I was pleased Alex refrained from asserting Atwill's silly theory that we debunked on this forum a couple of months ago.
Asserting Atwill's goofy theory erodes audience confidence in Alex's powers of discernment. That erosion reduces the number of listeners. I want Alex's podcast to be well-known, popular, and respected.
If you read Streiber's new book
Jesus, A New Vision, please do report back here on it. Strieber's "Three Jesuses" idea sounds interesting.
I must say, I felt and feel similarly that it was premature to slam the hammer on the gavel and proclaim in no uncertain terms that the notion of a real man behind the Jesus myth was disproved by Atwill's findings.
I cannot say Atwill is wrong, but I can say that his findings and assertions were not conclusive for me to draw a cast iron conclusion about what it all meant.
My worry was that Alex seemed to feel it was all undeniably conclusive, and I just hadn't and still haven't reached anywhere close to that kind of conclusion.
I still find Atwill"s work very compelling, but if anything it adds a new mystery to the Jesus story, rather than closes and replaces the old mystery.
I don't think Atwill's theory is goofy or silly at all, I think it is quite valid. What I struggled with was his (and Alex's) assertion that it was conclusive in any way.
A co opting of events and re weaving of historical narrative seems to have taken place somehow in someway, but what is unclear is how to unravel it all in such a way that is clear and explanatory.
It is also unclear what implications this re worked or co opted narrative may have to say about any actual historicity regarding a real contemporary figure of Jesus. Such a superimposed and skillfully worked piece of propoganda does not immediately say anything about whether a Jesus like figure may have or may not have existed around the same time. Or indeed whether the Jesus story was a complete fabrication from start to finish.
If it was a complete fabrication, then I wonder to what end it was fabricated. Josephus would not have been writing for contemporary audience, but a future audience who would have no means of challenging the account. Surely by that time, the work of fiction would have been useless and of little value to his and the Flavian dynasties' political goals of that time. Who knows.
Anyway, for me the gnostic Gospels and their core teachings as well as the mystery of shroud keep the Jesus myth very much alive for me, and very relevant and compelling.
I want to say here that I do not regard myself as a Christian, as opposed to a Buddhist or a Hindu, so I have no vested interest in challenging Atwill or Alex on this to keep some cherished creed alive within myself.
I do however consider myself a seeker of truth, and I like everyone feel I have a keen sense of when some proposed truth has that crystal clear ring to it, and that ringing out is usually supported by clear lines of evidence and rational argument.
I felt that Atwills theory had a lot of these elements of truth to them, but didn't quite fit as neatly as I'd like, and also raised many more questions than it gave any answers to.
I'm not sure how much the asserting of Atwill's theory may have impacted the audiences' evaluation of Alex's powers of discernment, but I can say on this issue, unlike most other issues, Alex and I were on opposite sides of a philosophical gulf.
For me personally though, whenever Alex rolls out the Caesars Messiah sucker punch, I just sit back and let him go with it, and wait for him to get back to a point were our respective mindsets re converge.
I imagine for anyone else that took similar issue with Atwill's hypothesis, a similar state of affairs has been in play.
I have found that Alex on occasions has asserted Atwill's theory with such force of certainty and conviction in some past interviews that it ended up shutting things down rather than deepening the inquiry into the subject matter at hand, and this has saddened me on occasion.
I am certain Alex will read these posts at some point, and I really hope that he doesn't find my critique offensive or confrontational in any way. I am the biggest fan of Skeptiko, and a long time avid listener of the show. For me and many others it has been and is still a life changing exploration of the most important questions the human journey poses.
I am infinitely grateful for the show, and Alex's biggest defender, but on this issue, I have hoped for a long time he might re open the case file so to speak, a re look at the data. Not just some of it (i.e. Atwill's), but all of it.
Maybe Strieber's new book will do that.
I want to add here for Alex's sake and to clarify my feeling -
Alex, I love you and what you do. I am so grateful for the Skeptiko project you have put so much of your life into, and it is a tremendous service for humanity and human enquiry in general. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Please don't take offence at anything I have said here, and don't see in me or anything I have said an adversary. I'm on your team. Thanks a literal million.