Originally Posted by Barrett Pashak aka NoRobots

Originally Posted by rjosephhoffmann

Originally Posted by Barrett Pashak

You mean that you work with people like Richard Carrier and you don’t see the importance of the historicity of Christ to him and his fellow travellers? How about Robert M. Price? Even Dawkins flirts with the subject in _The God Delusion_. As far as I can see, you are the only scholar currently asserting agnosticism as the only valid position on this question. This could well make you a darling among the new atheists.

Originally Posted by rjosephhoffmann

But I don’t think it is the “only valid position”; it is simply my verdict on the evidence. I just need to know what’s new in Jesus studies that would make the historicity of Jesus irrefragable.

Originally Posted by steph

That’s not true Barrett. The historicity of Jesus isn’t a feature exclusively atheistic. As an agnostic, I can’t be absolutely confident in the reliability of our sources even though my thesis explores arguably plausible options. So I am agnostic about Jesus at the end of the day. There are other agnostic scholars of religion who wouldn’t touch the historical Jesus because of such uncertainty.

Originally Posted by rjosephhoffmann

Yeah, what Steph says….

Originally Posted by Barrett Pashak

I’m just saying that this emerging nexus of all kinds of people who are agnostic or disbelieving in the historicity of Christ makes for some strange bedfellows, what with yourselves and at least some of the new atheists. Perhaps we shall see a counter-nexus of theists and atheists who do assert the historicity of Christ.

Originally Posted by steph

I know ‘atheist’ scholars of the New Testament (not necessarily wearing their ‘atheism’ like badges, probably precisely because of the existence of the ‘new atheists’) who assert the historicity of Christ. What’s so bedfellowish anyway? I know plenty of atheists and theists who share similar ideas on all sorts of things.

Originally Posted by rjosephhoffmann

I am confused, but it may be mere theology– which always confuses me. Is the major premise here, “Jesus is God,” rather than “Jesus exists”? I do not see how atheism touches the latter premise, and much of “classical” atheism does not touch the former. The denial of the historicity of Jesus is like denying the historical existence of Ned Ludd (an interesting article by Arthur Droge on jst that parallel, btw). The denial of the divinity of Jesus, even if it could be maintained that the writing of the gospels is fundamentally tied to asserting his divine nature, may or may not presuppose his historicity. It is much easier of course to assume the divinity of a non-historical being: God for example is not historical while his revelation is thought to be. Do you see the problem? Or perhaps this is a good excuse for another blog. What I do maintain is agnosticism as to the probative value of the sources as to an historical question. “Agnosticism” as to the divinity of Jesus is not a historical question.

Originally Posted by steph

Just to clarify – I meant to say ‘historicity of Jesus’ because that is the question. I got distracted by the reference to ‘Christ’ in the comment by Barrett. Theology and supposed divinity of any historical figure are a different thing altogether.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...r-on-religion/

This contains a very interesting statement by Hoffmann in the comments.

'The denial of the historicity of Jesus is like denying the historical existence of Ned Ludd '

But almost all people who have looked for Ned Ludd have ended up finding no real evidence that he ever existed.