Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 1 May 2006

Template:Totally disputed

The Jesus Myth is a historical theory usually associated with a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus, which claims that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure, but was instead an amalgamation of mythological figures. The theory, based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians and there is no peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory.

History

Some have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing 2 John 1:7's "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." All reputable scholars of the period believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.

The first proponent of this theory was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.

Jesus-myth theories often draw on nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as Max Müller and James Frazer. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a dying and reviving god. According to Frazer, the king's death and rebirth was connected to the regeneration of the earth in springtime and was often required for the continuity of a ritual-based community.

By the early twentieth century a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and New Testament scholars. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which argued that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.

While aspects of the theory were influential, mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.

In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by William B. Smith and George Albert Wells (The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth), as well as by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (co-authors of The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess), and the Earl Doherty (author of The Jesus Puzzle).

Specific arguments of the theory

Early non-Christian references to Jesus

As far as is known at present, only about six or seven early non-Christian references to Jesus appear to exist. This is despite the high degree of literacy in the Roman world, and despite the relatively large number of Roman and Jewish commentators and historians writing in the first century. The paucity of non-Christian evidence is, to advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, an argument from silence that Jesus was a later invention. To critics of the Jesus Myth theory, the silence is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory counter this response by noting that all the evidence which does exist to support Jesus--mainly, the Gospels--describes a monumental figure, performing wondrous miracles and butting heads with the most prominent figures of the day, not some inconsequential nobody.

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers (in the New Testament and its Apocrypha). Of the few non-Christian references, almost all merely mention the existence of Christians and their belief, rather than explicitly mentioning Jesus as having existed. The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus (37 CE - c. 100 CE), whose Antiquities, written in 93 CE (more than two generations after most Christian scholars date the crucifixion), as preserved in the writings of the Christian apologist Eusebius, contain two references to a Jesus as the founder of a sect.

The first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, contains content that affirms core religious tenets of Christianity rejected by Judaism and thus is most uncharacteristic of a lifelong Jew such as Josephus. It is not mentioned by second-century Christian authors, though several scholars have proposed that when stripped of the implausible Christian phrases, the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable . Jospehus was a historian, alive at the time of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth, and yet none of Josephus' many writings ever mentions Jesus except for a passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) considered forged by some, since the original passage does not exist, and no Christian writers prior to early church biship Eusebius ever quote the alleged Josephus Flavius passage.

The second reference, which merely mentions that a person named Jesus was the brother of a person named James who is traditionally identified as James the Just, is also disputed , though it is mostly--though not universally--regarded as significantly more likely to be authentic than the Testamonium . Nevertheless, the Hebrew form of Jesus, a colloquial form of the name Joshua, was a particularly common name at the time, and the second reference provides only Jesus's name, identification as the Christ ("Messiah" or "anointed one"), and relationship to James.

Paul's presentation of Jesus

Several of the epistles of Paul are regarded as not authentic by a majority of scholars, the Pastoral Epistles being singled out as least likely to be genuine by over two thirds. When the authorship of the Pauline epistles is considered, the epistles can be split into two groups - the seven considered by almost everyone to be genuine, against the rest. In this division, the theology of the disputed group seems, in the eyes of a majority of scholars, to be quite distinct from the theology of the seven undisputed letters. For some writers it is almost as if the disputed group were written specifically to counter the group thought to be genuine.

Although there are occasional references in the disputed group to a flesh-and-blood Jesus, the undisputed group contains limited mention of Jesus as a historic figure. Even though Paul's letters are widely regarded as the earliest Christian documents, they contain very few references to Jesus' actual life and ministry, which the later Gospels detail. Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory claim that Paul's letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus, and so the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul's correspondence are sufficient explanations for the lack of detail of Jesus' life. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory note an abundance of missed rhetorical opportunities to reinforce Paul's points by quoting Jesus or citing well-known events in his life that were directly relevant to the topics he was discussing.

Several commentators, from writers whose theories have not received widespread acceptance, such as Earl Doherty, to widely respected academics and experts in the field, such as Harvard professor Elaine Pagels, have argued that Paul's writing should be interpreted as gnosticism. Christianity arose under a heavy Hellenic culture, Paul himself growing up in Tarsus, the centre of one of the major mystery religions of the time, and Pagels and Doherty (and others) believe that Paul's writing should be viewed in the context of the Hellenic culture which formed his background.

Gnosticism, a diverse religion some of whose branches used some Christian names and ideas and which flourished and subsequently died out in the first through fourth centuries, frequently used allegory and metaphor to guide its initiates towards salvation, which Gnosticism viewed as a form of knowledge (gnosis). Many Gnostic groups even regarded Jesus himself as an allegory, rather than historic, and docetism was rife in Gnostic groups. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe that many parts of the New Testament were written as Gnostic documents, and that Paul's writing is a prominent example of Gnosticism in the New Testament. Accordingly, in this interpretation, those references in the undisputed epistles that appear to refer to events on earth, and a physical historic Jesus, should instead be regarded as allegorical metaphors . These interpretations, of for example Galatians 1:19, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, Romans 3:1, Romans 15:8, and 1 Corinthians 11:23–25, 1 Corinthians 15:4, are regarded by opponents of the Jesus Myth theory as based on forced and erroneous translations .

The influence of the Old Testament

According to a majority of scholars, the synoptic problem - the strong similarities between three of the gospels, is most accurately resolved by the two-source hypothesis, according to which most of the content of Matthew and Luke were copied wholesale from the Gospel of Mark and a lost collection of quotations known as the Q document, with which the Gospel of Thomas is the most similar document of the era. In the small amount of additional material unique to Matthew, amongst the three, Jesus is presented in a way that has strong parallels with significant Old Testament figures, most noticeably Moses, whose birth narrative, and sojourn in the wilderness, Matthew appears to have used as the basis of that of Jesus.

It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Old Testament. In particular, many quotations attributed to the Q document, which the Gospels attribute to Jesus, find parallels in several places of the Old Testament. Advocates of the Jesus Myth believe that the gospels are not history but a type of midrash: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, there is no reason to assume that the sayings attributed to Q, a document theoretically devoid of narrative, originated with Jesus, rather than just being a collection of wisdom from several independent sources, such as the Old Testament. As such, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory claim that when the midrashic elements are removed, little to no content remains that could be used to demonstrate the existence of an historical Jesus .

Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. Although scholars do not agree on the exact nature of this genre, associated works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies, proponents of Jesus' existence believe they contain sufficient historical information to establish his historicity.

Although there are many types of midrash, the Toledot Yeshu jumps out as being the most similar to the proposal that characters and situations were invented wholesale according to religious dogma and Old Testament prophecy. However, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that the closest parallels to potential Moses-based embellishment of the Jesus narrative, are inapplicable. Moreover, there are many examples of ancient Jewish and Christian literature that shaped their stories and accounts according to Old Testament influence, but nevertheless provided some historical accounts ; for example, in 1 Maccabees, Judas and his battles are described in terms which parallel those of Saul's and David's battles against the Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel, but nevertheless 1 Maccabees has a degree of respect amongst historians as having a reasonable degree of historical reliability (John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of Maccabees, p. 15-17).

Parallels with Mediterranian mystery religions

Some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that many aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have remarkable parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the hellenic culture amongst which Christianty was born. The central figure of one of the most widespread, Osiris-Dionysus, was consistently localised and deliberately merged with local deities in each area, since it was the mysteries which were imparted that were regarded as important, not the method by which they were taught. In the view of some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, most prominently Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, Jewish mystics adapted their form of Osiris-Dionysus to match prior Jewish heroes like Moses and Joshua, hence creating Jesus.

Several parallels are frequently cited by these advocates, and often appear, somewhat less carefully mixed with more dubious parallels, on internet sites. The most prominently cited and plausible parallels are with Horus and Mithras. Horus was one of the life-death-rebirth deities, and was connected and involved in the resurrection of Osiris, whose Egyptian name (Asar) is very similar to the root of Lazarus. Some versions of the Book of the dead report that Horus fed 5000 with just a few loaves of bread, since he was born and lived at the house of bread (it was a historic capital of Egypt, and grain store), which translated into Hebrew is bethlehem, and was named Annu in Egyptian, which translated into Hebrew is bethany (house of Any/Anu).

In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast (a religious epithet written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST) - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John, who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser. Worship of Isis, Horus' mother, was a prominent cult, and the proposal that this is the basis of veneration of Mary, and more particularly Marian Iconography, has some merit.

The suggestion of parallels with such myths, however, has frequently gained little traction in the academic community. It is certainly the case that advocates of the Jesus Myth theory citing the parallels are frequently let down by citing dubious sources, choosing to include even ridiculous or implausible parallels, advocating particular theologies to replace Christianity, and using non standard terms (e.g. anup the baptiser rather than Anubis the anointer/embalmer) which others fail to recognise.

Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory regularly accuse those who advocate the existence of such parallels of confusing the issue of who was borrowing from whom , a charge which was also made in ancient times by prominent early Christians. However, it is notable that, unlike modern opponents, several prominent early Christians, like Irenaeus, actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery. For their part, the historic opponents of early Christians wrote that Christians had the same religion and practice as they, but were too stupid to understand it.

In later years, Mithras worship became the most prominent rival to Christianity, and the idea that many Christian practices, including 25th December being Jesus' birth-date, and Sunday being the dedicated day of worship, derived originally from Mithraism is regarded as likely by many mainstream historians. Mithras was a solar deity, and so was seen as being born just after the winter solstice, and the day each week officially dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the day of the invincible sun, in turn being renamed Sunday; the references in Luke and Matthew, though, point to Jesus being more likely to have been born in April or September, and Saturday was the original day of Christian worship before Constantine I moved it. Parallels between Mithras and the birth-narrative of Luke are also proposed by some advocates of the Jesus myth, since Mithras, as a sun god, was born under the zodiac sign that at that time was known as the stable of Augeas, though these latter parallels are not so supported in the academic community.

When Christianity became the official and only religion in the Roman Empire, many temples of Mithras became Christian churches. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory regard this as significant since the lack of dissent appears to them to indicate that the religions were so similar that the prior Mithras-worshippers felt that hardly anything significant had occurred.

Supporters of Jesus' historicity point out that even Christian sources acknowledge that the public celebration of Jesus' birth was adopted from the date of the festival of Sol Invictus, and that this has no bearing on the reliability of the Gospels, since they make no claims about the date. Neither do any Christian churches claim that the date for the celebration is anything other than symbolic.

Historiography and methodology

Price and other advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the inconsistencies between the Gospels, birth stories, genealogies, chronologies, and other parts of the narrative makes them worthless as historical documents. According to these authors, the historiography of the Gospels means that they can provide no meaningful historical information about the time Jesus was alleged to have lived, but only about the authors of the Gospels and their own communities .

Although seldom remarked on by New Testament scholars, some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that historians lack any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As J. D. Crossan, a well respected scholar of early Christianity, comments, I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata. While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that the Paul described in Acts, or even Napoleon, did not exist, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe it does call into question the results of historical inquiry into Jesus of Nazareth.

Opponents of the theory, including skeptical commentators such as the Jesus Seminar, argue that some reliable information can be extracted from the Gospels if consistent critical methodology is used.

Notes

1. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels; Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word; Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the Gospels, and Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus.

2. G.L. Borchert, "Docetism" in Elwell Evangelical Dictionary; Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909/2003; D.C. Duling & N. Perrin, The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, 1993; "Docetism", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. "Book 24 - John's Second Letter". J.B.Phillips, "The New Testament in Modern English", 1962 edition.

See also

• The God Who Wasn't There
• John of Gamala
• Jus Asaf

References

• Atwill, Joseph. 2005. The Roman Origins of Christianity.
• Atwill, Joseph. 2005. Caesar's Messiah.
• Brodie, Thomas L. 2000. The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an interpretive synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a literary model for the Gospels. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.
• Doherty, E.,The Jesus Puzzle (1999; revised edition 2000) ISBN 0968601405
• Ellegard, Alvar. 1999. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ. London: Century.
• France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus.
• Freke, T. and Gandy, P. The Jesus Mysteries, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, ISBN 0609807986
• Meier, John. 1987. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
• Price, Robert. 2004. New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash. In Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A., eds. The Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation of Formative Judaism.
• Price, Robert. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
• Price, Robert. 2000. Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
• Sanders, E. P. 1995. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin.
• Sherwin-White, A. N. 1963. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford.
• Theissen, G., and Merz, A. 1998. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis: Fortress
• Thompson, Thomas L. 2005. The Messiah Myth. New York: Basic Books.
• Van Voorst, R. Jesus Outside of the New Testament.
• Wells, G. A. 1999. The Jesus Myth. Peru, IL: Open Court (Carus Publishing)
• Wells, G. A. The Historical Evidence for Jesus.

External links

Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory

• Earl Doherty's Website
• "The Origins of Christianity and Search for the Historical Jesus Christ" by Acharya S
• "Earliest Christianity" by G.A. Wells
• "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity" by Richard Carrier
• Jesus never existed
• Jesus (was) is a Fictional character (not "historical") Rt. Rev. Lino Sanchez
• The Non-Historicity of Jesus Michael Hoffman
• Hermann Detering's RadikalKritik (partially in German)
• Debunking the Historical Jesus
• "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke/Gandy

Supporting a historical Jesus

• Historical Jesus Christ Unveiled
• Critique of the Jesus Puzzle by Bernard D. Muller
• "A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth" by Christopher Price
• "Shattering the Jesus Myth" by J.P. Holding
• "Answering Acharya S" by Mike Licona
  • Acharya rebuttal to Licona
• "Did Jesus Exist" a page devoted to the issues raised by the Jesus Myth

• Jesus
• Biblical criticism