Posted on 05/17/2004 11:54:58 PM PDT by ambrose
May 16, 2004. 08:48 AM
No historical evidence of Jesus
TOM HARPUR
Ever since the publication of The Pagan Christ, literalist clergy and others have been hammering away at the theme of the alleged historicity of the Gospels. Yet, Bible scholars today know that the Gospels never were historical biographies even though they may appear to be such.
Listen to the genius Dr. Albert Schweitzer, in his landmark book The Quest Of The Historical Jesus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give it its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb."
Schweitzer goes on to point out that the historicity issue implodes upon itself once one truly puts the Gospels under a critical lens. To use a different image, it falls apart because of the contradictions and lack of congruent historical detail.
As the eminent Canadian literary critic and expositor of the code of the Bible, Northrop Frye said — in words that should be on the study wall of every priest and minister — "When the Bible is historically accurate, it is only accidentally so; reporting was not of the slightest interest to its writers. They had a story to tell which could only be told by myth and metaphor; what they wrote became a source of vision rather than doctrine."
Those who want to learn more can go to a rich lode of books today by other scholars who have rendered the latest quest for the elusive historical Jesus a futile pursuit. For example, Harold Leidner's The Fabrication Of The Christ Myth (1999) or The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ? (1999), by Earl Doherty, or The Jesus Mysteries: Was The "Original Jesus" A Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (1997). The bibliography at the end of my book gives plenty more.
The would-be historicizers are faced with a major problem. Outside the Gospels themselves — and even here there are serious difficulties — there is no evidence from the first century for any historical Jesus. This is why there was such excitement recently when it was thought that an ossuary bearing an inscription about James "the brother of the Lord" was a genuine archaeological find. Experts in Jerusalem later determined the inscription was fraudulent.
True, the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, (37-100 CE) has a couple of passages in which he seems to cite a historical Jesus but modern scholars and the more perspicacious of the early Fathers are unanimous that these are not authentic but later interpolations. Leidner notes there are 21 people with the name Jesus in the Loeb index to Josephus' two works and none of these is identified with Jesus of Nazareth.
Literalists will cite a brief mention of Christians in letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, a brief reference by Tacitus to Jesus being executed in the reign of Tiberius, and a possible reference to Christ (Chrestus) in Suetonius. But, these few lines are from about 120 CE and thus close to 100 years after the supposed dating of the crucifixion, and not one is free from ambiguity. For a detailed discussion, see Doherty's book or the relevant passages in Alvin Boyd Kuhn's Who Is This King of Glory?
One of the best commentaries on the extraordinary silence of this early period regarding the "historicity" of the Gospels comes from Sir Edward Gibbon, of Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire fame. He wrote:
"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan philosophical world to these evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ and his apostles ... the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and pursuing their ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius the whole Earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny ... Each of these philosophers ... has recorded all the phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, comets, eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But, both have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation...."
The "historical" evidence isn't there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Harpur is a theologian whose focus is on cosmic spirituality . His Web site is: http://www.tomharpur.com
So Jesus was just the greatest hoax ever, per this former priest...
Now I've heard everything.
Well then, that settles it, doesn't it?
Psalms 53:1 [KJV] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
After reading this, I have come to the conclusion that there is no Tom Harpur.
Blind guides.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9801b.htm
The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).
Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: “The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus.
ROMAN SOURCES
There are allusions to Christ in Roman times (see Bettenson, 1961, pp. 3-7).
Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epist. X.96).
Cosmic Spirituality? Wow, instant credibility.
TIME or NEWSWEEK ran a cover story a few years ago, stating that the majority of Bible scholars believe Moses and David to be mythical figures, and that the Hebrews were never captive in Egypt. The History Channel did a docu on the Hebrews a few months ago, in which they pretty much said the same thing.
Schweitzer and Gibbons are over 50 years old; neither had the archeological evidence and scholarship that we have now. Today most of the gospels are confidently dated to 45-90 AD.
There is better evidence for Jesus today than there is for Socrates.
No - he's right. That's why after they killed those 11 friends of his the whole Jesus thing just kinda died out 'cuz everybody knew there never even was a Jesus.
(I always thought that there really WAS a Jesus, but he was just some backwoods carpenter?!)
yup... and all those thousands of followers believed in that non person and were burned to death, beheaded and crucified for several hundred years after his "imaginary life" including the "imaginary apostles" and the several hundred at that phony ascension... I just know that somebody travelled back in time and pulled him up into the heavens with a very strong hidden wire and harness...
Christians died voluntarily by the thousands rather than deny his life death and resurrection... many because they were there in historical proximity. Unlike muslims that volunteer to kill others and commit suicide, just to get a piece of horny eternal virgin when they die...
Surely ONE of the eleven apostles would have REFUSED a martyr's death and come clean on their hoax. Surely if not them, the 120 or so of pentecost fame would have... and perhaps if not them, the five hundred or so that saw the RESURRECTED Jesus caught up into the heavens at once...
Surely several dozen of them would have come clean when their children were being eviscerated in front of their eyes... instead of perpetrating a LIE and DECEPTION of the cruelest order.
A priest you say?
Probably one who is hoping there IS no Christ, because of what he did as a priest, to begin with.
There is better evidence for Jesus today than there is for Socrates.
I doubt this very much. There is absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of Sir Edward Gibbon. He's clearly a solar myth perpetrated by the pagans.
ping
During the Lenten Period, the San Jose Mercury-News in San Jose, California published a letter from Bishop Patrick McGrath of the San Jose Diocese who, in response to arguments made in support of the film "The Passion of The Christ" that it followed the Truth of the Four Books of New Testament. Bishop McGrath declared the New Testament was not a historical record of the life and death of Christ Jesus.
To date the Pope nor his minions have publicly corrected the Bishop, and the good bishop has not recanted his false assertion publicly.
With the newspaper circulated throughout the Bay Area to a population of over ten million people, the ignorant, the New Church Catholics, the 'progressive' Protestants, and non-Christians of all stripes will take as 'gospel' this tainted Shepard's blasphemy as 'truth'. Because of Bishop McGrath's false assertion, the uneducated will nod in the affirmative that there is No historical evidence of Jesus.
Where is the man who would be pope when His Church really needs him???
During the Lenten Period, the San Jose Mercury-News in San Jose, California published a letter from Bishop Patrick McGrath of the San Jose Diocese who, in response responded to arguments made in support of the film "The Passion of The Christ" - that it the film followed the Truth of the Four Books of New Testament. Bishop McGrath declared the New Testament was not a historical record of the life and death of Christ Jesus.
Tom Harpur is a theologian whose focus is on "cosmic spirituality"
Isn't that the worship of moons and planets.
So this guy is a Druid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.