Doug Shaver

I don't have much of a problem with the taxonomy, but I have a major objection to the label of one taxon.
Atheism is nonbelief or disbelief in a god. The word is not a generic term for denial. Any theist could (and some probably do) believe that Jesus never existed, and at this point in history most atheists still believe he did exist.

Sheshbazzar

This is me, although I detest the term 'theist'. (as among the words that are 'chrem' (that is 'accursed' and 'devoted to destruction')

And of course it should be recognized by anyone with half a brain that Judaism is a 'theistic' faith,
and that Jews that believe that Jeebus the Nazarene never existed, are not thereby de-facto non-'theists'.
Belief in Jeebus does not define 'theism'.

aa5874

Again, you are making SELF-SERVING unsubstantiated claims. You have ZERO statistics to show that most atheist believe Jesus existed.

And the belief that Jesus existed is NOT evidence of anything. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people Believe ALLAH exist and more MILLIONS believe Jesus was the Son of God as stated in the NT.

It is completely illogical to use the "numbers game" as support for an historical Jesus. Jesus Believers can use the same "numbers game" and assert that Jesus did exist as stated in the NT because there are BILLIONS of Believers.

You don't do rationalism or atheists any favors when you play the "numbers game".

Chocky

Hi Doug - thanks, it's nice to have a real point to answer. The terms atheism/agnosticism are from Eddy & Boyd, and I've seen a few people use them here. A way round it could be to call that narrow position "mythicism" and to rename "Jesus agnosticism" as "minimalism", but it's splitting hairs really.

Chocky

Survey (PDF file) showing 40% of atheists in Britain believe "Jesus never existed", 60% apparently don't.

2-J

Interesting data, thanks. This data does seem to reflect my limited anecdotal impressions.

sotto voce

Presumably Paul and Greg are getting the revised version out as soon as they can, to minimise embarrassment.

dogsgod

I too find the term Jesus atheism objectionable, atheism has zero to do with the argument. Besides, atheists are divided on the issue.

Solo

I'd have to agree with Doug here. The term "Jesus atheism" is misleading as the writers in the 1a category are not denying Jesus' theological substance (though they imply it) but his human existence. Common to them is a belief that they have enough compelling evidence to claim Jesus did not exist and was invented based wholly on available models of mythical heroes or gods. However, as the god-like attributes assigned to Jesus of the gospels do not logically bespeak of non-existence, I would describe this group as Jesus historical negativists.

Similarly, the 1b group is not characterized by agnosticism, as by pronounced skepticism to Jesus as a historical figure. They are sympatetic to the aims of the 1a group but more reserved in their approach.

I find that there the true agnostics are missing in the scheme. The group labelled Pessimism perhaps should be renamed Historical Indeterminism as the members agree that the NT corpus as a whole provides assurance of principally a single historical individual, but are skeptical to the notion that we may know historical details of his life. Count among these the growing school of NT literary criticism (e.g. Theodore Weeden, Norman R.Petersen, Randel Helms, Jiohn. R. Donahue, Frank Kermode, Donald H. Juel, Robert M. Fowler, etc.) James G. Williams may have spoken for most scholars of the group when he wrote:

Attempt to find a foundation for faith in discrete historical events, whether the approach is liberal or conservative, is a positivism which finally founders on two scores:
1) The impossible task of apologizing for the gospel text or any hypothetical strata thereof as a source of detailed historical information in the face of modern canons of historical criticism (see Van A. Harvey The Historian and the Believer,N.Y. Macmillan, 1966, ch 2).
2) The untenable conviction that God’s acts in history are demonstrable from derived sense perception in the web of historical and natural events. (Gospel Against Parable, 1985, p 15)

If I were to make critical distinctions between the historical approaches in the different groups I would go by this formula. Historical Positivists like Sanders (or para-positivists like Crossan) believe it is possible to know (or reconstruct) details of Jesus life not only by assigning verisimilitude to pronouncements and events in the gospels, but actual historical weight. In this effort, whether the protagonist is liberal or conservative is of secondary importance.


Best,
Jiri

DCHindley

It seems that the term "atheist" in "Jesus Atheist" is inappropriate. An athiest is someone who doesn't think there is any sort of god at all, or at very least doesen't manifest itself in an anthropomorphic form (say the Taoists). They could easily accept that Jesus tradition originated from the doings of a real person (I am one myself).

What I think your list has to grapple with is the fact that there are two definitions of Myth out there.

One, like ancient myths, attempt to explain life mysteries (like the cycles of death & birth, existance of good and evil, etc) as stories to make them comprehensible, and sometimes historicize the characters in the stories as "heros". What you call Jesus Athiesm is better labeled Jesus Mythicists.

The other definition of myth, which spin is unsure anyone here can really get their heads around, is the accretion of secondary meaning around real events and persons and things (Roland Barthes style, so that in simple terms a flag can stand-in for patiotism, or in more complex myths the person of Hitler or Stalin represent a whole series of social myths such as country, self determination, purity of thought or race, etc). Maybe this is better termed "Legend", and the process of unwinding it is deconstruction of a legend. What you call Jesus Agnosticism might then be called Jesus Deconstructionists.

DCH