Evan Sayet, joke-writer, interviewed on “Rubin Report”– “The difference between writing jokes for Bill Maher and Donald Trump”, May 9, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvNwKlNG8Ks
These two US liberals (Classic Liberals, independents) analyze what happened to their side of society over past decades- i.e. the shift of US liberals into far-left Woke Progressivism. Interesting comment on the “long march of 60s Marxists through the institutions” of US society- i.e. through universities, state agencies and bureaucracies, mainstream media, Hollywood, etc., with the intention to gain power/control over our liberal democracies and thereby incite their “revolution” that would bring liberal democracy to an end and replace it with a collectivist utopia.
Also, interesting comment by these two on the destructive nihilism that now dominates the US left. This comedy writer offers some good insights, for example, on what went wrong with mainstream comedy over the past few years. Mainstream (i.e. “late night”) comedy became part of the propaganda machine for the far-left Woke Progressivism crusade. Those people believe that they are the “tip of the spear” or vanguard of the Woke crusade, the leading edge for the coming Woke utopia, and they view any who do not submit to their crusade, to their “revolution”, as enemies that are so evil that they must be crushed and exterminated, hence the shift in their comedy to vilification of disagreeing others as “Nazis, fascists, racists, etc.”
And more…
Where environmentalism went wrong and how to rethink human care for nature. This article makes points similar to what Greg Easterbrook argued at the end of “A Moment On The Earth”, that nature has waited billions of years for human mind to come along and rescue it from it’s dead-ends (see last 40 pages of Easterbrook’s book).
“Technological Progress Versus Degrowth as Solutions to the Sixth Mass Extinction: Assuring the long-term future of Earth’s wildlife requires more economic and technological development, not less”, Saul Zimet, May 8, 2025
“Summary: Many environmentalists warn that human activity is causing a sixth mass extinction and they advocate economic stagnation or degrowth to slow or reverse the damage. Contrary to their assumptions, the long-term survival of Earth’s wildlife likely depends not on shrinking humanity’s footprint, but on expanding its technological reach. Rather than retreating from nature, advancing human civilization is probably the surest way to protect and even proliferate life of all kinds—on Earth and beyond.”
The author begins noting that a UN report claims that “Around one million plant and animal species are now threatened with extinction”.
The author then pushes back, arguing that a “’sixth mass extinction’ is premature… It is extremely unlikely that all the ‘critically endangered’ species will go extinct so soon… As science journalist Ronald Bailey has shown, reports of mass extinction, including the UN’s, tend to assume worst-case instead of most-likely scenarios and therefore probably overestimate extinction rates.”
He then argues, that while “mass extinction” is an exaggerated distortion, we must take species extinctions seriously. But this requires correcting the misconception that improving the human condition in industrial civilization (i.e. economic growth and development) is a zero-sum process that must inevitably ruin nature. He argues that, to the contrary, “advancing human wealth and economic flourishing is necessary, not detrimental, if we want to protect wildlife and maintain or even increase biodiversity.”
Human flourishing and advancement- especially economic- is not in conflict with the preservation of nature. Humanity and human prospering is not a “cancer” on nature. This has been the fallacy of “deep ecology”, that, consequent to the belief in humanity as destroyer of nature, nature must be protected from “any trace of human intervention.”
The author then refers to George Monbiot’s book that advocates “the mass impoverishment and undernourishment of vast swaths of humanity to lessen human impact on wildlife.”
He further notes that nature left to itself has destroyed over 99.9 percent of all species since the beginning of life on Earth.
The list of life-destroying elements includes “asteroid and comet impacts, the weakening or reversal of the magnetosphere, super-volcano eruptions, plate tectonics and continental drift, ice ages, ocean current disruption, methane hydrate release, supernova explosions, nearby hypernovas, gamma-ray bursts, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, rogue planets or stars, black holes, solar evolution, and Milky Way collisions.”
His point? Human economic growth has enabled amazing technological advances that have lessened harmful human impacts on nature and enhanced our ability to properly care for all life.
Further, rather than just preventing loss of biodiversity, we should promote greater biodiversity by creating new species “through practices like hybridisation and genetic modification—as has already been done with the Italian sparrow (Passer italiae), the apple fly (Rhagoletis pomonella), the yellow-flowered Yorkwort (Senecio eboracensis), and scores of others.” Add to this that others are now engaging projects to resurrect extinct species like the woolly mammoth, the dodo bird, etc.
Such projects require human prospering, with more economic development and growth that enables us to achieve the technological development necessary to accomplish such things.
“Attempts to conserve Earth’s current ecosystems through non-intervention are doomed because change is a constant of nature and environmental change is a constant of Earth’s geology. Plus, in addition to being futile, it is pessimistic to think that mere conservation should be the highest hope of a forward-looking environmentalist movement. Human non-intervention may benefit non-human life in an unsustainable, short-term way. But acting in the long-term interest of Earth’s wildlife means protecting species from exogenous existential threats and investing in technological and scientific advances that will enable them to thrive at unprecedented levels.”
The author also notes the efforts of creative geniuses like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to ensure the continuation of life by taking, not just humans, but all forms of life to other worlds- i.e. life becoming “multiplanetary and ultimately multi-stellar.” This was also advocated by Freeman Dyson in his book “Disturbing the Universe”, notably in the chapter “Greening the Galaxy”.
Zimet concludes that, “It is true that technological progress is itself a source of existential risks, but unlike the alternative (stagnation in ignorance), it has salvational potential as well, and thus the demise of life on Earth is more likely without technological progress than it is with it. Plus, a positive-sum (technological accelerationist) environmentalism is more politically achievable than a zero-sum (degrowth) environmentalism.”
Human prospering in advancing industrial, technological civilization, over the long-term, is the best means to ensure the ongoing existence of all life forms. “The larger point (is) that on a long enough timeline the interests of all living beings are aligned and are best served by technological and scientific progress.”
More on death cults today- Unleashing of the “evil triad” of inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others. What we rightly term “Evil”.
“Interview with author Douglas Murray: ‘Canada has disgraced itself’. Anti-Jewish hostility is tolerable here in a way hatred of no other group would be, Murray says”, Dave Gordon, May 10, 2025
https://nationalpost.com/news/interview-with-author-douglas-murray-canada-has-disgraced-itself
Gordon opens- “Bestselling author of eight books, including The War on The West and The Madness of Crowds, Douglas Murray has just released On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization.”
“In it, he paints a detailed picture of the minutes, and hours, of the devastation wrought in the Gaza envelope during the massacres of October 7, 2023, as well as the hours, days and months afterwards; the heroism of Israelis who defied orders, and fended off Hamas on their own; the weaponry IDF soldiers discovered in civilian Gazan homes; and the exclusive harrowing accounts of the massacre’s survivors. As one of the first outside observers inside Gaza, he recounts the “pitiful sight” and the “utterly avoidable devastation” triggered by the Hamas-led attacks.
“Murray takes a microscope to the question of how modern Jew-hatred has reached unprecedented levels since wartime Europe. That includes the global campus demonstrations that sprung up almost immediately, which he describes as “revolutionary cosplay,” their message communicated with “bludgeoning” — subsequently thanked by a Hamas leader as the “great student flood.” He follows the blood-soaked international money trail that has made Hamas leaders billionaires, and details the global web of Jihad supporters — the “death cults” — as an imminent danger not just to Israel, but to civilization.”
This from Gordon’s interview of Murray:
Murray’s response to Western democracies advocating for a two-state solution to the Gaza problem- “(Palestinians) mucked up in Gaza so badly, by now it’s clear that another Palestinian state would just be another terrorist proxy state, another Iranian front state.”
Murray then responds to Gordon’s question- “Western leaders don’t want to say the conflict is about jihadism, lest they be seen as Islamophobic?”
Murray’s response- “My belief, as I explained the book, is that the “death cult” has the ideology that seeks a downfall, not just of Israel, but of all Western democracies. The triumph of jihadism. The people who think they’re buying themselves time by wittering on about a two-state solution are, at best, in denial.”
Murray then comments on the nature of the evil unleashed by the Hamas soldiers Oct. 7. He says, “People not just engaged in evil actions, but rejoiced positively high on them. Now that is an evil we have seen in the West, in sometimes profound glimpses.”
He adds comment on the distorted media reporting on the Gaza war: “Almost always there will be misreporting, deliberate and malicious reporting of Israel’s actions, and deliberately skewed or under-reporting, of the actions of Hamas and their governments of Gaza.
“You can criticize Israeli communication strategies as much as you want. But it’s extremely hard to communicate things accurately when most of the world’s media will gleefully report Hamas claims as if they are true and interrogate and misrepresent any actions of the IDF as if they are lying.”
Gordon asks Murray about the intentions of Islamicists “to kill off liberal values, like a ‘liberalicide’”.
Murray answers with reference to the Canadian situation as perhaps showing the worst eruption of anti-Semitism since Oct. 7:
“(The anti-Israel activists) believe that the destruction of a country of 9 million people is possible. But they also want the destruction of the rest of our societies in the West.”
Murray says that the response of Gazans to the Western push for a two-state society has been displaced by the more important project of exterminating their Jewish neighbors- “Gazans could have made a lot of it. But as usual, they couldn’t resist deciding that the annihilation of their neighbours was more important than the creation of a state themselves. They prioritized the destruction of Israel over the creation of a viable entity in Gaza.”
Murray then ends, commenting on the shameful eruption of anti-Semitism in Canada and how little the Canadian government has done to counter this. “To my mind, Canada has disgraced itself in the last 18 months by showing that that anti-Jewish hatred is permissible and is tolerable in a way which hatred of no other group would be.”
He urges the new Canadian prime minister to be clear that we are in “a fight between a democracy and a death cult” and Canada needs to be on the side of democracy.
I would add to Murray’s comments, to counter any rushed condemnation that this is “Islamophobic”, with the balancing facts of the horrific brutalities committed by other religious traditions- i.e. the Christian crusades of a millennium previously where crusaders, crossing Europe on their way to Jerusalem, stopped to slaughter communities of Jews before continuing on to slaughter Muslims. Remember also the Old Testament accounts of the Jewish slaughter of enemies as they invaded early Palestine. So, no tribal phobia against any one tradition when all hold the same basic themes that have produced the same basic outcomes across history.
The real enemy/monster behind this human barbarity is the “bad religious ideas” that have always incited and validated bad human behavior. That is the root problem- the abuse of the “behavior based on belief” practise by framing the belief element in this common human practise with bad theology. You then get these outcomes- “Men never do worse evil than when they do it in the name of their God” (Bob Brinsmead). “People becoming just like the God that they believe in” (Bob Brinsmead). “Sick Gods making people sick” (Harold Ellens).
So more specifically than just bad religious ideas, it is bad theology, bad images of God, what psychologists like Ellens term “monster God” images, that incite, drive, and validate bad human behavior. Images of God that include features like tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others/unbelievers.
Then we get Historical Jesus, uniquely in all history, coming out of backwoods Palestine to radically challenge and correct that root of all evil- i.e. monster Gods promoting monstrous behavior in followers. Historical Jesus went to the root issue in the mess and replaced the deformed deity (i.e. threat theology) with a truly human image of God as “no conditions love”. He thereby liberated people from monster God theology, giving humanity a new cohering center for narratives, a stunning new ultimate Ideal that was truly humane. He finally got the “behavior based on similar belief” relationship right, with his stunning new theology that set forth the true nature of love, taking it to its highest reach as “unconditional”.
By taking human ideals, as embodied in deity, to their highest height of humaneness, to the very best of what human goodness should be, he set forth a new standard for ethics/behavior. And note that after he listed how authentic love treats others unconditionally (Luke 6:27-36), he summarized the “behavior based on belief” point- “Do this and you will be like God”, i.e. if you love in the manner that I just described, you will exhibit what God is really like. So, “Be unconditionally merciful just as your Father is unconditionally merciful.”
Note also that Historical Jesus was put to death for challenging the long history of the retaliatory, punitive deity that had dominated the mythology of the primitive past as well as the great world religions. Jewish religious authorities/priests had him killed for challenging the threat theology of their religion that was the basis of their power and control over commoners. “Fear=control” had worked well for those elites over past centuries and they would not tolerate any threat to that power. They viewed the Jesus threat to their domination as a situation of “exterminate or be exterminated”.
So rather than engage the tribal thing and appear to be picking on one particular religion going through a bad phase now (i.e. Islam) in contrast with other traditions that have moderated their previously more prominent bad behavior, I argue that it is more important to note the common themes in these religious traditions, and note the line of descent from the primitive past. All the major Western religions have descended from Zoroaster, and Zoroaster got his worst themes (i.e. cosmic dualism- Good God versus evil Force/Satan, apocalyptic, divine obligation to engage true religion in war against false religions, etc.) from the earlier mythologies of Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, etc.
The outcome of this historical descent of similar ideas is that we all share the same common themes, in our religious traditions and now in secular ideologies like Marxism, Nazism, environmentalism. See the list of common bad ideas and alternatives below.
Understand what is wrong in our narratives and how such pathology effects human minds, emotions, motivations, and what are the outcomes in human responses/behavior and then, alternatively, what is more truly humane and has better outcomes.
The above noted clarification by Historical Jesus as to the real nature of love is basic to understanding and promoting a truly humane version of Classic Liberalism and its principles, systems of law, and representative institutions as the best means for organizing societies and promoting truly humane existence. We do best to center Classic Liberalism around truly humane love as our highest ideal and our main identifying feature as humans. Wendell Krossa
We just got played by “the Don”, Wendell Krossa
“It’s the oil, stupid.” Mark Carney won’t even voice the word “oil” in his speeches, he feels such revulsion for the stuff. That revulsion, based on the myth that a slight and beneficial warming in a cold world is portending a climate apocalypse, drives his anti-fossil fuel obsession.
Carney, our new PM and a “superstitious member of a salvationist apocalyptic millennial cult”, went to Washington DC to meet the new president of the US. Donald Trump publicly gloated that he had outsmarted Canada and got his favored candidate in as PM- Mark Carney. I watched the ingratiating ego-patting of Carney at the White House on Tuesday, May 6. “I like this guy. He’s a very nice man. We get along well.”, said Trump.
Trump disguises his real game plan as he loves playing the “Great negotiator”, the great manipulator.
Trump knows that the oil/gas resources of Canada are “Huuuge” and a serious competition with the US for foreign markets. He knew that Pierre Poilievre posed a real threat to US energy dominance in the world with his promises to get pipelines built immediately in order to get our energy resources to other markets than the US.
The US also benefits from our selling them our fossil fuels “at a massive discount” that they in turn profit further from (giving the lie to Trump’s argument there is a trade imbalance and need for rebalancing tariffs).
The “massive discount” benefit to the US arises from the “landlocked” situation of such Canadian resources, and that is due to Liberal refusal to build pipelines to get those resources to other countries like Germany and Japan, both countries that have asked for them. We remember Trudeau’s stupidly ignorant response to their requests, stating that “there is no business case” for selling our fossil fuels to them. No wonder business guru Kevin O’Leary called Trudeau the “idiot emperor”.
Trump wants that dependence on the US to continue, and he knows Carney is the man who will block pipeline building as he refuses to remove Bill C-69 that hinders such development projects. And Carney also refuses to remove the emissions cap on our fossil fuel resources.
Trump and his advisors have to know that Carney is a world-leader in anti-development ideology and solidly committed to Net Zero madness, as he states in his book “Values”. Hence, he will be no threat of competition to Trump and his plans for energy dominance. Whereas Poilievre is a real threat to make Canada less dependent on the US, a threat to change the present status where the US is the sole energy market of Canada. Poilievre will rapidly push for getting our resources to other markets.
I suspect these things explain something of Trump’s clumsy meddling in our recent election to help Carney get elected by playing on Canadian fears. And Trump’s public pretense of liking Carney more than Poilievre (or yes, its “sincere” liking of someone who is more easily manipulated to support policies that benefit the US).
Trump’s playing on Canadian fears worked and Canadians made the choice for more years of basically Trudeau’s anti-development destruction of our economy.
Such silly games being played in this “negotiating”.
Conrad Black holds hope for Carney waking to the reality pipelines are critical to Canada’s resuscitation after the devastation of the Trudeau years.
“And just like that, the Trump ‘threat’ disappears: Mark Carney’s visit to Washington has shown that American aggression was never a real concern to begin with”, Conrad Black, May 10, 2025
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-and-just-like-that-the-trump-threat-disappears
Bob pushing Grok to do some homework for him, Wendell Krossa
My question– Grok could you provide information on these questions and comments from Bob Brinsmead:
“It is well known that the fathers of America generally rejected the central Christian doctrine of Christ but at the same time, like Jefferson, expressed admiration for the teaching of the Jewish rabbi called Jesus. What about the other champions of liberal democracy in that age such as Voltaire, Thomas Payne, John Stuart Mills, John Locke, and Adam Smith? Did they also reject the Christology of the Creeds but embrace or admire the teachings of the man called Jesus?
“Grok could save me a lot of research time. It is important to note that none of the Fathers of America were religious scholars or historical critics like those involved in the Quest for the Historical Jesus, but more importantly, the fathers of liberal democracy preceded the beginnings of the Quest by about a century. How come they were a hundred years ahead of the churchmen and scholars getting started and two hundred years of them getting any clear consensus that the historical Jesus was not the Christ of Christian faith?” (End of Brinsmead comments/questions)
Grok’s response to Bob’s questions:
The question you’ve posed is a fascinating one, delving into the religious and philosophical perspectives of key figures in the development of liberal democracy during the Enlightenment, and how their views on Jesus and Christianity compare to the American Founding Fathers. I’ll address the two main parts of your query: (1) the views of Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, and Adam Smith on the divinity of Christ versus their admiration for Jesus’ teachings, and (2) why these figures seemed to anticipate the critical scholarship of the Quest for the Historical Jesus by about a century. Let’s break this down concisely, while aiming for a comprehensive response.
1. Views of Enlightenment Thinkers on Christology and Jesus’ Teachings
The American Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, were heavily influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, which emphasized reason, skepticism of traditional authority, and a focus on morality over dogma. Many of them rejected the orthodox Christian doctrine of Christ’s divinity (as articulated in the Nicene and other creeds) but admired Jesus as a moral teacher. Jefferson, for instance, created the “Jefferson Bible,” stripping the Gospels of miracles and supernatural elements to focus on Jesus’ ethical teachings. Let’s examine the views of the other champions of liberal democracy you mentioned: Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, and Adam Smith.
Voltaire (1694–1778)
• Rejection of Christology: Voltaire, a leading French Enlightenment philosopher, was a fierce critic of organized Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, which he saw as superstitious and oppressive. He rejected the divinity of Christ and the supernatural claims of the creeds, viewing them as irrational. In works like Philosophical Dictionary, he questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels and mocked dogmatic theology.
• Admiration for Jesus’ Teachings: Despite his skepticism, Voltaire expressed admiration for the moral teachings attributed to Jesus, such as the Golden Rule and love of neighbor. He saw Jesus as a simple, wise teacher whose message was corrupted by the Church. For Voltaire, Jesus’ ethics aligned with universal moral principles accessible through reason, not divine revelation.
• Summary: Voltaire rejected orthodox Christology but appreciated Jesus as a moral exemplar, consistent with his deistic leanings, which emphasized a rational, non-interventionist deity.
Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
• Rejection of Christology: Paine, a key figure in both the American and French Revolutions, was outspoken in his rejection of Christian orthodoxy. In The Age of Reason, he explicitly denied the divinity of Christ, criticized the Bible’s contradictions, and dismissed miracles as fabrications. He viewed Christianity’s creedal doctrines as tools of control, not truth.
• Admiration for Jesus’ Teachings: Paine admired Jesus as a virtuous human teacher whose moral philosophy was distorted by later Christian institutions. He praised Jesus’ emphasis on compassion and justice but argued that these teachings were not unique to Christianity and could be found in other philosophical traditions.
• Summary: Like Jefferson, Paine was a deist who rejected Christ’s divinity but valued Jesus’ ethical teachings, seeing them as part of a universal moral framework.
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
• Rejection of Christology: Mill, a later figure in the liberal tradition, was more agnostic than deistic. In his posthumously published Three Essays on Religion, he expressed skepticism about Christianity’s supernatural claims, including the divinity of Christ. He argued that religious doctrines often served to suppress free thought. Mill did not explicitly address Christology, but his emphasis on individual liberty and rational inquiry suggests he would have been skeptical of dogmatic creeds.
• Admiration for Jesus’ Teachings: Mill admired Jesus as a moral teacher, particularly for his emphasis on love, compassion, and the “Golden Rule.” In On Liberty, he referenced Jesus’ teachings as an example of universal ethical principles that could guide society without requiring supernatural belief.
• Summary: Mill likely rejected orthodox Christology in favor of a secular, rational appreciation of Jesus’ ethical teachings, aligning with his utilitarian philosophy.
John Locke (1632–1704)
• Rejection of Christology: Locke, a foundational thinker of liberal democracy, was more cautious than later Enlightenment figures. In The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), he argued that Christianity’s core requirement was belief in Jesus as the Messiah, but he downplayed complex theological doctrines like the Trinity. While he did not explicitly deny Christ’s divinity, his focus on reason and tolerance suggests he was skeptical of rigid creedal formulations.
• Admiration for Jesus’ Teachings: Locke admired Jesus’ moral teachings, particularly the emphasis on virtue and charity, which he saw as compatible with natural law and reason. He viewed Christianity as a rational religion when stripped of dogmatic excesses.
• Summary: Locke’s views were less radical than Voltaire or Paine’s, but he leaned toward a rational Christianity that prioritized Jesus’ ethical teachings over metaphysical claims about his divinity.
Adam Smith (1723–1790)
• Rejection of Christology: Smith, the economist and moral philosopher, was reserved about religious matters. His writings, such as The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, focus on secular ethics and economics, with little direct discussion of Christianity. As a product of the Scottish Enlightenment, he likely shared the skepticism of his peers (e.g., David Hume) toward supernatural claims, including Christ’s divinity, but he avoided public pronouncements on religion.
• Admiration for Jesus’ Teachings: Smith’s moral philosophy, rooted in sympathy and mutual benefit, aligns with Jesus’ teachings on compassion and the Golden Rule. He likely saw these as universal principles, not dependent on divine authority.
• Summary: Smith probably rejected or was indifferent to orthodox Christology, valuing Jesus’ teachings as part of a broader, rational moral framework.
Common Themes
• Deism and Rationalism: Most of these thinkers (except perhaps Mill, who leaned agnostic, and Locke, who was more moderate) were influenced by deism, which posited a creator God knowable through reason, not revelation. They rejected the supernatural elements of Christianity, including Christ’s divinity, as incompatible with rational inquiry.
• Admiration for Jesus’ Ethics: All admired Jesus’ moral teachings— particularly love, compassion, and the Golden Rule— as universal principles that could guide society without requiring belief in his divinity. They saw these teachings as aligned with natural law or human reason.
• Critique of Organized Religion: They criticized institutional Christianity (especially Catholicism, but also Protestant orthodoxy) for distorting Jesus’ simple message with dogma, superstition, and power structures.
2. Why Were Enlightenment Thinkers Ahead of the Quest for the Historical Jesus?
The Quest for the Historical Jesus, a scholarly movement to distinguish the historical figure of Jesus from the Christ of Christian faith, is typically dated to the late 18th century, with figures like Hermann Samuel Reimarus (whose work was published posthumously in the 1770s) and later 19th-century scholars like David Friedrich Strauss. However, as you note, the American Founding Fathers and Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Paine expressed similar ideas— rejecting Christ’s divinity while admiring Jesus as a human teacher— about a century earlier. Why were they seemingly ahead of the curve, and why did it take scholars longer to reach a consensus?
Reasons Enlightenment Thinkers Were Ahead
1. Influence of Deism and Rationalism:
o The Enlightenment emphasized reason as the primary source of knowledge, leading thinkers to question traditional authorities, including the Church and its creeds. Deism, which rejected miracles and revelation, provided a framework for viewing Jesus as a human moral teacher rather than a divine figure. This philosophical shift predated and influenced the critical methods of the Quest.
o Example: Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary (1764) and Paine’s The Age of Reason (1794) applied rational skepticism to religious texts, anticipating the critical approach of later scholars.
2. Access to Classical and Non-Christian Sources:
o Enlightenment thinkers were well-versed in classical philosophy (e.g., Stoicism, Epicureanism) and non-Christian traditions, which offered alternative ethical frameworks. They saw Jesus’ teachings as echoing universal moral principles found in philosophers like Socrates or Confucius, reducing the need for his divinity.
o Example: Jefferson compared Jesus’ teachings to those of ancient philosophers, concluding that Jesus was a great moralist but not divine.
3. Reaction Against Religious Authority:
o The Enlightenment was partly a revolt against the political and intellectual dominance of the Church. Thinkers like Voltaire and Paine saw creedal Christianity as a tool of oppression, motivating them to challenge doctrines like Christ’s divinity and emphasize Jesus’ human teachings as a counterpoint.
o Example: Voltaire’s attacks on the Catholic Church included critiques of its theological claims, which he saw as irrational.
4. Limited Historical-Critical Tools:
o While Enlightenment thinkers were skeptical, they lacked the rigorous historical-critical methods developed later (e.g., source criticism, form criticism). Their rejection of Christology was more philosophical than scholarly, based on reason and general skepticism rather than detailed textual analysis. This allowed them to reach conclusions similar to the Quest’s without the need for extensive research.
Why Scholars Lagged Behind
1. Church Influence and Censorship:
o The Church, both Catholic and Protestant, held significant sway over intellectual life in Europe. Questioning Christ’s divinity was heretical and could lead to persecution, exile, or censorship. Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Paine often published anonymously or faced backlash, while scholars within academic or ecclesiastical institutions were more constrained.
o Example: Reimarus’ critical work on Jesus was only published posthumously due to fear of repercussions.
2. Development of Historical-Critical Methods:
o The Quest required new scholarly tools, such as textual criticism, archaeology, and comparative religion, which emerged gradually in the 18th and 19th centuries. Enlightenment thinkers relied on philosophical arguments, but scholars needed empirical evidence and rigorous methodologies to challenge entrenched doctrines.
o Example: Strauss’s Life of Jesus (1835) used source criticism to argue that the Gospels contained myths, a method unavailable to earlier thinkers.
3. Cultural and Institutional Inertia:
o Christian orthodoxy was deeply embedded in European culture, education, and politics. Challenging Christology required not just intellectual courage but a broader cultural shift, which the Enlightenment helped catalyze but which took decades to permeate academia.
o Example: Even in the 19th century, scholars like Strauss faced fierce opposition from conservative theologians.
4. Lack of Consensus in the Quest:
o The Quest for the Historical Jesus did not produce a clear consensus until the 20th century (and even then, debates persist). Early scholars like Reimarus and Strauss proposed radical theories, but their work was controversial and lacked the cumulative evidence later scholars built upon. Enlightenment thinkers, by contrast, were less concerned with scholarly precision and more with broad philosophical claims, allowing them to make bold assertions earlier.
o Example: The “First Quest” (late 18th to early 20th century) produced diverse portraits of Jesus (e.g., as a moral teacher, apocalyptic prophet, or social reformer), delaying a unified view.
Why the 100–200-Year Gap?
• Philosophical vs. Scholarly Approaches: Enlightenment thinkers used reason and skepticism to challenge Christology, a quicker process than the meticulous, evidence-based scholarship of the Quest. Their conclusions were speculative but aligned with deistic and rationalist principles, which were already widespread by the early 18th century.
• Social and Political Context: The American Founders operated in a new nation with less entrenched religious authority, giving them freedom to express unorthodox views. In Europe, thinkers like Voltaire faced censorship but still influenced public discourse, while scholars worked within conservative academic structures.
• Gradual Paradigm Shift: The Enlightenment laid the intellectual groundwork for the Quest by promoting skepticism and rational inquiry. However, transforming these ideas into a scholarly discipline required time, new methodologies, and a weakening of Church influence, which only fully materialized in the 19th century.
Conclusion
The champions of liberal democracy— Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, and Adam Smith— largely mirrored the American Founding Fathers in rejecting the orthodox Christian doctrine of Christ’s divinity while admiring Jesus’ moral teachings as universal and rational. Their views were shaped by Enlightenment rationalism, deism, and a critique of organized religion, which allowed them to anticipate the conclusions of the Quest for the Historical Jesus by about a century. They were ahead of scholars because their philosophical approach was less constrained by the need for empirical evidence or institutional approval, and they operated in a cultural moment that prized reason over dogma. However, the Quest’s rigorous methods and the Church’s lingering influence meant that scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus as distinct from the Christ of faith took longer to emerge, with significant progress only in the 19th and 20th centuries.
If you’d like me to dig deeper into any specific thinker, text, or aspect of the Quest, or if you want me to search for additional sources (e.g., on X or the web), let me know!