User:Jbolden1517/backups/Jesus-myth hypothesis

See also: May 2007 version

The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus," anymore than finding historical persons who were the basis for Steamboat Bill Jr. would be equivalent to finding the historical Mickey Mouse The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered. . That is while the mythological parallels in the gospel narrative are widely recognised, a claim of non-historicity must make a case that biographical details reported in the gospels rather than the historical core of the narrative are secondary embellishments intended to create a fictitious impression of historicity.

Mythography of Christ
Study of study of the Christ narrative in mythography goes back to ideas of a solar myth and a sacrificial king forwarded by Max Müller and James Frazer in the late 19th century. These studies did separate mythological from historical aspects, but did not impinge on the existence of a historical Jesus as such. Frazer explicitly stated that "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth [...] The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are [...] unworthy of serious attention." Others disagreed and in 1903 JM Robertson wrote, The primary reason for doubting the genuineness of every detail of teachings in the gospel is the total ignorance of those teachings shown in the Pauline epistles....They speak of Jesus in terms of a slain and resurrected god or demi-god, rather than of the teacher or wonder-worker of the gospels 

Often cited mythological parallels are the Horus and Osiris cults of Ancient Egyptian religion as syncretized into Hellenistic Orphic and Dionysian mystery religions, the cult of Mithras in the Roman Empire, and, of course, the mythology of the Hebrew Bible employed in the gospels themselves. The Pan-Babylonianist school in particular further adduces Mesopotamian cults of a resurrected fertility god, Tammuz. Acharya S is currently the most widely read proponent of a non historical pure pagan Jesus.

More recently advanced is an understanding that theory that Jesus was a middle Platonic applying the interpretive method of Philo of Alexandria to messianic prophecy. That is an understanding of what is specifically Hellenistic Jewish about this particular savior god. The popular proponent of this theory is Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle. However many academics studying gnostic writers such as John D Turner, Birger Pearson when discussion the evolution of Sethian mythos encounter a preexisting belief in a abstract savior god being transformed into the belief in an actual incarnation (of sorts) that occurs in history

Historicity of Christ
The approach of the Jesus-myth hypothesis towards historicity is that, literature which can be dated should be used to show the evolution of the development of a legend. In particular the best earliest sources available are the epistles. So they should constitute the primary source of knowledge about early Christianity. This contrasts with the mainstream approach which holds that since Jesus is the "founder" of Christianity an understanding of early Christianity requires one to focus attention on the gospels even though dating is far less certain. So for example G.A. Wells opens the first page of the Jesus Legend with a chart of the dates for the new testament.

In Deconstructed Jesus, author Robert M. Price argues that liberal Protestant scholars who produce reconstructions of the "historical Jesus" are, as Albert Schweitzer pointed out long ago, creating their own Jesus icons to authorize a liberal religious agenda. Christian faith, whether fundamentalist or theologically liberal, invariably tends to produce a Jesus capable of playing the role of a religious figurehead. In this way, "Jesus Christ" functions as a symbolic cloak for several hidden agendas. This is no surprise, Price demonstrates, since the Jesus Christ of the gospels is very likely a fictional amalgam of several first-century prophets and messiahs, as well as of purely mythic Mystery Cult redeemers and Gnostic Aions. To show this, Price follows the noted scholar Burton Mack's outline of a range of "Jesus movements" and "Christ cults," showing the origins of each one's Jesus figures and how they may have finally merged into the patchwork savior of Christian dogma. Finally, Price argues that there is good reason to believe that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and that responsible historians must remain agnostic about a "historical Jesus" and what he stood for.

Joseph Hoffman makes a similar point, that there is no other historical figure who core nature is so radically disputed, In the past generation, the 'real' Jesus has been variously a magician (Smith), a Galilean rabbi (Chilton), a marginal Jew (Meier), a bastard (Schaberg), a cipher (Thiering), a Qumran dissedent (Allegro et al), a gnosticisng Jew (Koester), a dissdent Jew (Vermes) a happily married man and father of son (Sprong), a bandit (Horsley) an enthusiastic (possibly Zealot?) opponent of the Temple cult (Sanders)

Theory of Christian Development
''It has long been acknowledged by scholars of the second century apologists that they show little if any connection to the type of cultic Christianity of the first century as represented by Paul. They thus find themselves in the position of having to explain this discontinuity. What happened to divorce the second century stream represented by the apologists from the first century Pauline antecedent? In that group, including Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix and (I maintain) in Justin's earliest thinking, there is not only no historical founder in view, there is no idea of incarnation, there is no atonement doctrine and no Calvary, there is no resurrection of a human or divine entity from the dead. These are major voids, quantum divergences from a presumed original faith movement that are hardly explainable by the rather feeble rationalizations provided by modern scholars. But they are hamstrung by their own preconceptions. They are reading a certain set of documents and beliefs into everything else. The most plausible explanation is that there was no discontinuity, no divorce or divergence from Paul or some of the early Fathers of the Church. Rather, these are the varied expressions of general trends of belief found throughout the Empire, trends which were only gradually coalescing and evolving into a commonality based on the ever more appealing and powerful figure created by the Gospels. ''

Christ as fiction
right|300px|thumb|Which none of the [[archons of this æon knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8)]] In spite of Frazer's verdict that attempts to build a case of the non-historicity of Jesus from mythological parallels are "unworthy of serious attention", such attempts have been repeatedly made. Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favor of Jesus' historicity.

Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker argued that the true founder of Christianity was an Alexandrian Jew, Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism and Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under Bible scholars 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 fictions written to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity evolved from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about God.

The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which brought together the scholarship of the day in defense of the idea 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. Joseph Wheless in his 1930 In Christianity claimed there was an active effort to forge documents to make the myth seem historical beginning as early as the 2nd century. The view gained attention in Robertson's Pagan Christs. Here he argued that it widely held that the authentic letters of Paul of Tarsus are the earliest surviving Christian writings. The earliest datable references we have and the earliest manuscripts are from Paul. However epistles discuss theology and morality abstractly while gospels teach metaphorically showing examples from "Jesus' actual life and ministry". Proponents of Jesus as myth note however that the epistles are silent in areas where they would expect to see events from Jesus's actual life.

The later works by George Albert Wells drew on the Pauline Epistles and the lack of early non-Christian documents to argue that the Jesus figure of the Gospels was symbolic, not historical. G. A. Wells suggests that the level of discussion of the historical Jesus in the Pauline epistles, except for the Pastorals, as well as in Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, the Johannine epistles and Revelation supports his position. In these works, Wells conjectures, references to Jesus is presented as "a basically supernatural personage only obscurely on Earth as a man at some unspecified period in the past". Wells considers this to be the original Christian view of Jesus, based not on the life of a historical figure but on the personified figure of Wisdom as portrayed in Jewish wisdom literature.

Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle proposed that Jewish mysticism influenced the development of a Christ myth A more radical position is taken by Earl Doherty, who holds that these early authors did not believe that Jesus had been on Earth at all. He argues that the earliest Christians accepted a Platonic cosmology that distinguished a "higher" spiritual world from the Earthly world of matter, and that they viewed Jesus as having descended only into the "lower reaches of the spiritual world". Doherty also suggests that this view was accepted by the authors of the Pastoral epistles, 2 Peter, and various second-century Christian writings outside the New Testament. Doherty contends that apparent references in these writings to events on earth, and a physical historic Jesus, should in fact be regarded as allegorical metaphors. Opponents regard such interpretations as forced and erroneous.

Most recently Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy who are both popular writers on mysticism, have popularized the Jesus-myth concept in their book The Jesus Mysteries.

In recent years, opinions of a purely mythical Christ have been advanced by Emeritus Professor of German George Albert Wells (The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth) and by

John M. Allegro proposed that Christianity began as shamanic religion based on the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Historiography and methodology
Earl Doherty argues that the gospels are inconsistent concerning "such things as the baptism and nativity stories, the finding of the empty tomb and Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances" and contain numerous "contradictions and disagreements in the accounts of Jesus' words and deeds". He concludes that the evangelists freely altered their sources and invented material, and therefore could not have been concerned to preserve historical information.

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.

Mainstream scholarly reception
Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.


 * The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

However, Doherty's interpretation of this fact is that:


 * New Testament scholarship has not kept pace with today’s mythicism... Someone in the mainstream, a respected, open-minded critical scholar, unencumbered by confessional interests and peer pressure, needs to take a fresh look, to consider and address every aspect of the mythicist case in an in-depth fashion...

Some of the specific criticisms given by scholars are highlighted in the points below.

Arguments in support of the Jesus myth

 * Lack of early non-Christian references to Jesus. Advocates of the Jesus myth idea point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers.  They argue that no Roman or Jewish sources from the first century mention him.  The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus, whose Antiquities contains two references to Jesus.  But the first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, contains obvious Christian content that a Jew such as Josephus would not have written and is not mentioned by second-century Christian authors.  The second reference, which mentions Jesus along with his brother James, is also disputed. . The Antiquities  wasn't written until 94 CE - more than two generations after the sugegsted date of the crucifixion.


 * Lack of references to the historical Jesus in the letters of Paul. The letters of Paul are widely accepted as the earliest Christian documents.  Yet they contain few references to the details of Jesus' life and ministry as reported in the Gospels.  Advocates of the Jesus myth idea believe that this level of references is best explained by docetic interpretations of Jesus, or Jesus not existing whatsoever and having originally been an allegory.


 * Pauline historical references should be viewed in their Hellenistic religious context. Earl Doherty has argued that Christianity came of age in a Hellenistic era which divided the universe into "spheres" of higher and lower areas.  According to Mr. Doherty, Paul can speak of events that sound as if they happened on earth, but in fact happened in a celestial realm.  As a result, the references to events interpreted by Christianity as referring to an historical Jesus in Paul's letters took place in one of the higher worlds, and not on earth, just as in myth the Greek and Roman gods carried out events in higher worlds far from our own.


 * Old Testament origins of the Jesus narrative.   It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by 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 and prophecies in the Hebrew Bible.  As such, they cannot be used as sources to demonstrate the existence of a historical Jesus.


 * Inconsistencies Between the Gospels Make them Worthless as Historical Documents Price and other Jesus-Myth advocates 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 Gospels provide no meaningful historical information about the time Jesus was alleged to have lived, but only about the authors of the Gospels and their communities.


 * Similarities to the Gospel accounts in earlier mediterranian religions. Some advocates of the Jesus Myth idea argue that the story of Jesus as found in the Gospels reveals remarkable parallels with “dying-and-rising” savior gods well known in the pagan world in the first century.  (See The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy).  The Jesus Mysteries argues that Jewish mystics adapted the pagan myths of Osiris-Dionysus into a myth of their own, so as to impart certain spiritual teachings.


 * The lack of sound methodology for determining the existence of an historical Jesus. Although seldom remarked on by New Testament scholars, some Jesus-myth advocates argue that historians lack any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As J. D. Crossan 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."(p149). While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that Paul or Napolean did not exist, Jesus-Myth advocates believe it does call into question the results of historical inquiry into Jesus of Nazareth.

Arguments against the Jesus myth
See also: Josephus on Jesus
 * Josephus provides reliable evidence about the historical Jesus. Although most opponents of the Jesus Myth idea agree that Christian scribes corrupted the manuscripts containing the Testimonium Flavianum, they point out that most modern scholars believe that the core of the Testimonium is authentic and constitutes a reliable first-century non-Christian reference to the historical Jesus..  The second reference to Jesus, which says that "Jesus called Christ" was the brother of James the Just, in Josephus' Antiquities, is considered authentic by most scholars.  The silence of other contemporary non-Christian sources is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews.


 * Pauline evidence of a historical Jesus. Opponents of the Jesus Myth idea claim that the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul’s correspondence are sufficient explanations for the lack detail about the historical Jesus. Unlike the gospels, Paul’s letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus.  Moreover, despite their occasional nature, Paul’s letters contain a number of references conventionally seen as references to the historical Jesus (See, e.g., Gal. 1:19, 3:16, 4:4, Rom. 1:3, 3:1, 15:8, and 1 Cor. 11:23-25, 15:4). Although mythicists argue that these references are not in fact references to a  historical Jesus, their arguments are dismissed by opponents as based on forced and erroneous translations..


 * The Gospels are ancient biographies and impart at least some historical information about Jesus. Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus Myth idea argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies.  (See What Are the Gospels?  A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography, by Richard A. Burridge).  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.


 * Not-so-parallel pagan myths. The suggestion of parallels with pagan myths has gained little traction in the academic community.  The Jesus Mysteries has been criticized for heavy reliance on out-dated secondary sources and for confusing the issue of causation (who was borrowing from whom).  Others have questioned the similarity between the dying-and-rising accounts of pagan saviors and those of Jesus in the Gospels.   Some scholars, like Michael Grant, do not see significant similarity between the pagan myths and Christianity. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."


 * Silence of Christianity’s opponents. Professor Robert Van Voorst asks why, “if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”  (The Study of Jesus Outside the New Testament, page 15).


 * The influence of the Old Testament. The suggestion that similarities to the Hebrew Bible indicates wholesale invention of Jesus and his followers on the part of the Gospel authors has not gained acceptance in the scholarly community.  Although there are many types of midrash, none seem to reflect the theory advocated by Jesus-Myth proponents -- that the Gospel authors invented new characters and situations wholesale according to their understanding of prophecies from the Hebrew Bible.  The closet midrash parallel, the extension or embellishment of stories about characterers (such as Moses and Abraham) found in the Hebrew Bible, is inapplicable.  Moreover, there are many examples of ancient Jewish and Christian literature that shaped their stories and accounts according to Hebrew Bible influence, but nevertheless provided historical accounts.  For example, in 1 Maccabees "Judas and his battles are described in terms which remind us of Saul and David and the battles against the Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel," but 1 Maccabees has nevertheless "won much respect from historians." (John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of Maccabees, pages 15-17).


 * Through cultural diffusion it would have been natural for Jesus and/or his followers within a Hellenized Judea to incorporate the philosophy and sentiment of Epicureanism, Stoicism, Platonism/proto-Gnosticism, and mystery cults. The ideas that these belief systems brought concerning the afterlife, presence of the divine, and wisdom were incorporated into Judaism for several centuries before Jesus and can be found in the Old Testament and Apocrypha.


 * Those who do not hold to the Jesus-Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. They argue that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references in Paul's letters to historical facts about Jesus's life.  He claims that Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh."  Paul also states that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" and that "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being."  Paul clearly states that in "taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form, he [Jesus] humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross." Furthermore, he invokes the "command," "charge," or "word" of Jesus four times in the Epistles.


 * Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and mainstream Christianity would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. There is good early evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.

Hebrews

 * The Epistle to the Hebrews is debatably an early source, which some, but not all, scholars put before 70 CE. Their reasoning is that the Epistle makes mention of animal sacrifice, which was a practice that fell out of favor in Judaism after the destruction of the temple. In Hebrews, Jesus is mentioned several times in physical form  and even speaks.