Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[dogsgod]

Why is it the Greek mythology is considered a myth but Christianity is not? what makes a myth and what makes Christianity not a myth?

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes Christianity is not based on mythology and therefore not mythical.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

And that's just to name two.

 

[Oberon]

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes Christianity is not based on mythology and therefore not mythical.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If

However, when there is universal agreement by ALL experts in the field on a particular issue (like the historicity of Jesus) than that is something to be reckoned with. It isn't a matter of "Professor so-and-so" believes Jesus is historical. It is that all biblical/NT professors do, not to mention virtually all ancient historians.

If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

What if an arguer appeals only to websites which contain basic errors, displays over and over again by making errors himself that he isn't familiar with the field, and hasn't researched the topic at all (like you)?

What if the other arguer appeals not to "an expert" but to unanimity in the field? And also presents a synopsis of the reasons why every single expert from vastly diverse backgrounds, and almost all ancient historians, accept that Jesus was historical?

 

[dogsgod]

However, when there is universal agreement by ALL experts in the field on a particular issue (like the historicity of Jesus) than that is something to be reckoned with. It isn't a matter of "Professor so-and-so" believes Jesus is historical. It is that all biblical/NT professors do, not to mention virtually all ancient historians.

Bandwagon fallacy, because a lot or most believe doesn't rule out the necessity for reasoning and evidence to support the beliefs.

What if an arguer appeals only to websites which contain basic errors, displays over and over again by making errors himself that he isn't familiar with the field, and hasn't researched the topic at all (like you)?

shooting the messenger, regardless of the media source, demonstrate specifically what is in error rather than exhibit a prejudice towards websites.

What if the other arguer appeals not to "an expert" but to unanimity in the field? And also presents a synopsis of the reasons why every single expert from vastly diverse backgrounds, and almost all ancient historians, accept that Jesus was historical?

By all means, provide their evidence or be guilty of committing the bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Oberon]

Bandwagon fallacy, because a lot or most believe doesn't rule out the necessity for reasoning and evidence to support the beliefs.

No, but when ALL of the experts believe, usually there is a reason. And when someone like you who hasn't done the research disagees, why should anyone pay attention?

shooting the messenger, regardless of the media source, demonstrate specifically what is in error rather than exhibit a prejudice towards websites.

I did. I even not only numerous errors in the websites you provided, I also listed a number of basic errors you have made on the subject. Of course, you have added a number since then.

 

[Oberon]

shooting the messenger,.

The problem is you aren't a messenger. You haven't done the requisite research in order to pass on anything worthwhile. For the sake of others, I have included below a representative sample of your errors (either your own, or from your sources), ranging from the very basic and unforgivable to the more understandable.

With all of the below, there is no reason to consider anything you have to say on the subject as worth contemplation, because you lack the knowledge to 1. distinguish valid sources from poor ones or 2. make a judgement on the topic itself.

Acts makes no reference to a Jude.

The first of many basic errors indicating a lack of familiarity with the texts, and that dogsgod simply doesn't know the field AT ALL. Acts 1:13-
και ὅτε εισηλθον, ανέβησαν εις το υπερωον οὗ ἦσαν καταμένοντες, ὅ τε Πέτρος και ᾿Ιάκωβος και ᾿Ιωάννης και ᾿Ανδρέας, Φίλιππος και Θωμας, Βαρθολομαιος και Ματθαιος, ᾿Ιάκωβος ᾿Αλφαίου και Σίμων ο ζηλωτης και ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου

And when they came in, walking up into the upper room where they lived, both Pater and Jams and John and Andrew, philip and thomas, bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Jude of James

accept the Catholic traditional view that this is a reference to a literal brother of Jesus but in actuality there is no basis for it.

This one is classic. One of the foundations of catholic theology/belief is the perpetual virginity of mary. In other words, the catholics believe that Jesus HAD NOT full siblings.

He does not say that James is Jesus' brother, he states that James is the Lord's brother, or brother in/of the Lord.

Here is dogsgod pretending he can read the text on a deeper level than just whatever translation he finds. He has yet to explain how the genitive in this passage should be interpreted as in.

He's never referred to as Jesus' brother in the epistles. The Josephus reference is a later Christian tampering.

Here is a very basic error that shows a lack of familiarity with the texts. James is referred to as Jesus' brother in Galatians 1:19 heteron de ton apostolon ouk eidon ei me Iakobon ton adelphon tou kyriou/ but I did not see any other apostles except James the brother of the Lord.

Where do you get the notion that he was initiated by Peter? Paul states that he went to Jerusalem where he got "acquainted" with Peter. It sounds like they shared a few brewsky. His point was that he was now member of the faithful and that Peter et al were no longer out to kill him for trying to destroy the church.

Here we have an inability to read the texts themselves. Paul uses specifical vocabulary (which Dogsgod can't read) to indicate the nature of his visit. Paul uses an unusual term here, which means "to inquire into." It is the verbal form of the greek word for history. If he has simply wanted to get acquainted with Peter, the word would be gignosko or something else, not historesai.

The fact that most believe is of little consequence. Most scholars are believing Christians with few exceptions. Robert M. Price and Albert Schweitzer are the only two Christians I can name that admit Jesus is a mythical character. Most of the so called experts believed the world was flat for most of civilization. Most is a poor argument, fallacious at best.

There are several problems with this post. The first is that Albert Schweitzer never said that Jesus was a mythical character. The second is that there are many expert historians who aren't christian and who nonetheless acknowledge that Jesus was a historical person. And finally, most is a good argument, when it comes to the opinions of the people who have studied the issues the most.

Oberon, the gospels consist primarily of a written tradition. Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with their own birth stories added to the beginning, as well as their own post resurrection stories. The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q. There may be some oral tradition sprinkled in the story line, but the method used to write the gospels is called midrash. It was a method of taking lines from scripture and arranging them in such a way as to tell a new story that reflect the new times. Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT.

Here again we have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the gospels and of midrash. Dogsgod obviously hasn't read enough midrash with which to compare, nor any requisite scholarship on the composition of the gospels. Mark used oral traditions to compose his gospel (in fact, scholars have pointed to various parts of mark's narrative which were composed before mark, probably in an oral form). Q likewise is a record of oral traditions, which either remained in oral form until used by Matthew and Luke, or was recorded before them. In any case the fact the Jesus tradition was at first circulated orally and that the gospel authors (as well as Paul) were aware of these traditions and wrote them down is not doubted by any one who works in the field.

Acts is a work of second century myth making

Here again we have evidence for a basic lack of familiarity with relevent issues. Acts and Luke were written by the same author, as two volumes of the same work. This is a very basic part of NT research, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with NT scholarship should know this. Acts was written in roughly the same time as Luke, probably in the 80s, but certainly in the first century.

Josephus
Reference to Jesus as brother of James
Oh well, wrong Jesus, too bad so sad.

This is interesting, because it is one of the few direct citations from a primary source that dogsgod uses, and it shows either an inability to understand them or that dogsgod simply doesn't read them carefully enough, or again a lack of relevent knowledge (how title, names, nicknames, etc were used to differentiate between people in ancient times). The Jesus' here are clearly different, one being "Jesus being called Christ" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus."

There's problems with the line,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one?

This error is similar to the above, in that it displays an inability to capably access the texts, only here the mistake is more understandable because it results from an inability to read greek. The Jesus idea is not paramount in the text. He is used only as an identifier for James (i.e. to distinguish this James from other James's).

Epistle to the Hebrews 8.4 If he [Jesus] had lived on earth he would not have been a priest.

Here again is a basic in ability to read the text, only again it is understandable because it results from a lack of knowledge of greek. The condition in Hebrews is a PRESENT contrary to fact (also called unreal) condition, and therefore should be translated "if Jesus were here now, he would not be a priest."

There was no calenders, people kept track of history by events taking place when so and so ruled or governed.

This is a small mistake, but it reveals such an utter lack of knowledge concerning the culture in discussion that it is worth mentioning. Of course they had calendars

Philo was not writing a religious text when he wrote of Pilate.

Actually, this tract (although less theological than others) is still filled with theology throughout.

Yes by his own admission, Papias preferred hearsay to anything written.

This is important, because one of dogsgod's claims is that the gospels are clearly distinguishable from ancient history. Yet here we have a statement which shows a complete lack of understanding of the methods utilized by ancient historians, who ALL used, and usually preferred, oral acounts.

Bang on, and not only that but it would have been a tremendous embarrassment for the authors of Luke and Matthew had they known their copies would become part of a canon with gMark for the world to see their plagiarism revealed. They copied gMark and they copied from a common sayings source.

This reveals the same problem as above: a lack of understanding concerning the nature of ancient historical texts. Plaigarism was common, and would not only have been no issue, it would have been expected. The use of the word as a criticism of Luke and Matthew is an anachronism.

 

[dogsgod]

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.


Pulling quotes out of context, and from different threads no less, is not appropriate.

 

[themadhair]

But how many ancient sources or how much scholarship have your read that would qualify you to make such a distinction?

I based my opinion on reading the NT and associated non-biblical gospels. They tell the story of a miracle worker whom they were glorifying for the purpose of preaching. This is how I read those materials and the reason why I believe Jesus was a concoction.

In other words, what qualifications or research are you bringing to the table when you say that "such a differentiation isn't justified"

None at all. I simply do not see sufficient reason why any character can be labelled mythical but not Jesus.

If you haven't studied this, than I would suggest before you make claims on the historicity of the gospels, or compare them to other ancient historical texts, you either read the texts or scholarship on them, and preferably both.

If you, as the self-appointed representative of that scholarship, cannot present a reason I find valid to change my opinion then why bring this up? As I have said, my reasoning is really quite simple on this.

As for the miracle working, their is no reason to suppose that they didn't actually happen, in that Jesus, like many other historical figure, was thought to work miracles and did things interpreted as miracles by others.

The fact that they are miracles sort of renders them susceptible. There is little interpretation to be had over rising the dead for example – and I reject such things as being impossible.

That is only true if you are coming from a post-enlightenment background. History, since the term acquired its specialized usage (based largely on Herodotus) has meant an inquiry into "what happened" in the past. However, only within the last few centuries has this been further limited by the assumption that what is fantastical or miraculous cannot be historical. Plenty of historians started from the point of few that fantastical elements were an aspect of reality and therefore of history.

You really aren’t to going to get far with me by trying to justify that the recording of miracles isn’t sufficient justification to hold scepticism.

In fact, the bulk of the NT is entirely historically plausible, even the miracles.

I assume this was a misstatement.

Jesus performing healings or exorcisms doesn't make him or these event implausible.

Raising from the dead is ‘healing’ now? What would have made Jesus implausible for you and your fellow historians???

However, with only a few exceptions (raising the dead, arising from the dead, etc) there is very little of Jesus' mission which may be deemed a prioiri "ahistorical" (even the miracles, for the reasons above. Just because the miracles cannot be said to have taken place historically, doesn't mean that the events themselves which were interpreted as miracles did not occut).

There is a possibility that these stories have a basis in fact. I just don’t believe that it was a person called Jesus that provided that basis.

So how do you explain the sources? Why is it that Matthew and Luke contain common material apart from Mark, but both seem to be aware of Mark, while John and Thomas contain such independent material. Why do Paul's reporting of Jesus' teachings on divorce cohere with gospel accounts?

I have no idea what was going through the minds of people who decided to write about events, some of which contradict what we know about nature, or their purpose.

What mythic godman cult can you point to where an account is written of the godman's life and mission only 30-40 years after it took place?

Off hand – none. I don’t see why this makes Jesus a historical certainty though.

And even if they believed that Jesus was the son of god incarnate, that doesn't preclude the possibility that he was actually a person. In fact, given how early christianity appeared, it makes it just about impossible that he wasn't.

It is possible, but I dispute how you can claim it to be ‘just about impossible that he wasn't’.

Yes, but by your own admission you haven't studied this at all. I have.

You haven’t presented me a convincing reason to think it more reasonable to assume he existed.

We can say it with historical certainty. There is a reason why every expert in this field agrees that Jesus is historical. Before you make judgements on his historicity, I would recommend actually studying it.

I’ve already referenced an exert in the field who disagrees, but that was more so to counter the unanimity argument than add anything to my side. The judgement I have made really isn’t that complicated or farfetched – and I don’t think you have presented an argument that I have found convincing yet.

So how do you explain the fact that all of the people who have studied the matter the most, whether Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, Christian, etc, disagre with you, when you by your own admission haven't studied the matter in any depth at all?

Argument ad populum. And I really don’t think you can use the quantifier ‘all’ here either.

 

[Oberon]

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.


Pulling quotes out of context, and from different threads no less, is not appropriate.

Show how I have pulled these quotes out of context. I haven't. You were just plain wrong over and over and over and over again.

And it isn't a diversion. It is central here. You keep making claims about the texts and history in general. Yet your basic lack of knowledge precludes you either from judging your sources or from passing judgement on the issues.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Oberon]

I based my opinion on reading the NT and associated non-biblical gospels.

That really isn't enough. Reading the NT without an understanding of ancient texts of ancient history makes it impossible for you to judge the sources. Your are judging the gospels by modern standards. You should compare them with ancient history and ancient myth.

They tell the story of a miracle worker whom they were glorifying for the purpose of preaching. This is how I read those materials and the reason why I believe Jesus was a concoction.

They tell the story of a miracle worker and a teacher, yes. But your analysis fails to explain christianity. They connocted Jesus, and gave him a historical background, in order to preach him? Why? Cults do not work that way. The cults centered around a mythic foundation locate their gods/founders in times long past, and these gods are usually representations of Forces (nature, justice, love, etc).

The cults centered around historical people (like Qumran or early christianity) keep in oral and/or written tradition the teachings and stories of their founders.

None at all. I simply do not see sufficient reason why any character can be labelled mythical but not Jesus.

"Any character" cannot be labelled mythical. I don't label Apollonius of Tyana or Pythagoras as mythical, yet myths formed around them, and there were plenty of people like Jesus who were credited with miracles and yet were historical. The difference between Jesus and the mythic godmen is one of sources. You haven't read enough of the sources for greek myth in order to make the comparison. The gospels are simply different.

If you, as the self-appointed representative of that scholarship, cannot present a reason I find valid to change my opinion then why bring this up? As I have said, my reasoning is really quite simple on this.

Yes, but your reasoning is based on a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge concerning ancient sources. You lack the knowledge or expertise to differentiate ancient myth from ancient history, having not read enough of either.

The fact that they are miracles sort of renders them susceptible. There is little interpretation to be had over rising the dead for example – and I reject such things as being impossible.

Fine. But rejecting mythic parts of ancient history is no reason to reject it all. There is no reason to say that everything in Herodotus "the father of history" should be discounted because he opens his book by historicizing greek mythic tradition.

You really aren’t to going to get far with me by trying to justify that the recording of miracles isn’t sufficient justification to hold scepticism.

I don't much care. I am not concerned with convincing people who have already made up their minds. You have read virtually no scholarship, yet you are convinced your judgements are sound. You don't care enough to do the leg work to research the issue, so why should I do it for you? I am more concerned with other people who have not made up their minds. I respond to people like you or like dogsgod not to convince you, but so that other people who haven't made up their minds have access to comments by someone who has studied the matter in great detail, and who knows that many of your assumptions are faulty.

I assume this was a misstatement.

You assume incorrectly. There have been plenty of historical events which were interpreted as "miracles" (healings, exorcisms, etc). These events actually happened, like when a fail healer "cures" someone of an illness. That the person was actually "miraculously" cured is ahistorical. That the event took place is not. Jesus likely did go around doing things which were interpreted as miracles. These events happened, and are therefore historical. What is ahistorical is the miraculous nature of the event.

Raising from the dead is ‘healing’ now?

Jesus is rarely depicted as doing this. Most of the miracles involve healing or exorcisms. Many probably do not date back to historical events. Some likely do.

What would have made Jesus implausible for you and your fellow historians???

If the sources were not bioi or did not resemble them, if the traditions concerning Jesus were completely uncontrolled, if (like myth) major parts of the story changed all the time, and most of all if they sources were seperated from the events by centuries rather than years or decades. And so on.

I’ve already referenced an exert in the field who disagrees, but that was more so to counter the unanimity argument than add anything to my side.

No you haven't. Robert Price is not a historian, nor a biblical or NT scholar. He is a systematic theologian.

 

[dogsgod]

Show how I have pulled these quotes out of context. I haven't. You were just plain wrong over and over and over and over again.

And it isn't a diversion. It is central here. You keep making claims about the texts and history in general. Yet your basic lack of knowledge precludes you either from judging your sources or from passing judgement on the issues.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

Even if I am wrong it doesn't dismiss the fact that you haven't shown how this religious text should be viewed as an account of actual events. This story is about a God man that parted the heavens during his baptism causing a booming voice to be heard from above. Another account has an astrologer predicting a new born king that will one day challenge the throne causing Herod to have all the baby boys under two years old to be killed.

You have your work cut out for yourself.

 

[dogsgod]

No you haven't. Robert Price is not a historian, nor a biblical or NT scholar. He is a systematic theologian.

I wonder if Price can recognise a religious text when he comes across one and can make the distinction from a religious text and an historical account. Naw, who are we trying to kid, we'll leave that up to oberon, it would be far too great a task for Price, whom by the way:

At Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary he took an MTS degree in New Testament (1978), then, at Drew University, a PhD in Systematic Theology (1981) and a second PhD in New Testament (1993).

 

[themadhair]

That really isn't enough. Reading the NT without an understanding of ancient texts of ancient history makes it impossible for you to judge the sources. Your are judging the gospels by modern standards. You should compare them with ancient history and ancient myth.

Unless you have additional evidences to present for the NT then I fail to see how going to the source itself can be an incorrect course of action.

The difference between Jesus and the mythic godmen is one of sources. You haven't read enough of the sources for greek myth in order to make the comparison. The gospels are simply different.

False multichotomy.

Yes, but your reasoning is based on a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge concerning ancient sources. You lack the knowledge or expertise to differentiate ancient myth from ancient history, having not read enough of either.

So the NT, in and of itself, is not sufficient to state Jesus existed with historical certainty? In order to reach the conclusion of historical certainty you need extra knowledge and/or expertise? Until I see this expertise presented I’m treating this like a bogus argument.

Fine. But rejecting mythic parts of ancient history is no reason to reject it all. There is no reason to say that everything in Herodotus "the father of history" should be discounted because he opens his book by historicizing greek mythic tradition.

I do not see this as sufficient reason to conclude that Jesus existed. There are things in the NT that are historically accurate and useable as a source for history – I just don’t see why Jesus is one of them.

I don't much care. I am not concerned with convincing people who have already made up their minds. You have read virtually no scholarship, yet you are convinced your judgements are sound. You don't care enough to do the leg work to research the issue, so why should I do it for you? I am more concerned with other people who have not made up their minds. I respond to people like you or like dogsgod not to convince you, but so that other people who haven't made up their minds have access to comments by someone who has studied the matter in great detail, and who knows that many of your assumptions are faulty.

I find the above complete bogus and wonder are you solely relying on argument from authority here. If I get into a discussion about evolutionary theory, for example, I could harp on about overwhelming consensus but it sort doesn’t address the issue. The way I proceed is to present specific examples of evidence, how that evidence works and how that evidence backs evolutionary theory. What I am seeing for is mostly “scholars disagree with you” which may sound convincing to some, but not to me. I sort of require something more concrete that “scholars disagree with you” in order to have something with which to re-evaluate an opinion.

Jesus likely did go around doing things which were interpreted as miracles. These events happened, and are therefore historical. What is ahistorical is the miraculous nature of the event.

I just don’t see it that way. I read the NT and the likely explanation to me is that he never existed, with the NT being wrote for the purposes of providing scripture.

if (like myth) major parts of the story changed all the time

Would the different time frames for his alleged birth qualify for this? I really want to emphasise that I am not intending to be argumentative, but when I read the NT I just do not see existence as being the most likely explanation.

 

[Oberon]

I wonder if Price can recognise a religious text when he comes across one and can make the distinction from a religious text and an historical account.

This shows how little you know of ancient history, which often contained theology or religion.

 

[dogsgod]

This shows how little you know of ancient history, which often contained theology or religion.

I knew it, Price just wasn't up to the task. We shouldn't have wasted our time on him. Live and learn.

 

[dogsgod]

In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.

These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.

And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.

There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was. Robert M. Price




I should have known Price was full of it. What does he know about history?

 

[Oberon]

I knew it, Price just wasn't up to the task. We shouldn't have wasted our time on him. Live and learn.

If you want to read Price, that's find. However, if you want to learn about the historical Jesus, why is it that you only read the most extreme views, all by people who are at best "close" to the field (like Price and your classicist)? Or is it that you made up your mind before you began, tried to find anything which would support your preconceptions, and discovered that virtually every historian and biblical scholar disagrees with you, and you were therefore restricted to websites, a professor of German, and a systematic theologian?

 

[Oberon]

I find the above complete bogus and wonder are you solely relying on argument from authority here. If I get into a discussion about evolutionary theory, for example, I could harp on about overwhelming consensus but it sort doesn’t address the issue. The way I proceed is to present specific examples of evidence, how that evidence works and how that evidence backs evolutionary theory. What I am seeing for is mostly “scholars disagree with you” which may sound convincing to some, but not to me. I sort of require something more concrete that “scholars disagree with you” in order to have something with which to re-evaluate an opinion.

You want me to do your work for you? Ok. Luckily, I already wrote and posted on another forum an introduction to historical Jesus research. This deals not with the historical Jesus per se, but with the question of his basic historicity. In other words, I make no significant judgements concerning Jesus' mission or purpose, what his theology was, etc. I restrict myself to the questio of historicity.

An Introduction to Historical Jesus Study: Part I- The Macro Level

This post is intended to be a general introduction into historical Jesus studies. I have tried to keep the format, language, and style simple and accessible. I will include some specifics, of course, but in general I will give references to which people may go for more information if they choose. Alternatively, if there is any point I make that someone would like more information about, or further clarification, or to express disagreement, feel free, and I will add more on that particular aspect.

I was going to begin with a refutation of the “Jesus is purely mythical” argument which is made quite frequently on various websites and in a number of sensationalist books. However, I have already addressed most of these arguments in my review in this forum on one of these books, “The Jesus Mysteries” by Freke and Gandy, and as many of the arguments are the same in all the other similar works, I won’t go into the issue here (to save space). For those who accept that particular theory, I invite them to read my review, and if they dissent on any or all points, they should feel free to discuss them in either this thread or in the thread of the review itself.


However, although I am not going to address the “mythicist” argument here, I would like to point out something concerning scholarship in general and Jesus scholarship in particular which relates to it. If one doesn’t have the time or inclination for years of study in a particular subject, but nonetheless would like to know about it, the best way is to learn what the consensus of scholarship is on that subject. For example, if I am interested in knowing whether or not there is a link between watching violent movies and aggression, but I don’t want to read and critique every study, I would try to find out what the consensus is of experts in the field of psychology (and perhaps sociology or at least social psychology), especially those who have studied aggression, violence, deviance.

The reason I would do this is that in any given subject there will always be extreme opinions, bad scholarship, incredibly biased works, etc, even by the people with the PhDs. A consensus in scholarship means that a majority of the people who have studied the matter in great depth agree on a particular detail. For this reason, they have a good chance of being right, or at least close to the truth.

Of course, the consensus isn’t always right (and for some issues there is no consensus). Sometimes new research or new artifacts come to light which sway the majority of scholarship in a new direction. Sometimes a terrific study by a great scholar is published, and his work is followed up by others, and consensus shifts. So while going along with the majority isn’t fool proof, it’s not a bad idea if you don’t want to do an enormous amount of research.

I bring this up because when it comes to the issue of the historicity of Jesus (in other words, whether or not Jesus was a historical figure) we have a rare thing in academia: unanimity. This is a special thing in any branch of scholarship, because there is almost always at least one dissenter in any given issue within any particular field.

Yet when it comes to experts in Biblical studies, New Testament studies, Early Christian studies, etc, every single expert (regardless of religious background) believes that Jesus was a historical figure. Even outside these specialties, we have virtually unanimity within related fields (classicists, ancient historians, scholars of ancient Judaism, etc). This almost never happens, and given that all the people who have studies the matter the most intently agree that Jesus existed (although this unanimity doesn’t extend much farther), it is something to be taken seriously.

Most of the books that come out arguing that Jesus was a myth are written by people with no expertise in any field. A few have been written by experts in unrelated fields (notably G. A. Wells, a professor of German studies, although I believe he has recently backed off of his “Jesus is a myth” thesis, and now appears to acknowledge that Jesus was historical). None of them, however, are written by the people who have studied the issue the most intently. I think it is important to point this out, before going on into historical Jesus research.

 

[Oberon]

Where to begin? The most obvious place to begin is with the sources we possess concerning Jesus.

1. Non-christian sources:

There are very few early references to Jesus outside of Christian sources. As I point out in my review of “The Jesus Mysteries” many “mythicists” (those who argue Jesus is pure myth) use this scarcity of material as evidence that Jesus did not exist. However, this betrays a lack of familiarity with the nature of sources for ancient persons. For the vast majority of ancient historical (or possibly historical) figures, we possess very little evidence. Most of the ancient sources have not survived, and these cultures were primarily oral anyway. Also, there is no reason for most outsiders to be interested in Jesus until the Christians became a large enough movement to take notice of (and indeed, this is where we begin to have far more references). It is often pointed out that the Jews at least, such as Philo (a contemporary of Jesus) should have referenced him. Yet this is simply not the case. For example, Philo does not mention John the Baptist (an important Jewish figure of his day), although Josephus does, nor does Josephus mention Paul (although we have his own letters as evidence of his life).

That being said, there are two very important references to Jesus outside of Christian sources, both in the same work. This work is Jewish Antiquities by Josephus. The longer of these references is generally thought to have been edited/altered by Christians. However, most scholars agree that the core of this passage (Antt. 18, 63) is genuine, and a number of arguments have been put forth not only to demonstrate this core exists (see, for example, Geza Vermes, “The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined” Journal of Jewish Studies, 38, 187, 1-10, who shows that much of the language and terminology is typical of Josephus), but also to reconstruct exactly what that core was.

The second reference is far shorter, but is also accepted as genuine (and unaltered) by a vast majority of scholars. This reference (Antt. 20, 200) mentions Jesus only in passing, indentifying him as the brother of James. Because so many people in the ancient Mediterranean had the same name, other means were used to tell people with the same name apart (place of birth, nicknames, name of father or clan, etc). In this passage, Josephus is really using Jesus to distinguish this James (the brother of Jesus) from other people named James.

These two references are very important, because even if we had no other evidence for Jesus (no gospels, letters, etc) these two references would be more evidence for a historical Jesus than for many other people from ancient history. They were written by an ancient historian who lived shortly after Jesus, while people who would have known him (James, for example) were still alive. This is in contrast to the earliest reference to Pythagoras, which comes from Plato, nearly a century after Pythagoras lived. For other ancient people we have even less information.


There are a number of other references to Jesus (in the Talmud, by Tacitus, by Seutonius, by Mara bar Sarapion, and by Thallus), but all of these are more problematic. Some of them are too late to be of much historical value (the Talmud, Tacitus, and Seutonius). As for the other two, Mara bar Sarapion doesn’t specifically use Jesus’ name, and we can’t be entirely sure beyond all doubt that Thallus really did discuss Jesus. However, given all of the above, especially with Josephus, this is a fair amount of evidence for historicity in the ancient world, and it is without the principle and best sources from Jesus, which come from the early Christian texts. It is to these I will now turn.

 

[Oberon]

1. Paul

The earliest references to Jesus we possess (which are not reconstructed from later sources; see below) are from Paul. Unfortunately for us, Paul did not concern himself with the life of Jesus overly much, for a number of reasons. The first reason was that Paul was writing letters addressing specific problems within early Christian communities. His primary concern was not discussing Jesus’ life and work, but resolving these issues. The second reason has to do with Paul’s status as an apostle. We know both from Acts and from Paul’s letters that Paul contended with some of the other early Christian leaders, in particular Peter. Paul’s problem was that unlike many of the other early disciples, particularly Peter and the other apostles, Paul did not follow Jesus during his life. In fact, he persecuted the earliest church. So he had a good deal of motivation for concentrating on the resurrected Christ rather than the earthly Jesus, whom he had not known (or at least not followed).

That being said, Paul does reference the early Jesus (who he clearly views as having been human, as he is “having been born out of the seed of David according to the flesh”) and his teachings on occasion. He speaks of the Lord’s brothers (1 Cor. 9.5) and of James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19). He also distinguishes between his teachings and those which Jesus gave (1 Cor. 7:10-12). Paul’s writings also contain the earliest creedal statement of the resurrection (1 Cor 15.3-7). However, all in all, Paul tells us very little about the “earthly Jesus.”

This is not to say, however, that his letters are unimportant in historical Jesus research. They are very important, for several reasons. I will summarize three of them here: 1. The provide us with references to Jesus by a contemporary who knew Jesus’ followers. 2. They provide evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was part of the earliest layer of Christianity. 3. They also provide evidence on the nature of the oral tradition which, among other things, was the basis for the gospels (more on what that means later).

A great deal more, of course, could be said concerning Paul, his understanding of Jesus, his relationship with Jesus’ followers, parallels between gospel sayings and Paul’s letters, etc, but as this is a brief overview, the above will suffice for now (although as I said before, I am willing to get into any aspect of this post in more detail if someone wants more information). Now onto the gospels.

 

[Oberon]

Any examination into the life and works of Jesus that wishes to advance beyond the basic declaration that he was a historical figure who lived in first century Palestine must deal centrally with the gospels. This is not to say, of course, that scholars who attempt to reconstruct what we can know about Jesus simply look at the gospels and guess which parts are accurate. Far from it. They use techniques and research from a number of difference fields (archaeology, anthropology, sociology, classics, literary theory, etc), and a number of other texts (Old Testament texts, intertestamental literature, rabbinic literature, classical literature, epistles, early Christian writings apart from the gospels, apocryphal gospels, etc), in order to help them understand an analyze the gospels on both a macro and micro level. However, at the center of all this is almost always the four gospels represented in the New Testament.

The first step in dealing with the gospels is to determine their genre. When I use the word genre here, I am using it in a slightly wider sense than it is normally used (e.g. the genres in Borders or Barnes and Nobles). For one thing, I am applying the term to cover a much wider range of material, not just books (epigraphs on grave stones, for example, are a particular type of genre). For another, I am applying it not only to written material but to oral. For example, jokes are a type of oral genre, as are political speeches.

Genre, among other things, determines not only the particular style of a text (oral or written), but also its purpose. Let me use an example to help clarify: eulogies. Eulogies are a particular type of oral genre. This genre determines not only the general style of the speech, but also its purpose. In general, the style consists of fond memories, talking about the noble aspects or good qualities of the dearly departed, and so on. The purpose is to honor the deceased, share personal grief with others, and make sure that the deceased lives on in our memories. As such, this particular genre determines what types of material are admitted into such a speech. The descriptions of the deceased are supposed to be accurate (more or less) but they are often exaggerated. Negative qualities, unless they are amusing or quirky and very minor, are never brought into a proper eulogy. So while a eulogy may give us a sense of the deceased, the genre filters out a great deal of material, and what is admitted must be presented in a particular fashion.

To understand any text, not just the gospels, knowing the genre is vital. If you don’t know the genre, you can’t tell the general purpose behind the work, why certain types of material is admitted and other types are not, why the material is presented in a certain way, etc. Of course, in any genre, innovation occurs, and some works are difficult to place (this is particular true today, when innovation is so sought after by “artists”).

When it comes to the gospels, determining genre allows us to begin to analyze the texts. For example, many of those who argue that Jesus never existed believe the gospels are myths, like those of Osiris, Attis, Mithras, Hercules, etc. I can state from the outset that this is not at all true. The gospels are quite different from the genre of classical myth.

I don’t have to go into excruciating detail to demonstrate this (although it has been done). A simple point can illustrate successfully a distinct difference. Myths (of the types mentioned above) always occur in “bygone” days, far, far removed from the time of the account. Even in the oldest of Greek literature, the epics of Homer, the events described are already of an age passed. All the myths, from Jason and Medea, to Kore and Hades, etc, all take place in ages and places (some fantastical) far removed from the time they myth is being told. This is important, because it allows them to be unverifiable. It is also important to note that in any given myth versions would multiply like rabbits, and this was perfectly acceptable. Even central themes would change (for example, did Medea kill her own children, or was it the Corinthians? If it was medea, did she do it for revenge, or in an attempt to make them immortal?). The Greeks and Romans would often be familiar with several versions of any given myth, and the contradictions never presented a problem.

Not so with the gospels. Unlike the myths, the gospels are nailed down to a particular time and place, within a few decades of their composition. This is unheard of in myth. Likewise, parts of the gospels, for example many of the people mentioned, are confirmed independently of the gospels (John the Baptist and Caiaphas the high priest in Josephus, Pilate from archaeology and Philo among others, Herod, etc). The gospels, then, clearly do not fall into the genre of myth.

So what genre are the gospels? In a sense, the gospel genre is gospel. There isn’t anything EXACTLY like them. However, there is another type of ancient genre that the gospels could fall into, and if they don’t match it exactly, they are fairly close. The gospels are a type of ancient biography known as a “life” (bio/vita). As such, they are also a type of ancient history.

Now I know that anyone who has read the gospels may object to my last statement. Clearly the gospels can’t be history, because they contain miracles, theology, inaccuracies, etc, right? Well, they certainly can’t be considered history by modern standards. However, ancient standards were different. Although historians in general sought to record the truth, their standards of proof were much lower. Much of ancient history contained miracles, theology, rumor, speculation, magic, myth, etc. To demonstrate a little more clearly, I will use Herodotus as an example, both because he is considered the first of the Greco-Roman historians, and because I can quote from a paper I have already written (yes, I am that lazy). I apologize if the style is a little more formal: