Since my book On the Historicity of Jesus was published, for convenience I have been collecting here links to all the responses I’ve published to defenders of the historicity of Jesus. This article will be continually updated with new entries. Within the listed categories I will keep the order alphabetical by last name of the scholar or “critic” responded to (when I know it). Critics marked with † made their arguments in formal academic treatments (in peer reviewed journals or monographs).

If anyone sees formal written responses or reviews (in print or online) to my books on this topic (whether On the Historicity of Jesus or Proving History or Jesus from Outer Space), please direct me to them in comments here. Please also remark upon any merits you think that 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.

Important general articles addressing everyone on this debate are How to Argue Jesus Existed, How Would We Know Jesus Existed?, and Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus. And an index to all I’ve written since 2014 affecting the thesis of OHJ will be available at An Ongoing List of Updates to the Arguments and Evidence in On the Historicity of Jesus.

I also maintain a List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously and an Open Thread On the Historicity of Jesus where questions can continually be posed in comments.

-:-

Replies to Generic Defenses of Historicity by Experts

Akin, Jimmy (conclusion: argues by assertion rather than evidence)

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando (conclusion: thoughtful, but circular, and argues from credulity)

Casey, Maurice (conclusion: grossly illogical, probably insane)

Cavin, Robert Greg (conclusion: factually incorrect & methodologically impertinent)

Columbetti, Carlos (conclusion: per Cavin)

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; but see below)

Goodacre, Mark (conclusion: relies on premises he didn’t know were false)

Horn, Trent (conclusion: gets the text wrong, flounders on weak arguments)

Krause, Paul (conclusion: slander and lies; no actual mythicist arguments addressed)

MacDonald, Dennis (conclusion: muddled and not well thought-out)

Mykytiuk, Lawrence (BAR) (conclusion: outdated and unresearched)

Replies to Generic Defenses of Historicity by Amateurs

Bishop, James (conclusion: ignorant to the power of ridiculous)

Canadian Catholic (conclusion: relies entirely on errors of probability logic)

Jones, Michael (conclusion: too much of an amateur to get anything right)

Winters, Kristi (conclusion: ignorant and dishonest)

-:-

Replies to Criticisms of Proving History by Experts

Antony, Louise (conclusion: doesn’t understand math)

Briggs, William (conclusion: correctly describes neither the math nor the arguments)

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)

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 Proving History by Amateurs

Brown, Kevin (conclusion: standard Christian apologetics)

Ian of Irreducible Complexity (conclusion: pedantic; retracted all substantive criticisms)

-:-

Replies to Criticisms of On the Historicity of Jesus by Experts

Blom, Willem (conclusion: only offers an illogical attempt to rehabilitate Tacitus)

Briggs, William (see above)

Davis, Kipp (never correctly describes what I argue; ignores everything I did argue)

Evans, Craig (conclusion: didn’t even read the book; had no logically valid reply)

Gathercole, Simon (conclusion: responds to almost nothing in OHJ)

Gullotta, Daniel (conclusion: often didn’t read the book; has no logically valid reply)

Hansen, Chrissy (conclusion: never honestly interacts with the content)

Hurtado, Larry (conclusion: refuses to read the book; ignorant of all its arguments)

Lataster, Raphael – review – (conclusion: valid concerns, already dealt with in the book)

Lataster, Raphael – study – (conclusion: largely concurs with my findings)

Lindsay, James (conclusion: largely correct observations, none very critical)

Litwa, M. David (conclusion: didn’t really read the book; responded to no actual argument in it)

Marina, Marko (just a plagiarism of other critics; no engagement with my actual arguments)

Marshall, David (conclusion: just dishonest and illogical apologetics)

McGrath, James (conclusion: screws up on facts and logic to the point of being useless)

Petterson, Christina (conclusion: bizarrely devoid of any substantive analysis)

Piñero, Antonio (conclusion: didn’t really read the book, responds to nothing in it)

Waters, Kenneth (conclusion: didn’t do his homework; just angrily gainsaid everything)

Replies to Criticisms of On the Historicity of Jesus by Amateurs

Brierley, Justin (conclusion: uninformed regurgitation of apologetic tropes)

Covington, Nicholas (conclusion: poses good questions, is mostly persuaded)

Dadpool, Captain (conclusion: straw-mans rather than responds)

Gregor, Kamil (conclusion: gets some facts and most of the math wrong)

Hallquist, Chris (conclusion: makes horribly embarrassing mathematical mistakes).

Hendrix, Tim (conclusion: confused & inapplicable; ignores what’s actually in the book)

Hansen, Chrissy (conclusion: always either dishonest, illogical, or unreliable)

Jones, Michael (conclusion: just a bunch of poorly informed apologetics)

MacDonald, John (conclusion: didn’t read the book; relies on false premises and illogical arguments)

McDaniel, Spencer Alexander (conclusion: gets too many facts wrong to be of any use)

McLatchie, Jonathan (conclusion: deliberately omits material in OHJ undermining all his claims)

Mitchell, Patrick [aka Fishers of Evidence] (conclusion: total, embarrassing math fail)

O’Neill, Tim (conclusion: makes no coherent case, gets wrong what’s in the book)

Ramos, F. (conclusion: just dishonest and illogical fundamentalism)

Richardson, Damon (conclusion: just apologetics instead of facts)

Rosson, Loren (conclusion: almost persuaded, remaining objections addressed)

Russel, Jerry (conclusion: a total crank who gets everything in the book wrong)

Neal Sendlak [aka Gnostic Informant] (conclusion: crank ranting ignoring actual arguments)

Tors, John (conclusion: just a litany of fundamentalist apologetics)

Tweet, Jonathan (conclusion: hung up on fallacies; doesn’t get to substantive facts)

-:-

Replies to Criticisms of Jesus from Outer Space

Hansen, Chrissy (conclusion: misrepresents every argument; has no useful criticism)

Price, Robert M. (conclusion: offers mostly praise and methodological disagreements)

-:-

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading