Many points in this article are presented as accepted fact, but are not (even among non-Christian scholars).

Such as:

> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.

The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.

And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.

> Pagels’s larger point is that the most improbable Gospel tales serve to patch a fractured narrative—using familiar tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies that believers struggled with from the beginning.

"Familiar tropes and myths" is perhaps something you'd consider as the 20/21 Century literary critic, but I'm not sure a bunch of mostly peasants writing in the 1st Century would be.

And it's not like they had anything to gain by writing and spreading about their beliefs: the early Christians were ostracized from their community(s) and persecuted. For the first ~300 years of the existence of Christianity there was probably little but trouble from believing in it, until roughly the conversion of Constantine (312) and later the Edict of Milan.

> the first-century Jewish rabbi

I don't know why they put rabbi there. Jesus is later rejected by Jewish teachings and is probably considered heretical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_Jesus

Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).

The most compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus does not come from the gospels, but from Paul's letters. He claims to have met with Peter and James which he calls Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. We can assume that James did exist since Paul writes about disagreements he has with him. Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views. Moreover, if James did exist, it seems far-fetched to believe that he were able to assume the title "brother of Jesus" without actually being the brother of Jesus. People would have known whether his brother had been publicly executed or not.

In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.

Historians of reddit have to deal with this on a recurring basis. It's hard when textual refs stop in Josephus and the accretion of centuries of editorial over ur-texts.

Often times people seek to argue by comparison: "we have less evidence Darius or Julius Caesar existed" type arguments about the primacy of contemporary eye witness accounts, distinct from eg economic and architectural evidence.

Fugitive Christians didn't have time to collate the "I was there" takes and now it's Analects.

The article is polemical, which I don't mean as a criticism but simply as genre description. There is no attempt to engage with the scholarly consensus (or indeed any of biblical scholarship beyond the named author). The piece wants to explain why religion persists but even on this lens it is heavy on words but lacking in depth. A lot is asserted.

> In various texts, including Apocryphal works that date to around the same time as the Gospels proper, Joseph appears to suspect Mary of infidelity.

This struck me as a strange statement to not explain further. Plenty of Christians interpret Matthew 1:19 to mean Joseph was going to divorce Mary because he believed she was unfaithful.

> The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.

The later is true but it's strange to use Plutarch as an example considering that at best he would have been writing Parallel Lives at the same time the Gospels were being written.

> Those attributed to Jesus—described in language nearly identical to accounts of the Greek mystic and holy man Apollonius of Tyana, say—are neither more nor less convincing than others.

Well "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was written in the early 200ADs, approximately 100 years after the last Gospel was written. Once again, the point may be correct but the example given is confusing cause and effect.

> A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes. The Gospel authors, far from being community leaders preserving oral sayings for largely illiterate followers, were highly literate members of a small, erudite upper crust, distant in experience, attitude, and geography from any Galilean peasant preachers.

That seems like an extraordinary claim to make. The Gospels were drawn from no oral tradition, really? So there was a complete disconnect between the practitioners of early Christianity, who obviously would have their own oral tradition, and the Gospels writers. And the early Christians then accepted the Gospels even though they had no relationship to their existing traditions? Or is the claim the Christianity didn't exist until the Gospels were created, in which case you have to contest with the Apocrypha and historical accounts of Jesus.

The simplest explanation seems to be that the Gospels drew from early Christian oral tradition and now lost writings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels# for an explanation "now lost writings".

Mention of Richard Carrier was odd. The mythicist angle of Gospel accounts seems the least worthy of mention, even when the author encourages taking his work with the proverbial sodium. I like watching Tim O'Neill angrily refute everything Carrier says - he really doesn't like the guy.

Nor shall we ever be

The historicity of those events is a distraction. What matters is this is a symbolical story of how any soul can ascend from the prison of its own persona, with all its egocentric thoughts and desires, to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus most likely walked this path to prove it's possible, but it shouldn't distract you from the fact that this symbolical struggle and crucifixion is taking place in every human. It's also important to realise that this story isn't unique to Christianity. All major religions of the present and of the past tell the same message, using different symbols appropriate for the culture of the time. This message is, in fact, the only reason religions exist at all.

How is it inaccurate?

John 1:38

> Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

John 3:2

> The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 20:16

> Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

I think there's a decent case to be made that he was considered a "rabbi", or teacher in the time period prior to the destruction of the second temple, by a group of jewish folks.

As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.

It is possible for one to be a rabbi and also be rejected by other rabbis.

Judaism wasn't a monolith then and isn't now.

Rejected later upon evaluation of his entire life, but that's not to say he wasn't considered a teacher at the time. After all, there's plenty of modern-day preachers who have done some heinous acts, but they don't retroactively lose that title during the time they held it.

It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)

The fact he was rejected posthumously by those who became the dominant orthodox sect doesn't mean he wasn't a rabbi during his time.

Jesus' teachings fit within the diversity of Jewish sects existing at the time—Sadducees, Pharisees (literally "sectarians," derived from the Greek word Pharisaios, sharing the same root as the word "pariah"), and Essenes (a mystical, monastic sect; some speculate Jesus may have been associated with them).

Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.")

> "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision)

This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.

Because Jesus fits the definition of a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher, regardless of how he later came to be viewed. Just because later rabbinic Judaism rejected the apocalyptic movements and texts doesn't mean it wasn't part of Judaism while Jesus was live.

Or superstitions (i spent a few years living near Delhi, the nazar stuff seemed to me like a system of self inflicted oppression)

Both "Jewish" and "rabbi" are anachronisms in discussions of Jesus

> Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views.

Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience. It makes a lot more sense if you consider the writing is intended to outlive the author. You have to present all possible arguments because there's no going back, republishing, or even talking to the audience.

You see strawmen like this a lot in scriptures. It's a pretty obvious tool when you think about it.

But I have no real reason to doubt James existing. The evidence I've seen is convincing enough that I don't doubt that a man named Jesus existed and did historic things. Whether he was a Messiah is a different question.

Always remember that the Bible is a collection of stories. It was intended to be passed down orally and to the illiterate. Oral histories are always dressed up. Either intentionally or mutated through the generations, the stories become more memorable over time, and thus more embellished. It is unwise to treat any religion's scripture as a literal, factual, historical document. They aren't, none of them are. They're all stories meant to teach lessons, and not a technical manual.