David B

I think the crucial point is whether any supernatural claims, from any source, stands up to critical, sceptical analysis.

Have yet to see one.

Which I find telling.

David B

johno

In discussions about these matters it is very important to consider the presumptions that shape different opinions. I am an atheist and a student of science.

My view of the world will be unchanged if the mythical Jesus of the canonical writings could be connected to a particular individual or a sect of individuals with shared ideas.

My view of the world would be unchanged if it could be shown unequivocally that the mythical Jesus was a fiction dreamt up by Roman conspirators (I read James Ballantyne Hannay when I was far too young to be critical of his lunacy.) I would class my interest as academic. I feel that I can approach the question in a disinterested fashion. I suggest that most atheists feel about the question as I do. By classifying the interest to atheists as academic I am not meaning to denigrate academic inquiry, inquiry undertaken solely to find out, and I admire the scholars who undertake this kind of work.

Christians approach the question of the existence of an historical Jesus from a completely different set of presumptions. For most christians their system of beliefs depends not only the existence of an historical figure, but on the veridical status of the gospel account of his life, miracles included. It is simply impossible for religious believers of this type to approach the question without prejudice, just as it is impossible for creationists to address the evolution. Evidence against their presumptions must be discredited or they risk their faith: they do the obvious thing, consciously or unconsciously they lie.

In my experience, atheists do not concern themselves with question of the existence of Jesus as an historical figure, because the question is not relevant to their way of life. Most christians do not concern themselves with question either: they believe.

The question has more than academic interest when theocratically disposed conservative christians wish to impose their beliefs on other people, deriving their desires, or at least claiming to derive their desires from the bible, and defending their desires on the grounds that their understanding of the world is the only true one. If one believes, as I do, in freedom of conscience and of (ir)religion, then theocratic ambitions are a threat to my way of life. It then becomes important to me to determine if the desires of the theocrats can be supported by evidence and valid argument.

As a person with no expertise in biblical history, a person with little Latin, less Greek, and no Hebrew at all, I am not equipped to assess the evidence for myself. How am I to find a competent judge? Should I ask the christian or should I ask the atheist? It is obvious that the christian is not capable of giving an even-handed account of the question. Even if the vast majority of scholars were christian, this would still prevent me from accepting their opinions. I am driven to seek the opinions of atheists on the matter of the historicity of Jesus.

This might seem like a reasonable approach. If I was a born-again fundamentalist christian and if I became interested in explaining the diversity of species on earth I would do exactly the same thing. The overwhelming majority of biologists subscribe to the theory of evolution, and although some of these claim to be christian, I would not be persuaded. I would seek out creation scientists who are free of the commitment to methodological naturalism, and who can reassure me that despite the beliefs of the majority of biologists, the minority view is the correct one.

The fundamental difference is this: An atheist has no commitment to the results of research: the existence of an historical Jesus, the non-existence of an historical Jesus makes no difference to an atheistic world-view. The atheist is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the theory of evolution were shown to be scientifically flawed, biologists would simply seek another scientific theory that would account for the diversity of life, free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. It makes sense to seek information and advice only from people who are intellectually free to follow the evidence wherever it leads; and that is why it is rational to ignore the writings of christian scholars on the historical status of Jesus, and to ignore christian creationists on the origin of the diversity of living organisms, because such people are forced by their religious presumptions to interpret evidence, not wherever the evidence leads, but in congruence with their religious beliefs.

Having read the writings of the mythicists I currently subscribe to their point of view. Their arguments, at the very least, call into question some of the presumptions of the potential theocrats who would wish to impose on us their interpretations of what the mythical Jesus supposedly taught.

johno

Tigers!

So if the evidence freely lead the atheist to believing in an historical Jesus would they do it? I not convinced that they would.
You give a very flattering view of atheists, I wish the ones in Australia that I know were so nice and disinterested. All the atheists I have ever met are most certainly not disinterested in the HJ.
If you believe that it's only rational for atheists to ignore Christian scholars and dismiss so off-handedly their work and views then perhaps it is true that there is nothing for the two groups to discuss.
Imagine the uproar if a theist was as blunt as you.

johno

If you will grant me the distinction of 'believing existed' in substitution of 'believing in', then you can count me in. For most of my life I didn't question the existence of a Palestinian freedom-fighter, or terrorist, depending on your point of view, called Jesus. It was only when I looked at the evidence that I realised my belief was questionable.

Let us make a start by distinguishing clearly between uninterested and disinterested, to be uninterested means to lack interest, to be disinterested means to have no personal commitment to the outcome of a disputation. As to whether or not atheists are interested, uninterested, disinterested in the historical Jesus will depend on the circle of atheists you move in. Perhaps atheists in different places respond differently. Ever since christians started to write about their religion some have suppressed writings that seemed to cast doubt on their religion, others have forged documents to provide evidence in favour of their religion, others have killed other christians for subtle departures from orthodoxy, others have tortured the meaning of the texts to justify fashionable changes in morals. Today we are confronted with christians who systematically lie about science and about evolution. I myself have been present when a theologian, a professor of the University of Oxford, misrepresented the theory of evolution to a class of divinity students, so I have personal experience of the disinterested intellectual behaviour of christians: Ignorance? I doubt it. It is therefore not surprising that I am chary of taking the scholarship of christians seriously when they are referring to the foundations of their beliefs.

I am sorry if I seemed blunt. I was trying to be clear.

johno

jjramsey

Considering that so many Christians in HJ research write as if they have checked their religion at the door, this is by no means obvious.

jjramsey

I'm inclined to see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. It would explain the indications in the NT indicating that the inbreaking of the kingdom of God would come soon, and the association with John the Baptist, and the parables about sheep and goats, wheat and tares, being prepared for the return of someone important, etc., and the Son of Man references.

If you had a "Palestinian freedom-fighter" as your starting point for an HJ, I can see why you would have rejected that particular HJ.

I myself have tracked down several of the references to Freke and Gandy's work, The Jesus Mysteries, and found them to have used their sources misleadingly or to have misquoted them outright. I know that Freke and Gandy are not the sum total of MJ-dom, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

johno

Writing giving the semblance of having left your religion at the door is not the same as writing after having left your religion at the door, and neither is the same as writing having no religion to leave at the door. To be completely cynical about the christians, if they are to convince the sceptical they have to give the appearance of dealing with controversies even-handedly.

My reasoning was that to be a christian necessarily demands a belief in the historical Jesus. This reasoning might be mistaken, and perhaps evidence can be gathered here on this point. Can a person who denies the historical existence of Jesus be regarded as a christian, whatever else she believes?

Yes. What, then is the warrant for her other religious beliefs?
No. The denial of the existence of the historical Jesus implies that she is not a christian.

johno

jjramsey

Crossan doesn't believe in a literal resurrection and, IIRC, doesn't believe in an afterlife, either, and he self-identifies as a Christian. If people who call themselves Christians are willing to go that far, it hardly seems probable that a mythical Jesus would be considered forbidden territory. Liberal Christianity is a stranger beast than you give it credit for.

If you want to compare competing biases, then it is clear that MJers can be every bit as biased and manipulative as creationists. The idea that atheists would be less biased than Christians is a pretty hypothesis that is falsified by the ugly facts on the ground.

Toto

Freke and Gandy are not atheists - they are pushing a competing neo-Gnostic religion.

Frank Zindler is on the staff of American Atheists, and sometimes seems to push the envelop on evidence.

But other mythicists - Wells, Doherty, Price, Carrier - have no particular need based on ideology to spin or misrepresent the evidence.

I do think that Christians who at least make an effort to check their religion at the door need to be taken seriously and not just brushed off because of their obvious bias, just as Zindler and Freke and Gandy should be.

No Robots

This sure sounds like an ideological axe being ground:

So long as we cease to search for meaning in the sphere of fantasy, or extrapolate the best in ourselves onto an idealized, larger-than-life individual or heavenly force (which the Jesus Seminar is still trying to do). Instead, we need only find it in the earth-based capacity of every human individual.

By the way, does anyone know why this passage was omitted from the online fulltext version of The Jesus Puzzle?