Jesus: The Myth "gospels" of Mark Mathew, Luke, and John

[SmarT]

http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/christianity.htm

Another difficult aspect of early christian history for the Roman historian is the evaluation of persecutions. We know that emperors on occasion instituted policies of suppression and persecution - Nero and Diocletion among the most famous (and the first and last to do so). We also know that the individuals who suffered in these persecutions, such as Perpetua and Agatha, suffered horribly. However, the evidence suggests that the routine policy of the Roman elite and imperial bureacracy was not persecution for the first two centuries of Christianity. In fact, to characterize the Roman response to Christianity far overstates the matter. By and large, members of the Roman elite ignored Christianity. If notice of Christianity was forced upon them, they tolerated it if they could. Because early Christian communities varied so greatly throughout the empire, moreover, it would have been impossible for Rome to craft a uniform policy on Christians. Pliny the Younger's effort to accomodate Christians, was, in fact, far more typical. [Admittedly, his efforts consisted of "change your mind or I'll kill you - but he gave alleged Christians numerous opportunities to change their minds.] Because the Roman state religion lacked an orthodox theology and a cohesive organizational structure, it was the norm for Romans to tolerate an extraordinary range of religious beliefs and practices. From the Roman point of view, the ideal was to find a way to get Christians to be good Romans. It was an impossible goal because part of being a good Roman involved participation in the imperial emperor cult and in the general Roman community of sacrifice to the "pagan" gods.

In fact, there is a considerable body of evidence that suggests that the leadership of the early Christian communities understood martyrdom as a means of rallying the community and gaining popular support outside the community. There is nothing particularly edifyng, however strongly you are committed to a pagan belief system, in watching someone be publicly tortured. Some accounts of Christian persecution and martyrdom suggests that Christians themselves forced the Roman state to take notice of their status as Christians. Because the imperial emperor cult was integral to Romanitas under the principate, it was inherently oppressive to those who identified as Christians. Even where Emperors and governors took a most liberal view on emperor cult, however, (forget the emperor, just join the community in a sacrifice), Christianity and traditional Roman religious beliefs could not be anything but opposed. Thus, from their point of view, the Roman state was always oppressing the Christians. In practice, a Roman governor could be very tolerant and quite lax in scrutinizing attendance at provincial ceremonies in honor of a deified emperor. This laissez-faire policy, however, might be irrelevant to a committed Christian. We have accounts of Christians who virtually assaulted Roman governors with their assertions of Christian identity. Governors, after a certain point ,had to respond to these Christians who were essentially confessing themselves to be traitors (people who would not sacrifice to the emperor). Moreover, Christian identity could become a contested local political issue in a variety of ways. One might, for example, charge that an enemy was a christian, not because he was particuarly concerned with religious matters, but because the charge would serve him politically in an election or lawsuit. The charge itself might ignite a larger local controversy than the originator could have anticipated or controlled.

Reading accounts of the early Christian martyrs, moreover, might lead one to conclude that communities of Christians were in constant conflict with an oppressive Roman regime. In fact, by and large, most christian communities lived at peace with their pagan neighbors for decades on end. There are letters from some early Christians complaining of the very fact and accusing their brethern of "selling out." It was not until the middle of the third century, C.E., that we find an effort from Rome to create a uniform policy on Christians. The Emperor Decius, for example, required all inhabitants of the Empire to offer a sacrifice to the gods (note, not himself) and to declare that they had always sacrificed to the gods. Local magistrates were ordered to give certificates to citizens who performed the sacrifice and passed the test.

The development of a Roman "anti-Christian" policy [and the term "policy" here also overstates the fact - not all emperors between Decius and Diocletian attempted to suppress Christianity] can be attributed to a number of factors. First, it indicates the success Christians had in establishing themselves as a viable community with a distinct social and religious identity, and one with values completely in contradiction with traditional Roman religious thinking. Second, by the third century, C.E., the early Christians had begun to develop very strong internal systems of organization. Major cities had bishops and hierarchies of religious authority. Bishops from cities met in councils to determine heterdox belief and practice and condmened 'heretical' christians more vigorously than Romans condemned Christians in general. Romans percieved the strength of the Christian hierarchy and the rigor of its own internal control as a threat as real as the (far less structured) authority of Bacchic priests two centuries before. The persecutions of later emperors was aimed at the hierarchy of the early Christian church far more than it was at ordinary Christian congregant. In fact, the Emperor Decius was quoted as saying he feared the election of a new bishop of Rome more than he feared a rival claimant to his throne.

* From the pagan point of view, the end began with Constantine. Constantine grew up in the court of Diocletian (the last persecuting emperor) in the eastern part of the Roman empire. His father played a very prominent role in the western part of the empire. Constantine was a candidate to rule over either part of the empire but passed over in the machinations of court politics. He then joined his father, who was living in France. The two led a successful military campaign in Britain in 306 C.E., at the end of which, Constantine's soldiers proclaimed him emperor. For the next six years, both halves of the Roman empire were embroiled in a confusing (there were now two emperors, so twice as many ways to conspire and betray) civil war. In 312, Constantine defeated opposing forces outside the city of Rome at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. According to Eusebius (who knew Constantine), shortly before the battle, the emperor had a dream or vision in which the Christian god showed a cross to him and said "In this sign, conquer!" The previous eastern emperor, Galerius, had officially ended Christian persecutions (now Romans simply asked Christians to pray to their god that the empire would flourish). Upon his victory in the west, Constantine officially embraced a pro-Christian policy. He defeated the eastern emperor in 324 C.E.. and converted to Christianity on his death bed.

* Constantine's Edict of Milan (313 C.E.) announced a policy of toleration and restored property seized from Christians during the persecutions of previous emperors. Constantine himself donated vast sums of money for the building of Christian churches. The Emperor's involvement in the Christian community included more than mere patronage (as significant as his patronage was). First, Constantine played an active role in deciding theological disputes (which now seemed to flourish within the Christian community). These decisions continued what for Romans seemed the natural intermingling of religious and political authority. Second, Constantine issued edicts banning superstitio. These edicts seemed to have been directed mostly against Jews, and not the traditional pagan cults. Constantine, in fact, remained pontifex maximus, continued to consult haruspices and appointed new priests to Roman priesthoods.

* Not all the emperors after Constantine were Christian. One, Julian (361-3), was, in fact, famously pagan and took upon himself the effort to suppress Christianity and restore traditional pagan religion. Subsequent Emperors were Christian, and by Gratian (382 CE), the Emperor (and state fisc) ceased to provide financial support to traditional priesthoods. By 391 CE, the Emperor Theodosius forbade all pagan sacrifice and closed all pagan temples. Involvement in pagan (or traditional) Roman religion became an act of resistance to the Emperor and many from the old Roman senatorial elite embraced paganism precisely in the way Romans had embraced Christianity 300 years before as a way of claiming an identity in opposition to that imposed by the dominant social and political hierarchy. The 'resistance' of the Roman pagans, however, was doomed to failure.

[SmarT]

Nearly all the peoples around the Mediterranean had at some point adopted the Pagan mysteries and adapted them to their own national taste. At some point in the first few centuries BCE a group of Jews had done likewise and produced a Jewish version of the Mysteries. Jewish initiates adapted the myths of Osiris-Dionysus to produce the story of a Jewish dying and resurrecting godman, Jesus the Messiah. In time this myth came to be interpreted as historical fact and Literalist Christianity was the product. -- Jesus and the Lost Goddess, p. 123

The striking parallels with Pagan myth have long been apparent to scholars, though Jesus as a mythic figure is currently out of academic favor. These parallels were obvious in classical times as well. Dogmatic Christians -- termed Literalists in these books because they interpreted the Christian stories literally as historical fact -- explained similarities with older Pagan myths and figures either as plagiarisms by the Devil "before the fact" or as the historical fulfillment of events present in other cultures only as myths -- rationales which have been advanced under one or another form down the centuries.

To support its thesis, The Jesus Mysteries details how little evidence there is for the historical existence of Jesus or the biblical Apostles to be found in non-Christian sources: Pagan and Jewish historians of the time, and Jewish scriptures. As archeologist John Romer remarks in Testament, our knowledge of earliest Christianity

is founded solely upon the Book of Acts and later church tradition. There is no mention at all of this period of Christian history in any other literature. We know only what later churches wanted to tell us. And this is also true of the beginnings of the Gospels. We are left with the evidence that can be gleaned from the Four Gospels themselves and a large number of conflicting statements made in the writings of the early church fathers. -- p. 188

Freke and Gandy make clear that the New Testament Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are not reliable historical reports, let alone independent eye-witness accounts. Though the relationship in time and of dependence among early Christian writings, canonical and non-canonical, is still very much debated, many biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written as a theological document later than the other canonical gospels, and that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, the last usually dated around 70 AD, though Freke and Gandy feel it is probably later. Nor is Mark, the first biographical treatment of Christian material, an actual chronicle: careful analysis has shown that it represents a joining together of many preexisting vignettes and wisdom sayings, organized to correspond to various Old Testament texts and episodes such as the Exodus. It does not include the birth or genealogy of Jesus and originally did not continue past the women finding the empty tomb and an implied resurrection. In the early version no resurrected Christ appears to the Apostles or anyone else.

The existence, then, of a historical teacher remains moot. Even Paul, at 50 AD the earliest contributor to the New Testament, does not mention a historical Jesus or quote any of his sayings or teachings found in the Gospels. His emphasis is on the dying and resurrecting godman Christ, and its birth in each individual. The "good news" he has for his followers is not that Jesus walked the earth and died for them, but that "Christ is in you." Noteworthy are the translations/interpretations of his words used by Freke and Gandy, which reveal unexpected layers of inner meaning. In the early centuries AD groups all over Asia and the Mediterranean considered Paul the preeminent Gnostic teacher (his anti-Gnostic pastoral letters are widely believed to be later forgeries, as are the canonical letters of the other apostles). The authors do not class Paul as a Gnostic, however, since they feel that at the time he lived there was as yet no distinction between Gnostic and Literalist; the Inner and Outer Christian Mysteries were still coexisting peacefully. The struggle in Paul's time was between those who wished to keep Christianity an exclusively Jewish sect and those who wished it to be a cosmopolitan movement including gentiles.

http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Chrihistsbd.htm

[-Z-]

cohesive organizational structure


what a perfect way to describe chrisianity.

Thanks Smart.

interesting read.


Z

[jasonlfunk]

Smart, have read either of the books mentioned? If so- could you provide some examples of the actual evidence presented in the book.

It was a nice book review, and as a review it was a very board overview - lots of conculsions with little substance (not that it is bad - that is what is what a book review is supposed to be.)

I think the most telling parts and the parts that make me most skeptical of the validity of their claims are these:

• "The striking parallels with Pagan myth have long been apparent to scholars, though Jesus as a mythic figure is currently out of academic favor."
  
  The authors think that Jesus was completely made up - that he never existed at all. As the paper mentions - this view is very rare in contemporary scholarship. It's much more popular to keep the core Jesus and remove all the fluff (those besides naturalist presuppositions - there is very little reason to do so.)
  
  As a different review that I found said - the authors dismiss Jesus as historical yet retain Paul as historical when there seems to be more evidence that Jesus lived than Paul.
• Their contention that the authors of the gospels/acts were writing Myth. As I said in the other thread - it is very clear that the authors had no indication of writing myth. They were either writing lies in order to deceive people, or history as they believed it to have happened. You cannot read the bible and come away with the idea that the authors expected their readers to know the events didn't happen.

I don't know for sure what the point was supposed to be for the first post. I have no problem agreeing with nearly all of it. I assume since this piece was bolded: "Bishops from cities met in councils to determine heterdox belief and practice and condmened 'heretical' christians more vigorously than Romans condemned Christians in general." You had thought it was particularly interesting. I don't have a problem with this either - in fact I admit it was happened. But what do you expect? People disagreed on what was true - so the church fathers (the majority) got together to discuss what was the official stance on the issue of the church. What they thought was true? And they determined that the minority who were rising up and saying things were wrong. I am far more willing to accept the beliefs of the majority of Christians 1700 years ago (just a few generations from the apostles) than the beliefs for a few people who claimed to be "enlightened".

There was a reason that Gnosticism was labeled as heresy back then - and there is a lot of doubt in my mind that a few guys 2000 years later would be able to find evidence that the church fathers did not know when it was happening.

[SmarT]

i havnt actually read them books themselves, i have read others like them though. especially on pagan myths and such since i am pagan. the virgin birth has been around since before christ, death and resurrection has been around before christ, savior gods have been around before christ, a 3 fold god has been around before christ, (father, son, and holy spirit)

In an Egyptian temple, one dedicated to Hathor, at Denderah, one of the chambers was called "The Hall of the Child in his Cradle"; and in a painting which was once on the walls of that temple, and is now in Paris, we can see represented the Holy Virgin Mother with her Divine Child in her arms. The temple and the painting are undoubtedly pre-Christian.

Horus was said to be the parthenogenetic child of the Virgin Mother, Isis. In the catacombs of Rome black statues of this Egyptian divine Mother and Infant still survive from the early Christian worship of the Virgin and Child to which they were converted. In these the Virgin Mary is represented as a black regress, and often with the face veiled in the true Isis fashion. When Christianity absorbed the pagan myths and rites it adopted also the pagan statues, and renamed them as saints, or even as apostles.

And these were not the only pre-Christian statuettes and engravings of divine mothers and children. On very ancient Athenian coins such figures were stamped. Among the oldest relics of Carthage, of Cyprus, and of Assyria figures of a divine mother and her babe-god are found. Such figures were known under a great variety of names to the followers of various sects; the mothers as Venus, Juno, Mother-Earth, Fortune, etc., and the children as Hercules, Dionysos, Jove, Wealth, etc. In India similar figures are not uncommon, many of them representing Devaki with the babe Krishna at her breast, others representing various less well-known Indian divinities

Another Egyptian god, Ra (the Sun), was said to have been born of a virgin mother, Net (or Neith), and to have had no father.

Attis, the Phrygian god, was said to be the son of the virgin Nana, who conceived him by putting in her bosom a ripe almond or pomegranate.

hmm this sounds familiar


Dionysos, the Grecian God, was said in one version of the myth concerning him to be the son of Zeus out of the virgin goddess Persephone, and in another version to be the miraculously begotten son of Zeus out of the mortal woman Semele. He, according to this story, was taken from his mother's womb before the full period of gestation had expired, and completed his embryonic life in Zeus's thigh. Dionysos was thus half human and half divine, born of a woman and also of a god.

His myth, which was current long before the Christian era, is a remarkable example of the kind of story which could be, and was, invented about a man-god. He was said to have been persecuted by Pentheus, :King of Thebes, the home of his mother; to have been rejected in his own country; and, when bound, to have asserted that his father, God, would set him free whenever he chose to appeal to him. He disappears from earth, but re-appears as a light shining more brightly than the sun, and speaks to his trembling disciples; and he subsequently visits Hades. The story of his birth is alluded to, and the story of his persecution related, in "The Bacchae," which Euripides wrote about 410 B.C., when the myth was already very old and very well known.

death and resurrection

The sun god died and lived again, on an annual basis. The sun god also died every evening and arose again every morning, according to the perceptions of ancient peoples. The demise of the solar disk and its reappearance each day must have had a tremendous impact in the unconscious realms of the human psyche. This daily reminder of the death and resurrection of the powerful sun etched the resurrection archetype in the collective unconscious of the human race.

Many rituals and beliefs of Mithraism seemed so closely related to the Christian one that it becomes impossible to deny its influence on nascent Christianity. The Mithraists had a special day dedicated to their god. It was the first day of the week, which they appropriately called Sun-day, the "day of our Lord". [4] Mithra was the God of the upper and nether world and it is he who will judge men's deeds. [5] The Jewish thinker, Philo had already identified the Logos with the Sun, it was therefore natural and inevitable that the early Christians should identify Jesus with such a symbol. Sunday became established as the Lord's Day for the Christians as well. [6] From this observance of Sunday, the myth eventually evolved to connect the rising of Jesus with that day. It is worth noting that the Mithraist ritual involve the liturgical representation of the death, burial (also in a rock tomb!) and resurrection of the god Mithra. [7]

Other contemporary mystery religions no doubt contributed to the evolution of Christian mythology. The Syrian cult of Adonis also had a large following during the time of early Christianity. Adonis, which means The Lord (Hebrew: Adonai), was represented in the liturgy as dying and then rising again on the third day. And in this liturgy it was the women who mourned his death and who found him risen on the third day. [8]

The Egyptian cult of Osiris had a similar belief; for it was Osiris who was dead and rose again on the third day. [9]

4. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p411
Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p42
5. Ibid: p42
6. Guignebert, Jesus: p532
7. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p42
8. Ibid: p39


the basic pre-christian 3 fold divinity, was Father, Son, and Sage and Maiden, Mother and Crone.

[SmarT]

and if u read reviews on books by people that are opposed to what the author says.. of course there not going to be good. Like when people talk bad about Joseph Cambell, (maybe have spelled his last name wrong) i think its funny, especially when they haven't read any of his work

[jasonlfunk]

and if u read reviews on books by people that are opposed to what the author says.. of course there not going to be good. Like when people talk bad about Joseph Cambell, (maybe have spelled his last name wrong) i think its funny, especially when they haven't read any of his work

Except most of the negative reviews I read said something like "I liked their other books but this one sucked." That sort of idea.

Where did your previous post - the one on pagan myths - come from?

Here is what C.S. Lewis says about that idea:
"God sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. He also selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was — that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.

Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips. "

Mere Christianity - CS Lewis

[SmarT]

who is christian himself and looks down on paganism. idk rem the sites, i only looked it up online cuz i am to lazy to research it in my own books that basically say the same ****. go to any library and get a book on, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Aztec, any of the ancient cultures and you will find myths just like Christ's.

[jasonlfunk]

who is christian himself and looks down on paganism.

Who was this in reference to?

idk rem the sites, i only looked it up online cuz i am to lazy to research it in my own books that basically say the same ****. go to any library and get a book on, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Aztec, any of the ancient cultures and you will find myths just like Christ's.

I am not dismissing your information - I was just curious on the source.

Even if all of these myths do exist and predate Christ- it does not mean that this one is myth too. Lewis' explanation completely explains the facts too. Whether Jesus actually lived,died, and rose again has to be determined by history- not a mythological cultural survey.