Historical Jesus Criterion

It's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist. However, it's reasonable to assume they don't until evidence that they do exist surfaces. Likewise with Jesus. Until we have proof of his existence, assuming that he didn't exist is entirely reasonable.

There are some who claim that the burden of proof should be on those who claim Jesus didn't exist. After all, it's the minority opinion. The majority of scholars believe Jesus existed, so they're right. The problem with this line of thinking is that truth isn't a democracy. There was a time when the majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth. The popularity of an idea has nothing to do with how true it is. If we really want the truth, we need to examine the evidence. Simply dismissing a theory because it isn't popular is counterproductive.

Another common misconception is that we should assume Jesus existed because of Occam's Razor. It's simpler to say that Jesus existed than to say he was a hybrid Greek/Jewish god who had a biography composed of Old Testament prophecies and a list of Cynic sayings attached to him. However Occam's Razor doesn't state that the simplest explanation is the right one, it states that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is most likely the correct one. Stating that Jesus existed simply doesn't fit the evidence as well as saying he didn't exist (see previous posts).

Some try to discredit those who present evidence that Jesus didn't exist by claiming they have an agenda. An agenda is certainly at work behind recent movies such as Religulous, The God Who Wasn't There, and Zeitgeist. I find it unfortunate that when most people think of the Christ Myth theory, they think of these movies which present a highly simplified and oftentimes counterfactual version of the theory. It's easy to dismiss the theory the way these movies present it.

However, scholars who advocate the Christ Myth theory don't believe that similarities between Christ and other deities alone is evidence for his non-existence. Serious scholars don't think that Christianity was a Roman conspiracy or that it was invented from whole cloth by Paul. It was a gradual process which evolved over hundreds of years. Besides, even if mythicists do have an agenda, it doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong.

Why do scholars doubt the existence of Jesus, but not other historical figures? Actually, some scholars do doubt the existence of other historical figures such as Confucius, Muhammad, Aesop, and William Tell. Some scholars even doubt the existence of Paul and John the Baptist. Socrates is another figure which some scholars think may not have existed, but there is more evidence for his existence than for Jesus. (See http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html.) No one questions the motives of those who doubt Socrates' existence since scholarly curiosity is motive enough.

I could just as easily be writing a blog doubting the existence of Lao Tze, the alleged originator of Taoism. However, I choose to write about the existence of Jesus because I was raised in a predominantly Christian culture and I find the question of Christian origins fascinating. I have no axe to grind, I'm simply interested in the subject. Besides, even if I did have an axe to grind, that wouldn't invalidate the evidence. Shooting the messenger won't change the message.

Except for fundamentalists who believe everything in the Bible is literally true, everyone agrees that the Jesus portrayed in scripture is at least partly mythical. Scholars in search of an historical Jesus use a set of methods to separate the man from the myth. Miracles such as walking on water likely didn't happen, however, could there have been a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans? Since Jesus was a common name and the Romans crucified often, there were no doubt numerous crucified Jesuses, but was one or more of them the basis for the Jesus of scripture?

I don't think it's possible to know for sure one way or the other. However, some scholars think there is evidence for an historical Jesus, so let's examine some of the methods they use to look for him.

Criterion of cultural congruency: A source is more credible if it fits the culture context.

This criterion can help us rule out a lot of sources, but it doesn't help us determine if Jesus really existed.

Criterion of linguistics: Since Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek, anything that only makes sense in Greek wasn't spoken by Jesus.

Again, this is helpful to rule out sources, but not rule anything in. However, as an aside, there was a tremendous amount of Greek influence in Israel before, during, and after Jesus' time, so it's not impossible for Jesus to have spoken Greek.

Criterion of ancientess: The older the source, the more reliable it is.

Fair enough. However, most scholars assume Jesus lived during Pilate's time and this hasn't fully been established. Perhaps the historical Jesus lived further back in history than has popularly been assumed. For example, many scholars assume that Christianity predated Gnosticism, but it could just as easily be the other way around. Christianity could have evolved out of Gnosticism.

G. R. S. Mead presents compelling evidence that Jesus may have lived in 100 BC. The mingling between Jewish and Greek cultures goes back hundreds of years before that. The anachronisms in the Gospels (such as the presence of Pharisees in Jerusalem before the destruction of the temple, Jesus being born and raised in Bethlehem and Nazareth before those cities were founded, and Jesus referring to the murder of Zechariah in Matthew 23:35 long before it happened) prove they were written long after the time of Pilate. Paul provides us with scant details about the life of Jesus. For all Paul tells us, Jesus could have lived earlier than 100 BC. If the Jesus of the Gospels was based on someone who lived hundreds of years before and of whom almost nothing was known, then speaking of an historical Jesus at all is meaningless.

Criterion of embarrassment: Anything that would have been embarrassing to the early Christians must have really happened, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it.

The problem with this criterion is that we can only guess what would have been embarrassing to the early Christians. The criterion of embarrassment is often used to prove that Jesus was crucified as a criminal because early Christians would have been embarrassed to admit that. Why would the crucifixion of their leader be embarrassing? Mormons aren't embarrassed by the fact that Joseph Smith was shot to death in jail. Having a leader considered an outlaw by the authorities is far from embarrassing if you consider the authorities evil and your leader wrongfully executed.

Criterion of attestation: If two or more independent sources state the same thing, the event must predate both sources.

This is tricky, because you have to determine what is considered an independent source. Matthew and Luke were both based on Mark, so if all three say the same thing, it doesn't count as three separate witnesses, just one. Even the Gospel of John shows an awareness of the synoptics, so that can't be counted. Historical sources, such as the references to Jesus in Josephus, are questionable at best. The epistles give us no biographical information except the crucifixion, and that's also questionable. Q is often cited as an independent source, but Q is a hypothetical document and much of Q is based on Cynic writings which go back centuries. We have to find independent sources first before this criterion is useful.

Author's agenda: If something fits the author's perceived agenda, it is suspect.

This criterion can be used to rule out pretty much everything in the Gospels. The writers of the Gospels wanted Jesus to fulfill every prophecy in the Old Testament, therefore any time he does fulfill a prophecy, we should assume the author made it up. The Gospel of Mark reads like someone went through the Old Testament and combined all the prophecies together into a narrative story. When you rule out everything with an Old Testament precursor, you're not left with much besides Gnosticism and Cynic philosophy.

Could the historical Jesus have been a Gnostic or a Cynic philospher? Several scholars have advocated just that. However if we're left with no biographical information to speak of, the historical Jesus could just as easily be the collected sayings of an entire community. Proposing that all of the sayings come from a single person is unnecessary and unprovable.

Criterion of difficulty: If a character is invented, material that creates difficulty for the narration will be left out.

It's been argued that Jesus being born in Bethlehem, but raised in Nazareth fits the criterion of difficulty. Both Matthew and Luke create absurd stories to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but raised in Nazareth. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem for a highly unusual census. According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem but had to flee to Nazareth to avoid the slaughter of innocents. This account contradicts Mark and John which state that Jesus was born in Galilee where Nazareth is located (Mark 6:1, John 7:41-43).

Therefore, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, but Matthew and Luke invented stories to say he was so that he would fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2. Jesus being from Nazareth creates difficulty for the narrative, therefor Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person. If Jesus had been invented, the authors would just say he was from Bethlehem to begin with and avoid any reference to Nazareth.

This criterion seems reasonable at first glance, but upon closer inspection, it's revealed to be quite silly. Consider Matthew 21:1-7 where Jesus rides both a donkey and her colt into Jerusalem at the same time. If we apply the criterion of difficulty, we'd be forced to say that Jesus really did ride upon two donkeys at once because this rodeo stunt creates serious difficulty for the narrative.

However, things make a lot more sense if we ditch the criterion of difficulty and instead say Matthew misunderstood the poetic repetition of Zechariah 9:9: "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

As for Jesus being from both Nazareth and Bethlehem, that's easily explained the same way. Matthew and Luke are trying to fulfill two contradictory prophecies: Micah 5:2 and the one referred to in Matthew 2:23 which says the savior will be a Nazorean. Difficulties in the narrative don't have to be caused by trying to fit a real person into prophecy when they can be explained more easily as an attempt to accommodate two contradictory prophecies.

Was Jesus a Cynic?

A real Cynic well prepared will not be satisfied with having been well-trained himself. He must realise that he has been sent as God's messenger to his fellow humans, to show them where they've gone astray over what is right and what is wrong. (Epictetus III xxii 23)

The material common to both Matthew and Luke (designated as Q) lacks any reference to an historical Jesus, yet some scholars believe Q is where the teachings of the genuine historical Jesus are to be found. However, as we shall see, the sayings found in Q are quite similar to the teachings of the Greek Cynic philosophers.

Cynicism was a philosophy popular between the 5th century BCE through the 5th century CE. The Cynics believed in living a life of virtue according to nature. They scorned possessions and often lived as beggars, traveling from town to town preaching their message.

The Cynics desired to do away with traditional societal structures, including the family. Luke 14:26/Mattew 10:37 expresses a very Cynic idea: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

F. Gerald Downing has compiled numerous examples of Cynic ideas found in the Gospels in his book Christ and the Cynics. I'll list a few of them below:

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20/Matthew 5:3)

Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca EM XVIII 13)

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves. (Matthew 10:9-10).

Wearing only ever one shirt is better than needing two; and wearing just a cloak with no shirt at all is better still. Going bare-foot, if you can, is better than wearing sandals. (Musonius XIX)

Salute no man by the way. (Luke 10:4)

Keep to yourself, quite unsociable, exchanging greetings with no one, neither friend nor stranger. (Lucian)

Seek, and ye shall find (Luke 11:9/Matthew 7:7)

Seek and you will find. (Epictetus)

For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. (Luke 12:2/Matthew 10:26)

The Cynic [...] ought to have nothing of his own that he wants to hide. Otherwise [...] he's begun to feel the need for concealment. And he couldn't possibly keep anything concealed even if he wanted to. Where or how could he possibly hide himself? (Epictetus)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. (Matthew 10:28/Luke 12:5)

What tyrant or thief or court can frighten anyone who does not care about his body or its possessions? (Epictetus)

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (Matthew 10:29/Luke 12:6)

Isn't God such that he oversees everything, and is present there with everything, and is able to be in touch, in some way, with everything? (Epictetus)

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6)

God brings into balance aspects of things that are out of true, he puts together again what has been broken apart, he hurries to press down what has started to slip out of place, he collects together again what has been scattered (Psuedo-Herclitus 6.3-4)

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? (Matthew 6:28-30)

When someone has God's kind of peace proclaimed by God through his reasoning mind (not by Caesar - how could he effect it?) hasn't he enough to satisfy him? ...Now no evil can happen to me... Another takes care to provide me with my food and my clothes, my senses, and the structures of my mind. (Epictetus III xiii 12-14)

Hunger, cold, contempt? Poverty doesn't necessitate any of these. Not hunger, for lots of things grow from the earth and can satisfy hunger; for the dumb beasts go without clothes and don't feel it. (Psuedo-Diogenes)

Practice reducing your needs, and so come as close as possible to God. (Crates 11)

And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? (Luke 12:22-24)

"Good God, that's all very well, but I'm a poor man without property. Suppose I have lots of children, where am I going to get food for them all?" "Well, where do the little birds go to get food from to feed their young, though they're much worse off than you are--the swallows and nightingales and larks and blackbirds...? Do they store away food in safe-keeping?" (Musonius)

Why not consider the beasts and the birds, and see how much more painlessly they live than humans do, how much more pleasantly and healthily. (Dio)

The philosophic wise man...without being concerned or anxious about more than the bare necessities, will give his stomach and back what's due to them. Carefree and happy, he'll laugh at people busy with their riches, and at others scurrying around trying to get rich, and he'll say, "Why postpone being yourself into the distant future?" (Seneca)

Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. (Luke 18:22/Matthew 19:21)

Crates sold up all his property--he was from a prominent family--and realized about two hundred talents. This he shared among his fellow citizens. (Diogenes Laertius)

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew 6:20/Luke 12:33)

Our soul knows, I tell you, that wealth does not lie where it can be heaped together. It is the soul itself that we ought to fill, not our money-chest. It is the soul that we may set above all other things, and put, god-like, in possession of the universe...when it has taken itself off to the great heights of heaven. (Seneca)

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. (Luke 13:19)

However small a seed is, once it's sown in suitable ground, its potential unfolds, and from something tiny it spreads out to its maximum size... I'd say brief precepts and seeds have much in common. Great results come from small beginnings. (Seneca)

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:27/Matthew 10:38)

If you want to be crucified, just wait. The cross will come. If it seems reasonable to comply, and the circumstances are right, then it's to be carried through, and your integrity maintained. (Epictetus)

Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. (Luke 17:33/Matthew 10:39)

Socrates cannot be preserved by an act that is shameful... It is dying that preserves him, not fleeing. (Epictetus)

But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24/Matthew 6:2)

The King, said Diogenes, was the most wretched person there was, surrounded by all that gold, yet afraid of poverty. (Dio 6.34)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer the other as well... Love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return. (Luke 6:27-29/Matthew 5:39-44)

A rather nice part of being a Cynic comes when you have to be beaten like an ass, and throughout the beating you have to love those who are beating you as though you were father or brother to them. (Epictetus III xxii 54)

How shall I defend myself against my enemy? By being good and kind towards him, replied Diogenes. (Gnomologium Vaticanum 187)

Someone gets angry with you. Challenge him with kindness in return. Enmity immediately tumbles away when one side lets it fall. (Seneca, de ira II xxxiv 5)

It's a pitiably small-minded person who gives bite for bite. (Seneca, de ira 11 xxxiv 1)

Socrates said, Follow these instructions, if you are willing to listen to me at all, so that you may live happily, letting yourself look a fool to others. Let anyone who wants to, offer you insult and injury... If you want to live happily, a good man in all sincerity, let all and sundry despise you. (Seneca EM LXXI 7)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Luke 6:31/Matthew 7:12)

Take care not to harm others, so others won't harm you. (Seneca EM CIII 3-4)

If you want to be loved, love. (Seneca EM IX 6)

Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? (Luke 6:39/Matthew 15:14)

You can no more have a fool as a king than a blind man to lead you along the road. (Dio 62.7)

Some people prefer to be provided with a blind guide rather than a sighted one. They're bound to take a tumble. (Philo)

For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil. (Luke 6:44-45/Matthew 7:16, 12:33-35)

Who would think to be surprised at finding no apples on the brambles in the wood? or be astonished because thorns and briars are not covered in useful fruits? (Seneca de ira II x 6)

Evil no more gives birth to good than an olive tree produces figs. (Seneca)

And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. (Luke 9:58/Matthew 8:20)

I've no property, no house, no wife nor children, not even a straw mattress, or a shirt, or a cooking pot. (Epictetus)

And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:59-60/Matthew 8:22-23)

A little while before Demonax died someone asked, "What instructions have you given about your burial?" "No need to fuss," he said. "The stink will get me buried." (Lucian)

Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. (Luke 10:3/Matthew 10:16)

Crates said that people living with flatterers were in as bad a way as calves among wolves. (Diogenes Laertius)

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3)

And you, are you at liberty to examine others' wickednesses, and pass judgment on anyone...? You take note of others' pimples when you yourself are a mass of sores... It's like someone covered in foul scabs laughing at the odd mole or wart on someone of real beauty. (Seneca)

When the Athenians do philosophy in your way they are like people promising to heal others of ills they've not managed to cure in themselves. (Pseudo-Diogenes)

As you can see, the wording isn't exactly the same, but the ideas are similar. Since the Cynics preached amongst the land for centuries before Christ was allegedly born, it's not surprising that Jesus would have absorbed many of their ideas. However, isn't it also possible that the sayings attributed to Jesus were really the sayings of a community?

Alexander the Great conquered the known world in the fourth century BCE. Greek philosophy, including Platonism and Cynicism, greatly influenced Jewish culture at the time Christianity emerged. In fact the word "synagogue" (refering to a Jewish congregation) is a Greek word. By 200 BCE some Jewish worship services were actually conducted in Greek. The gospels were written in Greek, and in fact, several of Jesus' disciples had Greek names such as Andrew, Philip, and Simon.

The epistles of Paul read like they were written by a Platonic Jew, while the sayings of Jesus have more than a passing similarity to Cynicism. Jesus was both Jewish and Hellenistic. In one instance, Matthew even quotes from Aesop's fable of the Fisherman Piping ("We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced." Matthew 11:17).

In the end, Christianity seems to be nothing more than the result of Jewish and Greek cultures merging together. According to some scholars, there were 80 different factions of Jesus followers including Marcionism, Ebionism, Encratism, and Gnosticism. The fact that there were originally dozens of versions of Christianity speaks quite loudly against the single founder hypothesis. There is no need for a single great man to have started the Christian movement when the simple collision of cultures is explanation enough.

Q

Jesus quotes from the Old Testament often. For example, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Deuteronomy 8:3 & Matthew 4:4) and "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:5)

Jesus is particularly fond of quoting from the Psalms. A few examples are "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings" (Psalm 8:2 & Matthew 21:16), "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1 & Matthew 27:46) and "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1 & Matthew 22:44)

In fact, it's been estimated that 10 percent of the New Testament is composed of quotes from the Old Testament. The entire Gospel of Mark appears to be based on the Old Testament with little or no original material. Which raises the question, if Jesus had actually existed as a historical figure, why does Mark have to rely on the Old Testament so heavily? Why doesn't Mark know anything about Jesus outside the scriptures?

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are both largely based on Mark, showing their ignorance of a historical Jesus is just as profound. (The Gospel of John appears to be a gnostic document which was rewritten to cohere with the synoptics.) However, Matthew and Luke contain material not found in Mark. Could this material be derived from an actual historical Jesus? First, let's take a look at the context in which this material appears.

Compare Luke 22:30 and Matthew 19:28. Luke places the phrase "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" during the last supper, while Matthew places it during Jesus' passage into Judea.

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." In Luke (16:13), Jesus says this to the Pharisees after telling them the parable of the unjust steward. In Matthew (6:24), this is part of the sermon on the mount.

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." In Luke (11:9-10), Jesus says this after telling his disciples the parable of the friend at midnight. In Matthew (7:7-8), it's part of the sermon on the mount.

Since Matthew and Luke almost always put these sayings in different contexts, it's obvious Matthew wasn't based on Luke or vice versa. (We can also point out the contradictions between them, for example both give completely different genealogies for Jesus.) While Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark, they are independent of each other. So, how did similar sayings not found in Mark find their way into Matthew and Luke?

Scholars theorize that the sayings came from a now lost document known as Q (from the German Quelle which means "source"). The similar sayings found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark probably came from a written source since the wording between Matthew and Luke is almost exactly the same, even if the contexts are wildly different.

So if Matthew and Luke are basically two different ways of combining Mark and Q together, what exactly is the nature of Q? Q was likely a sayings document similar to the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. In fact, Q and the Gospel of Thomas have 37 sayings in common (known as the Common Sayings Tradition or CST).

I'll examine where the sayings of Q could have come from in my next post.

The Gospel Jesus

As I've already discussed in earlier posts, the references to Jesus found in the writings of pagan and Jewish historians are doubtful at best. Paul and the other Christian writers of the first century are completely ignorant of the life of Jesus with the possible exception of the crucifixion and they don't even agree with each other on the details of that. The only real evidence we have of Jesus existing as an actual historical person are the Gospels.

The Gospels were written some time between 70-130 CE. They were not eye witness accounts. This itself is a major strike against the historicity of Jesus, for if he were as important as the Gospels make him out to be, we'd expect someone to have written his story down sooner than that.

Historicists, those who believe that Jesus was based on an actual historical figure, claim that the Gospels were based on an oral tradition. However, if that's the case, why do they rely so heavily upon the Old Testament and provide so little original material?

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are so similar to each other, they're referred to as the synoptic gospels. When comparing the Gospels side by side, it's apparent that they copied from each other. Mark, being the shortest, was likely written first, since it's highly unusual for a story to get shorter rather than longer over time.

Mark was largely based upon the Old Testament. In fact, it reads as if someone went through the Old Testament, took every reference to the Messiah they could find, and combined them all together into a single narrative. The Jewish practice of combining scriptures together like this, known as midrash, was actually quite common at the time. Mark makes much more sense when viewed as a midrash than as an oral tradition that was written down.

Matthew and Luke both took the story of Mark and expanded upon it, adding additional events and sayings. It's obvious from the numerous contradictions between Matthew and Luke (for example, both give a completely different genealogy for Jesus) that they weren't aware of each other.

So if Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all ultimately derived from a single source, where did the gospel of John come from? John is quite a bit different from the synoptic gospels. In fact, it reads more like a modified gnostic gospel.

The gnostics were a group of early Christians, who some scholars believe actually predated Pauline Christianity. Their writings include such titles as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Judas. Many of their ideas can be found in the Gospel of John, however John appears to have been modified to fit the synoptic Gospels more closely, making it a hybrid document.

John didn't agree with the way Jesus was portrayed in the synoptics. He didn't like that Jesus showed moments of weakness, such as when he asked that the cup be passed from him:

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matt. 26:39)

John's version of Jesus carries his own cross, speaks up for himself in the presence of Pilot, and never wavers when it comes time to make his sacrifice.

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18:11)

So even if the Gospel of John is largely divergent from the synoptics, that doesn't mean John was ignorant of them as he can be seen responding to them from time to time. There's no compelling evidence that any of the Gospels were based on oral tradition.

Jesus, if he had existed, would have spoken Aramaic and Hebrew, yet the writers of the Gospels didn't know Hebrew. They were all Greek speakers who quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In fact, the virgin birth, not mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, is based on a mistranslation from Isaiah.

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

The word translated above as "virgin" actually means "young woman" in the original Hebrew, but Matthew didn't know that:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:22-23)

Jesus and the Mystery Cults

Those who believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure claim that the originality of his story and his teachings prove that he had to have been a real person. They fail to recognize that the teachings of Jesus are hardly original. For example, Buddha told his followers to "love your enemies" hundreds of years before Christ was born. I'll deal with the sayings of Jesus in a future post, for now, let's turn to his biography.

Aspects of Jesus' story can be found in numerous myths. Cuneiform tablets from 1500 BCE tell the story of the Sumerian goddess Inanna (also known as Ishtar) who was crucified and resurrected. In the fifth century BCE, Herodotus reports that the Thracian god Zalmoxis buried himself alive, was resurrected three years later, and founded a religion which preached immortality in the afterlife.

According to literary sources such as the Bhagavat Purana, Krishna, like Christ, was a divine incarnation, the product of immaculate conception, and was of royal descent. Devatas (similar to angels) sang songs of praise at his birth and he was visited by shepherds. The reigning monarch, fearing that the infant would overthrow him, put all infants to death, but Krishna escaped to another country. He also raised the dead, cured lepers, and washed the feet of Brahmins. While there is no literary source, there is also a tradition that Krishna was crucified based on monuments and sculptures.

Similarities between Jesus and other mythic heroes have been pointed out ever since the early days of Christianity. Celsus criticized Christianity for being too similar to the other Graeco-Roman mystery cults of the time. Scholars have found similarities between Jesus and numerous other gods including Orpheus, Kore, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, and Osiris.

We know very little about the mystery cults since they kept much of their rites secret. What little we do know is often derived from modern interpretation of reliefs, sculptures and paintings. However, early Christians such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr found the similarities so overwhelming they accused demons of founding the mystery cults before Christ was born in order to spread doubt about Christ.

But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. [...]

The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." Genesis 49:10 The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. [...]

And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Æsculapius.

--Justin Martyr, First Apology

While much of the practices of the mystery cults remain hidden, we do have some information. The Greek god Dionysos, for example, was born of a virgin, died and came back to life, and his followers enjoyed a sacred meal of raw meat and wine symbolizing their god's flesh and blood. In the tragic play Oedipus written by Seneca, we learn that Dionysos turned water into wine for his wedding with Ariadne. He wasn't thought of as a fictional character either. According to Plutarch, the people of Delphi believed the remains of Dionysos were buried near their oracle.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Christians plagiarized from the other religions, but it certainly shows that the story of Jesus follows many universal mythical themes with very little originality to be found.

Historical References to Jesus

If Jesus Christ had actually existed as a historical person, we would expect Jewish and Pagan historians would have made some reference to him. Historicists claim there are such references, which I will detail below.

Suetonius, writing around 120 CE states:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius (XXv.4)

Historicists claim that Chrestus is a misspelling for Christus, however Chrestus was actually a rather common name at the time and there's nothing to suggest it was a misspelling. After all, Suetonius correctly spelled Christians later in the book. Also, this passage implies that Chrestus was alive at the time, but it refers to the events of 49 CE, long after Christ was dead.

Tactitus wrote that:

"Consequently ... Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations. Called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberias at the hands of the Procurator Pontius Pilatus." Annals (XV.44)

Scholars believe this passage to be an interpolation because it isn't quoted before the 15th Century. If Tactitus had actually written this, certainly it would have been quoted by Christians earlier than this. Also, Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator, which Tactitus would have known if he was getting his information from Roman records. Even if this passage is genuine, it doesn't tell us that Jesus existed, Tactitus would just be repeating what he was told by Christians about their founder.

Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan around 100 CE saying:

"They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: that they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery ..."

This passage, as well as others quoted by historicists, only proves that Christians existed, not that Christ did.

In the third century, Julius Africanus cites a passage written by Thallus that says earthquakes and darkness followed the death of Jesus. However, the original work by Thallus is lost, so this could have been an interpolation. Also, there is no other reference to earthquakes or darkness at the time from any other historian, which is quite unusual since such geological and meteorological events were dutifully recorded by historians back then.

There are countless later references. "The letter of Pontius Pilate which he wrote to the Roman Emperor, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ" is not thought to be authentic and most historians think it was actually written in the fifth century. In the Talmud, Jesus is said to be the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, however, as it was written hundreds of years later, it's more likely a Jewish response to what Christians said of their founder.

Mythicists contend that in the early centuries of Christianity, the religion encompassed a wide range of movements. The Jesus of the Gospels is different from the Jesus of Hebrews or the Jesus of Paul's epistles. There were even some Christians who didn't believe Christ was crucified at all. The writings of these opposing sects were destroyed in the centuries of orthodoxy that followed or altered to be brought in line with the new opinion that Jesus had in fact existed. However, there is one such text that managed to survive.

Early Christian writer Minucius Felix wrote a dialogue between Caecilius, a pagan, and Octavius, a Christian. Caecilius accuses Christians of worshipping the head of an ass, reverencing the genitals of their priests, having orgies, and killing a baby and drinking its blood.

"And some say that the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross; these are fitting altars for such depraved people, and they worship what they deserve."

Octavius is horrified by such accusations and counters that Christians don't do such things.

"Moreover, when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his death."

Minucius Felix is defending Christians from the wild accusations that they slaughter infants and drink their blood, have orgies, or worship someone who was crucified. Clearly the crucifixion story wasn't wide spread among all Christians in the early days.

We now turn from a Christian who didn't believe in the crucifixion to a Jew who supposedly did. The most famous historical references to Jesus are found in the Antiquities of the Jews written by the historian Josephus.

"So he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

"The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is a rather awkward way of telling us someone's name. It is likely that the phrase "who was called Christ" was a marginal gloss which was later inserted into the text. "The brother of Jesus" doesn't necessarily refer to Jesus Christ, since Jesus was a rather common name at the time. Even if the phrase is a reference to Christ, "the brother of Jesus" could just as easily be a title as a familial identification.

Since Josephus spends much more time discussing other messiahs such as John the Baptist, it would be strange for him to make only a passing reference to Jesus without going into more detail, which brings us to the second passage. I'll include the text immediately preceding and following the reference to show it in context.

"But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. [...] So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

"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. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned 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 these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

"About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome." (Antiquities 18)

The second paragraph above is called the Testimonium Flavianum. Even this expanded reference to Jesus is uncharacteristic of Josephus who usually goes into much more detail about even minor historical figures. Also, it doesn't make much sense for a Pharisaic Jew to declare that Jesus was the Christ.

What further makes the Testimonium suspect is the fact that it disrupts the flow of the passage. With the second paragraph removed, the narrative is much smoother. The first paragraph describes one calamity, the third paragraph refers to "another sad calamity." It seems as if the second paragraph were inserted by someone. Otherwise, we'd have to read the passage as saying that the "ten thousand other wonderful things" concerning Christ were, in fact, a calamity.

The case for interpolation is made stronger when we realize that no Christian writer refers to the Testimonium until two hundred years after it was written. Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr and Origen were undoubtedly familiar with Josephus, and would have jumped at the chance to answer their Pagan and Jewish critics with such a passage. Origen actually says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.

The first person to cite this passage was Eusebius writing about 324 CE. Indeed, the vocabulary used in the Testimonium is more similar to Eusebius than to Josephus. For example, Josephus uses the Greek word poietes only to mean "poet", yet in the Testimonium it is used to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works") Eusebius, on the other hand, does use poietes to mean "doer". The reference to Jesus as a "wise man" whose followers did not leave him after he was crucified is similar to the argument Eusebius makes in Demonstratio. In fact, Eusebius all but admits that he committed the forgery:

"Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." Demonstratio Evangelica, (Book III, pg. 124)

Eusebius is also our first source for Papias and Quadratus who both claim to have eyewitness testimony to the miracles of Jesus:

"If by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — that is, what according to the elders Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying." Now lost document by Papias (according to Eusebius)

"The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times." Now lost document by Quadratus (according to Eusebius)

So the question of whether there is proof of Jesus' existence outside the Gospels or not seems to depend on how reliable you consider Eusebuis of Caesarea to be. I can think of no better way to end this post than with a quote from him:

"It shall be legitimate and appropriate to use lies as a remedy." Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, 12:31

The Crucifixion of Jesus According to the Epistles

As I discussed in my previous post, the writers of the epistles don't seem to know anything about the gospels. The Epistle Jesus didn't perform miracles, didn't preach, and didn't exist in any specific place or time. The only detail about the life of Jesus which is shared by the epistles and the gospels is the fact that Jesus was crucified. But do the epistles and gospels portray the crucifixion of Jesus in the same way?

For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)

The above passage says the Jews killed Jesus, however most scholars dismiss this passage as a later interpolation. It was not uncommon for scribes to make insertions or deletions from scripture before the Bible obtained its final form. There are three reasons scholars believe this passage was an interpolation. First, most scholars interpret the passage in verse 16 which says "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which happened after Paul's death. Second, such vehement anti-Semitism is uncharacteristic of Paul. Third, in Romans 11 Paul again speaks of Jews killing their own prophets without mentioning Jesus. Therefore, this sole reference to the Jews killing Jesus was likely inserted by someone else later on.

I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession. (1 Timothy 6:13)

Most scholars agree 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, the Pastoral Epistles, were not written by Paul since they don't match his writing style or his teachings. Apocalyptic expectation was on the wane when the Pastorals were written unlike during Paul's time. Since it was actually written in the second century, this passage doesn't contradict the mythicists' hypothesis that a historical Jesus was unknown before the gospels. However, there's good reason to believe that this too was an interpolation. (See the article titled "Who Crucified Jesus" at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm for more.)

We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

The phrase ton archonton tou aionos toutou which the King James Bible translates as "the princes of this world" is more correctly translated as "the rulers of this age." As Earl Doherty says on the Jesus Puzzle website (linked to above),

"In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity."

While there hasn't been a scholarly consensus as to what Paul means in this passage, many scholars now believe he is actually referring to Christ's crucifixion by demons which matches the spiritual nature in which Paul talks about Jesus in the rest of the epistles much better than a gospel interpretation. While Ephesians probably wasn't written by Paul, it does contain a similar idea:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

If I may quote from Earl Doherty again:

"Scholars who balk at this interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify (e.g., Anchor Bible, p.164), are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archon in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion."

An early Christian text called the Ascension of Isaiah gives us a more clear idea of what Paul means when he speaks of the crucifixion of Jesus. In this text, Isaiah is given a vision of Christ descending down through the seven heavens to the lowest sphere of heaven ruled over by Satan.

The Lord will descend into the world in the last days, he who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. And the god of that world will stretch out his hand against the Son, and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed from the heavens, so that it will not be known who he is. And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in the world for 545 days. And then many of the righteous will ascend with him. (Ascension of Isaiah 9:13-17)

Historicists point out that the Ascension of Isaiah contains a section (11:2-22) which describes Jesus' life on earth. However, this passage is found in only the Ethiopic text and was likely added on later.

So, was Jesus crucified by the Jews, by Pilate, or by Satan? If we don't read the gospels into the epistles and we agree with most scholars that the references to the Jews and Pilate are later interpolations, we're left with Christ being crucified by the spiritual "rulers of this age." However, The Epistle to the Hebrews presents us with a different way in which Christ's sacrifice could have been made.

Hebrews is a thoroughly Platonic document. The idea that everything on earth is a corrupt copy of the perfect heaven above infuses the document. In Hebrews, Christ doesn't make his sacrifice on earth, but rather above in the incorruptible heavenly realm. He offers himself as a sacrifice to God in the same way priests offer animal sacrifices to God in the Old Testament, by shedding blood in the outer temple and bringing it into the inner temple. However, while the priests' sacrifices are imperfect and have to be repeated, Christ's perfect sacrifice needs to be done only once.

Not only is there no reference to a historical Jesus in Hebrews, there is an explicit statement that Jesus has never been on earth:

For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law. (Hebrews 8:4)

In the original Greek, there is no question that the writer of Hebrews means Jesus was never on earth. Historicists attempt to twist the translation to mean that Jesus is not on earth now, or Jesus is not on earth still, but such translations are not indicated by the text. According to Hebrews, Jesus never existed on earth.