• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
God's PhilosophersJames HannamBest Price£9.89or Buy New£9.89Privacy Information
If you have enjoyedBede's Library, youcan order my book from Amazon.For my latest thoughtson science, politics,religion and history,read QuodlibetaCLICK HERE
 
Christianity IndexScience IndexPhilosophy IndexHistory IndexBooks IndexTable of ContentsDiscussion ForumBlog
 
Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed
Introduction
The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the NewTestament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason,as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lotof wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who denyJesus' existence 'Jesus Mythologists'.A huge amount has been written on the web and elsewhere which you can find in the further reading section below. Not all Jesus Mythologists are lunatics and one at least, Earl Doherty, isextremely erudite and worth reading. Nevertheless, he is still wrong and, as I have seen myself, hereacts badly to those who demonstrate it. It is not my intention to study the minutiae of theargument but instead focus on three central points which are often brought up on discussion boards.These are the lack of secular references, the alleged similarities to paganism and the silence of Paul.Finally I want to bring all these together to show how ideas similar to those that deny Jesus'existence can be used on practically any ancient historical figure. With this in mind I set out to prove that Hannibal never existed.
Roman Historians
Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that thereare no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interestin the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings.Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians tonotice him. Once Christianity was established as a major cult in the Empire then Jesus became rather moreinteresting and he is mentioned by Tacitus in the early second century. However, JesusMythologists counter this by claiming that he could have got his information from Christians whichmeans his evidence is not independent. So, we have a very convenient situation for the JesusMythologists. Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out of court as they are tainted by association with Christianity. Thissort of special pleading is one of the reasons that modern historians have no time for these theoriesas they are set up to be impossible to disprove. In fact, Christian evidence for a human Jesus whowas crucified is trustworthy because it ran counter to the myths of the time and suggested that hehad suffered a humiliating death. If they made it up and then suppressed the truth with clinicalefficiency, why did they come up with a story which even the Christian apologist, Tertullian,admitted was absurd? It seems far more likely that they had a large number of historical facts thatthey had to rationalise into a religion rather than creating all these difficulties for themselves.Sometimes Jesus Mythologists will produce long lists of writers none of whom have the slightestreason to mention an obscure Jewish miracle worker and somehow think this strengthens their  point. In fact, it has all the relevance of picking fifty books off your local library shelf and findingthat none of them mention Carl Sagan. Does that mean he did not exist either? Jesus was not even afailed military leader of the kind that Romans might have noticed - especially if he had beendefeated by someone famous.
Refuting the Jesus Mythhttp://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.ht1 of 609-May-09 1:45 PM
 
Josephus
The only historian who we might expect to mention Jesus is Josephus, a Jew who wrote a history of his people up to 66AD, which is called 'Jewish Antiquities'. In fact, Josephus does mention Jesustwice and so Jesus Mythologists have to devote a lot of attention to attacking the relevant passages.Their job is made easier because Josephus, a Pharisee, probably felt nothing but contempt for Jesuswhich meant later Christians tried to 'correct' his negative wording.The majority opinion on Josephus is that the parts of the passage from book 18 of 'JewishAntiquities' which are inredbelow are the additions of a Christian scribe trying to make Jesusappear in a better light. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.Hewas the Christ.And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, hadcondemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold theseand ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.And the tribe of Christians,so named from him, are not extinct at this day.Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3To support this idea we can look at the works of the Christian father Origen who was writing in themid-third century. This was while Christianity was still a minor cult with no power or influence. Itwas generally ignored by the authorities as long as it kept its head down. Therefore there is no waythat Christians this early could have either knobbled Josephus so that no undoctored copies wereavailable or got away with quoting something from Josephus that was not there. We have no reasonto suppose that a bright chap like Origen would even have tried and so can be sure that the copy of Josephus he read and quoted from was unamended by earlier Christians. We can be doubly sure of this because Origen flatly contradicts the modern version of Josephus where the Jewish historian ismade to say Jesus was the Messiah. Origen makes clear he said no such thing.What use would the early fathers have had for a passage in Josephus saying Jesus was not theMessiah? An educated Jew saying this would not be helpful in an apologetic sense as it woulddemonstrate that the prophecies in the Old Testament were not nearly as clear cut as earlyChristians would have liked to have believed. And because no one ever challenged Jesus' existence,they never had reason to point to a critical Jewish source to prove he did. Hence Josephus was notquoted by the few earlier Christian writers.So what exactly did Origen say? Here are two passages which say basically the same thing andwhich reinforce each other:And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise,that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, whenwishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even thetemple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordancewith the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do againstJames the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that,though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousnessof James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered thesethings because of James.Origen - Matthew X, XVIIFor in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John ashaving been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the causeof the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to havesaid that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being,although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters happened to theJews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus(called Christ) - the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most
Refuting the Jesus Mythhttp://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.ht2 of 609-May-09 1:45 PM
 
distinguished for his justice.Origen, - Against Celsus I, XLVIIThis tells us that the later passage about 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' certainly existed inJosephus in Origen's time because he uses the phrase 'called Christ' twice. It cannot be a Christianinterpolation as they called James either 'James the Just' or 'James the Brother of the Lord'. Thereference to 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' is still found in Antiquities 20 and this by itself torpedoes the idea that Jesus never existed. The fact idea that Christians were going arounddoctoring copies of Josephus while they were still a persecuted minority is just laughable. Origenalso says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah so our present day passage on Jesus inAntiquities 18 cannot have existed although the passing reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20 isfurther evidence that he was actually mentioned in less flattering terms. It should be pointed outthat Origen himself reads too much into Josephus who does say the people thought the killing of James was wrong but does not go quite so far as to blame the entire Jewish War on the event.
Pagan similarities
Allegations that Christianity is an adaptation of a pagan religion have been around for ages. In the19th century, Kersey Graves wrote his notoriousThe World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours- a book so poor that even the Internet Infidels admit (in rather more diplomatic language) that it is a load of old cobblers. Just recently the tradition was carried on inThe Jesus Mysteriesby Peter Gandy andTimothy Freke. These two amateurs are equally willing to play fast and loose with the facts usingcarefully pruned quotations, mis-translation and anachronism to produce a woefully inaccurate picture.With this is in mind I present "Bede's Guide to the Production of a Best-seller that Undermines theRoots of Christianity". With this I can guarantee that you will be able to find all the parallels youlike between paganism and Christianity or indeed, properly adapted, between any other twounrelated subjects that you care to name.The first thing to do is ensure you cast your net as widely as possible. So within Christianityyou should include every cult, heresy and sect you can get your hands on. Gnosticism will be particularly helpful as they did indeed borrow large chunks of pagan thought which is partlywhy they were considered heretics in the first place. As for paganism, this can include justabout everything. Freke and Gandy comb not only Greek cults (Oedipus) but also Egyptian(Horus and Osiris), Roman (Bacchus) and Persian (Mithras). Elsewhere you will find Celticdeities, Norse beserkers and Indian mystics pulled into the fray. Now, with this vast body of writing, finding parallels will not be too challenging provided you are willing to wade throughit all.1.But don't restrict yourselves to pagan religions from before the time of Christ. Remember your methodology should be that Christians copied pagans and not the other way around.This is useful because you can now point to similarities between paganism and Christianityafter the latter was already widespread. So if, like Freke and Gandy, you can find a pictureshowing Bacchus on a cross dating from two hundred years after Jesus was crucified you canstill claim that the Christians copied the pagans and not the other way around.2.Language is important. Christian terms such as 'salvation', 'Eucharist', 'word made flesh' and'lamb of god' are common currency today. Therefore when translating or paraphrasing pagansources always use modern Christian language. Never mind that the ancient pagans would nothave known what you were on about - you are not talking to them. In this way you can call awoman being raped by various kinds of wildlife a 'virgin birth', you can call having ones body parts stuck back together a 'resurrection' and you can call just about every Greek hero a 'sonof god'. Also it is helpful to use King James Bible phrases and style when quoting pagan texts.It gives them some more gravitas.3.Do try to confuse liturgy and practice with history. For instance the mystery religions andChristianity were both underground movements so they had to operate in similar sorts of ways. Sacred meals and ritual washing are as old as religion itself so the Christianity usingthem as well as pagans is not surprising at all. Make it sound like a complete revelation.4.Say totally different things are in fact closely related. For instance, Mithras was sometimesrepresented by a bull. Say this is the same as Jesus being called the lamb of God (ignoring thatone is a symbol of sexuality and strength and the other of innocence and humility). Comparethe Mithric ritual of taking a shower in the warm blood of the aforementioned bull withChristian baptism with water. Claim that the thieves crucified with Jesus are the same as a pair of torch bearers that appear on some illustrations of Bacchus.5.
Refuting the Jesus Mythhttp://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.ht3 of 609-May-09 1:45 PM
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...