Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

by Dan Barker

Let’s face it. Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 are contradictory.

Chapter Fifteen

Did Jesus Exist?

I am now convinced that the Jesus story is a combination of myth and legend, mixed with a little bit of real history unrelated to Jesus.

Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century, even though many writers documented firsthand the early Roman Empire in great detail, including careful accounts of the time and place where Jesus supposedly taught.

Jesus supposedly lived sometime between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E., but there is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. The earliest candidate for extrabiblical confirmation, one small paragraph in Josephus, dates to the mid 90s C.E., which is more than 60 years after Jesus supposedly died. Even this turns out to be bogus.

John E. Remsburg, in The Christ, writes: “Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place—when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.”

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolater of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus after more than two centuries.

Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited messiah (Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him.

Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. In fact, it flows better without it.

There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’ time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

He makes no mention of the earthquake or eclipse at the crucifixion, which would have been universally known in that area if they had truly happened. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been believed by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century.

THE SECOND CENTURY AND LATER

Pliny, at the very most, might be useful in documenting the religion, but not the historic Jesus.

BOTTOM OF THE BARREL

In Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell makes an argument that is common among apologists: “There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation.

What does the number of copies have to do with authenticity?

This argument is a smokescreen. There are no original manuscripts (autographs) of the bible in existence, so we all agree that we are working from copies of copies.

Yes, scribes sometimes made minor copying errors, but few believers realize how many discrepancies there are among the manuscripts. Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, reminds us that there are more variants among the ancient documents than there are words in the New Testament.

NOT THE GOSPEL TRUTH

Paul never talks about Jesus’ parents or the virgin birth or Bethlehem. He never mentions Nazareth, never refers to Jesus as the “Son of man” (as commonly used in the Gospels), avoids recounting a single miracle or deed committed by Jesus (except for reciting the Last Supper ritual), does not fix any historical activities of Jesus in any time or place, makes no reference to any of the 12 apostles by name, omits the trial and fails to place the crucifixion in a geographical location. Paul rarely quotes Jesus, and this is odd since he used many other devices of persuasion to make his points.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are commonly known as the “synoptic Gospels” since they share much common material. The writer of John appears to have written in isolation, and the Jesus portrayed in his story is a different character. John contains little in common with the other three, and where it does overlap it is often contradictory.

HOW DID THE MYTH ORIGINATE?

Prudent history demands that until all natural explanations for the origin of an outrageous tale are completely ruled out, it is irresponsible to hold to the literal, historical truth of what appears to be just another myth.

ARE THE MIRACLES HISTORICAL?

History, at best, produces only an approximation of truth. In order for history to have any strength at all, it must adhere to a very strict assumption: that natural law is regular over time. Without the assumption of natural regularity, no history can be done. There would be no criteria for discarding fantastic stories. Everything that has ever been recorded would have to be taken as literal truth.

However, if a miracle is defined as a “highly unlikely” or “wonderful” event, then it is fair game for history, but with an important caveat: outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

CONCLUSION

In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer wrote: “There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus… The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma…”

Chapter Sixteen

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?

Apostle Paul’s admonition: “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.”

The earliest Christians believed in the “spiritual” resurrection of Jesus. The story evolved over time into a “bodily” resurrection.

A tale can be both myth and legend because all you need for a legend to start is a belief in a historical fact, whether that belief is true or not. But to most true believers, especially to fundamentalist inerrantists, there is no difference between whether the Jesus story is a complete myth or a legend based on some early facts. Either way, the New Testament loses reliability.

CAN HISTORY PROVE A MIRACLE?

When examining artifacts from the past, historians assume that nature worked back then as it does today; otherwise, anything goes.

We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

Examining a miracle with history is like searching for a planet with a microscope.

Carl Sagan liked to say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Thomas Paine points out that everything in the bible is hearsay.

If history cannot prove a miracle, then certainly secondhand hearsay cannot either.

NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS

INTERNAL DISCREPANCIES

My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born. Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, “If Christ be not risen… we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8.

Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed reporters. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT

No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus’ postmortem activities can be harmonized.”

It’s impossible to fit their accounts together into a single coherent scheme.”