A Mythicist Book by a Catholic?

The Internet has been a hotbed for the fringe position of biblical studies known as Jesus mythicism--the idea that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. This is certainly outside the mainstream of academic Bible scholars, and it is often ridiculed. However, there are some in the field that are giving it a fair shake. Robert M. Price, for example, finds it to be quite plausible, and Richard Carrier will argue it in his upcoming book On the Historicity of Jesus probably next year. Earl Doherty used the Internet to promote his version of the mythical Jesus as the root of Christianity, and that had inspired Price and Carrier. A few other scholars seem to give it the time of day as well, and it received some methodological consideration in the book Is this Not the Carpenter? by Thomas Thompson and Thomas Verenna, which I look forward to reading soon.

But it looks like there will be another book to enter in on the side of the mythicist camp later this year by Thomas L. Brodie, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I have read this scholar's work before, and he focuses on literary aspects of the Bible. He also worked by Dennis R. MacDonald in forming criteria for intertextuality between ancient texts. (See their book Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity for some background.) And now it looks like his research has gone into the following conclusion:

The work of tracing literary indebtedness and art is far from finished but it is already possible and necessary to draw a conclusion: it is that, bluntly, Jesus did not exist as a historical individual.

While the parallels between the Old Testament and Gospels does seem to take down the accuracy of the reports in the latter, it is still surprising to see this conclusion because Brodie, as far as I know, is a Catholic. After all, he is the director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Ireland. It seems that Brodie has found some way of reconstructing what his faith in Jesus would mean, but it is an astounding position nonetheless. And if his upcoming book is like his previous work (and like the work of his student Andrew Winn in Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the Search for Markan Source Material), then it should be very interesting. (The table of contents suggests a lot of historical background of the scholarship, and I am strangely interested in that.)

Now, there seems to be some backlash to the book in the biblioblogosphere, such as James McGrath here suggesting that by even publishing the book it will demote the position of mythicism. James sees too much parallelomania in Brodie's work, though he doesn't try to demonstrate that in his post. Now, certainly mythicist proponents of the past have done that (and some, such as Acharya S., seem to do that today), but this knee-jerk reaction seems out of place for an academic approach. Brodie's position also belies the belief that no trained New Testament scholars argues Jesus didn't exist.

I can imagine what the reaction of Brodie's book will be down the party lines, but I suspect the impact of such work won't be understood for another decade. Which way will the academy go? We'll have to tune in and see. In the mean time, I am excited to find out what is going to be said in this book and the next few both promoting and demoting the hypothesis.

Going to the Promised Land

Of the many facets of religious observances and traditions, perhaps one of the most universal is that of pilgrimage, the travel to some holy place to better commune with divinity. Our most common images perhaps come from the Christian Middle Ages when pilgrims filled the roads going to cathedrals across Europe because of some saint's remains or other holy incident at that location. Relics and temples are often at the cite of pilgrimages, though a memorial is also common.

However, less commonly thought of are pilgrimages of the Jews before the end of antiquity. How common an activity was this, say in the first century? This discussion came up in part of a review of Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man by James McGrath. The question was about whether it is plausible that there should have been Christian pilgrims in the first century to sites such as the empty tomb, something absent from earliest records such as Paul's letters. How plausible such pilgrimages would have been and how likely someone would have mentioned such a pilgrimage and then how likely we would have that record won't be discussed here, but instead a fundamental question is worth considering: how common was pilgrimage among Jews at the time of Jesus? James was figuring it was uncommon, but he wasn't certain; in a comment he suggested I look into it. That is what I shall do here.

As noted before, pilgrimages are a near universal in religious cultures around the world. There were numerous holy places in the Greco-Roman world as well, such as the temples of Aesculapius where miracles and cures were often claimed. We also know of medieval and modern Jewish pilgrims, not to mention Christian ones, such even with no evidence one would expect pilgrimages to be part of Judaism just from this general background. With that initial probability favoring Jewish pilgrims, it would force one contending the opposite to justify that position.

However, there are evidences to consider. The most obvious form of pilgrimage in Second-Temple Judaism are the three major festivals that brought Jews from all ends of the Diaspora to Jerusalem. The most obvious festival is Passover, which brought Jesus and his Disciples to the Temple as well. There is no question of the magnitude of these festivals; Josephus wrote of the immense size of the crowds during Passovers, and Philo of Alexandria also wrote of his own pilgrimages to Jerusalem for festivals; we can also supplement rabbinic writings as well to confirm the magnitude of these festivals.

Nonetheless, this is not the sort of pilgrimages that are interest if one wants to compare to later periods or to Christianity. We should be curious if there were other sites that Jews would wish to travel to because of their holiness or other religious importance. For example, did Hebrew pilgrims trek to the tombs of the saints or the location of special events from the Old Testament? What sorts of records do we have? What does archaeology show?

My investigations were helps immensely by Pilgrimage and the Jews by David Gitlitz and Linda Davidson. Their book focuses more on later periods, including Jews travelling to Holocaust sites and memorials, but there is also a fair amount concerning antiquity. They look at much of the Old Testament of holy sites that may have attracted crowds. However, one thing that they did not consider but seems much like Christian relic stories from the Middle Ages, concerns the body of the prophet Elisha. According to Sirach 48:14 even the dead prophet brought about numerous miracles; could the author be thinking of something like relic stories? If 2 Kings 13:20-21 is in view, this makes sense. In this story a dead body is through into the tomb of Elisha, and the dead man returns to life. Perhaps we have here an old sort of relic story. Apparently Elisha had a tomb and people told stories about its miraculous powers. We would then expect people to occasionally show up there as so many did at the temples of Aesculapius.

Another important document after biblical texts is a work often figured to date from the early first century CE, the Lives of the Prophets. This work tells of many stories concerning the numerous speakers for God, and in many cases their death and tomb location is mentioned. The importance of their tombs was apparently worth knowing as the fuller title of this work is The Names of the Prophets, and whence they were, where they died, and how and where they were buried. This work may have been known to the authors of the New Testament, but I won't pretend to know if that's true. Nonetheless, it does give insight into the beliefs and activities of the time.

Here are a few examples from this document. Ezekiel is said to have drawn large crowds while preaching, and at one point does a Moses miracle to the river Chebar in Mesopotamia, splitting it to help his people escape the Chaldeans and then drowning the pursuers. Ezekiel's tomb is described as having a stairway and multiple chambers. The tomb of Jeremiah is said to have the sorts of powers medieval relics had, such as the sands taken from his Egyptian resting place were used to cure snakebites. The tomb of Isaiah is also noted as in the vicinity of Jerusalem, so holy sites were located close and far away from the Holy City. The story of Elisha resurrecting a dead man through bone contact is also retold. These tombs seem to be well known as they help make sense of Luke 11:47 with Jesus talking about the tombs of the prophets. Apparently these places were well-known either to Jesus or the Gospel authors.

Archaeology also supports this period as a time when many came to see the places of various righteous figures of Israel's past and mythology. The Cave of the Patriarchs has been shown to have been refurbished during the time of Herod the Great, as wells as the tomb of David according to Josephus (JA 16.182). (Lest we forget, there was also Herod's elaborate tomb, the Herodium, which he must have hoped people to show up to in remembrance considering the place.) The construction at these places further indicates that they were common places for travelers to visit, so their upkeep would have been good for business.

I have focused on locations and documents whose province is better known to show that indeed in the first century there were Jewish pilgrims to holy places other than the Temple. More uncertain we could add Rachel's tomb, the tomb of Daniel, and others. There is also the Mount of Olives; the fact that Jesus was supposed to have gone up there signifies it's importance, and would also suggest why the unnamed Egyptian rebel in the 60s CE also gathered his troops at this place. John the Baptist's placement at the Jordan has significance, and the people who traveled to him can be said to have been on pilgrimage. Later, the tombs of the rabbis were commonly venerated. All of this strongly indicates that in fact pilgrimage was indeed a commonality of Jewish religious practice in the first century, even beyond that going for festival celebrations.

With that established, we may begin to ponder about the resting place of Jesus' body... temporarily, of course. Would it have become a venerated location soon after his death? Would we have expected the Jerusalem pillars to have "set up shop" outside of this most holy place for tourists? This is a discussion that will need to take place at another time.

Paul and the Sayings of Jesus

Recently there has been a considerable smattering of arguments concerning the very existence of Jesus, mostly with a university professor of religion, James McGrath. I have followed some of the back and forth in these battles between McGrath and Neil Godfrey and Thomas Verenna. I have preferred the latter's interactions, especially since he provides lots of good references in his posts. However, one item in a comment on a post by Godfrey got me thinking.

This concerns a passage in 1 Corinthians 7:10. This is a statement concerning divorce amongst Christians converts, namely in Corinth.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. (NIV)

Note that the NIV is not necessarily the best translation, but it has some of the easiest prose to follow. Nonetheless, the exact translation of the verse is not of concern. The point is that Paul says that he has a commandment from the Lord concerning the nature of divorce. This is taken as Paul referring to a teaching of Jesus, and so Paul must think Jesus was a person giving such advice. The advice on divorce should have something to do with that found in the Gospels, namely in Mark 10. There Jesus says that a man that divorces and marries another woman commits adultery, and similarly with the woman. A similar sentiment is found in Matthew 5. However, there the simple act of getting a divorce makes the woman an adulteress. Also importantly, this is to be in contrast to Deuteronomy 24:1 which gives the ability to divorce.

So, first note that if Matthew has the original saying of Jesus, it doesn't fit the Pauline version very well. Paul does not say that the mere act of divorcing makes one party an adulterer. In the very next verse

But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Now the divorce can happen, but the woman can remarry only one person. So, perhaps we should assume that the Markan version is the older and Matthew has made the condition stronger. Also, Matthew is dependent on Mark, so this appears to be Matthew taking liberty with the text.

However, Jesus in Mark does not simply say that he is the authority in this matter, and therefore you must listen to him. Rather, Jesus quotes the Old Testament for the proclamation that divorce should not be done. In particular Jesus uses Genesis to say that men and women were designed by God to join together and not be separated. Further, Mark says that no man can separate man and woman. This runs contrary to Paul's version as well; Paul allows there to be separation, but Mark says that no man can make this possible. So Mark and Paul are not in agreement.

Now, does Paul need to be saying that Jesus spoke this commandment in a historical time frame? Paul often uses scripture to back up his position, and he may very well believe that his advice is based on his reading of the Old Testament. For example, Malachi 2 gives a strong pronouncement from God against divorce, in particular saying he hates it. The LXX of Malachi 2:16 says this was spoken by the lord (kurios), the same word used by Paul in 1 Cor 7:10.

So a pronouncement from Jesus in the flesh is not necessary for Paul to claim a commandment from on high about divorce. This does not mean that Paul is not referring to Jesus; I only claim is that it is not a necessary conclusion. On the other hand, what is probable? Considering that Paul's understanding of what Jesus said is significantly different from what is recorded in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, this gives no reason to think they refer to a recorded source by the Galilean prophet. Further, Mark has Jesus make a scriptural argument, while Matthew uses the force of Jesus' say-so. It looks like the situation is evolving from theological argument amongst the Christians to dictate by Jesus himself. Jesus originally in Mark quotes scripture, and to use the maxim of Bultmann, who remembers the great man quoting somebody else? Worse yet, Luke and John drop this teaching of Jesus; if it went back to the founder, why did Luke think it wasn't worth repeating? He was using Mark, so apparently Luke doesn't have the same problem with divorce; can this really be the case if this is what the very Son of God actually said in history? If instead the commandment was a determination from the Old Testament and revelation, perhaps then Luke's community didn't buy the scriptural argument; that makes a lot more sense than Luke denying the authority of God on earth! If Mark and Paul are only making arguments based on their understanding of the Old Testament or their personal, subjective impressions of the religion, then Luke coming to a different conclusion makes plenty of sense. This becomes significant evidence in favor of no oral tradition starting with the master.

Let us also consider how this commandment of Jesus could have been passed around. Suppose that Paul is in fact quoting his dead master. This means that the authority of Jesus' statements are sufficient to make a matter settled. This is similar for Matthew's Jesus, at least in this one case. However, Mark's Jesus requires a scriptural argument. How did Jesus get demoted from authoritative despot to exeget only to be bumped up again? The historical situation in Mark 10 is unlikely since Pharisees were not running around beyond the Jordan. This is desert land, not a place that needed priestly figures. The context is very strange. It is hard to say that this can go back to this historical situation. Matthew also places this pronouncement in the Galilee, it seems, so the details of substance and location are amiss. Very strange if this is a recollection.

Now, I have utilized the arguments of Early Doherty concerning this particular passage. This argument (#8) is that Paul can very well be claiming that his source is revelation by God/Jesus rather than an oral tradition. This can also make sense of this passage as well as 1 Cor 9:14 which also says that the Lord commands those that preach the gospel must make a living by the gospel. We should also take to heart what Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 that says he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus himself; he specifically says that no man taught him these things. This works against the notion that Paul learned about what Jesus said from other apostles, and instead he suggests that his information comes from revelation and scripture.

So, the phrase in Paul alone does not need to indicate that Paul is quoting a historical Jesus, and moreover Paul suggests he gained his knowledge about Jesus through revelation and scripture. Without this latter consideration, the historicist stance explains the statement by Paul about as well as the mythicist, but the extra bit from Gal 1 suggests that the mythicist reading of 1 Cor 7 is not strained while the historicist position requires Paul to exaggerate his claims in Galatians. McGrath often argues that the mythicists propose situations that are less probable and require more special pleading in readings of verses. In this case, it seems that this is in fact true for the historicist camp.

Note, this does not mean Jesus wasn't a historical figure just from this argument; it doesn't even establish probability in favor. What it does do is demonstrate that one can justifiably read passages in Paul that some with to use to prove Paul knew a historical Jesus figure can be validly read without ad hoc assertions that fit in the mythicist paradigm. In some ways, it actually fits better in the mythicist paradigm because of the statements in Gal 1. Nonetheless, passages such as 1 Cor 7:10 cannot be used without further justification against the mythicist case.

The Advent

Christmas time is fast approaching, and the old story is being told again, along with the celebrations with reindeer, Santa Claus, and of course the Nativity.

But myths have a way of changing with time to better reflect the culture's values. And sometimes the stories change just for the heck of it:



I would guess that Jabba would be King Herod.

So, enjoy hearing the stories of the birth of Jesus. But there is a lot more...

The Star Returns to the Sky . . . & Telescope

As I had been informed before several months ago, the editors of Sky & Telescope have allowed Dr. Michael Molnar to write a short article pertaining to the Star of Bethlehem, largely because of his response to my article written in the 2007 December issue of the magazine. In my article, I mentioned his book, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi (Rutgers: 2001), comparing his belief that the occultation of Jupiter by the Moon was a positive sign to an ancient Babylonian astrological treatise that said this signified the death of a king. I probably didn't spill more than 50 words on his work in particular, though I did effectively "spit in the face" of theories such as comets, novae, and a later death for King Herod, along with any natural hypothesis for the Star--respectfully in my opinion.

There was already plenty of back and forth on the subject on the Talk Back page for my article on the S&T web page, to which Dr. Molnar participated in. Rather, we had some statements written to each other, carbon-copied to the editors of the magazine, though I suspect they were not reading these exchanges completely--they have jobs, you know. In the end, the conversation was not terribly profitable and Dr. Molnar stopped responding to emails I sent to him. Perhaps things can change now.

I have not read his new article, and it is not mentioned on the cover image of the newest S&T magazine, but appears to be the last page. I suspect he had about 500 words of space given to his response. Plus, the editors told me that his article was not going to be a reply to my article, per se. So, I don't really know the content until I read what he has. That may be a few weeks until the newest issue arrives where I am.

If he says something that I think is worth while responding to publicly, I may post that here. More likely, I will do some private conversing, which I think would be more respectful. Besides, a 500-word essay isn't going to be something earth-shattering.

In the mean time, I wish to make one point clear. In a letter reprinted in the May 2008 issue of S&T, Molnar says that I mischaracterized his position on the Star. I said that in Molnar's view, the occultation of Jupiter by the Moon was a positive sign that may have constituted the Star of Bethlehem. Molnar's response to me was that he did not say the Star of Bethlehem was this occultation.

And that is not what I said. Again, I said that this was a positive sign (in Molnar's opinion) that may have constituted the Star. Constitute is not the same as is. Besides, in Molnar's own book, he said the following "if the heliacal rising and lunar occultation of Jupiter constitute the Star of Bethlehem . . ." (p. 96). Molnar himself says that the occultation constituted, or was a part of, the Star. In fact, my version of what Molnar said is more cautious, as I say it was a positive sign that may have been part of what was the Star of Bethlehem. I was doubly-cautious in this use of terms, and without much loss of precision as I see it. As such, I did nothing to set up a strawman of Molnar's arguments at all.

This was Molnar's chief beef with my article, but as we conversed other things came up, which I will not get into here. In those conversations, however, it seemed that Molnar failed to take on my key points and made statements that mischaracterized my position and statements. Now, that may sound like I am the pot calling the kettle black, but I must say that hypocrisy was avoided the best I could.

Let me say though, that the most important point that I tried to make, to which Dr. Molnar made no response, was that his Star's movements would have been observationally impossible for naked-eye observers, not only at the rising of the Star, but, more importantly, in the way it moved from the time of the Magi left Jerusalem until they reached Bethlehem, a distance of several kilometers, at most a two-hour trip on foot. It would seem that if you have a hypothesis for what the Magi saw, and what you describe could not have been seen, that should be the kiss of death to such a hypothesis. I see this as the most important problem with Dr. Molnar's, and most every other's, estimation for what the Star of Bethlehem was--the biggest problem assuming that this is reliable testimony of events.

Should one not make that assumption, and should one observe the critical issues of historicity, it should be realized just how silly it is to try to explain something naturally where there is no reason to think such a thing is there. After all, is it not a waste of time to figure out the preferred type of pizza is consumed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if he/she/it eats pizza at all)? With this story, we don't know who the author was, the document itself was written at least post-70 CE (2nd century according to more radical scholars), not independently attested, contradicted by other accounts (including the account given by the only gospel writer claiming to write history), of questionable genre (was the gospel even meant to be history/biography?), the author is generally willing to tell tales that are almost certainly unreliable (such as in ch 27 where the dead saints come to life and enter Jerusalem, which no historian or other gospel writer claims happened--how could that have missed that!?!), and the very town Jesus was said to be born in was uninhabited for centuries before, during, and after the time of Jesus (A. Oshri, "Where Was Jesus Born?" Archaeology 58, 6 (2005)). So, this alone should make the search a fool's errand, to sift through the sands of time for an event that didn't happen (if there was no Bethlehem, how could there have been a Star of Bethlehem?).

Well, until I read Dr. Molnar's response, I wouldn't say more on his thesis.

On the other hand of scholarship, I am really getting excited about Richard Carrier's work on his book on the historicity of Jesus as well as the first meeting of The Jesus Project, started by R. Joseph Hoffmann and CSER. As for my research, I hope to send an article out of the Journal of Higher Criticism in the near future about my own investigation into the meaning of the Star of Bethlehem and its source-critical implications.

He shall be called a Nazarene--New Book on The Hometown of Jesus

I have heard for the last several months by one of the theologians/biblical scholars I listen to/read has mentioned a new book coming out which would analyze the evidence relating to the existence and time of existence of Nazareth, the small town in Galilee best known for being the town where Jesus came from (and perhaps born in according to modern scholarship). That book is just about to hit the market. The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus by Rene Salm will be on shelves (or online) come Easter Sunday (I wonder why). At this point on Amazon.com, there are two editorial reviews, one by Dr. Robert M. Price, author of many great books, including Deconstructing Jesus, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, The Pre-Nicene New Testament, and much more; the other is by Frank R. Zindler, a major atheist today.

I was initially excited about this book since I have heard about there being a lack of literary evidence for Nazareth (zilch in Josephus, the Talmud, the Mishnah, etc.), but that there was archaeological evidence for this. John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed in their book Excavating Jesus, for example, made a fair amount of mention to the evidence that told of the town being very small during the time of Jesus--in the tens of people if memory serves me right. (See also Chad Fife Emmett (1995). Beyond the Basilica:Christians and Muslims in Nazareth. University of Chicago Press, who on p. 16 says home in Nazareth are from the Roman period, about 63 BCE to 324 CE) So, Rene Salm has a lot of things to deal with. But who is Rene Salm? Apparently, there is nothing to suggest he is an archaeologist, or a lettered biblical scholar like Crossan. Here is what is given about him on Amazon.com:

For 30 years a scholar of early Buddhism as well as Christianity, René Salm is also a published composer of classical piano music and a linguist who commands many ancient and modern languages ranging from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Pali, to German, French, and Italian. In addition, he is a mental-health professional and concert-quality pianist. Salm resides in Eugene, Oregon, without need of car or television. The Myth Of Nazareth lays the foundation for a projected sequel -- a new account of Christian origins that will investigate suppressed evidence of Gnostic, Judean, and Essene roots of Christianity.

This profile is nothing but red flags to me. What point is there in mentioning his piano abilities or that he doesn't have a TV or car? It is also odd that this blurb does not mention knowledge of Greek of Lain, two languages that would seem to be rather useful for researching Romanized and Hellenized Judea. And Pali is not very useful at all, since it is a language in India, though it is at least Indo-European like Greek and Latin.

This figure also has nothing published in peer-reviewed literature on the subject as far as I can tell, and others have looked as well, including Rook Hawkins and Richard Carrier, both of which are very skeptical of the New Testament and the existence of a historical Jesus. This is an odd situation of Salm, since he claims to have been working on this subject for eight years, yet has not taken the time to get anything published in peer-reviewed journals. Even his book is not in any sort of hard peer-review since it printed by American Atheist Press instead of a university press or even Prometheus. This apparent avoidance of the process seems like another significant red flag. And after listening to Salm on The Infidel Guy Show recently, it seems he should have since he was making claims about the archaeologists' ineptness in dating certain artifacts. Such a charge against those in the field is something to not be taken lightly, but to avoid that position from being scrutinized by the top minds in the field gives the impression of the man yelling in the street rather than the academic trying to persuade his peers with reason and evidence.

Now, I do not want to say that this means Salm is wrong, but in avoiding those that can better analyze his work makes me very uncomfortable about his work. It also seems to carry the flag of mission or agenda. For example, Zindler in his review of the book says "Christianity cannot survive unless this book can be refuted." Such a statement seems to suggest that the book is good because it topples a major pillar of the Christian religion. What is also glaring to me that this statement is simply wrong. It seems that Christianity can survive just fine if the stories about Nazareth are not historical. Firstly, fundamentalists can just deny the book as they can all of modern science that points to an ancient earth with huge-scale evolution of living creatures. Secondly, liberal Christians can take the hit just fine. Bishop Shelby Spong has no problem saying the virgin birth was probably not historical and John Crossan does not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, yet both are professing Christians. Besides, modern scholars have tried to move the major events of Jesus' life from Nazareth to other towns near-by, such as Caesarea. Plus, archaeologists such as Aviram Oshri have argued that the Bethlehem of history is not in Judea but in Galilee near Nazareth. So, either with or without much intellectual fortitude the non-existence of Nazareth does not kill Christianity.

So, one of the few things that still attaches me to the book is Dr. Price's appraisal of the book. " I am amazed by your work and can't wait to see the pathetic attempts to reply!" as it says on Amazon.com. It is true that Price takes many, many radical views, including 2nd century dates for all the gospels, the inauthenticity of all the Pauline letters (a la Dutch Radicalism), and the probable non-historicity of Jesus. However, in each of these cases he has presented powerful arguments himself or his references has arguments that are hard to ignore, at least for me. Further, he had plenty of negative things to say about Caesar's Messiah, a book claiming that the gospels are just about the Flavian emperors and was created as a Roman conspiracy, and originally about the work of Acharya S--more recently, his negative review of Acharya's book was removed and now the two are more friendly, even working together. So, Price doesn't just shallow everything anti-Christian he finds. Yet, Price is not an archaeologist so I don't know if he can really have as powerful as opinion as someone in the field on the subject of the physical evidence for the town of Nazareth in the early 1st century CE.

Rook Hawkins has previously written on the subject and he has more depth into this than I am able or willing to do, both here and here. He does quote so much from Richard Carrier it becomes a bit much for one's own person blog, but Carrier's points are solid so I can't really blame him for not rewriting Carrier's statements.

So, I don't plan on buying this book until some other historians take a look at it and give me the scoop on the quality of the book. Maybe Salm is correct, in which case it has some bearing on my own work on the Star of Bethlehem and the infancy stories of Jesus in general. If he is right, I have to make some revisions in my own book in the works; if not, they why not is also important to me.