‘Deciphering the Gospels’, by R. G. Price, argues the case for Jesus mythicism, which is the view that Jesus never existed on earth in any real form but was an entirely mythical figure in the same way as Hercules or Dionysus. (The author is not the same person as Robert Price, also a Jesus mythicist author.) I’m an atheist who holds the opposing (and mainstream) view that Christianity started with a human Jesus. In other words, the Jesus referred to as the founder of Christianity was originally a 1st-century human being, about whom a later mythology grew up, whose followers became the original group that would mutate over time into Christianity. I’m therefore reviewing Price’s book to discuss his arguments and my reasons for disagreeing.

The first post in this book review is here. Links to the posts on all subsequent chapters can be found at the end of that post.

Readers, we’re nearly there; we made it to the last post on this book. I noticed a few weeks ago that the first post I published on this book was on the 17th Feb 2019, and since then I’ve secretly hoped to be able to get finished by what’s about to be the seventh anniversary of that date… and here we are with the end in site. The realisation that I’ve spent seven years on this has indeed made me question some of my life choices (especially when I also realised that this means I’ve spent even longer on Walking Disaster), but, nope, I like taking this sort of stuff apart and I have, at least on this subject, no regrets. But I’ll still be glad to tick this one off my list and move on.

So! Home stretch. Four more questions from Price’s list, four more from my list, and we’re done. Let’s get going.

Questions from Price

9.
Why would Paul insist that his knowledge of Jesus was superior because it came from revelation, if Paul knew that other apostles had direct knowledge of Jesus the person and were taught directly from the mouth of Jesus?

Paul believed that Jesus actually had appeared to him, so he and his followers believed that Paul had heard directly from Jesus, and he thought that was better than getting information second-hand from the apostles. (This would have no doubt been fuelled by the fact that Paul’s beliefs about what Jesus had told him fitted a lot better with what he wanted to hear, meaning he was pretty well motivated to hang onto this belief.)

10.
If a real Jesus were worshiped and executed, then why was his real grave unknown and unvenerated?

His followers were so reluctant to accept his death that they started believing he’d miraculously come back to life. I very much doubt they wanted to think about his body rotting away in a criminal’s graveyard when they could keep believing that he’d magically risen from the dead instead.

11.
If the “Q” teachings come from a separate independent source, then why does the “Q” dialog fit so neatly into the Markan narrative, using elements of language that are unique to the Gospels?

The problem with this question is that Price hasn’t demonstrated his premise here. I went back to what Price wrote about Q earlier in the book as I’d skimmed over it before, but I hadn’t missed much.

Price’s claim (from back in Chapter 6) is that the Q material (material shared by both Matthew and Luke but not Mark) is too well integrated with the Markan material to have been added later, from which he concludes that Matthew and Luke originally copied a longer form of Mark that also contained the Q material. However, although Price claims there are ‘dozens of examples’ showing this, the only one he gives is the temptation scene (the scene in which Jesus is fasting in the desert and is tempted by the devil). And… looking at that, I’m hard-pressed to see how else Matthew and Luke would have integrated the material.

Mark gives us a very brief account; Jesus went into the desert and fasted for forty days, the devil tempted him, angels ministered to him. Matthew and Luke both add a more detailed account of the devil’s temptations. Not surprisingly, they both add this just after the bit about Jesus fasting in the desert and just before the bit about angels ministering to him. Looking at the three accounts side by side, I’m at a loss as to where else Price thinks the extra details would have been added. And, while I’m sure he’s convinced himself that he does indeed have ‘dozens’ of other examples, my seven-year experience with reading Price has not left me with any reason to trust that those examples will stand up any better. So, again, if Price wants to claim that the Q material is integrated in such a way, he’s going to have to show his working.

Meanwhile, I’m still wondering how on earth Price hasn’t spotted the problem this whole theory causes for the rest of his argument. Price’s original claim, if you recall, was that every single important scene in gMark could be shown to be derived from somewhere else, and, despite the flaws in his argument, he did at least put a lot of effort into going through gMark sequentially trying to hit every scene and come up with some kind of explanation. Yet he somehow doesn’t seem to have noticed the glaring contradiction between ‘I have demonstrated this for every important scene in gMark’ and ‘gMark also had a lot of extra material that I haven’t previously mentioned’. I honestly wonder whether Price has ever thought critically about his own arguments at any point.

12.
If Paul knew that Jesus was a real person who was recently on earth, then why did he never talk about him “returning” or “coming back”?

I can’t say one way or the other whether this is even true, as I don’t know Koine Greek. However, Price doesn’t either, and at this point I don’t think it’s unwarranted for me to be somewhat suspicious about whether he’s actually correct or not. Oh, well, if you want to think about whether it means anything whatsoever even if Price is right about it… I doubt it. Discussed it a bit further in this post.

And that’s it for Price’s twelve questions and for Price’s first book. Just my last four questions for Price here:

Questions for Price

9. If Jesus was thought of by his original followers as a purely heavenly being, why were specific members of the group (who weren’t even the apostles) referred to as his brothers? If this was meant metaphorically, in what way would it make any sense to think of humans as being even metaphorically the brothers of a heavenly being, especially when this designation was given only to a few men who weren’t even apostles?

10. Why is it that there’s no sign at all, amongst all the diversity of opinion in existing writings, of anyone believing that Jesus lived and died entirely in the heavens? We have mention of beliefs that Jesus was originally a heavenly figure before being born to a woman on earth, we have mention of beliefs that Jesus only appeared to be leading a human life on earth but his flesh wasn’t really real flesh. But we have absolutely no record – not even in the form of anyone attempting to refute the belief as heresy – about anyone having believed that Jesus lived entirely in heaven. If this was really what the group believed at their origins, why would they have no record of it at all?

11. New religious sects are typically started by charismatic and inspiring individuals who become indelibly part of the records of the movement (as the great divine prophet who taught the true wishes of God, that kind of thing). In our records of Christianity’s beginning, we certainly seem to see such an individual in Jesus. If the first group wasn’t started by a historical Jesus, then why is there no record at all of whomever did start it?

12. Given the evidence we do have for a historical Jesus, plus the fact that none of your arguments or evidence have actually stood up to examination, plus the difficulties you yourself have had in explaining parts of your case that don’t make sense… can you think of any reason at all why we should believe your claims instead of the much simpler explanation that Christianity started with a historical Jesus?

That’s it; this book review is officially over. I look forward to seeing whether anyone wants to join in with further discussion in any of the comment threads (if you do, just remember to keep it civil). But for this post, it remains only for me to indulge in my habit of misquoting Richard Ayoade each time I finish a book review, by saying: Thank you for reading, if indeed you still are.