Christ-Myth Fails Under Scrutiny - Flemming, Freke & Gandy
I first thought to start a blog after writing my first book, Manifested in the Flesh, and before my second, The Return of the Village Atheist. Time got away from me, and I have found myself talking mostly about the so-called "New Atheism" in general and not addressing the Christ-myth atheists that began my descent into the caverns of the infidels to begin with. I here return to the Christ-myth nonsense in order to show just a few of the many breathtaking leaps the Christ-myth writers pawn as scholarship.
There are two varieties of argument, or evidence, which concern me the most. The first are reinterpretations of what have classically been understood as historical witnesses to Christ outside of the Bible: Josephus, Seutonius, Tacitus, etc. Of this class I may find time to deal with later, for the second variety concerns me more. This second class is made up of various references from other religions — often pagan mystery-cults — which sound as if they very explicitly contain Christian doctrines, yet they predate the New Testament writings, sometimes by centuries. These evidences, when they are presented in a certain striking manner (which I shall argue is misleading and poorly researched), lay the foundation for the understanding that Christianity borrowed its most distinct doctrines frm already existing religious cults. Some of these instances, which I have not covered in the book, I want to examine here in this blog.
The problem with such "evidences" is that when you search just below the surface of the presentation — trace just a few footnotes and sources — you find that they are almost made up out of thin air. Following are two clear examples from Timothy Freke’s and Peter Gandy’s book The Jesus Mysteries.
First, Freke and Gandy present the Christian sacrament of Holy Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, as nothing less than an ape and imitation of earlier pagan practices. They write, "The ritual of eating and drinking the ‘body’ and ‘blood’ of Jesus is celebrated by Christians as the Eucharist. Such a ‘holy communion’ was also practiced in the Mysteries, as a means of becoming one with Osiris-Dionysus" (TJM, 48-9). Alongside what should be considered a very general and unconvincing parallel of the Graeco-Roman god Bacchus (the "god of wine"), they proceed to pull out what seems to be the clincher, a genuine smoking-gun. They write,
"An inscription reads, ‘He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.’" (TJM, 49).
And just when the readers mind is settling in saying, "I’ve heard that before. That’s Jesus in John 6:53, 6," Freke and Gandy reveal to us the shocking truth: this is not Jesus! It is "actually the Mystery godman Mithras speaking!"(TJM, 49, italics mine). And, believe it or not, they’ve got the scholarly footnote to prove it! They cite scholar Jocelyn Godwin’s book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World (1981), page 28.
So I trace down Godwin’s book looking for the real ancient source of this "inscription." But I am disappointed: Godwin does say what Freke and Gandy claim, but gives no scholarly citation or source at all for the quote. So, I had to do the scholarly leg-work myself in order to find it.
Finally, after combing through several books, I actually found it. It was quoted by M. J. Vermaseren in Mithras, The Secret God (1963), p. 103-4, and Vermaseren himself is quoting the famous Mithras scholar Franz Cumont’s work. It turns out that the quote is not from any ancient artifact, but is derived from one single medieval manuscript that alleges to parallel Persian religion with Christian.
So, now, put this together. What we have is Freke and Gandy quoting Godwin, who is quoting Vermaseren, who is quoting Cumont, who is quoting a lone manuscript that was written about a thousand years after Christ. Thus we have the refutation. This is shoddy scholarship, quoted uncritically by successive generations of skeptics and passed down like a hereditary disease. There is no such parallel between the words of Christ and Mithras after all, only a very late and dubious manuscript. The apparently striking truth turns out to be a very poor joke.
A second example is even more striking, for it deals with a even more central and distinct Christian doctrine, the Trinity. Freke and Gandy imply (they rarely make a direct claim - rather, they make implications and rely on their readers’ gullibility to fill in the gaps) that Christians stole the idea of a Triune God from previous pagan religion. They write, "The notion of a divine trinity is not found in Judaism, but it is prefigured by paganism" (TJM, 82). Then they quote from a hundred year-old scholar of ancient Egypt, E. A. Wallis Budge. In his 1899 work Egyptian Religion, Budge quotes a religious text that has the god Nerbertcher say "Being One I became Three" (TJM, 82). Sounds like a trinity, right? But how much is it really like the Christian idea?
As in the first case, the context proves the lie. Budge gives us the fuller text (which Freke and Gandy must have had in front of them):
The god Nebertcher says, "I emitted from myself the gods Shu and Tefnut, and from being One I became Three; they sprang from me, and came into existence in this earth. . . . Shu and Tefnut brought forth Seb and Nut, and Nut brought forth Osiris, Horus-khent-an-maa, Sut, Isis, and Nephthys at one birth." (Budge, Egyptian Religion, 42, 45)
So this is hardly a latent trinity, it is merely a very selectively chosen fragment of a very typical polytheistic genealogy of pagan gods. How many gods are there altogether? I count ten. Freke and Gandy should have talked about a "decinity" instead of a trinity - but that, of course, would have been nonsense. So to cover their nonsense, they edited out a tiny fraction of the text which to portray to their readers as a precursor to Christian doctrine. But there is nothing unique about this fragment when seen in its context. There are such genealogies all over the pagan world. Greek mythology is famous for the carousing of the gods. Gnosticism, the heresy which the early Church fathers refuted, had numerous examples of mythical tales that were filled with multi-tiered "emanations" of gods, just like the one spoken here by "Nerbertcher." Christianity was always opposed to it (even as early as Paul - see 1 Cor. 8:5-6).
Speaking of Nerbertcher, here is some more of his soliloquy from the same religious text, just for your entertainment:
"I evolved the evolving of evolutions. I evolved myself under the form of the evolutions of the god Khepera, which were evolved at the beginning of all time. I evolved with the evolutions of the God Khepera; I evolved by the evolution of evolutions . . ." (Budge, 41)
This god seems to have only one thing on his mind. Much like modern "scientific" paganism: the universe created itself and matter is eternally evolving. No wonder these myths are so attractive some modern atheists like Brian Flemming! Hey, maybe someone should send this text to the famous atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins. Maybe he might read it and decide he believes in a god after all: the evolved/evolving/evolution god Nerbertcher.
Far from being a source of Christian doctrine, Egyptian religion was looked down upon by the early Church fathers. This should come as no surprise since much of Egyptian paganism was among the most openly base. Here are some facts about Egyptian religion:
1. Egyptian gods were mortal — even the highest among them, Ra, the sun-god, and Osiris. None were necessarily eternal.
2. They had countless gods which were often "grouped" for pragmatic, regional, or relational reasons, sometimes in two’s or three’s.
3. Osiris—Isis—Horus was just one of the later of these concoctions of local gods, and was created mainly to legitimate the undeserved inheritance of the throne by a Pharaoh’s son.
4. The most significant feature of Egyptian religion by far was the outright worship of Animals. For example, the following animals received worship for these purposes:
A. Wisdom (Tahuti-Thoth): Baboon
B. Male Reproduction (Ra and Ptah): Bull
C. Female Reproduction (Hathor-Isis): Cow (the so called "great queen of heaven" was worshipped as a cow! Here’s a direct quote from one Egyptian religious poem: "Hail to thee, Great One, who came forth from the Heavenly Cow." Morning Hymn, Frankfort, p.17)
D. Pregnancy (Ta-urt): Hippopotamus (!)
E. Maternity (Mut): Vulture
(DISCLAIMER: Husbands, do not attempt to use "C," "D," or "E" as terms of endearment at home. Joel McDurmon and American Vision will not be held accountable for any consequences resulting from such actions.)
F. Other Animals worshiped: Falcon, Jackal, Frog, Crocodile, Snakes, Fish, etc. In many cases these animals have been found mummified and placed among buried rulers.
The Early Church fathers picked up on this ridiculous side of Egyptian religion. One of the earliest apologists, Aristides, wrote:
"The Egyptians, moreover, because they are more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth, have themselves erred more than all. For the deities (or religion) of the Barbarians and the Greeks did not suffice for them, but they introduced some also of the nature of the animals, and said thereof that they were gods, and likewise of creeping things which are found on the dry land and in the waters." (The Apology of Aristides, XII)
It is hardly likely that the early Church fathers drew inspiration from the very Egyptian paganism they so openly despised. Besides this, Freke and Gandy are wrong to say that the notion of a divine trinity is not found in Judaism. While it is not explicitly stated in Judaism, the latest New Testament scholarship — notably that of N. T. Wright — is showing that the elements of Trinitarian worship were latent in Judaism from very early on (more on that at another time).
So once again we see that, from every angle, the claim made by Freke and Gandy is so far off as to be on the verge of open dishonesty. Their quote is selective, the actual context of the quote gives a very different story, the historical context of Egyptian religion makes the claim highly unlikely, and the clear views of the early Church itself prove just the opposite point.
A third case concerns the supremely important doctrine of the Incarnation. Freke and Gandy imply that Greek mythology predates this doctrine by nearly 500 years! According to them, the Graeco-Roman god Bacchus came in the Flesh, and they quote him, "Lord god of God born!," "Godhead in a mortal shape . . . manifest to mortal men," "I have changed my immortal form and taken the likeness of man" (they are quoting Euripides, Bacchae, 5C B.C. - compare Phil. 2:7-8; John 1:14).
I refute this claim at length in my book Manifested in the Flesh: How the Historical Evidence of Jesus Refutes Modern Mystics and Skeptics (pp. 91-4). He who wishes to see the full refutation, as well as a fuller defense of the Incarnation may look there. In an Appendix to the same book I cover much more about their book in all its comical details.
It was after viewing the atheist Brian Flemming’s anti-Christian DVD that I realized there needed to be a response this brand of nonsense. The answers are out there, but propagandists like Flemming, and Freke and Gandy, have strewn a labyrinth of misleading thoughts and distractions for their readers and followers. Thankfully, they don’t tend to persuade actual scholars (the only scholarly review that I could find of Freke and Gandy’s book was a scathing and sarcastic criticism - something highly uncommon in scholarly journals. I quote the review in my book). They do, however, persuade lots of uncritical people, and shock a lot of unsuspecting and otherwise unprepared Christians. Let there from now on be no more shock.
If you have any specific questions regarding other claims of the Christ-mythicists, please feel free to email me at the address found on my profile page, or post them in the comments section of this post. I will do my best to research and address the concerns.
There are two varieties of argument, or evidence, which concern me the most. The first are reinterpretations of what have classically been understood as historical witnesses to Christ outside of the Bible: Josephus, Seutonius, Tacitus, etc. Of this class I may find time to deal with later, for the second variety concerns me more. This second class is made up of various references from other religions — often pagan mystery-cults — which sound as if they very explicitly contain Christian doctrines, yet they predate the New Testament writings, sometimes by centuries. These evidences, when they are presented in a certain striking manner (which I shall argue is misleading and poorly researched), lay the foundation for the understanding that Christianity borrowed its most distinct doctrines frm already existing religious cults. Some of these instances, which I have not covered in the book, I want to examine here in this blog.
The problem with such "evidences" is that when you search just below the surface of the presentation — trace just a few footnotes and sources — you find that they are almost made up out of thin air. Following are two clear examples from Timothy Freke’s and Peter Gandy’s book The Jesus Mysteries.
First, Freke and Gandy present the Christian sacrament of Holy Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, as nothing less than an ape and imitation of earlier pagan practices. They write, "The ritual of eating and drinking the ‘body’ and ‘blood’ of Jesus is celebrated by Christians as the Eucharist. Such a ‘holy communion’ was also practiced in the Mysteries, as a means of becoming one with Osiris-Dionysus" (TJM, 48-9). Alongside what should be considered a very general and unconvincing parallel of the Graeco-Roman god Bacchus (the "god of wine"), they proceed to pull out what seems to be the clincher, a genuine smoking-gun. They write,
"An inscription reads, ‘He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.’" (TJM, 49).
And just when the readers mind is settling in saying, "I’ve heard that before. That’s Jesus in John 6:53, 6," Freke and Gandy reveal to us the shocking truth: this is not Jesus! It is "actually the Mystery godman Mithras speaking!"(TJM, 49, italics mine). And, believe it or not, they’ve got the scholarly footnote to prove it! They cite scholar Jocelyn Godwin’s book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World (1981), page 28.
So I trace down Godwin’s book looking for the real ancient source of this "inscription." But I am disappointed: Godwin does say what Freke and Gandy claim, but gives no scholarly citation or source at all for the quote. So, I had to do the scholarly leg-work myself in order to find it.
Finally, after combing through several books, I actually found it. It was quoted by M. J. Vermaseren in Mithras, The Secret God (1963), p. 103-4, and Vermaseren himself is quoting the famous Mithras scholar Franz Cumont’s work. It turns out that the quote is not from any ancient artifact, but is derived from one single medieval manuscript that alleges to parallel Persian religion with Christian.
So, now, put this together. What we have is Freke and Gandy quoting Godwin, who is quoting Vermaseren, who is quoting Cumont, who is quoting a lone manuscript that was written about a thousand years after Christ. Thus we have the refutation. This is shoddy scholarship, quoted uncritically by successive generations of skeptics and passed down like a hereditary disease. There is no such parallel between the words of Christ and Mithras after all, only a very late and dubious manuscript. The apparently striking truth turns out to be a very poor joke.
A second example is even more striking, for it deals with a even more central and distinct Christian doctrine, the Trinity. Freke and Gandy imply (they rarely make a direct claim - rather, they make implications and rely on their readers’ gullibility to fill in the gaps) that Christians stole the idea of a Triune God from previous pagan religion. They write, "The notion of a divine trinity is not found in Judaism, but it is prefigured by paganism" (TJM, 82). Then they quote from a hundred year-old scholar of ancient Egypt, E. A. Wallis Budge. In his 1899 work Egyptian Religion, Budge quotes a religious text that has the god Nerbertcher say "Being One I became Three" (TJM, 82). Sounds like a trinity, right? But how much is it really like the Christian idea?
As in the first case, the context proves the lie. Budge gives us the fuller text (which Freke and Gandy must have had in front of them):
The god Nebertcher says, "I emitted from myself the gods Shu and Tefnut, and from being One I became Three; they sprang from me, and came into existence in this earth. . . . Shu and Tefnut brought forth Seb and Nut, and Nut brought forth Osiris, Horus-khent-an-maa, Sut, Isis, and Nephthys at one birth." (Budge, Egyptian Religion, 42, 45)
So this is hardly a latent trinity, it is merely a very selectively chosen fragment of a very typical polytheistic genealogy of pagan gods. How many gods are there altogether? I count ten. Freke and Gandy should have talked about a "decinity" instead of a trinity - but that, of course, would have been nonsense. So to cover their nonsense, they edited out a tiny fraction of the text which to portray to their readers as a precursor to Christian doctrine. But there is nothing unique about this fragment when seen in its context. There are such genealogies all over the pagan world. Greek mythology is famous for the carousing of the gods. Gnosticism, the heresy which the early Church fathers refuted, had numerous examples of mythical tales that were filled with multi-tiered "emanations" of gods, just like the one spoken here by "Nerbertcher." Christianity was always opposed to it (even as early as Paul - see 1 Cor. 8:5-6).
Speaking of Nerbertcher, here is some more of his soliloquy from the same religious text, just for your entertainment:
"I evolved the evolving of evolutions. I evolved myself under the form of the evolutions of the god Khepera, which were evolved at the beginning of all time. I evolved with the evolutions of the God Khepera; I evolved by the evolution of evolutions . . ." (Budge, 41)
This god seems to have only one thing on his mind. Much like modern "scientific" paganism: the universe created itself and matter is eternally evolving. No wonder these myths are so attractive some modern atheists like Brian Flemming! Hey, maybe someone should send this text to the famous atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins. Maybe he might read it and decide he believes in a god after all: the evolved/evolving/evolution god Nerbertcher.
Far from being a source of Christian doctrine, Egyptian religion was looked down upon by the early Church fathers. This should come as no surprise since much of Egyptian paganism was among the most openly base. Here are some facts about Egyptian religion:
1. Egyptian gods were mortal — even the highest among them, Ra, the sun-god, and Osiris. None were necessarily eternal.
2. They had countless gods which were often "grouped" for pragmatic, regional, or relational reasons, sometimes in two’s or three’s.
3. Osiris—Isis—Horus was just one of the later of these concoctions of local gods, and was created mainly to legitimate the undeserved inheritance of the throne by a Pharaoh’s son.
4. The most significant feature of Egyptian religion by far was the outright worship of Animals. For example, the following animals received worship for these purposes:
A. Wisdom (Tahuti-Thoth): Baboon
B. Male Reproduction (Ra and Ptah): Bull
C. Female Reproduction (Hathor-Isis): Cow (the so called "great queen of heaven" was worshipped as a cow! Here’s a direct quote from one Egyptian religious poem: "Hail to thee, Great One, who came forth from the Heavenly Cow." Morning Hymn, Frankfort, p.17)
D. Pregnancy (Ta-urt): Hippopotamus (!)
E. Maternity (Mut): Vulture
(DISCLAIMER: Husbands, do not attempt to use "C," "D," or "E" as terms of endearment at home. Joel McDurmon and American Vision will not be held accountable for any consequences resulting from such actions.)
F. Other Animals worshiped: Falcon, Jackal, Frog, Crocodile, Snakes, Fish, etc. In many cases these animals have been found mummified and placed among buried rulers.
The Early Church fathers picked up on this ridiculous side of Egyptian religion. One of the earliest apologists, Aristides, wrote:
"The Egyptians, moreover, because they are more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth, have themselves erred more than all. For the deities (or religion) of the Barbarians and the Greeks did not suffice for them, but they introduced some also of the nature of the animals, and said thereof that they were gods, and likewise of creeping things which are found on the dry land and in the waters." (The Apology of Aristides, XII)
It is hardly likely that the early Church fathers drew inspiration from the very Egyptian paganism they so openly despised. Besides this, Freke and Gandy are wrong to say that the notion of a divine trinity is not found in Judaism. While it is not explicitly stated in Judaism, the latest New Testament scholarship — notably that of N. T. Wright — is showing that the elements of Trinitarian worship were latent in Judaism from very early on (more on that at another time).
So once again we see that, from every angle, the claim made by Freke and Gandy is so far off as to be on the verge of open dishonesty. Their quote is selective, the actual context of the quote gives a very different story, the historical context of Egyptian religion makes the claim highly unlikely, and the clear views of the early Church itself prove just the opposite point.
A third case concerns the supremely important doctrine of the Incarnation. Freke and Gandy imply that Greek mythology predates this doctrine by nearly 500 years! According to them, the Graeco-Roman god Bacchus came in the Flesh, and they quote him, "Lord god of God born!," "Godhead in a mortal shape . . . manifest to mortal men," "I have changed my immortal form and taken the likeness of man" (they are quoting Euripides, Bacchae, 5C B.C. - compare Phil. 2:7-8; John 1:14).
I refute this claim at length in my book Manifested in the Flesh: How the Historical Evidence of Jesus Refutes Modern Mystics and Skeptics (pp. 91-4). He who wishes to see the full refutation, as well as a fuller defense of the Incarnation may look there. In an Appendix to the same book I cover much more about their book in all its comical details.
It was after viewing the atheist Brian Flemming’s anti-Christian DVD that I realized there needed to be a response this brand of nonsense. The answers are out there, but propagandists like Flemming, and Freke and Gandy, have strewn a labyrinth of misleading thoughts and distractions for their readers and followers. Thankfully, they don’t tend to persuade actual scholars (the only scholarly review that I could find of Freke and Gandy’s book was a scathing and sarcastic criticism - something highly uncommon in scholarly journals. I quote the review in my book). They do, however, persuade lots of uncritical people, and shock a lot of unsuspecting and otherwise unprepared Christians. Let there from now on be no more shock.
If you have any specific questions regarding other claims of the Christ-mythicists, please feel free to email me at the address found on my profile page, or post them in the comments section of this post. I will do my best to research and address the concerns.
22 Comments:
Joel,
In fairness for completion, Freke and Gandy have been ripped apart by atheist scholars as well. You can see for yourself on Skepticwiki and many other places including RichardDawkins.net where I myself participated in dissecting some of this trash scholarship, as well as that of Acharya S. who in my opinion is a complete loon.
That being said, there is much legitimate work, much of it by religious scholars, that reveal significant evidence of mythmaking and falsification in much written about Jesus.
Your references to ancient historians is very problematic. Seutonius and Tacitus were not contemporary witnesses to Jesus. Josephus is the only contemporary historian and the consensus among even religious scholars is that at least two of his three references to Jesus were forged, probably under the direction of Eusebius, the Catholic Church's first historian (who said it was morally right to forge and destroy such historic documents to further the prospects of Christianity). The remaining quote of Joseph potentially pertaining to Jesus is very weak and is currently in dispute as to its authenticity as well. You would also be hard pressed to answer why Josephus wrote much more extensively on other contemporaries, including John the Baptist and why there is no corroboration of any of Jesus' purported miracles - esp. the hundreds of alleged dead souls that rose from the grave and walked the streets soon after Jesus' death.
Finally, though I agree with much of your analysis of other religions from which the Jesus "myth" was allegedly derived, you have been too facile in your analysis. Back then, as today, there were many branches and offshoots of these and other religions which, in part, often became embraced by and intermingled with other cultures and even other religions. The similarities of some of these cults were so similar to many aspects of the Jesus story that the Church itself dealt with the problem, not as you have, but by saying that Satan planted these false prophets before Christ so as to mislead the people when Christ came. Surely they would not have had to go to so much trouble to counter these criticisms (contemporary in their time) if things were as black and white as you are trying to portray.
Joel,
I also meant to ask you if you were aware of the fact that Brain Fleming recently came forth and apologized for what he came to realize was some poor scholarship behind his DVD you referenced.
Agree or disagree with the man, there are not many on either said of our fence Joel that would be big enough to do that. I think that is worthy of your acknowledgment at least.
In fairness for completion, Freke and Gandy have been ripped apart by atheist scholars as well.
Please don’t pretend that what I posted was somehow “incomplete” because I forgot to give a nod to atheist writers. This post was the first of what I hope to be a look at some examples, and thus only a part of what will be an ongoing correction of Christ-myth claims. That some atheists have prosecuted that critique as well is more of a support for me than a detraction of anything I said. Many atheist non-scholars, however, have followed the claims uncritically because, one can only presume, that the Christ-mythers have told them something they wanted to hear. That some atheist scholars have critiqued Freke is more due to them being scholars than to them being atheists, for the mythicist position, according to the Skepticwiki page on “The Existence of Jesus,” is “by far a minority amongst New Testament scholars and historians, even those who do not regard the New Testament as reliable, let alone infallible.”
Had I intended this post to be a thorough treatise, I might have included that thought already.
That being said, there is much legitimate work, much of it by religious scholars, that reveal significant evidence of mythmaking and falsification in much written about Jesus.
There is precious little legitimate scholarship that supports the Christ-myth position. I don’t know exactly what authors you are referring to here, since you do not state them. If by mythmaking you are referring to form criticism, the products of that trade - from Bultmann forward - are as much examples of mythology as anything they purport to write about. As far as I know, there is not a single agreed upon example of falsification, perhaps with the exception of the old trinity passage in 1 John 5. The only reason that work can be called “legitimate” is because it was produced by scholars who held or hold university posts - not because they have persuaded a scholarly consensus.
If you are referring to Dougherty, I don’t think he has gotten any attention, let alone acceptance, from the scholarly world. Find me a single positive journal review of his book - I will be surprised. If Bart Ehrman - a scholar who studied under a real giant of a NT scholar (Metzger), and who has produced several respected scholarly works - then his popular works have already been challenged and are as full of as much spin as Freke and Gandy’s prose. Robert Price may also be an exception, but, with him being a member of the “Jesus Seminar,” even the liberal humanist scholars consider him to be way out. He is entertaining to listen to, however. Scholars like him, for example, Funk, are often great when dealing with the actual texts, but awful when interpreting them or constructing a history from them. That’s why they always run to the public media with those claims instead of peer-reviewed journals.
If you are referring to the higher criticism traditions started in the 19th century, then don’t say another word until you have read the conservative response from at least Westcott and Lightfoot, to name two. They answered them then, and have not been definitively answered in turn.
Your references to ancient historians is very problematic.
I find your interjection of something I explicitly left for another time itself problematic. Rightly you call them my “references” because that’s all they were. Not claims, arguments, or statements - only passing references. Your eagerness to prosecute that case is interesting - and not without its own problems:
You say that Eusebius probably directed the forgery of Josephus, because Eusebius
said it was morally right to forge and destroy such historic documents to further the prospects of Christianity
I would love to see your source for this over-used and under-researched accusation. You seem to be parroting the old arguments without researching them yourself. You haven’t even done your homework on little ol’ me, for I traced out the root of at least one of the “Eusebius was a liar” claims. Read me here: https://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/06-29-06.asp
So give me the quote. Don’t give me a secondary source, either. I wanna hear it from Eusebius himself, Book.Chapter.Section.
Finally, though I agree with much of your analysis of other religions from which the Jesus "myth" was allegedly derived, you have been too facile in your analysis.
Oh! Save me! From, of all things, facility! Too “facile” in my analysis? I would have thought too anal in my facility. But that sounds vulgar. Forgive me.
Again, this was a post only (mainly) about two specific claims made by Freke-Gandy - not a systematic treatise on the subject. For something a bit closer to that, see my book. Did I mention I wrote a book on the topic? A book in which I cover things such as religious syncretism, on which you:
Back then, as today, there were many branches and offshoots of these and other religions which, in part, often became embraced by and intermingled with other cultures and even other religions.
I mention this in my book, and it turns out to be more of an argument for Christian peculiarity, since the various myth were all so different that to say any one of them influenced Christianity (in its core doctrines) is impossible to prove.
Not a single genuine parallel of a genealogical nature between the mystery cults and Christianity has ever been produced – either textual or artifactual – from any of the various local expressions of the mystery religions. The story of the fraudulent cover of Freke and Gandy’s book could be the symbol of the entire enterprise.
The similarities of some of these cults were so similar to many aspects of the Jesus story that the Church itself dealt with the problem, not as you have, but by saying that Satan planted these false prophets before Christ so as to mislead the people when Christ came.
You are again parroting the Christ-myth mantras (just as Flemming did). Yes, I know what Justin Martyr and Tertullian, et al said about Satan. I quote them at length in my book. I also quote the context in which they were saying those things, which turns out to reveal a completely different story than that alleged by the mythicists. Not only were they not caught off-guard and speechless due to these “similarities” (as is so often argued), but they argued exactly as I have, because I have modeled my critique on that of the early Church fathers. They pointed to the Old Testament roots of their own Christian doctrines, and then did an internal critique of the pagan religions themselves. Simple, persuasive, profound.
I even quote Aristides in my post. Did you not read his clear internal critique of the Egyptian nonsense? This is only one example. And Aristides was the earliest of the apologists we have record of – even earlier than Justin Martyr.
Surely they would not have had to go to so much trouble to counter these criticisms (contemporary in their time) if things were as black and white as you are trying to portray.
They had to go to so much trouble because messes are easier to make than to clean up. And besides, it wasn’t that much trouble. Their treatises are not all long. Some are quite brief. Those that are long are so usually because they are imitating classic oration (Tertullian), or responding to extant critiques that were long to begin with (Origen).
I also meant to ask you if you were aware of the fact that Brain Fleming recently came forth and apologized for what he came to realize was some poor scholarship behind his DVD you referenced.
Agree or disagree with the man, there are not many on either said of our fence Joel that would be big enough to do that. I think that is worthy of your acknowledgment at least.
I had not heard until now that Flemming “apologized,” and after listening to the relevant audio clip, I still have not head him apologize for his shoddy and misleading presentation. What he did was say that he regretted allowing one fictitious name of a pagan god to slip by unnoticed during editing. It was written in a background though not mentioned otherwise. He knew it had been made up by that nut-job Kersey Graves who wrote a hundred years ago. What Flemming was doing was not “apologizing” for poor scholarship, but trying to distance himself from a known wacko. A wacko, I might add, that even Madame Blavatsky distanced herself from at the time. Now that’s fringe scholarship! No wonder Flemming reacted. Plus, Flemming only said what he said because, as he complained, some critics (I don’t know who) where taking that one slip-up and blowing it up to represent the nature of the whole work. Well, Kersey Graves as a source or not, the whole DVD still belongs in the same category as Graves’s universally discredited book. So, Flemming's "apology" belongs on the same level as, say, Pat Robertson's "apology" for saying we should assassinate Chavez. So much for both sides of the fence.
I really am disappointed with you, Jane. You say that, like me, you are critical of the Christ-mythers, but then you use some of their worst arguments to critique me! You should be critical of their nonsense, first. If you don’t want to start with my book and then mine my bibliography, then you absolutely must read Metzger’s classic and excellent review of the matter:
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mystery_religions_early_christianity.htm
Else, read Machen’s The Origin of Paul’s Religion (dated on gnosticism, but still good on the mystery religions). Else, read the accounts in Everett Ferguson’s Backgrounds to Early Christianity, or Ron Nash’s The Gospel and the Greeks. These are good starters.
Joel,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I will try to read the references you cited. I have read some Metzger but only in small bites. I need to read the whole thing. I will have to get back to you on the Eusebius scholarship. It's been awhile since I've read all this stuff and it is ripe for review again.
With regard to Eusebius, here is one such quote and source for him.
""How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived"
Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel,
The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.
With Eusebius, it helps to read everything in context and I'm not going to paste everything here. How do you interpret his repsonses to Plato in the same book?
I also noted you didn't mention Richard Carrier. What do you think of him and what he has written on the topic of Eusebius and Christian myth-making? Most theists I know who are familiar with Carrier, even when they vehemently disagree with him, seem to respect his scholarship. He published this critique of Doherty that also helps to back up certain claims you dismiss:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html#General
Jane,
That so-called "quote" from Eusebius is a chapter heading, probably added later than Eusebius. Besides, it is not a prescription for deceit, but only a description of the topic covered in the very short chapter.
Here is the chapter:
CHAPTER XXXI
[PLATO] 'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'
Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm
Now, anyone familiar with Scripture will see that Eusebius is simply referring to anthropomorphism - that sometimes literally untrue descriptions of God are used in Scripture to speak of otherwise unspeakable things - such as God's "arm," feelings, etc.
The scholar's Preface to PE includes this info:
"The Praeparatio is perhaps best known from a narrow-minded attempt by Edward Gibbon in his Vindication to use it to 'prove' that Eusebius advocated deceit. The smear needs little discussion here. While Gibbon would like us to believe that Eusebius is really saying in book 12, chapter 31 that the bible is a lie so deceit is fine, some will feel that instead that it is simply part of his theme that the bible contains narrative fiction in order to get conceptually difficult truths into the uneducated. The reader is invited to read all of book 12 and decide for themselves."
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_00_eintro.htm
Another myth created by the church-hater Gibbon.
For further understanding, keep in mind the title of Eusebius' work: Preparation for the Gospel. He is finding philosophical ideas that can be understood as laying a foundation for understanding and receiving the Gospel. In this case with Plato, I think he is straining a lot - something that often happens when Christian scholars try to make the Gospel appealing to heathen intellectuals on their terms.
Great piece, Joel!
Hey Joel,
It is entertaining reading through your blog site! I have been chuckling at some of the comments made by your opponents as well as your responses. How is post RES life treating you and yours? Is the boy speaking Tagalog or Ethiopian or reading Coptic yet? Is Scotland on the horizon? I am thinking of and praying for you as you continue your quest, thank you for your friendship and past encouragement as I was becoming acclimated to seminary.
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Josh
Joel,
I didn't want to leave you or Tim hanging, especially since the integrity of my search for truth was questioned. I did try to find the time to read the original source materials on Eusebius but the more I looked the harder it became. You see, not only are the writings of Eusebius critical but also are those of his contemporaries who might shed light on his actions and motives that he might otherwise conceal.
When I realized I would not have time to complete my analysis properly on my own, I did something I am usually very wary of doing, since I don't like substituting appeals to authority as argument. I posted a thread a RD asking for help from the theist and atheist religious scholars there who know far more than I. They supplied me with a wealth of direct references so I could cut to the chase.
Based on this analysis I have to concede that I was wrong about Eusebius and you were right. I could find no evidence for forgery or deliberate deception on his part. He did appear to have some gullibility and wishful thinking concerning information and writings of dubious credibility that he wished to enshrine as historical doctrine - perhaps influence by his relationship with Constantine. But that's about it. Would you agree with that?
Ironically, one of the things I discovered is that the lies spread about Eusebius did not originate with atheists. Rather, some atheists carelessly quoted the works of some Protestants who orginally wanted to discredit Catholicism by undermining Eusebius. A similar smear was undertaken against St. Jerome, though it appears that was less exploited later by atheists.
Nevertheless, there is still significant evidence to support historical and documentary forgery and manipulation in the Christian church. However, most errors appear not to have been done by deliberate deceit but rather by the incorporation of scribe notes and comments as later canon. Would you deny this as well? My mistake was to improperly indict Eusebius without sufficient evidence.
I personally remain on the fence concerning the Jesus as Myth arguments. I always knew, as I had said previously, that there was a lot of baloney in this field. But even the staunch theist scholars at RD who helped me to correct my position on Eusebius would agree that there is much high quality scholarship on the issue to be found in the writings of R.G Price, Robert M. Price, and Richard Carrier.
For example, your assertions concerning the independent historical witnesses (Seutonius, Tacitus, and even Josephus) to the Jesus story are very much in doubt even among theist scholars. I would love to hear your response to R. G. Price's arguments here:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
Anyway, I did learn a good deal from this exchange with you Joel and I'm quite happy that it led me to find more truth and dispense with erroneous arguments. For that I'm grateful. Now if we could just get you to take a fresh look at evolution...
Jane, I appreciate the fact that you are mature enough and honest enough to be willing to admit a mistake. Were that many more folks would be like this.
With regard to sources about Jesus, I would point out three things: 1) A demand of "independent" sources seems to presuppose that the NT documents (as well as writings from early Christians) are unreliable; 2) such a demand is not consistent with what is normally expected of other ancient writings; 3) those aren't the only three sources. The first two points are important in that they seem to indicate a bias in those that would make those sorts of demands. With regard to the third point, I will leave you with the following two quotes that should hopefully provide some fertile thinking matter on the subject:
"Examination of the following ten historical sources (outside the Bible) reveals information about the life of Jesus that conforms to, and even corroborates, the four New Testament Gospel accounts and also the book of Acts: Tacitus (ca. AD 55-120), Annals; Suetonius (ca. AD 120), Life of
Cladius; Josephus (AD 37-97), Antiquities; Pliny the Younger (AD 112), Epistles X; the Jewish Talmud; Toledoth Jesu; Lucian (2nd century AD); Thallus (ca. AD 52), Histories; Mara Bar-Serapion (ca. AD 73); Phlegon (ca. AD 80). These ancient sources draw the following portrait of Jesus and of early Christians: 1) He was a provocative teacher, a wise and virtuous man from the region of Judea. 2) He reportedly performed miracles and made prophetic claims. 3) The Jewish leaders condemned him for acts of sorcery and apostasy. 4) He was crucified by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate at the time of the Jewish Passover, and during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. 5) Jesus' followers, called Christians, reported that he had risen from the dead. 6) The Christian faith spread to Rome where Christians were charged with crimes and met horrible persecution. 7) First-century Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as God and celebrated the Eucharist in their services. 8) While at times the Romans ridiculed the followers of Christ as morally weak, these disciples were often known for their courage and virtue. Brief and, at times, cryptic statements about Jesus made by ancient non-Christian authors do not prove the claims of the gospel. Yet nothing in them conflicts with what is recorded about Jesus in the Gospels. And these extrabiblical, historical sources are consistent with and confirm the historicity of the gospel message." -- Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt
"Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger that: 1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; 2) many people believed he performed healings and exorcisms; 3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; 4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; 5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; 6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century. In spite of what modern scholars
claim, the extrabibilical evidence will not sustain their eccentric pictures of Jesus that attract such widespread media attention because of their novelty. In
contrast to these idiosyncratic and ephemeral revisions, the orthodox view of Jesus still stands as the most credible portrait when all the evidence is
considered, including the corroboration offered by ancient sources outside the New Testament." -- Edwin Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament:
What Is the Evidence?" in Jesus Under Fire
Tim,
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
First I have to plead ignorance to some degree in that I have not read the modern books you quote. However, I would caution you against making the same mistake I did. All of the references that led me to change my mind on Eusebius convinced me by including large swaths of original ancient quotations with tremendous layered context on all sides. That enabled me to reach my own conclusions and the only weak spot was that I relied on the validity and completeness of the source material, translation and scholarship. Had there been different opinions from qualified scholars as to the meaning of the text I would not have conceded. But there was clear consensus across atheist and theist scholars.
If you check out the link I provided you will similarly see both scholarship and a great deal of multiple translations with extensive context that should at least undermine your faith in the attested historicity of Jesus provided by Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. Furthermore all the deductive methods and reasoning typically applied to historical analysis of ancient documents are elucidated. I'm not necessarily saying you should be convinced, but your mind should be open to reasonable doubt.
Also I'd like to address this quote from you:
"1) A demand of "independent" sources seems to presuppose that the NT documents (as well as writings from early Christians) are unreliable; 2) such a demand is not consistent with what is normally expected of other ancient writings;"
I was once involved in almost the same debate at RD.net once concerning the NT and Caesar's Gaul Commentaries by way of comparison. Have you read them and historian interpretations? You will see that historians tore Caesar's history apart based on motives and ulterior contested politics. Basically the amount of critical analysis and criticism is and should be related to the level of controversy, impact, and potential for ulterior motive. Where are these greater than in religion? The greater the (potential)conflict the greater the need for independent cross validation. Furthermore, unlike other ancient texts of literature, poetry, scientific exposition, and undisputed history, the NT makes extraordinary claims of virgin birth, resurrection, etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Caesar had claimed that the Gauls were all 7 ft tall or dragons helped him win the Gaulic battles, you can bet that historians would have been far more skeptical and even more concerned about independent cross validation.
So I reject your claim, that I hear often, that the historical validity of the NT meets the standards applied to other ancient texts. In context with content and motive, this is clearly untrue.
Again, I thank you for the compliment on my maturity and willingness to admit a mistake. To be a good scientist the ability to critically reexamine one's beliefs is essential and I pride myself on this. On many occassions I have been forced to painfully abandon theories in which I had a vested interest as their originator or co-originator. There are few worse feelings than disproving your own theory after years of work - one is when someone else disproves it.
I agree with Joel that many atheists succumb to an insufficiently critical acceptance of information that confirms their own biases. I thought I had been careful and it happened to me. But what you need to admit to yourself is that this is true for all people regardless of belief. If anything, it is my observation that atheists are less guilty of this error by virtue of their more rational, scientific, and skeptical nature. And it plagues Abrahamic religion more because the stakes of heaven and hell give people strong personal incentives to embrace means to convert people for "their own good".
On more than one occassion in my life theists have admitted to me that they have used information and made arguments they knew were untrue or had doubts about for the "greater good" of trying to save my soul.
The apocrypha (in part) and countless other fabrications in every religion throughout history attest to desire to glorify the dominant deity(s) of the time and promote belief on the best of intentions. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
All good cause to be skeptical, not only about what I say, but about everything you think you know and take for granted.
Jane,
It is funny that you mention Caesar and Gaul with regard to historical accuracy. One of the events of ancient history that is often considered a "fact" (and a virtually incontrovertible one) is Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon as he returned from Gaul to Italy in 49 B.C. It is certainly an historically important event, and I do not know of anyone who seriously disputes it. Yet, one is sure of the exact date, nor the location of the crossing, nor even the exact location of the Rubicon (it has changed its riverbed many times throughout the years). Furthermore, we only have 4 accounts of the crossing, all from later historians (Valleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian) removed by a century or more from the date of the event. All four relied on one eyewitness to the event (Asinius Pollio, of whom very little is known and who apparently disappeared without a trace). The four accounts vary significantly when reporting the event. And one of the writers, Suetonius, attributes Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon to seeing "an apparition of superhuman size and beauty" who was "sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe."
Now, that sounds like an extraordinary (even supernatural) account to me. If such an event were recorded in "religious literature", it would undoubtedly be immediately rejected as mythical. Yet, I know of no historian who seriously doubts this event as historical. Yet, a different standard is applied to the NT.
There is a very obvious bias at work here, imho, and this is but one example. This one works well because of a few obvious similarities with the NT (roughly the same period of history, same number of accounts as the gospels, etc.). I would encourage you to consider what presuppositions would need to be at work to accept one with no problem and reject the other (this is a failing of skepticism; there are no "brute facts", as you seem willing to accept -- all facts are filtered and interpreted by a person's basic assumptions, and no one is neutral in this -- yet why is one truth claim rejected and not the other; it is the "filter" that needs to be examined to see if it is working correctly, and the skeptic who has not done this cannot be said to be "consistently skeptical"). I posted my last post not to convince you the supernatural claims of the Bible are true and can be proven scientifically (or anything like that), but only because you mentioned that you were still exploring the Christ-myth angle (and, if you are truly interested, I would recommend Joel's book Manifested in the Flesh, which deals specifically with these issues). The quotes I posted were intended to show that even if you reject the claims of Jesus and the early Christians, there is no reasonable way to doubt that there is plenty of historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus really existed, made various claims, and that many people believed these claims. In other words, the quotes I provided attempt to show that Jesus was a very real historical person, and that the evidence outside the NT, while not "confirming" all of the supernatural claims made about Him in the gospels (although that I would argue that one of the strongest extra-biblical "proofs" of Jesus' miracles is the Jewish Talmud, which is very much anti-Christian, and yet does not deny the miracles of Jesus -- which would have been the easiest thing to do -- but rather makes the claim that He was demon-possessed), are sufficient enough to show that the gospels reliably report that He was a real historical person (among other things). On the other hand, the classical German historian Hans Stier notes that when considering an historical source, agreement over basic data while having a divergence of detail (such as in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels) "present for the historian for this very reason a criterion of extraordinary credibility. For if that were the fabrication of a congregation or of a similar group of people, then the tale would be consistently and obviously complete. For that reason every historian is especially sceptical [sic] at the moment when an extraordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradictions."
My concluding thoughts are that you, as the self-professed skeptic, should be especially skeptical of double-standards when considering such historical data. And, if such a bias is allowed, then one must be especially skeptical of one's own presuppositions.
Thanks for the polite conversation and have a nice day. :)
Tim,
Thanks for the further analysis and opinion you have given.
However, frankly, I think you have made my point, not tarnished it, concerning the argument on Caesar's exploits. Your own argument supports what I said about there being significant contention and skepticism over the facts of the case. Are you suggesting that any serious historian really believes Caesar really saw (other than perhaps figuratively in his mind or metaphorically) "an apparition of superhuman size and beauty" who was "sitting on the river bank, playing a reed pipe." I doubt even Suetonius believed it. Do you?
It's one thing to report what you witnessed, it's quite another to simply repeat some report made to you. That is the crux of one of R.G. Price's analyses of Josephus, i.e., was the quote attributed to him a fake, doctored, real, and if real was it simply the relay of a report from Christians without direct witness? Even if the last case, that is weak or non-existent historical evidence for Jesus.
I'm afraid you haven't made a good case for a double standard here. If anything, Christians seem to seek a special standard.
As for my own skepticism I will simply repeat that I'm on the fence. I never really doubted the actual existence of Jesus until a few years ago when I began to research a book about the Cathars that led me to research the Gnostics, one of the earliest Christian sects that itself beleived that Jesus never existed in the flesh.
As an atheist, disproving or invalidating the life of Jesus is really not as big a deal to me as I'm sure it is to you. For you, proving that a real man called Jesus really lived is a necessary first step. For me, discovering he never existed would simply be a bit of icing on the cake of a relatively minor atheist argument.
Some atheists (not me) specialize in being experts on the bible and history because they know gods (assuming they don't exist) cannot be absolutely disproven. But the human works of the bible, its errors, its conflicts with real history and science, and a whole host of seemingly illogical or contradictory explanations of God are all fodder for their gristmill. I will sometimes dabble in it, but I'm not at home there.
Jane, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but your statements about Caesar have missed the point. The point had very little (or nothing) to do with the reliability of a story because it contained a "fantastic" detail or two. My example was simply to show the double-standard. An historians (or the naturalist, if you prefer) who has no problem believing in the Rubicon story and yet rejects the gospel accounts must account for why he or she does so. The Rubicon story is based on far flimsier evidence, and yet no one seriously calls it into question. This is arbitrary and betrays a bias. As a skeptic who wishes to claim to be open-minded, this should raise the alarms. The NT is being held to a different standard than other works of antiquity, and the reason for this bias must be accounted for. "Proving that a real man called Jesus really lived is a necessary first step" is not really an accurate way of putting it, because there is no reasonable criterion for rejecting His existence (unless one wishes to be greatly inconsistent in one's thinking). I don't doubt the existence of Socrates, for instance, even though there is not as much evidence for his existence (nor do I feel the need to "prove" that he lived; it is simply more reasonable, if I am going to be fair, to conclude that he did, rather than simply think he was a mythical manifestation of the imagination of Plato -- who was certainly a biased source himself, btw).
Tim,
I don’t think I missed your point at all, I think you missed mine. Context is everything. The overwhelming double-standard I see is on the part of Christians. First, I reject your assertion that historians have no problem accepting the reliability of the Rubicon story. Your own analysis, derived from historians proves otherwise. Even Wikipedia clearly makes the historical skepticism clear. The fact that lay historians and centuries of popular writing make reference to “crossing the Rubicon” taking for granted that the story is true is not the same thing.
I also can’t agree that “Rubicon story is based on far flimsier evidence” when you consider the context. Historical evidence is overwhelming that Caesar certainly existed. He certainly fought in Gaul. His commentaries may have been distorted and politically twisted (and hence unreliable history) but there is good evidence he wrote them and to the extent that historians accept any truth in his commentaries is based on their consistency with other Roman writings, histories, battle and general diaries, and so on. When inconsistencies arise, this drives historical dispute and the search for backup, cross-validation, etc.
You can bet that if there had been a disputes and inconsistencies roughly contextually equivalent to those contemporaneous with the Gospel surrounding Caesar’s Commentaries you would realize there is no double standard. You can’t divorce logic, reason and science from the interpretation of purported historical events.
The writings of the NT are much farther removed from the original events than Caesar’s Commentaties and backup sources. Moreover, there is significant scholarly dispute about the internal inconsistency across the gospels before we even get to comparing it with historical connections outside the NT. Need I even mention the early church’s difficulty in sorting out its own canon?
Unlike early Christianity and the Gnostics, you do not have any documented evidence that there was any significant or highly relevant contemporaneous objection to the truth of Caesar’s Commentaries by other Romans.
You don’t find evidence or dispute in Gaul or any non-Roman land that Caesar didn’t act as he said and it is clear that he left a footprint on its land, archeology, and history. The Jews were much more observant and interested in recording history yet they make no mention (arguably outside Josephus) that Jesus ever existed and somehow took no note of all his amazing miracles. Neither did the governing Romans. If Caesar had died and was resurrected and hundreds of dead people had been resurrected in Rome as purportedly happened in Israel after Jesus’ resurrection, you can bet somebody would have recorded it – Jew or Roman. The Christian church would have been desperate to find and preserve such a record. The fact that no overzealous believer forged one is a miracle itself.
In the same vein, you say you have no problem believing in Socrates. Would you feel the same way if Plato had said Socrates could turn water into wine, walked on water, and fly by flapping his arms? You might still believe there was a Socrates buried under the myth, just as I believe there might be a real Jesus buried under the fabrications of his cult. But you’d have more doubt about what, if anything, was true wouldn’t you? – unless there was lots of contemporaneous independent historical evidence to conclude otherwise. Again, considering context and motive is critical to interpreting the validity of historical text. I know Joel understands this, he focuses on real or alleged motives all the time to undermine atheists whenever he can.
Jane, all I can say if that you still are missing the point. My point was never to question Caesar's existence, but to question the events surrounding the crossing of the Rubicon. Perhaps I should have asked, from the beginning, whether you accepted the Rubicon story. I'm betting you've never had a problem accepting the basic facts surrounding the Rubicon story, but yet you require a different standard when it comes to the Gospel accounts (supernatural events aside; remember, we're only discussing the fact that Jesus actually lived at this point). At the same time, you are mistaken on some of the facts you state (e.g., there was only one questionable eyewitness, the historical sources that record the event come much later than those of the Gospels, etc.). As a side note, with regard to historical errors, I've noticed that you've done this from time to time (Eusebius was but one example; you misrepresented the controversy surrounding Galileo on another thread -- my guess, and I could very well be wrong of course, is that you have accepted the story of Galileo v. the Church at face valley without looking at the actually facts surrounding the historical events; if so, this is another example of bias at work). You drop a few erroneous red herrings along the way (the "controversy" over the canon was not to the extent that you seem to suggest, unless you've been listening to the neo-gnostic proponents, which is another indication of bias in use of sources; also, you claim that the Jews made no mention of Jesus, but I already stated in a previous post that not only did they mention Him, they also claimed that He did miracles, but portrayed Him as a demonic sorcerer). It is very obvious that the fact that Jesus was an historical person is incontrovertible; it is confirmed by Christian sources (including both the NT and early Christian writers), secular sources (including those hostile to Christianity; I've already referenced these). You are still treating facts as "brute facts" (i.e., that they are neutral and are possible of unbiased interpretation). Yet, you have also demonstrated that you are biased in your approach to these facts, but I'm not sure there's much more point in beating this dead horse at this point.
When it comes to relying on skeptical sources to analyze these facts, once must be very careful (as I sure you would agree). There is enough bad scholarship to go around (baloney, I believe you called it). It's good that your baloney detector goes off from time to time, but you must take care with the direction you're pointing that thing in. It does little good for either side to throw up "scholars" as a defense for one's position (this can very easily become the error in informal logic known as the appeal to authority fallacy), if these "scholars" are flawed to begin with. You can find someone skeptical of almost any position (I'm afraid the Internet may have only aided the problem!). When you have nut jobs today running around and claiming that the government blew up the Towers and the Pentagon on purpose (of course, this is nothing new; we all know about Kennedy's death, and there were even conspiracy theories surrounding Lincoln's assassination as well -- maybe it's just me, but I find these things fascinating, as ridiculous as they often are). I'm rambling, but my point is that we need to carefully consider anything we are told. If we favor one side at the expense of the other (and, yes, I've read much skeptical/critical literature out there), then we need to examine our biases as to why we do so.
I also found it interesting that you mentioned a hypothetical resurrection of Caesar; there actually was a rumor in the latter 1st century that one of the Caesars (Nero) would rise from the dead and return to rule Rome (sometimes referred to as the Nero revividus myth). Of course, that did not happen in the 1st century (although 3 "false Neros" did attempt political coups in 69, 79, and 88 A.D., there is no evidence that any appealed to this myth as part of the attempt). To be sure, if a Roman Emperor had risen from the dead, we can expect that there would be eyewitness accounts of this. We have that with the Gospels, yet you reject them a priori (herein lies the bias again). In regard to the differences between Christ and Julius, we would expect to find differences at the time. Jesus was not a political figure, so we obviously are not going to find his name on coins, nor would we expect to find secular Roman historians writing biographies about Him (I'm sure, if you think about it, you would see that to suggest that this is necessary is just plain silly -- it would be a Christian stating that Augustus never existed just because his name is mentioned once in Luke's Gospel; the Gospels are not meant to be detailed accounts of Roman history, and this fact seems to be lost on modern skeptics, along with the assumption that works of antiquity should read exactly like 20th and 21st century biographies in order to be acceptable).
In this last post, you mentioned logic, reason, and science, as you have on previous places on other threads on this blog. Yet, one thing that you have failed to do, I have noticed, is actually account for these things. You take them for granted, but when pressed to justify your "belief" (for lack of a better word) in them, you tend to dodge the question. I would think, if someone were placing a high emphasis on something like logic, he or she might want to account why logical thinking is "real" and "works." This only scratches the surface, of course; one should also account for such things as the reliability of observation, the existence of reality, the reality of reasoning, etc. I believe that Frank, on a previous thread, attempted to get you to do this again and again. While I do not necessarily approve of Frank's tactics (a little to "in your face" for my taste), he was absolutely right.
It does not appear that we will progress much further, but I hope that I have given you some things to think about. I would encourage you to keep thinking about those basic assumptions that underly your thinking. If they cannot be justified, or if they lead to contradictory thinking, then they must be discarded. I am appreciative that you have been willing to wrestle with many of the surface issues, such as the historical contexts we have been discussing. I trust you will begin to do the same with your presuppositions as well.
I've gone way too long today. It's been nice chatting with you. I hope you have a nice weekend. :)
Tim,
I don’t want to beat a dead horse either and I’m not responding to argue this time so much as simply note where we are talking past each other and emphasize I’m not trying to duck any of your points, obfuscate, or show bias in relying how I interpret objective fact (though my opinions, like yours, have a bias).
First, I know you weren’t questioning Caesar’s existence. That wasn’t my point at all. I was simply illustrating why the playing field was not level by either showing where the imbalances were or by artificially leveling it so you’d see my point. Apparently I have not been able to write clearly enough to convey these ideas or perhaps your subliminal biases are interfering but we need not argue this further.
If it makes things any clearer just let me say that I would have just as hard a time accepting the Rubicon story if it made extraordinary claims on par with the Gospels. Anything that stretches rationality or logic requires more evidence and corroboration.
I said very little about Galileo in my previous posts here and I stand by it. I am aware of the wider story and truth there, but what happened is still an indictment on religious interference with scientific thought that persists to this day, despite the fact that religion has, when it suited it, been an ally of science too. The fact that the church’s actions against Galileo were less wicked and unprincipled than popularly promulgated did not need elucidation in the context in which I brought it up. I don’t think we need to open this can of worms though.
Whatever unintentional biases I may be showing, it is clear you are doing the same thing. You continue to make the errors you accuse me of wrt Roman sources. I still challenge you to read R.G. Price’s analysis and debunk them directly source by source. The Jewish history you refer to alluding to Jesus as a sorcerer and miracle worker – when was it written and by whom? – please provide direct reference to source whether you include surrounding scholarship or not. I dispute your claim that this was direct or contemporaneous enough to significantly support the historicity you claim.
I’m in agreement with you on most of the rest of your post except I simply think you're putting the shoe on the wrong foot, or perhaps we are equally guilty to a degree. I do disagree with your allusion to me dodging Frank Walton on any issue and the TAG issue in particular. I have answered this argument in several different commentaries across many blogs here - you just don’t like my answer. It comes in two parts. In summary, first, your presuppositional explanation using God as the reason for logic, inference etc. is a tautology that falls into the semantic trap largely explored by Wittgenstein (ironically an atheist turned theist). It seems to make perfect sense, but it is merely a game of words. It always amazes me how even some of the brightest philosophers could think you could pull fundamental truths about God or the universe from an assemblage of human words and concepts unmapped to reality. But this happens.
Once your explanation falls I really don’t have to posit another. You can be wrong and I can simply say I don’t know the answer, just like I’d have to truthfully say I don’t know exactly how the universe began. But here, unlike history where I’m more of a dabbler, I am a recognized expert. I’m a neuroscientist and AI researcher. And even though I can’t conclusively prove how logic and reason arise through physicality, I can provide many plausible theories currently under investigation. Another problem with your argument is that you rely on reifying logic and reason and this is absurd. They are abstract processes mapped both abstractly and concretely through the brain. You may live to see men like me build artificial brains that can think and reason with logic like men or better. I’m certain my children will see such a world if we don’t destroy it first. Perhaps that will give you the proof you will need. Or to create such a being will God have to first bring down his divine hand and plant the spark of a soul? If so, I should be able to see the vapor trail of God’s touch in my creation’s circuitry. But of course, I think this is nonsense.
I hope Joel will accept my offer to debate this issue in the Dawkins forum where it has come up before, but never articulated as well as I trust Joel will be able to do. I hope you will join too for a thorough discussion and I will only hope that the best gang of atheist and theist thinkers is around at the time to both help you and tear you apart – politely I hope. We can all learn something, even if we all come away unconvinced by the other side.
Thank you again for the discussions. I have learned from you and will definitely check out some of the more interesting historical points you brought up – not so much to form an argument, but simply out of historical curiosity.
Jane, I chuckled a bit at your use of neural networks and AI to justify logic (not because I think that it is ridiculous or silly or I am trying to be a jerk; I do think that you make a very obvious logical error here yourself, but that is certainly not the basis for my resort to laughter). I have three mathematics degrees, and to complete my Masters, I had to take a course in neural networks that was thrust upon me because a Calculus class did not make. It was not my favorite (even though I made an A), and I am nearly 15 years removed from it, but it brought back certain fond memories.
You reject my references to Judaism a priori; does that mean there is any reason for me to invest the time to prove otherwise? I've used this comparison before, but it reminds me so much of the conspiracy theorists who are convinced the government brought down the Towers -- even though the weigh of evidence is against them, they hold on to these strands of "what ifs" and "possibilities" and anything contrary to their presuppositions is dismissed beforehand as another attempt at cover-up.
As far as contemporary Jewish sources is concerned, I could be very clever and hold up the Apostle Paul as an example. :) Of course, you'd say he was a bit biased, I'm sure. In my reading on Jewish sources, though, I found it a bit interesting that Paul's reference to the historical Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff is thought to be part of an early Christian creed which predates 1 Corinthians (which was written in the 50's A.D.). It is interesting because there are atheist scholars (e.g., Gerd Lüdemann), liberal Christians (e.g., the Jesus Seminar), moderate Protestants (e.g., James D.G. Dunn), and Roman Catholics (e.g., Gerald O'Collins) who date the creed to the early to mid-30's A.D., and even possibly to within a few months after Jesus' crucifixion. When considering the historicity of Jesus' existence, I would think you would appreciate that food for thought. Certainly doubters will continue to exist ad infinitum on the Internet (witness the "Loose Change" crowd above), but...well, you already know where I stand.
As far as sources that relate to Judaism and Jesus, here are a few articles you may read online:
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier2.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784399&ct=1740233
http://www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784399&ct=1739843
These all come from Paul Maier, who is a history prof at Western Michigan University. He also talks a bit about Josephus, but he was not one of the sources I was referencing. I just thought you might find these articles interesting (they are all short).
Here is a response to Richard Carrier's work. It's book length and decidedly _not_ short.
http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ThisJoyfulEastertide.pdf
And here is some more response to Carrier:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier
My actual reference was to the Jewish Talmud. Here is a short article:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/talmud.html
The following website comments on some of the Talmud references (as I believe Maier does, above). However, this website also includes links to the Talmud itself, so that you can do some of the reading on your own.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html
Enjoy!
Tim,
First concerning your chuckling, if you read all my comments here, you should find adequate foundation for refutation of your TAG argument, if not downright refutation itself. The answer is multi-faceted and does not just involve our current understand of how the brain works. You will find a good area for your study in my recent post to Joel which posits an alternative presuppositional materialist argument perfectly analogous to TAG, just as valid, and in my opinion, just as worthless.
Frankly, after building a great deal of respect with me, I think you took advantage of my previous ignorance and tried to take advantage of it this time by trying to pass off dubious scholarship as refutation. You underestimated me this time and I had already read many of the references you sited. None were very impressive.
The main point throughout our recent discussions was the historicity of Jesus as supported outside the Bible. Here, you threw out lots of references for things I hadn’t recently requested but were reticent to supply direct documentary support for the claim that Judaism had it’s own contemporaneous documented evidence of Jesus. You have asserted that several times against my objections and when I asked the question I think you assumed I hadn’t researched it. But I had.
Rather, you tossed in the Apostle Paul from the NT which violated the premise of the original questions and tried to bait and switch with later Jewish references. Not “clever”!
You seem to be guilty now not only of not following your own advice on open-minded skepticism but you actually seem to be suppressing the debate and manipulating it to avoid losing – rather than seeking the truth. Not good form Tim.
To top it off, here is a direct quote from one of the references YOU supplied (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html):
“Robert Stein writes (Jesus the Messiah, p. 34): "The key question that arises involves the origin of these rabbinic references. The value of these passages would be greatly enhanced if they originated from contemporaries of Jesus who were eyewitnesses of the events they were reporting. This would be true even though they presented the side of Jesus' opponents. On several occasions, however, aspects of these accounts seem to be due less to eyewitness reports than to later Jewish intereaction with the teachings and claims of the early church. This is especially true with respect for such matters as the claim that a forty-day search for witnesses on Jesus' behalf preceded his trial and, if the accounts refer to Jesus, to his brith being due not to virginal conception but to adultery on the part of his mother. As a result, the rabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus."
And there’s even more that doesn’t help you. Maybe you should read it again.
Likewise, the articles and arguments against Carrier, for the most part, weren’t just poor scholarship, they were poorly written and argued, more like I’d expect on a schoolyard playground. I couldn’t even read it all, it was becoming such a bore.
Maier’s works were of much better quality, but still weak and didn’t come close to providing the depth of analysis, multiplicity of direct referenced sources and translation, and references to related sources that R.G Price did in the reference I gave you. Have you read it yet?
Unfortunately, your last post does not support your contention that you are really seeking to find the truth about these matters. But I await your direct references to contemporary Jewish sources that you still maintain exist.
Jane
Jane, I thank you greatly for the comment you made here: after building a great deal of respect with me (at least that part of it). However, I think you read too much into the rest of my post. I had assumed, by your comments, that you had not actually read any of the specific materials (that is how you expressed yourself, but of course this medium is sometimes difficult to completely relay one's thoughts on certain matters). Let me say, that it was never my intention to take advantage of you in any way or try to make you look stupid. I honestly thought you had not read certain material. However, from your last post, it seems not only had you read much of the material (in which case I cannot fathom why you feigned "ignorance" in the previous posts), but rather you already had your mind made up before the fact. In the latter case, I do not see why further interaction is very profitable.
The links I gave were simply to provide you with some webbased sources for the interactions you had mentioned. I have no intention of going to every skeptical site on the web and interacting point by point with everything that is said (my wife and I are in the midst of a major move right now, and even the time I'm spending right now is precious). I will attempt to look at some of the Price/Carrier stuff later. From most of what I seem coming from websites and such, neither has generated much response other than from the proverbial choir (certainly nothing like a Dawkins or a Harris or an Ehrman), which leads me to believe they are considered to be small potatoes outside of the skeptical community (and in this case, probably no better or worse than the "answer" sites I provided -- once again, I was just supplying responses since you seemed interested in what others thought about this). I could very well be wrong, however. In some of the cases (particularly with the christianwritings website and at least one other), I was attempting to post things that provided more than one side of the issue (part of the reason for the quote you gave), so that the material would not be necessary "one-sided" (contra some of the places you have cited). That was an attempt on my part to avoid obviously biased sources. Since I thought you were wholly unfamiliar with said material, I was trying to give you a site that would provide you with the places so that you could read firsthand yourself. One of the other sites I provided gave commentary on an online debate involving Carrier. I thought that might prove helpful in reading Christian responses (not just the online response -- there was a link where you could have accessed a skeptical site and downloaded the program yourself and come to your own evaluation) from the more scholarly in their apologetic approach toward Carrier (incidentally the apologists were not presuppositionalists, btw).
I am sorry but not terribly discouraged that you were not impressed with what I provided. I wanted you to do the reading for yourself (once again, because you gave me the impression that you were wholly unfamiliar with what I had said -- you actually wrote once "I have to plead ignorance to some degree in that I have not read the modern books you quote" -- I took this to mean you were familiar with the ancient sources they cited).
Finally, there was intention of a "bait-and-switch" with regard to Paul. Tongue was firmly planted in cheek when I mentioned this -- but he was, after all, a Jew who was a contemporary of Jesus, who also made a reference to what amounts to an early creed by Christ (one that is generated accepted by Christians, liberal scholars, and atheists alike). The fact that this is confirmed in the NT should not be particularly relevant as to the historicity of it, unless you are automatically rejecting it a priori, which demonstrates obvious bias on your part.
Once again, I intended nothing disingenuous of any sort on my last post. I will admit it was hastily written, which may have affected the tone. I will also admit, though, that I was mildly offended by the tone of your last post. I don't have much patience for rhetoric of the kind of Dawkins and Hutchins, and you had steered away from that in most of your recent posts. I have no need of the "Christians are just irrational" kind of thoughts of the new atheists, and I expect much more from you than this (I am not accusing you of this intentionally, but that kind of tone seems to creep into your post from time to time; you seem to greatly admire Dawkins, and I am wonder -- and hoping that I am wrong -- if his acidity or that of those like him is affecting you in some way). You have made appeals in other threads that you greatly desire charitable interaction -- quite noble -- but if that simply means that you intend to read what I post in the most uncharitable light, then we will not get very far. Take the "chuckle" comment I made -- I simply meant that I did not like the neural networks class, but you seemed to take offense that I even mentioned the fact. Perhaps I should have expressed myself better. Perhaps we both need to be more charitable with each other and not expect the worst.
Tim,
I am satisfied by your post that we had an innocent misunderstanding then and I guess it is a lesson not to expect the worst, as I often tend to do in such cases. Probably same for you... Both of us have some good excuses for that from experiences with the other side. All the more reason I wrote privately to Joel that we need a dialogue of mutual understanding and not just polarizing argument. He seemed to like my idea, but not enough to take the initiative himself.
In my case, let me simply say that I didn't feign ignorance or do anything deceptive or misleading either. Some of the materials that dispelled my ignorance I read after I was prompted by my our dilletante exposure by you and Joel concurrent with claims you were making that I found unsupported in that same literature.
Now I had indeed read many of the references you latter provided much earlier. But those were and remain irrelevant to the original areas of argument because they really didn't address source material and translation very seriously - merely scholarly opinion of same which we had both agreed (I thought) that we needed to delve deeper beyond on our own initiative - which I did. And the more I did I could still not find corroboration of many of your claims - and in fact even found a few contradictions, one of which I cited.
Anyway, thanks for caring enough to continue the dialogue in good faith. Take care.
Jane
Thanks, Jane. I appreciate your willingness to communicate in cordial and friendly manner. Take care.
Hello,
I saw by chance that you have on your page here a discussion of one of the urban legends about Mithras.
'This quote is attributed to Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."'
You may wish to know that this quote is indeed fictional. It comes as you saw from Vermaseren, "Mithras, the secret god", where it derives by mistranslation from a paper in French by Franz Cumont in which the saying is attributed to Zoroaster, from a provisional Italian translation of an unpublished Garshuni text in Mingana manuscript 142. This was written in the 17th century and contains various fictional sayings attributed to ancient figures.
You can obtain info on all this from this link:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/mithras_myth.htm
I hope this is useful to you.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Post a Comment
<< Home