http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/if-jesus-never-existed-re_b_5883198.html
I don't think this author/historian is all that well known, but he makes some good points for the case against the existence of Jesus. He has a couple of books out, and I think these points come from his latest book about why religion will be replaced by secularism in the next 25 years. I can't speak about his book, but I thought his "Jesus never existed" points made a lot of sense. They are very simple, and do have some research behind them.
I was listening to some historian on NPR about a year ago, who said that most historians believed Jesus existed, a claim I would not argue with, but his explanation for why he believed and why other historians believed was mostly the argument from numbers, and the argument from authority. I was disappointed with NPR for letting him get away with those fallacies. The host didn't question him at all, and just let it go.
So this Nigel Barber Guy is at least one historian with a different perspective.
QuoteIn History, Jesus Was a No Show
Various historical scholars attempted to authenticate Jesus in the historical record, particularly in the work of Jesus-era writers. Michael Paulkovich revived this project as summarized in the current issue of Free Inquiry.
Paulkovich found an astonishing absence of evidence for the existence of Jesus in history. "Historian Flavius Josephus published his Jewish Wars circa 95 CE. He had lived in Japhia, one mile from Nazareth - yet Josephus seems unaware of both Nazareth and Jesus." He is at pains to discredit interpolations in this work that "made him appear to write of Jesus when he did not." Most religious historians take a more nuanced view agreeing that Christian scholars added their own pieces much later but maintaining that the historical reference to Jesus was present in the original. Yet, a fudged text is not compelling evidence for anything.
Paulkovich consulted no fewer than 126 historians (including Josephus) who lived in the period and ought to have been aware of Jesus if he had existed and performed the miracles that supposedly drew a great deal of popular attention. Of the 126 writers who should have written about Jesus, not a single one did so (if one accepts Paulkovich's view that the Jesus references in Josephus are interpolated).
I don't know what that last sentence means, but it bothers me.
QuoteMormonism fabricated in plain sight
We may not know for sure what happened two millennia ago but Mormonism was fabricated in plain sight by a convicted conman. According to Christopher Hitchens:
In March, 1826, a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being a "disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers.
Hitchens writes: "Quite recent scholarship has exposed every single other Mormon "document" as at best a scrawny compromise and at worst a pitiful fake" ...
Smith's legacy was cleaned up via subsequent "divine revelations" that rejected first polygamy and then racism at convenient historical turning points. So the historical development from fakery to respectable religion is well documented.
There is no reason to believe that the genesis of any major religion was substantially different. This raises the question of why so many intelligent people choose to believe religious fictions.
The most plausible explanation is that they cannot easily distinguish between organized religion and confidence rackets.
It's not like none of us ever thought of this before. It's just an example showing how easy it is to fabricate a religion. And if this could happen in modern times, it would have been much easier 2000 years ago. Although, Mormonism was still formulated in a time when ignorance was much more abundant than today, which does underscore the important role ignorance plays in formulating religions.
While I agree with him on his Jesus thoughts, I'm more skeptical of his claim that religion will be replaced by secularism. It's possible, but I don't think likely in the next 25 years.
I don't either, in fact it seems to be going in the other direction, in the United States anyway. There will always be people that find their emotional life more pressing than their reasoning. And no matter how good life gets, it is ultimately tragic. :madu:
Having gone through the religous knothole a couple of times and having family members that are Mormon, I can tell you it ain't that simple. The level of denial/self conviction of the religious is frightening. The last church I attended was a Free Will Baptist, which is anything but. And that was benign by comparison. Thinking back on the Assembly Of God babbling in tongues and frothing at the mouth, you ain't convincing those people of anything, because the cog dis goes all the way to the bone.
Quote from: stromboli on September 28, 2014, 11:16:57 PM
Having gone through the religous knothole a couple of times and having family members that are Mormon, I can tell you it ain't that simple. The level of denial/self conviction of the religious is frightening. The last church I attended was a Free Will Baptist, which is anything but. And that was benign by comparison. Thinking back on the Assembly Of God babbling in tongues and frothing at the mouth, you ain't convincing those people of anything, because the cog dis goes all the way to the bone.
Yes, it's not a simplistic dynamic at play. I think it helps to have a smart conman to start a religion, although it's not a requirement, but every conman needs marks, and the world is filled with marks who are ready to accept nonsense, and defend it with deep denial. This inherent default of mankind is more important than the intelligence of the conman. And mankind's default mindset will preserve religion well into the future, I think.
Looking at the way things are going, I can't see religion being replaced by secularism any time soon.
He didn't exist or he went missing for a long time from a mention a infancy to appearing out of the blue as a mature adult. Did he run away with the circus as a boy?
Quote from: St Giordano Bruno on September 29, 2014, 07:31:38 PM
He didn't exist or he went missing for a long time from a mention a infancy to appearing out of the blue as a mature adult. Did he run away with the circus as a boy?
You would think someone would have at least taken a mild interest in his teen years after such a flashy introduction into the world.
Quote(if one accepts Paulkovich's view that the Jesus references in Josephus are interpolated).
It means they are forgeries by later xtian writers who were embarrassed by the fact that their godboy made no mark on history.
Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2014, 09:43:34 AM(if one accepts Paulkovich's view that the Jesus references in Josephus are interpolated)
Paulkovich is far from the only historian that thinks that Josephus' "Antiquities" contain an interpolation.
It is actually the mainstream view. Even most Christian scholars agree.
Quote from: Simon Moon on September 30, 2014, 04:19:46 PM
Paulkovich is far from the only historian that thinks that Josephus' "Antiquities" contain an interpolation.
It is actually the mainstream view. Even most Christian scholars agree.
^this. Just about every historian I've studied has agreed.