Being an both a history fanatic and an atheist, it annoys me to see so many fellow secularists parade around this "Christ Myth" theory. From what I've read, almost every true historian accepts the existence of a historical Jesus. My question is to you on here whom identify as atheist and/or secular, what is your opinion on Jesus's existence and from what methodology can we determine it by?
If you accept the existence of "true historians," why are you looking for the opinions of only those historians who are "atheist and/or secular"? I get the sense that you're trying to persuade your fellow atheists of the historicity of Jesus, but if your friends think so conspiratorially that they can't accept the academic opinions of theists, no information you bring them from this sub will suffice.
It's no one's business what my religious beliefs are. The mods aren't going to be faith gatekeepers for your question. It is not appropriate for you to request this restriction.
Religious and non-religious historians get trained at the same schools. They have the same advisors and read the same books. They use the same methodologies. If you have a problem with certain conclusions, you attack them on methodological grounds. The spiritual values of the historian do not factor into it. If your "fellow secularists" aren't persuaded by this, move on.
Academic papers are subject to a process called peer review. This is a double-blind process, meaning that the reviewers don't know who wrote the manuscript, and the historian doesn't know who's reviewing it. This helps to weed out bias. Axe-grinders don't make it as historians.
This question gets asked every two weeks and there are many, many threads on the sidebar. From these threads you can learn something of the methodologies which historians have used to deal with this question. Unfortunately for your cause, the commenters in these threads are not broken down by sect.
I won't comment on the specifics of which historians have what beliefs and what their historical conclusions are accordingly. As others, like /u/Searocksandtrees have said in this thread, this isn't the place for personal opinions or beliefs to be vented. However, I will answer this question briefly below.
There are no official polls that answer this question based on beliefs, however, the academic community that governs scholars of Christian Antiquity known as The Society of Biblical Literature meets every November and they are made up of the roughly 5,500 scholars (mostly university professors) and they have a wide range of personal beliefs including Christian (Evangelical Christian, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.), Atheists, and Agnostic. (In a move of complete disclosure, I myself identify as Agnostic). In this community of scholars, every single one of them acknowledges a belief in the existence of the historical Jesus. Out of all the Ph.D. university professors whom teach New Testament, Classical, Antiquity, or any other related field, I know of only one historian, Robert Price, who is an avid believer in the concept of mythisicsm (the belief that the historical Jesus was fiction). If you are looking for reasons why, I do recommend checking out the link that the moderator provided which has my answer from a while ago.
/u/Carol_White was quite right when he said:
Religious and non-religious historians get trained at the same schools. They have the same advisors and read the same books. They use the same methodologies. If you have a problem with certain conclusions, you attack them on methodological grounds. The spiritual values of the historian do not factor into it. If your "fellow secularists" aren't persuaded by this, move on.
Academic papers are subject to a process called peer review. This is a double-blind process, meaning that the reviewers don't know who wrote the manuscript, and the historian doesn't know who's reviewing it. This helps to weed out bias. Axe-grinders don't make it as historians.
I am a graduate student at a major university on the east coast that teaches this subject, and I can tell you that my peers are made up both of Christian and Non-Christian and the same can be said for my professors. The beauty of the scholarly and peer-review community is that we hold each other accountable that way our personal views do not (to any significant degree) influence our research.
If you would like me to recommend any books on this subject written by atheist or agnostics, please just let me know.
Hi all. Just a reminder to potential respondents that this sub is not the place to air your personal opinions on matters. The OP is specifically asking for methodologies used and conclusions drawn by historians.
Edit: OP, you'll find a relevant post here:
Not to discourage future comments on the subject, but the FAQ has several threads that address this question