Veracity of Gospels and other things

[DDickey]

So one must ask: Why, if Jesus' death was mythical or fabricated, did the early Christians concoct the crucifixion story? Since it runs contrary to what the Jews believed, and we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, why would his followers invent a crucifixion story?

 

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine.

 

That doesn't cover the point however. There is a strong possibility that Jesus was indeed nailed up - we just don't have any positive proof of that and there is a contemporary tomb in northern India that is named as the tomb of Jesus, who spent his later years living there according to the locals. Don't dismiss that out of hand, there is a case to answer. After all, the sect of Saint Thomas was discovered in India by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century.

 

Now as to why Jesus's followers would spread stories of crucifixion we enter the realm of hypothesis. I could certainly attempt a few alternatives, but without any stronger historical connection, it wouldn't have any validity. That however is the problem with the bible. It's a story rewritten to give Jesus the status of a demigod, to make him the figurehead of a religion. Notice the bible is split into two. The Old Testament, an embellished account of Jewish history, and the New testament, a portrayal of Jesus. Although the bible is our primary source for the life of Jesus (as indeed it was always intended to be) it remains a biased and suspect work.

 

Well, I don't think anyone will disagree that the Bible is a biased work. But bias is accounted for in the three criteria historians use in an attempt to smoke out, so to speak, information about the historical Jesus. As I mentioned before, the major criteria are: Multiple attestation, Dissimilarity, and Contextual credibility. When one employs these criteria, one can discover certain probabilities. Dissimilarity can help in seeing through biases.

 

As far as Jesus in India: We know that India had trade in the ancient world with Asia Minor and the Mediterranean world. It

[DDickey]

So one must ask: Why, if Jesus' death was mythical or fabricated, did the early Christians concoct the crucifixion story? Since it runs contrary to what the Jews believed, and we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, why would his followers invent a crucifixion story?

 

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine.

 

The whole crucifixion story, as well as those of the miracles, runs very close to the mythology of Dionysus/Bacchus. There is not one depiction of the biblical crucifixion prior to the fourth century, and one source I have suggests even later than that. Even the 'donkey on a cross' graffito in the catacombs, believed popularly to be a pagan mockery of Jesus (if so, a far from intelligent one) is nothing of the kind and is a reference to Osiris, whose stories also anticipate many of the Jesus ones. Depictions of Bacchus on a cross, however, are sometimes found, dating from the 2nd century. They even show the very familiar 'slump' of the knees to one side, seen so often in later crucifixes. (yes, I can provide references and pictures if required).

 

Maybe the crucifixion story was grafted from earlier mythology as a mechanism to make pagan converts feel comfortable with the idea of a deified Jesus. It would not be the only instance of pagan mythology being grafted on to the new faith.

 

The statement I highlighted above is simply not true. The four gospels were probably written between 35 to 65 years after Jesus' crucifixion. They mention the crucifixion. The earliest sources we have period on the life of Jesus are Paul's epistles. They were written in the 50's AD. In his epistles he mentions Jesus' crucifixion. (If by depicted you mean art, statues, et cetera, I can answer that, too, if you'd like.)

 

I believe, and many scholars also believe (not that I'm calling myself a scholar), that Jesus did actually exist and that he was crucified.

 

As an aside, I would also like to let people know that I'm not a Christian Apologist. I'm a hard-core non-believer. But I'm also a student of history and historical methodology. Prior to my interest in the "historical" Jesus, I didn't even believe that he'd actually ever existed. But I think the evidence, albeit limited and biased, does suggest that a Jewish prophet named Jesus was crucified in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate. But, it should be noted, establishing this does not in any way, shape, or form lend credence to the stories of miracles and the resurrection.

Edited May 12, 2009 by DDickey

[DDickey]

EDIT: Above, for some reason, I wrote BC instead of AD. I tried to edit it, but in doing so, the format, for some reason, got extremely wonky. Hence this post. My apologies for the mistake. I'm hitting myself for making such a stupid blunder.

[Northern Neil]

The statement I highlighted above is simply not true. The four gospels were probably written between 35 to 65 years after Jesus' crucifixion. They mention the crucifixion. The earliest sources we have period on the life of Jesus are Paul's epistles. They were written in the 50's AD. In his epistles he mentions Jesus' crucifixion. (If by depicted you mean art, statues, et cetera, I can answer that, too, if you'd like.)

The earliest complete versions of the Gospels come from the fourth century; earlier versions are very fragmentary and there is no way of telling wether or not their content was the same. I am glad you have mentioned Paul; his later letters are deemed by many impartial scholars as being forgeries as they differ considerably in style and syntax from the earlier letters, which are generally regarded as authentic. The earlier epistles do indeed mention a crucified and risen jesus, but make no reference whatsoever to the historical Jesus, whom he never met. In that sense, they are about as reliable and valid as accounts from other Roman Christians such as Eusebius and Augustine, or even accounts we may pen ourselves.

 

However, by depicted I did indeed mean art, statues etc. Pre fourth century depictions appear to be representations of other gods such as Orpheus and Bacchus, or indistict graffiti which could be Jesus, but could equally be associated with these other cults.

 

I would be glad to see unambiguous pre-4th century depictions of the Crucifixion, and I am happy to change my position on this if I see the evidence; my position on Christianity is not to ridicule or dismiss it, simply to apply the same standards of scrutiny as to any other ancient mythology which might or might not contain elements of truth.

[sylla]

Documentary analysis is science, scripture exegesis is religion; they shouldn't be mixed.

 

A common misconception is that the age of a sacred text is directly related to its intrinsic value as religious evidence. Consequently, believers tend to consider these texts older (and detractors younger) than the average scholar consensus.

 

If I were a true believer, a sacred text is not just an account of miracles; it's the word of God, a miracle by itself. That's faith, and it wouldn't change if the testimony came from an apostle of the I century or a scholar of the IV. Given its own nature, faith can not be reduced by any proof; anything that might have happened would be explained by the mere will of God.

 

Conversely, if I were a true non-believer, the mere biological fact of the resurrection would still be considered unlikely to the last degree, irrespectively if the text was written the day after or two centuries later.

 

As everybody know, the estimations for the chronology of the books of the New Testament vary enormously; however, it would safe to state that the current scholar consensus for the initial composition of most of them essentially goes from the middle I century for the earliest (ie, Galatians) to the late II century for the latest (ie, Revelation); some minor books (ie, Jude) or passages may indeed have been included as late as the early IV century.

Edited May 12, 2009 by sylla

[Ursus]

But I guess we

[caldrail]

If I were a true believer, a sacred text is not just an account of miracles; it's the word of God, a miracle by itself.

 

Indeed. That's the entire rationalisation behind the Koran, that it represents the last word of God as relayed to Muhammud and his followers over a twenty two year period by the angel Gabriel, amnogst others. In fact there is some consensus between the accounts of Jesus in biblical and islamic work.

 

Fundamentally, the problem is the subject of Jesus's divinity. The earlier versions of his story say that he was a mortal - the Koran explicity underlines that - and only Christianity (post Council of Nicaea) agree on this holy trinity stuff. This is therefore the influence of Roman culture. The establishment of Jesus's credentials as the Son of God is in fact a result of the Roman mindset, who associated such status with powerful men. Since Jesus is the centerpoint of the story, the figurehead of his sects, and a self-declared messiah (chosen one), he must indeed have that power, and therefore the Romans ensured that he was made a demigod in their adaption of Christian belief.

 

If however Jesus made the claim he was the Messiah (which the bible suggests), then clearly his judaic peers didn't think so. To this day, Judaism refuses Jesus the title of the Chosen One. Is this the origin of Jesus's fate? We are quick to blame the Romans for crucifying him, but then, was Pilate more concerned with keeping the peace with some dangerous radical upsetting the establishment?

 

The comparison of early sources makes clear how strongly Jesus spoke out against greed. I wouldn't contest that. The story about the moneylenders table shows his anger too, rather than the calm saintly man he's usually portrayed as. In both the Bible and Koran, there is a mention of Jesus saying that a wealthy man has no more chance of reaching heaven than passing a camel through the eye of a needle, though the context in each case is different. It almost seems as if Jesus is railing against the great inequality of wealth and poverty he witnessed in his, as if he was behaving like a sort of ancient marxist. Certainly, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he had less than religious motives.

 

This shouldn't suprise us. Muhammud was calling upon the same early sources as christians, and in fact, his work was to attempt a unification of belief in a troubled era though with much less self-interest than Constantines idea of one religion to bind them all. We shouldn't forget also that Constantine tried to have one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus.

 

In considering the veracity of the early sources we should realise that our sources are a small number of individuals whose versions of the story vary and there is no official record to back them up from the Roman side.

 

As far as Jesus in India: We know that India had trade in the ancient world with Asia Minor and the Mediterranean world. It

[DDickey]

There is more than legend and some research is being done in the this area concerning Jesus. The tomb bearing his name dates from the period. Unfortunately I'm not aware of the details of this hypothesis yet but I'm interested to see what turns up. Don't get me wrong - if it turns out there's no evidence of Jesus in India then that's how it is. However, it is curious that Jesus had some very 'indian-style' things to say about the world (at least as far as they've survived the Roman rewrites)

 

I have read this before, the alleged influence of Eastern philosophy on Jesus' worldview, so to speak. But it is, I think, an unnecessary explanation. The stance that many historians take these days is that Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist (it is also an argument I believe to be extremely probable); in this light, everything he is alleged to have said in the New Testament makes sense.

If you

[sylla]

Imagine for a moment that we were perfect passive agnostics; ie, that we couldn't care less if any divinity has ever existed or not.

Now, let us try to reconstruct the political and social history of the Julio-Claudian Principate with the New Testament and related Apocrypha (canonicity is not by itself an index of historical reliability); for millions of people through centuries, such have been indeed their main or only source.

 

This is a heterogeneous collection of complex anonymous or quasi-anonymous texts, often directed to an initiated audience and plagued with external and internal inconsistencies.

On the other hand, the number of such inconsistencies actually points against any late thorough systematic revision and edition; otherwise, we would expect to have, for example, just one Gospel (that was actually the Marcionites' project in the II century).

 

As most sacred texts, NT agenda is no secret; religious conversion. Its historical records are scarce and accessory, almost incidental; and even then, their intention is clearly exemplary.

At a biographical level, skepticism is required regarding the countless recorded miracles; in the same way, the historicity of any event unattested by independent sources may rightly be challenged; for example, the massacre of the innocents or the post-crucifixion darkness.

We can't ignore the eternal possibility that these events might have been created instead of recorded.

 

All that doesn't mean NT lacks any historical value; historians simply can't afford to ignore any available source.

In fact, NT has been occasionally crucial for specific research; for example, the use of the process of Paul as evidence of the legal restriction for the use of torture on Roman citizens.

As with any other source, we simply need to be cautious.

[Northern Neil]

We know nothing about Jesus

[DDickey]

We know nothing about Jesus

[Northern Neil]

I

[DDickey]

I

[sylla]

From Phillip Stadter's The Categories of Ancient Biography:

 

"(1) Philosophical biography brought out the moral character of its subjects and the relation of their teachings to their lives.

Aristoxenus, a pupil of Aristotle, wrote on Pythagoras, Archytas, Socrates, and Plato.

Hermippus in the third century wrote Lives of many philosophers, as well as lawgivers and other figures.

Diogenes Laertius

[Melvadius]

Imagine for a moment that we were perfect passive agnostics; ie, that we couldn't care less if any divinity has ever existed or not.

Now, let us try to reconstruct the political and social history of the Julio-Claudian Principate with the New Testament and related Apocrypha (canonicity is not by itself an index of historical reliability); for millions of people through centuries, such have been indeed their main or only source.

 

<SNIP>

All that doesn't mean NT lacks any historical value; historians simply can't afford to ignore any available source.

In fact, NT has been occasionally crucial for specific research; for example, the use of the process of Paul as evidence of the legal restriction for the use of torture on Roman citizens.

As with any other source, we simply need to be cautious.

 

Northern Neil may have this covered with his book reference but one aspect of the 'veracity' of biblical stories, which I have increasingly become aware of, is the fact that even if we ignore centuries of possible adaption to fit biblical stories to local contexts we are looking at centuries of transcription, translation and consequent errors/ best fits being made.

 

We do not have the 'original' text in most instances, only at best the earliest known written versions. You just have to look at the debate about the 'eye of the needle' reference on sites liek Wikipedia to see how a simple text can be intepreted in a number of different ways - e.g. did the Greek text really mean cable or was it a coded reference to a small gate which camels couldn't get past without being unloaded and going on their knees (now deemed much less likely as probably a medieval gate rather than truly ancient ) in the walls of Jerusalem.

 

I understand that every now and again attempts have been made to go back to the earliest written sources (Aramaic, Greek, Latin or even Hebrew) and not the versions which have gone through at least three or four intervening translations. Howevert these attempts often founder when compared by religious and other scholars to what is seen as the 'authorised'/ 'authentic' versions of texts especially, when 'possibly' misguided contemporary attempts are made to write the new versions in 'modern' English.

 

Overall there may be 'veracity' to be found in biblical stories but they need a lot of specialist knowledge to draw out and even then these are probably always going to be subject to academic debate about the correct starting point for the translation.

 

It is an area where I feel that religious and academic studies probably will never happily co-exist so debate will continue.

 

The real problem is that while going through umpteen iterations of translation the historic points often get overlooked in favour of the sacred - but equally the strength of the interpretation often swings on what language you are reading the text in.

 

Melvadius