HISTORIANS LATER

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Historians later

In his response to my last letter requesting proof of Christ's existence, via the supporting evidence of contemporary historians who lived at the time of Christ but were independent of any biblical connection, Keith Coleman (Mailbox, September 12) points out that Christ is mentioned by the first century historians Josephus and Tacitus.

However, what Mr Coleman fails to mention is that neither of these writers had been born at the time that Christ is said to have lived (c. 7BC or 5BC— circa 30AD or 33AD).

Josephus was born in AD37, and Tacitus in AD55.

Consequently, their accounts about the life of Christ were written quite a few decades after the events were supposed to have taken place and neither of them was in a position to confirm Christ's existence from direct experience.

If the only material available to them were accounts given by the four Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whose attestations would eventually form the first four books of the New Testament with descriptions of the life of Christ – all so varied, they sound as if they were played out in four parallel universes – then the reliability of Josephus and Tacitus' writings as factual historical documents is very questionable.

That is unless they had access to the writings of contemporary and reliable independent historians who lived at the time of Christ and could confirm his existence. If that is the case, who were they?

Alan Pendragon South Knighton

PROOF IS THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Proof is there if you look for it

Alan R Pendragon is still waiting for evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, in his letter, "Historical Proof Not Forthcoming" (Mailbox, September 1). A very reasonable request, I would suggest.

Of course, the Bible is the principal source of evidence that Jesus is an historical person. The record of the Gospels state clearly times, places and events in detail.

However, for someone who cannot accept just the Bible's accounts, other sources must be found.

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ," in his publication The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX sec. 200.

Tacitus, a Roman historian of the first century AD, wrote "Christus, from whom the name Christian had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius."

These two are not the only non-Christian, first century historians to have referred to Jesus in their writings. I sincerely hope his evidence provides the answers Mr Pendragon is seeking.

As to the other matters he raised, such as the virgin birth, the answers are all contained in the Bible.

Jesus is not Almighty God. He never claimed to be. The Bible does not say that he is. He is the "son of God". Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

Keith Coleman, Worthington

THE GOOD NEWS

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

The Good News

A clergyman will recite one of the gospels by heart to raise cash for charity.

Later this month, Archdeacon of Loughborough David Newman will tour Leicestershire, reciting the whole of Mark's gospel to audiences at churches in Kirby Muxloe, Loughborough, Ashby, Leicester and Hinckley.

The tour is part of the Grant Thornton Executive Quest, in aid of Prostaid and Loros.

Has atheism become a religion?

Very interesting article in the Huffington Post, reproduced below. I like the different stance it takes on the topic, which reveals some of the nuances between how atheism is regarded here and across the Pond. It's thoughtful and thought provoking and adds a subtly distinctive flavour to the debate.

Has Atheism beome a religion?

By David Lose

Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:

1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.

2) The U.S Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.

3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Chrisotpher Hitchins and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.

4) Finally - and you probably knew this was coming - consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)

Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.

While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.

1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs - in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God - that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.

2) Religious faith - and I'd argue atheistic faith - doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.

Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.

Read the article, along with reader comments (and the opportunity to leave your own) on the excellent Huffpost Religion website (and don't rush off after reading just this one): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/atheism-religion_b_867217.html

What would Jesus cut?

Following on new earlier in the week that David Cameron had apparently credited Jesus as the originator of "Big Society" (see blog post Monday 23 May), here's a thoughtful piece from the Comment is Free (cif Belief) website of The Guardian, thinking through that notion in a wee bit more depth.

What would Jesus cut?

David Cameron claims Jesus invented the 'big society' – but the Christian message has a strong emphasis on social justice

By Savitri Hensman

Coalition politicians have recently surpassed themselves in stirring up controversy. The prime minister's recent claim that his "big society" drive follows Jesus' example has sparked strong reactions.

Many are suspicious of David Cameron's attempts to roll back the state and encourage people to take more responsibility. While few object to the idea of promoting friendly neighbourhoods and caring families and boosting volunteering, many of the projects that support these things have been slashed. Meanwhile public services are facing massive cuts, particularly affecting the most vulnerable, and the gap between rich and poor is widening.

So when it became known that Cameron told a gatehring of Christiazn guests at a reception in 10 Downing Street that Christ was "starting the big society 2,000 years ago" and that "I'm not saying we've invented some great new idea here", many were less than impressed.

Jesus did indeed encourage generosity and care for others. But he was firmly rooted in the Jewish prophetic tradition, with its strong emphasis on social justice. Occasional gifts and helpful acts could not compensate for exploitative and oppressive structures.

The Book of Isaiah warned:

"Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right"

While the Jesus of Luke's Gospel declared:

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh... But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep."

I doubt that this would have gone down well in 10 Downing Street, or that a cabinet of millionaires would have appreciated being told that: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God".

Jesus reportedly told his listeners that "where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". Now, as then, it is all too easy for the most prosperous to be cut off from the realities confronting those who are less privileged. But is not benefit fraud immoral, and laziness to be deplored? Is it not good for the poor themselves, as well as society, to crack down on these?

The Gospel advice to "Give to the one who begs from you" and "Judge not, that you be not judged", may seem like an invitation to be taken advantage of. But the risks of turning away those who really are in need are serious. And while some take more than they are entitled to, others make do with far less help than they should actually receive, or struggle into work when they are badly ill or in pain, not only because of the pay but also because they want to stay busy and feel useful.

Besides, focusing too much on low-level abuses of the system can mean that large-scale rip-offs and corporate misdeeds slip by unnoticed. And challenging those on the margins to contribute more to the community is most likely to be effective when coming from those engaged at a grassroots level rather than the powerful, whose own actions are often at odds with their words.

Behind the rhetoric of the "big society", libraries, day centres and youth groups are facing closure, and the crackdown on benefit claimants is so harsh that even the dying are being condemned as scroungers. Trying to make out that the coalition government is following in Jesus' footsteps is less than convincing.

There is however one area in which Jesus might well have approved of cuts – in spending on warfare. But successive UK governments have been determined to display their military might, whatever the cost to soldiers and civilians.

"I think Churches, and religious organisations, have a huge amount to bring to the big society," said Cameron. Amid the hype, Christians, other people of faith, agnostics and atheists could perhaps bring a dose of reality.

Read this article, along with reader comments (and the opportunity to make your own) on The Guardian's cif Belief website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/26/cameron-big-society-jesus?INTCMP=SRCH