David Bowden

I found this paragraph in G. Zeinelde Jordan's email to Steve Locks, at Locks' <a href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html" target="_blank">Leaving Christianity</a> site.

I read that and went " " It seems clear that Jordan, an apparently well-informed former atheist, is specifically claiming that:

So, I was wondering if anyone reading this could verify or debunk this claim, or point me in the right direction to find reliable info.

Thanks!

-Wanderer

(edited for clarification)

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This belief has moved in cycles. In the late 19th century and through most of the first half of the 20th, belief that the gospels were myths like other religious writings was widespread. The current scholar GA Wells, who is an atheist and mythicist, is representative of this group. After WWII the believers reclaimed the gospels, and the mythicist position fell out of favor.

The mythicist position comes in 2 flavors, AFAIK. One is that of people like E. Doherty, who believes that Jesus is entirely made up out of earlier myths, and the other is that the gospels are based on a figure(s) whose story is now lost, and contain very little that is history, although they may hint at the truth. That is a very common position among nonbelievers. If I had to give an opinion, I would suspect the majority of us believe that someone was executed and buried. The rest was invented by Christians for various psychosocial and sociopolitical reasons.

I don't know of any poll data on this. Michael Grant, the atheist classical historian, wrote a book on the gospels that affirmed the things you said above, but his arguments were stupendously weak (I suspect to sell books, not because he is stupid, or anything). Many atheists have written on the NT, but not all of them are specialists in history or some other field that would bear on NT studies.

Michael

David Bowden

Michael, thanks for your very informative (and quick!)reply. I do have one follow-up question about this part, though:

This makes perfect sense to me; my question only amounts to: do you have an opinion on how the majority might categorize Jesus' disappearance from tomb? I couldn't tell from the above whether you think most atheist scholars would categorize Jesus' disappearance with his execution and burial under "probably historical" or with the resurrection and ascension under "probably not historical."

Thanks once again,

-Wanderer

SanDiegoAtheist

My personal experience has been that most atheist scholars tend to class all that transpired after the crucifixion as "probably not historical". There are a wealth of reasons to doubt that he was buried in any sort of tomb whatsoever, the primary being that as crucifixion was a Roman, and not a Jewish punishment, and that Roman tradition was to not allow the bodies of those executed in that way a 'decent burial', it seems to be quite odd that Jesus would have been treated any differently.

It seems most likely to me that Jesus was simply thrown to the dogs or into a mass grave, rather than buried in a tomb - a burial in a tomb would, in fact, quite possibly have infuriated the Romans - as it would have implied a great deal of respect for a person that the Romans had crucified as seditious or treasonous.

As a side note, the SOURCE of the tomb itself in the gospels throws doubt on this story...as according to gospel, the tomb was owned by Joseph of Arimathea....one of the members of the Sanhedrin which according to the same gospels, pressed for Jesus' execution. Why would a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, pressing for the execution of a heretic of their own religion, allow that same heretic to be buried in HIS OWN FAMILY TOMB?


Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Toto

These arguments sound suspiciously like those made by William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist. I have detailed my opinions of Craig in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000070" target="_blank">this thread on Craig's debate with Gerd Luedemann</a>.

I think it is very misleading to say or imply that atheist historians have come around to accepting the historicity of Jesus' life, crucifixion, and/or the empty tomb. First, there are relatively few open atheists who decide to devote their lives to Biblical history. Christians throw the term atheist around rather casually - they describe Luedemann as an atheist, although he does not use that term for himself. Note also that Luedemann formulated his beliefs as a Christian. When he decided that he could no longer believe in certain key Christian doctrines, his job duties were curtailed.

As I said in the earlier thread, I think Craig's arguments are intellectually dishonest. In the first place, the only "evidence" of Jesus' crucifixion and the tomb are the Gospels, which were written 40-100 years after the alleged event, and were most likely written as allegory, not as factual history. There is no clear consensus among historians that Jesus was buried in a tomb, or that the tomb was found empty, or that this necessarily implies that God resurrected Jesus. Christian historians do not even agree on these points. Most historians state that their beliefs come from their religion, not any historical evidence.

Jordan seems to have picked up Craig's arguments without attribution, and without actually understanding the issue.

lpetrich

And that's not the end of it. Why did the Sanhedrin press the Roman authorities to do their dirty work when (1) the Sanhedrin could have done it all on their own initiative or (2) the Sanhedrin could easily have pressed Pontius Pilate into letting them go ahead with executing JC, given what a wimp he was depicted as being.

And a wimpy Pontius Pilate is not the picture one gets from the other sources on him, like Josephus and Philo.

Also, that lynch mob in Matthew says "May his blood be on us and on all our children." Claiming guilt is odd for a lynch mob to say -- they'd more likely be chanting "Death to Jesus! Death to the blasphemer! Death to the heretic!"

My favorite theory is that the Gospels may have been trying to picture JC crucified while blaming the Jews and absolving the Roman authorities of blame; this, along with Romans 13 (the Christian God setting up a government that worships pagan gods?), seems extremely obsequious to the Roman authorities.

Toto

I went to the Leaving Christianity site you listed, and Jordan has indeed read and studied Craig: <a href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html" target="_blank">his story is here.</a>

I realize that I have run across Jordan before. He is the only full-fledged atheist who has gone from membership in an atheist group to being a believing Christian.

Jordan's web page is <a href="http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/" target="_blank">here</a>, and you can read his personal conversion story there. It is a story of psychological transformation (or cult indoctrination) and shows an extreme lack of skepticism and lack of understanding or a number of issues.

Jordan still considers himself a freethinker and an enemy of "organized religion".

lpetrich

Which reminds me of Lucian of Samosata's account of Alexander of Abonutichus; A of A had called his critics atheists, Epicureans, and Christians.

Which may be one reason that one does not see many like Luedemann -- being skeptical might be bad for one's job security.

Vorkosigan

Great info, Toto! I read a little of the debates. Your analysis is correct.

Michael

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Wide-eyed...

Why don't you just ask him for his survey data. He doesn't have any, and will avoid the question.

Michael