....And Jesus wept

....Or did he? Chris Boeskool's HuffPo piece "Saving a Murderer's Life: Who Would Jesus Execute?" is pretty ridiculous. It meanders in and out of all sorts of logical fallacies and disjointed trains of thought that if it weren't for the title it would be easy to lose the main point he seems to be trying to emphasize. Even though I actually agree with a few of the point he makes when he wanders into "non-religious reasons to be against the death penalty" even those are poorly represented and expressed. The whole piece is based entirely on his own narrow interpretation and understanding both theology and the social issues/public policies related to capitol punishment.

Ultimately he comes back to his main objection: his views on what Jesus would do. Of course, he has no clue that what he has expressed is not only an opinion loosely based on other opinions but that it actually has no solid foundation in the scriptures as he assumes it does. I have pointed out over and over that there is no single narrative for the Christ figure and therefore not a single version of Jesus. There are plenty of instances where it is easy to see the Jesus figure not just being okay with executing Tsarnaev but outright demanding it. Anyone care to reread Luke 19:27 and then try claiming Jesus would forgo putting this asshole to death.

Here are just a handful of previous posts I have written about such interpretations of the various claims about Jesus as a single "historical" figure.

A not so cute WWJD story (10-26-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-not-so-cute-wwjd-story.html

How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title? (9-14-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-many-assumptions-can-be-squeezed.html

What makes it a "taunt"? (4-20-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-makes-it-taunt.html

Which Jesus is More Absurd (2-24-13)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2013/02/which-jesus-is-more-absurd.html

Jesus is.... amorphous (9-15-12)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2012/09/jesus-is-amorphous.html

What makes it a "taunt"?

Normally I wouldn't be bothered by a bogus story floated by the likes of The Washington Times and Fox News but this one is fairly common and connects to a variety of equally stupid myths and misrepresentations. "Jesus is a myth" is not a taunt. I'm sure if you actively hunt for an atheist who chooses to use it as if it is one you will find such an asshole. The majority of atheists I've come across who have reached the sound conclusion that there is no historical Jesus do not use it that way. For the sake of clarity I would point out that not all atheists concern themselves one way or the other about whether an actual Jesus figure ever existed.

Personally, I fail to see how anyone who either respects or is familiar with historical scholarship can still hold to the notion that there ever was an actual Jesus. Once you remove scripture there is nothing left. Jesus literally disappears in the absence of scripture. That there isn't even one verifiable fact about this supposedly important figure has nothing to with being either a theist or an atheist. It also has nothing to do with what I or other atheists would want or not want to be true. Reality and the facts don't change just because we don't find them they way we might want them to be. Assuming you are intellectually honest.

I didn't start out with the conclusion that Jesus is a myth. Right up to college I had always assumed there was an historical figure on which the various legendary stories were based. I always thought the hippy version of Jesus was pretty cool. Once I became curious enough to look into the "real" figure behind the stories I started to learn that there really wasn't anything substantive to base the stories on. It was only after I did my own research that I realized the Jesus narratives were strictly theological and devoid of any factual basis.

Basically, shit pieces like "Atheists’ Easter taunt to Christians: ‘Jesus is a myth’" is just a sad attempt at smearing atheists while allowing theists to insulate themselves from the facts. By definitions alone the idea that saying "Jesus is a myth" amounts to a taunt is ludicrous. According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary a taunt is:
"verb (taunting, taunted) to tease, say unpleasant things to or jeer at someone in a cruel and hurtful way.
noun a cruel, unpleasant and often hurtful or provoking remark.
Derivatives
taunting noun, adjective.
tauntingly adverb."
Considering that I, like many other atheists, have family and friends who are Christian it makes no sense to make statements that would be intentionally harmful. I have no interest in being mean or hurtful. I also have no interest in denying reality or belittling history as a field of study.

Jesus is a myth. That is what all valid historical research indicates. People can accept it or not just as they can perceive it to be unpleasant or not.It makes me wonder how many would insist on this type of sham if instead of "Jesus" you substitute in "Gilgamesh"? I'd be willing to bet that the "evidence" that can be created for Gilgamesh would be on par with that for Jesus.

Jesus still hates himself

Though there are any number of claims that can be made and supported by scripture about Jesus there are a few that are outright ludicrous. The notion that Jesus hates religion is both incredibly silly and very ignorant. This is not because you could cherry pick and interpret scripture to back the claim but more that you have to have scripture to enforce the claim in the first place. The earliest information, in fact the only information, about the Jesus figure comes from religious texts. Without religion (specifically Christianity) Jesus ceases to exist. Even if you make the huge assumption that there ever was an historical Jesus, the Christ figure would still be completely unknown today without religion.

"'Jesus (still) hates religion’: An interview with YouTube sensation Jefferson Bethke", a recent post on Jonathan Merritt's blog, is still a pretty interesting interview to read. I genuinely like Jefferson Blethke despite is naive and ignorant take on Christianity. His YouTube video, which I've written about previously (May 17, 2012 Naive, Idealistic, and Ignorant, but not Controversial) , is worth watching. I have also previously commented on the bogus notion that Christ can exist separate from Christianity (December 21, 2012
Actually, Christ does Need Christianity). I would point out that the reverse is not true. Christianity can survive even if its adherents finally accept that Christ is a myth.

Hipster Jesus

The first thing that popped into my head when I came across this latest PR campaign of the Catholic church was a scene from the movie Dogma. The sketch that has George Carlin as a bishop pitching "Buddy Christ" is still incredibly funny but doesn't seem quite so absurd now. It also occurred to me that Jesus is the theological equivalent of a Ken doll. Christian theologians, clergy, and laity routinely dress the Christ figure up in whatever garb suits them without so much as a second thought. They ascribe whatever words and deeds fit the persona they want to believe in. It doesn't seem to be contradictory or an outright fabrication simply because the scriptures are so amorphous they can be made to justify whatever a believer wants to project onto their messiah action figure.

Setting aside the surrealistic/absurdist humor there are reasons to view this campaign in a more serious manner. I find it hard to believe that the Catholic hierarchy real thinks of Jesus as "the original hipster." According to the Penguin dictionary a hipster is "somebody who is keenly aware of and interested in new trends and unconventional patterns." The Catholic church has never been one to promote rebellion and non-comformity. So, why are they promoting this image? The simple answer is marketing. It is a PR ploy. A rather ridiculous one in light of what has preceded it. No amount of imaginary clothing can adequately cover the church's recent attack on its own nuns or the temper tantrum it has been throwing over insurance coverage of contraception for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

This hipster image, like the intentions of the hierarchy, is disingenuous. I have no doubt that it is all about keeping up the church's numbers in order to retain its power and influence. So long as the average believer and a complacent media are content to play dress up it will probably work, at least partially. This isn not so funny since the real world has real problems that fairy tales and folklore won't help solve.

Grow up!

"History" in the Bible

I did not have a chance to watch the new History Channel mini-series I mentioned last week. However, I have noticed some rather entertaining responses to the initial airing by theists. I especially found Joel Hoffman's take on it quite amusing. In "The Bible Isn't The History You Think It Is" he tries to sound scholarly but what he really does is employ a type of literary sleight-of-hand. He seems to be comfortable admitting that the majority of the Bible's contents are not historical. However, this concession seems to be mainly about making his opinion that there is a part of the Bible that is historical more plausible. The Bible does not contain any "history" in terms of verifiable facts. None. There are aspects of the bible that can be useful in terms of understanding the mind-set and sociological circumstances of a particular time-frame. That, however, does not seem to be what Hoffman means.

He creates an artificial division that I do see as being potentially useful.
"One way to understand the difference between history and fiction in the Bible is through the Old Testament's natural division into three parts:
    The world and its nature (Adam to Terah).
    The Israelites and their purpose (Abraham to Moses).
    The Kingdom of Israel and life in Jerusalem (roughly from King David onward)."
This can be a handy delineation when approaching biblical studies within its own context, as literary analysis. It still isn't history. His reference to King David is a pretty good indication of his lack of critical thinking or ability to approach historical research from an un-biased fact-based position. There is no extra-scriptural support for David as an historical figure. There have been many claims to the contrary but not one has ever been confirmed by anthropology, archeology, or geology. I have previously written post on various "historical" figures in the Bible and about the supposed archeological proof for such legendary figures.

Hoffman makes even more ridiculous claims further on in his piece.
"The situation not unlike a modern newspaper, which combines news with opinion, puzzles, comics, etc. The news can be accurate even if the comics are not. The same is true for the different parts of the Bible."
Actually, there is no comparison. Who cannot distinguish the pieces intended to be factual from those intended to be opinion and/or entertainment in today's newspaper? It should also be pointed out that any news story can be fact checked. There are any number of sources external to the newspapers that can be used for this purpose. There is plenty of documentation that can be reviewed and pieced together to establish fact from fiction.

Personally, I think the following does an excellent job summarizing his whole rationale and approach:
"All of this is important for people who want to believe, for instance, that a man named Jesus was crucified in ancient Jerusalem (as described in the Gospels) even if they don't believe that a donkey spoke aloud (Numbers); or that Jews lived in Jerusalem during the first millennium BC (Kings, for example) even if they didn't leave Egypt 600,000 strong (Exodus)."
He believes that parts of the Bible are historical not because there is evidence supporting such an idea but because he wants to believe it.

More Baseless Attacks on "Mythicists"

The latest sniping comes from the dip shit behind the Exploring Our Matrix blog. "Announcing TalkHistoricity: An Index of Mythicist Claims" is an interesting title for the post since the Index does not actually exist. Premature announcements for the sake of drumming up interest is a fairly common and useful tactic but as you read further it becomes clear that not only has he not actually started working on this index he hasn't even worked out some of the basic structural issues. Of course, given the manner of the announcement my expectations of it being even remotely accurate are near zero.

Part of this announcement is a ridicilous pot-shot at Jerry Coyne.
"It continues to be the case that even a well-educated scientist like Jerry Coyne, who in his own field works hard to combat pseudoscience, is happy to jump on a fringe bandwagon in the domain of history on this particular topic and use his blog to promote those fringe views, in a manner that sadly and ironically parallels the sort of thing he finds frustrating in his own field."

McGrath includes a link to Coyne's post that sparked the above criticism. I was confused as to why he included it since it clearly shows how assinine his reproach is. Coyne does not really make any claim of his own. He points out how dubious the claims of a particular theist is in regard to the historicity of Christ. His insistence that definitive claims be backed up by clear evidence is a routine part of Coyne's "own field." There is nothing ironic about that. What is ironic is that Coyne, to the best of my knowledge, is not a "mythicist." He expresses doubt about the historicity of Christ but does not actually state a position or any interest in staking out one on the topic.

At this point I have to assume that the index in question will just be a mish-mash of apologetics and smears of "mythicists." I will keep looking for it out of basic curiosity.

Actually, Christ does Need Christianity

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again point out that without "Christianity" there would be no Jesus Christ. Shane Hipps makes a feeble attempt at the opposite claim in his HuffPo piece, "Why Christ Doesn't Need Christianity." Like so many before him he simply ignores the most relevant details. That there are no accounts of Christ* outside of scripture should bother anyone interested in legitimate historical research.

I found the third paragraph particularly amusing. It is a single sentence but serves as an excellent example of his mindset.

"Just because Christianity claims Jesus as its own does not mean that Christ automatically claims Christianity as his own."

Setting aside that the likelihood that Christ ever really existed is near zero, it is an odd comment considering the consensus among Biblical scholars is that the earliest pieces in the New Testament are at least one generation removed from the time Christ was supposed to have lived. Having been dead for a handful of decades it would be rather difficult for Jesus to claim anything about Christianity whether he wanted to or not.

Which brings me back to the main point. Whether real or mythical, the odds that anyone would know anything about Jesus Christ had the Christian religion not formed is very low. Christ does need Christianity. On the other hand I can see Christianity outliving the notion that Christ was real. Daoism (or Taoism, if you prefer that spelling) is still around despite scholars coming to the consensus that its founding figure, Lao Tzu, never actually existed.


*There are accounts of Christians but that is hardly the same thing.

Confession of a Former Christus-phile

You won't find the word Christus-phile in any standard dictionaries so I'll start by pointing out its construction before writing about how it relates to myself.  Christus is the Latin from which Christ is derived while the suffix phile means love of or passion and/or appreciation for. Basically, the word means a love of or appreciation for Christ.

What does it have to do with an atheist? Even though I never accepted the supernatural elements of what I'd been told about Jesus Christ when I was a child, I had assumed that Jesus was a real person.  I didn't bother to think much about the stories until middle school. At that point I generally admired what I had heard of the Christ figure. I thought of him in terms of a precursor to the hippies. I continued to view Jesus as a teacher and peace activist right through high school and into the first year of college. It was not until college that I really bothered to think about the Christ figure in any serious way. I went through a brief phase where I considered myself a sort of atheist Christian. I considered such a seemingly contradictory label for two main reasons. First I really did think the hippy version of the Christ figure was pretty cool and in the second place I felt my values and high ethical standards more closely fit the ideals that most Christians espoused than those that most Christians actually practiced.

During this brief phase I decided to look into the real history of Jesus. I genuinely wanted to know more about the figure I had come to admire. I was a bit surprised and somewhat disappointed when my research turned up nothing. It was not for a lack of trying. Throughout college I continued to apply the various methods and techniques of historical research I had been learning. I was a double major: English Education and Social Studies Education. It was not until a few years after graduating that I accepted that Jesus was a myth. I always knew that most of the story elements were fabrications but I had thought the basic human aspects were probably based on a real person or, perhaps, a group of people. Even now I am open to any new evidence that may be discovered. I'm not counting on that ever happening and I'm fine with that. Of course, I never had much invested in the Christ figure.

To some degree I can sympathize with the majority of people, Christian and non-Christian, who seem compelled to deny reality. That sympathy, however, only goes so far. I don't take issue with Christians claiming Christ as a religious figure or as their savior. They can believe whatever they want. I definitely now take issue with the insistence that Christ is an historical figure. He is not and never was. There is not only a lack of evidence to support such a claim the few elements in the Christ narratives that can be tested against known history fail. I am no longer a Christus-phile since I have learned way too much about the Christ figure, or more acuurately the Christ figures since there isn't a single version or possible interpretation.


Note: I'm pretty sure the reason a word like christusphile (or christophile) do not appear in any dictionary is due to an ingrained bias. I think many assume that anyone who has a love of or appreciation for Christ would be a Christian, and since that word already exists why bother with another. It is a silly reason, if indeed that is the reson, since there are a number of non-Christinas and non-religious individuals who do admire the Christ figure. Though I am no longer among them I am still fascinated by Christ.

A Religious Reading without Much Else

"Lectio Divina: A Critical and Religious Reading of the Bible" definitely fits a religious reading but it ain't that critical. Harrington does apply some logic and reasoning in his approach to scripture but not nearly as much as he seems to think. Most of what he talks about still relies on heavy doses of assumption, bias, and delusion. He references historical-critical methods but blatantly fails to apply them consistently. Moses is a prime example. He talks about the various possible interpretations and contexts for reading Exodus 3:1-6 and even compares it to another related passage but all the while treating Moses as if he had previously been confirmed as an historical figure. Most of his interpretations require Moses to be historically sound. Problem is there is no reason to accept Moses as anything other than a mythical/legendary figure. He analyzes many other elements rather well but never seems to think to apply the same scrutiny to one of the most important aspects, Moses. Ooops. Unfortunately, this is pretty typical among theistic scholars. Those that are willing to  examine scripture usually stop short of any thorough analyses that would actually challenge their preferred views.

Note: Harrington references Peter Enns, which is one of the blogs listed on the Top 200 Church Blogs. I have previously commented on some of Enns' posts.

Do Gods Have Bachelor Parties?

Whether gods have bachelor parties is a more interesting and potentially amusing question than the one that's been popping up about whether Jesus ever changed his marital status. First off, it has the advantage of prompting slightly more accurate and realistic assumptions. Most people would probably assume you were joking and that you were referring to mythology even if you weren't being silly. Most of the early reports on the discovery of a papyrus fragment that purports to prove Jesus was married were rather light on details and anything resembling scrutiny. Within a few days more details started to emerge and a half-assed attempt at critical thinking.

A few of the more interesting pieces, though not necessarily that impressive either, include:
"Jesus' Wife Papyrus Authenticity Questioned By Scholars" Huffington Post (repost from AP)
"5 questions and answers about Jesus' 'wife'"CNN Belief Blog
"The Gnostic Noise Machine and the 'Wife' of Jesus UPDATED" God and the Machine blog on Patheos

Each piece has at least one or two half-way decent points but overall does not provide much in the way of context or insight. McDonald (God and the Machine) is at various points laughably ignorant and self-deluded. He tends toward being dismissive from a rather sexist perspective.

All fail to even acknowledge the first and biggest assumption that the whole thing is premised on: Jesus' Historicity. More accurately, Jesus' complete lack of historical basis. There is not a single verifiable fact about Jesus. The few aspects of the Jesus narratives that can be checked against the known historical record fail miserably. Basically, arguing about whether he was or was not married is about as useful as speculating whether Papa Smurf secretly had a fling with Hefty Smurf. Christ really is whatever any individual Christian or group of Christians want him to be. There are not set facts or even interpretations to go by.

As for the scrap of papyrus, even if it is proven to be "authentic" will have little real impact. If it is not a hoax it is a single fragment written three centuries after Christ is believed to have lived with no further corroboration. It would be a highly speculative piece of scripture, at best.

Speaking of Faux History

CNN recently aired a piece titled "Are these ruins of Biblical City of David", which was as interesting as it was ignorant. The reporter did provide some scrutiny in regard to the city and the kingdom it is assumed to represent. It was mentioned a few times that there is no solid evidence for the existence of the Kingdom of David, certainly not as it is described in the Bible. However, it is taken for granted that David himself was an historical figure. The piece glosses over the complete lack of any evidence for David's existence outside the Bible. Why?

It seems to be another example of theists projecting their own double standards and ignorance on their surroundings. Atheist are often accused of not believing simply because they don't want to. It seems silly to me since I see no connection between what I may or may not want and what the state of reality actually is. Theists seem to be the ones that shape "truth" around what they want to be true. It is the City of David mainly because the want it to be. It could be one of the earliest cities of a Jewish Kingdom but that is not the same thing and it remains to be verified. Of course, there is also the problem that this discovery further negates the biblical narrative of the "City of David." The Bible clearly states that the city is Jerusalem.

I also find this wishful thinking as history odd since I can not fathom why anyone, theist or non-theist, would even want to believe in David. In the the biblical account he was a drunken short-tempered adulterous and genocidal scum-bag. Check out the rampage he goes on in 1 Samuel Chapter 27 verses 8-12. This cute little bloodbath is just a warm up. Most of 2 Samuel is a homicidal romp through the promised land.  Another revealing set of verses can be found in Chapter 11 of 2 Samuel. Heard the name Bath-Sheba? David sleeps with another man's wife then arranges for the man to be killed. And David is one of the good guys of the Bible!

There is no evidence that this dick actually existed (unless you count two disputed, vague phrases on the fragmented remains of a wall). Unfortunately, there have always been bastards like him in the real world. Wanting that to not be true won't make a bit of difference. I doubt the archeologists, their wishes set aside, will find a direct link between the unearthed city and the one in the Bible. I will freely admit I still want them to keep working on it since it is a pretty awesome find even with the baggage of theistic delusions.

Biblical Scholarship: Robert M. Price

I have read a handful of articles and books by Robert M. Price. I highly recommend his works as a starting point if you are interested in learning more about the development of Christianity.

Madman or Myth

For the most part the video put together by Breitbart is really good. However, I would hope that he follows it up with another on the "historicity" of Christ. His introduction stating that Christ is "quasi-mythical" is a bit inaccurate. If you apply the standards of historical research to the life of Jesus he disappears altogether. There is not a single verifiable fact about Jesus. There are also no legitimate external sources of information about this figure despite apologists' claims to the contrary.

As for the questionable moral character of the mythical figure of Christ, I agree completely. He was not that special and certainly not that nice. There is also plenty of evidence within the New Testament that can be used to demonstrate that Christ was at best mentally ill or an outright asshole. I will have to elaborate on this in separate posts since there is too much to cover in brief. Don't believe it? Reread the New Testament and pay attention to what you are actually reading.