Did Jesus exist? The
Jesus myth theory
The idea that the Jesus of
the Gospels was just a myth was first propagated by Bruno Bauer (1809-1882). The evidence
for Jesus’ existence is so extensive that even the theological liberals in
Bauer’s day dismissed him. Unfortunately, with the rise of militant atheism,
the Jesus’ myth theory seems to be back with a vengeance, being propagated both
by serious writers like Robert Price and G.A. Wells, as well by flood of
internet advocates. Their method often involves dumping a ton of
scholarly-sounding “evidence” on their readers—much of which, upon close
examination, turns out to be illogical, irrelevant, taken out of context or, in
the case of some internet websites, outright fabricated. Nevertheless, they
overwhelm their readers with data the reader is not prepared to process, and
sound so convincing that many have been misled. This chapter will attempt to
address a few of the issues.
Part I
Introduction
In the DVD entitled, The
God who wasn’t there, Brian Flemming attempted to make the case that the
Jesus of the Gospels was a myth. As mentioned above, the Jesus myth theory has
been around since the days of Bruno Bauer (1809-1882) and has generally been
dismissed as nonsense. Since, however, the Jesus myth theory appears to be gaining
popularity, the arguments deserve a response. Flemming’s case can be summarized
in seven points. Each point will be stated and answered below.
First, according to Flemming, the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel
written, the other three being derived from Mark. Scholars believe that the Gospel of John
was written independently of the other Gospels, but otherwise, most scholars
would agree with Flemming on this point.
Second, Flemming points out that the Gospel of Mark records the
destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but according to Flemming, since Jesus
couldn’t possibly have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gospels must have been written after AD 70. That
means there is a 40 year gap between Jesus’ death in AD 30 or 33, and the
Gospel of Mark in AD 70.
Flemming is right that
most scholars think the Gospels were written between AD 70 and AD 100, and that
these dates are largely based on the assumption
that Jesus couldn’t possibly have predicted the fall of Jerusalem.
Contrary to Flemming,
however, many critics today—even some of the more radical critics—are now
starting to recognize that Jesus really did predict the fall of Jerusalem 40
years before it occurred! They have reluctantly come to this conclusion
because the majority of New Testament scholars believe in a “Lost Gospel of Q” which
was supposedly written before AD 70 and in which Jesus alludes to the
destruction of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in AD 70.
What many critics don’t
seem to realize, however, is that this undermines a primary reason for dating
the Gospels after the fall of Jerusalem in the first place! There is actually
much more evidence that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written before AD 70 than
after. But if Matthew, Mark and Luke were written before AD 70, the case for
the 40 year gap is destroyed along with the case for the mythical Jesus.
Even if there was a 40
year gap, however, that proves nothing. Ancient historians (and modern ones
too) often write about events that occurred much longer than 40 years before
their time, but scholars don’t automatically assume the events, therefore,
never happened. For example, the vast majority of what we know about Alexander
the Great was written about 400 years after he lived and is recorded in only
one source![1] By
contrast, what we know about Jesus comes from multiple sources written as early
as 20 to 70 years after he lived.
Third, Flemming argues that all we know about this 40 year time gap comes
from the letters of Paul, and that Paul did not think of Jesus as a real person
who lived in the recent past. This is clear, Flemming says, because Paul never
mentions Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, John the Baptist, Jesus’ miracles, Pilate,
Jerusalem, Jesus’ trials or anything Jesus ever said.
First, many scholars would disagree
with the contention that Paul is our only source for this 40 year time gap. As
mentioned above, some scholars believe that Matthew, Mark and Luke were written
during this time.[2] But
aside from that, most scholars, including some of the most radical Jesus critics,
believe that there was once a gospel about Jesus we now call Q that also would
have been written during this 40 year period.[3]
But the idea that Paul doesn’t know anything about the
historical Jesus is simply wrong. Paul tells us that Jesus was a Jew,[4]
and that he had a brother named James who was still alive in Paul’s time[5]
(The existence of both Jesus and James is also confirmed by the first century
Jewish historian, Josephus). Paul knows that Jesus had 12 disciples[6]
and he knows of some of them by name.[7]
He also knows that Peter was married.[8]
Paul knows that Jesus had a last supper with his disciples on the night of his
death,[9]
that he was betrayed,[10]
and was executed by crucifixion.[11]
Paul also knows that Jesus’ apostles were centered in Jerusalem after Jesus’
death.[12]
In other words, by
pointing out the things in Jesus’ life that Paul doesn’t mention, Flemming
concludes that Paul doesn’t know anything of a historical nature about
Jesus’ life.[13]
Flemming’s conclusion is factually in error.[14]
Fourth, Flemming argues that the only thing Paul knows about Jesus is
that he died, rose, and ascended into heaven. According to Flemming, Paul
doesn’t place these events on earth but in the “mythical realm” just like the
other savior gods of the time. There are numerous points that can be made in
response:
1. As seen above, the
assertion that the only thing Paul knows about Jesus is that he died, rose, and
ascended into heaven is factually in error.
2. The theory that Jesus
fits the pattern of ancient dying and rising savior gods is a view propagated
by Sir James Frazer in his 1911 classic, The
Golden Bough.[15]
Eddy and Boyd argue that since 1911 Frazer’s views have been thoroughly and
almost universally discredited.[16]
3. The myths about
Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus and others really don’t look anything like Jesus at
all and some were not even written until long after the Gospels had been
written! This will be discussed at greater length below.
4. Far from writing in
the “mythical realm” Paul argues that if Jesus did not really rise from the
dead, his whole ministry was in vain.[17]
That hardly sounds like someone who is basing his ministry on a myth.
Fifth, Flemming argues that since the Gospels are filled with outrageous
improbabilities, the Gospels cannot be understood as historical. The DVD includes clips
of Robert Price, a noted proponent of the Jesus myth theory, saying the gospels
are filled with “outrageous improbabilities.” Price gives only three examples.
The first one is the slaughter of the babies during the time of Herod the
Great. Price asserts that the story is mythological, being derived from the
book of Exodus. But this is like arguing that the assassination of John F.
Kennedy must be mythical being derived, perhaps, from the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln!
Of course, Price would
agree that it would be nonsense to argue that the story of the assassination of
Kennedy was derived from that of Lincoln, but so is Price’s dismissal of the
killing of the babies simply because the book of Exodus has a story about the
death of the firstborn. The fact is that Herod even had members of his own
family killed, so there is nothing improbable about Herod ordering the death of
a few babies in order to eliminate one who might one day threaten his throne.
Another “outrageous
improbability” mentioned by Price is the Jewish supreme council meeting on Passover eve to get rid of Jesus.
Although holding trials was one of those things Jews were not supposed to do on
feast days,[18] Jesus
may well have been viewed as a special exception. The Jewish leaders knew full
well the potential danger involved in having someone believed to be a Messiah
at such a huge feast as Passover. If rebellion broke out, the Romans may step
in and kill people by the thousands as that had done before. When Jewish
leaders heard of Jesus’ “triumphal entry,” they may well have concluded that
this was (as we would say) a matter of national security that required
immediate attention. When viewed from this perspective, the story doesn’t seem
improbable at all.
The final “outrageous
improbability” mentioned by Price is the story of how Pontius Pilate released
Barabbas, “a killer of Romans,” and turned Jesus over to the crowds after
trying to get Jesus released. Three responses:
1. Price is right that
the idea that Pilate would show any kind of concessions to the Jews is unusual,
but Pilate’s career depended on keeping peace in Judea, and even military men
often make political concessions when it is to their advantage.
2. We don’t know who
instituted the custom of releasing a prisoner on Passover. It may be that
Pilate was just carrying out a custom begun by a previous governor and that to
drop the custom now could just add fuel to a potential fire.
3. Pilate’s attempt to release Jesus was probably
not because he felt any compassion toward Jesus, but simply because he hated
the Jewish leaders and was not above denying their request to kill Jesus for no
other reason than spite.
Price’s “outrageous
improbabilities” are not nearly as improbably as he imagines. They are
certainly no reason for rejecting the historical reliability of the Gospels.[19]
But even if they were improbable, N.T. Wright, once noted, “History is filled
with improbabilities, but my goodness, they happened!”[20]
Sixth, Flemming argues that since allegorical literature was extremely
common back then, and since the story of Jesus fits the pattern of ancient
mythical heroes, it is clear that the Gospels take Paul’s myth and make it
appear historical, just like many stories on the internet which start out as
fiction and are eventually believed as actual, historical events. Four
responses:
1. Just because
allegorical literature was common back then says nothing about the genre of the
Gospels since biographies and histories were also common.
2. Flemming lists 22 supposed
characteristics of the “hero tradition” and argues that Jesus has 19 of the
characteristics while Romulus and Hercules only have 17 and, Zeus only has 15.
A closer look at these characteristics, however, will show that the whole thing
is artificially contrived. When the actual
similarities are counted, Jesus doesn’t even make the list[21]
(see the footnote).
But on the other hand,
even if the Gospel writers had conformed their stories to some accepted “hero
pattern” that would not necessarily mean the stories were unhistorical. For
example, some have shown
that Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Napoleon also fit the ancient “hero
pattern.” In fact, Abraham Lincoln fits the hero
pattern better than Oedipus, who is at the top of the list![22]
3. The historical reliability of the Gospels has
been confirmed over and over again. Eddy and Boyd apply to the Gospels “six
broad diagnostic questions historians routinely ask of ancient documents in
order to assess their historical reliability.[23]
They convincingly demonstrate that the Gospels pass every test.[24]
4. Barbara and David
Mikkelson (from Snopes.com) were interviewed in the DVD to show that fictional
stories can become believed as actual history. That’s true, but no one
dismisses Herodotus, Josephus, or Tacitus on that account simply because
fictional stories can become believed as actual history. We should remember
that few of those who spread internet rumors would be willing risk their life
for their rumors. Everything we know about early Christians supports the fact
that they were so convinced that what they believed about Jesus was true, they
were willing to face beating, imprisonment, torture, and even death. Besides, as
seen above, the broad historical reliability of the Gospels has been verified
over and over again.
Seventh, since there were ancient Jews and Jewish Christians who thought
Jesus had been killed a century earlier under Alexander Jannaeus or Herod, this
diversity of opinion about Jesus supports the idea that Jesus of the Gospels
was a myth based on earlier stories that circulated before the time Jesus was
supposed to have existed.
The idea that early
Christians had significant disagreements about when Jesus lived is simply not
true. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, First Timothy (all first century AD),
and even early church fathers like Ignatius (d. AD 98/117), Justin Martyr (AD
100-165), Tertullian, (AD 160-220) and Irenaeus (Fl 175-195) all agree that Jesus
was executed during the reign of Pontius Pilate who ruled Judea from AD 26-36.[25]
That Jesus was executed during the reign of Pontius Pilate is also confirmed by
non-Christian historians like Josephus and Tacitus.
On the DVD Price doesn’t
say where he gets the idea that Jesus lived during the reign of Alexander
Jannaeus (103-76 BC), but in his book, Deconstructing Jesus,[26]
he says that this fact is attested in both the Talmud and in the “Toledoth
Jeschu.” Price doesn’t bother to mention that the Talmud and “Toledoth Jeschu”
weren’t compiled until the fifth century AD or later.[27]
So essentially, Price is
throwing out the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, First Timothy,
Ignatius, Josephus and Tacitus—all less than 100 years after Jesus death—in
favor of two documents written 400 or more years after Jesus’ death! Some might say that something other than
objective scholarship is going on here.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Not only does the Jesus
myth theory fail miserably, the evidence for Jesus’ existence is so strong that
it appears that those who promote it are engaging in something other than
objective scholarship. In fact, I would put them in the same general category
as those who deny the holocaust.
Part II
Borrowing
from ancient myths
Proponents of the Jesus myth theory
often argue that Jesus fits the pattern of ancient Greco-Roman heroes or
Middle-East dying and raising savior gods.
The theory that Jesus fits the pattern of
ancient dying and rising savior gods is a view propagated by Sir James Frazer
in his 1911 classic, The Golden Bough
(followed by Joseph Campbell). In the Jesus
Legend, Boyd and Eddy argue that since 1911 Frazer’s views have been
thoroughly and almost universally discredited by reputable scholars. That
doesn’t keep such ideas from being propagated widely on the internet, however.
What many Jesus myth theorists don’t bother to tell their audience is that much
of the evidence for the supposed parallels come from long after the time
of Jesus! If there are parallels at all it may be because pagan authors are
borrowing from Christianity!
The idea that Jesus fits
some supposed pattern of dying and raising savior god’s looks impressive at
first but falls apart when you start examining the imagined parallels more
closely. For example, the myths about Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus and others
really don’t look anything like Jesus at all! The supposed parallels are
arrived at by ignoring the vast differences and cherry-picking the stories for
imagined similarities—and even then the imagined parallels are often quite a
stretch. For example, Mithras was not born of a virgin, he was born out of
solid rock (perhaps the rock was a virgin).
The “resurrection” of
Osiris was not so much a resurrection as a reconstruction. His body was
reassembled and rejuvenated after being dismembered. Far from being a
resurrection, however, he never returned to this life but remained in the
underworld (To use this as an imagined parallel for the resurrection of Jesus
borders on the dishonest).
Dionysus was born when
his mother was impregnated by Zeus (hardly a virgin birth!!!) who disguised
himself as a lightening bolt (the old lightening bolt trick :-) When Dionysus’ mother was burned up by Zeus,
Zeus rescued his unborn son by sewing him into his (Zeus’s) thigh. Dionysus was
then born out of the thigh of Zeus.
The birth of Adonis occurred when the gods turned his mother into
a myrrh tree and Adonis was born from that tree (must have been a virgin tree!)
According to another myth, Attis was
conceived when his mother gathered the blossom of an almond tree which had
grown from the castrated sex organs of the god Cybele!
Augustus’ “virgin birth”
occurred when his father’s wife
was said to have slept overnight in a pagan temple during which time a snake
crawled up inside of her and impregnated her!
Horus was not the son of
a virgin either, but rather the mythological son of Osiris and Isis.
The idea that these are
really parallels to the birth of Jesus is absurd, but even more absurd is the
idea that pious Jewish Christians would borrow from such bizarre pagan
(idolatry) stories to fabricate a story about the birth of their Jewish
Messiah, and that they would then be willing to suffer for the fictions they
knowingly created!
Further, many of those
(especially on the internet) who propose such parallels rarely offer
documentation and many of the supposed parallels are fabricated out of thin
air. The internet authors just assume everyone will believe them. Before any
parallels are accepted, documentation should be requested—not on some internet
website or some New Age occult book—but from primary resource documents—like
ANET, Ancient Near Eastern Texts--where
the entire context can be read.
This, of course, is not
to deny that there are parallels. Of course there are! The very nature of Egyptian
religion, for example, was that the Pharaoh was supposed to be the incarnation
of a god. And of course many religions tell miracle stories. But to think that
just because there are some imagined parallels, this proves the Gospel writers
used those parallels to fabricate their story of Jesus is absurd.
Using the same kind of
logic we could argue that John F. Kennedy was a fictional character because he
fits the pattern of other American heroes—war hero, President, assassinated,
etc. Some have shown through
extended parallels that Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Napoleon
actually fit some ancient “hero pattern” as well as some of the ancient heroes
or gods! It is not enough to show some imagined parallel. Some actual connection must be demonstrated between
the two people or events that are supposedly parallel! In other words, just
because John F. Kennedy was assassinated does not mean the story was fabricated
based on the assassinations of earlier presidents!
But even if there were
genuine pagan parallels, pagan myths would likely have been disgusting to Jewish
authors of the Gospels or to a former Pharisee like Paul: The idea that Horus
was born when his mother, depicted as a Falcon, was hovering over an erect
phallus! That Augustus was born when his mother was impregnated by a snake in a
pagan temple! The dismembering and reassembling of a pagan god’s body parts!
The idea that Paul’s whole life changed dramatically and he started borrowing
from non-Jewish or pagan myths to create some kind of mythical Jesus, and that
he was then willing to suffer numerous beatings, imprisonment and even stoning
for the myths he knew were fictional—would be laughable were it not for the
fact that people are believing it!
Far from creating a
Jesus from pagan myths, Paul argues that many people actually saw Jesus alive
after his death and that if Jesus did not really rise from the dead, his entire
ministry was in vain (1 Corinthians 15). It is understandable that many people
would not believe Paul’s message, but it borders on dishonesty to argue that
Paul did not really believe what he was writing, but was just creating Jesus’
myths based on some ancient pagan dying and rising savior god parallels!
Paul and the historical Jesus
Paul and the historical Jesus
Some Jesus-myth
theorists argue that Paul really knew nothing about the historical Jesus, since
Paul doesn’t mention anything about Jesus life. This is factually in error.
Paul tells us that Jesus was a Jew (Galatians 3:16; Romans 1:3), and that he
had a brother named James who was still alive in Paul’s time (Galatians 1:19.
Since no reputable scholar doubts that Paul wrote Galatians, this alone should
be enough to confirm the existence of Jesus). Paul knows that Jesus had 12
disciples (First Corinthians 15:5) and says that he met personally with three
of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9). He also knows that
Jesus’ disciple, Peter, was married (First Corinthians 9:5). Paul knows that
Jesus had a last supper with his disciples on the night of his death (First
Corinthians 11:23-25), that he was betrayed (First Corinthians 11:23) and was
executed by crucifixion (First Corinthians 1:23). Paul also knows that Jesus’
apostles were centered in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death.
The existence of Jesus
is also confirmed in the Gospels. Although Jesus-myth theorists simply dismiss
the Gospels as myth, C.S. Lewis once made the point that his whole life focused
on the study of myth, and the Gospels simply do not fit the genre of myth! This
is confirmed by more modern scholars like Richard Burridge, David Aune, and
others who have done extensive comparison studies of genre in ancient
literature.
That the Gospel writers
were not intending to write myth is clearly shown in the Gospel of Luke. The writer
of Luke implies that he is getting his information from written sources as well
as eyewitnesses of Jesus (Chapter 1). He says Jesus’ birth took place during
the reign of Caesar Augustus (Chapter 2). The writer then places Jesus ministry
“In the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor
of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch
of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,
during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas…” It is hard to understand how
the writer could have been any more clear about the fact that he was intending
to write about a real historical character in an actual historical context. The
general historical reliability of Luke (and his sequel “Acts) has been
extensively confirmed by Greco-Roman scholars like Sherwin-White,[28]
Colin Hemer[29]
and others.
The existence of Jesus
is also confirmed by Matthew, Mark, John, the rest of the New Testament
writings, and even writings outside the New Testament, e.g. Tacitus, Suetonius,
Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Clement, Ignatius, mention Christ or Jesus.[30]
It is amazing that Roman authors like Tacitus, Josephus or Pliny would mention
Jesus at all because to a Roman, Jesus was a mere peasant in the backwater
province of Galilee or Judea—one of many religious leaders of the time.
The Roman historian,
Tacitus (AD 120) writes about Christians who get their name from Christ “from
whom the name had its origin, suffered
the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of
our procurators, Pontius Pilate…” There
can be no doubt that Tacitus is talking about Jesus even if Tacitus doesn’t
mention Jesus’ mother or father.
Pliny the Younger was a
Roman governor who writes a letter to Emperor Hadrian in about AD 112 telling
about how Pliny had tortured Christians to find out about their religion. He
says that what he found was that “on a fixed day” these Christians “were
accustomed to come together before daylight and to sing by turns a hymn to
Christ as a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath, not for some crime
but that they would not commit robbery, theft, or adultery, that they would not
betray a trust…” Lucian, the satirist (early 100’s) writes about Christians who
worship a crucified sage. The Jewish Mishna talks about how Jesus practiced
sorcery and led Israel astray (remember, I said that not even Jesus enemies
denied that he did miracles—they just attributed them to magic, sorcery, demon
possession etc). But the Mishna does acknowledge Jesus’ existence.
Clement of Rome (AD 97) writes
about Jesus by name as does Ignatius (AD 110) who not only calls Jesus by name
but even mentions his mother: “
Jesus Christ, who was of
the family of David, who was the son of Mary; who really was born, who both ate
and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was
crucified and died…who, moreover, really was raised from the dead…” (to
Trallians 9).
Ignatius (d. 98/117),
reputed to be a disciple of the Apostle John, certainly believed that Jesus was
a historical person and not just a mythical fabrication. Ignatius, by the way,
was so convinced he was willing—even eager—to be eaten by lions as a personal
sacrifice to Jesus, his Lord.
Papias (late first to
early second century) who seemed to delight in talking to those who had known
the disciples of Jesus personally (of course, Jesus had to be a real person for
Papias to have talked with his disciples).
Justin Martyr (100-165)
who wrote, “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for
this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of
Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar…”
Justin is certainly talking about a real historical person.
Probably the most famous
reference to Jesus outside the New Testament comes from the first century AD
Jewish historian, Josephus. Some Jesus’ myth theorists attack Josephus saying
that his writings about Jesus have been proven to be a forgery but this is factually in error. Neither
Josephus, nor his passages on Jesus have been proved to be a forgery, though
virtually everyone—Christians and non-Christians alike—agree that a few phrases
have been added to what Josephus wrote by later scribes. The following passage
appears in Josephus:
“Now there was about this
time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a
doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth
with pleasure. He drew over to him both
many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and
when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned
him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for
he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;
and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day”.
No one—not even
Conservative Christians—denies that the parts underlined were added by a later
scribe, but most scholars seem to think the rest of the passage is genuine. The
reason for this is because Josephus also mentions Jesus in another later
passage when Josephus talks about Jesus’ brother James. That passage says:
“Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and
brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose
name was James”
This second passage seems
to assume that Josephus’ readers have already been introduced to this Jesus
called the Christ (Josephus says, “called the Christ” to distinguish this Jesus
from many other Jesus’s Josephus mentions). Of course Jesus myth theorists
argue that both passages were entirely added by later scribes but this begins to
look more like the skeptics are just manipulating the evidence to justify their
denial of Jesus’ existence.
So in order to deny the
existence of Jesus you have to explain away Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, John,
numerous reference in Paul’s letters, the rest of the New Testament, Josephus,
Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Lucian, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Justin,
and others. To
deny the existence of Jesus, or to say that we don’t have enough evidence,
begins to look suspiciously like holocaust denial in the sense that no amount
of evidence would suffice to convince the skeptic.
Nonsense on
the internet
Some web sites try to make
a big deal out of the fact that Jesus was not born on December 25 and that this
was only added by the later church to conform to a pagan festival. The fact is
that the Bible says nothing about Jesus being born on December 25. Why 4th
century (and later) Christians chose to celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25
has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the historical study of Jesus.
Second, some argue that
the Christian cross or the Celtic cross actually comes from the Cross of the
Zodiac which pre-dates the time of Jesus. While different churches in various
ages have portrayed the cross in different ways, the fact is that the New
Testament says absolutely nothing about the type of cross on which Jesus was
crucified. For all we know, he may have been crucified on a literal tree on
which a crossbar had been attached. It just doesn’t matter.
Romans had been known to
crucify literally thousands of people and they would often use whatever was
available. So let’s just assume, for a moment, that generations of Christians
living hundreds of years after Jesus designed the Christian cross based on the
Zodiac (frankly I think that is absurd, but bear with me). Even assuming that
this is what happened, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the historical
crucifixion of Jesus which is attested not only in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, and Paul’s letters, Hebrews, and First Peter, but also in non-Christian
sources like Josephus, Lucian and the Mishna. In fact, Jesus’ crucifixion is
even mentioned in New Testament apocryphal books like the Kerygma Petri, the
Acts of John and the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Peter.
Third, some argue that the
use of terms like “light” and “darkness” shows that the New Testament writers
were borrowing from contemporary culture which also used such terms. This is actually true to some extent. The
ideas of good=light and evil=darkness is found in the Jewish documents known as
the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written long before Jesus was born. When John
talks about light and darkness (especially in First John) or Jesus being the
light of the world (Gospel of John) he is using categories that Jews would have
been very familiar with.
When
John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word (Logos) was with
God and the Word (Logos) was God,” John is probably thinking of how “in the
beginning” in Genesis, God created everything by speaking it into existence.
The Greek Stoics understood Logos to be “the rational principle by which
everything exists” (Carson, 114). In either case, John is using terminology
that he expected his readers to understand—he was basically saying, this Logos
is a real flesh and blood person (John 20-21), let me introduce him to you. His
name was Jesus! This was similar to what Paul did when he came to Athens and
said, I’ve seen your statue to the unknown god. Let me introduce him to you
(Acts 17:22ff, my paraphrase).
So,
did the apostles and New Testament writers use words, phrases and categories
(like “light, darkness, Logos” that would have been familiar to their hearers
and readers? Of course! How else could they communicate? But it is a huge
difference between saying that the New Testament writers occasionally used
familiar words and examples to communicate truth, than it is to say they
fabricated the entire story based on previous pagan myths! Jesus’ myth
theorists may disagree on John’s interpretation of Jesus being the light
of the world, but there must have been an actual historical Jesus for the
writer of John’s Gospel to have made that interpretation in the first place!
Fourth, some argue that
Jesus was represented by the sign of the fish because Christians were following
the astrological Age of Pisces. The letters in the Greek word for fish are the
first letters for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. Some have suggested that back
in the days when you could lose your life for being a Christian, Christians
would meet someone who they suspected to be a Christian and draw one half of
the fish symbol and if the other person was a Christian, he or she would respond
by completing the sign. On the other hand, you could choose to believe that
Christians just chose to use an idolatrous pagan religious symbol for their
Jewish Lord and savior. Which seems more probable?
Fifth, some internet writers
assert that every religion has their own miracles as proof of the divinity of
their gods and of their religion. That’s not exactly true. Next to
Christianity, the next largest religion in the world is Islam with over a
billion adherents. Many Muslims are fond of saying that the only miracle of
Muhammad was the Qur’an itself—which non-Muslims don’t think is a miracle at
all.
It is true, however, that
there are miracle stories in other religions. Some internet writers seem to
assume that since other religions use miracles to substantiate their claims,
all the miracle claims are irrelevant or even worthless. That assumption
decides the case before even looking at the evidence and pretty much throws the
baby out with the bathwater. A better approach would be to look at the miracle
claims on a case by case basis. For example, take the Hindu miracle claim that
the goddess Parvati (what evidence is there that this “goddess” even existed?”)
created a boy of our her own body dirt, just so the boy could guard her bathroom!
To comfort her, the god Shiva brought back the severed head of an elephant
which was then attached to the boy’s body!
And we’re seriously going
to compare this mythology with the miracles of Jesus? Jesus’ more spectacular
miracles like walking on water or turning water into wine may be hard for some
to believe but they are certainly not as bizarre as attaching a severed
elephant head to a boy’s body as a comfort to the mother!
A better example may be
the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana who, like Jesus, also lived in the first
century AD. His miracles are attested in only one source written over 100 years
after his death (if he even existed at all!). By contrast, the miracles of
Jesus are attested in multiple sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and possibly
Josephus) all less than 70 years after Jesus died. Not even Jesus’ enemies
denied that he did miracles. They said that his amazing signs and wonders were
magic tricks, sorcery or the work of Satan, but no one denied that Jesus did
amazing signs. And since Jesus’ miracles were one of the reasons his followers
believed in him, it is unlikely that they would have willingly faced such
persecution if they knew all the miracles were just fabricated stories. Taken
together that at least provides reason to believe that there was some
historical event(s) that gave rise to the stories and that they weren’t simply
fabrications.
I once
had an e-mail discussion with a Jesus’ myth advocate who argued that there were
literally thousands of “holy men” in India who did magic tricks. I pointed out
that since he recognized that there are holy men of India who do things that
people think are magical or miraculous, why not concede that Jesus did things
that others considered miraculous also? Why assume that the stories were all
made up based on ancient myths?
When
it comes to evidence, which makes more sense: 1) that after Jesus died his
Jewish followers just fabricated a life of Jesus based on pagan myths, even
though the evidence suggests that they suffered for propagating their “gospels
and, as we have seen, the life of Jesus they supposedly fabricated would have
been very offensive to most people in the Greco-Roman world OR 2) that Jesus’
followers continued to believe in him after his death because they were
sincerely convinced that he had done genuine miracles and had risen from the
dead! Even if I were an atheist, the second option would make much more sense
to me.
Let me
press this point a bit further. Most Jews in Jesus’ day were expecting the
coming of an “anointed one”, a Messiah who would restore the kingdom to Judea.
In other words, in Jesus’ day most Jews were looking for a Messiah who would
kick the Romans out of Judea! There were numerous would-be-messiahs both before
and after Jesus, but in every case when the “messiah-wannabee” died, their
movement died out with them. It was always assumed that a messiah who died was
a contradiction in terms. A messiah who died couldn’t possibly be the true
Messiah!
The
only exception to this rule is Jesus. Now as a historian, I would want to know
the reason for this exception. One option is that Jesus’ followers—rather than
disbanding like every other messiah group—just decided to totally re-write the
story of Jesus based on pagan myths—and then, according to virtually all ancient
sources, they suffered severely for propagating the gospel they created.
Another
option is that Jesus really taught that he was the Jewish Messiah and that his
followers continued to believe him even after his death because 1) they
genuinely believed he had fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, 2) they genuinely
believed he had done miracles by the power of God and not, as Jesus’ enemies
asserted, by the power of Satan, and 3) they genuinely believed that Jesus had
physically come back to life after his death.
Even if I was an atheist, this second option would seem much more
plausible to me because it better explains the evidence.
Sixth, some internet
writers assert that the number 12 is used repeatedly in the Bible because it
represents the 12 constellations of the zodiac, for example 12 disciples, 12
tribes of Israel, etc. But which is more historically probable, 1) that Jesus
chose twelve disciples to make the point that his disciples were symbolic of
the 12 tribes of Israel or 2) Jesus (or the Gospel writers) were borrowing from
pagan Zodiac myths which they would have seen as sinful and idolatrous?
The truth is the even the
most skeptical “Jesus scholars” like John Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack, Robert
Funk, and Marcus Borg believe that Jesus actually existed.
E.P. Sanders, one of the
foremost Jesus scholars—not an Evangelical Christian-- in the world is writes
about the historical things we can know about Jesus which he believes are about
as certain as anything in history can be.[31]
Those things are:
·
Born about 4 BC
·
Spent early childhood in Nazareth
·
Baptized by John the Baptist
·
Called disciples
·
Spoke of there being twelve of them
·
Confined his activity to Israel
·
Taught in towns and countryside of Galilee
·
Preached the kingdom of God
·
Went to Jerusalem c.a. 30 AD for Passover
·
Created a disturbance in the temple
·
Had a final meal with his disciples
·
Arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, particularly the
High Priest
·
Executed by Romans on orders from Pilate
·
Jesus’ disciples fled
·
Jesus’ disciples “saw” him after his death—though in what sense in
not certain
·
As a consequence, they believed he would return to found the
kingdom
·
They formed a movement to await his return and win others to faith
in him
·
Some Jews persecuted some parts of this movement
That doesn’t tell us
everything there is to know about Jesus, but it’s not a bad start. That fact is
that even among non-Christian scholars who specialize in the historical study
of Jesus, the Jesus-myth theory is pretty much the academic equivalent of
holocaust denial or the flat earth society.
Making Christianity more palatable
Some
Jesus-myth theorists argue that Paul and the Gospel writers created the story
of Jesus largely based on Greco-Roman myths and other Middle Eastern myths for
the purpose of making their new religion more palatable to the Greco-Roman
world. This argument is unconvincing on several counts.
First,
if Paul and the Gospel writers were really trying to make Jesus more palatable
to Greco-Roman readers for evangelistic purposes, why would they not make him
look more like the warrior-heroes that the Greco-Roman world admired—Hector,
Achilles, Odysseus, Jason, Aeneas, Ajax, etc. The Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus
as a non-violent prophet of love, compassion and turning the other cheek would
be the exact opposite of the role model idolized by most Greeks and Romans.
Second,
if Paul and the Gospel writers were really trying to make Jesus more palatable
to Greco-Roman readers for evangelistic purposes, why not downplay the
Jewishness of Jesus. Jews were not generally viewed highly in the Roman world
because of their “intolerant” view that there was only one God and because of
their unpatriotic refusal to sacrifice to the emperor. But the Gospels portray
Jesus as thoroughly Jewish to the core! According to the Gospels, Jesus was
born in Bethlehem of Judea, a descendant of David, was circumcised according to
Jewish law, and as a young boy, learned from Rabbis in the Jewish Temple. Jesus
frequently quoted from the Jewish Bible as authoritative Scripture (never from
any literature respected in the Greco-Roman world!).
Jesus
held up Jewish heroes like Abraham, Moses, Jonah, David and the Jewish prophets
as positive examples, but he is never once portrayed as showing any respect for
or even acknowledgement of Greco-Roman heroes (why is that, if the Gospel
writers were so eager to make their “Jesus” palatable to a Greco-Roman
audience?).
According
to the Gospels, Jesus healed a leper and told him to present himself to the priests
in accordance with Mosaic Law. Jesus taught very Jewish-sounding teachings in
the Jewish synagogues of Galilee. He attended the Jewish feasts of Dedication
(Hanukkah), and Passover. He instructed Peter to pay the Jewish Temple tax.
When someone asked him how to have eternal life, Jesus’ initial response was to
keep the Ten Commandments which he elsewhere summarizes by citing the Jewish
Shema of the Old Testament: “Hear O Israel,
the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
Jesus’ last supper was a celebration of the Jewish Passover and his “new
covenant” was an allusion to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31.
According
to the Gospels Jesus taught that he was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies of
the Jewish messiah. He says he was sent to the Jewish people and when a Greek
woman from Sidon asked for healing he challenged her by suggesting that it was
not proper to give the “children’s” food to “dogs” (not a very good way to make
Jesus palatable to a Greek audience!).
Finally,
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey in deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah’s
prophecy about Israel’s king (which, in the context of Zechariah, is God
himself) coming to His people. So the
question again is, if the Gospel writers were so concerned to fabricate a story
about Jesus based on pagan myths so they could make their gospel more palatable
to the Greco-Roman world, why did they make him so “Jewish”? Why didn’t they
make him more like the Greco-Roman heroes?
Third,
the core of the Christian message as presented by all four Gospels as well as
Paul’s writings et al. was that in Jesus of Nazareth, God became human and died
an atoning sacrifice for our sins. The death of Jesus, according to the Gospels
and Paul, was a human sacrifice. But according to mythology expert, Edith
Hamilton whose book on mythology has been used as a textbook on mythology for
decades, the Greeks thought human sacrifices “were abominable.” Hamilton writes
that “Any deity who demanded them was thereby proven to be evil.”[32]
So if
Paul and the Gospel writers were fabricating a story about Jesus to make it
evangelistically palatable to the Greco-Roman world, it would be hard to
imagine a worse way to do it than to present Jesus as a human sacrifice of
atonement to the Jewish God. The very idea would have been thoroughly and
terribly offensive to the Greeks! Even Paul acknowledges that his gospel is
considered “foolishness” to the Greeks! (1 Cor. 1:23).
Fourth,
according to the Book of Acts, when Paul (the Jewish former Pharisee) and
Barnabas healed someone in Iconium and the people conclude that Zeus and Hermes
have come to them, Paul and Barnabas not only commanded them to stop worshiping
them but told the people to “turn from these worthless things to the living God
who made the heaven and earth…”(Acts 14:11-15). That hardly seems like a good
way to make the gospel palatable to Greeks!
When
Paul arrives in Athens and sees all their idols he does not affirm their
polytheism, but preaches to them about the one true God who created the heavens
and earth and everything in it (Acts 17:16-31). His message was not well
received by the Greeks. When Paul came to Ephesus he almost caused a riot when
his opponents charged that Paul says, “that man-made gods are no gods at all”
and as a result of Paul’s gospel, “the great goddess Artemis will be
discredited” (Acts 19:23-27). This hardly seems like a good way to make the
gospel more palatable to the Greeks!
Of
course, Christianity’s critics will challenge (without valid reason) the
essential historical reliability of Acts, but even if we assume, for the sake
of argument, that the Book of Acts was not historically reliable, the fact
still remains that the Book of Acts is a first century Christian writing that
presents Paul as being thoroughly opposed to Greek polytheism. That seems like
a very strange position to take if the Christian writer of Acts—who also wrote
the Gospel of Luke!—was just fabricating a story about Jesus supposedly based
on Greek myths for the purpose making his gospel evangelistically palatable to
the Greco-Roman world. No, the idea is not just strange, it is laughably
absurd!
The
view of Paul presented by Luke in the Book of Acts, is also backed up by Paul’s
own letters in which he specifically tells his readers to flee from idolatry (1
Cor. 10:14, cf. Gal. 5:20; even the most skeptical critics agree that Paul
wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians). In fact Paul repeatedly condemns the
worship of idols and even says that when the pagans (Greeks/Romans) sacrifice
to idols they are sacrificing to demons (1 Cor. 10:20-21)! If Paul is trying to
make his gospel evangelistically palatable to Greeks and Romans, he has a very
strange way of doing it!
So in
other words, the monotheism of the Gospels would have been offensive to the
Greeks. The Jewishness of the Gospels would have been offensive to the Greeks.
The concept of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice would have been offensive to the
Greeks. The non-violent “turn the other cheek” prophet of love and compassion
view of Jesus would have been unimpressive (to say the least) to the Greeks.
And Paul’s whole presentation of the Gospel was thoroughly antagonistic to the
Greco-Roman worldview.
The
idea that Paul and the Gospel writers were fabricating a story about Jesus in
order to make him more evangelistically palatable to the Greco-Roman world is
just plain silly.
Faith and evidence
After
much discussion with a Jesus myth advocate he finally said that he would only
believe evidence but even then, he said, he never believes anything 100%
because better evidence might one day emerge.
He was
probably surprised to know that I agreed with him to some extent. I don’t think
we can know anything with absolute certainty (we live by faith, not by sight).
What often happens, however, is that while people believe all kinds of things
with very little evidence, they often demand absolute certainty before they
will believe Paul or the Gospels. The truth is that many people really don’t want to believe Paul or the Gospels and
will grasp at anything that gives them an excuse not to believe.
It is
also a fact that people are rarely consistent with the amount of evidence it
takes to convince them. For example, I’ve never heard of anyone who doubts the
existence of Alexander the Great, yet almost all the evidence for his life
wasn’t written until four hundred years after he lived! But there are many
people who are skeptical about Jesus even though we have about a dozen sources
affirming the existence of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, John, Paul’s
letters, Hebrews, the letters of Peter, Jude, Josephus, Clement of Rome,
Ignatius, and possibly Papias and Polycarp) all written from 20 to 100 years
after Jesus died.[33]
Some
of the scholars who are so skeptical about what we can know about Jesus, write
books telling us all about the religion, culture and society of early first
century Judaism largely based on just one source—Josephus—who wrote around the
same time that these critics say the gospels were written. The critics are often
very selectively skeptical.
Conclusion
The
theory that Jesus was just a myth or legend based on earlier Greco-Roman heroes
or Middle-Eastern dying and raising savior gods, is just plain silly. Yet there
are numerous Jesus myth advocates who are propagating their myth, especially on
the internet, and convincing many.
[1] The source is
Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander written
in the early second century AD.
[2] See, for example,
J.A.T. Robinson. Redating the New
Testament. Philadelphia : SCM Press, 1976. John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke.
Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 1992.
[3] According to Q (if Q
existed), Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, was tempted in the desert for
40 days, was called the Son of God, healed people of diseases and performed
exorcisms, claimed to have a unique relation with the Father, had strong
conflicts with the Pharisees, and predicted the destruction of the temple in
Jerusalem. If Q existed, as most critics believe, it would be a crushing blow
to the Jesus myth theory. Flemming argues that the Gospel writers were just
historicizing Paul’s “myth.” But if Q existed, it would date from about the
same time that Paul writes his letters, making it extremely unlikely that Q was
historicizing Paul. So in other words, we would have two independent sources
for the existence of Jesus that both date to the time of Flemming’s 40 year
“gap.”
[4] Galatians 3:16; Romans 1:3.
[5] Galatians 1:19.
[6] First Corinthians 15:5.
[7] Galatians 2:9.
[8] First Corinthians 9:5.
[9] First Corinthians 11:23-25.
[10] First Corinthians
11:23.
[11] First Corinthians
1:23.
[12] Galatians 1:17-18;
2:1.
[13] Flemming also argues that Paul never quoted from Jesus. While Paul
doesn’t quote Jesus verbatim, scholars have demonstrated that Paul was to a
great extent simply passing on and contextualizing the teachings of Jesus. The
evidence for this is documented and discussed extensively in David Wenham’s
book, Paul; Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?” The idea that
Paul didn’t know anything about the real historical Jesus is just factually
wrong.
[14] Scholars call Paul’s letters “occasional” letters, which
means that Paul was addressing specific problems and issues in specific
churches. He was not writing to re-tell the story of Jesus any more than a
missionary might repeat the story of Jesus when they write a letter back to
their home church from the mission field. Paul’s letters were primarily about
exhortation, not historical instruction. Paul was not intending to have to
prove his point by citing sources.
[15] Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough. London : Macmillan,
1911-1915.
[16] Eddy, Paul and
Gregory Boyd. The Jesus Legend. Grand
Rapids : Baker, 2007, 142-143.
[17] First Corinthians
15.
[18] Philo, Migration of Abraham, #91.
[19] What Flemming and
Price really mean by “outrageous
improbabilities” undoubtedly has to do with Jesus’ miracles and resurrection.
It is not that there is anything really historically suspect about the Gospels.
It is just that some people cannot or will not believe in the Jesus portrayed
by the Gospels. This is the core issue. Most of the other arguments against the
general reliability of the Gospels are pretty much smoke and mirrors.
[20] Interview on the ABC
News Special, The Search for Jesus,
2000.
[21] The 22 characteristics are listed below with an asterisk
(*) next to the ones the DVD says are true of Jesus and an X next to those in
which the story of Jesus does not fit the pattern. 1) The hero’s mother is a
royal virgin*, 2) The hero’s father is a king*, 3) The hero is often a near
relative of his mother*, 4) The circumstances of his conception are unusual*,
5) He is reputed to be the son of a god*, 6) At birth an attempt is made often
by his father to kill him*, 7) He is spirited away*, 8) And reared by foster
parents in a far country X, 9) We are told nothing of his childhood *, 10) On
return he goes to his future kingdom*, 11) After victory over a king or Jinn or
dragon X, 12) Marries a princes X, 13) He becomes king*, 14), King reigns
uneventfully* 15) The king prescribes laws* 16) He later loses favor with his
subjects* 17) He is driven from the throne of the city* 18) He has a mysterious
death* 19) Often at the top of a hill* 20) His children if any do not succeed
him* 21) His body is not buried* 22) He has one or more sepulchers* The DVD
argues that when Jesus is compared to other mythological heroes, Oedipus and
Thesius meet 22 of the characteristics, Jesus meets 19, Romulus and Hercules
meet 17, Zeus and Jason meet 15, Robin Hood meets 13 and Apollo meets 11. A
closer look at these characteristics, however, will show that the whole thing
is contrived. While Jesus' mother was a descendant of David, she was a poor
peasant, hardly a "royal" virgin. Jesus’ adopted father was not a
king, he was also a peasant—unless you count God as his father but that is
counted under his reputation as son of God. To count this twice is stacking the
deck. To say that the hero is often a near relative of his mother is also
contrived. Most people are near relatives of their mothers! Jesus adopted
father made no attempt to kill him as the fathers of heroes in other hero
stories. It is true that we are told almost nothing of his childhood, but that
is a characteristic on ancient bios,
or biography, not just of heroes. Jesus’ future kingdom is not just Galilee or
Judea, but the world. The whole story of the Gospels is how Jesus will one day
be the king, but he was never an earthly king and never ruled, eventfully or
uneventfully. Jesus certainly taught the crowds, but not in the sense of an
earthly king prescribing laws. He did not loose favor with his subjects, but
with those who never were his subjects to begin with (unless you count Judas).
He couldn’t be driven from the throne of the city because he never sat on the
throne. There was nothing mysterious about his death and his body was in fact
buried. The whole thing was contrived to make it look like Jesus was just like
ancient mythological heroes, but when you count up the actual similarities,
Jesus doesn’t even make the list of “heros.” If you actually read the Gospels
and then read the stories of these mythological characters, you will find that
they are as different as night and day!
[22] Eddy and Boyd, 149.
[23] Ibid, 407ff.
[24] See also Bauckham,
Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2006.Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL : IVP,
1987. Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus.
Downers Grove, IL : IVP, 2006. Perrin, Nicholas. Lost in Translation; What can we know about the words of Jesus.
Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 2007.Roberts, Mark. Can we Trust the Gospels? Wheaton : Crossway, 2007. Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God.
Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1992.
[25] Contrary to Price, the Gospel of Peter is no exception.
The Gospel of Peter says that Jesus was tried under Herod. Far from being a
disagreement about when Jesus lived, the Gospel of Peter actually agrees with
the Gospel of Luke which affirms that Jesus was sent to Herod by Pontius
Pilate, who then sent Jesus back to Pilate. This Herod is Herod Antipas, a
contemporary of Pontius Pilate and the son of Herod the Great.
[26] Price, Robert M. Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, NY :
Prometheus Books, 2000, 249.
[27] Fifth century AD for
the Toledoth Jeschu and Palestinian Talmud. Seventh
century AD for the Babylonian Talmud.
[28]
Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and
Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1978.
[29] Hemer,
Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting
of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, IN : Eisenbrauns, 1990.
[30] See
Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus:
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO : College Press, 1996;
or Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the
New Testament. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2000.
[31]
Sanders. E.P. The Historical Figure of
Jesus. New York : Penguin, 1993, 10-11.
[32]
Hamilton, Edith. Mythology; Timeless
Tales of Gods and Heroes. New York : Mentor, 1969, 248.
