Archaeologist: "Jesus" predated Jesus

[Adrian II]

The Frankfurter Rundschau carries an interesting interview with an American archaeologist working in Denmark, Thomas Lawrence Thompson, in which he states that "the Gospels are not in the least interested in a historic Jesus. All we know about Jesus comes from allegories and fictional stories that are firmly rooted in the ancient literary traditions of Asia Minor. We haven't the first idea who Jesus was, if he did in fact live in the first century AD outside of stories that were told about him, that is. All we have are these stories, and all of them are considerably older than the first century."

He compares the literary construction of the Gospels to James Joyce's Ulysses in that they recapitulate or present variations on older biblical and non-biblical themes belonging to the very rich common heritage of the Near East.

Last year Thompson published a book on the topic last year: The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, London, Jonathan Cape (2006).

I think it's fascinating that the demystification of both Christ and Mohammed has been gathering pace over the last ten years. A Dutch Arabist by the name of Hans Jansen has just finished a book in two parts about the life and times of Mohammed, based on the available historical evidence from recent excavations, textual reconstruction and criticism. I hope it will be translated into English and other languages soon. I have always been of the opinion that the history of religion is too important to be left to the believers, and that non-believers would be more interested in the topic once it was demystified and taken for what it is, a literary tradition like there has been no other in the history of mankind.

Seasonal greetings to believers and non-believers, all.

[Stig]

Interesting interview thanks m8.
I think I have to agree with him, afterall the Bible is fictional and non-realistic anyway imo (walking on water, turning water into wine), tho if people want to believe in that it's their decision, no objections to that.
Haven't really read any of the books. Not Ulysses, nor the Bible (tho when having gone to Catholic schools for 14 years you pick things up). But the arguments in the interview are somehow strong, plus that you can never really prove the existence of any Jesus, unless you'll find his grave.

[Adrian II]

The interesting aspect is that the Bible appears to be firmly rooted in the Near Eastern oral and literary tradition, and that cross-referencing may bring us closer to the original meaning and/or societal function of the texts, regardless of what later generations of believers or militant atheists made of them.

The Near East was the crossroads of a world in great ferment, due to the benefits of the Iron Age: increased interregional trade, the start of the 'democratization' of military power, the invention of script, calculus and administrative institutions that enabled the foundation of large transcultural empires, and finally the emergenc of a wide scala of new world views. This was the era of man's coming of age. It has been called the 'Axial period' by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers because between 800 and 200 b.C. most of the 'axes' of modern religion and thought were laid by individual thinkers: Jewish and Zoroastrian Prophets, the Indian writers of the Upanishads, Guatama Buddha, Confucius and Greek philosophers.

Come to think of it, there is not a lot of human wisdom and thought that hasn't originated in that era, and we have not essentially improved on our forerunners. Sure, they built bridges across the Bosporus whereas we build rocket-propelled bridges into space. But those forerunners established something much more important. They took stock of the main premises of the human condition: the struggle between good and evil (Zoroaster), the struggle between brothers (Cain and Abel), the futility of possessions, lust and even life itself (Buddha), etcetera.

It would be a huge misunderstanding to think that those religious texts (such as the Bible) are 'just' fairytales devised to explain things that we have long learned to analyse and understand. On the contrary, they deal with issues and phenomena that we have never really understood, and we ignore or belittle their lessons only at our peril, from the story of brotherly rivalry between Cain and Abel right down to Gautama's rejection of the caste system.

Anyway, I firmly believe that if one has any historical interest at all, this is teh era to study.

[Pindar]

I didn't do very well with the interview. Is he arguing that the Gospels were never intended as literal in any sense? If so, how would he explain the literal interpretative tradition that goes back to even Primitive Christianity?

[Watchman]

The fundamental willingness of human beings to interpret virtually anything literally and go tell others that's the way - and the only Good and Proper Way too, mind you - they should do things, too ?

Why, yes, I am somewhat cynical about these matters.

[Adrian II]

I didn't do very well with the interview. Is he arguing that the Gospels were never intended as literal in any sense? If so, how would he explain the literal interpretative tradition that goes back to even Primitive Christianity?

In the final part of the interview he states that John's Gospel and Paul's written speeches are turning-points in the interpretation of the Christ-stories, i.e. they mark the transition to litteralism which you indicate. That is the 'radikale Verschiebung, was den Umgang mit den alten Texten angeht' : a 'radical shift, as far as the treatment of the old texts is concerned'.

As for your first question, I found a few quotes from an earlier book of his, The Bible in History (1999):

"Traditions such as the Bible's, which provided ancient society with a common past, are very different from the critical histories that play a central role in contemporary intellectual life."

and

"The Bible's language is not an historical language. It is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction."

[derfinsterling]

Francesco Carotta thinks that Jesus was totally fictional, being based on none other than Julius Caeasar.
This link:
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html
Gives a summary of his thesis.

[Pindar]

In the final part of the interview he states that John's Gospel and Paul's written speeches are turning-points in the interpretation of the Christ-stories, i.e. they mark the transition to litteralism which you indicate. That is the 'radikale Verschiebung, was den Umgang mit den alten Texten angeht' : a 'radical shift, as far as the treatment of the old texts is concerned'.

I see. I couldn't understand how he could argue my first impression given a literalist understanding seems the norm up until at least St. Ambrose (5th Century).

I looke up the 'Messiah Myth' on Amazon. Below is the full review of the longest and most favorable of the bunch. It appears an informed review.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"The Historical Jesus Quest is really composed of two quests. One involves sifting through the texts and developing methodologies for dealing with the data. The other involves situating the figure of Jesus in the proper historical context.

The battle over the proper context for Jesus has been one of least-recognized but most profound of the various struggles among New Testament exegetes. After WWII exegetes began to strongly emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus. Laudably, this was partly in response to the "Aryan Jesus" of 19th century scholarship, that eventually found its apotheosis in Nazi doctrines. However, it was also in response to the arguments of scholars from the schools of myth and comparative religions, who had argued in the period prior to the Second World War that Jesus resembled similar figures of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. By reinforcing the Jewishness of Jesus and delinking him from the surrounding cultures, New Testament scholars sought to protect him from the assaults of the comparative religions school.

At first glance it is easy to mistake Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth for a revival of this school. Don't. The Messiah Myth does not attempt, as the comparative religions school did, to seek out parallels to Jesus and then link Jesus to them. Rather, Thompson attempts to recover the Greater Context: an enormous toolkit of ideas, themes, and observations that dominate the literature of the Near East, and find expression in all of its major texts, including the Bible, and in all of its major heroes, including Jesus and David.

Despite the subtitle The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson's book does not focus strongly on Jesus. The vast majority of the work consists of exploring the Old Testament and other Near Eastern texts to show that they all make use of the same complex of tropes in composing their various stories. This complex of tropes includes reversals (of rich and poor, the powerful and the peasantry, the weak and the strong), descent-ascent motifs, messiah as priest, king, and warrior motifs, and similar structures and idea familiar to readers of the Tanakh and the Christian writings. Thompson thus does not seek to show that Jesus is a myth by close analysis of the stories about him, like G.A Wells and other mythicists have done. Instead, he offers a rich new context against which the figure of Jesus can be evaluated.

Thompson opens the book with a chapter entitled "Historicizing the figure of Jesus" that is apparently intended as a critique of the various Historical Jesus figures that New Testament scholarship has produced. He observes:

* "A wary reader does well to recognize the wish fulfillment of Schweitzer's figure of Jesus. His mistaken prophet is historical primarily because he does not mirror the Christianity of Schweitzer's time. But the assumption that this mistaken prophet of the apocalypse is a figure appropriate to first century Judaism is itself without evidence. The prophetic figure Mark presented, and the assumed expectations associated with his coming, belong to the surface of Mark's text. Schweitzer did not consider why Mark presented such a figure or such expectations. Nor did he consider whether the life of such a person and the expectations of his coming in fact belonged to the historical reality of first century Jews in Palestine, or whether both expectations and figure were literary tropes. Then the figure of the messiah might express Judaism's highest values within Mark's story does not imply that either the figure or expectations about him were to be found in early first-century historical Palestine."(p6-7)

The opening chapter serves notice: the historical Jesus is an assumption, rather than a discovery, of scholarship. "Dating sayings common to Q and Thomas as an "earliest level" of sayings and suggesting a time between 30 and 60 CE for their origin is a conclusion drawn from the assumption that there was an oral tradition derived from a historical Jesus' teaching."(p11) From whence, then, stems this figure

* "As we will see in the following chapters, the most central sayings in the gospels were spoken by many figures of ancient literature. That they are "sayings of Jesus" is to be credited to the author who put them in his mouth. Many sayings the [Jesus] seminar identifies as "certainly authentic" are well-known and can be dated centuries earlier than the New Testament. The very project of the Jesus Seminar is anchored in wishful thinking. Evidence for the prehistory of these sayings is so abundant and well attested that we can trace a continuous literary tradition over millennia."(p11)

Having sounded the eschatological alarm, Thompson slowly bids the Gospels goodbye, and enters the world of the Old Testament. In the second chapter, "The Figure of the Prophet", there is much back-and-forth between the Gospel stories and the Old Testament, but by the time we get to chapter four, "The Song for a Poor Man", the Gospels have been left behind, and we plunge into a world of international texts from antiquity, each full of themes the echo, extend, comment on, and interact with, the recurring tropes that make up the Tanakh.

Thompson builds his reading of the texts by searching out themes common throughout the Near East, collecting texts from many places. Writing on the Good King, he says:

* "Some of our stories serve as memorials to the king, while others are dedications of a cult place. Thirteen of the twenty-one inscriptions are presented in autobiographical form, where the king plays the role of author as well as subject. Eight present the story of the king in the third person. The Idrimi stele (no. 13), which is engraved on a statue of the king, presents its first-person form by locating the closing lines in a cartoon balloon coming out of the king's mouth. In spite of the autobiographical form, some of these inscriptions are likely posthumous."(p157)

The themes he builds function as tropes, recurring themes that appear in texts all over the Near East.

For example, in the Near East there is a common trope: a "utopian, comprehensive, and transcendent" peace that is the goal of every king's rule. Thompson identifies this peace in many different texts (including in an appendix), including tales about Idrimi, Nabonidus, and Esarhaddon, as well as David.

At his best when building his collection of tropes, The Messiah Myth falters whenever it comes near the Gospels, giving the impression that Thompson is wielding a hammer in whose presence everything attempts to turn into nails. After establishing the existence of a trope referring to the children and the kingdom, Thompson then turns to the Gospel versions:

* "Of the six occurrences of the trope Crossan calls "kingdom and children" sayings, four are classified as independent and two dependent. Only the authority of scholarly tradition of the primacy of Mark supports the judgment that the very close variations of the saying "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:14) and "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of God" (Lk 18:16) are dependent on the similar saying in Mark: "Let the little children come to me; do not prevent them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Mk 10:14). This saying, nearly identical in all three gospels, clearly offers a common trope, but the primacy of Mark's version, including the phrase "kingdom of God" he shares with Luke, does not stand on its own merits. The assumption that Mark is the source for the versions of Matthew and Luke is unprovable. Similarly, that the saying in Mark is the most likely original can be shown to be without merit."(p76)

While it is quite true that any sayings tradition is ultimately an assumption of scholars, that is not the case with the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, where scholars possess all three of the relevant texts. Thompson either does not understand, or does not care to understand, the complexities of the Synoptic problem and the way that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most scholars that the first gospel written was Mark. Right or wrong, the priority of Mark is a conclusion, not an assumption.

This dismissal of modern scholarly understandings means that The Messiah Myth interacts largely with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, when the most historically important Gospel is that of Mark. Thompson apparently regards these writings as largely independent, and locates their similarities in the use of common tropes rather than literary dependence. This position is indefensible, and does nothing for the book's credibility.

Nevertheless, for those of us interested in the New Testament and in the Bible in general, there are innumerable insights and understandings. Thompson writes with an assurance and erudition that commands our attention, and manages to suppress any pesky doubts that might arise when we observe his cavalier attitude toward New Testament scholarship. Using the insights he develops from the tropes he collects, Thompson is often able to correct scholarly misapprehensions:

* "Like the 'kingdom of God,' the metaphor of my father's kingdom is not apocalyptic in the sense that it implies expectations of the end of the world as Schweitzer thought. It is rather a utopian and idealistic metaphor for a world of justice. In ancient Near Eastern and biblical literature, it is related to the figure of the savior-king who, by reestablishing divine rule, returns creation to the original order."(p198)

Because Thompson functions at the level of tropes, larger themes that govern the structure of texts, there is actually little here that is useful against the figure of Jesus as a historical figure. Despite his complaints about New Testament scholarship Thompson himself provides no answers to the questions he raises. Showing that tropes are part and parcel of ancient texts simply undermines Thompson's own implicit argument against a historical Jesus, for many of the texts that Thompson uses to support his case are either about, or from, historical figures. Hence it is easy to argue that the Gospel writers simply cast their historical figure in the standard Near Eastern format, and dismiss Thompson with a wave of the broader theme. Mythicism will never advance until it begins to churn out detailed, verse-by-verse readings of the relevant texts that show precisely how they are built out of literary convention, pre-existent sayings, Old Testament passages, themes, and concepts, and literary tropes and broader mythic themes. For that purpose Thompson will provide useful insight, but no decisive view.

Despite the title, those who come to this book seeking arguments against Jesus historicism will be disappointed. But readers who pick this volume in search of new understandings of old texts will not leave the table hungry. There Thompson pours out a cornucopia which this reviewer's New Testament-oriented interests cannot hope to adequately capture. I highly recommend The Messiah Myth to anyone with a general interest in ancient Near Eastern mythology and story, including the Bible texts. For them, The Messiah Myth will be bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and a ferryboat to the boatless."

In reading the review I found this interesting:

"While it is quite true that any sayings tradition is ultimately an assumption of scholars, that is not the case with the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, where scholars possess all three of the relevant texts. Thompson either does not understand, or does not care to understand, the complexities of the Synoptic problem and the way that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most scholars that the first gospel written was Mark. Right or wrong, the priority of Mark is a conclusion, not an assumption.

This dismissal of modern scholarly understandings means that The Messiah Myth interacts largely with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, when the most historically important Gospel is that of Mark. Thompson apparently regards these writings as largely independent, and locates their similarities in the use of common tropes rather than literary dependence. This position is indefensible, and does nothing for the book's credibility."

If this is correct then Thompson seems to have left his thesis up to some pretty intense criticism.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But the arguments in the interview are somehow strong, plus that you can never really prove the existence of any Jesus, unless you'll find his grave.

Even the people named Jesus in Mexico?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the record, I'm a semi-practicing Catholic.

[Adrian II]

I think a Mark/Q sourcing is the standard view. I wasn't referring to or considering sectarian positions.

The word 'sectarian' would seem out of place in a scientific discussion. I am not aware of surveys among leading scholars on this question. Are you? To be fair, although there is no consensus it seems that the majority view is certainly on the mark (pun intended). One interesting development is that some prominent Catholic scholars seem to have come round to a Markan primacy view, even though Roman Catholic doctrine firmly sticks to Matthean primacy.

Let me know if there is a particular point you want me to address.

It would be in the spirit of this thread if, out of its fullness, you pick a theme that is relevant to your life, beliefs or outlook. I have started by doing so, stating my belief in the Bible as a source of secular wisdom which we ignore at our peril, and which should be protected from both Christian and atheist literalists. Suraknar has elaborated on his own view that the intellectual and spiritual ferment of the Biblical era culminated in an essential truth which he cherishes, even though he thinks that many thoughts and sources of the period need to be further explored.

Well, chances are that this text was originally written in greek as well as Arab.

Sure, there are good grounds to suppose there was an original Greek book, but unless I have sinned by omission the Arabic text is the earliest extant (translated) copy we have.

To me this was but stating a Historical fact expressed from the religious point of view. In that he knew that following the advent of Christianity all these works were locked inside Monasteries and Church Libraries only available to the clergy and away from the public eye for centuries (Dark Ages), and that the Church found a way to use them to its own purpose.

Well, if you think that Christianity was so to speak the lawful heir of all these traditions - feel free to say so. Islam could stake a similar claim on the basis that Mohammed was the last in a line of Prophets who all preached on behalf of one and the same God, albeit incompletely. Its scholars certainly preserved and studied certain Ancient texts that were lost or destroyed in the Christian world.

For the record, I'm a semi-practicing Catholic.

Thank you for sharing that with us.

[Suraknar]

I have started by doing so, stating my belief in the Bible as a source of secular wisdom which we ignore at our peril, and which should be protected from both Christian and atheist literalists.

Yes very true indeed.

Suraknar has elaborated on his own view that the intellectual and spiritual ferment of the Biblical era culminated in an essential truth which he cherishes, even though he thinks that many thoughts and sources of the period need to be further explored.

Could not have said it better my friend :)

Well, if you think that Christianity was so to speak the lawful heir of all these traditions - feel free to say so. Islam could stake a similar claim on the basis that Mohammed was the last in a line of Prophets who all preached on behalf of one and the same God, albeit incompletely. Its scholars certainly preserved and studied certain Ancient texts that were lost or destroyed in the Christian world.Thank you for sharing that with us.

Definitelly, and I se where I may have been a bit confusing in my expression. When I stated:

To me this was but stating a Historical fact expressed from the religious point of view. In that he knew that following the advent of Christianity all these works were locked inside Monasteries and Church Libraries only available to the clergy and away from the public eye for centuries (Dark Ages), and that the Church found a way to use them to its own purpose.

I understand the Calvin texts are one sided, all I tried to point out is the spirit in which I read them, in that I touk under account the minding and tone of the author, as to avoid his style of expression become an obstacle of thought while I was reading them. In other words I addopted a degree of impartiality.

Wen read in thats tance, it becomes a very clear possibility that the author expressed hiself in that way to point out the fact that the eventual destiny of these works was , under the context of europe, the result of Historical circomstances. It happened that the worls fell to the Churche's hand following the events that led to the European Dark Ages and the social rehierachisation which insued.

But, you are very right in pointing out that the Hellenic works were at the hands of more than the Christian Church, of cource, the Hellenic works and Ideology have been brought all the way to India, and even more. Studied by many thinkers outside the Christian Church during the European Dark Ages. thank you for pointing out the possible source of confusion :)

So, to be clear, I am not personally, claiming that the works were destined for the Christian Church. Or that the Christian Church was the lawfull hier. As far as I am concerned all the world should have access to any ancient texts and ways of thinking. It is through that knowledge that we can more accuretly understand our own origins and by so doing, pave the way for a better future, since it can help us resolve present problems that plague Humanity.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thank you for sharing that with us.

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm in your tone, my dear Adrian?

[Adrian II]

But, you are very right in pointing out that the Hellenic works were at the hands of more than the Christian Church, of course, the Hellenic works and Ideology have been brought all the way to India, and even more. Studied by many thinkers outside the Christian Church during the European Dark Ages.

Absolutely, and the Church's role was certainly unique, if only as a bastion against the total destruction or such works in times of war, civic strife and natural disaster.

There is one thing though on which you may be able to cast more light for me. Hellenic civilisation was certainly a forefunner of transcultural exchange and even multiculturalism (Hedorotus III:38 is a nice example of this), but although the Greeks professed the principles, they hardly ever practised them. One clear indication of this is that they did not learn foreign languages. They could have, they should have, they certainly might have - but they did not.

The curiosity they displayed when questioning received wisdom, the natural order of things or men's measure and destiny apparently did not reach outside their physical and cultural borders. It seems that they suffered from a degree of complacency, which was of course reinforced by the later spread of Hellinism and later still by Byzantine Greek civilisation.

On the other hand Islam, within a couple of centuries after its inception, developed into a veritable engine of curiosity, knowledge and self-education, whereby the preservation and incorporation of Ancient sources went hand in hand with systematic observation and even experimental method. A good example of this spirit is the early eleventh-century Persian astronomer, mathematician, historian and herbalist al-Biruni, who knew Arabic, Persian, Greek, Berber and Sanskrit and wrote 125 books in Arabic and Farsi. He was the first non-Indian to travel India and come back with a detailed analysis of Hinduism.

I may be overestimating Hellenic complacency, in which case you will correct me. Ancient Greece had reason to be proud of its culture and achievements, but it wasn't as if there was nothing left to learn for an educated Greek.

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm in your tone, my dear Adrian?

I was just amused. All semi-practicing Catholics are welcome in this thread.

[Pindar]

The word 'sectarian' would seem out of place in a scientific discussion. I am not aware of surveys among leading scholars on this question. Are you? To be fair, although there is no consensus it seems that the majority view is certainly on the mark (pun intended).

The majority view is the consensus.

It would be in the spirit of this thread if, out of its fullness, you pick a theme that is relevant to your life, beliefs or outlook. I have started by doing so, stating my belief in the Bible as a source of secular wisdom which we ignore at our peril, and which should be protected from both Christian and atheist literalists. Suraknar has elaborated on his own view that the intellectual and spiritual ferment of the Biblical era culminated in an essential truth which he cherishes, even though he thinks that many thoughts and sources of the period need to be further explored.

I see, I think.

I believe The Bible(s) is the product of the winners. From a Christian perspective this refers to the triumph of proto-orthodoxy over its rivals. I therefore see the text(s) as agenda ridden and both intentionally and unintentionally incomplete, and yet I also believe it to contain records of Divine interaction.

[Adrian II]

The majority view is the consensus.

My dear Pindar, it has been said before on this website: if any one of us should one day need a good lawyer, that lawyer would have to be you. You never, ever give up; even if your words fly in the face of Mssrs Merriam and Webster, you will stare them donw, force them to rewrite their own dictionary and make them thank you for it.

I believe The Bible(s) is the product of the winners. From a Christian perspective this refers to the triumph of proto-orthodoxy over its rivals. I therefore see the text(s) as agenda ridden and both intentionally and unintentionally incomplete, and yet I also believe it to contain records of Divine interaction.

Cryptic as usual, but clear in substance. Please bear with me as I try to bear with you.

1. From my superficial knowledge of Mormonism I think I understand your overall position: the Christian canon reflects the teachings of the early Church of Rome as it tried to establish orthodoxy and stamp out teachings and practices it considered as heresies (for instance 'Judaisation').
Apostolic writings that did not fit this teaching were discarded, and passages of the canonical books rewritten to make them conform to incipient orthodoxy. We can more or less reconstruct this process of canonical selection and recomposition in the early Church if we turn to extant apostolic writings, such as the Diadoche of the Apostles or the Clement letter.

Is my understanding accurate so far?

2. Furthermore it seems to me that you, Suraknar and myself share a common interest. All three of us believe that within the wealth of extant sources of the period, we should be able to isolate instances of pure spiritual experience (which you call Divine interaction), as opposed to secundary experience, hearsay, mystification or deliberate falsehoods.

Accurate so far?

3. I believe that Mormons think certain passages in the Christian canon have been rewritten, and that a reconstruction of the original passages is possible. One instance would be the story of Lot in Genesis. Lot gets a bad rap in the Christian canon (he trades his two daughters' honour for that of two angels visiting his home). Whereas Mormons are of the view that the original passage shows him to be the 'righteous' man deserving of God's grace after all.

Accurate so far?

4. I am presuming a lot and I'm out on a limb here, but supposing that all this more or less reflects your views, I have a concrete question (I'm a journalist, I believe in the use of concrete examples).

Question: can we establish who rewrote that passage, or more importantly under what circumstance, and most important of all why is was rewritten in this fashion?