Some guy named “Carey” recently commented on Josh’s blog (at http://shidemn.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/jesus-is-dead-let-him-be-dead/#comment-306) that he had 11 texts that proved that Jesus was a historical figure.
This is my investigation into whether or not they actually prove Jesus’ historicity.
Here’s his list:
”1. Cornelius Tacitus (Roman Historian) – “Annals” XV.44
2. Lucian of Samosata (2nd century satirist) – “The Passing Peregrinus” Note: Lucian was a critic of Christ and Christianity, but never denied that Jesus existed.
3. Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian) – “Antiquities” xviii.33
4. Suetonius (Roman historian) – “Life of Claudius” 25.4
5. Plinius Secundus/Pliney the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor) – “Epistles” X.96
6. Tertullian of Carthage (2nd century theologian) – “Apology” 1.35
7. Thallus (Samaritan historian), as related by Julius Africanus
8. Phlegon (1st century historian), as related by Julius Africanus
9. Letter of Mara Bar Seraphion (Syrian commoner)
10. Justin Martyr – “Apology” 1.48 – NOTE: This is a letter to the Emporer Antonia Pius, where Justing Martyr refers to Pontius Pilate’s own record of Jesus (something the Emperor would be familiar with or have access to)
11. The Jewish Talmud – if anyone would have in interest in hushing up news of this Jesus, it would be the Jewish religious authorities. Yet, their own Talmud has numerous references to Jesus in it.”
I’m looking for documents written in Jesus’ time, which would show that people knew of his life before Christianity began spreading stories about him. This would mean documents written before before 33/30 AD.
…
“1. Cornelius Tacitus (Roman Historian) – “Annals” XV.44″
>>http://www.bookrags.com/biography/tacitus/
Tacitus was born more than twenty years after Jesus’ supposed death, so this just proves that Christian myths had spread by AD 56. Also note that by the time he would be literate enough to write historical documents it would be at least 30 years after Jesus’ death.
…
“2. Lucian of Samosata (2nd century satirist) – “The Passing Peregrinus” Note: Lucian was a critic of Christ and Christianity, but never denied that Jesus existed.”
>>Second century? That’s a hundred years after his death. This just proves that Christianity’s mythology existed in the 2nd century.
…
3. Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian) – “Antiquities” xviii.33
>>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Clearly states that he was born in AD 37, 4 years after Jesus supposedly died. This just shows that Christian mythology was known during his time decade(s) after Jesus allegedly died.
“4. Suetonius (Roman historian) – “Life of Claudius” 25.4″
>http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html
This guy was born in the 70’s, too late to have known Jesus – this too shows that Christian myths had spread by then, not that Jesus existed.
5. Plinius Secundus/Pliney the Younger (Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor) – “Epistles” X.96
>>Plinius the Younger was born too late too have known Jesus, and I couldn’t find works by Plinius the Elder regarding a historical Jesus.
6. Tertullian of Carthage (2nd century theologian) – “Apology” 1.35
>>Second century – too late to have known or met Jesus.
7. Thallus (Samaritan historian), as related by Julius Africanus
>>I couldn’t find a birth date, but did find this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
which refutes Thallus as “evidence.” It also states that Thallus was a common name and that Julius Africanus did not mention him being a historian or writing books, so there is a good chance that he was talking about a different Thallus.
8. Phlegon (1st century historian), as related by Julius Africanus
>>Phlegon’s most popular work, Olympiad, details events that took place in 140 AD, meaning that he would be alive during 140 AD.
To have met Jesus, he would have to have been 107 years old when he wrote this book, and this is essentially impossible. To be old enough to be literate during Jesus’ time, he would have to have been around 120 when he wrote Olympiad.
9. Letter of Mara Bar Seraphion (Syrian commoner)
>>http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/serapion.html
This letter was written at least 40 years after his supposed death, and probably 100 years afterward. That’s far too late.
“10. Justin Martyr – “Apology” 1.48 – NOTE: This is a letter to the Emporer Antonia Pius, where Justing Martyr refers to Pontius Pilate’s own record of Jesus (something the Emperor would be familiar with or have access to)”
>>Justin was born in 100 AD, far too late.
11. The Jewish Talmud – if anyone would have in interest in hushing up news of this Jesus, it would be the Jewish religious authorities. Yet, their own Talmud has numerous references to Jesus in it.
>>The talmud was written centuries after Jesus’ supposed life.
Thanks for the link…
I never said any of these writers “knew” Jesus, so please don’t mischaracterize my statements. I also didn’t classify my list as “proofs” but as ancient documents outside the Bible that do refer to Jesus as historical.
What I AM saying is that the documents themselves, many from anti-Christians (Jews, Romans) speak as if Jesus DID live. It’s very similar to you and I speaking as if Abraham Lincoln DID live. Neither of us met him or saw him, but we trust the evidence, etc. that exists.
In Jesus’ case, sure there is much less substantial evidence than for Lincoln, simply because His life was so long ago. It’s to be expected that ANY 1st century person would have less evidence for their existence than a more modern one. And that’s what we find in regard to EVERY 1st century person, not only Jesus.
You seem bent on demanding for “eyewitness” accounts from those who met/saw Jesus, but NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST FOR ANY 1ST CENTURY PERSONAGE, with the exception of the New Testament documents (which I know you don’t accept). Your demand for those kinds of accounts, outside the Bible is completely unrealistic from a historical perspective.
For example, here’s a short list of additional 1st Century, non-Christian, Roman documents that have been found at all…
1. An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D.
2. An small inscription that mentions Pilate.
3. Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
4. A few philosophical works and letters by Seneca
5. A poem by Seneca’s nephew Lucan
6. A book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier
7. Fragments of the novel “Satyricon” by Gaius Petronius
8. A few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius
9. Pliny the Elder’s Historia Naturalis
10. fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus
11. A history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
12. From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews).
13. From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus’ biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany.
THAT IS ALL WE HAVE OF ANY TYPE OF ROMAN LITERATURE FROM THE 1ST CENTURY!
In comparison we have over 24,000 parchments of copies of the New Testament writings, all 1st century writings, many BY eyewitnesses. I know you don’t want to consider them because of their “bias,” but if we are going to honestly look at the evidence, we have to acknowledge that the vast number of historians conclude that the Biblical accounts are historically reliable- beyond a doubt.
You insist on calling the existence of Jesus the “Christian myth” – fine, your opinion. But based on the same “lack” of evidence you are pointing to, you’d have to say that many other ancient figures did not exist… something that most trained historians, who know this subject much better than you or I ever will, have NEVER done. In fact, Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who has no theological bias (not a Christian), indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous non-Christian personages – yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.
In short (I know, too late) you are demanding a level of evidence for the existence of Jesus that NOBODY demands for any 1st century (or older) personality. The experts DON’T demand it because it is highly improbable that it even exists (due to the amount of time that has passed since then). You, on the other hand, DO demand it because you have an agenda to debunk Jesus. If you’re going to do that, AND be intellectually honest, then you MUST demand the same level of evidence to prove the existence of any other 1st century person. Are you willing to do that? I doubt it…
I think, too, a case can be made that a more effective argument is the separation of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth from the Christian myth.
Then again, this all goes back to my deism, which is probably beside the point.
Been caught lieing huh?
Plus even your athiest friend Spider Man says Jesus is real right their on the front page of his blog.
So? Josh saying something does not make it true.
I would also like you to point out my lie.
If you are referring to my lack of response to Carey, I simply do not have the time for a response right now, espeically since he did not provide evidence that shows Jesus existed, which is what this discussion is about.
Carey:
I am truly sorry if you feel that I misrepresented you, which was by no means my intent.
I simply copied and pasted your list of texts and showed that they were all written late enough that they only indicated that Christianity’s mythology had spread years after Jesus’ alleged death.
Am I being unreasonable to ask for a reliable source that wrote while Jesus lived? I don’t think so – it may be unreasonable for, say a Roman king or governor or some such, but then again, people were not running around spreading mythology about Roman kings and governors.
Jesus really is a tricky subject, and the standard rules of thumb for history can’t apply to him, as he is truly a unique case.
I do not demand such evidence for other first century individuals because they are distinctly different cases than Jesus, a supposed miracle worker and god incarnate.
As for the historicity of the bible, I think that any serious historian will tell you of their historical accuracy – they are anonymous texts with outlandish claims and an eerie similarity to pagan mythology and many central characters with no perceived historical basis.
Thanks again for responding, sorry if you think I misrepresented you.
‘”Plus even your athiest friend Spider Man says Jesus is real right their on the front page of his blog”
>>FOR the very last time i am an agnostic you idiot, and did you care to read further xian, i said this because i had never heard or seen proof of the otherwise jesus not being real, now i have Jesus was not real, but a fictional character, meant to make followers believe they were close to god.
lol He doesn’t do his research, just pulls stuff out of his ass.
Did you see in his new post how he calls me a crackhead terrorist and says alex (he’s a Christian) is a retard?
This due has some serious issues.
No i havent read his newest post. going there to read it now, did you see my new post about that comment Jeff sent to me, hes a kid who goes to our school and apparently does not like me, lol go figure a prep who hates me hahahhaha
Yah i read it, what an idiot, he thinks your harassing him, hah! he insults you in various ways daily where-as you only point out the common opinion of him, and he even calls himself the names you call him in his own blog, if you’ve read them all.
I haven’t read all his posts, but I’ve read most of them. That was more than enough for me!
PS What’s Jeff’s e-mail so I can check him out on myspace, see if I know him?
yah i read all of em i get bored man.
here you go
[removed]
ps check this out
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff151/__josh_webb__/BAnner-1.png
Hey, I like that!
So would like me to make you a banner of that sort?
That would be cool, but I don’t know if I would use it I like the O skyline as my little logo.
Unless you could incorporate tha Omaha skyline somehow…
I prolly can, i need that pic though big one too, and thats O? I did not know that
Google image search Omaha Skyline. Yeah, that’s the O. Don’t you recognize the 1st national tower on the far right?
OK ill try and find it.
Here’s a couple of the better images of our amazing city.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e0/600px-Omaha_skyline.jpg
http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles19801.jpg
http://www.gocitywide.com/Omaha/images/omaha-resized.jpg
http://steveadamsomaha.tripod.com/Jim_Burnett_Aphotos/OmahaDowntown.jpg
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com/omaha.html
they are all great photos.
Sorry so long on a resonse Chillin…. a busy weekend…
I understood that you copies my list and made comments. No problem there. I just never said that those were “proofs” of Jesus’ existence. What I DID try to say is that those authors, ancient authors, much closer to Jesus’ day than we are, some of which were antagonistic toward Jesus’ message (Jews, Romans), spoke as if He were real. They NEVER resorted to calling Him a fabrication altogether. That alone should give reason for us to “pause” in any insistence that He was… that was my only original point.
In regard to your response to my claim that we can not legitimately hold Jesus to a different standard of proof…
For historical research to be valid, is HAS to follow certain guidelines regarding EVERY person it studies. We can’t make exceptions in the case of Jesus just because His claims may seem outlandish or unbelievable to our modern ears. To do so is to throw out any objective basis for your analysis of the historical existence of the person – and to thereby bring skepticism to YOUR claims about the person… in this case Jesus. So, when you say that Jesus, because His claims were so wild, needs to be held to a stricter standard of proof – you are willingly and admittedly stepping outside the recognized boundaries and guidelines of historical research in saying so, and are thereby putting your insistence that Jesus is only a myth on very shaky, historically unreliable ground.
Regarding why there is little eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ existence outside the Bible – 1) He was from an obscure town and region. 2) He was a common man, not a king or other noteable figure 3) His was not a political movement or uprising, which would be much more likely to gain the attention of His contemporary historians 4) His claims were opposed and serious attempts were made at suppressing them (much like a book-burning in more recent times), thereby possibly having some of the once-existent evidence destroyed. 5) Very few “enemies” of a person have the integrity to even admit the basics about the person they oppose. They do everything they can to discredit him, in any way they can.
YET, given all this against His person being verifiably known, there is still JUST AS MUCH evidence for His existence as for any other 1st century personality, including kings and other high profile figures. That is remarkable, lending even more credibility to His historicity. (Granted, not a “proof” but surely noteable and worthy of consideration).
Regarding the historicity of the Bible – you’re just flat out wrong on that one. MOST (granted, not all) reliable, respected, mainstream historians (Christian OR NOT) assert that the Bible is historically accurate in its claims regarding events, people, dates, etc. and therefore has no legitimate reason to be doubted in the “factuality” of the other accounts it provides.
In addition, there has never been any archaeological evidence to support that the Bible is untrue. In fact, every archaeological find to date that has been in any way related to the Biblical accounts has AFFIRMED that what the Bible recorded in regard to the person or event the artifact speaks to, was accurate. There have been times when some finding was claimed to refute the Bible’s assertions, but in time, with other findings to illuminate the previous one, such claims have been found to be in error, thereby once again validating the Bible’s accuracy in regards to historical issues it records.
This brings me to some very clear differences between the Bible and actual mythology. Mythology is not prone to giving dates, historical names, and other “markers” of when it’s stories occurred. The most it might say is, “In the time of…” and then tell its story. The Bible however, in numerous cases, speaks very specifically of historical figures, rulers, their reigns, and even the dates of their rules as markers for when its recorded events took place. That’s far and above what mythology typically does. That’s an indication that the author deliberately attempted to substantiate their claims IN TIME, not in mythological fantasy. And given when many of these were written, the authors were doing so in the full hearing (reading) of many who were eyewitenesses to the events they recorded. If their accounts were not true, they would have been refuted IN THEIR DAY and their circuluation would have waned into obscurity. But what we find in the case of the Bible, is that just the opposite is what happened. No significant opposition to its claims were able to bring such doubt upon it. The only reasonable conclusion is that the majority of contemporary people did not disagree with it’s assertions.
Thanks for responding, I’ll reply within the night, or tomorrow at latest.
I do not know of any mainstream historians of Greco-Roman antiquity, Christian or not, who doubt the historicity of the personage of Jesus. This is truly a unique claim – to say that Jesus did not even exist. The miracles, the resurrection, etc. are another thing altogether. Here, one either believes or doesn’t believe they occurred – obviously there’s nothing in the texts that can prove or disprove the historicity of a miracle.
But I think you might be barking up the wrong tree to say Jesus didn’t exist. That’s never really been up for debate. Basically, you would have to prove somehow that Roman historians (no friends of Christians in the first century) were somehow “co-conspirators” with the promulgators of what you call “Christian mythology”.
Don’t forget, Josephus was born and raised in Jerusalem and then spent most of his life in Rome writing his polemics and histories – all in the first century. He had access to all the official Roman records – including those made while Pilate was Procurator of Roman Judea. To argue that Josephus’ testament to the historicity of Jesus, you would have to argue either that a) Josephus didn’t have access to accurate records written within his life-time, or b) Josephus was was a conspirator with Christians and their “mythologies”. I’m not sure you could make a compelling argument in either case.
mikkail:
First off, where are these records of which you speak?
Second, I don’t consider it a conspiracy, but a spread of lies akin to rumor.
Third, to all the Christians on here:
your holy books are mythology, but you take offense to the word because you believe them. How would you like me to refer to their mythological nature without offending you that much?
You are certainly entitled to think of the message of the gospels as a spread of lies, but be careful not to mistake the gospels for myth (you do not really mean Christian “mythology” because “mythology” technically is the study of myths, not the myths themselves; believers of myths are not “mythologists”; it is often the other way around!).
Myths are usually thought of in terms of tradition, and take centuries to develop, under specific circumstances (like “legend”). Their purpose often is to explain where a certain people come from. The Exodus story, for instance, could be considered a myth, because it explains the founding of the ancient Israelites in the “promised land”. What interests mythologists is not so much the historicity of the events (whether they actually happened, because who can say?), but the development of the myth as we have it, that is, the interweaving of traditions and their reception by future generations.
The story of Jesus in the gospels is not the same thing as a myth like the Exodus story because the gospels depict historical personages, and were received by people of the same general historical milieu. Their function is very different from myth – but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the contents of their message is true. Myth is not the opposite of “false”. Myth is a genre of literature, and the gospels do not fall under this genre. You can call them, perhaps, “propagandist literature” but they have never been thought of as “myths”.
As for those mysterious Roman records, the Romans kept meticulous records, especially of political dealings (e.g. executing extreme nationalists like Jesus). With the arrival of Pontius Pilate in 26 in Judea, Josephus’ information about the province becomes much fuller (in his Jewish Antiquities). He is clearly working from official Roman records – how else does he get his information about Roman activity in Palestine from 26 – 36 AD? For instance, he relates detailed facts like Pilate’s work on the Jerusalem aqueduct to improve the water supply.
In other words, if you are going to doubt the sheer historical existence of Jesus, you also have to doubt historical figures like Pontius Pilate, Herod, Valerius Gratus (the procurator from 15 – 26, before Pilate), and essentially any mention of historical figures by historians who were not their contemporaries.
Is that what you mean? That we can’t trust that people existed unless we have access to written accounts by contemporaries? You are certainly entitled to that view, although it won’t get you very far in ancient history! Part of what we have to do is put together a puzzle, to reconstruct historical events in the ancient world. It turns out, by archaeological evidence, that sometimes we’re wrong; but we’re right more often than not.
p.s. I meant, of course, that “myth is not the opposite of true”.
Mikkail,
I have to disagree on your view of the gospels not being myth. Alot of the story parts are in agreement with the myths of the area at the time. Just a few are:
born of a virgin
born in a cave or stable
his birth was announced by angels, a star, wise men, and/or shepherds
he performed many miracles
cruxified, died, went to hell and rose from the dead after 3 days
As far as using Josephus, neither of the two passages in which he mentions Jesus are considered genuine. Some believe that he did discuss Jesus and the passage was tampered with later by the church. Then there are those who believe the entire passage was added by the church to give authenticity to the Jesus myth.
mikkail:
OK, how about “propaganda-laced fairy tale”?
I call it myth because of all the silliness, like virgin births and dead people coming back to life and everything.
Josephus’ piece about Jesus has been pretty widely accepted as written – at least mostly – by later Christians.
Also, if there were contemporary records of Jesus for Josephus to study, why don’t we have them now? Where’d they go?
Although I sense the integrity of this dialog going southward, textual authenticity is only doubted in one of the two passages in the Antiquities where Jesus is mentioned, the so-called Testamonium Flavianum (AJ 18.3.3). The authenticity is doubted not only because of an apparent ideological non sequitur (i.e. Josephus not being a Christian), and for reasons of the style of the Greek, which is inconsistent with J’s style and probably represents an interpolation, but also – and this is the really damning evidence – Origen (3rd c.), whose works predate the earliest extant manuscripts of J, doesn’t mention it.
On the other hand, there’s no reason to doubt the authenticity of J’s mention of Jesus at AJ 20.9: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ (Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ), whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” Origen mentions it in several places, and it’s consistent with J’s style.
As for the gospels being myth, not even non-Christian scholars categorize them as myth, so I don’t know what to tell you there.
Ciao.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
http://www.asktheatheist.com/question/josephus_on_jesus
I’m gonna turn this over to people more qualified than myself.
“I’m gonna turn this over to people more qualified than myself.”
Why is that? And why should you trust them? If you were to approach the problem of the historical existence of Jesus from a squarely objective standpoint, as many scholars have, you would find the consensus to be that he existed. This does not mean you have to believe in the gospels.
“Atheist” sources are no more objective than “Christian” sources. True scholarship is done in as objective a manner as possible. How do you know you can trust an “atheist” source any more than a “Christian” source? Isn’t it likely to be just as biased in its viewpoint?
As an atheist who only reads atheist apologetic sources, one is bound to suffer from the same kind of tunnel vision as a Christian who only reads Christian apologetic sources. We have all met that kind of atheist, and we have all met that kind of Christian. They are ideologues, and are only able to see things one way.
That’s why serious scholarship exists – to free intellectual inquiry from the influence of ideology.
I mean, is it really surprising that an atheist might want to suggest that Jesus never lived? Isn’t that the last person you’d want to get your information from? Someone who had a vested interest in making one claim over another?
There are plenty of books to read from the major academic presses which treat this question and other such questions fairly. If you want to address the question seriously, I suggest you turn to real scholarship, and not websites.
I’ve read both sides of the argument, actually. I read a lot of Christian apologetics.
So far I’ve found that the Christian arguments are pretty weak.
I’m turning over this discussion to other people because I’m not incredibly versed in such matters.
As for your general argument, I still don’t see what records you are claiming Josephus wrote from.
“So far I have found the Christian arguments pretty weak.”
Do you mean for the existence of Jesus? Or for the truth of the gospels? For the existence of Jesus, I recommend not reading sources claiming to be Atheist or Christian, but serious scholarly works like this standard:
Smallwood, E. Mary, THE JEWS UNDER ROMAN RULE: From Pompey to Diocletian. A study in political relations (Brill: 2001).
That way, you know you aren’t being fooled into thinking one way or the other by only being presented with ideological arguments. Forget apologetics on either side of the coin. Read the facts as we have them, presented to you in full, without regard for their ideological consequences. Then you will be educated and you can decide for yourself.
Historiography is much more exact that you give it credit for being. Scholars of ancient history take it for granted that historians of any age who are not writing about contemporary history (pretty much all of the ancient historians except, remarkably, Josephus on the Bellum Judaicum) use records and sources (which we no longer have). Herodotus was famous for going out and doing research himself (how much you believe his research is another question!). The records Josephus had access to during his stay in Rome under the emperor Vespasian would have been pretty accurate, especially concerning Roman political dealings. It’s obvious from the details of his account. Once you become better acquainted with the methods of historiography, it will be much clearer.
I hope for your sake that you decide to take the question more seriously, and do a little research for yourself, so you don’t have to rely on ideologues who might want to mislead you. Then, whatever answer you come to, you know it will be your own.
Uh… Okay!
I almost forgot. Sonicdeluxe – you are referring to the work of Sir James Frazer, the famous author of The Golden Bough. Frazer’s work is certainly seminal in the field of comparative religion, but even Frazer (himself not a Christian) had to concede that:
“The doubts which have been cast on the historic reality of Jesus are in my judgment unworthy of serious attention. Quite apart from the positive evidence of history and tradition, the origin of a great religious and moral reform is inexplicable without the personal existence of the great reformer. To dissolve the founder of Christianity into a myth … is hardly less absurd than it would be to do the same for Mohammed, Luther, and Calvin. Such dissolving views are for the most part the dreams of students who know the world chiefly through its pale reflection in books” (The Golden Bough, Part VI, “The Scapegoat” p. 412).
Frazer is misinterpreted all the time. Just look at the scholarly debate on magic vs. religion.
“I almost forgot. Sonicdeluxe – you are referring to the work of Sir James Frazer, the famous author of The Golden Bough.”
Sorry, but I’ve never heard of the chap. I was referring to tons of different literature that I have read over the last 20 years regarding comparative religion. Personally, I think Jesus did exist but I also don’t think it matters. I think Paul is the one who distorted Jesus’s message into something for the Gentiles. I say that the gospels are a myth because of the definition of the word myth.
According to my dictionary (The Merriam Webster Dictionary, ©1994): MYTH – a usu. legendary narrative that presents part of the beliefs of a people or explains a practice or natural phenomenon.
Following that definition, the gospels are myth. Maybe scholars have a different meaning for the word “myth”, I don’t know.
Sonic – A disbeliever who’s never heard of Frazer!? Wow! You have some reading to do. He influenced a whole generation of apostasy (including T. S. Eliot’s THE WASTE LAND, fittingly).
He is the one who first brought forward the suggestion that the information about the life of Jesus from the gospels and Pauline epistles was the product of mythologizing. In making his case he pointed out particular aspects of the story which seemed myth-like, like the ones you suggested in your previous reply, and attributed their inception to pagan sources (like Lamb of God, fertility gods who die and rise again, etc.).
Of course the problem with this analysis is clear, and Frazer’s thesis has long been relegated to fantasy even by secular scholars in the field. The gospels simply aren’t good enough to be myth. Their language is common and unpoetic (called koine Greek, common Greek, the vernacular), they lack poetic detail (pagan myths about gods are comparatively arabesque), and they contain historical information about historical events (like the census of Augustus, the trial of Barabbas, etc.). Legends are more detailed because the gods of legends are invented.
If all you mean by “myth” is that you don’t believe it, fine. But no one thinks that Jesus is a mythical figure like Aeneas or Achilles. Apples and oranges.
“Of course the problem with this analysis is clear, and Frazer’s thesis has long been relegated to fantasy even by secular scholars in the field. The gospels simply aren’t good enough to be myth. Their language is common and unpoetic (called koine Greek, common Greek, the vernacular), they lack poetic detail (pagan myths about gods are comparatively arabesque), and they contain historical information about historical events (like the census of Augustus, the trial of Barabbas, etc.). Legends are more detailed because the gods of legends are invented. ”
So the lack of poetic writing proves them to be true?
Remember that a real setting doesn’t prove that the stories are real; many works of fiction take place in real places and settings.
“So the lack of poetic writing proves them to be true?”
Not at all! You are welcome to think of the gospels as fiction. But fiction is not the same thing as myth. Obviously, people who don’t believe the gospels think of them as a kind of historical fiction. But myth is different from fiction.
It is historical fiction in a way, but it also has many components of myth, as sonicdeluxe pointed out.
Christianity, in practice, is a confluence of the wisdom and perhaps mystery cults of the Greeks (e.g. Christ as the logos, the word) and the scriptural traditions of the Hebrews (the christos, messiah, anointed, like David). Certain aspects of the mass can be traced back to the Roman priesthood. Paul had a “gymnastic” education, that is, a traditional Greek education, reading Aratus and Homer and Plato. You can find elements of that in the letters.
What you have is not a man in Jesus who comes and “founds” a religion. You have a confluence of cultures who, in their own way, try to describe who this man was and what he did. You can believe that the first Christians were mistaken about what he did, or simply made up what he did, but they were anything but mythologists. After all, they were uneducated fishermen from Galilee – what did they know of pagan mystery cults?
Mikkail,
You said,
“and they contain historical information about historical events (like the census of Augustus, the trial of Barabbas, etc.). ”
Are you saying that there is historical information in the gospels, such as the census of Augustus and the trial of Barabbas?
I have often read that there is nothing of historical value in the gospels, at least not on the surface.
What do they teach in schools these days!
Some historians have been reluctant to call the gospels historiography for obvious reasons, because they contain accounts of seemingly incredible events. This does not mean, of course, that the gospels are without historically accurate information, corroborated by other sources (Josephus, Philo, epigraphic evidence) as well as our general knowledge of Roman occupied Palestine in the first half of the first century. A good parallel is Herodotus, who reports about giant ants in eastern provinces of the Persian Empire that devour camels (Histories 3.105). This seems far fetched, but historians still recognize that Herodotus can be counted on for information about the Persian war.
Tribute had been paid to Rome by the Jewish client kingdom ever since 63 B.C. in the form of a tax on the produce of the land (called tributum soli). When Judea became an official province, the Jews were also liable for the personal tax paid by provincials (the tributum capitis). Augustus appointed the legate of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, to conduct a census in Judea as well as Syria for purposes of taxation. Everyone was responsible for paying a denarius for the tributum capitis. The responsibility for collection this tax was farmed out by the Romans to local Jewish “publicani” or publicans (i.e. tax-collectors). Zacchaeus of the gospels was a senior tax-official of a customs post at the Jordan crossing near Jericho on the frontier between the province and Peraea. Matthew was one such publican.
The modus operandi of Roman provincial government was to keep intact the local governing body. In Jerusalem this was the Sanhedrin (the Council) whose leader was the High Priest (e.g. Caiaphas under Pilate). The Sanhedrin was the judicial body of local affairs, but for political offenses, jurisdiction was handed over, by law, to the Roman governor. Jesus’ trial took place in the Antonia, the praetorium, which was an old fortress (built by Antony) adjacent to the Temple. Pilate, the governor from 26 – 36 AD, who normally shacked up in Caesarea (on the coast, the major port city) would have come as governor to Jerusalem during major festivals (in this case, obviously, Passover, the Pascha).
The trial before Pilate was what was called a “cognitio extra ordinem,” a trial conducted without a jury at the discretion of the governor, who could pass sentence by virtue of the powers delegated to him by the emperor. The reason the Sanhedrin is described in the gospels as bringing up Jesus’ claim to be “King of the Jews” is because they want a conviction of maiestas (political insurgence), a serious charge in the second half of the reign of Tiberius.
Barabas, whose full name was, actually, Jesus bar Abas, was a well known insurgent of the time. Pilate dealt with a lot of political insurgents from the Jews during his 10 year tenure as governor of Judea. This insurgency would climax in the Jewish War of 66 – 70 AD.
You might ask yourself how people of the same general historic milieu only a generation later would be expected to believe in made up political figures and historical events. Obviously, the scenes would have to “fit” into the general picture. The Book of Acts also contains much reliable historical information. What did you think, that people were being force-fed myths? What reason would they have to believe pure fiction?
I feel like I’ve written a novel, but it’s important to consider historical data aside from apologetics. In general, I recommend reading historiography about the Roman occupation of Palestine, and not apologetics. There’s a whole field of ancient history that doesn’t give two sh*ts about whether Jesus was who he said He was. Then you can make up your own mind, based on fact, not ideology.
No, I don’t think they were being force-fed myths, they didn’t have to be. The entire area was already full of myths, myths that were all similar. Besides, look how quick people started to believe that Elvis was still alive after he died. It doesn’t take long from the time myths are created to the time that myths are believed.
Maybe I have misrepresented myself here. When I say the gospels are myths it is from the spiritual aspect. I know references to historical events are mentioned but don’t alot of them not lineup with the supposed timeline of the gospels? Like, Herod died in 4 BC, four years before Jesus was even born.
I hope I didn’t offend with the last post but I just wanted to see what you would say about those two incidents from the gospels. Like I said before, I think the evidence points toward Jesus existing. What I find funny about the Barabbas episode from the gospels, we are to believe that the jews had a choice to release either “Jesus, son of the father” or “Jesus, Son of the Father”. Is there evidence for Barabbas outside of the gospels?
The ridiculous part of the census of Augustus is that everyone had to travel back to their homeland for the census. Both of these events tells me that even though they may be based on actual history, the story is exaggerated with mythic fluff.
Anyway I will admit to reading mostly atheist or anti-religion type books. I find the actual history more tedious but I can broaden my horizon a little. Any suggestions?
Great conversation going on here. I should have stuck around.
Chris
http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com/