Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
58 J.J.C. Smart<br />
The historical Jesus has proved to be elusive. All sorts of accounts have<br />
been made, ranging from the literalist <strong>and</strong> supernaturalist to the sceptical <strong>and</strong><br />
naturalistic. A naturalistic account that has appealed to me as plausible is that<br />
of S.G.F. Br<strong>and</strong>on. 101 However, I am not a historian or a New Testament<br />
scholar, <strong>and</strong> so I suggest that the cautious reader should take what I say about<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>on’s theory as merely illustrative of the possibility of a plausible naturalistic<br />
theory <strong>and</strong> also illustrative of Bradley’s view about the importance of<br />
presuppositions (mine being naturalistic) in critical history.<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>on’s hypothesis is that Jesus was closely connected with the zealots,<br />
Jewish resistance fighters against the Roman occupation. This explains his<br />
trial at the h<strong>and</strong>s of Pilate, which must have been for sedition, not for<br />
blasphemy. Blasphemy was a matter for the Jewish religious establishment<br />
<strong>and</strong> the penalty for this was not crucifixion but stoning. That Jesus’ trial was<br />
for sedition explains Pilate’s involvement: if it had been for blasphemy it<br />
would have been in a Jewish court. Mark had a motive for wanting to transfer<br />
responsibility from the Romans to the Jews. Mark was writing largely for the<br />
Roman Christians, whose position was uncomfortable as it was at the time of<br />
the great Jewish revolt <strong>and</strong> the consequent destruction of Jerusalem, <strong>and</strong> he<br />
would have been at pains to conceal the connection of the original Christians<br />
with zealotry <strong>and</strong> hence sedition, for fear of bringing harm to the Christians<br />
in Rome. At least one of the disciples actually was a zealot, Simon the zealot.<br />
Luke, writing later after the fuss over the Jewish revolt had died down, explicitly<br />
called Simon by the Greek word ‘zelotes’, whereas Mark more cagily used<br />
the Aramaic word, ‘Cananaean’, which would not be easily understood by the<br />
Roman Christians. The two ‘thieves’ who were crucified with Jesus were<br />
probably zealots, since the Romans referred to zealots as ‘lestai’ (brig<strong>and</strong>s).<br />
The above is merely meant as a very small sample of considerations brought<br />
forward by Br<strong>and</strong>on in a book full of technical philological <strong>and</strong> historical<br />
scholarship. The interested reader is referred to Br<strong>and</strong>on’s work itself.<br />
‘A pretty tall story’, an orthodox believer might say, ‘Jesus a leader of revolutionaries,<br />
something like modern mujahideen? Poppycock! Jesus said “Turn<br />
the other cheek”.’ Yes, one might reply, but he also said that he did not come<br />
to bring peace but a sword. The disciples in Gethsemane were armed. And so<br />
the dialogue might go on. What should we believe, the orthodox story or the<br />
naturalistic one or something in between? (Or of course some other possible<br />
naturalistic story?)<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>on’s theory might be shown to be implausible, but could it be less<br />
plausible than the orthodox story that Jesus performed miracles <strong>and</strong> not only<br />
claimed to be the son of God (<strong>and</strong> even this has been doubted) but was the<br />
son of God, <strong>and</strong> after the crucifixion rose bodily into heaven? A balancing of<br />
plausibilities is needed <strong>and</strong> the metaphysical presuppositions of the reader<br />
will largely determine which way the balance falls.