this is a non-starter. I've covered it many times with Atwill critics they all ultimately acknowledge the point.
You'll have to show me the yuuuuge number of times you've discussed the evidence in detail with Atwill critics, because in my two years on the forum I haven't seen you interact with the actual data pertinent to Atwill's "thesis." You've certainly ignored all my detailed comments in this thread apart from throwing out the occasional soundbite or logical fallacy. You haven't invited any critics of Atwill onto your show - the only occasion I've noticed you mention criticism is when you've had Atwill on to condemn his interlocutors
in abstentia. Quite the convenient kangaroo court you set up there.
And no, the Joel Watts interview doesn't count because you didn't review the particulars of Atwill's ideas (which he wasn't all that familiar with) and you subsequently misinterpreted comments by Watts as an agreement with Atwill (which they weren't).
It's quite clear to me that you've done anything but approach this topic utilizing a key virtue shared by the spiritual traditions and critical inquiry alike, which is detachment. Which is a shame, because as a public figure who stands for the integration of science, scholarship, and spirituality, you could really exemplify the practice. But instead, your approach to this topic, including various remarks in this thread, lead me to the reluctant but firm conclusion your main goal in these conversations is to keep poking the religion of your birth in the eye. And you will resort to only a poor simulacrum of reasoning to justify your conduct.
Lest I receive the
tu quoque response, let me make it plain that I've spent
years wrestling with very revisionist and yes, mythicist arguments pertaining to the New Testament. I've read my Price and my Carrier, thoroughly and in detail. And I've read the popular and fringe-y people along the way, too: Freke and Gandy, Fitzgerald, Einhorn, and now, regrettably, some Atwill, too. But you know what? I read lots of mainstream scholarship, as well. I read the conservatives and the evangelicals, too, because their hermeneutic of charity is bound to uncover insights that others overlook. Everybody has a place in the great conversation, provided they're committed to decent standards of logic, reflection, and criticism.
Moreover, while yes I am a Christian, I have been through the Ricoeurian desert of criticism and into the "second naivete." My Christianity is deeply inflected by
perennialism. Yeah, I'm sure Jesus was a historical character. But if that turns out not to be the case, I will not lack for ontological and meaning-making resources and I will be just fine. I'm just convinced by the evidence that he was real.
So while I passionately and vociferously argue against Atwill, it is not because I fear his arguments and their potential to erode the rock on which I stand.
It's because they're awful. Really, really, awful. And I'm going to make my stand
here to keep reminding everyone who will listen that they're awful, using "the data," instead of taking your advice to waste my time in Atwill's den of ignorance, thank you very much.