Michael Paulkovich is getting some attention with his list of 126 writers who should have written about Jesus but did not. According to Paulkovich, if Jesus existed we would expect each of these writers or at least the majority to have mentioned Jesus.
I suppose if this was true, then historical Jesus scholars would have some explaining to do. Unfortunately for Paulkovich, his claims are pretty far fetched.
I originally planned to go through his list one by one and respond. But of course I am biased and it could be argued that as an ordained pastor, I have a vested interested in showing that belief in Jesus is reasonable.
So here is a very helpful post by Steven Bollinger, who is an atheist. He has done all of the hard work in looking at the list of 126 writers. Bollinger demonstrates that Paulkovich is relying on the rhetorical power of a large number rather than the accuracy of each claim.
It ends that we have the ancient writers that we expect. The only one that we would like in addition is Philo. Even then, this is the advantage of historical Jesus studies.
Paulkovich gives the wrong idea when he claims that over a hundred writers who should have mentioned Jesus mysteriously did not mention him. We would not expect these writers to mention Jesus.
Tim O’Neil (who commented at Bollinger’s) is better. His take down of a Christ mythicist is a thing of beauty.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html
And unlike Christians who sometimes feel like they have to be “oh so nice” Tim feels no compunction about ridiculing someone stupid enough to believe in something as anti-history as the Christ myth.
Paulkovich thoroughly debunked Bollinger’s lies and poor research here: http://nomeekmessiah.com/bollinger/index.htm
And proved Candida Moss and Joel Baden (who wrote a “review”) never even read his book, in an article in Free Inquiry: http://www.beyondcrusades.com/links/fi2018.htm
Yes, I’ve read Tim O’Neil’s crap too. He’s an atheist who seems to hate other atheists (he’s the only “true” atheist it seems), and he got everything wrong about Paulkovitch’s book just like Bollinger, Moss and Baden, even though he had the book in his possession; but he doesn’t seem to have read Paukovitch’s appendix or bibliography.
Any chance you can provide evidence for the claims of Christianity – that Jesus was God’s son, sent to save us, was killed, then went to “heaven”? If not, then why would you believe such childish nonsense?
This man is very crazy. In communist countries used to say that communist president is their god, and Albert Einstein recognized that God exists !
“Albert Einstein recognized that God exists!” !!!!! Oh good god. Show us where Einstein said he believes the tales of Christian mythology: that God had a son, sent him to earth to be sacrificed, then went to mythical “heaven.”
Saying that Einstein recognized that God exists is not the same as saying he accepted Christian theology. He was open to God, just not a personal God.
Yes. That was exactly my point. The other person tried to call Paulkovitch a fool for not believing in a god, even though Einstein did. That’s a straw man, a non-sequitur; Paulkovitch never said that; he merely pointed out that there is very little evidence for the absurd tales of the New Testament, and that Einstein was smart enough to recognize that too.