Several other threads have dealt with whether or not Jesus was a historical person. This thread takes a different yet similar tack, and examines the logic, reasoning, and errors behind the various presentations of Jesus as a dying and resurrecting godman myth. I will be using Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's book "The Jesus Mysteries" as an exemplar, but similar works have similar issues.
To quote Keith Windshuttle from his book on the discipline of history: The study of history is essentially a search for the truth A work that does not aim at truth may be many things but not a work of history (185). Additionally, [H]istorians study their subject by means of a disciplined methodology. This involves adoptiong practices and standards that are commonly recognized throughout the discipline, especially in their handling of the evidence that goes to make up their explanations (218).
Keeping the above statements in mind, it seems appropriate to begin a critique of The Jesus Mysteries with some issues of general methodologies adopted by the authors. From their I will move on to general errors, and finally I will consider specifically their case for Jesus as no more than myth. I intend to keep my criticisms more broad, rather than focus on single error by single error. So instead of going through the book and pointing out errors like that on page 32 (where the authors state that the word usually translated as stable in the gospels is katalemna. Actually, the work in Luke is phatne, and the word katalemna is not anywhere to be found.)
1. Cherry-picking lines in order to indicate similarities
There is nothing wrong with comparing lines contained in one text with those in another in order to show the dependence of the second on the first. Even if the second text does not overtly mention the first, numerous similarities, particular wording (such as a change in the typical usage of vocabulary or syntax in the second text which coheres with the first), and other arguments may be made in order to demonstrate dependence. The more plausible a connection between the two texts is (such as between Matthew and Luke, two texts from a similar tradition, similar date, similar language, and similar geographic region), the less evidence need be marshaled if one seeks to show (at the least) knowledge of the first text by the author of the second text.
If it were this type of comparisons the Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy engaged in, one could hardly criticize their methodology. However, it is not. The authors feel free to rip numerous SINGLE lines from multiple texts, produced by multiple authors, cultures, and at varying times, with the over all NT. They make no effort, beyond the similarity between this or that line in one text and a line from the gospels, to demonstrate knowledge of or dependence on the text by any gospel authors. This would be bad enough, but what makes it worse is the vast corpus of literature from which the Freke and Gandy draw. By broadening the literary base on which to make comparisons, it is easy enough to show similarities between any work and the literary base on uses. For example, I could just as easily show that the gospel authors made use of Buddhist literature, as long as I can rip single quotes from numerous works and separate them from their contexts, as Freke and Gandy do.
2. Misrepresentation of Sources and Academic Dishonesty
The authors present their work as if they started out attempting to research early Christianity and Jesus, and ended up with their so-called Jesus Mysteries Thesis after their search through primary and secondary sources. The way they present themselves, they are mere historical detectives, stumbling upon a history long covered up. As they say, When it first occurred to us, it seemed absurd and impossible (12), and only after thorough research were they convinced. Yet an examination of their sources, as well as their presentation of sources, reveals some surprises.
The first of these concerns secondary sources, i.e. modern scholarship on the periods, texts, persons, etc, in question. If the authors, themselves far from academics or specialists in any of the relevant fields, did indeed begin their search with open minds and researched honestly as they said, one would expect to find in their books scholarship representative of the scholarly consensus or at the very least many of most well-respected scholarly works in the relevant areas. Yet instead we find many of their secondary sources are out of print, many were not written by academics at all, and those that do represent relevant scholarship by scholars are misrepresented. For example, the authors quote Rudolf Bultmann (who, although somewhat dated, was at least one of the foremost NT scholars at one time) as stating: I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either and are, moreover, fragmentary and often legendary. Bultmann did indeed say this, but is important (if one is an honest scholar) to note the context in which he said it. He was not arguing against a historical Jesus, but against the liberal presentations of Jesus which sought to understand his innermost psychological motives. Bultmann states only a few pages later that Little as we know of his life and personality, we know enough of his message to make for ourselves a consistent picture.
Even if Freke and Gandy had only their skewed representations of secondary sources to rely on, they could not form the picture they did, without misrepresenting their sources.
As far as primary sources go, the errors with these will be discussed in other areas.
3) Inattention to dates/times
This one is similar to the first methodological error, but I think it deserves a section on its own. This is particularly because one criticism leveled at the gospels and early Christians was that they not only stole ideas and concepts from paganism, they then claimed that THEY had possessed these ideas first. The authors then ridicule this claim that pagan texts could have stolen ideas from Christian texts which they predated.
The authors then make this very mistake. They take quotes from sources that date AFTER the NT, in order to demonstrate how the texts are similar (and how the Christians are dependent upon them). Not only this, they use mythic figures (like the Hellenistic Mithras) which were not around until after the gospels, and point to the similarities between these figures and Jesus. In other words, they are guilty of the same error for which they castigate the early Christian authors.
4) The skepticism applied to Jesus and sources for the historical Jesus is not applied to other texts or other figures
On page 17, Freke and Gandy write, The great Pagan philosophers were the enlightened masters of the Mysteries. Although they are often portrayed as dry academic intellectuals, they were actually enigmatic gurus. Empedocles, like his master Pythagoras, was a charismatic miracle-worker. Socrates was an eccentric mystic prone to being suddenly overcome by states of rapture during which his friends would discover him staring off into space for hours. Heraclitus was asked by the citizens of Ephesus to become a lawmaker, but turned the offer down so that he could continue playing with the children of the Temple. Anaxagoras shocked ordinary citizens by completely abandoning his farm to fully devote his life to the higher philosophy. Diogenes owned nothing and lived in a jar at the entrance of a temple. The playwright Euripides wrote his greatest tragedies during solitary retreats in an isolated cave.
So much said with such conviction concerning so many. But what evidence is there to back up these statements? What historical record was left behind which could withstand the Freke and Gandys extreme skepticism? First, the stories of Empedocles and his miracle-workings are from Diogenes Laertius Lives, which are over two centuries removed from Empedocles. The information concerning Socrates comes from three people who would have known him (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes) yet all three versions are dramatically different and inconsistent. Were we as critical of these texts as of the NT, we would have to admit that Socrates was merely a myth. The story about Heraclitus is also from Diogenes, only now only further removed from his life. The information about Euripides is likewise far removed from the historical person, of whom little is known. And so on.
Freke and Gandy repeat these myths and rumors, which have far more time lapsed between them than Jesus and the gospels, and are far more inconsistent, as if they were fact and history. Yet if they are the honest historical detectives they pretend to be, why not apply the same skepticism here as well, instead of embarrassing credulity?
To quote Keith Windshuttle from his book on the discipline of history: The study of history is essentially a search for the truth A work that does not aim at truth may be many things but not a work of history (185). Additionally, [H]istorians study their subject by means of a disciplined methodology. This involves adoptiong practices and standards that are commonly recognized throughout the discipline, especially in their handling of the evidence that goes to make up their explanations (218).
Keeping the above statements in mind, it seems appropriate to begin a critique of The Jesus Mysteries with some issues of general methodologies adopted by the authors. From their I will move on to general errors, and finally I will consider specifically their case for Jesus as no more than myth. I intend to keep my criticisms more broad, rather than focus on single error by single error. So instead of going through the book and pointing out errors like that on page 32 (where the authors state that the word usually translated as stable in the gospels is katalemna. Actually, the work in Luke is phatne, and the word katalemna is not anywhere to be found.)
1. Cherry-picking lines in order to indicate similarities
There is nothing wrong with comparing lines contained in one text with those in another in order to show the dependence of the second on the first. Even if the second text does not overtly mention the first, numerous similarities, particular wording (such as a change in the typical usage of vocabulary or syntax in the second text which coheres with the first), and other arguments may be made in order to demonstrate dependence. The more plausible a connection between the two texts is (such as between Matthew and Luke, two texts from a similar tradition, similar date, similar language, and similar geographic region), the less evidence need be marshaled if one seeks to show (at the least) knowledge of the first text by the author of the second text.
If it were this type of comparisons the Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy engaged in, one could hardly criticize their methodology. However, it is not. The authors feel free to rip numerous SINGLE lines from multiple texts, produced by multiple authors, cultures, and at varying times, with the over all NT. They make no effort, beyond the similarity between this or that line in one text and a line from the gospels, to demonstrate knowledge of or dependence on the text by any gospel authors. This would be bad enough, but what makes it worse is the vast corpus of literature from which the Freke and Gandy draw. By broadening the literary base on which to make comparisons, it is easy enough to show similarities between any work and the literary base on uses. For example, I could just as easily show that the gospel authors made use of Buddhist literature, as long as I can rip single quotes from numerous works and separate them from their contexts, as Freke and Gandy do.
2. Misrepresentation of Sources and Academic Dishonesty
The authors present their work as if they started out attempting to research early Christianity and Jesus, and ended up with their so-called Jesus Mysteries Thesis after their search through primary and secondary sources. The way they present themselves, they are mere historical detectives, stumbling upon a history long covered up. As they say, When it first occurred to us, it seemed absurd and impossible (12), and only after thorough research were they convinced. Yet an examination of their sources, as well as their presentation of sources, reveals some surprises.
The first of these concerns secondary sources, i.e. modern scholarship on the periods, texts, persons, etc, in question. If the authors, themselves far from academics or specialists in any of the relevant fields, did indeed begin their search with open minds and researched honestly as they said, one would expect to find in their books scholarship representative of the scholarly consensus or at the very least many of most well-respected scholarly works in the relevant areas. Yet instead we find many of their secondary sources are out of print, many were not written by academics at all, and those that do represent relevant scholarship by scholars are misrepresented. For example, the authors quote Rudolf Bultmann (who, although somewhat dated, was at least one of the foremost NT scholars at one time) as stating: I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either and are, moreover, fragmentary and often legendary. Bultmann did indeed say this, but is important (if one is an honest scholar) to note the context in which he said it. He was not arguing against a historical Jesus, but against the liberal presentations of Jesus which sought to understand his innermost psychological motives. Bultmann states only a few pages later that Little as we know of his life and personality, we know enough of his message to make for ourselves a consistent picture.
Even if Freke and Gandy had only their skewed representations of secondary sources to rely on, they could not form the picture they did, without misrepresenting their sources.
As far as primary sources go, the errors with these will be discussed in other areas.
3) Inattention to dates/times
This one is similar to the first methodological error, but I think it deserves a section on its own. This is particularly because one criticism leveled at the gospels and early Christians was that they not only stole ideas and concepts from paganism, they then claimed that THEY had possessed these ideas first. The authors then ridicule this claim that pagan texts could have stolen ideas from Christian texts which they predated.
The authors then make this very mistake. They take quotes from sources that date AFTER the NT, in order to demonstrate how the texts are similar (and how the Christians are dependent upon them). Not only this, they use mythic figures (like the Hellenistic Mithras) which were not around until after the gospels, and point to the similarities between these figures and Jesus. In other words, they are guilty of the same error for which they castigate the early Christian authors.
4) The skepticism applied to Jesus and sources for the historical Jesus is not applied to other texts or other figures
On page 17, Freke and Gandy write, The great Pagan philosophers were the enlightened masters of the Mysteries. Although they are often portrayed as dry academic intellectuals, they were actually enigmatic gurus. Empedocles, like his master Pythagoras, was a charismatic miracle-worker. Socrates was an eccentric mystic prone to being suddenly overcome by states of rapture during which his friends would discover him staring off into space for hours. Heraclitus was asked by the citizens of Ephesus to become a lawmaker, but turned the offer down so that he could continue playing with the children of the Temple. Anaxagoras shocked ordinary citizens by completely abandoning his farm to fully devote his life to the higher philosophy. Diogenes owned nothing and lived in a jar at the entrance of a temple. The playwright Euripides wrote his greatest tragedies during solitary retreats in an isolated cave.
So much said with such conviction concerning so many. But what evidence is there to back up these statements? What historical record was left behind which could withstand the Freke and Gandys extreme skepticism? First, the stories of Empedocles and his miracle-workings are from Diogenes Laertius Lives, which are over two centuries removed from Empedocles. The information concerning Socrates comes from three people who would have known him (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes) yet all three versions are dramatically different and inconsistent. Were we as critical of these texts as of the NT, we would have to admit that Socrates was merely a myth. The story about Heraclitus is also from Diogenes, only now only further removed from his life. The information about Euripides is likewise far removed from the historical person, of whom little is known. And so on.
Freke and Gandy repeat these myths and rumors, which have far more time lapsed between them than Jesus and the gospels, and are far more inconsistent, as if they were fact and history. Yet if they are the honest historical detectives they pretend to be, why not apply the same skepticism here as well, instead of embarrassing credulity?
