32 posts tagged “christianity”

This interview with Alister McGrath was originally intended for Richard Dawkins documentary The Root of All Evil? For those of you who are more interested in a more sophisticated faith this is an interview you would be interested in. The interview is in full and uncut.

I get the impression that McGrath is making unfair assumptions about the nature of God, while Dawkins tries to probe these assumptions he simply dodges the question with some fancy intellectual footwork. Which, indeed, mirrors my own frustrations with dealing with the more sophisticated versions of theology.

Plus, I liked McGrath a lot more before he got on talking about Jesus.

Penn & Teller's Bullshit examines the bible. Not the original, but a ten minute re-cut. It hits all the major points, though. Also includes tidbits from skeptic and publisher of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer.

I didn't think much of the man, but upon his death I decided not to discuss it here on the blog. I think I'll let Christopher Hitchens do my talking for me on this one.

Here is the video of the Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens debate for anyone who wants to watch it.

The debate from the New York Public Library between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton that I covered before has ignited some controversy. Sharpton (apparently) made biogoted remarks towards Mormonism. Personally, when I first listened to the debate and heard this statement, I found it to be in bad taste and a moot point but I'm not sure if this is biogotry or not (I'd love to hear your thoughts on if it is). At any rate, I think it's all very telling of the status of the religion debate in this country (that is that it's not very good). Hitchens appeared on Lou Dobbs' CNN program to discuss what happened at the debate.

What I find most outrageous about this whole thing is that there was so much more to discuss besides that one (fairly insignificant) remark. That this petty BS takes precedent over the actually issues makes me nearly sick.

I also must say that I'm becoming more and more impressed with Lou Dobbs, he seems like a thoughtful guy.  

Richard Dawkins

For all the railing I did the other day on journalists not listening to what Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are trying to say, I feel a bit of obligation to point out when they get it right. This is a recent Times article by Ruth Gledhill, a Religion Correspondent and believer of some sort (it's not clear exactly what her beliefs are, as is far too common with sensible believers), that gets it right. Mostly.

I don't agree with some of her conclusions about Dawkins, or even some of her musings. I think she misses the point just slightly in her zeal to align Dawkins with her "camp." But her attempts to listen to, understand, and have a meaningful dialogue with Dawkins is apparent, insightful, and very refreshing.

For those of you who have only had a brief glimpse into the complex personality that Richard Dawkins is, who have had their opinions of him swayed by slack-jawed articles with no understanding or compassion, this is a marvelous article.

Design geek tangent: I think the Times Online website rivals the New York Times website for best designed newspaper website on the web. It's fantastic.

Lou Dobbs recently interviewed Christopher Hitchens and discussed his new book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. It's a fantastic interview. Bill O'Reilly could learn a thing or two from Lou Dobbs. And congratulations to Christopher Hitchens on becoming an American citizen.

When questioning the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth one of the most frequently cited historians is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian. He is, indeed, an ideal scholar to cite, as he was not a follower of Jesus but a contemporary of his (if he existed). His writings should independently confirm the historicity of Jesus, something that has been a difficult task to accomplish.

But was Josephus writings that reference Jesus his own? Many contend that Josephus' writings were later amended by later Christians to establish a historical context for Jesus. I intend here to take a closer look at the two passages in Josephus' writings.

Here is the first passage that I shall take a look at:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18.63-64)

This passage almost certainly contains Christian interpolations. To what extent that it is authentic is a matter of considerable debate and cannot be determined. Any scholar worth his salt will say that at best it is a dressed up reference to Jesus and at worst it is a complete fabrication.

The second (and last) passage that mentions Jesus in the writings of Josephus is this one (emphasis added):

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. (Antiquities 20.9.1)

The passage references a James, brother of Jesus. This passage is much less in contention and generally considered to be authentic, but I'm not so sure. There are many questions that are raised by this passage that I have not heard to be satisfactorily explained.

For example, Jesus was supposed to be a popular figure, especially among the people. The bible tells us that his name was widespread and that many people knew of him. Then why didn't Josphus include an explanation of his popular figure, especially when he devotes much more to supposed contemporaries of Jesus such as John the Baptist.

Josphus writes about John the Baptist in much the way you'd expect him to talk about Jesus:

Now, when (many) others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved (or pleased) by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put into his power an inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause. (Antiquities 18.5.2)

These passages are dubious at best, plainly fabricated at worst. My conclusion is that despite Josephus being the best, independent source, they cannot be used to sufficiently confirm the historicity of Jesus. Some other evidence should be required. 

Robert M. Price

Doubting even the historicity of Jesus is perhaps one of my most controversial opinions, far more on the edge than even my outright atheism. Most (many?) atheists even accept the historicity of Jesus, but I have yet to see sufficient reasons to accept that Jesus was actually a real human being, nevermind the son of god who rose to heaven.

I recently dug into my podcasts for the first time in awhile and found this interview with Robert M. Price who is professor of theology and scriptural studies at Coleman Theological Seminary as well as professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center of Inquiry Institute. Prices, like Earl Doherty author of The Jesus Puzzle or Micheal Martin author of The Case Against Christianity and Athiesm: A Philosophical Justification, concludes that Jesus is likely a mythic figure.

The synopsis on POI goes as follows:

In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Price discusses the uses of doubt in historical inquiry and especially in Biblical criticism, his doubts about the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and many of the assertions in his forthcoming book The Paperback Apocalypse, which treats current religious, political and social movements motivated by belief in the return of Jesus and fulfilled prophecies in the Jewish and Christian Bibles.