be a historian or an activist. At the moment he has too many blunt anti-Christian axes to grind for me to take him seriously as an objective researcher. Historians with an agenda are usually poor historians. And I say that as someone who is an atheist myself.

   There is nothing unlikely about the story Josephus tells about James. He doesn’t say that “the Sanhedrin” objected to his execution, he says that an objection was made by “those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens”. We’re given no clear indication as to who these concerned citizens were, though it’s clear that (i) they were important enough to be able to write to the Roman prefect, (ii) they were important enough for him to pay attention to them and (iii) they were no friends of the High Priest and seemed to want to bring him down.

   What they object to is not the death of heretic, but the usurpation of power by Ananus. And their objective seems to have been Ananus’ removal. Who or what James was is likely to have been pretty incidental in this political play. (http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/03/did-jesus-exist-response-to-blair-scott.html)

   These two sets of remarks express to a T my problem with the entire mythicist racket. Because it is a racket, and that’s all it is. I was not brought up as a Christian; I was brought up by two agnostic/atheist academics who never attended any religious institution, for whom reading continually was as natural as breathing. Reading became as natural as breathing for myself and my brother as well. So the knee-jerk argument that anyone crediting the plausibility of historic references to Jesus must be brainwashed by religion is baloney. Not only is it baloney as applied to me; it’s baloney as applied to 99.9% of the extremely skeptical colleagues and friends of my parents whom I got to know — and know well — when growing up.

   The reason why so many rigorous NON-DENOMINATIONAL scholars and academics with degrees and professional training in this field — professional scholars like April DeConick — continue to be so leery of these fanciful mythicist notions is because they so often do require a flagrant disregard of the principle of Occam’s Razor. Not only are we supposed to assume a series of coincidences in order to shrug off Chapter XX of the Josephus Antiquities; that is compounded by a similarly twisted skein of reasoning that we must evidently apply to Galatians — at the same time! Both texts(!!!!!!!!!) just happen to have been coincidentally distorted vis-a-vis the way they’re read today. How convenient is that?

   The dishonest methods of many of the mythicists suggest in addition a proselytizing mindset rather than a research one. This really isn’t just a matter of whether or not some ancient eccentric did or didn’t exist. It’s a very basic misinformation campaign on how to read history. My atheist father happened to be a pretty d**n rigorous history professor, and I don’t mind saying that this whole discussion is turning pretty personal for me, as a result.

   Reply
3. Stone says:

   June 12, 2009 at 3:35 pm

   My regrets that no one has responded to the concerns I voiced previously. Truly, I’m not trying to “take over” this page. But further far more serious reflections have occurred to me since, and I’m honestly offering these even more extended thoughts as a way of stimulating further thoughts from others, not just to “hear myself talk”.

   To be blunt about this, one chief concern I have about this Jesus mythicist program is the way their dishonest methods might really take off, if they’re not checked right now, and bleed over into successful denialist agendas aimed at other crucial hinges in history like the Armenian genocide, the Trail of Tears, the Nazi holocaust, the McCarthy era, the Flight 93 heroes, Stalin’s gulags, the Guantanamo gulag, the Allende assassination, ante-bellum slavery, the Salem witch trials, the Rwanda genocide, Srebenica, the Spanish Inquisition, and on and on. It’s no joke. Whether or not you accept the Christian creed, the way the Roman Empire treated not only Jesus but many of his colleagues and his posthumous followers for over a century is simply shameful. And it’s creepy to me the way people even now are still trying to “forget” the Armenian genocide. While I’m happy that Obama was forthright enough in his latest trip abroad in decrying anyone who denies the Nazi holocaust, his not holding Turkey’s feet to the fire on the Armenians is uncomfortably convenient, IMO.

   Reading the downright lying assertions by various mythicists — [paraphrases]“Paul never refers to Jesus as a human being who lived and died”(!), “there are many suspicions voiced on Antiquities 20 by accredited scholars in academe”(!), “all Jesus’s sayings uniformly have precedents in prior philosophies and creeds”(!) — I can easily imagine the same Big-Lie tactics used against the evidence for the Trail of Tears, the McCarthy era, the Guantanamo gulag and so on……….”Oh, historians exaggerate, show me where there are actual contemporary reports or accounts of even one entire Japanese-American family being summarily swept up without due process; why everyone knows the [so-and-so] account was just faked and there’s no reference to that text until many years after the war was all over” or “Anne Frank was a fictional character, obviously, and it shouldn’t surprise us that she’s passed off as having died in a camp so no one can question her” or “the Spanish Inquisition was hardly as cruel as anti-Catholics like to make out; it’s just a conspiracy to put everything that’s Roman Catholic in a bad light”.

   Wake up, people! This mythicist agenda is designing deadly tools of prevarication and elaborate lies through sheer repetition that can be sharpened and used in 101 different ways to cover over any number of atrocities throughout history that ought never be forgotten but will be. Somebody better start collecting contemporary eyewitness accounts of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib now and put them all into the most carefully researched and sourced book now before the denialists get their hands on that one.

   Don’t let any Big Lie go unchallenged. Ever. It was the Big Lie that FDR’s banking laws were really unneeded and ineffective that precipitated the laissez-faire time bomb in the 1980s leading to the big crash of ‘08-’09. History DOES repeat itself if not safeguarded vigilantly. Don’t let these tools of the Big Lie in the mythicist arsenal become the sharpened weapons to justify every whitewash of every other atrocity in human history. In the age of the Internet, where every unscrupulous trickster can communicate with everyone and get away with anything, the time to challenge these Big-Lie methods sharply is right now.

   I’m surprising myself, frankly, by how increasingly alarmed I’m starting to feel about the mythicist agenda. I used to simply view the theory as unlikely though still possible. Where I’m surprising myself even more today is the degree to which the more I read mythicists’ (sometimes detailed) arguments, the more unexpected (to me) is my response. I, perhaps, half thought that further reading might intrigue me more with the possibility that even Jesus the purely non-miraculous human being, let alone the Son-of-God-Cosmic-Savior-Miracle-Worker-Resurrectionist, was also a pure fiction. Almost always, in-depth reading of a distinct point of view, particularly from a neutral perspective, can only gain one a better understanding of the given distinct point of view. Well, it certainly did for me in this case………but not in the direction of a greater sympathy! — even though it definitely gave me a better understanding of their arguments; that’s for sure. At the same time, having started out neutral, a better understanding of their arguments only generated in me an entirely unexpected feeling of being thoroughly creeped out!

   The problem is not the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus. It’s the lack of 21st-century-type proof for an historical Jesus. This distinction is rarely addressed. Now, 21st-century-type proof simply is not out there, and compounding the problem is the fact that many mythicists are reading even the most straightforward documents anachronistically.

   Antiquities 20 is a typical example of this. One reason why mythicists look askance at the Ananus paragraph is because (partly) they don’t see that a somewhat discursive style of writing comes with the territory of these Roman chronicles.

   On the one hand, it’s true many imply that one simply cannot imagine Josephus using the term “Christ” under any circumstances. But on the other, the only other reason given by (most) mythicists whom I’ve read why we should look askance at this reference is the odd word order. FWIW, the word order here — “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ [tou legomenou Christou], whose name was James” — though odd, is not uncharacteristic for Josephus:

   Wars 2.21.1
   a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was Johnâ;

   Ant. 5.8.1
   but he had also one that was spurious, by his concubine Drumah, whose
   name was Abimelech;

   Ant. 11.5.1
   Now about this time a son of Jeshua, whose name was Joacim, was the
   high priest.

   This is a good example of why one should be steeped in some aspects of the writing styles of the time before plunging in with both feet.

   There is also my own impatience operating here as well. I freely admit that. I find that the general evasiveness that marks (many of) the mythicists whom I’ve read simply drives me up the wall.

   To illustrate once and for all some of the chief aspects in mythicists’ methods that trouble me so, I’m going to provide here another posting that I submitted, goodness knows when(!), to another board. I was just starting my journey to real impatience with some of the mythicists at the time, but I wasn’t yet where I am now. The discussion centered around an on-line extract of some of G.A.Wells, in response to a Holding piece against Wells’s argument. I frankly find many of Holding’s arguments dubious as well, so I found some of what Wells says rather cogent. What the appraisal of Wells’s piece did for me, though, was help clarify, in my own mind, just why I’m troubled so by so much of the type of reasoning I see among the mythicists. I realize that Wells isn’t really a true mythicist, but it strikes me that he buys into some of their methods.

   The article in question is at:

   http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html

   Here’s what I wrote at the time –

   [POST] People who’ve cited Wells as another all-out mythicist — and I include myself, unfortunately — are simply wrong. If mythicists think to cite Wells as a way of showing that there is yet one more researcher out there who shares their views on historicity, they are sadly mistaken. This article makes it quite clear that Wells has concluded that there was definitely a real Galilean preacher who was called Jesus, who said the things credited to him in Q, and who lived in the first half of the 1st century c.e. At the same time, where most secular historians assume that this Jesus’s purported Birth and Resurrection constitute ad hoc tales not associated with the real history of the Galilean preacher, Wells simply extends that to the actual execution as well, the crucifixion as an ad hoc tale as well.

   Wells makes this argument in the first half of the article and points, among other things, to the absence of anything to do with the Christ figure in Q. (OTOH, the name Jesus does appear 12 times [I made a count] in the Q passages, at least two of those being in a passage like Luke 9:57-60, where there is no mention of anything supernatural or miraculous. And this does not contradict Wells’s contention, since he accepts the historicity of Jesus the Galilean preacher anyway.) He also points to the presence of the “Christ” term in numerous New Testament letters, not just Paul’s, reminding the reader that many of these — again, not just Paul’s — are presumed to be earlier than the Gospels.

   I have to say that up to a point (outlined below) Wells’s case seems fairly persuasive that the Christ is one figure — a supernatural entity envisioned purely by Paul — and Jesus quite another — a real Galilean preacher who lived during the first half of the 1st century c.e. In fact, the texts he describes in the article’s first half, texts reflecting one figure or the other, appear consistent with his theory. He uses logic up to that point and seems ready to retain that logic for the article’s second half. Throughout, his main focus is on Holding’s argument against all his theories, and he seeks to show, by constantly referencing Holding, that his reasoning is far sounder than Holding’s. Up to a point, it is. And one is prepared to expect him to maintain the disciplined logic that typifies his argument in the first half.

   But he doesn’t. And when he drops that logic, he loses credibility and this reader’s trust and his case collapses like a house of cards, IMO.

   The final section starts responsibly enough. Towards the end of the second half, after going through the most important secular non-Scriptural references to Jesus, and after showing their relative lateness and their essential “second-tier status”, so to speak (possibly using hearsay from Christians), he finally addresses the two passages in Josephus’s Antiquities from the 90s in the 1st century c.e. He spends quite some time on Antiquities 18, the T.F. passage, which has seemed, to scholars of various persuasions, somewhat corrupted, via Josephus’s use of Christian terms and assertions. To those like myself who are fairly familiar with (and suspicious of) the odd Christian-like assertions here, and also familiar with the second-earliest text of this passage, which appears in an Arabic quote by someone else from the 10th century where none of the Christian glossing seems present (Eusebius’s 4th-century citation is the earliest), Wells adds nothing new. But Wells is useful in that he assembles all the arguments against the authenticity of the fuller version extant in all the actual Antiquities mss., a manuscript tradition that only starts in the 11th century.

   So far, so good. But after using up eleven paragraphs on Antiquities 18, he only spends one paragraph on Antiquities 20, the Josephan reference to James as the brother of Jesus, called Christ! In that one paragraph, he writes:

   “The shorter passage in the Antiquities that mentions Jesus consists of a reference to James “the brother of Jesus, him called Christ”. Holding recognizes that some scholars regard the phrase as interpolated, for reasons which I have given in JL, pp. 52-55. Certainly, the use of the term ‘Christ’ (Messiah) without explanation in both passages is not to be expected of Josephus who takes considerable care not to call anyone Christ or Messiah, as the term had overtones of revolution and independence, of which, as a lackey of the Roman royal house, he strongly disapproved. Also, it is not true that the phrase ‘him called so-and-so’ is either invariably dismissive in Josephus’ usage (so that it would mean ’so-called’, ‘alleged’ and so could not here be from a Christian hand), nor that ‘him called Christ’ is an unchristian usage an interpolator would have avoided. (On the contrary, the phrase occurs, as a designation of Jesus, both in the NT and in Justin Martyr’s Apology, 1, 30.)”

   That’s all. No acknowledgement that this account of James cannot come from Scripture, since it’s different in substantive detail from anything about James we see in the canon. How likely then that this account ever came from believers? No discussion either of the target of the general outrage that Josephus describes in his paragraph 20, an outrage aimed at one Ananus for exceeding his authority. The focus of this paragraph is Ananus, not James, who remains incidental to Josephus’s story here.

   No discussion either of the most salient aspect in the written documentation for this sentence: the fact that written references to this sentence, complete with “Jesus, him called Christ”, are extant almost immediately upon Josephus’s writing it, whereas with Antiquities 18 — reflecting a pattern that Wells does not hesitate to underscore — we have no reference until Eusebius’s first as late as the 4th century, after which many centuries pass before we even get a second. Wells spends time on that curious pattern for Antiq. 18, but totally covers up the contrasting pattern for Antiq. 20. Here is where he loses credibility in my eyes. His integrity as a historian, all the careful reasoning that he displays in the first half — all this seems abandoned in this perfunctory, dishonest and evasive paragraph on Antiq. 20.

   Finally, we have a truly evasive tactic in Wells’s airy reference to “some scholars” feeling that this too is interpolated — without explaining why “some” feel it’s interpolated, as if the mere suspicion were good enough to put it under a cloud! Well, he does explain in detail why Antiq. 18 could have interpolations or could be interpolated wholesale; so why not provide the same detail for Antiq. 20? His merely saying that Josephus was unlikely to have ever used the term “Christ” does not deal in any disciplined way with this particular use of the term “Christ” in this particular passage! More evasion.

   In any case, there are a fair number of Jesus figures throughout Josephus. Specifying which Jesus Josephus is writing of by merely citing the term that distinguishes him in the public’s mind is not endorsing that term! What’s he supposed to have done? Leave the reader hanging without specifying which Jesus at all? Furthermore, the use of the turn of phrase, “some scholars”, intimates a fair number of real scholars, when there are only the tiniest handful of dabblers out there, many of them amateurs. That may not be mendacious of Wells, but it is misleading. [/POST]

   – That’s what I wrote.

   Someone at that other board responded to what I’d written on Wells by asking which “canon” I was referring to, suggesting that the believers’ “canon” of the ’90s in the 1st century c.e. might have included a thing or two on James that Josephus was merely parroting. A fair question, but it still falls afoul of Occam’s Razor in a way similar to the manner in which a number of other mythicist arguments do, and I pointed that out in my response –

   [POST] Too convenient. You’re violating Occam’s Razor to suppose that there was a lost Scriptural text that just happened to address an alternate fate for James. What we have is a continuous non-variant flow of text that is attested to with no variants in Josephus’s own time, in a number of contemporary citations, describing an uprising against Ananus in which this James figures tangentially. Furthermore, the kinds of writings that appear to have slipped between the cracks in the canonical process are texts like Thomas, etc., in which doctrinal aspects are directly involved, suggesting that texts that were “lost” were texts that really violated the steadily hardening doctrines of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Nothing doctrinal is involved in the person James. And even those texts that are both in Scripture and outside it but presented as faith works (like letters from Clement or Gospels like Thomas) simply don’t bother with James or Jesus’s siblings in general. I understand what you’re saying, but it remains a very forced argument. [/POST]

   – That was my response.

   Finally, someone else thought that I was somehow applying Occam’s Razor to this reading of Josephus 20 as a way of showing “proof” that the familiar reading of the passage is right and the mythicist reading is wrong. He took exception to this, since, as he stressed, Occam’s Razor is strictly a rule of thumb for ascertaining the preferable, not the proved. Somehow, he had thought I intended to apply Occam’s Razor in order to establish “proof” rather than relative likelihood. But I had plainly intended the latter only. Once again, you see, here was someone (effectively) conflating evidence and proof as one and the same. I wrote back:

   [POST] Very well, then: To establish an arbitrary premise that there is this hypothetical lost “faith text” that describes a different fate for James than we have in known Scripture is tantamount to making this “explanation less preferable to those other theories that contain” fewer “premises”. And the degree to which this notion is less preferable to others is exacerbated by shaky speculation that (another hypothesis here!) this hypothetical lost “faith text” is the basis of a paragraph in Antiquities that (unlike the one in Antiq. 18) just happens to run seamlessly with everything before and after it! Such a convoluted theory is hardly preferable to the more straightforward reading of this passage as simply a unified account by Josephus of events that he knew of in the same way that he knew of most of the other events narrated in his chronicle: his personal spadework.

   I certainly didn’t intend — and if the implication seems otherwise, that’s unintentionally misleading on my part — to present the application of Occam’s Razor in this case as a way of proving anything absolute when it comes to “the correct” reading of this passage. I was speaking strictly to preferability only, not to proof. There is no “proved” way of reading anything in the ancient world.

   After all, there is no lack of evidence for an historical Jesus. There is a lack of proof, such as we might see in something like the most carefully researched Times article on some current-day headline, say, that vexes those who doubt there is a historical Jesus. This distinction between evidence and proof is rarely addressed. By necessity, historians of the ancient world can deal only in evidence, never in proof. Extending that further, in cases like the present one of this ancient chronicle by Josephus, proof on any one reading of a given passage is likewise not out there either. In fact, in all studies of all documents related to the ancient world, proof is never an option, only likelihood and and preferability. That’s the nature of this beast. Whether we are assessing one sentence in one contemporary chronicle of that distant period, or assessing an entire biography back then, the same thing applies: ancient documents yield only evidence pointing to relative likelihoods and preferabilities; they never yield proof.

   Consequently, when I apply something like Occam’s Razor, in this kind of ancient context, to show the ridiculousness of some far-fetched notion, I am always dealing strictly in relative likelihoods and preferabilities only, never in disproof and/or proof. The latter is not an option. You can take that as a given: evidence and preferabilities and likelihoods are the sum total of what any historian of the ancient world can tell you. If we allow only proof to determine history, then history would have to start strictly with the Renaissance and no earlier! [/POST]

   Any thoughts on all this, please? I’m truly interested in someone else’s perspective on this, not just mine. Many thanks.

   Sincerely,

   Stone

   Reply
   • Michael says:

     October 23, 2009 at 1:31 pm

     Wow your argument is so bathed in rhetoric that you lost your audience after the first paragraph. If your real point is to prove to the world how pretentious you are, then job well done!

     Now please learn to elequently create your prose in a way that does not rely on a 20 page essay that can be said in 2 paragraphs. Perhaps then you will effectively get your point accross while maintaining your audience.

     Reply
4. Paper says:

   June 27, 2009 at 2:35 am

   Stone,

   You wrote way too much for anybody to care what you said.

   –Paper BEATS Stone–

   Reply
5. idontknow says:

   June 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm

   I appreciate this article, but I had hoped to see some analysis of the second part of zeitgeist, as that is an extremely popular movie propagating the 9/11 conspiracy narrative. I have several friends that believe everything they hear and would like to maybe provide them a handy article or website that is thorough like this analysis. Anybody know a good website/article/internet video that does this effectively?

   Reply
   • Sky says:

     July 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm

     idontknow, the website http://www.conspiracyscience.com has an article where he examines all three parts of Zeitgeist, and he is working on the sequel too right now. Also most of the 9/11 conspiracy claims have been disproven by othe people as well. Try 911myths.com, debunking911.com, and the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 911 Myths.

     Reply
     • skepticofsocalledskeptics says:

       August 11, 2009 at 1:33 am

       Read David Ray Griffin’s book “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory”. As one reviewer put it, “this book is a controlled demolition of the official story”.

       Reply
6. Waters says:

   July 1, 2009 at 6:41 pm

   Mr. Callahan, thanks for an interesting read.

   Mr Stone, well written. Please leave a link to your web site or some other place where you perhaps elaborate more, as I don’t think the comment space here is very suitable for a detailed debate.

   Reply
7. achybreakyleg says:

   July 1, 2009 at 7:53 pm

   Goodness gracious stone. You really got it all of your chest there. Do you feel better for it. Phew…take a deep breath.

   I watched Zeitgeist myself and was also familiar with ‘Archarya S’ too who has a similair argument and a background in ‘astrotheology’
   Yes ,many may see this new field as a lot of new age claptrap. But i must say, there is a lot of credence in at least some arguments mentioned.

   1/ Religions through time have melded from old to new not immediately like bang! Suddenly everyone became christian once constantine promoted the religion throughout his empire. Being a new monotheistic religion, of course the old polytheism now was integrated gradually into the new christianity gradually and using saints and mary to help the polytheism meld into the new christian religion gradually. One has only to look at the greco-egyptian mix that happened after alexander the great and hellenic period in egypt. Horus Isis etc. were brought into the hellinic religious realm without a hitch gradually

   We know for instance that saint patrick while converting the irish(sorry to jump forward in time) used the pagan sun worship of the irish non christians(pagan), by sutly changing the son of god in the holy trinity to the sun of god! Sneaky eh? The sacred water of the pagan sacred lakes, became the holy baptismal water etc. Patrick also used the pre existing pagan altars in the forest like a sacred tree stump, to become a christian altar by simply adding a cross.
   Also easter was the ancient irish pagan festival of beltane so it wasnt difficult for him to gradually change it to easter festival having used these other spurious methods to trick pagans into this new religion by not being too dramatic and not completely overhauling all their prevuious beliefs

   2/ History has for many years been wrote by the victors in wars. Now this is becoming more difficult in modern times but even during the 2nd world war, we hear the official version of what happened from the allied perspective.

   Now i hate to say this, but I’m very sceptical of josephus’ writings about jesus. There is a great risk i believe of forgery to to suit roman christian hegemony.I hope some time in the future that an archaelogy dig finds the earliest possible josephus writings to compare what we have now with what he wrote at the time. Unlikely I know.
   I know that Josephus was fully romanised and under roman patronage so i doubt he would do anything to rock the boat in his lifetime.
   Thats why I’m so skeptical about the mentions of christ. At that time, jews were hardly flavour of the month, never mind the emerging christians who were about to become the blame of many ills by some accounts. Definitely not popular in rome.
   History as we know it I believe is what has been decided by the most powerful, the winners of wars, and what most suits. There could well be an argument that pre christian romans were impressed with the faith of christians and their loyalty and devotion to christ. I dont see why not that constantine could for reasons of social control or perhaps a later roman catholic high in the religious hierarchy like the first popes could well have worked out that roman catholicism could effectively “rule” the empire for many years after the demise of the roman empire. They would have been very right indeed. They ran the show in the guise of a religion until a certain martin luther spoiled things for them. But lets face it, they still arent doing too bad??? Most of the latin americas and southern europe, not ot mention the carribean, phillipines a significant percentage of the world population too.(Not counting the millions of protestant offshoots which are afterall still christian)

   Reply
8. achybreakyleg says:

   July 1, 2009 at 8:14 pm

   What i meant to lead onto here. The so called astrological aspects talked about in zeitgeist. Well its at leat debatable. I dont see why it should be dismissed out of hand. There are many theories puporting that the cross was a solar symbol. The writer even gives this credence in the article above.
   Also many recently found egyptian temples have a cruciform plan just like modern churches.
   But I think its worth mentioning the theory that Akhenaten the pharoah who is often qouted as one of the first monotheists, worshipped a sun disc Aten. Now, it gets very interesting when some alternative historians have theorised that Akhenaten was around the time of the exodus and Moses etc.
   Well the story of Moses being abandoned by his mother and being found by an egyptian princess in the reeds is a big stretch for me. Perhaps one of the greatest jewish patriarchs(moses) wasnt even jewish, but egyptian? That wouldnt go down to well for such an important character?
   If the theory is correct, and I am not offering any backup here… just a theory for me but possible- that moses was at the time of this egyptian monotheist akhenaten, then perhaps moses got his ideas from this new egyptian religion.
   Why i say this…. If you research early judaism, you will find that before moses, there is evidence that it was polytheistic in its earlier guises.
   The text of the epic of gilgamesh and other tablets found in archaeology digs have made me very skeptical of the noah flood mythology. With the similarities in genesis and their contemporary flood myth, the staggering similarities add credence to the argument that a lot of religions are based on or mixed with previous incrarnations of people who have mixed with or conquered other peoples. ie. Jews conquered by the babylonians, egyptians et al. So these mixing and melding of religions are wholly possible.
   So why not this astrotheology which ancient peoples were fascinated with? Is it really a step too far

   Reply
9. achybreakyleg says:

   July 1, 2009 at 10:45 pm

   Im starting to hyperventilate like stone now and cant help myself….. I must admit, I went off on a bit of a tangent really there.

   Its important not to rule out theory and start saying everything needs backing up with certain facts. If that was the case, the main theology of most religions would be brought into question.
   What gets me so much is how christians can laugh about the hindu pantheon or buddhist religion yet are convinced that their own religion is most definitely based on fact.
   My personal view is that many religions once we cut through individual dogmas have many similarities and are a lot more similar than the differing religions would like to admit.
   eg. a lot of christians distance themselves from the judaic origins of their religion and really have no idea that islam is an abrahamic religion which believes in many of the early judeao- christian patriarchs/prophets as very important to their religion only in a different way.

   I feel that a lot of world religions could be based on earlier root religions which get mixed and refined much like languages and dialects develop with inter-marriage, conquest and emmigration over long periods from prehistory until the modern age

   Also, there has always been a psychological need for religion or the meaning of life. Lets face it, life can feel pointless for the majority without a reason to be here.

   So…. to finish, I just wish to say that although Joseph and “Archarya S” may seem a bit “new age” to many or even pseudoscience to others, they have a valid point if they can further research the earliest religions they have been studying further and find more links to their astrothology theories. I have no doubt that the earliest sumerian , babylonian, and egyptian religions put a lot of emphasis on astrology certainly and I’ve read some convincing works showing that pre dynastic egyptian kings were named after constellations or stars that were the most northerly at that time(like our north star and the surrounding constellation). Sorry i dont have any links right now. I am theorising but a guy is allowed his opinion. Feel free to shoot down my theories. Thanks for listening to my long drawn out rant! It was all stone’s fault lol

   Reply
10. subgenius says:

    July 12, 2009 at 10:25 am

    Zeitgeist does sometimes seem a bit over-reaching in its interpretations, but Callahan here seems to be injecting a lot of his own obfuscations. Plenty of extraneous details and loosely drawn conclusions to muddy the waters.

    Here’s just one example, of many:
    (Callahan) “…or he was repeating what Christians themselves had said of Jesus. Were Jesus a mythical character they had invented, they certainly wouldn’t have gone out of their way to invent his being a criminal who had been executed.”
    Christians didn’t call him a “criminal.” Christians described him as a completely innocent man who had been executed– a martyr! Martyrdom is an extremely useful emotional tool for establishing religions.

    Reply
11. Grant says:

    July 23, 2009 at 2:15 am

    why don’t you do a critique on part II & III?

    Reply
12. Haltzu says:

    July 23, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    Who cares about old stories, critique part II and III !

    Reply
13. Grant says:

    July 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    I’m watching Zeitgeist Addendum. Why is no one talking about the other aspects of the movie besides the Jesus thing, and secondarily 9/11. What about the monetary system they talk about and the technology thing? That stuff seems FAR more important (in my “opinion”).

    Reply
    • TheDaver says:

      July 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm

      “One thing at a time”. There’s a LOT of misinformation to debunk in Zeitgeist.

      Callahan’s area is religion, so naturally that’s the part he tackled.

      Reply
      • skepticofsocalledskeptics says:

        August 11, 2009 at 1:57 am

        ***** Read the “Companion Guide to Zeitgeist” by Acharya S she deals well with the skeptics and so called debunking of Zeitgeist.*****

        “For what is now called the Christian religion existed of old and was never absent from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh. Then true
        religion which already existed began to be called Christian.”

        Saint Augustine, Retractiones (I, xiii)

        “The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was neither New nor Strange.”

        Bishop Eusebius, The History of the Church (II, iv)

        “There can be no doubt that the oldest Egyptian writings contain some vestiges of primeval faith. Egyptians in very remote areas believed in the immortality of man,
        with reward or punishment in the future state. They believed in the existence of good and evil powers in this life, and were not without a sense of personal
        responsibility…”

        Rev. Dr. W.H. Rule, The Horus Myth and Its Relation to Christianity (66)

        Reply
14. guilnroses says:

    July 30, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    I do agree that there are a lot of non-trustful information in this movie, even tought it all makes sense to me (it is exactly what I ever believed even without deep knowledge on this subject), but I believe this movie’s intention is to finally start a discussion on these important subjects. I hope the director achieves his goals and we get the right answers for all those questions …

    Reply
15. Joseph Kelly says:

    August 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Zeitgeist part 1 is arguing that Christianity borrowed many traditions and symbolism from pre-existing religions. Many priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, and lay believers would agree, without it being a threat to faith. An interesting presentation, but pointless to both believers and non-believers.

    Reply
16. Billy says:

    August 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    Invoking Occam’s razor is an interesting tactic.

    What is the simpler explanation that fits all the facts:

    1. Jesus is the actual son of god, able to perform miracles as outlined in the bible.

    or

    2. Jesus was a normal man, unable to perform any miracles, but people invented miracles and attributed those miracles to him.

    or

    3. Jesus was a myth, and the miracles attributed to him are merely a hybridization of various myths pre-dating (and in some cases post-dating) his supposed existence. Since he is a myth, performing miracles is no problem, since those would ultimately be myths as well.

    Occams razor combined with scientific analysis would argue:

    Argument 1 is impossible because there is no scientific evidence for god, much less that Jesus was the son of god.

    Argument 2 is possible, but is more complicated than necessary because it requires lining up reality (the existence of a real man) with fiction.

    Argument 3 is possible and is simpler than argument 2 because the entire topic can be lined up more easily to be self consistent (* although even then there are inconsistencies such as Mary Magdalene’s role in Jesus’ life).

    Occam’s razor would suggest argument 3 is the most probable background behind Jesus’ existence, with argument 2 being a close second. In BOTH of those realistic cases, some SERIOUS myths have to be attributed to Jesus, and the origin of those myths would quite likely have come from previously existing mythology.

    Lastly, of course you could argue that argument 1 is the simplest, but since it completely defies all scientific logic and evidence, it can be completely discounted in a RATIONAL consideration.

    So in summary:
    Jesus was a myth and his miracles were also myths, or possibly Jesus was a real man and his miracles were myths.

    I fail to see how Zeitgeist as a ‘general’ conclusion missed the mark on the topic. All Zeitgeist is purporting to do is show that the direction of the myths is fundamentally astronomical, which isn’t too much of a stretch when you acknowledge that most early cultures put extremely heavy weight on astronomical things in their myths.

    In particular, easter itself depends on TWO astronomical events … the vernal equinox and the full moon.

    http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/qt/whyeasterchange.htm

    —-quote—–
    “Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox.” This statement was true prior to 325 AD; however, over the course of history (beginning in 325 AD with the Council of Nicea), the Western Church decided to established a more standardized system for determining the date of Easter.
    —-endquote—–

    If Jesus doesn’t have some tie into astronomical events, why does Easter involve TWO astronomical events?

    Reply
17. Sky says:

    August 4, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Billy, why is argument 3 more possible than argument 2? The early christian writers wrote about a person that they thought lived 30-50 years before them. Myths are often based on true events. Other people who are considered historical have stories about them where they perform miracles (like Pythagoras.) If you look for older myths that Jesus could be based on, than there are better matches than this astrology stuff. For example, the Pharaoh tried to kill baby Moses by killing all the boys, and Herod tried to kill baby Jesus by killing all the boys.

    Also, the early Jewish-Christians didn’t have a holiday for Easter. Later on non-Jewish people converted to Christianity and brought the holiday with them. So Easter doesn’t really have much to do with the story of Jesus.

    Reply
18. Sonny says:

    August 8, 2009 at 11:59 am

    Yea, Zeitgeist was indeed bullshit. However the historical Jesus crowd makes too many assumptions for my tastes. Like the vague Josephus quote and the decision that the parts of Mathew and Luke that are different have to be real rather than just bits of the oral tradition they heard. It seems like they almost go so far as to say that if it’s not silly like miracles it must be true. Yet if Jesus was real in the way they say, why does the bible seem to be trying so hard to squeeze him into historical events and do such a bad job of it?

    Now granted there is a grain of truth there. It’s obvious Jesus was not completely made up. There were many Jewish apocalyptic preachers for a century or 2 before and after the beginning of the new calender. Most likely Jesus was just an amalgamation of apocalypticists. Then it was changed by retelling like modern urban legends. In this case you probably have 50 years or more before anything was written down.

    There is one other less likely possibility. Jesus could be an actual apocalypticist from the early 1st century. However you still have 30 years or more of oral tradition before anything is written. So if Jesus was one single real man, he would be unremarkable and no different from any other apocalypticist of the time. So either way the amount of truth in it doesn’t really matter.

    I don’t see the point of this search for historical Jesus either. Sure he has some nice quotes. But really all his niceness was meant for other Jews only. He did not negate the old testament and he did seem to be ok with slavery. Plus all those things were probably invented after the fact anyway. The only stuff that people actually preached was the stuff about the coming apocalypse and afterlife.

    As for the astronomical stuff, the early church just put their holidays around the pagan ones and adopted many of their traditions in an effort to get converts. So that’s why the holidays are as they are. Jesus doesn’t have anything to do with astrology. It’s still mostly legend though.

    Reply
19. Naomi says:

    August 12, 2009 at 6:56 am

    Nice article. Please investigate the claims made in the books entitled : The Bible Code I & II.

    Reply
20. strattford says:

    August 14, 2009 at 3:54 am

    I’m only posting because I can’t stand a website named “www.skeptic.com” that have this biased article about the existence of Jesus (the historial and the biblical).

    But my problem is not with people who actually believes that Jesus existed. I mean, it don’t take too much effort to realize that MANY people have a MUCH better as a believer, so I don’t see why atheists make a big deal about that. In special, their complains about ‘judging’ people and ‘controlling’ them by making them feel ‘guilty’ because -SPECULATTING- I think that most people make ’sins’ at DAILY BASIS, regardless if it’s an ortodox Christian or a fake-one (sorry, I’m not good in English).

    So, these atheists seems to be upset by religion’s practice, but they do basically the same, in fact IMO the difference are just regarding their goals.

    I’m not a Christian. I’m not sure if I ever read anything from the Bible or if I ever pray (but I did prey many times against my will). But I remember when I change my mind and realized about the benefits some people have for being Christians. I worked in a company for three years with a Christian fellow sharing the office room. He is (or he was, It make some time) such an example of a good Christian in practice but he didn’t believe in almost anything on the Gospels… So, perhaps he was a pagan to some people, but I never see a Christian so ‘Christian’ like him (charity, compassionate, he never attempt to ‘convert’ me when I told about my views, and he frequently helped people on the streets, trying to motivate people when talking, buying food sometimes, and the most important, I never heard he talking about Christianity to those people, unleast they talked about that first, and this is what I respected the most, because he didn’t look like a door-to-door seller, all he wanted was to help people who need help badly).

    In a couple of times, he discussed about it. He argued that almost everyone do something similar and he mentioned, well, a 14/15 years old young having “spending” much of their afternoom in the bathroom. So, the kid don’t daydream about celebrities because he believes that ‘its just a matter of time to make it real’. It’s nothing but a fantasy…

    So, basically, the kid (but not just the kids) make an illusion with nothing to do with his/her reality. Regardless how near impossible it may be, it actually ‘works’ (I don’t think I need to be explicit here, it’s pretty clear).

    We make a lie that we know that’s a lie but we keep doing so because it makes us feel good. It’s that simple.

    But backing to this article: I really want to know what you mean with “skeptic” just because of this article. I’m my view, EVERYTHING that cannot be proved, or is not supported by enough reliable sources, in special, a book that claims that 2000 ago the World was as akward and different as the lord of the rings series are when compared to the current World we live…

    You are taking an “indepent” work from a skeptic guy who is not deeply right like an scholar with PHDs, no complains about that, but compared to ANY sacred books (the little I know is enough to reach an conclusion) his movies are far away regarding the reak World. And It’s a shame that you end writing about it like someone from mainstream utterly biased media. Really, the guy is doing it for idealism, free to everyone, I personally didn’t like “Addendum”, specially the ’solution’ he point out at the end, but but the guy is doing what he can based on his knowledge, so if you don’t agree the issues, fine, but don’t trash the guy just because of that. Did it ever occured to you that he could came to your site, and who knows, what if you write your points more slightly and perhaps giving some inspiration, ideas, that he may agree and make a third movie with these points?

    Sincerely (oh, and sorry about my bad English!
    Bruno – Brazil

    Reply
21. Bill says:

    August 28, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Okay, quickly read the zeitgeist critique and it makes some valid points, but a few things (can you tell I’m not into work today?):

    1. It sort of picks and chooses some pieces of the film to attack and while makes good and valid points (I’m not an expert on old religions as I see no reason to be an expert in mythology) it misses the bigger point – all religions are fake, recycled, overlap, etc.

    2. It nearly admits, except for a one flimsy book citation that Jesus never existed. Now the point isn’t even to debate if there is any real historical record – (maybe there is, but there is obviously very little if any of it is authenticat all). There are people that call themselves the messiah today which we could put in a history book! I.E. – That Branch Davidian nut job in Waco, TX. The point is that if Jesus DID exist, it was likely in the same context that any messiah exists today – no one sane believed it then and certainly no miracles were ever actually performed!

    3. People, like this author, don’t understand what “conspiracy theories” really are and have a hoot making fun in a mocking way. “Conspiracy theories” should simply be called “rich and powerful people trying very hard to control and direct things in a way that gives them further wealth and control.”

    “Conspiracy theorists” don’t think there are a handful of people meeting in a boardroom mapping out 9/11 and the week to week events in the world. Not at all. Nor do the “rich and powerful elite” always “win” or get what they want or agree on things. Roman elites didn’t co-opt Christianity per se, but they were smart enough to use it to further their interests. And governments contolled largely by elite interests have fed on the naivety of people and used religion ever since. This author is using some of Zeitgeist’s words far too literally – like when he makes the comments of debt being used to enslave populations. Well, that’s sort of true. It’s quite complicated. But the secrecy of central banks, and wealth concentrations among a few people is evidence it’s not all for the good of people. Literally enslave? No. Call it “invisible hand enslavement” if you will.

    Reply
    • Tom says:

      September 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm

      Well-said, Bill. Just like Joseph says in “Addendum”, the controlling elite don’t need to whisper around a table in a dark room — they are able to act largely in concert because of an unspoken agreement that maximizing their profits without regard for ethic is the way to stay in power.

      Reply
22. Sky says:

    August 30, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    @ Bill

    1. How does the article miss the bigger point of the video? If the point is to show that religions are fake, than that makes it okay to use incorrect or distorted information to “prove” this point? I believe that religions are mythology for the most part, but I wouldn’t use false information to prove this.

    2. Now I think that you are the one who is missing the point. This article wasn’t trying to prove that Jesus performed miracles or existed. It is clear that Callahan is not a Christian apologist, he was showing that much of the information in Zeitgeist is incorrect.

    3. ““Conspiracy theorists” don’t think there are a handful of people meeting in a boardroom mapping out 9/11 and the week to week events in the world.”
    -Were you watching the same video? They spent 40 minutes trying to show that 9/11 was a conspiracy by a handful of people who weren’t A Qeada. Or were they just making stuff up and I was missing the bigger point of the video?

    “This author is using some of Zeitgeist’s words far too literally”
    -Right so Zeitgeist was just kiding about stuff like tracking chips being put in people but it is all part of the bigger point of the video?

    Zeitgeist uses false information, made up facts, and lies, that are not supposed to be taken literally but it is all part of the bigger point which is to show how naive people are. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Reply
23. Anon says:

    September 6, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    @Sky

    1. The video is self-defeating in propagating false and slippery arguments about Christianity. Bill is likely speaking to the probable neglect of the remainder of what might be true in the movie. Hopefully we can agree that the film does provoke the viewer to think critically, something which the layman is usually loathe to do.

    2. Perhaps Bill is trying to say this: there is something more important than the historicity of Jesus, which is the irrational belief in (scientifically implausible) elements of common religions that leaves the believer susceptible to manipulation (i.e. justification of inhumane acts). If the video failed to communicate this–and I think it could have been better–then Part I was not effective.

    3. While it is clear that the video posits that elite bankers control the world, and that we are headed for apocalypse (so indeed, boardroom(s)), simply equating the term “conspiracy theory” to only this boardroom imagery only does the independent thinker injustice. This association naively makes conspiracy claims seem laughable, because, on simple consideration, conspiracies can and do exist (Eliot Spitzer also said this). 9/11 may or may not have been an ‘inside job,’ but no one should find it impossible to imagine an elite group of people attempting to wield unsuspected influence by tacit means. And at least the Founding Fathers should provide some insight here. It seems that the movie attempted to do this, but it is unfortunately questioned by the veracity of Part I on Jesus. It would be shameful to prematurely discard the more important claims of the movie because Peter Joseph botched the introductory religion segment.

    Reply
24. kyrpepaske says:

    September 7, 2009 at 6:07 am

    I suggest you read up behaviour characteristics of psychopaths, not the ones that sit in jail’s but the ones whom run in corporations&goverments@ high positions and RE-think the need of conspiracy, it can be simply explained in macropsychological terms of selfish behaviour+communication skills that is always required in bit higher position in hierarchy, thus enabling selfish-people to negotiate terms that benefit group of such people more than common folk…

    theres NO need for conspiracy, yet zeitgeist has scaringly accurate descriptions&symptoms of society and possible future gathered in it…

    sure theres lots of faults&mistakes, but i think the main idea is pretty good, i think i agree with most of em but not with conspiracy(becouse it can be explained in terms of macro-psychological model made by Andrew Lobaczewski…)

    ps. http://www.ponerology.com for Lobaczewski:s book site…

    Reply
25. leo says:

    September 8, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Academically explaining something does not eliminate its consequences.

    Reply
    • rob says:

      September 11, 2009 at 7:57 pm

      Well said. In journalism as well, explaining something accurately does not eliminate the consequence. It actually should enhance the consequence.

      Reply
26. kenn pappas says:

    September 10, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Here’s the best evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul, in Galatians, admits that he met with James the brother of Jesus, and Peter. There’s good reason to believe that at some point, they exchanged information about who Jesus was. They were talking about somebody.

    The alternative explanation is that Peter and his fellows made up the whole story, generated a number of followers who also made up the “Jesus” story, and fabricated enough of the story to fool Paul.

    This latter point sounds like a perfect conspiracy story.

    There should be no controversy as to whether or not a man named Jesus who had disciples and died on a cross is true or not. The real issue is whether or not he got up out of the tomb and walked away, ascended into heaven and sat at the throne next to God. That’s a matter for faith. As to the so-called controversy about whether Jesus existed or not, one has to ask, why were all the letters of Paul, Galatians, Thessalonians, and others, which acknowledge some contact between Paul and the disciples, or the “Circumcision Party” as he so often calls them, then fabricated in order to make this Jesus fellow real? At some point, there is excellent reason to believe that Peter and James and the other fellows walked around with a guy named Jesus. How they came to the conclusion that he was the messiah is a whole different issue.

    Reply
27. Hyperbole says:

    September 17, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Carl Gustav Jung’s essay “The Undiscovered Self(Present and Future).” Zeitgeist The Movie Part 1 seems to have an uncanny resemblance to this essay with key facts added, distorted or omitted. At times part 1 seems to be bordering on plagiarism when discussing the astronomical events leading up to the present. Additionally Jung’s essay also refers to the Zeitgeist of times. It is impossible to know if the author had any idea of this, or if this parallel between the two works is a similar human sentiment that I am juxtaposing by coincidence like a pleasant chord progession. This may not be the forum but I am curious of people’s thoughts on this?

    Reply