Felix,
That’s an interesting thread. It’s kind of scary that a historian working for the BBC is trotting out such ill-informed nonsense (and ascribing such high confidence levels to his assertions).
Two questions for Richard relating to this :
1) Are you going to get involved with this discussion, and provide some basic facts? I think this is precisely the type of person who needs to be educated about this stuff. I will do if you don’t, based on OHJ – but you’re the expert!
2) Per your point in Sense and Goodness about the importance of popular-level books, are you planning to produce a pop version of the Jesus myth arguments? Unless I’ve missed something, the objections from the academic community have been almost entirely spurious (and predictable, for anyone familiar with Hector Avalos’ observations about theology in academia).

I don’t know how one would even know that or measure it.

I just had a Twitter discussion with Tom Holland (author of In the Shadow of the Sword and BBC history presenter) regarding Tacitus and the historicity of Jesus.

https://storify.com/VinylTiger/easter

Towards the end he made some statements about the mythicist debate that surprised me, e.g. “It’s been the focus of the most intense debate for over 150 years now.”

“It’s probably the single most discussed & debated topic in the entire field of ancient history!”

Do you agree?
I assumed that the debate would have developed from a position of total acceptance, slowly have small pieces removed from the agreed historical account due to doubts being raised, until recently the mere existence of Jesus is being disputed.

Your thoughts?

Yes, I would also love to see a rematch with Goodacre. He’s honest and intelligent, albeit a Christian, so somewhat limited on the conclusions he can reach.

Well, he distinguish between two different figures: an historical one called “Jesus” and another theological called “Christ”, so “Jesus Christ” or “Jesu/Cristo” -the sum of both- never existed in his opinion.

No recording was made. Not my call.

This is all nonsensical. Not a single logical argument is here. It’s not even intelligible how you are deriving your conclusion.

Stop posting these ramblings. If you continue to post lengthy incoherent arguments like this, I will have to ban you. You are already on my shitlist for being a bigot. Add insane to my list, and you’re gone.

Never heard of him.

Why was I supposed to refer to him?

Best I can tell, he doesn’t even address any of the content of my book, and admits he didn’t read it and only skimmed it.

I also can’t tell if he defends historicity (he says he agrees with Ehrman: “El primero defiende la misma posición que mis colegas y yo en “¿Existió Jesús realmente?. El Jesús de la historia a debate, de Editorial Raíces, Madrid, 2011.”) or ahistoricity (he says obviously Jesus didn’t exist: “Opino que, naturalmente, “Jesu/Cristo” nunca existió.”).

I confess I’m confused.

I can’t fathom why anyone thinks that. There is no evidence for Q. Literally, none. It’s all based on a foundation of speculations and arguments from incredulity.

Occam’s Razor entails we should assume the simplest hypothesis until we have evidence that it can’t explain. The simplest hypothesis is that Luke is using and adapting Matthew (their nativities alone prove the point, even before we get to the rest), and doing so by the established methods of using and adapting source material taught in ancient schools. And all the evidence fits that hypothesis exactly.

Some evidence cannot even be explained any other way (e.g. OHJ, p. 471), or is very improbable any other way. Once you concede Luke is redacting Matthew, you have no need of Q. So you need really good evidence to maintain there is a Q. And there isn’t even good evidence, much less really good. And that’s before we get to all the evidence Goodacre, Goulder, Perrin, Shellard, Drury, Turner, Farrer, etc, etc., etc., have adduced in addition against the Q hypothesis.

Even Kloppenborg had to admit they kind of have a point (OHJ, p. 270, n. 34) and that there being a Q is at best 50/50. Kloppenborg! (And he was being absuredly charitable to Q. Because he is so invested in it.)

But hey, take a shot. What do you consider the best items of evidence making Q the more probable hypothesis than Luke redacting Matthew?

Excellent catches all. Fixed.