I was surprised to read such ill-informed comments at the end of Scott Murray’s review of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ … One could refer him to Josephus and Tacitus (Jewish and Roman historians of the time that Jesus lived) among others and he might find that there is more historical evidence for Jesus having lived than Julius Caesar. Reviewers should find out their facts before moving out of the realm of just commenting on the movie production.

Mignon Goswell, Box Hill North (Melbourne Age Green Guide, 20 Apr. 2006)

I suppose I read a letter like this in the media every month or so. I used to grind my teeth and churn out two-page replies that rarely made it into print. When I finally grasped the principle that responses should be very concise - certainly no longer than the initial letter - I found myself with other concerns. In particular, I began to undervalue the significance of always challenging ignorant viewpoints like this one. Goswell’s argument is riddled with flaws and we owe it to the public to point these out, briefly but clearly.

Imagine my surprise when the very next issue of the Green Guide (27 Apr.) contained not one refutation of Goswell, but two:

Mignon Goswell … claims there is more historical evidence for Jesus’ existence than that of Julius Caesar. He cites two contemporaneous historians to corroborate his claim, thereby comparing two single, disputed passages versus the huge archaeological record of Caesar. May I point out there are coeval coins bearing Caesar’s likeness, busts and the extant writings of Caesar himself - none of which could be said about Jesus Christ.

Brendon Wickham, Hawthorn

This was very good, but the second one was even better:

Scott Murray is quite right to say … there is no proof of the existence of a Jesus Christ, and he deserves our thanks for having the courage to say so. Mignon Goswell’s references to the historians Josephus and Tacitus are meaningless. Most bible scholars believe the Josephus paragraph referring to Jesus is a forgery inserted by the early church. As for Tacitus, he merely mentioned how Christians got their name. Bible scholars also tell us that there is not one eyewitness author in the entire New Testament. Sounds like a myth to me.

Domenic Listro, Ringwood East

A feast for the eyes, isn’t it? Of course, you could say a lot more, but if you want to be published it’s much better to keep it short and punchy. And if a couple of people can land a one-two combination like this, so much the better.

Religious Right speakers and authors love to harp on about the unique historical basis of their religion - or should I say, a toxic version of their religion which really only developed over the last century. But there is no firm historical basis for Christianity. Nobody can say with any certainty that such a person as Jesus ever existed. And on balance, it’s most probable that he did not.

This simple truth should be pointed out to the public as often and as succinctly as possible. The entire Christian edifice is built on sand and there is thus no basis for excrescences such as the Religious Right.

Sorry, Mignon Goswell, no foundation, no cornerstone, no nothing.

Filed in: Biblical criticism