Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?

[AMbomb]

Whether or not my reason is reasonable has nothing to do with whether or not anyone agrees with me. I don't know the names of any contemporary historians, period. However, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, the authors of the Jesus Mysteries, make that claim and back it up with plenty of facts.

[jcr4runner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries

The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? is a 1999 book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy that attempts to reconstruct the true origins of Christianity. It relies heavily on the Gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi.

The cover of The Jesus Mysteries features a gem of Dionysus/Orpheus. This gem was pronounced a forgery by Otto Kern

The authors suggest that a number of pagan mystery religions, such as those of Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, and Mithras, were all manifestations of a single cult of a dying and rising "godman" myth, whom they call Osiris-Dionysus. The authors also assert that Jesus did not really exist, but was instead a syncretic re-interpretation of the fundamental pagan "godman" by the Gnostics, who were the original sect of Christianity as a consequence. Freke and Grandy, therefore, offer their own argument in support of the Jesus-Myth theory. Orthodox Christianity, according to them, was not the predecessor to Gnosticism, as conventional wisdom states, but a later outgrowth that rewrote history in order to make literal Christianity appear to predate the Gnostics.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere! Gnostic "Christianity" has recently reappeared in feminist theology and in liberal circles such as among the Jesus seminar and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

If this is the "serious" scholarship that you cite, then we are going to have some fun here.

According to Wikipedia:

Critics have labeled the claims of The Jesus Mysteries far-fetched and based on insufficient research. For example, David Allan Dodson, a reviewer for CNN, found the book to be interesting, he stated that "while the authors discuss many examples of elements of Osiris/Dionysus in the Jesus story, they virtually ignore the more direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy. This oversight undermines the credibility of many of their arguments, and could have the tendency to mislead the novice reader in this subject". (CNN.com, "Review: Jesus -- man or myth?", September 21, 2000).

Among common complaints are that Freke and Gandy make selective use quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), that they use out of date scholarship and that they are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda. The most damaging allegation has been that the striking image on the cover of the book of a 4th century amulet showing Orpheus crucified has long been suspected of being a fake. Freke and Gandy knew this but gave no hint of it in their book.

[jcr4runner]

Did Gnostisicm predate Orthodox Christianity?

This is the main premise of Freke (great name!) and Gandy's book.

The Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus was recorded in many first and second century accounts, even some by pagan writers. For instance, Pliny the Younger wrote an account to the Emperor Trajan early in the second century about Christian practices. He wrote that:

“... they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god” (Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96).

Perhaps the most outrageous historical gaffe committed by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code (and similar authors such as Freke) is the linking of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library -- two separate archaeological finds compiled by two different religious sects in separate continents hundreds of years apart. Those who are well acquainted with biblical archaeology know this. But the casual reader is left with the impression that the Nag Hammadi writings are from the same time period.

The Dead Sea scrolls are thought to come from the second century B.C. Although some have tried to link the theology of the Jews who compiled the Dead Sea scrolls to early Christianity, most scholars do not believe that this find has anything to do with Jesus or the early Christians. And rest assured, these researchers are not part of a conspiracy to keep the truth from the public.

The fact that the Dead Sea scrolls survived since the mid-second century B.C. has actually confirmed the historical reliability of the received texts of the Old Testament. Contrary to the claims of the critics, the Old Testament scriptures preserved for thousands of years are virtually identical to the Dead Sea scrolls.

Likewise, if we compare the New Testament manuscripts from the earliest centuries together with passages quoted by the first and second century church fathers, we also see an amazing agreement with the New Testament of today.

[jcr4runner]

There are a number of reasons why the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" did not win out in the contest of history. They were rejected shortly after their appearance as being not ancient enough to be the authentic writings of the Apostles. The Gnostic writings also lack a narrative structure. There is no history of the life of Jesus contained in them. They are collections of sayings, prayers, rituals and meditations written to support Gnostic beliefs and practices. Since the Gnostics had no use for the material world, they rejected history as important to communicating truth. This rejection of history is inconsistent with the structure of the books of the Bible, all of which record history or contain references which in turn help the reader determine the time, place and authorship of each book. Therefore, the church fathers rejected these writings as non-canonical.

Despite all the hype about the Nag Hammadi library, it turns out that the most reliable historical witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ are the writings of the Apostles found in the canon of the New Testament.

The Church Fathers and apologists quoted extensively from the New Testament in the late first and second centuries. Although Irenaeus and Tertullian quoted from some Gnostic writings in seeking to refute them, none of the second century apologists were aware of any “Gospels” written by the Gnostics. They argued instead against the way in which different Gnostic sects twisted the meanings of one of the four Gospels. This fact has led many historians to believe that Gnostic writings, such as the Gospel of Philip and Mary Magdalene, must have been written later in the third century. In fact, virtually all scholars agree that they do not come from a period any earlier than the mid-second century.

Irenaeus writing in the early second century made this interesting observation:

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5).

Irenaeus pointed out that each of the heretical Gnostic groups liked to center on the one Gospel they thought agreed the most with their teachings. The Ebionites used Matthew’s Gospel. The Docetics preferred the Gospel of Mark. The Marcionites claimed that Luke was the only true Gospel. The Valentinians used the Gospel according to John.

The apologists of the second century were actually the third generation of Christians. Some of them, such as Irenaeus, had actually been taught by men, such as Polycarp, who had known one or more of the Apostles who in turn had been taught by Jesus himself. Unlike the “secret Gospels” of the Gnostics, the “canon of truth,” as Irenaeus termed it, was entirely open to the public. The writings of the Apostles had been entrusted to their successors and these books in turn had been transmitted to the third generation.

Irenaeus claimed that the authenticity of the canon was guaranteed by two safeguards:

The first guarantee of authenticity is apostolic succession. There was an unbroken succession of bishops in cities such as Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome, which had churches founded by one or more of the Apostles. Irenaeus includes lists of these bishops in order of succession in his work Against Heresies. These bishops knew which were the authentic writings since the Apostles themselves passed down these books to them.

The second guarantee of authenticity is the visible canon. The canon was open and visible in the Church for all who cared to look at it. Not only did this include actual copies of the books of the New Testament, but also public preaching expounding on the texts. Irenaeus argued that the Holy Spirit had directed the bishops in the correct way to teach the Gospel message.

Less than a few decades after the last New Testament book was written, Church fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement quoted from almost every book in the New Testament in their defense of Christian orthodoxy. Tertullian, in writing against the Gnostic heretic Marcion, was aware of an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament.”

Now the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as "a doubly sharp, two-edged one." This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel--sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God's holy name (Against Marcion, Book 1).

It’s important to remember that at this time there was no such thing as “The Holy Bible” as we think of it today. It was not a nicely bound book with a table of contents and passages separated by chapter and verse. There was no “pocket New Testament” lying on Tertullian’s desk as he wrote his treatise against Gnosticism. The New Testament existed as 27 separate books that were copied by hand and circulated among the churches.

Even at this early date, Christians thought of the scriptures as the “Two Testaments of the Law and the Gospel” -- found in the Hebrew Bible and the writings of the Apostles. They were aware of the four Gospels and argued for the inclusion of all four against those Gnostics who would center on only one.

[AMbomb]

Notice that David Dodson doesn't explicitly contradict the book's thesis: that Jesus didn't exist, but that the story of Jesus is a pagan godman myth taken from earlier ones. I can also tell you that Freke and Gandy don't ignore the ties to Judaism at all. What they basically say is that the Jesus myth is a fusion of Jewish and pagan mythology, a pagan godman myth with a Jewish twist if you will. Chapter 9 of the book is entitled The Jewish Mysteries. Apparently, Christianity was started by hellenized Jews. Furthermore, Dodgson's review is only one. How about these others: # "An erudite and well-researched book stuffed with controversial ideas" (Fiona Pitt-Kethley, Daily Telegraph).
# "Whether you conclude this book is the most alarming heresy of the millennium or the mother of all revelations, The Jesus Mysteries deserves to be read" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram).
# "This is not for readers with a delicate nervous system. The book is shock treatment in paperback" (Marie Mares, New Vision).
# "The theory is not new. For two centuries at least, scholars have been aware of the intriguing parallels between the accounts of Jesus' life and that of preceding and contemporaneous figures such as Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras. What is new is the powerful scholarship brought to the issue by authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, just published in Australia. The result, which draws strongly on the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, is so persuasive that is doubtful whether theological scholarship will ever be the same" (Robert Macklin, The Canberra Times, "Panorama," 1 July 2000).
# "A provocative, exciting and challenging book" (Right Reverend John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark) ?
I have a good idea for you. Insted of relying on reviews of the book. Why don't you read it?

[AMbomb]

Here are a couple of more sites for you to peruse: http://72.14.207.104/
http://suite101.com/article/cfm/atheism/106446/1

[jcr4runner]

First, the positive reviews of the book are all by people with an agenda, not unbiased reviewers.

Second, anyone can publish an article on the Internet. Anyone can publish a book nowadays -- the only criteria for most publishing houses is if it will sell. The "positive" reviews that you see on sites advertising the books are the ones sought after. No one trying to sell a book will push the negative reviews equally.

There are a rash of books on the market in the last 10 to 20 years that promote the "Gnostic Christ" theory. I don't need to read every one of these. I know the basic argument. I am always doing reading on this lately. See my series on The Real Jesus:

http://forerunner.com/realjesus/open.html

The Gnostic Christ theory doesn't hold any water.

It is easily proven that while all of the New Testament was written in the first century, none of the Gnostic writings appeared until the late second century and later.

I was kind of amused by some of the articles I have been reading lately (by people who deny the existence of Jesus) who extol Schleiermacher and his ilk as though they are the final word and their higher critical theories haven't been thoroughly challenged by contemporary scholarship.

But still, you are missing my point. Liberal scholars do not discount the existence of Jesus Christ. They readily admit He existed. But they still rely on the sham scholarship of 19th century liberals which is outdated and unreliable.

You won't find a credible published scholar who holds your theory. No one with university credentials who is taken seriously.

But nevertheless, some people do swallow it and I'll be providing a point by point refutation of Freke's main premises.

It is almost a waste of time to argue against Freke since all but the most skeptical historians are convinced that Jesus of Nazareth most likely existed, but since he uses some of the same arguments we find in the Jesus Seminar's articles and books, it is worth going over.

[AMbomb]

How do you know the positive reviews came from people with an agenda? They came from the Wikipedia page you posted the link to, not a site advertising the book. You claim the gnostic Christ theory doesn't hold water. But, you haven't read what Freke and Gandy have to say on the subject. You claim the earliest gnostic writings don't appear until the second century. Freke and Gandy claim Paul was a gnostic and go into detail explaining why they make that claim. And through it all, noone has been able to provide an alternative explanation for how the Jesus story came to be so similar to pagan godman myths predating it by millenia.

[jcr4runner]

The strategy of the skeptics -- Deny, deny, deny

The problem with writers such as Freke and Doherty is that they are authors with B.A.s who read some books written in the late 19th and early 20th century heyday of higher criticism. They are basically regurgitating the liberalism of 100 years ago.

Their degrees don’t qualify them to teach at the university level. Otherwise, they would have some credibility in academic circles. But they are not accomplished scholars. They are self-proclaimed “experts” who present a one-sided view. The basic tactic of Earl Doherty is to deny everything. It’s sort of like the tactic of AMBomb on this thread. There are evidences for the existence of Jesus that are accepted by most modern scholars, but Freke and Doherty simply deny the facts.

Here is an example from one such article:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

In the article, Doherty makes some amazing denials, such as:

In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found.

Huh?

Here Doherty makes a huge assumption popular among the 19th century critics that the Gospels were not written in the first century. Most scholars now admit that they were.

He then goes on to state that none of the Gospel story appears in the Epistles.

The following is from Luke Timothy Johnson:

Here is just a brief summary of the “non-narrative” evidence from the Epistles that also appear the Gospel stories. Those points also attested to by non-Christian writers are marked with an asterisk.

1. Jesus was a human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrws)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death (Paul -- mentioned also in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witnesses after death (Paul)

So it is clear to see that the most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in the Epistles and some of these points are attested to by pagans who were biased against the Christians.

In “The Jesus Puzzle,” Doherty then goes on to say that:

The Gospel Jesus and his story is equally missing from the non-Christian record of the time.

Ironically, what follows is the list of pagan historians who do mention Jesus. Doherty counters this by denying the fact that they all mention Jesus and then in the same paragraph contradicting himself by admitting that the they do mention Jesus. He brushes this off by claiming that they must be forgeries.

The problem is that historians do not universally consider these passages to be forgeries. In addition, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian and Celsus refer to Christ and Christians sometimes in negative terms. This is hardly the strategy for a Christian forger who is trying to gain credibility for his movement.

When we look at Freke, we see much of the same posturing by a man holding a B.A. in a field unrelated to biblical scholarship and who professes to be a modern day Gnostic. The agenda here is not scholarship, it is to promote Gnosticism.

To say that Paul was a Gnostic is to deny many the points made by Paul (listed above) that are incompatible with the religion of Gnosticism. Since the Gnostics believed that all matter is evil, they taught that Christ was a spirit being and had only an illusive body. The Gnostics taught that Christ was a spirit temporarily inhabiting the body of the man Jesus who died.

Freke describes his beliefs as – “the timeless wisdom of awakening” – and we find this gem:

“that the Earth could be conceived as a Global Brain which was in the process of awakening to itself, with the explosion of connections being made across it right now comparable to neural networks.”

https://www.timothyfreke.com/

Yes, I am supposed to take seriously the rantings of a man who claims that the earth is a giant brain and the historical Jesus did not exist. Am I supposed to take this seriously? In fact, it strengthens my faith as a Christian to see that the alternatives are nut jobs.

[AMbomb]

Attacking people's credibility by attacking their credentials and calling them nut jobs, oldest tricks in the book. They never worked and they never will. FYI, Peter Gandy has a master's degree. You're critiquing a book you haven't even read. How can you expect anyone to give you any credibility when you do that? All the sources you cite in your list are either biblical, misinterpretations, forgeries or, in the case of Tacitus, taken from an unreliable source or unreliable sources. Hence, none of them are credible. In the case of 13 and 15, if Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate and was crucified, why is there no record of it in the Roman archives? The Romans kept detailed records of their legal proceedings. Had that happened, there would've been a record of it. There isn't. And you still haven't answered the most important question of all. Why is the Jesus story so similar to pagan godman myths that predate it by millenia?

[revrosado]

AM said: "And through it all, no one has been able to provide an alternative explanation for how the Jesus story came to be so similar to pagan godman myths predating it by millenia."

I did. I answered that in my last post which you say you did not comprehend. But I appreciate your candor.

Secondly, no one as far as I have perused is denying the pre-existence of "Godman" myths nor can it honestly be. Let us agree that the pre-existing myths encompass the whole of the Jesus story (although individually they may not all be comprehensive of it). Let us also admit that while Judah was held in captivity in Babylon, they were exposed if not indoctrinated in the mystical practices and beliefs of their pagan captors - whom also had some elements of the "Godman" myth. Knowing as you should that the progression and transfer of the mythical repertoire came through the Babylonians from Egypt and other conquered kingdoms, and passed on to the Persians before Judah was released and returned to Palestine, whilst the Greeks strengthened their pantheon of gods and godmen to a fortress. Being that the Jews were throughout this period of time intermittently but albeit, dominated and overrun by pagan kingdoms ending with that of Rome - all of whom had Godmen religions dominating their cultures. Why did the Jesus "Godman" "myth" take hold in a time when the Jews were not under any direct pagan influence, in the midst of a period of high religious zeal for Judaism even amongst Gentiles?

If you are going to debate evidence that Jesus existed - then the sociological and psychological question is posed. There can be no reasoning that supports Jew's acceptance of a "Godman" myth when there existed no social and / or political pressures to do so, compared to when they were under ages and ages of captivity - cultural and political pressure and even Royal mandates and the like, yet no "Godman myth" rose up among them (Daniel).

But it is like you said your own self..."a myth is a myth". The Jews did not follow a myth - Jesus is the 2nd Adam.

And remember - these were Jews first...they were not Christians believing in Jesus, they were Jews whom after considering what they saw and heard for themselves, then followed a man named Jesus - for Jews do not entertain myths and it is quite against their religion to worship anyone as God than God Himself.

[AMbomb]

No, you didn't provide an alternative explanation. The only alternative explanation is that this pagan godman myth which dates back to 3000 BC came true. The Jesus story is a pagan godman myth. It's the same story told over and over again with different names. Jesus=Mithras=Osiris=Dionysus=lots of others. So, either it came true 3,000 years after it was first propogated or it's fiction. There are no other explanations. So, you tell me, which one makes more sense?

[jcr4runner]

If the Romans kept detailed legal proceedings, then could you please point me to all the official records of the legal proceedings and records of crucifixions in Judea in the years 26 through 30 A.D?

No, you can't because they do not exist.

You are relying on faulty and uncredited information from authors who make claims that almost everyone else in the academic world knows are untrue.

The fact that pagan myths are symbolically similar to the so-called "Christ myth" does not discount the reality of the person of Jesus who existed in the first century in Palestine. There are a lot of good writings on this over the years. C.S. Lewis, for instance, proposed that since the world was fallen, we are incurable myth makers. We re trying to get back what we once hhad. In this sense, the Gospel, Lewis wrote, the Gospel is no less a "myth" than the pagan stories. The difference is that the story of Jesus is true.

[AMbomb]

Let me put it to you another way. If you say the Jesus story is true, then you're saying all the pagan godman myths came true centuries or millenia after they were propogated. Is that what you believe?

[jcr4runner]

I see you are punting on the "highly detailed legal records of the Romans" claim. That is good, because according to the histories I have read, the Romans would not have cared too much about the people they executed mercilessly. Some historians claim that in Jerusalem alone, the Romans executed thousands of Jews -- no specific court records exist today.

AMbomb's argument is based on the idea that Christian testimony about Jesus is biased and therefore invalid. But until Christianity had spread, few people except Christians (and Jews opposed to the new sect) would have been interested in Jesus.

But later records by pagans are discounted by AMBomb because they may have been tainted by association with Christian scribes who maintained the records after 325 A.D.

This is an interesting conspiracy theory. But good historians do not set up conspiracy theories that are impossible to prove or disprove. It is a valid argument in that it is at least possible, but highly unlikely to be true -- and here is why:

We have the writings of Church fathers and pagan historians who give detailed accounts which corroborate the New Testament history in great detail. Historians almost always disagree with each other and human histories contain many mistakes. The extra-biblical accounts of Jesus and the early Christians are no exception. One would imagine that if they were tainted by the biased redaction of Christian scribes, that some of the most glaring errors would be corrected. For instance, we have the usually acccurate Irenaeus, stating in one place tthat Jesus lived to be 50 years old, while the Gospels count his age to be no more than 33 at the time of his death.

(I can hear the conpiracy theorists saying: "Aha! But that's just exactly what they wanted you to think")

What AMBomb is proposing is that there was a conspiracy to change all early Christian and pagan writings to reflect a "historical Jesus" who never actually existed in first century Palestine -- and to excise the Gnosticism of New Testament writers such as Paul replacing it with the orthodox version.

Well, it is at least possible that such a massive conspiracy could have existed. But let's look at what would have to happen in order for a such a massive reordering of history to have taken place.

If this alteration took place after the third century, say at about the time of the Council of Nicea, copies of the manuscripts in question -- by that time spread across much of Europe, northern Africa, Asia Minor, and the Middle East -- would have to be located, destroyed and replaced by the Church conspirators.

A systematic redaction of early Christian and pagan writings would have to be undertaken. By the end of the second century, the writings of church fathers and apologists contained literally tens of thousands of references to the New Testament.

Yet we have evidence in the thousands of New Testament manuscripts and fragments that have been unearthed by modern archaeology that no such conspiracy existed.

Modern archaeology has also discovered many New Testament commentaries and Christian writings from the early centuries that were previously unknown to Christian historians. Just to give one example, the Didache, a Christian teaching manual for new converts, was discovered in the late 1800s. Most scholars agree that this book was probably written in the late first century no more than 60 to 70 years after the crucifixion of Christ.

For this conspiracy theory to be true, these artifacts from the early centuries would have to bear witness to the teachings of the early Gnostics -- rather than the supposedly "later" orthodox Christians. But in fact, they do not. The earliest Christian writings, even those unearthed recently, corroborate the New Testament passages passed down to us in the received text of the Bible.