Loading...Here I continue to answer questions from my evangelical colleague in the field, Ben Witherington, as addressed some years ago, These again deal with the claims of “Mythicists,” who insist that there never actually was a man Jesus, but that he is simply made up, a complete myth.
One way they support their point is by saying that some passages in the ancient world that mention him in fact are later “interpolations” into the original writings (that is, some nefarious editor stuck references to Jesus into a text that originally didn’t mention him) and that his hometown, Nazareth, actually did not exist at the time.
Is either claim credible or, well, supported by any actual *evidence*? Here are Ben’s queries and my responses.
Q. Mythicists seems to often uses the interpolation theory to explain away NT texts that are inconvenient to their agendas. Yet it is also true that some NT scholars use interpolation theories to the very same end, even when there is apparently no textual basis for the interpolation theory. Explain how the mythicists appeal to interpolation is special pleading, whereas it is not when some NT scholars resort to such a theory (take for example the case of 1 Cor. 14.33b-36, which is displaced in some manuscripts but to my knowledge there are no manuscripts that omit it altogether).
A. A theory of interpolation argues that there are passages in the New Testament that were not originally there, even though they are still found in all the surviving manuscripts. When a passage (whether several verses, a single verse, or part of a verse) is not found in one or more manuscripts, then the decision whether it was originally in the NT is based on textual criticism. Scholars have to decide then which manuscript(s) more likely presents the oldest form of the text. But when all the manuscripts agree, and one wants to claim that they are all wrong with respect to the oldest form of the text, that involves arguing that at a very, very early stage of the transmission of the text (when it was being copied), someone inserted a verse (or verses, or part of a verse) that came to be found in all our surviving manuscripts. That would be what we mean by an interpolation.
In my opinion, there is no reason, in theory, to deny that there could be interpolations in the New Testament – that is, places where all our manuscripts include a passage (a verse, part of a verse, several verses) that was not originally put there by the authors. This is especially the case in light of the fact that we don’t start getting relatively complete manuscripts of the New Testament until well over a century after the books of the NT were written. At the same time, I think that if someone thinks a passage was an interpolation, there needs to be very, very, very compelling reasons for thinking so.
In almost every instance in which scholars have suggested that there are interpolations, I think the evidence is not compelling. One of the very few instances that I think is compelling is
The rest of the post gives information known to experts but not to 99.9% of the world. Hey, want to be among the informed elite? Join the blog and be one of the Chosen Few. Click here for membership options
Mr. Ehrman, my question is related to the (probably) interpolated verses in 1 Corinthians (14:34-35) and other similar verses in the NT.
Is it fair, in your view, to trace patriarchal behaviours, conceptions and, in general, mentalities of our civilization back to such verses?
I’d say such verses most definitely contributed to modern patriarchal views, without a doubt. But they themselves were the products of patriarchal thinking that went back to the beginning of human existence….
Those are the second best truly insightful words I have ever read online or otherwise. Second of course to Christ’s teachings in the Gospels. 😉
You write and speak in a balanced way, taking the full view of things rather than the narrow.
Thank you.
Another great post. I think Professor Ken Dark of Reading University (England) has done some fairly recent archaeological work at Nazareth and makes a good case that it may have been bigger than previously thought and (unlike neighbouring Sepphoris) was religiously conservative (it seems that Nazareth banned the use of human excrement as a fertiliser in its fields). In fact, Dark has claimed that the picture of Nazareth that comes across from his excavations is entirely consistent with the impression of it given in the gospels.
Thanks! I’ve read his earlier stuff and found it convincing. Do you have a reference for his more recent stuff you can share with us?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Period-Byzantine-Hinterland-Palestine-Exploration/dp/0367408236/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1624620496&sr=8-1
Dark has produced this book on the Nazareth project (see link). I haven’t read it yet but I have seen newspaper reviews which gave me the gist of his findings, conclusions etc.
First, the part of the Bible, the Hebrew bible tells of a family that started with God in somewhere called Eden ,,,, and spirals all the way down to Babylon ,,, yes ,,, isn’t that a great fall !. Did they exist ,,,, many scholars say, “probably not”. What about this new family of hope, Abraham’s family ,,, the hope of restoration for mankind, and the reunification with God ,, who got what they call “Israel” ,,, (from the Gnostic: The origin of the world “Israel – who is” the man who sees God “, or what some other Jewish esoterics (which does not read the story literally) Yashar El, which means” directly to God “,, (a divine attribute in the” hear “),, ,,,,, and of course” Struggle with God “) ,, a family which also failed time and time again and was taken to Egypt and later to Babylon ,,,,,,,,,,, did it exist? Many scholars say, much probably didn’t existed or happened.
What is it then?? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, these stories which they say are not history, these families that are not families or real and have never existed in real life and which is the basis of “Israel” !.
And these stories through these 39 books are said to have been written in part long after the incident when the stories were said to have been written with much use of symbols, numerology and great poetic language poems and lodgings. Are these all myths ?, and if they are (in whole or in part), I consider the theological purpose and message still alive for many.
What about Jesus (I am NOT a mythist) as several scholars fully or partially doubt his birth story (s), his familyline(s), his divinity, a lot of his sayings and stories from his 12 years in the temple and up to what he did and said until he was crucified, and then his death and resurrection. If these are partly or completely claimed to be myths ,,, what is left of Jesus in the sense of Christianity? , next to a flesh and bone Middle Eastern guy named Jesus ,, and not much more?
I sense that you are particularly sensitive to this question of a mythological Jesus from your point of view. What is the reason why this question draws your special attention alongside all the stories and events throughout the Bible that many scholars question its (physical) authenticity?
Yeah, good question. It really is one of the few things that gets my blood boiling. I think there are a few things that especially irritate me about i. Maybe the biggest one is that in our age of disinformation and the increased susceptibility of a reading public to accept conspiracy theories, I find it unusually upsetting that it happens in the area that I’m actually an expert in, when people being convinced by very bad arguments simply because it strikes a cord with them. I think these days we need to affirm the importance of expertise — not in order to bow down to experts as if they are always right, but at least to know how to weigh evidence and see why there is 99% of the people who have actually studied something at depth all have the same view, whatever their other differences.. The problem is that it is hard to weigh evidence without sufficient background. I for one can’t possibly evaluate the actual arguments and calculations of the Big Bang; but if someone tells me that the world was created 6000 years ago, at least I know enough to realize what some of the flaws are. My sense is that mythicists are especially attractive to people who very much want to hear what they say, who would prefer to believe it rather than actually look into it. And as someone who works in the field, I find it about as irritating as my colleagues in biology departments find it when they have to deal with people who are firmly opposed to evolution and simply don’t care how much evidence there is for it.
Dr. Ehrman. The fight against conspiracy theories and disinformation is one of the most important battles of our time.
I have studied theoretical physics at the university, and I follow the research. Physics is a field of science that is very innovative. New ideas are not rejected simply because a majority sticks to “accepted truths.”
As a comparison: Does Time Exist? Most of us will probably answer; Absolutely! But not so among serious scientists. The issue is taken up for serious consideration, and can lead to groundbreaking discoveries. Curiosity helps pave the way for new insights.
Why is the field of research within the New Testament so conservative? Why should a question of whether or not Jesus existed make the blood boil? I do not get it.
I accept everyone’s position regarding who or what Jesus was, or what the NT was meant to describe or symbolize.
Why do we have to let emotions get in the way?
I’m not sure what you mean about the field of NT research being conservative. And when it comes to physics, do you really not have a reaction when someone tells you that physicists are making it all up and have no idea about what happened in the first seconds after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago? The physicists I know have a reaction, and it’s not because they’re conservative.
@moose – Where there are humans there will be emotion. Have you ever challenged any of your fellow physicists on string theory? Ask them if string theory hasn’t produced far too little (that is testable) for far too long, and if it isn’t way past time to focus on researching non-string ideas. I think you’ll see some strong emotions!
Thank you, Bart, and I can really relate to this argument of yours.
Since talking about good and serious scholarship, and since you are about to write a book about “The book of Revelation”, I am tempted to advise you to look into the work of Dr. Carl G. Jung (founder of depth pshycology) who devoted all his life about myths, visions, mostly in relationship with his work in psychiatry. He, as a scholar who also experimented this visjonary journey on himself (around 1915) which was documented in a book called “The Red book”. The book was considered as personal, and so were the images as a product of ones own phsyce, which is common for those kind of experiences. The book was published after his death. In relation to him, his professional attitude toward the psyche there are a lot of good scholars who elaborate on these topics, like for example MD Edward F. Edinger. From this perspective these kind of schriptures which (if not just cocked out of a persons head) derives from a more mental/phsycological/spiritual source within ourself, which also includes the evolvement of the phsyce and conciousness. These theories walks on the borderline between science and religion on an intreaging way, and might add to the persepctives for your future book
If I should write a book about the Revelation, and if there were a vague chance that this book could have been from a kind of state which some call “visionary journe”, caused by dreams, deep meditation, perhaps centered prayers or whatever which a lot of myths have come from including the large religions. These inspirations seems to have been there all along, up to today,,,,,which probably all those NDE could be catagorized into, even this Neurosurgeon Eben Alexanders from Charlotte, NC, experience who consider this as a semireligous and have written about this very much in relationship with “conciousness”. The problem is of course that they could be biased, subjective experiences fited to oneself .
I would think these approaches would at least given your book an extra scholarly dimention, at least my opinion.
KT… I just read your reply to Bart’s post and it caught my eye… because the concerns you shared are what toppled my religious tower right down to it’s foundation. I have spend a lot time in the last years reading and listening to Peter Enns and “The Bible for Normal People” podcast and his work in Old Testament scholarship helped me see that the story of Israel was most likely created in captivity in Babylon. And everything before the monarchy is just great story. That revelation didn’t help me sustain any belief system in Christianity. The foundation eroded fast. I am still interested in the scholarship aspect of the Bible as it is strangely comforting in my deconstruction time. I’m not looking for proof that what I believed was real anymore. I am just hoping to find value in the story again for the story’s sake. I now get my life’s meaning from nature and the world I currently live in. Some things makes sense, and some just are better left in the story book. Good luck on the journey. Ruby from Alberta, Canada.
Bart, I’d be interested to get your thoughts on this: I am an exMormon and the straw that broke the camel’s back for me was realizing all of the discrepancies in the truth claims the LDS church makes and seeing that all religious faiths have discrepancies. Then seeing that believers find ways of justifying their faith’s discrepancies and then happily pointing out the discrepancies of other faiths as problematic, even though at the end of the day if we’re being intellectually honest it’s all problematic. At the root of it it seems like a lot of human psychology is involved in belief such as confirmation bias, tribalism, belief perseverance, and the religion you were born into. I don’t see any reason to believe in a God that is actively guiding his children to a “one true church/faith.” My question is did that play a factor in you losing your faith in addition to the problem of evil?
I suppose in part, yes. Recognizing the huge diversity in Christian beliefs today (among people “guided by the Spirit”) as well as in antiquity did bring me to question how certain religious claims could ever be. But that isn’t what put me over the top. I finally came to think that there isn’t a God active in the world, whatever various beliefs about him might be. (THe variety of beliefs wouldn’t show that God doesn’t exist, simply that he isn’t understood)
The only Jesus you know was ‘born in Nazareth.’ The same with all the rest of what we ‘know’ of him. We can talk to Obama, or you. We know you exist. No one at Christ’s supposed time ever heard of a farm and shawl shop called BY THEM ‘Nazareth.’
I think far more egregious than interpolations is faulty interpretation from ignorance, or worse, bias. Every single scholar in the world, including you, projects his or her religious bias by training into the interpretation of who “the man who bears me” is. It isn’t Jesus! Get the New Testament Judas and Jesus out of your mind when reading unorthodox gnostic writings! This is mysticism, and it’s self-sacrifice that matters, not Church propaganda. Judas asks Jesus, “What will those baptized in your Name [Word] DO?” It was my Gold level question for you, but that you did not answer. You told us what Gnostics BELIEVE, but not what they WILL DO. The intervening lacunae are too brief to obscure Jesus’s answer. It isn’t until 56.20 that Jesus tells Judas, “You will exceed them all, you will sacrifice the man who bears me.” Judas is that sacrifice!
Well, I’m glad that you at least don’t have any biases! It’s good to have one among us. 🙂
Hi Bart. I have read your “Did Jesus exist?” 2 or 3 times and I am still not convinced he did. I do find the ideas of mythicists such as Richard Carrier or Robert Price entirely feasible. The starting point for thinking this way is the very different Jesus spoken about by Paul (the first Christian writings) compared with the Jesus in the gospels. I can imagine that the gospels are the result of story telling which is after all a basic feature of religion. On the other hand I can’t discount the possibility of a charismatic apocalyptic preacher who was crucified by the Romans and gave rise to a new movement. Of course this is entirely feasible. But this doesn’t seem to me to be the Jesus that Paul is talking about.
As long as you weigh the evidence, that’s fine. But I will say that you will find a very different view of Trump in QAnon than you will among followers of Bernie Sanders. The different views do not mean he did not exist.
I am not sure how @BDEhrman thinks about this idea, but what is the most unconvincing about mythticism to me, is the existing inconsistencies within the very same gospel.
I am sure it is being possible making up a whole gospel. I don’t find it surprising that different versions can be ‘invented’ by different parties.
But why on earth, when creating this story, should one make up citations of Jesus that counter the message you want to sell.
It’s the existing inconsistencies within the gospels, the non-fitting quotes, that make a historic figure Jesus existing MORE probable and mythticism less convincing.
OK. But if I find internal contradictions in an account of Julius Caesar, it doesn’t lead me to think he didn’t exist.
Oh, you misunderstood the point I tried to make (I’m not a native speaker for being German, sorry).
I wanted to say that these inconsistencies within the very same text (not variants, but quotations that contradict the point a text / gospel wants to make) would NOT appear if they didn’t go back to original sources. By making the whole story up, one would take care of NOT producing these inconsistencies.
So internal inconsistencies make the historical Jesus MORE likely.
That’s what I was thinking.
OK, I think I understand. But my sense is that people often are indeed inconsistent when telling stories about a person; some people strive harder at consistency than others, and sometimes they just slip up. So the fact there are inconsistencies normally would not show that the topic being discussed is necessarily historical. In my view, anyway!
I could use some help. Since the new format (silver, gold, etc), I can still log in but can’t receive the continuation of the blog. Can someone offer some assistance? I have read several of Dr. Ehrman’s books and would like to continue to receive the entire blog.
Please send a note to “Support” by clicking on the Help button, and we’ll figure it out.
Bart, from what I understand, as it relates to any patriarch, disciple, apostle, prophet or Israelite King (Saul, David, Solomon) we don’t know where anyone is buried.
Is this true? I know there’s a lot of figures in history that can’t be found but out of all the collection of biblical characters as defined above, if we don’t have any (not one) of their burial sites, should this cause concern/suspicion?
Yes, that’s true. That in itself doesn’t cause much suspicion (since we don’t know where 99.999% of people in antiquity were buried); but there are lots of other reasons to be suspicious. We do have solid historical evidence, though, that David and Solomon were actual rulers in Israel. The Patriarchs of Genesis and Exodus, not so much.
Could you please point me to solid historical evidence that David and Solomon were actual rulers in Israel? (This was very good to hear, as I had been under the impression that the non-existence of these two was a view commanding a broad consensus in the scholarly world.)
We have an Aramaic inscription from the 9th c. BCE that mentions the “house of David.” I don’t believe we have non-biblical references to Solomon.
Speaking of archaeological proof, what are we to make of the Nazarene Inscription? Genuine imperial edict or just failed wishful thinking linking the slab to an invective of an “empty tomb” making news back to Rome? It would seem the author *badly* translated the original Latin of the decree (even the Greek is misspelled in places), and appears to have omitted words or placed them out of order. That aside, can this really be a “new law” to make it a capital crime for non-Romans to disturb graves? I see very little evidence the Inscription provides archaeological proof for Christianity or its claim of an empty tomb as some suggest as its origin is not likely to be Nazareth. I like very much F. de Zulueta’s article “Violation of Sepulture in Palestine at the Beginning of the Christian Era,” Journal of Roman Studies 22. Wondering your thoughts though on authenticity…..
I haven’t thought about the Nazareth inscription for a very long time. But I don’t think it is normally connected with Jesus in any way in particular; there was always a problem with grave robbers in antiquity (since, well, people were buried with things), and this was a ruling to punish them (rather severely).
Is there a list of all the statements and events attributed to Jesus and whether they art likely true, maybe true, probably false or definitely false? I’d like to see a “chart” that lists them and whether we can rely on them as true or not true.
THese are much debated issues, so no, no charts that give the simple answer. If you want my views, see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Thanks for your work, I am enjoying your books, lectures and blog.
But I don’t understand how gospels Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Q, L, M, Peter, Thomas are proving that Jesus was a real person. The same for Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus.
I’m not doubting Jesus, I think he was real person. I would say Paul is the closest to evidence as he met James – Jesus’s brother and Peter, but even Paul is not evidence for Jesus just for James and Peter.
Gospels are just stories what people heard, collected, rewrote, changed and passed further on… We don’t even know the authors.
So if the story and person was invented e.g. Zeus, Spiderman and got into circulation, then if someone would write it down and pass on… It would not be the evidence that Zeus, Spiderman etc are real… even if there would be 300 books.
Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus are the same, just writing about something they heard about from someone else as they never met Jesus.
We have hundreds of books about Bigfoot, he even made it into the News few times.. But it is not evidence that Bigfoot is real. Or am I missing something?
I think you need to look seriously at the evidence. It really is not like Spiderman or Zeus.
I’m not comparing Jesus to Spiderman.
What I’m asking is why the Gospels are the evidence? How?
Just imagine alternative reality where Jesus wasn’t real person but invention.
His story would be touching people’s hearts so they would start to believe he was real and they would be passing message on and on.. After decades one of the believers would decide to collect stories about him and write it down.. Later someone would try to fix his stories with new ideas and write slightly different book etc… It would spread just the same way as in our reality.
How would you know after few hundred years if Jesus was real or fictional character if you have just stories?
Back to our reality – imagine we wouldn’t have any Paul’s letters and Paul and his work wouldn’t be mentioned in any others writings.
Would we accept Gospels as evidence for Jesus without Paul?
It sounded like you were. 🙂 The question is, given the abundance of independent sources from various regions starting very early (Paul had heard about him in the early 30s; the Gospel sources are based on traditions floating around for a long time in various parts of the Mediterranean; all these are independent of eacy other), when and where would he have been “invented” in such a way that THAT is more probable than simply that he existd, especially given the fact, for example (among many facts) that Paul actually knew his brother and his closest disciple and others who KNEW him. What makes the invention hypothesis MORE probable? And what analogies do we have for it, that someone was simply invented but that there were dozens of places talking about him independently within a few years?
Kamo is right. Spiderman is just as real. Ever consider that maybe Paul LIED that he knew James as brother of somebody? Why would he? To diminish him. The Essenes called Paul the Spouter of Lies. You can’t base the existence of someone said to be God’s Son on a single report of a liar. All that followed sprang from Paul, no one else. And you have only anonymous reports after him.
Yes, as a historian I try to consider all the possibilities before deciding whether they are “most likely” or not.
1.I understand what you’re saying and sure you’re right, you’re the expert.
I’m just struggling with “independent sources”.
Mediterranean:
I don’t think Jesus left Israel to preach so how did we get independent Mediterranean sources?
Paul:
I don’t think Paul knew Jesus, his family or disciples while Jesus was alive. He got info about Jesus from his followers only after Jesus died and his followers started spreading message of his resurrection.
Christianity started with about 20 lower-class, uneducated day laborers AFTER Jesus’s death when they started to believe He was resurrected. After Jesus’s death that means that any new convert would have no chance to see Jesus as a real alive person.
Those 20 started talking about Jesus and were getting converts.
Converts were passing the message on and more people started to believe and so on.
The telephone game started.
After some time some of the believers decided to write stories down. We have no idea about the authors but we know they were believers. Believers because they heard about Jesus not because they had seen the real Jesus. Gospels are not the origin of the information about Jesus, they just passing the message they received from someone else.
Continue in next message:
2.And all of the sources for the authors of the gospels go back to that 20 people who started it.
So how could the sources be independent?
They would be independent if there would be someone else (aside of that 20) spreading the message about Jesus e.g. other groups of people who had seen Jesus alive and knew his teaching…
Gospels are independent only in their own twists:
Mark made Jesus to have secret identity, Matthew made him new Moses, Luke made salvation available to gentiles, John made Jesus saying He is God etc..
Does it make sense?
Christianity started with about 20 people.
I’m not saying Jesus is fictional character. But if he would be, how would we know?
If those first 20 created the story and wanted to get it spread, wouldn’t they play the “game”?
If they created the story where Jesus is real – brother of James, had best disciple Peter and so on..
So when Paul came to them what’s the most probable scenario? Would they say it’s a fiction and Paul should just forget about it or would they play the roles they invented?
Paul didn’t know Jesus and his family personally or didn’t he?
Continue:
3. Apologies, second part of the message somehow got posted twice..
If you’re asking what’s more probable or analogies with relation to Christianity – I don’t think we can do that because Christianity is very unique, one of a kind, so probabilities won’t work and there are no analogies to it… I guess..
Well,I see kamo’s point, when i read about the “multiple independent attestation” argument I thought “well , a lot of superman comics and films make not him more reliable” but i didn’t dare to post such a thing ! But certianly is something that we, non-scholars, could think about when listen the argument. I simply don’t get convinced that all this sources are so independent or multiple (ok, this is a matter of pure scholarship and as far as is know very disputed) but even if they are so, well, they are rooted in what the very first Jesus followers believe or … invented.
Mythicist arguments about Paul speaking of a “celestial” Jesus are simply nonsenses.
I DO beleive Paul knew Peter and he did listen about Jesus brothers including James (I think Paul didn’t met James). The problem is that Paul didn’t knew Jesus himself, so there is still the chance that all Paul listen to was a pure invention. A little one, but still a chance.
Sahansdal, charrua
I’m not sure you’ve got my point.
I think Jesus WAS a real person – apocalyptic preacher who got crucified. I’m not doubting his existence.
I just think Gospels are not proving he was real.
I shouldn’t use Spiderman.
James Bond is better example.
Ian Fleming is the author, he wrote 12 novels, after his death 8 other authors have written more novels.
If Ian would say that James Bond is based on real person how writing of other 8 authors are proving that James Bond once was a real person?
Only Ian would know if Bond is pure fiction or real.
Other authors just go by what he said.
I wish we would have some written report of Pontius Pilate trial with Jesus, or some written complaint of disturbance in the temple caused by Jesus etc.. but we don’t have..
Absence of evidence is not proof of Jesus’s not existence..
It’s the same about God – because we can’t find evidence for God it doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
Again I’m not saying He does. Confusing isn’t it? 🙂
Hi Bart,
May I diverge and ask a question about what I suspect might be an interpolation?
First, the background. I read and heard the reading on Luke 2:1-20, the Christmas story, many times. When reading to an audience, I tend to skip over 2:2 because it sounds awkward, and I notice that the New International Version puts 2:2 in parenthesis, presumably because, well, it looks parenthetical.
For reference, Luke 2:2 (NIV), “(This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)”
I wonder if Luke 2:2 is an interpolation while a scribe made a mistaken attempt to define the census. Does my suspicion sound plausible to you?
It’s possible, but I think the statement is consistent with what you find in these chapters, that the author is trying to date teh events so readers know when they happened — see 1:5 and 3:1. Unfortunately, in this case he botched it, since Quirinius was not governor when Herod was king (he came ten years later); but without history books to check, this kind of mistake was easy to make, 80 years later….
Regardless of interpolation or not, I guess the general consensus is that Luke 1:5 is accurate and Luke 2:2 is inaccurate. Is that correct?
It’s generally thought that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, if that’s what you’re asking, but not in the rule of Quirinius. But the reality is that we really don’t have much evidence to go on. Still, if you crunch the numbers from various angles, it seems to make pretty good sense. Quirinius is just Luke’s mistake probably.
Well, well, I begin to read all about this Mythicist vs Historicist match
What a heated debate it turned out to be !!
As I see, Bart and Richard are the top scorers (now I’m realizing i was arguing with one of the real heavy weights in the field and I didn´t know)
So I engaged in reading Carrier´s blog too and got shocked …
This list with all of Bart’s ‘fallacies’ catalogued (does Richard really think anybody would even try to read such a thing?) was too much for me.
I think that since Nicean times not a debate about Jesus’ essence was as hot as this.
What I don’t really like about ‘Mythicists’ is that they look extremist. Obviously they are no chrstians so , what’s the real difference if Jesus was or was not a real human being??
Why do they get so angered about the issue?
They don’t only *look* extremist… And if one of their goals is to discount traditional Chrisitianity (as it is), they are shooting themselves in the foot.
2.And all of the sources for the authors of the gospels go back to that 20 people who started it.
So how could the sources be independent?
They would be independent if there would be someone else (aside of that 20) spreading the message about Jesus e.g. other groups of people who had seen Jesus alive and knew his teaching…
Gospels are independent only in their own twists:
Mark made Jesus to have secret identity, Matthew made him new Moses, Luke made salvation available to gentiles, John made Jesus saying He is God etc..
Does it make sense?
Christianity started with about 20 people.
I’m not saying Jesus is fictional character. But if he would be, how would we know?
If those first 20 created the story and wanted to get it spread, wouldn’t they play the “game”?
If they created the story where Jesus is real – brother of James, had best disciple Peter and so on..
So when Paul came to them what’s the most probable scenario? Would they say it’s a fiction and Paul should just forget about it or would they play the roles they invented?
Paul didn’t know Jesus and his family personally or didn’t he?
Continue:
I think the idea is that more than the 20 knew about what Jesus said and did during his life. The 20 are those who believed in his resurrection right away. And no, Paul would not have been known Jesus and his family. His information came from otehr sources, and the point in claiming these sources are “independent” is that they are not reliant for their information on any of the other sources we have.
I’m sure that there were other people who knew Jesus aside from that 20.
Do we have evidence that they also started spreading stories about Jesus or is the only evidence the difference between Paul and the Gospels?
If the difference is the only evidence, can we completely rule out the possibility that Paul’s info about Jesus came from that 20? Not directly from the 20, but Paul converted just a few years after Jesus died. The Message from that 20 could get to him just through a few people only. Gospel of Mark is 30 years after Paul’s conversion. The same message would go through hundreds of people for 30 years and could be very different to its origin or to what Paul heard.
And if we don’t have the original message from that 20, nor do we have original messages from other people, how could we prove Paul’s source and Gospel’s source are independent? The difference could be caused by 30 years of spreading not by the different origin..
Or am I talking nonsense? 🙂
The only evidence is that everyone we know has stories told about them. I can’t think of an argument for why obnly the first ones to believe in the resurrecitonwould be thee source for all the stories that were later told about Jesus. For example, his brother James was not one of the 20. Dozens of others would not have been either.
It looks like I had a wrong idea about the beginning of Christianity… Sorry about that…
When you mentioned James – it’s interesting that he wasn’t follower of Jesus when Jesus was alive – as a brother he should know that Jesus is Son of God… 🙂 As James became follower only after resurrection – do we know if he had a vision of Jesus first and then he became follower or he became his follower first and then had a vision of Jesus?
Paul knew him, and claims he had a vision. Unfortunately, the only narratives of his vision are from legendary sources much later.
Question: In the NT (ie-1Corinthians15:12), words such as “egegertai” and “egeroi” are used as Resurrection language. Is it possible these cognate words relate to the “egersis” ritual/concept employed historically by the city of Tyre, being that it is so close geographically to Galilee? Could this have been an imported concept used by NT authors to conceptually establish the historical Jesus as their king, as opposed to other post-resurrection theories such as visions?
Conservative Christianity often protests that 1st century Judaism lacked the mythological material to imaginatively construct the post-resurrection story. However, Hellenized Judaism and Paul the Apostle demonstrate clear knowledge of Platonic concepts regarding myth and symbolism, and therefore knowledge of material external to Judaic thinking. It stands to reason that they could also have knowledge of Phoenician history and its related parts, especially considering the seemingly educated nature of some (if not most) NT writings. Do you believe there is any substance to such a theory? If not, what would be the weaknesses and shortcomings of such a theory?
I’m not sure what you are referring to with respect to the “egersis” ritual in the city of Tyre? As to the claim that first century Jews didn’t have mythological material to work with, well, what can one say? Maybe one should say, “read some ancient Jewish literature some time.” Maybe start with Jewish apocalypses, such as 1 Enoch…..
(Apologies for double-posting earlier.)
With “egersis”, I’m referring to the ancient festival associated primarily with Melqart/Heracles throughout Phoenician and Graeco-Roman history, wherein a god or king was symbolically “awakened” through a festival and/or ritual. References to it appear to be scarce, although it’s possibly attested in 1 Kings 18, and of course much later in Josephus’ Antiquities.
Although you’ve expressed that the post-resurrection events could have been visions or mystical experiences, many other scholars offer reasonable objections. I, personally, admit to being undecided. But if the visionary theory IS fallible, there must arise alternative theories as to “how Jesus became God” (if I may politely allude to one of your published books).
Could you also offer particulars about 1 Enoch (at no expense to other apocalyptic literature) as to where it may contain the origin of the “Resurrected Christ” stories? I’m familiar with 1 Enoch, but unsure where the text may contain that particular mythological material.
Thank You! It’s a privilege to be able to pose these questions to you!
I lay out the arguments for visions in my book How Jesus Became God. In it I explain “visions” simply means “things that are seen.” The disdciples claimed they saw Jesus and my argument is that what they “saw” (or thought they saw) convinced them that JEsus had been raised. I don’t know of a sensible alternative to that. It is, after all, what the NT says. And what else would make them think he came back to life? As to mythology: I thought you were saying that the Jewish texts were lacking in mythological imagination but tended only toward giving factual information. That obviously is not true. 1 Enoch is simply an example of that, with its descriptions of journeys to heaven…
There are a lot of pieces of the “visions” argument that appeal to me, but even if affirmed, require at least a modicum of supernaturalism; contemporary transpersonal psychology tends to shy from visionary phenomena that result in the collective reaction described in the NT. This could be beside my point.
I mention 1Cor15 in the o.p. – largely because Paul (in this instance, particularly) employs both “anastasis” and “egersis” verbiage, which never seems to receive treatment for its potentially profound implications. If Paul is employing the latter with any level of cultural reference to the Phoenician/Graeco-Roman festivals, it could readily hint to a purposeful mythology being constructed by early Christians: a pairing of messianic prophecy with distinctly pagan mythology attached. Of course, this is a great deal to simply glean from etymological roots.
A more matured question I could pose to you might be: is there any historical evidence that early Second Temple Judaism or Jewish Christians engaged with these types of pagan concepts beyond merely knowing about them? For instance, any Jewish cross-faith commentary or regional dual-faiths from decades/centuries just prior to the Gospel timeframes?
Add: I most certainly agree with you about the OT apocalyptic influence you mention above.
I don’t think visions require anything supernatural. People see things all the time. It’s the way the brain works, in completetly material ways.
I think if you look up the serious scholarship you’ll find that every term gets analyzed very closely for its nuances, especially in relation to similar terms. (Are htey synonymous? Do they mean things differently in different context? What are the different nuances? What are the varying historical usages; etc. etdc.)
ANd yes, it’s quite clear that JEwish and CHristian authors were influenced by the views, narratives, philosophies, practices, rituals, etc. of those outside their communities (“pagans”)
Not sure if anyone else has posted this :
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus-home-town-nazareth-archaeological-discovery-research-a9470716.html
Easy to read account of what has been found near Nazareth and contrasting it with Roman Sepphoris
Thanks!
Luke 4:29 (AV)
And rose up, and thrust him out of the city,
and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built,
that they might cast him down headlong.
For those who believe the New Testament text, this does not remotely fit the plains and rolling hills Nazareth. And I’ve been to Mount Precipice and that is preposterous. 🙂
The spot that fits Nazareth the best is Har Nitai, close to the main area of Jesus and New Testament activity around Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. Har Nitai and Arbel have sheer cliffs, fascinating archaeology and Arbel has a history as an execution spot.
From a gentleman named Frederic Parpinel in Italy:
Holyland Pathways
Har Nitai as Nazareth
http://www.holylandpathways.com/
Har Nitai, Caesarea Inscription, 24 priestly courses . . . .
Frederic has added important elements, especially involving the priestley courses.
A gentleman named Kevin Kluetz, in AZ, did the pioneering study on this around 1995, using his Army Ranger skills to search out the region.
Some of the material from Kevin, which will hopefully be resuscitated and expanded.
The Real Nazareth
http://web.archive.org/web/20090806051045/http://geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/nazareth.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20091027180119/http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/naz1.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20091021151822/http://geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/naz2.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20091021151822/http://geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/naz3.html
Pure Bible Forum
Har Nitai as Nazareth
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/caesarea-maritima-cluster-of-courses-in-region-support-har-nitai-as-nazareth.534/
(note the map of Nazareth to Capernaum)
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Have you read, “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason to doubt” by Ricard Carrier?This book is 712 pages long and as far as I know, hasn’t yet been refuted. I’m so annoyed that mythicist don’t get a fair shake and are swatted away like pestilence. Dr. Carrier, while debating William Lane Craig, made a very interesting argument about what he called, the “bar-abbas narrative”. He explained that during a traditional jewish holiday called Yom Kippur, two goats would be slain. One, the sacrificial goat for Yah-weh, and the other, the scape goat, who would have casted upon it the sins of Israel. In the gospels, we are told the story, that I’m sure you are very familiar with, the bar-abbas narritive. Carrier makes the point that this is a clear example of myth making. And more importantly, the author of the Gospel knows and does not care that he is myth making, because he has a theological point, which is that Jesus is the sacrificial “goat” for Yah-weh.
Questions
1. Is Bar-abbas a real name? It means,Son of the Father, as if to tell the reader, what the message is.
2. Is this not an example of Myth making?
IT appears to be an invented name; my view is that the Barabbas episode is in fact invented, not historical. (I give an extended discussiohn of it in my book Jesus Before the Gospels) My view is also that that has zero bearing on whether there was an actual historical figure Jesus of Nazareth.
Questions
1. These stories in the New Testament are mythological in nature, why not then could the character of Jesus be mythical?
2. That a common man name Jesus existed in 1st century Palestine is very probable. Does that mean we have to say that the Jesus Character in the New Testament existed? Are they not different people? Does the myth of a man, when looked at retrospectively, become the man? Does saying that the Jesus of the New testament never existed, also mean that a Jewish man named Jesus never existed?
3. Paul says that the gospel he preaches wasn’t given to him by any man. But by revelation and scripture. Is this not Paul saying that the Jesus described in the New testament never existed as far a Paul is aware?
4. There are valid questions that are being asked. But I don’t think they are being taken seriously. If Jesus(of the New Testament) was ever only actually someone invented by the writer of Mark in response to reading the letters of Paul, would that impact the devout’s willingness to believe?
These questions have been taken very seriously indeed since the 18th century. CRitical scholars generally argue that there are legendary stories about Jesus in the NT, and a good deal of critical study needs to be applied to determine what is historical and what not about them. But the historical evidence that there was a man Jesus and that we can say a good bit about him is overwhelming, if approached from a historical point of view by someone without much of an investment in the answer one way or the other. Both conservative Christians and mythicists have strongly stated views of the Gospels narratives’ historicity, and both of them strongly held reasons for wanting to think they are right. Neither approach is helpful for a historian.