Todd Allen Gates and Jesus
Offline Hey everyone,
I've been reading Todd Allen Gates' book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" and have been loving it. I really like the method the book describes, and I look forward to finishing it.
That said, I was suddenly taken aback while reading it last night. On page 40, his character Scott states "Jesus's existence can be proved with reasonable confidence through logic."
At first I thought that it might be another concession for argument's sake, but as I read further, he says that we have evidence such as documents from his critics that don't dispute he once existed. The section is linked to Endnote #3, where Gate's quotes Tacitus and Celsus as having writting about Christianity (sure, but how does that *prove* a literal Jesus?), and goes on to state that the first physical evidence we have is on the ossuary with the words, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" inscribed on it.
Now, I don't mind him taking the position that Jesus *could* have existed, but to go so far as stating that the above is enough "evidence" for most of us to conclude that Jesus was not just a mythical figure? Hardly!
I listened to the RRS show with Gates on it, but didn't hear anything about it mentioned. I'm sure that Rook would not have let Gates get away with it, had he been on that particular program.
Again, I enjoy the book and its method immensely. I was just struck that Gates would word such a subject as the historicity of Jesus the way he did. Even if it was for sake of method, he could have at least mentioned something.
Thoughts?
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
- Login to post comments
This is something Gates should not be faulted for. Carrier himself (and even I) were once very strong historicists (Carrier states he used to be a militant historicist!). It is easy to get lost in the claims of scholars who try to paint a historical Jesus (such as some of the Jesus Seminar), and even more so when one is not well versed on the matter. It's a fact that one doesn't need a lot of evidence to assume ones historicity in antiquity. However, in the case of Jesus, not only does he fit all four criteria for a very strong Argument from Silence, but specifically there is a better explanation for the origins of Christianity as a mystery cult basked in revelatory ideology, rather then an actual historical person. Of course, my book will be quite extensive in proving this point.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
You're right, Rook. I guess I've spent so much time being convinced by you and others that there isn't enough evidence to prove Jesus's historicity (and perhaps *more* proof against it) that I was...used to the idea. As I said, it was just strange to see him word his reasons the way he did. I suppose it's another proof that not all atheists are the same; there is no dogma amongst us!
Thanks again. Can't wait for the book -- early next year, maybe??
Small Town Atheist
> I've been reading Todd Allen Gates' book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer" and have been loving it. I really like the method the book describes, and I look forward to finishing it.
Hi Neith -- Thanks!
> That said, I was suddenly taken aback while reading it last night. On page 40, his character Scott states "Jesus's existence can be proved with reasonable confidence through logic."
> At first I thought that it might be another concession for argument's sake,
Bottom line intent: yes, that's really all I was doing. I feel that whether Jesus was a historical figure is relatively unimportant ... the evidence that Joseph Smith was a historical figure is 100% (or as close to it as possible), but the evidence for Smith being a conduit to the divine is still 0% (or as close to it as possible).
But the truth is that when I wrote that endnote (in 2002), I actually thought that the alleged "Ossuary of James" would decent evidence that there really was a guy named Jesus who had at least some local fame. It wasn't until earlier this year that I found out the ossuary turned out to be a fraud! I'm planning on issuing a revision of my book soon---that will be the first thing I remove.
> but as I read further, he says that we have evidence such as documents from his critics that don't dispute he once existed.
> The section is linked to Endnote #3, where Gate's quotes Tacitus and Celsus as having writting about Christianity (sure, but how does that *prove* a literal Jesus?)
Agreed---it definitely doesn't prove a literal Jesus!
> Now, I don't mind him taking the position that Jesus *could* have existed, but to go so far as stating that the above is enough "evidence" for most of us to conclude that Jesus was not just a mythical figure? Hardly!
I actually thought that my wording in my endnote was non-committal---and that if anything, noting that the earliest non-Christian reference to Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" didn't come until close to 100 years after Jesus death only showed that the evidence for Jesus's existence was flimsy at best.
Here's my Endnote #3 (minus the part that I'm going to strike about James's ossuary!):
* * * * * * *
The earliest known non-Christian acknowledgement of Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" comes from the Roman historian Tacitusxe "Tacitus", writing in the year 110. Referring to Christianity’s increase in popularity in Rome, he writes most unflatteringly:
This noxious superstition [Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" ], suppressed for the moment, broke out again not only in Judaea, where it began, but even in Rome itself, where the scum of shame flows and becomes the vogue.
Tacitusxe "Tacitus", Annals XV, 44
Another early (a.d. 180) non-Christian reference to Christianity XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" comes from the Roman philosopher Celsusxe "Celsus", who uses similarly unkind words as he discusses the widening gulf between Judaism and Christianity:
The race of Jews and Christians XE "Christ, Jesus:historical evidence of" XE "Christ, Jesus:earliest recorded documents on" [are like] a cluster of bats or ants coming out of a nest, or frogs holding council round a marsh, or worms assembling in some filthy corner, disagreeing with one another about which of them are the worst sinners.
Celsusxe "Celsus", The True Word of Celsus
* * * * * * *
I'm half-considering eliminating Endnote #3 altogether . . . except that it's a reason to keep the great Tacitus and Celsus quotes!
> Again, I enjoy the book and its method immensely.
Thanks again!
- Todd