(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...Here I continue with the Q&A I had years ago with evangelical New Testament scholar Ben Witherington, focused on my book Did Jesus Exist. I think I can say with relative confidence that this is the ONE book of mine that evangelicals on the whole were (mainly) pleased with. A nice change! And why do they like it? Because I argue there must have been a man Jesus. OK, then! Doesn’t seem like a lot to be grateful for, but I’ll take what I can get.
Ben’s questions were more astute than that, dealing with some of the key issues at a scholarly level. Here are two more of them, and my responses.
Q. It appears that mythicists have not read Jonathan Z. Smith, and do not realize that there is no unambiguous evidence for the historical argument that ancients believed in dying and rising gods before the time of Jesus, and that therefore the story of Jesus is just a historicized version of that myth. Why do you think this theory of dying and rising gods became so popular in the 20th century, and what caused its scholarly demise? Was there new evidence that Smith and others unearthed, or just closer reasoning about the existing evidence?
A. Yes, for a long time it was widely thought that dying and rising gods were a constant staple of ancient pagan religions, so that when Christians claimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, they were simply borrowing a common “motif” from pagan religions. This view was first popularized by Sir James George Frazer at the beginning of the twentieth century in his enormously influential (and very large) book, The Golden Bough. (As I explain in Did Jesus Exist, Frazer did in his day what Joseph Campbell did in ours – popularized the view that at heart, all religions are basically the same).
This view was exploded by Jonathan Z. Smith in the late 1980s, chiefly in an article on the “dying-rising gods” in the scholarly and authoritative Encyclopedia of Religion. Smith showed that
You will sometimes hear people say that Christians talked about Jesus’ resurrection other gods in the ancient world were said to die and then be raised from the dead. Is that true? Join the blog and you can keep reading! Click here for membership options
Do you mean the English author H G Wells rather than G A Wells?
No, the question was referring to a mythicist named Wells, not The War of the Worlds fellow.
I’ve been studying the scholarly work around the Greek god of drugs and healing, Asklepios, for a few years and it does appear that he was (said to be) able to perform resurrections. From what I understand, he was also pretty much the last popular pagan deity that Christians had to overcome. Christian’s did borrow attributes of Asklepios for their depictions of Christ the Healer in ancient art, and perhaps exaggerated Jesus’s medical prowess to make the transition easier (typical missionary move). You can see how mythicists get started. As you’ve said before, some of this is just how people tell stories, the rags to riches motif, etc. and I can see how people easily fall for the mythicists ideas from reading Campbell (who Bruce Lincoln once described as a “shallow pitchman.”) I like J.Z. Smith’s work but I don’t find it entirely convincing in this respect. There is *some* continuity, I believe, between Hellenistic religious concepts/culture and early Christianity, which appears to me to be heavily syncretistic (Appalachian Xty is as well, incorporating African, Native American, and pagan practices). Ancient Xtian Magic is a perfect example. Could you do a post on exorcism at some point? What is it?
I’d suggest if you are interested in things such as this to look at the *ancient* sources instead of what modern people (especially those not actual experts in the sources in their original languages) say about them. As to exorcism: it simply means casting a demon out of a person. It still happens to day, obviously. I had classes on it in Bible College!
Dr. Ehrman—Respectfully, I don’t read trade books on religion (except yours and Elaine Pagels!) or New Age. I’m citing the scholars whose books include the Greek. “It is no surprise that this very act of raising someone from the dead—and thus overstepping his proper bounds, an inherently hubristic act—remains the focus of Asklepios’ myth in fifth-century tragedy, the only frequent variable being whom he brings back to life.” That’s Wickkiser in a book published by JHU but I have a dozen more on Oxford, etc that say the same thing. I can’t read Greek (I’m working on that now!) so I can’t check their work but they agree that Asklepios was believed as far back as the 5th century BCE to be able to perform resurrections. His was also a “sacred” but not a virgin birth. So no rising/dying god but these do seem to be generic god features. The Christ vs. Asklepios Godzilla battle thing seems to be contested, I’ve seen both views, but there is a book specifically on healer motifs across C&A artwork by a scholar at Centre in Danville that I can’t find atm. Re: exorcism, handy skill! hope you never have to use it.
That’s right: there were others who could raise people from the dead. I thought you were talking about gods dying and rising from the dead (never to die again, like Jesus). I probalby misunderstood what you were saying.
What are we to make of Philip. 2: 7-8 though? Seems Paul is describing Jesus as a pre-existing being here and “became” (not was born) a man by assuming a human body of flesh (indeed Davidic see Rom. 1:3). I guess he could mean this physically, in the sense as he often sys the Jews are the seed of Abraham, as a way saying they are his descendants. But….unlike Jesus, Paul never says the Jews are “made’ of the seed of Abraham.
Paul also says baptized Christians are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29) so he can also mean it allegorically rather than physically (as indeed he goes on to explain in Gal. 4). But Paul can also mean it even more literally: not that Jesus is a descendant of David’s, but that Jesus was literally “made” out of the seed taken directly from David as God indeed promised in 2 Sam. 7:12-14.
Which do you think is the more likelier interpretation of allegorical vs literal meaning? Every time he says “made” he seems to mean manufactured bodies (Adam’s body, our future resurrected body as in 1 Cor.15:37 and 15:45) rather than the preferred word for “born”
When Paul refers to Christ being “made” a human, he isn’t interested, in that point, in how he came into the world as a human (though Gal. 4:4 is explicit: he was born of a woman); he is interested in the fact (for him it’s a fact) that Christ was first a divine being and then became a human being. Coming from the “seed” of someone means you are descended from them, and Paul takes that to mean both physically but also, distinctively for him, spirituall.
Prof Ehrman, the article from Jonathan Z. Smith that you referenced (“Dying and Rising Gods”) can be found at the link below at an authorized online encyclopedia compendium maintained by the Oxford Uni Press for anyone interested.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dying-and-rising-gods
thanks.
I wish for your next book to tackle these questions and expound upon the idea of holy men, miracle workers, and messiahs around the time of Jesus. I think this subject finally needs a scholarly approach to set the record straight. Was the idea of Jesus unique or was it a carry over from previous notions by 1st century Jews and pagans. Or perhaps you could recommend a book that does as I have not been able to find such a work.
There are a lot of books about this kind of thing. I deal with it only briefly in Jesus; Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. One book I like is Jesus and the Spiral of Violence by R. Horseley; it might be a good place to start.
Please comment. Historical evidence of NT can confirm Paul was the first to introduce the concept of resurrection. In Paul’s home town of Tarsus, people believed in a deity that was resurrected. Base on date sequence of NT, Paul was the pioneer to reintroduce the pagan concept on Jesus.
DATE (CE) BOOK AUTHOR
50 1 Thessalonians Paul
50 2 Thessalonians Paul
68 Mark Unknown
85 Luke Unknown
95 Matthew Unknown
100 John Unknown
1 Thessalonians was the first book written whereby Paul introduced it in 5: 9., became his personal gospel in 2 Timothy 2:8. and enforced it in Corinthians 2: 2. Paul’s books were much earlier than the gospels. He indoctrinated his theology aggressively almost 20 years to the gentiles who later came out with Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John.
Paul himself indicates that others believed in the resurrection of JEsus before he did. And we do not have any information that I”m aware of concerning what people in Tarsus believed. I’m not sure where you’re getting that information from.
For the sake of completeness; Bart.
You might also note that Tryggve Mettinger, in a development of Jonathan Smith’s approach rather than a refutation, did nevertheless propose a limited number of Syrian/Mesopotamian deities that variously might be described as ‘dying and rising’. Richard Carrier does claim on his website that this supports his mythicist assertions. Mettinger’s suggested list includes Ugaritic Baal; Syrian Melqart/Heracles, Semitic (but not Greek) Adonis, and Babylonian Tammuz. Mettinger rejects the idea that Egyptian Osiris could ever be considered as being resurrected. The existence of the Egyptian dead was a very full and active one; no one ever suggested that the divinities of the dead might renounce this, their proper existence, for that of the living.
But Mettinger’s exercise only emphasises the key observation that there is no common understanding of ‘resurrection life’ that applies across his listed divinities; e.g. for Tammuz ‘rising to life’ is cyclical, but not for Melqart (if Melqart does indeed rise). Resurrection to the new life that is to come appears to have originated as a peculiarly Jewish (and hence Christian) idea. Although this may have influenced other cultic beliefs in later centuries.
Thanks. Yes, it’s an interesting and learned article.
So on to the Wisdom Literature….can it be said Christians in Paul’s day—Paul included—thought Jesus had spoken to the ancient prophets, and therefore prophecies in the Jewish scriptures, even the Psalms, were literally the words of Jesus—spoken by Jesus, using the prophets who recorded them?
If yes, could they therefore be quoted as the words of Jesus? This would make no further eyewitness testimony to Jesus required (as Paul clearly points out in Gal. 1). The “kata tas graphas” so to speak of Paul seems to indicate we must resort to the scriptures to “teach us” things about Jesus (Rom. 15:3-4) and that we should not “go beyond” the scriptures in our claims about Jesus (1 Cor. 4:6). So I guess the argument would be they didn’t just learn things *about* Jesus from hidden messages they found in the scriptures; they learned things *from* Jesus in those hidden messages.
Paul does not talk about Jesus inspiring the prophets, no. He does think God did.
“…but that the Jesus who existed is virtually unrelated to the person we think of as Jesus of Nazareth.” I believe there was an actual Jesus, but if he was not a virgin-born miracle-working resurrected Son of God then isn’t it fair for mythicists to claim that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed?
That’s not what most mythicists claim, however. They’re saying that the *historical* Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of what people later claimed about his divinity or whatever, was ultimately a figment of the imagination. I don’t think it’s fair to claim, well, if *my* version of Jesus didn’t exist, then he might has well never have existed…
Not entirely related to the post, but is there any research about the percentage of people that identify as Christian that actually believe the basic claim of Christianity, that Jesus died for their sins and was resurrected? Or think about it very much? There are still lots of reasons for belonging to a Christian community without believing that, whether for community, because of the tradition, or as a way of supporting charitable causes. I have recollections of a pastor expressing regret about the prevalence of “Sunday Christians” in his congregation, but it seems to me that’s to be expected.
I’m sure there are data. My sense is that apart from liberal Protestants, just about all Christians believe in a literal death and resurrection; and liberal Christians themselves are a dying breed. Hopefully they too will see new life!
Dr. Ehrman,
Great topic. I was just conversing with someone who I think is overly intertwining cultures. What do you think?
Me: At the same time, you still acknowledge that Paul’s view of the afterlife would have precluded him from believing in a separation of body and soul?
Prof.: “Yes, but what kind of body? Your world may be too small.
Remember gods, demons, and angels all have bodies, too. Divine bodies can simply do things that human bodies cannot. Try reading the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (the main mythic text behind the Eleusinian Mysteries) and notice how the bodies of both Demeter and her daughter Persephone operate. Or try reading the novel, The Golden Ass by Apuleius (2nd cent. CE), a piece of religious propaganda for the Isis Cult, where he tells many stories of how dead bodies behave through the operation of magic.”
Mr. Ehrman, I would like to ask you an unrelated question that just hit me as I was re-reading “How Jesus Became God”. You talk about 1 Enoch and the “Son of Man”. And I thought that the later added chapters in it identify the Son of Man as Enoch, but in the Gospels, of course, Jesus is considered the Son of Man. And I gather that this came to be the “orthodox” view on the matter – and, subsequently, 1 Enoch was cast out of a potential candidate for the Canon. And my question (at last!) is this: who decided what the canon (or, say it in other words, the ”orthodox books”) of the Old Testament would be and when approximately? I’ve read in “Misquoting Jesus” that the first reference on the (27) books of the NT was by Athanasius in 367 CE. Is there something analogous for the
Old Testament? A particular reference of the books that constitute the OT in a particular circumstance (a letter to a church or something of that sort)?
Yes, Athanasius lists the OT books as well. Again, as with the NT, it was not a matter of one person’s decision or the vote of a council; it was a consensus that emerged among leaders over time.
Dr Ehrman, I appreciate these Q&As
Unrelated question: Do you think Philo of Alexandria and his view of the Logos had any influence on the New Testament writings, specifically the Gospel of John? It seems to at least support first century views of a type of inclusive monotheism. Perhaps the seeds of the Trinity.
It has long been a topic of conversation among scholars. My view is that he did not affect John, but that possibly some of the philosophical currents that affected Philo (the “Logos” was an important feature of Stoic and Platonic discourse) also made some impact on John.
At first sight the idea of a ‘historized myth’ sounds clever. Only there’s two problems.
Firstly there’s enough religious ideas to explain-away just anything in the bible. Secondly Jesus wasn’t just a story of a god who rose from the grave – the Tanakh gives us the context of this dying god. He was born of mortals, his manner of birth would be a sign, he is rejected of his people and his own siblings, he was a perfect man, he would suffer and die a cruel death, his disfigurement would be a marvel to the world, he would rise again and in his coming would signal the end of the Jewish covenant, the temple and the Jewish nation until the Gentile’s time is fulfilled. And his story is anchored in a historical context, attested by seven authors of his time.
You won’t find that in any mythology.
You are certainly right that there are enough religious ideas to explain away anything in the Bible. But it also means you can find about anything to support what you want too. So where in the Tanakh does it say those things about the messiah? It is true from what I’ve seen (and many others) that Christians have misappropriated and misinterpreted verses about Israel and claimed them after the fact, for example about the “suffering servant”. The Tanakh clear says he is Israel and the context was then. Perhaps you have other verses in mind? God’s word certainly wasn’t clear to his people and you would have thought he would have not misled them about the messiah if he really wanted them to know who he was.
Who are the “seven authors” that attest to the story, presumably you also mean the miracles? Do you accept the miracles attested to in other religions and Christian groups today as valid?
Fascinating. Yes it is imprudent, as the mythicists do, to read too much into ancient mystery religions as, by definition, we know so little about them. Some writers, not strictly mythicists, have tried to link Jesus to the Wicked Priest or Teacher of Righteousness of Dead Sea Scrolls fame. Do you have any thoughts on that Dr Ehrman?
That was popular soon after the Scrolls were published, but the differences are so acute that there appears to be no connection at all (for one thing, the dates don’t work)
Professor Ehrman…
Since your writings and teachings that I have read so far present factual evidence that the Bible has errors in it and that various scribes added certain words that are not seen in earlier manuscripts it shatters the fundamentalist claim of the infallibility of the “Word of God.”
If the historical Jesus literally wasn’t born of a virgin, he wasn’t the divine Son of God, he didn’t cast out demons and he didn’t “rise” from the dead… then that miraculous version of the Jesus of Christianity didn’t exist.
Are those beliefs about Jesus just human mythical Christian creations like Noah’s Ark?
If this Aramaic speaking, Palestinian Jew of the past is not the white skinned, blonde haired and blue-eyed character of Sunday school fame or the cultural icon we see represented in our culture from the Mormons to Catholics isn’t historically accurate where does this leave the historical Jesus?
My question then would be this… what shaped Christianity more… Jesus… the human apocalyptic prophet who seems to be similar to John the Baptist and others of that time or the mythical and cultural representations from the minds of human beings creating something they wanted to believe in?
In some ways it’s like the legendary accounts of any famous person. People tell stories about, say, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington that are completely fabricated, meant to illustrate something about his character. For highly religious persons (say, modern “saints” or “faith healers”) that includes supernatural abilities. Those kinds of stories were very common in teh ancient world, where very few people had any problem at all thinking that sort of thing happened.
I am a member who is not able to access the entirety of your posts. Why is that?
I’m afraid I don’t know. YOu need to write a question to Support (click Help).
There is a middle ground here, wherein one recognizes that there probably was a historical Jesus, whose earliest followers came to believe that he was raised from the dead within an apocalyptic Jewish context. Yet, acknowledging that there were *analogous* tales in the wider Mediterranean world.
Whether Osiris was bodily raised is questionable from the perspective of Greek authors like Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus, but his bodily resurrection is unequivocal in the Pyramid Texts and in bas-reliefs from Ptolemaic-Roman temples. This is the mainstream view of Egyptologists, including Jan Assmann, Mark J. Smith, Bob Brier, Erik Hornung, and Glenn S. Holland.
Tryggve Mettinger’s case for Baal having been a risen god is practically indisputable, with agreement from scholars including John Day, Jon D. Levenson, and John Granger Cook.
Asclepius may also be considered a resurrected god, given that Zeus struck him dead but later relented and raised him to immortality. Scholars including M. David Litwa, Dag Øistein Endsjø, and Richard Miller see this as a notable analogue to the resurrection of Christ.
This is not the stuff of pesky Internet bloggers or mythicists. These are mainstream academic positions, supported by primary source material.
There are a lot of atheists who don’t know that Frazier has been debunked.
Great topic!
“There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.”
1. Is Jesus an exception to “unambiguous”? I would’ve thought that the NT gospels and epistles are all in agreement that Jesus died and rose again.
2. I’ve heard of one account of the death and resurrection of Dionysus: eaten by Titans, except for the heart; Zeus preserves the heart; Zeus implants the heart as a fetus in a mortal woman who delivers (again) Dionysus alive. I’m guessing that this story would be in accord with the quote above because the death and resurrection isn’t *unambiguous*. That is, sure, this is a dying-and-rising story, but the entire Dionysus corpus has contradicting stories. Do I have that right?
1. Yes, that’s pretty much my point: the resurrection narratives in the Gospels are not simply taken from pagan myths but are different. 2. Yes, I’d say it’s similar but also fundamentally different.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Off topic:
What do you think about Michael Grant’s book “Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels”?
Thanks
He was a very knowledgeable historian of antiquity, but not an expert on the Bible; htere are other places that you could turn that would provide much better access to scholarship at a popular level.
I was torn about whether to post this hear or in the previous article. I chose here.
I observed to a pagan friend several years ago, that in terms of the Christian liturgical calendar, Jesus’s ‘life cycle’ for lack of a better term, actually reverses the idea of the crop cycle gods. He is born, northern hemispherically speaking of course, in the dead of Winter (ascribed to Christmas), and is crucified every Spring. His resurrection also happens in Spring, but generally that’s now how it works with the modern portrayals of crop cycle gods. They may die in Fall with the Harvest, and live again in Spring, but there are months between these moments. Even if these reconstructions are based on misreadings of non-christian mythology, it remains interesting to me that people try to put Jesus in this framework.
I understand that modern Paganism is (at times fanciful) reconstruction with varying degrees of accuracy, but it seems to me that anyone who tries to add Jesus to this concept retroactively, is choosing to ignore not only Jewish Apocalypticism, but also the basic construction of the modern liturgical calendar.