The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth

[cleanhippie]

(CNN)– Timothy Freke was flipping through an old academic book when he came across a religious image that some would call obscene. It was a drawing of a third-century amulet depicting a naked man nailed to a cross. The man was born of a virgin, preached about being “born again” and had risen from the dead after crucifixion, Freke says.

But the name on the amulet wasn’t Jesus. It was a pseudonym for Osiris-Dionysus, a pagan god in ancient Mediterranean culture. Freke says the amulet was evidence of something that sounds like sacrilege – and some would say it is: that Jesus never existed. He was a myth created by first-century Jews who modeled him after other dying and resurrected pagan gods, says Freke, author of "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God?"

“If I said to you that there was no real Good Samaritan, I don’t think anyone would be outraged,” says Freke, one of a group of mythicists who say Jesus never existed. “It’s a teaching story. What we’re saying is that the Jesus story is an allegory. It’s a parable of the spiritual journey.” On this Easter Sunday, millions of Christians worldwide will mark the resurrection of Jesus. Though Christians clash over many issues, almost all agree that he existed.

But there is another view of Jesus that’s been emerging, one that strikes at the heart of the Easter story. A number of authors and scholars say Jesus never existed. Such assertions could have been ignored in an earlier age. But in the age of the Internet and self-publishing, these arguments have gained enough traction that some of the world’s leading New Testament scholars feel compelled to publicly take them on.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/

[Swamp Lover]

1. One thing to consider when discussing "historic Jesus"....

....is the effect that the persecution of early Christians had on the inaccurate recordation of events and beliefs. Early Christians were persecuted, and the belief was illegal. Followers had to hide in caves and catacombs and practice in secret.

A people who had to hide to practice their faith, often had to lie and obfuscate to outsiders and authorities. Like the Braer Rabbit stories of American slaves, the early history of Christians had to be hidden and related to insiders as parables, myths, cautionary tales and by altering old stories to carry the new message.

Trying to translate a discovered, ancient, volume without this context would be a hazard.

[cleanhippie]

3. Another thing to consider when discussing "historic jesus..."

Is the fact that there is not one single extra-biblical reference to jesus whatsoever. And the Romans were meticulous record keepers.

[cordelia]

7. By "extra-biblical", do you also include the Qu'ran?

I believe I have read there are multiple mentions of Jesus in its pages.

Good article.

Thanks.

[stopbush]

21. It was written 600 years after Jesus supposedly lived.

The Book of Mormon also mentions Jesus, and "Gone With the Wind" mentions Robert E Lee. BFD. Fictional histories always toss in the names of actual personages to add an air of verisimilitude to their stories.

[Leontius]

8. So if there is no known Roman record it can't have happened?

[stopbush]

23. Of course not. But it's more risible to treat the Bible as if it contains any actual history

outside of the mention of a few known personages like Caesar, Herod and Quirinias. Few Biblical scholars will argue that Moses and David were real people. Too bad they can't admit the obvious about Jesus as well.

[skepticscott]

5. Sometimes early Christians were persecuted

and sometimes they were left alone. And sometimes the persecution was not for their Christian beliefs per se, but for their failure to also pay appropriate homage to the Roman gods.

[rug]

2. Good, balanced article.

[hlthe2b]

4. I can certainly understand why one would not believe all the supernatural religious aspects....

surrounding Jesus.... those purporting to detail his miraculous birth, death, and resurrection.

But, I really find it curious that so many would be so determined to doubt a man existed, upon whom many stories, legends, myths, or religious dogma have been attributed. Even if he were no more than an ordinary man who espoused some philosophy that is not unique to Christendom, after all, but perhaps, its most remembered spokesperson, why would that evoke so much skepticism. Do we doubt that Socrates existed? Aristotle? Plato? The works of Herotodutus that detail ancient Greece have likewise been hailed as both wanton fiction and conversely, invaluable documentation of history. Is it not possible to similarly take a grain--neh a big handful-- of salt with all that is written, yet still be able to believe a figure that inspired the stories of Jesus Christ existed?


Just curious about this seeming trend of denying historical figures--totally. At what point to do we trust the existence of historical figures, merely on the written accounts of others?

[cleanhippie]

6. Well, for me...

It is the total and complete lack of any extra-biblical reference or mention of this jesus fellow. Every account of him comes directly from, or uses as a reference, the bible. And considering how, as an historical document, just how wrong the bible is...

[hlthe2b]

9. One could say that, again using my ancient Greek example-- of all that documented in Herotodus...

Just to play devil's ('non-devil's?) advocate for the moment... it seems to me that the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra-biblical. Not being a religious historian--nor even religious--by any incredible stretch of the imagination, I can't say exactly what is contained in the latter, but what little I have read certainly leads me to believe there are references.

Ancient history is not documented in tomes of volumes, it seems to me. Until the Rosetta Stone, much of the ancient Egyptian history documented on long lost papyrus and on the walls of tombs was unknown--even though the mummies of many pharaohs were left behind.

[cleanhippie]

10. It is my understanding...

that the Romans and the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. The Roman archives, from what I understand, never mention any jesus (or other derivative of that name) as being a problem person, a person of interest, nor anyone that was executed. Had jesus been such an inflammatory character, it would be logical to think that he would have been at least mentioned by the Romans, no?

And as for the Egyptians, it is also my understanding that there is no record of any exodus, moses, etc., and apparently there was not some enormous "slave" force of oppressed people that they used to build their monuments and civilization.

Considering that at the time, those two empires actually existed, and are repeatedly referenced in christian scripture, yet neither of those empires comment on "biblical" claims at all, leads me to conclude that like most of the myths, they are just that; myths.

Now, I certainly AM open to any evidence to the contrary, as long as it is extra-biblical and does not use the bible as a reference or starting point. Do you know of any? (Dead sea scrolls? I'm highly skeptical as they, like other books of the bible, were probably written LONG after any of those events took place and the people who lived them were also long dead.)

[hlthe2b]

11. As has already been mentioned, the Qu'ran mentions Jesus

or at least every mainstream Muslim I met and worked with during my time in the ME, certainly thought so.

[cleanhippie]

12. When was that written?

And isn't Islam just another offshoot of the abrahamic religion? Maybe I should just state now that the bible, the quran, and any other religious text is, to me, pure fiction. All of those texts are circular in nature and are worthless as evidence of anything.

[hlthe2b]

14. wow... so nearly all the "major religions" were in cahoots?

Geebus. I have no stake in convincing you about anything, but boy, that IS a stretch.

As to your expectation that the Romans would have documented everything--hell, we don't even do that great a job doing so today. Particularly if this was merely a crucifixtion (not uncommon for the day) of a lowly carpenter--that they had no interest in "elevating" to any degree of importance. That strikes me as utterly ridiculous.

[cleanhippie]

16. Cahoots? Not quite the way I characterized it, now is it?

And we were doing so good.

[hlthe2b]

17. Kindly respond to the rest. "cahoots" is merely term to cover your suggestion they all plagiarized

each other.

[cleanhippie]

18. Fair enough.

I guess my point is, that at best, its all just speculation, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim... and I have yet to see any proof that would lead me to conclude differently from what I previously stated.

[provis99]

25. Mohammad blatantly plagarized Judaism and Christianity.

using him as a source for proving Jesus exists is as silly as it gets.

[mr blur]

28. No, they all borrowed from the same sources. nt

[stopbush]

30. I used to sing with a devout Jew who told me he had no problems with radical Xian fundamentalists

because when it came down to it, Xianity was based on Judaism, so any embrace of Xianity - in his words - "ultimately helped the cause of the Jews."

I wouldn't say that's necessarily being in cahoots, but it is a position that says that having some religious belief is preferable to the religious than having no belief at all, if for no other reason that said beliefs legitimize fantasy and allow people to treat fantasy as reality. We may not agree on which fantasy is true, but, damnit!, let us treat our particular fantasies as truth!

BTW - this penchant for treating fantasy as reality is what - IMHO - aligns the crazy Xians with the political right. If you believe in the fantasies of Xianity, you are predisposed to believe the fantasies upon which RW policies are based. It's what enables you to hold onto ridiculous political beliefs IN SPITE OF evidence that the beliefs are wrong and that the policies don't work in the real world. Couple that with a general disdain of knowledge and education and you get the almost-exclusive unholy alliance of Xians with the Republic Party of today.

[stopbush]

20. It was written around 630 CE, ie: six centuries after Jesus supposedly lived.

Not exactly what one would call a contemporaneous source.

[cleanhippie]

22. My point exactly.

Thanks for the assist.

[DonCoquixote]

13. To be fair about the Romans

There were many people executed during that time period, many of whom were a lot more noteworthy to the Romans at the time. A simple carpenter named Yeshua Ben Miriam might not have mattered much to the Romans at all. All the "inflammatory" stuff came afterword. Simply put, the umpteenth Jew to claim he was the Messiah, from some podunk town name Nazareth, might not have been worth mentioning. We cannot make the same mistake the Fundies do, assuming that during his lifetime, "Jesus" was all that important a figure, with crowds, getting the concern of local authorities. He could have been the equivalent of a Van Gogh, someone no one gave a damn about when he was alive, but became famous long after he died.

We also have to be careful since a lot of Roman history was itself destroyed, starting with the Vandals and going long after that. We know that we do not have a complete record of antiquity; for example, what we have from Aristotle is not complete, as he himself refers to other books he wrote that we have no record of. We know that there are plays by Sophocles that were famous to old audiences, but that we have no copy of. We do know there was a mention of Pontius Pilate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

We have no idea what sort of man he was. Tradition says he was killed by Tiberius; while that is not very substantial, we do have records that Tiberius was known to purge many people in his own command, especially if they failed, and since we do know that Judea did eventually rebel against Roman rule, it can be reasonable to assume that is Pontius Pilate were governor of Judea, Tiberius might have killed him.

The point is not to prove or disprove the Gospels, but rather, to be wary of "history" when it comes to the Romans. We tend to idealize them, when really, many of their "records" are just as full of holes as anyone else. We also have to keep in mind that for every ruin that still stands, there are countless things lost that may never, ever be found.

[cleanhippie]

15. Fair enough.

At best, its all just speculation, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim... and that is not me.

[onager]

19. Flavius Josephus had access to Roman archives...

And his histories mention about 13 different Jesuses. Interestingly, several were robbers or highwaymen.

Another interesting Jesus was a religious fanatic who went around screeching "Woe! Woe to Jerusalem!" For seven years and five months! He was a son of Ananias, who was - WOE! - killed during the seige of Jerusalem, circa 70 CE. So he couldn't have been Famous Alleged Jesus.

As often discussed in this very group, the highly suspicious "Testimonium Flavinium" about Jesus Himself Christ in Josephus is most likely a much later insertion/forgery. I don't want this to become a multi-volume post, so the curious can Google on that term.

Josephus mentions one religious leader who did lead a full-blown, no-shit insurgency against the Romans. But that couldn't have been Famous Alleged Jesus either - this leader was a Samaritan, the neighbors of the Judeans who annoyingly insisted on worshipping their own Off-Brand God.

This leader is not named and only identified as "the Samaritan prophet." The Samaritan Prophet called on the faithful to gather, march with him to the Samaritans' holy mountain, reclaim the land from the infidel Romans, etc. etc. All the usual Insurgent Prophet stuff.

He led his insurrection about 3 years after the alleged death of Famous Alleged Jesus, circa 36 CE. The Roman Prefect in Judea at the time was still Pontius Pilate...you know, that cringing, cowardly wimp in the New Testament who tried JC, found him innocent, then naturally ordered him executed to placate a mob.

When Pilate heard about the Samaritan Prophet, he ended the insurgency very quickly by calling out the troops and killing every insurgent he could find. I guess the Samaritans never quite mastered that whole "scare Pilate with a mob" thing.

Egyptians: in all of recorded Egyptian history, there is exactly ONE mention of Israel. It's in the Merneptah Stele, which you can see at the link below. No mention of slaves, Hebrew rug-rats floating around in baskets, Pharoahs drowning in the Red Sea or frogs falling out of the sky. Just a straightforward account of a military campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

I've seen the Stele in the flesh - or granite - when I lived in Egypt. I started laughing when I saw it. The Stele translation says "Israel is laid waste. Its seed is no more."

I couldn't help thinking: "Nope, the seed of Israel, to this very day, is right where it always was. And 5000 years later, still pissing off the Egyptians."

Finally - yes, FINALLY!!! - Xians often claim the Egyptians didn't mention the Exodus stuff because it was embarassing. But ancient Egyptian legal records contain a lot of embarassing stuff. Like a plot by the harem girls to assassinate the Pharoah:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/judicial_turin_papyrus.htm

[provis99]

26. well, the Exodus stuff was pretty much made up.

Based on older, more interesting Canaanite Hyskos peoples being driven out of Egypt. Which would make Passover pretty much a phony ritual, I guess. One of our own on DU covered this a while ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x5908

A lot of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism seems lifted from older, more interesting legends and myths that were common in the area at the time.

[stopbush]

29. The portrayal of the Egyptians in the OT is nothing short of overt racism.

There's no evidence that Jews made up much of the population of Egypt. There's no evidence of slave labor, either. The evidence shows that the pyramids - for instance - were public works projects that were built by the Egyptians themselves with no slave labor at all.

The treatment of the Jews in the OT is best read as a typical "mouse that roared" story. Does anyone really believe that a tiny tribe of insignificant nomads actually overthrew the superpower of the day and gained their freedom? Pure myth. Were one to believe the Bible, one would believe that the Jews who left Egypt during the exodus outnumbered the entire population of Egypt at the time. Ridiculous.

[stopbush]

24. But nobody avers that Aristolte, Socrates or Plato were godsor godmen. That belief is

central to the story of Jesus. The wisdom of Aristotle et al stands on its own, whether they existed or not, whereas the teachings of Jesus are - in the words of CS Lewis - those of an immoral madman if they are shorn of his supernatural aspects.

[mr blur]

27. Excellent point! nt

[hlthe2b]

31. And I ask.. while it is understandable to question the myriad of stories attributed to Jesus...

the miracles, the supernatural, and all the rest--why are some so convinced there was no simple man, whether exaggerated and mythologized to the nth degree, that may have existed? Why is it so important--even necessary for atheists or many agnostics to deny even that? That doesn't imply you believe in Christianity, God, or anything else, just to be able to accept the possibility that there is at least that most tiny of glimmer of historical truth over the thousands of years referenced in the saga? why does it have to be all or nothing? i.e., that Jesus existed as the son of God and all that OR, conversely that he didn't exist at all?

Even if you look at more contemporary history, there is usually some little tiny factoid to whatever big lie or myth is concocted over the years, decades, centuries. And in reference to your CS Lewis quote, why on earth is that even relevent? Only those whose philosophies you believe to be "worthwhile" could have existed?

I'm just curious on an intellectual basis. I can understand taking a hard line as an atheist, but why is it so necessary to have this absolute dichotomy on existence?

[stopbush]

32. Why not believe that Rhett Butler was a real person, or Harry Potter? What harm does it do

to grant a scintilla of possibility that such people really existed?

The answer to the question, of course, is not what is lost in averring that such people are wholly fictional. It is what is gained by averring that they are not wholly fictional. In the case of Jesus, even a scintilla of allowed margin of error is enough to inspire believers to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, because Christianity is and always has been a political movement, not a spiritual movement. Allowing that there is a pubic hair's chance that Jesus was real allows the religious to assume the whole nine yards is real as well. There's a very slight chance that Jesus existed, ergo, we need to do away with contraception for women. That IS how it works and always has worked. Today's ban on contraception is yesterday's burning at the stake or wearing of the scarlet letter.

Why not nip in the bud the idea that Jesus was real? By ANY standard of proof, it cannot be proven that he existed, just like one can't prove Rhett Butler existed. Not tackling this core issue amounts to a stipulation that he did exist. Why make such a stipulation for Jesus when one wouldn't make the same stipulation for Rhett or Thor? One stipulation leads to another, and before you know it, we're involved in a philosophical discussion about whether Jesus more resembled Jeffrey Hunter or Jerry Stiller.

The CS Lewis thought is germane to the situation because Lewis is engaging in the kind of special pleading (stipulations) for the tenets of Christianity and the imagined life of Christ that no one would ever think of entertaining were the god under discussion Thor or Anubis. Were Jesus being considered as only a man, with absolutely no claims to godhood, then his existence would be harmless. Indeed, the true believers would be the first to chuck such things as a point of discussion. they'd also be the first to abandon the faith, because belief in Jesus is all about belief in the supernatural, and the entitlement that comes to one for believing that they have a special relationship with some god that makes them better, more honest, more just and above the rest of us.

Without this, Christianity is a dead end, which is why the reality of Jesus existence is always, always tied to him being god incarnate, and not just another man. In short, Jesus being an actual person is the lynch pin to everything else imagined about him. No real person, means no divine being, no made-up history, no fictional miracles etc.

Which is why it's a position worth taking and an argument worth advancing.

[Joseph8th]

33. Harry Potter isn't real?! :-( nt

[hlthe2b]

34. re: "Christianity is and always has been a political movement, not a spiritual movement. "

That is utterly and demonstrably ridiculous.

I think it hard not to be angry at the way in which today's Xians use what they claim to be religion for political gain, no doubt. It is also true that organized Christian religious denominations and sects have committed horrific acts throughout their history and that those hierarchies have often been used to control the people and particularly women. But, that fact does not render your premise any less hyperbolic.

[darkstar3]

35. Christianity set up its own form of government and taxation.

Going back further, the early church, if you could call it that, existed as socialist communes within other governed states.

Spiritual aspects may have been part of it from the beginning, but it is incorrect to dismiss the clear political aspects of the movement that were there from the beginning as well.

[hlthe2b]

36. Again, that does not make the previous comment any less hyperbolic

I like honest discussions about these kind of issues, but that requires all to keep the dramatic license and extreme hyperbole to a minimum.

[darkstar3]

37. Your concern is noted.