I every so often check out the blog by the apologist Stephen J. Bedard. I noticed some new comments and one particular comment was quite nice. I’ll quote this comment in full because it’s such a perfect summary of the Jesus Myth position. I’d been meaning to fully respond to this post of Bedard’s for a while, but just had only answered Bedard’s first criticism and so it has remained unposted until now. I’ll first give my limited response, then share the other commenters response, and after that I’ll respond to Bedard’s response to the commenter. Clear?
1) The rejection of the Gospels as historical sources. They are seen as faith documents and not modern biographies. That is true but we do not have any unbiased ancient texts that meet the criteria of modern biography. If we reject the Gospels, we would also have to reject most of what we know about ancient history.
Some mythicists may reject the Gospels as historical sources, but this has nothing directly to do with the mythicist theory. The parallels are relevant whether or not there is any relevant historical references in the Gospels. Besides, I doubt any mythicist claims that the Gospels entirely lack history. In fact, all the mythicists I know of agree that the writers (and interpolators) were purposely adding history to make the Christ myth more convincingly real. The difference from literalists is that mythicists either see the historical additions as coming later in the development of Christianity or they see a historical figure that was evemerized and whose biographical details now are (mostly or entirely) lost.
It’s a rather complex issue since the limited info allows for endless speculation. There might’ve been a historical Jesus who was lost beneath mythology and then the later historicizing of the gospel writers may have attempted to reconstruct the hypothetical evemerized Jesus. Or there might’ve been many historical figures that became amalgamated by which they were given a unified and coherent story through mythological motifs. We conveniently don’t even have the unmodified writings (or even the first commentaries) of the earliest Christians/Gnostics to determine how they perceived their own process of storytelling.
All of this shows a difference in thinking styles. To the degree that someone is a literalist, they think in black and white terms. A literalist historical Jesus can’t be mythical (even if one allows for superficial mythical accretions). The mythicist position, on the other hand, can allow for a historical Jesus. As such, mythicists (unlike apologists) are in a better position to adapt to the evidence as it arises for they have no singular fixed position, no belief system held above doubt and question. A difference here is that a historical Jesus is unimportant to a mythicist because history doesn’t prove theology nor does it disprove the mythicist theory. Even if the litealist can prove a historical Jesus, it is utterly meaningless because what they’re really trying to prove is that he is the Son of God who died for our sins… which is outside of the proof of history.
Oddly enough, a number of Christians have supported mythicism even while they affirmed historicism, but these aren’t your typical literalists. One of the greatest New Testament scholars was Rudolf Bultmann. He believed in mythological parallels, but the apologist prefers to ignore Christians like him. Another example is C.S. Lewis who is a favorite of apologists, and yet he accepted that Pagan parallels existed before Christianity. Actually, the earliest apologists didn’t try to deny any of this, but some just said the Devil foresaw the coming of Christ and taught the Pagans false doctrines ahead of time in order to deceive. Lewis followed a different tradition of interpretation (Justin Martyr speaks of “seeds of truth among all men” within 1 Apology 44. See: preparatio evangelica). He argued that the pre-Christian parallels strengthened Christianity. If the pre-Christian parallels were false, then Christianity would be false as well. However, maybe Christianity took the truth of Paganism and added further truth to it. What had been just mythological was now historically real… or so the argument goes. But this ignores the fact that many Pagans believed their myths were also historical. Anyways, it is insightful how apologists overlook this part of Lewis’ writings.
To be fair, I should point out that Bedard isn’t a simpleminded apologist (see: Reading the Bible Literally). Bedard seems to be more in the latter camp as he was influenced by C.S. Lewis (see: Mere Christianity). He accepts that Christian holidays are Pagan in origin (see: The Bible and Pagan Holidays), that the earliest Christian iconography copied Pagan images (see: Christ as Orpheus), and that the Judeo-Christian tradition was contributed to by Pagan ideas (see: Hellenistic Influence and the Resurrection). To me, this seems to be as literalist as a Christian can be while maintaining some basic rational dignity, and Bedard claims his beliefs are based on rationality.
But if one were to take all of those Pagan elements away, what would be left? A historical figure? Well, Pagans had historical claims about their godmen. A savior who is the Son of God? Well, this motif can also be found outside of Christianity. Bedard, obviously, feels there is something unique here… but exactly what?
Bedard at times does show his literalist tendencies in a black and white thinking. No mythicist is using modern standards of biography to judge the Gospels. It is absurd to argue we’d have to reject most of ancient history if we reject the Gospels. That almost doesn’t even deserve a rational response. For one, secular historians aren’t trying to prove anything theologically and so they always start from a position of questioning and doubt. There is no reason to accept any text as true until other sources of info validate it. In the case of the Gospels, they lack confirming sources. No ancient historian spoke about Jesus while he was alive even though there were numerous historians (including Jewish historians) in the area Jesus supposedly lived. Also, Romans were meticulous record keepers and the records of the time survived for us to inspect, and yet we discover no Jesus in them. This lack of evidence may not be remarkable for an average person of the time, but Christians claimed Jesus had great impact on the Roman World.
Let me add one last point on this issue. I was listening to Richard Carrier on the proper defense and improper defense of the Jesus Myth(scroll down). Carrier makes an interesting point. People aren’t idiots for believing in Jesus’ historicity. They’re just looking at different data. Just a few pieces of data not assimilated or countered by historical arguments won’t disprove it, but a few hundred pieces of data that promotes doubt causes one to consider alternative theories. However, most people never get to that point. This is particularly true for many (most?) New Testament scholars who are Christians (which is a large percentage) and hence who don’t have much motivation to seek out and seriously consider all of the contradictory data. According to Carrier, it’s a bad argument to try to support mythicism by claiming silence on Jesus’ historicity. The evidence that has survived could be interpreted as proof of a historical Jesus, but it could also be interpreted in other ways when placed in context of other evidence. If one doesn’t take into account the plethora of Pagan parallels (either out of ignorance or dismissal), it isn’t irrational per se if one were to claim Jesus’ historicity. However, as an apologetic argument, it’s just an empty claim that one can say little about… not that apologetics is meant to have substance beyond the belief motivating it.
Michael’s response to Bedard:
“As I sit here watching the documentary on Tom Harpur’s Pagan Christ, I find myself reminded of all the problems that I see in the Jesus myth theory. I will share my top ten problems with this theory. This is not a detailed analysis but rather my opportunity to vent on the glaring problems with this theory.
1) The rejection of the Gospels as historical sources. They are seen as faith documents and not modern biographies. That is true but we do not have any unbiased ancient texts that meet the criteria of modern biography. If we reject the Gospels, we would also have to reject most of what we know about ancient history.”
For the most part, proponents of the Jesus Myth (JM) regard the gospels as allegorical first and faith documents second. Also, proponents of the JM do highlight the fact that the early catholic church used purely theological arguments for the existence of Jesus and did not defer to historical sources. Barnabbas and Clement are very curious because when they refer to the passion of Christ they simply quote Isaiah 53… which is an odd thing to do if the exploits of Christ had been a matter of recent history and were purported to be world reknown.
And there does exist a good selection of actual historical documents from the 1st century, such as Pliny’s Natural History and Josephus’ Testimonium… the four gospels do not mirror the style and format of any known works of historical record from the time period they are alleged to have been composed in.
“2) The claim that Paul never mentions the historical Jesus. This is simply not true. Paul quotes Jesus, mentions aspects of his life and in 1 Corinthians 15 he challenges his readers to check out the surviving witnesses.”
That Paul “quotes” Jesus is not problematic for proponents of the JM. There’s nothing that prohibits the idea that the cosmic divine messiah taught his apostles. That Paul is aware of a sacred meal is not problematic either. Sacred meals are virtually universal. And in 1st Corinthians 15 Paul never differentiates between the nature of his experience with Jesus (revelatory vision) and the experience of the other apostles. Doesn’t Paul say at some point in the epistles, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?” Paul wrote that there was no difference between his experience with Jesus and the other apostles experience. And in verse 45 Paul actually says that Jesus was not a human and draws a stark contrast between Adam and Jesus to illustrate the point.
You seem to be basing your 10 points off of a very faulty understanding of the JM, which is regrettable but predictable.
“3) The rejection of Josephus as a testimony of Jesus. Some authors reject Josephus as evidence for Jesus because it is clear that there is Christian tampering. Most scholars see an original core testimony that has been augmented by Christians not created. Plus we have what Josephus says about John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus.”
I am always very doubtful of anyone who says anything along the lines of “most scholars”. This kind of appeal to authority and reliance upon an alleged consensus is the heighth of intellectual laziness.
“4) The claim that gnosticism was an equally original valid of Christianity along side what became orthodox Christianity. The fact is that there is a clear continuity with our first century Christian documents as found in the New Testament and what became orthodox Christianity. Gnosticism with its rejection of the Jewish God, Jewish Scriptures, material world, and its focus on gnosis rather than sin were a later (mid to late second century) break away from Christianity.
5) The misuse of pagan myths. Many claims are made about the pagan myths by these authors but when you look at the myths themselves, these claims are often not accurate. You are expected to rely on their secondary sources and not to look at the primary sources.
6) Pagan myths are described in Christian language to strengthen their connection to Jesus. Mithras is said to be born of a virgin even though he was born of a rock. Horus is said to be born of virgin even though he was conceived in the post-death intercourse of his married parents.”
It is not a fact that there is clear continuity between canonical texts and what became orthodox Christianity. There is a record of development from the 1st century to the 2nd of an evolving human Jesus doctrine. This can be seen in primitive “gospel” references throughout Barnabbas, Polycarp, Clement, Paul, Ignatius, etc. and it leads all the way to the end of the 2nd century with the crystallization of the four gospels as referred to by Irenaeus in Against Heresies.
Please note that, unlike your baseless assertion this is an argument that is logical and supported by the documentary evidence.
Also, you over-state the case for pagan influences. You’re building one heck of a strawman. Certainly there was pagan influence, but any proponent of the JM worth his/her salt will tell you that the biographical data that came to be expressed in the gospels was drawn almost entirely from the Old Testament.
Again, your understanding the JM seems to be incredibly flawed.
“7) No respect for the dates of texts. Authors use pagan texts to establish connections to Jesus but sometimes (as in the case of Mithras) the texts post-date the New Testament. How do we know that the pagans did not borrow from the Christians?
8 ) Use of post-biblical traditions. Authors demonstrate pagan influence on the three wide men, the ox and ass, December 25 and a number of other traditions. The problem is that those are not biblical traditions. These things were added to the tradition later and any pagan influence says nothing about the origins of the Jesus story.
9) Misunderstanding of pagan influence on art. There are valid examples of pagan influence on Christian art such as Isis holding baby Horus being used as a model for Mary holding baby Jesus. It make sense that the new movement of Christianity would look beyond itself as it was developing its artistic side. This says nothing about pagan origins for the story.
10) The patchwork use of pagan myths. It is difficult to find large chunks of pagan myth that look like the Gospels. Jesus myth theorists take a word here and a phrase here, from dozens of myths from many cultures and say “Here is the Gospel!” If you start with enough stories, you can reconstruct almost any historical figure, ancient or minor.”
Strawman strawman strawman.
“These are just a few of the problems that I have with the Jesus myth theory. Unfortunately, it is not likely to go away any time soon.”
No, it won’t go away any time soon, in fact it is gaining traction.
– – –
I generally agree with this assessment of the Jesus Myth theory. Bedard responded to this comment, but the commenter didn’t return. So, let me have a crack at Bedard’s comment.
Regarding the Gospels, even the great allegorist Origen did not take them as strictly allegorical. While not exactly the same as Josephus, the Gospels do have much in common with ancient histories. They are closer to ancient biographies with Luke-Acts having stronger historical leanings. And as for the early church, they did not just rely on allegory or OT interpretation. They also stated these events as being historical events.
Yes, there was a great variety in early Christianity. It was common practice for Christians to take some of the Bible allegorically, but there was disagreement about which parts were allegorical and exactly how they should be interpreted. Some Christians even believed that Jesus was entirely allegorical or at least entirely spiritual (non-physical/non-historical)… allegorical and spiritual being related in the ancient mind.
I personally wouldn’t argue that the Gospels entirely lack commonality in certain aspects of style with some ancient histories. It wasn’t uncommon in the ancient world for history to be mixed with allegory (whether allegory as spiritual truth or as moral storytelling), and it’s not easy to tell how literally ancients took any given text as the common understanding would likely never have been written down. The claims of emperors as godmen, for example, can be found in supposedly historical accounts. Did the Romans actually believe their emperor was a godman? I’m sure some did… just consider how gullible some modern people are even though modern education is far superior.
The Gospels show commonalities with many types of writing and storytelling and that is part of the point of the Jesus Myth theory. There are a few comparisons that can be made. Alan Dundes wrote the book Holy Writ as Oral Lit in which he shows the similarities of the Bible with folklore texts. Other scholars have pointed out the similarity of the Gospels to the genre of Spiritual Romances which were a type of fiction popular at the time. As an example of a novel of that time period, read The Life of Aesop which supposedly tells the biographical story of Aesop’s life and the style of it is reminiscent of the Gospels. I’m not implying that there is any causal connection between the Gospels and The Life of Aesop, but I’m merely pointing out that this genre of storytelling was extremely popular in the early centuries of the Roman Empire.
Regarding Paul and the historical Jesus, in the first verses of 1 Cor 15 where Paul speaks of the resurrection historically and tags his experience to the witness of others. As for verse 45, Paul is contrasting Jesus with Adam but he is not denying that he is human. Read the passage from Genesis that he is quoting and you will see that the whole verse is about Adam. Paul is saying Jesus is a complete Adam.
I have no particular opinion about this. Jesus and Adam are equally mythological and both were taken as historical figures by some believers. On the other hand, there were also believers who interpreted the Bible as spiritual allegory which isn’t exactly fiction but which is far from historical fact. The purpose of spiritual allegory is to point to a more profound truth. The question is which belief was closest to the original Christians. Well, I don’t know if there was any singular group of Christians that was orginal. What I do know is that the Gnostics were the earliest Christians to organize the Gospels into a single book, were the earliest Christians to comment on the Gospels, and were among the earliest prominent Christian leaders both within and outside of the Catholic Church.
I hear what you are saying about “most scholars” but I have trouble when there is a strong consensus among a wide variety of scholars (not just Christian) and just a few scholars, usually those with a theory like the Jesus myth to promote, who deny the passage.
My opinion is that the concensus in Biblical studies isn’t the same thing as a concensus in science. Most Biblical scholars have been and still are Christians or at least were raised in Christianity. Most of the Biblical scholarship in the past was done as overt apologetics, and many scholars still act as apologists and see no contradiction in their ability to think objectively and critically. Bedard himself is an apologist who has beliefs such as the virgin birth that contradict the concensus of scientists. Shouldn’t the concensus of scientists supercede the concensus of apologists when it comes to a subject such as the biological possibility of virgin births in homo sapiens?
As examples of the importance of distinguishing apologetics from scholarship, read the following blogs and articles. I also threw in some other responses to specific apologetic arguments just for good measure.
Robert W. Funk:
Robert M. Price:
Richard C. Carrier:
Related to apologetics is the issue of scientific understanding in the ancient world… and sadly the issue of scientific understanding in the modern world.
Richard C. Carrier:
To continue with my response to Bedard:
I disagree with your statement about the continuity. Orthodox Christians agreed that Jesus’ Father was the God of the OT and that Jesus was human and divine. All of this found in the NT but denied by gnostics.
The Gnostics were the first to collect scriptures into a single book we now call the Gospels. The Gnostics intentionally left out Jewish scriptures because the purpose of their creating the Gospels was because they specifically believed the OT God and the NT God were separate Gods (enemies even). The Gospels were created for the purpose of demonstrating the distinct uniqueness of the Christian God. Yes, there were some Jewish or Jewish-influenced Christians early on, but there is no proof that they were the first Christians. Obviously, Judaism was a part of the milieu of early Christianity and so were a number of other religions. As the earliest commenters on the Gospels were Gnostics who were also the creators of the Gospels as a singular canon, I think it’s fair to give them precedence on it’s interpretation… or at least it’s fair not to dismiss them out of hand.
Regarding the pagan influence. I agree that there is a stronger case that the Gospels are based on the OT than on pagan sources but the Jesus myth people I have encountered (Tom Harpur, Peter Gandy, Timothy Freke) have focused mostly on the pagan sources.
As I see it, it isn’t either/or. Yes, many biographical details were lifted at some point from the OT. But, some argue, that this was simply a matter of Hellenistic Jews and other related groups reading the OT through the lense of Greco-Roman philosophy, theology and mythology. In the ancient world, a new religion was deemed unworthy if it didn’t have precedent in an already existing religious tradition. So, a new religion had to prove itself by interpreting older texts in a new light. But this was just a matter of convenience and they weren’t trying to stay true to the original intent and purpose of those texts. The Jesus story that they created was in contradiction to the traditional Jewish expectation of a Messiah, but all that mattered is that Jesus was portrayed as Jewish which gave him the appearance of respectability. They had to detail his Jewish lineage in order to substantiate their claims. However, from a strictly traditional Jewish perspective, such superficial reinterpretations were meaningless and outright blasphemous.
Let me make one last point about Bedard’s scholarship. It’s obvious he lacks any full understanding of mythicism. The three Jesus myth people he mentions (Harpur, Gandy, and Freke) are just popular writers. He admits to having never read any serious scholarship about mythicism. I appreciate popularizers for they communicate ideas to the general public, but there are several scholars I can think of offhand who are way more respectable than those three. I linked some of these scholars above, but there are a few more besides. I should mention Karen Armstrong. She is a respectable scholar who, although doesn’t identify as a mythicist, seems to support the connections between pagan mythology, classical thought, allegorical thinking and early Christianity. If you want to know more about the Christ myth theory and the scholars who have supported this position, then check out the Wikipedia article which gives a good overview.
As an apologist, it doesn’t matter that Bedard’s knowledge of mythicism is limited. However, as a scholar, it’s very important. Bedard is not only a published scholar but has specifically written a book about mythicism. He presents himself as an expert and he is an expert in other areas of Biblical studies but not in mythicism. I first commented on Bedard’s blog around the beginning of this year (2009) and the year is almost ended. One of the comments I made to Bedard at that time was specifically that he claimed to have only read the popularizers of mythicism and that if he was serious about his scholarship then he should read some serious scholarship on the subject. I was just perusing his blog and saw no evidence that he has since read any high quality scholarship on mythicism.
As far as I can tell by my brief interactions, I respect Bedard as a person. He is one of the most easygoing apologists I’ve ever met. Also, I read one of his articles published in a journal and I was impressed. But none of that changes the fact that he isn’t an expert nor has read any experts in the field of mythicism. His opinions about mythicism are no more worthy than the mythicist popularizers he has criticized. As such, his writings on mythicism mostly serve the purpose of apologetics rather than scholarship.
That is fine if that is all he wants to do, but he seems to have a mind that is capable of so much more. I’d love to see him (or some other apologist) do an in-depth analysis of the full range of mythicist scholarship. I’m waiting…