Reflections on the Historical Jesus — Continuation
This is the latest instalment in a discussion between Medium writer Matthew and myself on the historical Jesus. Previous instalments can be found here (me), here (Matthew), and here (me). Following my last contribution Matthew has responded, saying that he is not sure how to proceed with the debate. This is his full text:
“Graham I have to say I don’t really know where to go from here. You even say here even you don’t accept those left field theories you proposed, so I don’t see why you want me to refute them given that they are not remotely serious. You seem to want me to pick and refute specific points you’ve scattered like Easter eggs instead of the overall theories or the works cited, I really have no idea what you’re looking for by way of response. I repeat: ideas that the Romans invented Jesus are taken seriously by no one, and refuting such ideas at length is not worth doing, especially since even you don’t seem to believe it? It seems an exercise in absurdity”.
I replied that I would post a further article in an attempt to clarify my position, in the hope therefore that something meaningful might follow. So here we go.
Firstly, if the path I have chosen to go down following his invitation wasn’t what he was expecting, perhaps Matthew would like to say what he was expecting. Then I can decide whether that’s something I think is worth pursuing.
Secondly, I’ll briefly clarify the main point from Matthew’s response. He says that I don’t accept the theories that I ‘proposed’. I didn’t actually propose them; they were conclusions that various researchers have come to and, as Matthew says, that I don’t necessarily accept. They remain, however, to varying degrees important arguments that Christians should listen to, and be able to offer meaningful responses, something Matthew hasn’t yet done. I expected better of him than to claim that they are not worth refuting because they are “not remotely serious”. This is exactly what other Christians, scholars or otherwise, do when they don’t want to have their beliefs challenged. The term ‘building a brick wall’ comes to mind. (Matthew mentioned N. T. Wright in his last contribution, who in my view was using that tactic.)
So let me try to be precise. The first conclusion was that no historical Jesus existed. I don’t agree with this — I currently believe that there was a historical figure — but I can easily understand why these researchers think that; they provide impressive arguments and research material, even if they are ultimately inconclusive. This suggestion cannot be so readily dismissed.
The second conclusion was that the figure we know as Jesus was not actually crucified. This obviously can’t be proved one way or the other in modern times. However, it does seem to be the obvious solution to the fourth problem, that Jesus was more militant than he appears in the gospels, that he was part of some kind of zealot movement. The gospels would therefore be conflating the two figures.
The third conclusion was that if Jesus was crucified he did not die, and was possibly resuscitated. I have no firm belief about this, but the argument is based on the text of the New Testament itself (see below); it is not some wacky conspiracy theory, as Matthew might put it. Christians at least have to offer some thoughts on the issue.
I also have no firm opinion on the fifth issue, whether the New Testament was written by the Romans. As I said originally, the text as a whole seems too complex to have been a cunning fiction. I am not, however, willing to dismiss it as not worthy of consideration.
So, since I’m willing to put to one side issues 1 and 5, I invite Matthew to offer his thoughts on 3 and 4. These are not “Easter eggs” that I have “scattered”; some explanation has to be offered. I also reject Matthew’s assertion that “they are not remotely serious”. As I said above, that would seem to be merely an attempt to avoid having to discuss them.
Regarding question 3, I’ll repeat the material from earlier. In John’s gospel, “a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about an hundred pounds” was brought to the burial of Jesus by the Pharisee Nicodemus. As I said, myrrh is claimed to be a form of sedative, and is also used for its restorative properties and as an analgesic. Aloes is a strong and fast-acting purgative, which would therefore have been useful to help expel the poison from Jesus’s body. One wonders therefore why on earth this was being brought to the burial of a person believed to be dead, and in such vast quantities! (It’s also interesting that the author insists that it was brought by Nicodemus, the same Pharisee with whom Jesus was having a discussion earlier about spiritual rebirth, something he was completely clueless about: “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?” The text is spelling it out that Jesus is a teacher who understands the process of spiritual rebirth, as practised in the Mystery traditions, whereas the Pharisee from the Judaic tradition is completely ignorant about it. What are we to make of all that?)
The problem here is that, from a Christian perspective, there is no possible solution, unless myrrh and aloes do not possess those properties ascribed to them, and that they were therefore brought for some other reason. If that’s the case, then let’s hear the evidence. At best one could say that Nicodemus was clutching at straws, and brought them in the vain hope that Jesus might still be alive. That seems less likely; he presumably believed that Jesus was still alive.
There is also the fourth question from my original article: was Jesus more militant than he appears in the gospels, therefore some form of zealot? As I said there: “The most relevant point is that crucifixion was a Roman punishment for insurrection, whereas the punishment for blasphemy, what Jesus was actually accused of, was stoning, which could be authorised by the Jews, without reference to the Romans. The gospels agree that Jesus was the victim of a Roman administration, a Roman court, a Roman sentence, Roman soldiery and a Roman execution. An inscription “King of the Jews” is affixed to the cross, a detail which appears in all four gospels”. It is therefore a very reasonable assumption that, according to the New Testament story, Jesus was executed for being a political threat to the Romans, which is not the case if he were ‘merely’ a spiritual teacher preaching love, peace and forgiveness. So where is the history in all that?
This is not an issue that can simply be brushed under the carpet, as Matthew does by claiming that it is “not remotely serious”. Some explanation has to be offered.
These are the type of questions that I want Matthew to address, rather than hurl irrelevant abuse at the authors of the books I referenced. I invite him to do so now. In respect of the militancy problem, as explained above, I did offer a possible solution, namely that the figure we know as Jesus was not crucified, but that another political figure was crucified at about the same time, therefore that the gospels conflate the two figures. As a Christian, Matthew is obviously not going to accept that. So what is his explanation?
===========================================================
Moving on now to a new question, we are engaged in a search for the historical Jesus, which assumes that layers of fiction/myth either have or may have been added to the story. If the story as we have it were completely true, then there would be nothing to search for. I assume that Matthew agrees with this proposition, so I therefore invite him to offer his own thoughts on the issue. These could either be his own opinions, or what he has deduced from studying various scholars.
Some of the, I would say, obvious mythological additions are the virgin birth narratives in Matthew and Luke (Mark, John and Paul knowing nothing about it, the latter saying that Jesus was descended from King David “according to the flesh”).
Matthew is often called the most Jewish of the four gospels, but at the same time is also the most mythological. For example compare Mark’s account of the empty tomb, where “a young man dressed in a white robe” addresses the women, with Matthew’s where “suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow”. Which of these two accounts does Medium Matthew think is the true historical one? I know which one I find more credible. (Luke has merely “two men in dazzling clothes”, and John “two angels in white” without any of Matthew’s supernatural additions.)
Some of the other apparently mythological (fictional) episodes added by Matthew, not found in the other gospels are: the star in the East and the three wise men, the massacre of the infants (for which there is no historical evidence as far as I know), and the flight into Egypt. Does Medium Matthew believe that these events actually happened?
Also interesting is the Sermon on the Mount, reckoned to be the core of Jesus’s teachings. (Harpur says that this material also can be found in the earlier Egyptian tradition.) Matthew makes a big deal of this. Various scholars have concluded that he set it on a mountain because he wanted to make a parallel with the Ten Commandments being handed down on Mount Sinai, in effect that Jesus was the new Moses. However, Mark (whom the early Church claimed was Peter’s secretary), knows nothing about this sermon. How can that be? Where was Peter? Luke, very strangely, not only makes much less fuss about the sermon, but notes in passing that it was given “on a level place”. What is that supposed to mean? Why bother mention that at all? Is he deliberately contradicting Matthew, trying to tone him down or make fun of him?
We’re getting into dangerous territory here, but could the resurrection itself be one of the added mythological elements? That’s what Harpur following Massey claims. It also existed in Egyptian mystery rites. And what about the claim that Jesus was the Word (or God) made flesh? Once we acknowledge that there are some mythological additions, it’s hard to know where to stop.
Other candidates for mythological consideration are: the Annunciation, and angels appearing to the shepherds (as in Luke). If we assume that everything listed above are mythological additions, let’s for the sake of argument say with the exception of the resurrection, then what we are left with is the historical figure we are searching for.
These are the sort of questions I assumed we were going to be discussing when I accepted Matthew’s invitation. Exactly what does he believe about all these points, and how does he defend his position, whatever that might be? As I said at the beginning, if I’ve misunderstood his invitation, perhaps he would explain what he actually was expecting. In any case I invite him to continue since the issue is so important, but please let’s stick with the gospels and the sort of questions I’m asking here.
From my perspective, the perhaps even more interesting questions are:
- Why did the authors add these mythological elements?
- What are we supposed to understand by them? What might be their allegorical or esoteric meaning?
- What does it mean that all the elements of the story of Jesus can be found in ancient Egyptian mystery rites? What difference, if any, does that make to Christianity?
Anyone who has been following this discussion from the outset will hopefully think that I’ve been bringing up important questions, although that is obviously not Matthew’s opinion. He thinks that I’m wasting his time with an “exercise in absurdity”. From my perspective, however, we have only just scratched the surface, for we are yet to address the question of the role of Paul in all this.
Let’s see where Matthew takes this next.
==========================================================
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, psychology, science, Christianity, and politics. All of those articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here). My most recent articles, however, are only on Medium; for those please check out my lists.
