What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists
For a lay audience, and with help from historian Richard Carrier, religious studies scholar Raphael Lataster considers the best arguments for and against the existence of the so-called Historical Jesus; the Jesus of atheists.Parts 1 & 2 analyse the cases made by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, who assert that Jesus definitely existed. Their arguments are found to be riddled with errors, and dependent on unreliable, and even non-existing, sources. Parts 3 & 4 discuss the more sceptical work of Lataster and Carrier, who conclude that Christianity probably began not with a humble carpenter, but with 'visions' of a heavenly Messiah.This exciting collaboration makes it very clear why the Historical Jesus might not have existed after all, and, to those willing to adopt a commonsensical probabilistic approach, Jesus Did Not Exist.
458 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 12, 2015
47 people are currently reading
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 28, 2017
I decided to add a new feature to my book reviews. You must have heard that you cannot judge a book by its cover. Well, that is exactly what I do before reading a book. The cover that I am to comment on is from the Kindle Fire edition. It is a black circle surrounded by a gold ring on a black background. With the recent eclipse across the United States I saw it as an eclipse even though it does not have the proper corona, and I decided the book would be how Jesus is eclipse by the facts.
The book starts with a foreword and ends with an afterword by Richard Carrier who is part subject of the book. In in the book Raphael Lataster reviews four atheists and their views on the historicalness of Jesus. He reviews two scholars who support a historical Jesus, his own work, and that of Richard Carrier. The two scholars that support a historical Jesus are Bart Erhman and Maurice Casey. Lataster severely criticizes both of them: Erhman for relying on invented sources (or those that we have no copy written document of them or even a document referring to them), as well as for moving from possibly to probably to certain without arguments: Casey for his many ad hominem attacks on various individuals among other problems with his arguments. Lataster then goes on to review his point of view, which is an agnostic position. This is there could have been a historical Jesus, but based on the inadequacy of evidence or valid arguments for his historicalness or that he was a mythical creation, he sets the probably of either being true to about fifty/fifty percent. He also has no mathematical examples of how Bayes’ theorem (it calculates consequent probabilities of an events based on prior probabilities and known evidence) works in historical arguments, which he approves of because nothing in history can claim one hundred percent certainty. Finally, he reviews Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt. In it Richard Carrier supposedly “proves” using Bayes’ theorem that the historical Jesus almost certainly did not exist. Lataster’s main critique is on the with his prior probabilities, or so is my impression.
Here I give some comments connected with specific parts of the text. Page numbers are in brackets [] using the Kindle Fire version’s pagination
[34] “His [Bert Erhman] attitude [that Jesus is historical] is at odds with his earlier acknowledging that history cannot be proven, and the resulting implication that there must always exist a gray area.” There maybe a gray area with the probability of Jesus’ historical existence, but the reality is that he did or he did not exist as a historical person, it is just our own ability to ascertain with one hundred percent certainty that we end up in the gray zone.
[43] “. . . Matthew simply added her own original material to Mark . . .” (my italics) Lataster uses the feminine sometimes to indicate that since we have no idea who actually wrote any of the gospels that it could have been a woman :-).
[134] “A fictitious report could also be brief, or exhaustively detailed. J. R. R. Tolkien’s decades long work on his Middle-Earth saga for example . . .” The Bible pales in comparison to Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Some scholars take a purely (or mostly purely) literary approach to the Bible. But, in my opinion, the Bible is sorry literature in comparison to most literature, not just Tolkien’s masterpiece.
[153] “Using Bayes’ Theorem then encourages historians to consider other theories that fit the evidence just as well (or better), and can force them to be transparent with their claims by assigning quantitative values.” This is something he does not do in the book, except during his review of Richard Carrier’s book, not in looking at his own work in the chapter previously to the one on Carrier. Also, how do you assign valid quantitative values without statistical data?
[154] “Another objection could be the difficulty in assigning quantitative values. Firstly, there are challenges to all quest for truth. If such scholars wish to be ambiguous about their conclusions, then we more rational folk reserve the right to reject their conclusions. Secondly, this is an issue that my brand of ‘Bayesian reasoning’ (where accurate probabilities are unnecessary) addresses.” Of course, there are problems with all endeavors to seek knowledge, but why does this need to be said. It maybe fair enough for him to claim a basic Bayesian reasoning, but to claim that these are numerically creditable rather than historians’ guesses, however well they are based on primary sources and background information, is not credible in my opinion.
[154-5] Referring to Timothy and Lydia McGrew’s use of Bayes’s theorem using “the unproven assumption that God exists . . . [as a] prior probability, so arguably, the McGrews are not utilizing Bayes’ Theorem at all.” This is not exactly fair. They may have not used a valid prior probability, but if they used the theorem as it is used mathematically, than they have used it. They have just not assigned realistic prior probabilities.
[160] “Bayesian reasoning is in this case [never mind which case] proven superior . . .” Reasoning yes, theorem no. He assigned no prior probabilities at all.
[242] Addressing the use of nonexistent sources [he repeatedly calls them imaginary] he says, “. . . should lead to the mass resignations of such proponents.” Statements like these do not help his arguments to support his positions, they just seem to take digs at his opponents. If this was not a supposedly popular work, he would not be allowed to use such digs. However, the statement maybe right.
[295] “I also find him [Richard Carrier] quite brazen and harsh with his opinions on others, scholars in particular, for instance, his penchant for calling many of his scholarly critics ‘insane’” While Lataster is not quite that extreme, is this not the pot calling the kettle black.
[Endnote 93] “Logic dictates that few people agree in all things.” This is not logic as in formal logic. He consistently seems to use logic in the sense of coherent reason. By the way, this statement is a fact with no need of any kind of logic to make it so.
Before I read this book I was definitely an agnostic on whether or not Jesus was a historical person like Lataster, and after I finished the book I am still an agnostic. The only difference is before I would be a fifty-fifty agnostic, and afterward I would be much further along to excluding a historical Jesus, maybe eighty-twenty. My probabilities are not based on Bayes’ Theorem because I think to use it you need exact statistical data, which does not exist. So, these are more like feel like probabilities.
My major issue with the book is claiming that using Bayes’ Theorem gives us accurate probabilities on a historical Jesus. Lataster’s use of Bayes’ like reasoning is less of an issue because it does not require exact statistical data. This makes for less certainty, but I think the amount of certainty to prove an agnostic position is smaller than getting the exact probability right. A second issue is his snide remarks directed towards other scholars. Give me the criticisms of his opponents arguments, but leave out statements like the one on page 242 given above. Finally, I criticize his criticisms of what is logical or not. From an approach used to make probabilities more exact, I would expect his use of logical would be formal logic. There are no formal logical arguments in the whole book, unless I missed them. I grant that he never intended to do so, and was using logical as in reasonable or maybe even coherent.
Despite my qualms just given I thought that the book was good overall. It was certainly filled with information I had not had or was not even aware of before I read it. In addition to this he writes clearly and the narrative flowed for the most part. I would not mine reading another one of his books (I have already read one other).
This is not a book for the Christian already commit to the biblical Jesus, as the book is meant to be for the atheist. Lataster claims that the biblical Jesus is all the Christian needs. So, whether you as an atheist believe there was a historical Jesus, maintain an agnostic position, or are what he calls “mythicists,” who definitely do not believe that a historical Jesus pulled from the New Testament walked Earth, this book should be of interest to you. If you want to learn more about the case for a mythical Jesus, this book would almost definitely be profitable for you to read.
The book starts with a foreword and ends with an afterword by Richard Carrier who is part subject of the book. In in the book Raphael Lataster reviews four atheists and their views on the historicalness of Jesus. He reviews two scholars who support a historical Jesus, his own work, and that of Richard Carrier. The two scholars that support a historical Jesus are Bart Erhman and Maurice Casey. Lataster severely criticizes both of them: Erhman for relying on invented sources (or those that we have no copy written document of them or even a document referring to them), as well as for moving from possibly to probably to certain without arguments: Casey for his many ad hominem attacks on various individuals among other problems with his arguments. Lataster then goes on to review his point of view, which is an agnostic position. This is there could have been a historical Jesus, but based on the inadequacy of evidence or valid arguments for his historicalness or that he was a mythical creation, he sets the probably of either being true to about fifty/fifty percent. He also has no mathematical examples of how Bayes’ theorem (it calculates consequent probabilities of an events based on prior probabilities and known evidence) works in historical arguments, which he approves of because nothing in history can claim one hundred percent certainty. Finally, he reviews Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt. In it Richard Carrier supposedly “proves” using Bayes’ theorem that the historical Jesus almost certainly did not exist. Lataster’s main critique is on the with his prior probabilities, or so is my impression.
Here I give some comments connected with specific parts of the text. Page numbers are in brackets [] using the Kindle Fire version’s pagination
[34] “His [Bert Erhman] attitude [that Jesus is historical] is at odds with his earlier acknowledging that history cannot be proven, and the resulting implication that there must always exist a gray area.” There maybe a gray area with the probability of Jesus’ historical existence, but the reality is that he did or he did not exist as a historical person, it is just our own ability to ascertain with one hundred percent certainty that we end up in the gray zone.
[43] “. . . Matthew simply added her own original material to Mark . . .” (my italics) Lataster uses the feminine sometimes to indicate that since we have no idea who actually wrote any of the gospels that it could have been a woman :-).
[134] “A fictitious report could also be brief, or exhaustively detailed. J. R. R. Tolkien’s decades long work on his Middle-Earth saga for example . . .” The Bible pales in comparison to Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Some scholars take a purely (or mostly purely) literary approach to the Bible. But, in my opinion, the Bible is sorry literature in comparison to most literature, not just Tolkien’s masterpiece.
[153] “Using Bayes’ Theorem then encourages historians to consider other theories that fit the evidence just as well (or better), and can force them to be transparent with their claims by assigning quantitative values.” This is something he does not do in the book, except during his review of Richard Carrier’s book, not in looking at his own work in the chapter previously to the one on Carrier. Also, how do you assign valid quantitative values without statistical data?
[154] “Another objection could be the difficulty in assigning quantitative values. Firstly, there are challenges to all quest for truth. If such scholars wish to be ambiguous about their conclusions, then we more rational folk reserve the right to reject their conclusions. Secondly, this is an issue that my brand of ‘Bayesian reasoning’ (where accurate probabilities are unnecessary) addresses.” Of course, there are problems with all endeavors to seek knowledge, but why does this need to be said. It maybe fair enough for him to claim a basic Bayesian reasoning, but to claim that these are numerically creditable rather than historians’ guesses, however well they are based on primary sources and background information, is not credible in my opinion.
[154-5] Referring to Timothy and Lydia McGrew’s use of Bayes’s theorem using “the unproven assumption that God exists . . . [as a] prior probability, so arguably, the McGrews are not utilizing Bayes’ Theorem at all.” This is not exactly fair. They may have not used a valid prior probability, but if they used the theorem as it is used mathematically, than they have used it. They have just not assigned realistic prior probabilities.
[160] “Bayesian reasoning is in this case [never mind which case] proven superior . . .” Reasoning yes, theorem no. He assigned no prior probabilities at all.
[242] Addressing the use of nonexistent sources [he repeatedly calls them imaginary] he says, “. . . should lead to the mass resignations of such proponents.” Statements like these do not help his arguments to support his positions, they just seem to take digs at his opponents. If this was not a supposedly popular work, he would not be allowed to use such digs. However, the statement maybe right.
[295] “I also find him [Richard Carrier] quite brazen and harsh with his opinions on others, scholars in particular, for instance, his penchant for calling many of his scholarly critics ‘insane’” While Lataster is not quite that extreme, is this not the pot calling the kettle black.
[Endnote 93] “Logic dictates that few people agree in all things.” This is not logic as in formal logic. He consistently seems to use logic in the sense of coherent reason. By the way, this statement is a fact with no need of any kind of logic to make it so.
Before I read this book I was definitely an agnostic on whether or not Jesus was a historical person like Lataster, and after I finished the book I am still an agnostic. The only difference is before I would be a fifty-fifty agnostic, and afterward I would be much further along to excluding a historical Jesus, maybe eighty-twenty. My probabilities are not based on Bayes’ Theorem because I think to use it you need exact statistical data, which does not exist. So, these are more like feel like probabilities.
My major issue with the book is claiming that using Bayes’ Theorem gives us accurate probabilities on a historical Jesus. Lataster’s use of Bayes’ like reasoning is less of an issue because it does not require exact statistical data. This makes for less certainty, but I think the amount of certainty to prove an agnostic position is smaller than getting the exact probability right. A second issue is his snide remarks directed towards other scholars. Give me the criticisms of his opponents arguments, but leave out statements like the one on page 242 given above. Finally, I criticize his criticisms of what is logical or not. From an approach used to make probabilities more exact, I would expect his use of logical would be formal logic. There are no formal logical arguments in the whole book, unless I missed them. I grant that he never intended to do so, and was using logical as in reasonable or maybe even coherent.
Despite my qualms just given I thought that the book was good overall. It was certainly filled with information I had not had or was not even aware of before I read it. In addition to this he writes clearly and the narrative flowed for the most part. I would not mine reading another one of his books (I have already read one other).
This is not a book for the Christian already commit to the biblical Jesus, as the book is meant to be for the atheist. Lataster claims that the biblical Jesus is all the Christian needs. So, whether you as an atheist believe there was a historical Jesus, maintain an agnostic position, or are what he calls “mythicists,” who definitely do not believe that a historical Jesus pulled from the New Testament walked Earth, this book should be of interest to you. If you want to learn more about the case for a mythical Jesus, this book would almost definitely be profitable for you to read.
July 31, 2016
Interesting
I am new to the idea that Jesus may have been a mythical being! This book refutes the ideas of two Christian apologists who argue for his existence. I am not a debater so could not follow all the arguments of either the apologists or the atheist but I did come away questioning the reality of Jesus. What an interesting subject.
I am new to the idea that Jesus may have been a mythical being! This book refutes the ideas of two Christian apologists who argue for his existence. I am not a debater so could not follow all the arguments of either the apologists or the atheist but I did come away questioning the reality of Jesus. What an interesting subject.
July 16, 2018
If you don't have the time to read Richard Carrier's monumental, "On the Historicity of Jesus", get this book. And if you have read Carrier's book, still pick this one up and read the first three chapters as they are, what I consider to be, supplemental to Carrier's book and knock out the best foot historicists have put forward to defend such a notion.
Chapter four is just a summary of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" with some input from Lataster. But the first three chapters are taking apart Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, who put forward their (best?) attempt argue there's a historical person behind the legend. But Lataster makes it clear in his analysis that both Ehrman and Casey are simply being dishonest in their presentations. It's quite odd, really. It's as if they stretched and squeezed to find a historical Jesus in order to maybe, I don't know, stay employed? Most New Testament studies are granted through religious funding. Imagine receiving money and concluding the subject at hand doesn't even exist. Even though Ehrman and Casey agree with Lataster the Christ of Faith doesn't exist, they hold on to the thread there was a radical preacher somewhere way back when. Lataster does an excellent job dismantling their arguments.
A word about the subtitle: A Debate Among Atheists. I rather agree we've reached a period of Biblical scholarship where only atheists are worth listening to regarding whether or not a historical Jesus existed. Is it because I'm being elitist? No, it's because the door is closed on the Christ of Faith, the one written about in the Gospels and in Paul's writings. No such being ever existed. That research is as iron clad as the heliocentric model in astronomy. The only thing left to debate is whether or not Jesus was a real person behind the myth. But although Lataster remains agnostic in this book on whether or not there was a historical person, I think Occam's Razor can be applied at this point and say there was not.
Chapter four is just a summary of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" with some input from Lataster. But the first three chapters are taking apart Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, who put forward their (best?) attempt argue there's a historical person behind the legend. But Lataster makes it clear in his analysis that both Ehrman and Casey are simply being dishonest in their presentations. It's quite odd, really. It's as if they stretched and squeezed to find a historical Jesus in order to maybe, I don't know, stay employed? Most New Testament studies are granted through religious funding. Imagine receiving money and concluding the subject at hand doesn't even exist. Even though Ehrman and Casey agree with Lataster the Christ of Faith doesn't exist, they hold on to the thread there was a radical preacher somewhere way back when. Lataster does an excellent job dismantling their arguments.
A word about the subtitle: A Debate Among Atheists. I rather agree we've reached a period of Biblical scholarship where only atheists are worth listening to regarding whether or not a historical Jesus existed. Is it because I'm being elitist? No, it's because the door is closed on the Christ of Faith, the one written about in the Gospels and in Paul's writings. No such being ever existed. That research is as iron clad as the heliocentric model in astronomy. The only thing left to debate is whether or not Jesus was a real person behind the myth. But although Lataster remains agnostic in this book on whether or not there was a historical person, I think Occam's Razor can be applied at this point and say there was not.
December 15, 2017
This is an important subject, so it's a shame that this book is such an unprofessional rant. It's definitely not a debate, it's one guy repeating himself over a few hundred pages. He does raise good points, but the reader has to dig them out from phrases such as "poo poo" and "TL;DR". While the author may well be right, I find it difficult to trust what he's saying. This area of research deserves better.
December 31, 2016
Does "smug" come with the territory? Fascinating and well presented - I particularly liked the section on the Q manuscript - but, man, the superiority complex issues! Absolutely do read, but be ready for those.
April 10, 2016
At the time, I found the argument against Ehrman's position engaging, but then I read Ehrman's book. I get why that book inspired an angry rant, but that doesn't make this book less of an angry rant.
backburner
June 15, 2016Fascinating argument. Horribly irritating writing style
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews