When Propaganda Masquerades as Book Review: Reply to Fitzgerald and Carrier

By David Skrbina, PhD

26 February 2026

​

​

I recently became informed of a sterling little review of my popular book on Christianity, The Jesus Hoax. I was informed, neither by the reviewer nor by his website-hosting partner, but by a fan of my work; she was anxious to hear my reply. It follows, in brief, below.

 

The review was written by a Jesus mythicist author, David Fitzgerald, whose books Nailed (2010) and Jesus: Mything in Action (2017) argue against a historical Jesus.  It was edited and posted by Richard Carrier, a prominent mythicist in his own right—see his On the Historicity of Jesus (2014) and his newest, The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus (2025). Carrier has a PhD in history, whereas Fitzgerald apparently only a BA in history (he is described as a “journalist, speaker, and atheist” from San Francisco). For reference, my own background includes an MS in mathematics and a PhD in philosophy.

 

The review in question has undergone at least a couple iterations; the original was apparently intended for the Journal of Higher Criticism, but that has been defunct for years, as far as I can tell. The current review, dated 9 Feb 2026, and posted at www.richardcarrier.info, carries the rather obnoxious title, “David Fitzgerald’s Review of David Skrbina’s Amateur Jesus Hoax.” (“Amateur”? I have been a professional philosopher and writer since 2003, longer than either Carrier or Fitzgerald, I believe. Strange conception of ‘amateur’.)

 

In any case, the posted version seems to have been initially written by Fitzgerald and then edited by Carrier, so I will presume a joint composition (“F&C”). Carrier explicitly “pretty much agrees with all of it” anyway, so no harm in doing so.

 

Now, in an honest review, one would expect to find a discussion of all arguments presented, strong and weak, and comments on both; one would expect an honest and objective appraisal of the text; and one would expect the reviewer to treat the book, and the author, with a modicum of respect, even if the book were poorly written or otherwise failed to achieve its aim. Sadly, none of these usual expectations apply here. Rather, we have here a classic “hatchet job”: a review aimed entirely at attacking the book, slandering the author (me), and generally attempting to dissuade anyone from buying or reading it. This is doubly odd here because both men are nominally on the same side as me; we all three disbelieve in the biblical Jesus, and we all seek to present a more honest and more truthful picture of events of that time. That begs the question, Why the hostility? Of course, there is always the competition factor; perhaps they see a fellow skeptic as stealing some of their thunder, I don’t know. Perhaps they wish their books were selling better, I’m not sure. But at least, here, one would expect a rough ideological alignment and hence a general acceptance of my position in The Jesus Hoax. But not so. Clearly something else is at play, as I will discuss below.

 

But first, to the points of contention: For starters, F&C have reviewed the first edition of my book, released in 2017 (copyright 2018). This is unfortunate because I released an expanded, 2nd edition in 2024, and this new edition addresses several of their concerns. (I also published a German translation in 2025, for what that’s worth.) One would think that a 2026 review could address a 2024 edition—but no. This is the first of many shortcomings with this review.

 

Then, in the first paragraph, we see the initial onslaught of insults: “unhinged conspiracy theory” and “full-blown antisemitic screed.” It seems that F&C don’t even like my subtitle, which includes the very naughty word ‘cabal.’ F&C are apparently captive to the conventional media mindset, in which a cabal necessarily implies “scheming Jews rubbing their hands in evil delight,” in their words. In fact, as I state explicitly (p. 110, n 16), a cabal is, technically, nothing more than “a small number of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation,” which is exactly my claim. Yes, in my case, they happen to be Jews—so what? And not “evil” (I rarely use that word) but yes, malevolent. Again, so what? Are F&C prepared to argue that Jews can never work in secret, never be rebellious, or never be “evil”? Only a Jewish supremacist would claim such a thing; are they such supremacists?

 

They then go on to claim that I, like Sean Hannity, have never addressed my critics. I must point out that two new chapters of my 2nd edition are dedicated to responding to critics, so it is again unfortunate that they did not read this. Perhaps they will review those chapters at their leisure.

 

Then follows a negative and deficient overview of my CV—an obvious attempt to smear my character and a blatant use of the ad hominem fallacy. They fail to note that my first book, Panpsychism in the West (2005) was published by MIT Press, and that a 2nd edition was published by them in 2017. They also neglect to cite my major work in philosophy of technology: The Metaphysics of Technology, published by Routledge in 2015. I’m guessing that both Fitzgerald and Carrier would love to have a major publisher like these handle their books, but don’t hold your breath on that. Both works, incidentally, have significant historical components, and hence my qualification for historical research on Jesus.

 

F&C then show a disdain for my criticism of many writers in the field of Jesus history or even Christianity generally, in that most authors are biased (ideologically-committed) Christians, or are journalists out to sell books, or are “independent researchers” (which typically means, no real qualifications at all). Not that I necessarily object to such authors, but I do believe they need to be honest about their credentials, and that readers should know from what perspective the author writes. In my case, not being a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, and also having an advanced degree in humanities with an emphasis on historical sources, gives me, yes, a relatively unique claim to objectivity and scholarship.

 

F&C charge me with thinking that my fellow Jesus skeptics are “not angry enough,” but this is false. What I do claim is that they are not brave enough: that is, not brave enough to have the courage of their convictions and to follow through on their own logic to the likely conclusions. Whatever my failings, I, at least, am willing to do this. If a bogus story of Jesus was constructed by people who did, or should have, known better, then they are liars—pure and simple. And if they did so for malevolent purposes, then they are malicious liars. If that offends the tender feelings of F&C, so much the worse for them. In that case, they ought to stay out of the game of controversial history.

 

The reviewers then move on to critique an alleged “major cornerstone” of my theory: that “an evil Jewish cabal” was responsible for the entirety of the Gospels. Actually, as any careful reader of the book would realize, my central contention is that Paul was the initiator of the Jesus lie, and that the later Gospel-writers, while likely being Jews, only elaborated and expanded on the Pauline theme.

 

F&C point out that, of course, since the identity of none of the Gospel writers is known, that we cannot be sure of their background or ethnicity. But all do, in fact, display a remarkable knowledge of the Old Testament, something that only an educated Jew would be likely to know. But even if Luke, say, is deemed to be a Gentile, that does not dramatically revise or undermine my thesis: it’s still a cabal (now only mostly Jewish), and it still serves Jewish interests. And it was still conceived by a confirmed Jew, Saul of Tarsus. The fact that a few Gentiles might work on behalf of Jewish interests should not be shocking to anyone, especially in the present day. If F&C are shocked by this idea, so much the worse for them.

 

Our reviewers then expend several paragraphs critiquing my argument that Luke was a Jew. Granted, it is undecided, but Luke’s extensive knowledge of the OT—something like 50 citations or allusions—points to a Jewish authorship. F&C’s answer to this (“any Gentile could know all sorts of things about Judaism through sources and informants”) is weak at best and ridiculous at worst. But even then, as I said, even if Luke was a Gentile, this only requires a minor adjustment to my thesis.

 

The same holds for John—likely a Jew, but if not, it is only a modification of my hoax theory. Now, sure, if all the Gospel writers were somehow determined to be Gentiles (impossible, by the way), then I would have to explain why a majority-Gentile cabal would work against Rome and for Jewish interests. But I won’t worry about that until that day comes.

 

Next, our intrepid reviewers turn their guns to my Chapter 4—“One Against All”—in which I detail the long history of (a) Jewish antipathy toward Gentiles, and then (b) Gentile antipathy toward Jews. For some strange (or perhaps not-so-strange) reason, they skip right over (a) and attack my section (b). Allow me to recap. Part (a) examines the many belligerent, malevolent, and yes, “evil” statements made by Jews or the Jewish God against non-Jews. There I show demonstrably that Jews strove for “dominion” or world domination, and that they simultaneously viewed all non-Jews with total contempt. This combination of dominion plus misanthropy results in a highly pernicious Jewish supremacism that has been manifest for literally thousands of years. It was true then and it’s true now, as we see played out in Gaza and elsewhere. But our reviewers are utterly unconcerned about this fact, and seem to think it is totally irrelevant to the Jesus story. I leave that to the reader’s judgment.

 

The second half of that chapter cites numerous famous ancient sources, beginning around 300 BC (with named sources), showing their negative impressions of the Jews of their day. I cite nearly two dozen individuals by name, all prominent figures in the ancient world, and all highly critical of the Jews (“misanthropic”, “arrogant,” “superstitious,” “seditious,” “accursed,” “base and abominable,” “treacherous”—the list goes on). F&C have not much to say here, primarily because I use precise quotations properly sourced. All they can claim is that I have “cherry-picked” the worst statements and avoided the positive ones. To that I argued: there are none. One struggles to find even a single unambiguous laudatory statement about Jews in the ancient world.

 

Had F&C bothered to read my 2nd edition, they would have found the section entitled “Cherry-Picking? The Hunt for Contradictory Evidence” (pp. 84-90). There I examine the one and only scholarly attempt to find positive statements: Louis Feldman’s book Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (1993). But the book fails miserably. There is so much fluff and filler that only one chapter—Chapter 7—directly seeks to find positive quotations. And indeed he finds some—most written by a Jew, Josephus! But that, of course, is not the issue at hand; the question is, which Gentiles have found it in themselves to praise the Jews? And that answer is: virtually none. In my book (2nd ed.) I give several examples from Feldman, all of which amount to turning lemons into lemonade. Feldman even turns Tacitus, that great critic of the Jews, into a philosemite! Incredible. The reader is invited to read Feldman’s book and make his own determination.

 

With desperation setting in, our brave and scholarly reviewers turn to more ad hominems. They attempt to use smear tactics against me, guilt-by-association (Rudolf, Dalton), and other petty ploys. As if such assertions will cause all my documented arguments and cited evidence to vanish—how juvenile. (More on this tactic below.)

 

They close this section of the review with the claim that I misrepresented Stern’s classic work Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, which includes many of the above critical comments. F&C claim that 133 of 161 authors cited by Stern wrote “respectfully” of Jews, and that only 28 of 161 were critical. This is simply untrue: I have read through Stern’s entire work, both volumes; have F&C? No—they rely on one “Dr. Riggenmann” for their data here. And in any case, Feldman has surely done a better job than “Riggenmann”, so just peruse his book for positive quotations—good luck with that.

 

And On It Goes

 

Next, F&C turn to my analysis of Paul as an anti-Roman revolutionary who creates the Jesus hoax and then promotes it around the ancient world. They make a handful of incidental and inconsequential claims against me:

 

• “Paul did not invent Christianity”. Well, somebody did! And our two mythicists, Fitzgerald and Carrier, who are committed to a “celestial Jesus” view (whereas I accept the likelihood of real man, a mortal rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth), must agree that someone, somewhere, made it up. Their situation is, ironically, worse than mine! I accept a mortal man who, after his crucifixion, was turned into a risen god by Paul. F&C, on the other hand, need to find someone, or some group, who invented the earth-man Jesus from whole cloth. On my view, yes, with a charismatic rabbi and social rabble-rouser like Jesus, there would have been a preexisting following, against which Paul originally battled, and then usurped with his fable of a god-man risen from the dead (later, in the Gospels, a miracle-working god-man—even juicier!). They have a much steeper hill to climb than that.

 

• “Christianity was Paul’s side-hustle”. No, that was his raison d'etre: Paul, like nearly all non-compromised elite Jews, would have hated intensely Roman rule and been utterly frustrated at the Jews’ inability to strike back. What better way, then, than to devise an ideological counterstrike? Not physical, not military, but conceptual, even intellectual. A new religion, to all intents and purposes, that might move the superstitious Gentile masses over to the Jews’ side and away from Rome. Paul was a clever man, even brilliant; he was certainly able to conceive and implement such a plan.

 

• “Paul was no Zealot.” An utterly incidental point. Fairchild (1999) provides some support for this view, and as Carrier, at least, surely knows, every paper can be “refuted” by some other researcher, so this proves nothing. Then F&C try to argue that Paul maybe was a Zealot, but later, after his “conversion,” was not. So what? He surely hated Roman rule for his whole life, and he surely wanted them to disappear from Judea so that the Jews could reassert control, such as they had prior to 63 BC. And this is the main point, after all.

 

• “Paul never killed a Christian”. Again, irrelevant. Whether he killed them with his own hands, paid a killer, publicly supported the killers, or whatever, is almost beside the point. In Acts 8:1, Saul “was consenting to their death.” In Acts 26:10, “when their were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” But that’s neither here nor there; I can accept a pre-conversion Jesus movement that Paul was first against, in whatever fashion, and then for, with his newly-invented god-man.

 

• “Paul’s theology is complicated!” Now they nit-pick over what counts as complicated. Sure, Paul’s letters are contorted and confusing, and his wording incoherent at times, but the theology and the Jesus story, are simple: no virgin birth, no star of Bethlehem, no miracles—just a god-man come to earth, who dies and is resurrected, which, somehow, promises eternal life to all who believe. If F&C find that complicated, so much the worse for them.

 

• “We find both pro- and anti-imperial sentiments in Paul”. Agreed, as I explained. There is some small cover language, to avoid obvious and explicit insurrection, but many more subtle anti-Roman, revolutionary cues. Simply counting the pro- and anti- passages, the case is quite clear. If F&C had read my 2nd edition, they would have seen the new Chapter 9 (“Is the New Testament Pro-Roman?”), where I detail my case.

 

• “Christianity had nothing to do with Rome falling.” Well, there’s this fellow, Edward Gibbon, and he wrote a little book, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (6 volumes; 1776-1788), and he explicitly names Christianity as a likely cause of the collapse, if not the main one. Maybe F&C should check that out.

 

• “Paul worked outside Judea, with Gentiles, and thus was not recruiting for the war (of 66-70 AD).” Paul did not know what was coming, nor when. He would have simply wanted to spread anti-Roman ideology and values far and wide within the Empire, and to inculcate Jewish theological ideas into Gentile minds (Jewish savior, Jewish God, Jewish prophets, Jewish values, Jewish eschatology, …). He likely sensed that a battle was looming in the future, and he surely figured that the more Gentiles he could soften up with Jewish ideals, the better. (Reminder to readers: Paul’s mission, and presumably his life, were over before the start of the war in 66 AD).

 

Again, even if their points here can be sustained, it does not undermine my hoax thesis. At worst, it would entail a few refinements. If and when they truly make a definitive case, then I will revise my text accordingly.

 

In good scholarly style, F&C close the “review” with more ad hominems: I am an “unstudied crank,” “ignorant of the facts,” employ “assertion over evidence,” and offer “naïve oversimplification.” My works sounds to them like “Nazi-inspired mythology” and thus “lacks any credibility.” Well! (If you could see me, I’m sticking out my tongue at them…) When we resort to juvenile name-calling, we know the battle is lost. 

 

Such is this so-called review, which is really just an excuse for petty and inconsequential attacks, ad hominems, and various slanders. Their few valid points really just demand small refinements on my part, which I am happy to make. Nothing they say overturns my main thesis—not even close.

 

For that matter, one of my main strengths is precisely their main weakness: accounting for the motive of the Christian fable. I have a precise and well-documented case that anti-Roman sentiment by all Jews, and especially by Paul and the Gospel writers, drove them to craft a Jesus story based on a real man, a mortal, who lived and died on a cross. They fleshed out the story, turned a dead rabbi into a resurrected Son of God, and then they—not “Jesus”—promised the Gentiles eternal life if they believed the nonsense. And they did it to undermine Roman rule.

 

What, by contrast, do Carrier and Fitzgerald offer us in the way of motive? To my knowledge, nothing at all. For them, apparently, Paul envisions a “celestial Jesus” from out of…nowhere? …the Old Testament? Then he spends his life promoting this Jesus story because…why? Money? Fame? Chicks? Seriously—what is the plausible motive here? And of the Gospel writers—same motive? Different? Or something else? Without a good story here, their whole approach falls apart.

 

And For Good Measure…

 

Not content with their mess of a review, Carrier then engages in a belabored comment session with various people, which includes more questionable assertions combined with gross slander against me.

 

Carrier states that Christians turned against Jews thanks to “inherited Gentile (not Jewish) anti-semitism”—correctly referring to my Chapter 4 (which he just finished bashing, by the way). Several Christian Fathers were anti-Jewish, including Melito of Sardis (ca. 150 AD), Tertullian (ca. 190), and Hippolytus (ca. 200), followed even more strongly by Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 375), Jerome (ca. 400), and John Chrysostom (ca. 400). These men had theological reasons to oppose Jews, and they had sociological reasons to oppose them, based on existing and persistent Jewish behavior—none of which relates to “inherited” anti-Semitism. I suggest Carrier read Chrysostom’s book Homilies Against the Jews for a better understanding of the situation.

 

In a subsequent comment, Carrier states his opposition to “blanket assignments of ‘blame’ to ‘the Jews’” because this is “nonfactual and irrational.” Hmmm. Ok, so, he suggests that we can never utter the phrase ‘the Jews,’ even though we do this all the time with every other ethnicity—“the Germans,” “the Palestinians,” “the Nazis,” etc. Everywhere it’s ok, apparently, except with the Jews—more Jewish supremacism here.

 

He goes on to admit that collective guilt is a real possibility, but that the bar is very high, and, yes, fortunately for them, “the Jews simply don’t meet the criteria.” But at least it is a theoretical possibility, is that right? Has there ever been a case, Dr. Carrier, in history or at present, in which “the Jews” have met the criteria for collective guilt? No? (Do I sense more Jewish supremacist thinking? Yes, indeed…)

 

Next comment: Carrier asserts that “the idea of Christianity as a Jewish plot is actually a Nazi doctrine.” This is both false and misleading. It was never “doctrine,” if by this, we refer to the 25 Points of National Socialism, or the philosophy expounded by Hitler in Mein Kampf, or of the work of Alfred Rosenberg in Myth of the 20th Century. If Carrier thinks it is “doctrine,” he needs to show us where this is documented. Secondly, the “Jewish plot” motif, or rather, the hoax theory, goes back at least to the 1770s in Hermann Reimarus and his Fragments. It is also elaborated by Nietzsche in Genealogy of Morals and Antichrist, albeit scattered in various statements. (Somehow I get the feeling that Carrier has never really read Nietzsche.) All these far predate Hitler or National Socialism, hence it is not a “distinct and unique tenet of Nazi Christianity,” as Carrier falsely believes.

 

Carrier then goes into top slander mode, connecting me with Dalton, who, he says, is a fake person. I suspect Dalton himself would be surprised to hear that. In fact, he released a short video last year (a silhouetted video, hence really just an audio) of himself taking credit for his work. The video is here: www.clemensandblair.com/post/a-statement-by-thomas-dalton. And surely there is even more to the story than this. Dalton apparently released some four dozen books (written or edited) and dozens of articles, in just the past few years. This is impossible for any one man, so clearly his output is the product of multiple people working under a common name. Carrier would realize this if he bothered to investigate the matter; but instead, he prefers to hurl accusations.

 

We need to keep in mind the central point of contention here: On my thesis, one Jew, Paul, originated the hoax; and then a literal handful of other Jews—‘Mark,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘Luke,’ and ‘John’—extended and promoted it. Surely they had assistance from other Jews, so let us say, a dozen in total. From 2,000 years ago. Who are now long dead. Did I ever say “all Jews” are hoaxsters? No. Did I ever “blame” “all Jews”? No. And yet, despite all this, Carrier and Fitzgerald decry my book as “an antisemitic screed.” Amazing.

 

So, what’s really going on here? The invective is entirely uncalled for, both by Carrier and Fitzgerald. I have done nothing against them, and in fact, I generally support their work; I want them to succeed; we need more writers making more cases that the Jesus story is false and that something else, therefore, must have happened. We are on the same side of the battle, and yet they feel the need to bash me and my book. Why?

 

It is clear that both of these men take strong personal offense at my book and my statements. It is not just a matter of intellectual or professional disagreement; no, it is personal. I have apparently wounded them deeply. But why would that be? I can think of three possible reasons. First, they are Christian Zionists—but I think we can safely discard that possibility. Second, they are Jews. And are they? Not ‘religious’ Jews, but ethnically—are they? ‘Fitzgerald’ doesn’t sound Jewish, but ‘Carrier’? It is apparently of French-British origin, but that of course tells us nothing about any possible Jewish ethnicity. If Carrier were a Jew, then we can certainly understand his emotional response to an ideological compatriot like myself. Perhaps he can clarify.

 

The third option would be that Carrier, and perhaps Fitzgerald, are working at the behest of Jewish interests. Perhaps they have Jewish sponsors or donors. Perhaps they “got the memo” from the ADL that, unless they bash Skrbina to hell, they would be banned from Amazon and the global lecture circuit. We can only speculate here, but again, if they would make clear and unambiguous statements to the effect that they have no Jewish financial interests, that would help. Or if they are ethnic Jews, then admit it and move on. At least then their readers will know where they stand and what their motives might be.

 

This whole situation is highly revealing: touch on “the Jewish Question” and all kinds of people, even nominally objective scholars, lose their minds. Readers need to ask themselves why this is the case. It is evidently a case in which scholars—along with media figures, authors, and politicians—run in fear any time anyone makes any Jew, even a long-dead one, look bad. They feel the need to jump to the Jews’ defense. This is pathological, unless they are being rewarded for it (or blackmailed). We need to expose this reflexive defense of Jews and Judaism for what it is. Maybe then we will get to the bottom of things, and maybe then Jesus will prove his true worth.

​

​

***************************************************

​

CHAPTER 1:  SETTING THE STAGE

 

Jesus of Nazareth, known as Jesus Christ, known as the Son of God, known as God himself, is widely acknowledged to be one of the most famous individuals in history.  We know his story:  Born of a virgin, he performed numerous miracles and made many divine pronouncements during his short, 33-year life.  He spoke of a dedication to God, of a spiritual inwardness, of love and forgiveness.  He suffered greatly for his beliefs, and asked his followers to likewise suffer for theirs.  He promised redemption from sin, and eternal life in heaven.  Ultimately he gave his life for the salvation of mankind.  His bodily ascension into heaven was proof of his promise.  In the end, his teachings led to the foundation of one of the great religions of the world.

 

That Jesus should be counted among the most famous people in history is hardly surprising.  Time Magazine ranked him #1 in all of history, and a slightly more technical study done by MIT University ranked him #3 (behind Aristotle and Plato).  His followers literally number in the billions.  There are about 2.1 billion Christians on Earth today, roughly 1/3 of the planet, making Christianity the #1 religion globally.  The United States is strongly Christian; about 77% of Americans call themselves Christians, which encompasses some 250 million people.  It’s clear that Jesus, as the nominal founder of the Christian church, is among the most important and influential persons who ever lived.

 

But some historians and researchers have made a startling claim:  that Jesus, the Son of God, never existed.  They say that Jesus Christ was a pure myth.  Is that even possible?  Surely not, we reply.  This most-influential founder of the most-influential religion of Christianity surely had to exist.  And he surely had to be the miracle-working Son of God that is proclaimed in the Bible.  How could it be otherwise? we ask.  How could a venerable, two-thousand-year-old religion, with billions of followers throughout history, be based on someone who never existed?  Impossible!  Or so we say. 

 

If that were the case, if Jesus never existed, imagine the consequences:  an entire religion, and the active beliefs of billions of people, all in vain.  All of Christianity based on a myth, a fable, even—as I will argue—a lie.  Why, that would be catastrophic.  The Crusades, the religious wars, the burning of heretics, the Inquisition, the countless lives led in hope of heaven and fear of hell—all in vain. 

 

Or consider a slightly less radical but still earth-shaking possibility:  That Jesus existed, but he was just a man:  an entirely ordinary—and entirely mortal—teacher of morality.  What if Jesus was just a simple preacher, a Jewish rabbi, who spoke in defense of the poor and the underprivileged, and through his various social agitations, managed to get himself executed by the Roman authorities?  And what if his body was unceremoniously buried in some non-descript grave somewhere in Palestine, never to be seen again?  What if there were no virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no miracles, no raising of the dead, no walking on water, no bodily ascension into heaven on the third day?  Well, that would be nearly as bad as if Jesus never existed at all.  All of Christian history would still be founded on a myth or on a lie.  It would still be a sham.  And all the efforts of Christians worldwide, throughout all of history, would still be in vain.  This is the view that I will defend in this book.

 

Note that it is very important to distinguish between the two conceptions of ‘Jesus.’  If someone asks, “Did Jesus exist?” we need to know if they mean (a) the divine, miracle-working, resurrected Son of God (sometimes called the biblical Jesus), or (b) the ordinary man and Jewish preacher who died a mortal death (sometimes called the historical Jesus).  Christianity requires a biblical Jesus, but the skeptics argue either for simply a historical Jesus—which would mean the end of Christianity—or worse, no Jesus at all.

 

It’s my purpose in this book to argue that the miracle-working, ascended-to-heaven, Son-of-God Jesus never existed.  I will, however, accept the historical Jesus:  the Jewish preacher who lived and taught at that time, who was a social agitator that incited his fellow Jews against the Romans, and who therefore got himself crucified.  (Crucifixion was generally reserved for crimes against the State.)  Unlike the other skeptics, I have good reasons for believing that a mortal, historical Jesus did exist.  But I agree with them that the miracles, the resurrection story, and most of his alleged sayings were pure myth.

 

It’s my further purpose to explain how and why the biblical Jesus myth—the Jesus lie—came to be constructed, and how it came to influence world history.  It is a shocking story, frankly, and one that has only been hinted at before.  Bits and pieces of this counter-narrative have been discovered and examined throughout history, but the whole picture has never been clearly pieced together, until now.  Political correctness and contemporary liberal dogma both conspire to suppress any such discussion.  The media have no interest in examining this alternate story, for reasons that I will explain.  Western governments have little incentive, and much disincentive, for promoting open talk of this issue.  Christians obviously do not want to hear any talk of a Jesus myth, nor—as I will explain—do Jews or Muslims.  In short, hardly anyone in power, and many ordinary people, have no desire to consider the radical thesis that Jesus, Son of God, never existed.  And yet it is of untold importance.

 

Now of course, I cannot prove my thesis.  I cannot give an ironclad, bullet-proof argument that the Jesus story was a hoax.  Part of the problem is the notorious difficulty of “proving a negative”—that is, it can be difficult or sometimes impossible to prove that some alleged event did not happen.  The other issue is that the circumstances of that place and time are so obscure, and our hard knowledge so limited, that little of anything can be stated with certainty.  Nor, of course, can the Christians prove the biblical account of events.  Their entire case rests on the Bible, and this document is riddled with difficulties, as I will show.  In this sense, we are on equal footing; neither of us can definitively prove our case.  But the weight of evidence, and archeological history, and common sense, all point to the very strong likelihood that a divine Jesus never existed, and that his story was constructed for very specific reasons and purposes. 

 

But there is an additional problem for Christian defenders.  It is a common rule of argumentation that whoever makes the more extraordinary claims holds the primary burden of proof.  To makes claims about a virgin birth, or a miracle-working Son of God, or being risen from the dead, are, to say the least, extraordinary claims.  Therefore, in the debate about Jesus’ existence, it is the Christian, and not the skeptic, who holds the burden of proof.  If I claim that Jesus did not exist, and a Catholic theologian claims he did, then I merely need to show the implausible and unlikely nature of such an event, along with a lack of any corroborating evidence.  The theologian, by contrast, must give definitive, positive evidence that such a miracle man actually existed, and did and said what is claimed in the Bible.  My standard of proof is much lower, his is much higher.  In other words, it is much, much easier for me to ‘win’ such a debate.  I think this will become clear as my argument proceeds.

 

Two Defenses, Refuted

 

When confronted with the case against Jesus, and the strong likelihood of his mythological stature, Christians typically find themselves unable to defend their version of events.  Sensing defeat, they frequently retreat to one of two commonly-held views that they see as their ultimate safe havens.  It’s worth mentioning these briefly now, at the outset, in order to get them out of the way.

 

First:  “Christianity relies on faith, not reason.  Therefore, rational arguments against it, or against Jesus, have no effect.  We simply believe the Christian story, and that’s good enough.” 

 

This is a very convenient ‘get out of jail free’ card that religious people like to play.  But it doesn’t work.  It’s worth noting that all of Western civilization is based on the idea of rationality and reason, from its very inception in ancient Greece around 600 BC.  Reason is older than Judeo-Christianity, and is the foundation of everything that we have achieved.  It’s not that faith has no place, but if we allow faith to override reason in our ideological thinking, we surrender the very basis of our own culture.  It’s self-defeating and it’s self-destructive.

 

Furthermore, many of the most famous Christian theologians in history were eminently rational; Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, to name a few, were all justly famous for their reason-based arguments.  A true Christian should never have to surrender reason, even in the name of faith.

 

Additionally, even if we want to place an emphasis on belief, we still need to have a reason to believe.  If our beliefs aren’t rational, we are liable to believe absolutely anything:  pixies, magic dragons, unicorns, you name it.  We might start burning people as witches, or try casting out demons, or rely strictly on prayer to heal serious diseases.  A society ruled by non-rational beliefs is a very dangerous one, and not something that anyone would truly want to live in. 

 

Second:  “It doesn’t matter if the Jesus story is true.  It still helps people to live better lives and become better people.” 

 

This is tantamount to surrender.  The entirety of the Christian faith is based on the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, that he actually came to Earth to save us, and that he actually died and was bodily risen.  The whole religion collapses into absurdity if the Jesus story is false.  If Jesus promises us eternal life, and threatens non-believers with eternal damnation, this only matters if he actually existed, and if he was right.  If we are willing to accept that the Jesus story may be a myth, then we must also be willing to accept that his more esoteric ideas, like heaven and hell, might also be myths. 

 

Further, can it really be beneficial to accept a myth as truth?  Can one really live a happy, successful, and meaningful life dedicated to a false story, or to a lie?  Take the case of Santa Claus.  This story may be useful to keep naughty little children in line, but it ‘works’ only because of their ignorance and naiveté.  Even if we could keep up the charade for years, would it be ethical to do so?  Surely not; ultimately it would lead to terrible outcomes.  And if there were a whole society of Santa-believers, can we envision them leading a truly good life?  Of course not.  It should be self-evident that a life based on self-deception or falsehood can never turn out well. 

 

Granted, certain ideas attributed to Jesus could be considered beneficial:  the Golden Rule, love thy neighbor, aid the poor, human equality, the virtue of hope.  (Recall, however, that the 10 Commandments are from the Old Testament; they are, strictly speaking, Judaic rather than Christian.)  But one doesn’t need to be a Christian to love thy neighbor, or to aid the poor, or to treat others kindly.  There are independent and thoroughly rational reasons to do these things, as many other philosophers and religious figures have noted, both before and after Jesus.  The fact that some people find these things helpful in no way justifies a general belief in the Christian story. 

 

I therefore have to conclude that it does matter, profoundly, if the Jesus story is true or false.  Anyone, any alleged Christian, who tries to claim that it doesn’t matter can hardly be taken seriously.

 

​A Few Questions about God

 

Jesus, we are told, was God.  Skepticism about Jesus therefore naturally leads to skepticism about God—that is, the Judeo-Christian God who created the world in six days, who created Adam and Eve, who caused the Great Flood, who sent his only son to save mankind, and who loves each and every one of us.  Generally speaking, in this book I will be ignoring the question about God’s nature and existence, in order to focus on the Jesus story and its origins.  Technically, God’s existence is independent of Jesus’ existence.  Even if Jesus were a total myth, there could still be, in theory, a God.  Orthodox Jews believe in God but not Jesus.  Muslims believe in God (Allah) but not a divine, son-of-God Jesus who died and was risen.  The two issues are distinct.

 

That being the case, I will say just a few words here about God, and specifically, about what is rational and what is irrational about him. 

 

It’s common knowledge that there have been many religions in world history—more than 4,000, by some estimates.  Each of these has a different conception of God or the gods.  Clearly, the vast majority of them must be in error.  More likely, all of them are in error.  As the saying goes, “They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.”  Odds are that every religion has seriously defective beliefs about God or the gods, to the point where we can say almost nothing conclusive about the divine.  We cannot even be sure that gods exist.

 

If we set aside atheism for a moment, it seems that all the world religions could agree on just two propositions about God:

 

1. God is the Supreme Being or ultimate reality.

2. God is that which is most revered.

 

Despite the vast and irreconcilable difference amongst religions, virtually everyone could accept these two claims.  If we stuck to just these two views, there would be no religious disagreements, no religious wars, no religious strife at all.

 

But of course, with just these two claims, one cannot construct a functioning religion—one that builds temples, grows in numbers and wealth, and projects power around the world.  You can’t have “the Church” without a lot more to God than that.  That’s why the various religions have been compelled to add additional qualities to God, to create additional stories about him, to bring him to Earth, and so on.

 

Perhaps surprisingly, there are a number of qualities that we can attribute to God without being irrational, provided that we are careful how we define them.  For example, God can logically, rationally, and consistently be said to have the following properties:

​

• God is uncreated.

• God is perfect.

• God is eternal.

• God is omnipresent.

• God is one.

• God is a mind or spirit.

 

​Rational thinkers throughout history have attributed some or all of these to a divine Being.  They are not contradictory, they are not illogical, and they do not lead to irreconcilable paradoxes.

 

But even these are not enough for most religions.  These still don’t allow anyone to build up a church, a complex doctrine, or to exert power over people.  Therefore theologians have introduced yet additional qualities, ones that do allow for conventional religion:

​

• God is a ‘person’ (someone who loves, forgives, punishes, etc).

• God ‘speaks’ to humans.

• God is omniscient.

• God is omnipotent.

• God is supernatural.

• God does good acts.

• God saves some and condemns others.

 

​These qualities cause major problems.  While I can’t detail it here, they lead to all sorts of problems:  contradictions, paradoxes, absurdities, and sheer mysteries. 

 

The biggest problem of all comes when we believe that God is a moral being:  someone who is good, kind, benevolent, just, etc.  This notion is central to Christianity but it leads directly to what we call the Problem of Evil.  In short, the problem is this:  The world is plagued by all varieties of evils, including murder, rape, war, violence, illness, disease, accidents, famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes.  All of these cause massive human suffering and death, every day.  But the world is allegedly overseen by a benevolent and loving God who wishes well for us humans, who are, after all, created in his image.  This moral God, furthermore, is all-powerful; he can instantly do whatever he wishes.  How is it, then, that humans suffering such vast and unending evils?  God has the power to halt or prevent every conceivable evil.  And yet he does not.  Why?

 

Suffice it to say that there is no rational answer to this question.  It seems that God either does not really care about our suffering—in which case he’s not all good—or he is not really able to do anything about it—in which case he is not all powerful.  In other words, God is either not a moral being, or he’s not all-powerful.  He clearly can’t be both at the same time.  And yet that’s exactly what Christianity, and many other religions, want us to believe.  It’s an unsolvable dilemma.  The Problem of Evil has no answer.

 

Apart from the Problem of Evil and other paradoxes, we have the simple observation that there is no evidence of God.  He doesn’t come and speak to us anymore.  He doesn’t appear in burning bushes or clouds of smoke and fire.  He doesn’t send down his sons (or daughters) to enlighten us.  Science has no need to postulate God, since everything that happens is covered by the laws of physics.  Miracles no longer happen—meaning, events that don’t have straightforward scientific explanations.  Why is God hiding? 

 

Because he remains hidden, people cannot agree on God, and hence they fight and die in his name.  Why would he allow this to happen?  Of the more than 4,000 religions, at least 3,999 of them are wrong about God; how can we tell which is right?  Or what if they are all wrong?  What if we think we are doing the right thing, but God is secretly angry with us?  What if all those who rigorously attend church every Sunday are, in God’s eyes, unthinking sheep who will ultimately be punished?  How can we ever really know what God likes, or doesn’t like?  We have no answers to these questions, and we never will.  It does no good to say, “Well, God is mysterious.”  This is another religious cop-out.  It’s a meaningless statement that can be used to cover over any inconvenient problem.  It’s another sign of surrender.

 

The only reasonable conclusion is that God—if he exists at all—is limited in many ways.  He can be a kind of ultimate reality, and we can indeed revere him.  He can have any of the first set of properties shown above, but none of the second group.  But even these “acceptable” qualities are arbitrary human constructions.  We choose them because we like them, but that’s it.  We have no real reasons, no evidence, to make any such claims at all.  Based on the actual evidence, it seems that there is no God at all.  But if it makes us feel better to invent him, and give him a few, limited qualities, there is little harm in doing so.

 

Enough about God.  My focus here is Jesus, and we have many more interesting things to learn about him.

 

The Problem of the Experts

 

When we try to make a rational and critical inquiry into Jesus, we are immediately confronted with a serious issue, namely, “the problem of the experts.”  This problem has several different aspects, all of which make it very hard for the average reader to ascertain the truth.

 

Writers on Christianity tend to fall into three groups:  academics, journalists, and independent researchers.  In all three cases, we are confronted with the fact that we typically never know the religious beliefs of the writer.  And for good reason.  All three groups of individuals want to portray themselves as unbiased and neutral investigators, and so they have a strong incentive to hide their true beliefs from the reader.  But those beliefs are there nonetheless, and they strongly influence which questions are asked, which ideas are examined, and what conclusions are drawn.

 

Consider the academics.  The vast majority are either (a) faculty of a religious-based institution, or (b) members of a religious studies department in an ordinary, secular university.  In either case, if they are experts in Christianity, nearly all are Christians.  This obviously colors their outlook, and imposes severe constraints on the kinds of ideas that they will consider.  Of the few non-Christian academic writers on Christianity, many are Jews (e.g. Martin Buber, Paul Goodman, Alan Dershowitz), and a few (e.g. Reza Aslan) are Muslims—and these carry their own baggage.  For obvious reasons, open-minded, critically-thinking, non-religious faculty members rarely become experts in Christianity.

 

Journalists have their own issues.  They typically have no advanced degrees, and thus do not really understand how to do serious academic research.  They furthermore are in the business of selling books—lots of books.  This means that they don’t really care about serious academic research.  Their chief motive is income, not truth.  Additionally, their employers would certainly take a dim view of their careers if they decided to publish something outside the conventional bounds. 

 

Independent researchers typically suffer from all the above problems:  no advanced education, no understanding of detailed and careful research, religious bias, and the need to sell books. 

 

Of course, everyone has a kind of bias about religion.  Even the atheists and professional skeptics have hidden or unexamined assumptions.  So be it.  The best we can hope for is that our experts are open and honest about their biases, which will allow us, the readers, to better judge their writings. 

 

I too have my biases, I’m sure.  But let me be as transparent as I can.  I was “raised” Presbyterian but rarely attended and never committed to the church, ever.  I have been a religious skeptic since my early teens, and I recall debating my religious classmates even in middle school.  I hold advanced degrees in mathematics and philosophy, and I’ve been teaching philosophy at a campus of the University of Michigan since 2003.  I’m not an atheist, but my religious stance changes depending on the circumstances; sometimes I’m an agnostic, sometimes a pantheist, sometimes a polytheist.  In no sense am I a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.  Nor is anyone in my immediate family.  I like to think that I am as unbiased as possible, perhaps more so than nearly any present-day writer on Christianity.  I am a paid professor, so I do not need to sell books to make a living.  I write what I think is true and important.  Whether these facts result in a useful and honest book on Jesus, I leave it to the reader to decide.

 

Another Jesus Skeptic?

 

As the reader can obviously see by now, I am a ‘Jesus skeptic.’  But I’m far from the first.  There have been many such skeptics in the past, and their numbers appear to be growing.  In recent times this group has been referred to as “Christ Mythicists,” meaning those who deny the existence of the biblical, divine Jesus (though not necessarily the historical human Jesus).  Christ Myth Theory, or CMT, is also popular with atheists in general, since it feeds into their view that God too does not exist. 

 

So, why this book?  Why do we need yet another Jesus skeptic?

 

To answer this question, let me give a brief overview of some of the prominent skeptics and their views.  I will argue that their ideas, though on the right track, are woefully short of the truth.  They lack the courage or the will to look hard at the evidence, and to envision a more likely conclusion:  that Jesus was a deliberately constructed myth, by a specific group of people, with a specific end in mind.  None of the Christ mythicists or atheist writers have, to my knowledge, articulated the view that I defend here.

 

But first a quick recap of the background and context for the idea of a mythological Jesus.  The earliest modern critic was German scholar Hermann Reimarus, who published a multi-part work, Fragments, in the late 1770s.  Strikingly, his view is one of the closest to my own thesis of any skeptic.  For Reimarus, Jesus was the militant leader of a group of Jewish rebels who were fighting against oppressive Roman rule.  Eventually he got himself crucified.  His followers then constructed a miraculous religion-story around Jesus, in order to carry on his cause.  They lied about his miracles, and they stole his body from the grave so that they could claim a bodily resurrection.  This is quite close to what I will call the ‘antagonism thesis’—that a group of Jews constructed a false Jesus story, based on a real man, in order to undermine Roman rule.  But there is much more to the story, far beyond that which Reimarus himself was able to articulate.

 

In the 1820s and 30s, Ferdinand Baur published a number of works that emphasized the conflict between the early Jewish-Christians—significantly, all the early Christians were Jews—and the somewhat later Gentile-Christians.  This again is a key part of the story, but we need to know the details; we need to know why the conflict arose, and what were its ends. 

 

In 1835, David Strauss published the two-volume work Das Leben Jesu—“The Life of Jesus.”  He was the first to argue, correctly, that none of the gospel writers knew Jesus personally.  He disavowed all claims of miracles, and argued that the Gospel of John was, in essence, an outright lie with no basis in reality. 

 

German philosopher Bruno Bauer wrote a number of important books, including Criticism of the Gospel History (1841), The Jewish Question (1843), Criticism of the Gospels (1851), Criticism of the Pauline Epistles (1852), and Christ and the Caesars (1877).  Bauer held that there was no historical Jesus and that the entire New Testament was a literary construction, utterly devoid of historical content.  Shortly thereafter, James Frazer published The Golden Bough (1890), arguing for a connection between all religion—Christianity included—and ancient mythological concepts.  

 

It was about at this time that another famous Christian skeptic emerged:  Friedrich Nietzsche.  In his books Daybreak (1881), On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), and Antichrist (1888) he provides a potent critique of Christianity and Christian morality.  Nietzsche always accepted the historical Jesus, and even had good things to say about him.  But he was devastating in his attack on Paul and the later writers of the New Testament.  He viewed Christian morality as a lowly, life-denying form of slave morality, attributed not to Jesus but to the actions of Paul and the other Jewish followers.  Along with Reimarus, Nietzsche provides the most inspiration for my own analysis.

 

Into the 20th century, we find such books as The Christ Myth (1909) and The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus (1926), both by Arthur Drews, and The Enigma of Jesus (1923) by Paul-Louis Chouchoud.  All these continued to attack the literal truth claimed of the Bible.

 

More recently, we have critics such as the historian George Wells and his book Did Jesus Exist? (1975).  Here he assembles an impressive amount of evidence against a historical Jesus.   Bart Ehrman has called Wells “the best-known mythicists of modern times,” though in later years Wells softened his stance somewhat; he accepted that there may have been an historical Jesus, although we know almost nothing about him.  Wells died in 2017 at the age of 90.

 

Similar arguments were offered by philosopher Michael Martin in his 1991 book, The Case against Christianity.  Though a wide-ranging critique, he dedicated one chapter to the idea that Jesus never existed.  Martin died in 2015.

 

Among living critics, we have such men as Thomas Thompson, who wrote The Messiah Myth (2007); he is agnostic about an historical Jesus, but argues against historical truth in the Bible.  By contrast, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Tom Harpur (The Pagan Christ, 2004), and Thomas Brodie (Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, 2012) all deny that any such Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.  Richard Carrier, in his book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), finds it highly unlikely that any historical Jesus lived. 

 

Perhaps the most vociferous and prolific Jesus skeptic today is Robert Price, a man with two doctorates in theology and a deep knowledge of the Bible.  Though agnostic on the historical Jesus, Price argues that much of Christian theology is a synthesis of pre-Christian mythology, and hence devoid of truth content.  He thus qualifies as a proponent of the “Christ Myth” thesis.  His extensive writings include Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003), Jesus Is Dead (2007), The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2012), and Killing History (2014).  Price’s central points can be summarized as follows:

 

1. The miracle stories have no independent verification from unbiased contemporaries.

2. The characteristics of Jesus are all drawn from much older mythologies and other pagan sources.

3. The earliest documents, the letters of Paul, point to an esoteric, abstract, ethereal Jesus—a “mythic hero archetype”—not an actual man who died on a cross.

4. The later documents, the Gospels, turned the Jesus-concept into an actual man, a literal Son of God, who died and was risen.

 

I find some truth in all these claims, as I will show.  But there is much more to the story than Price is willing to entertain.  Perhaps this relates to his personal situation.  Price seems to rely heavily on book sales and speaking fees for income; he is very much in “the Jesus business.”  I can’t help but think that this affects what he says and writes.

 

These men, then, are perhaps the most authoritative critics of the traditional account of Jesus.  They know their stuff, and they know how to do research.  But of course, this does not make them right, or even guarantee an open and honest assessment.  It does guarantee a clever and learned critique, though.

 

There are many other books attacking the Jesus story, but the vast majority are written by marginally qualified individuals.  Some are atheists, some are members of competing religions, some are just out to sell books.  Most have no advanced degrees at all.  I leave it to the reader to investigate these as desired.  One suggestion:  examine the qualifications of the writer before buying the book!

 

With the exception of Nietzsche, all of the above individuals exhibit a glaring weakness:  they are loathe to criticize anyone.  No one comes in for condemnation, no one is guilty, no one is to blame for anything.  For the earliest writers, I think this is due primarily to an insecurity about their ideas and a general lack of clarity about what likely occurred.  For the more recent individuals, it’s probably attributable to an in-bred political correctness, to a weakness of moral backbone, or to sheer self-interest.  In recent years, academics in particular are highly reticent to affix blame on individuals, even those long-dead.  This is somehow seen as a violation of academic neutrality or professional integrity.  But when the facts line up against someone or some group, then we must be honest with ourselves.  There are truly guilty parties all throughout history, and when we come upon them, we must call them out.

 

Consider this:  There are very good reasons (as I will show) for believing that none of the Jesus miracle stories are true.  And yet someone, at some point in time, wrote them down as if they were true.  The conclusion is clear:  someone lied.  When you write obvious falsehoods and portray them as literal truth, that’s a lie.  The questions then are, Who lied?, When?, and Why?  I will address these matters in due time.  For now I simply note that none of our brave critics, our Jesus mythicists, seem willing to pinpoint anyone:  not Paul, not his Jewish colleagues, not the early Christian fathers—no one.  A colossal story has been laid out about the Son of God come to Earth, performing miracles, and being risen from the dead, and yet—no one lied?  Really?  Can we believe that?  Was it all just a big misunderstanding?  Honest errors?  No thinking person could accept this.  Someone, somewhere in the past, constructed a gigantic lie and then passed it around the ancient world as a cosmic truth.  The guilty parties need to be exposed.  Only then can we truly understand this ancient religion, and begin to move forward.

 

Let me now lay out the basic facts of Christian history, as we understand them today.  I use the word “fact” advisedly, because it is very hard to determine such things with certainty, and there are skeptical voices on nearly every issue.  Still, in the next chapter I will present the most widely-accepted information that we have that relates to the origins of Christianity and to the tales of Jesus.  Today we know much more about those ancient times than in decades past, and we can have much more confidence regarding what did, or did not, happen.

​