Now that my new book On the Historicity of Jesus has finally become available, for convenience I will be collecting here links to all the responses I’ve published to defenders of the historicity of Jesus. So this article will be continually updated with new entries, and I will keep the order alphabetical by last name of the scholar responded to (when I know it). I have also sorted them into generic debates, and responses to my books specifically.
If anyone sees responses or reviews (in print or online) to my books on this topic (On the Historicity of Jesus or Proving History), please direct me to them in comments here. Please also remark upon any merits you think the response has (or if you think it’s rubbish). I won’t bother replying to all of them. But I’d like to keep a running collection in any case.
An important general article addressing everyone on this debate is How to Argue Jesus Existed.
Replies to Generic Defenses of Historicity
Akin, Jimmy (conclusion: argues by assertion rather than evidence).
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando (conclusion: thoughtful, but circular, and argues from credulity).
James Bishop (conclusion: ignorant to the power of ridiculous).
Casey, Maurice (conclusion: grossly illogical, probably insane).
Craig, William Lane (conclusion: dishonest and illogical Christian apologetics).
Crook, Zeba (conclusion: good effort, but doesn’t quite get there).
Crossan, J.D. (conclusion: only two premises, one factually dubious, the other illogical).
Ehrman, Bart (conclusion: makes major factual and logical errors, then lies about it).
Gathercole, Simon (conclusion: just a parade of falsehoods).
Goodacre, Mark (conclusion: relies on premises he didn’t know were false).
Horn, Trent (conclusion: gets the text wrong, flounders on weak arguments).
MacDonald, Dennis (conclusion: muddled and not well thought-out).
Mykytiuk, Lawrence (BAR) (conclusion: outdated and unresearched).
Winters, Kristi (conclusion: ignorant and dishonest).
Replies to Criticisms of Proving History
Antony, Louise (conclusion: doesn’t understand math).
Brown, Kevin (conclusion: standard Christian apologetics).
Fisher, Stephanie (conclusion: didn’t read the book, lies about it; doesn’t understand math; probably insane).
Hendrix, Tim (conclusion: only complains about things the book didn’t say)
Ian of Irreducible Complexity (conclusion: pedantic; retracted all substantive criticisms).
McGrath, James (conclusion: didn’t have much to criticize; and what he did, got wrong).
Tucker, Aviezer (conclusion: misses the point a lot; but affirms its thesis).
Replies to Criticisms of On the Historicity of Jesus
Covington, Nicholas (conclusion: poses good questions, is mostly persuaded).
Evans, Craig (conclusion: didn’t even read the book; had no logically valid reply).
Gullotta, Daniel (conclusion: often didn’t read the book; has no logically valid reply)
Hallquist, Chris (conclusion: makes horribly embarrassing mathematical mistakes).
Hendrix, Tim (conclusion: confused & inapplicable; ignores what’s actually in the book).
Hurtado, Larry (conclusion: refuses to read the book; ignorant of all its arguments).
Lataster, Raphael (conclusion: valid concerns, already dealt with in the book).
Marshall, David (conclusion: just dishonest and illogical apologetics).
McGrath, James (conclusion: screws up on facts and logic to the point of being useless).
Mitchell, Patrick [aka Fishers of Evidence] (conclusion: total, embarrassing math fail).
Petterson, Christina (conclusion: bizarrely devoid of any substantive analysis).
Ramos, F. (conclusion: just dishonest and illogical fundamentalism).
Rosson, Loren (conclusion: almost persuaded, remaining objections addressed).
Tweet, Jonathan (conclusion: hung up on fallacies; doesn’t get to substantive facts)
Waters, Kenneth (conclusion: didn’t do his homework; just angrily gainsaid everything).