I've since gone and done some re-reading and what has struck me is the difference between academic historians and internet historians. Internet historians grab at disconnected facts and wield them out of context. For example, take Mithras. Internet historians point out that he predates Jesus by around 1400 years; that he was born on Dec 25, to a virgin, in a cave; that he offered eternal life by spilling his blood; that he was buried in a tomb and rose again 3 days later; and that he said, 'He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.'
Pretty devastating for a Christian, huh?
Well, no. You see, there were two Mithras in antiquity. The Persians first mention Mithra in around 1400BC, though more recent scholarship suggests that the date is more like 700BC. And the Romans had a Mithra(s), too. But scholars have been unable to find any connection between the two. All of the parallels between Jesus and Mithras mentioned above are parallels with the Roman Mithras. And here's the clanger: he came after Jesus.
In other words, the claims about Jesus were not derived from stories about Mithras. It's the other way around. The earliest record of a narrative about the Roman Mithras is dated at least 100 years after the manuscripts of the New Testament. The only specific mention of a Mithraic offer of eternal life exists in a piece of writing dated to 200A.D.
But it gets worse. Mithras was not born from a virgin, in a cave. According to the Mithraic tradition, he was born fully formed, from rock, and when he moved he left a cave behind. There is no mention of a virgin. The blood by which he saves is not the blood of Mithras, but of a bull he slaughtered. Christians have never suggested that the birthday of Jesus was Dec 25 - it was just a day we borrowed from existing pagan celebrations (along with Easter). The only reference to a Mithraic resurrection is from the writings of Tertullian, an early Church father. And scholars have attributed the eating/drinking saying to Zarathustra, not Mithras.
So where does all this misinformation come from? Well, the stuff about Mithras comes largely from a 1903 work by a Belgian scholar called Franz Cumont. However, the idea that Jesus is an amalgam of various figures derives from the discredited and largely abandoned Religionsgeschichte (History of Religions) movement which was much in vogue in the 19th century. It depended largely on lacking or overlooking accurate dating of manuscripts, which is why it has now largely absent in peer-reviewed scholarship. Like all memes, though, it has found a home among the hyper-skeptics of the web, who lovingly tend the trash of earlier eras.
Tragically, I had none of this to hand on Thursday night. But then again, I also don't retain a structured critique (with academic testimony) of the notion that black holes are very large gerbils with an eating disorder.
26 comments:
Thanks a bunch for the great article, i was only just recently talking to some younger kids in my church about this, I look forward to sharing some of your findings with them.
Cheers,
John.
Hi,
Unfortunately Internet is full of misinformation and almost all of your statements in your post are wrong. I won't go through all of them but Roman Mithraism existed before Christianity; Plutarch wrote about it, and archaeological and manuscript evidences show that. Scholars have reasonable ideas were the Persian ideas of Mithra and Greek ideas of gods merged (read about Kingdom of Commagene). You also ignored a lot of other known parallels between Mithraism/Zoroastrianism and Christianity, and these point to mithraistic priority. You admitted that Christianity is known to copy ideas from other religion, but if you claim that Mithraism copied from Christianity, please cite examples and sources.
Hi Peter,
Umm - I said (not admitted, which sounds as if it got squeezed out of me) that Christianity adopted some dates for popular festivals. I don't think I ever said Christianity picked up ideas.
With all these claims you're making, the burden of proof is very much on your foot. What early documentary evidence do you have have of Mithraism expressing similar ideas to Christianity (not just of Mithraism itself)?
I don't know the particular case which you are arguing but were there not preceding myths about dying and rising gods? My own take is that the ancient near eastern cultures were full of myths and that the cultures in general tended to borrow from each other. (Take for instance Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noahic flood account). i think you could argue that the borrowing of ideas is polemical but in any case they are borrowed and traded on, like all mythological symbols and ideas. (just to be clear I am defining myth here as "the constellation of numinous symbols in narrative form" (Paul Avis) as opposed to myth as falsehood or untruth)
Hi Mike,
First you do not provide any evidence to back up your claim that "Mithraism copied from Christianity" and when I challenged your claim you shift the burden of proof. hmmm... ok, lets look at the evidence... Can we first agree that western Mithraism was established before Christianity? please read Plutarch, Life of Pompey, Chapter 24, which places western Mithraism in eastern Mediterrain around 67 BCE and check out Nemrut Dag which show the merger of Greek and Persian ideas to western Mithraism.
named one,
you are right, there were so many dying raising god stories. Greeks has a habit of mixing different religious ideas and in fact it is really hard to find anything original in Christianity. Pretty much every Christian dogma, idea, symbol, saying and story was borrowed from earlier religions.
So is he an amalgam of mythical figures?
Or has he become a mythical figure/still becoming/constantly evolving?
Whether he is a histoical figure or mythical or a bit both doesn't really effect my atheism.
Personally I don't think historians are in a place to sepearate the fact from the fiction.
I will agree with you on the amateur historians though - they exist on both sides of the argument.
But I digress. If you have time I am interested in what you find out, and your sources.
Sean, you said that whether Jesus is an historical figure or a mythical one doesn't affect your atheism. I'm curious why you've taken this stance. The historicity of the Jesus, his claims & teaching, his life death and resurrection - in the face of all these things I was simply unable to maintain my own atheism, and at the same time claim to be interested in evidence.
I'm assume you have some additional concerns. Fire away!
Peter, it's a little hard trying to link Christianity and Mithraism - because there aren't any links to find. I merely said that any evidence we have, which is sketchy at best, which even implies that the worship of Mithraism includes any claims common with Christianity, comes after the writing of the gospels.
You believe virtually everything in Christianity is borrowed. I have, on the other hand, no such belief - which means that logically, yes, the burden of proof is entirely on you. You have accused me of misinformation - do you have better dates, unpublicised archaeological finds, or is this just a reprise of the historical rigour of the Da Vinci Code.
And for all those readers out there, this is what Plutarch (writing, again, after the gospels) says about Mithras: '"They themselves [the Cilician pirates] offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them." (Lives)' Nothing about resurrection. Nothing at all, really.
Secondly, the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies declared about Iranian (Persian) and the much younger Roman Mithraism: Roman Mithraism was a 'new creation' [cited from the preceedings in 1975].
Thirdly, at the heart of Roman Mithraism was the bull-slaying (tauroctony). There is no evidence that this was ever a part of Iranian Mithraism. They were completely different religions. Mithraic scholar David Ulansey writes, 'no such Iranian myth exists'.
Finally, even though Roman Mithraism was late and derivative, it had almost none of the features atheists claim for it. No death of Mithras, for example - so how could there be a resurrection?
I eagerly await Peter's response and some *DATA*.
Mike,
I agree with your quote that western "Mysteries of Mithras" was a new religion, and I have not written about Mithras' resurrection (yet). I just want to establish first that Mithraism is older that Christianity. You quoted Plutarch which shows the Greek flavour in Mithraism and places it 67 BCE. I assume that you also checked out Nemrut Dag findings which date around the same time. So can we first agree that western Mithraism is earlier than Christianity?
Once we have agreed on that we can address the parallels and see which religion most likely had those features first.
BTW, it is irrelevant if Gospels were written before or after "Life of Pompey". It is unlikely that Plutarch knew about early Christianity; even Pliny did not know it almost 40 years later. And in the context of that passage dating is irrelevant. And actually "Life of Pompey" predates the Gospels, but that is a separate discussion.
Mike,
I'd first like you to answer the question you asked and back it up with more than one example :) I see where you are going but you didn't even mention Appolonius :P
I felt that you didn't answer your own question sufficiently - purely from a neutral readers point of view
As to my atheism and its relevance to the historical Jesus.
Lets look at some historical figures:
Alexander the Great born of an earthly mother Olypmias and the God Zeus, conquered the known world at the time.
and Jesus etc.
Both historical/mythical figures.
Do you believe Alexander to be the son of Zeus? I believe nether this nor that Jesus is the son of god.
Do I think both of them existed as men? I think Alexander has a better claim but am willing to say that Jesus on the balance of the historical evidence did exist.
As to claims regarding their actions/deeds. Well just because it is writen in an ancient text does not make the claim true. I don't believe unicorns or cyclops existed either, though you might, as the first is mentioned in the bible
(note: not all bibles translate the beast as unicorn, some as ox, obviously unicorn was more appealing to the authors of the King James than the Good News Bible- no mythic interpretation happening there?)
Have the stories of Jesus/Alexander been altered after the fact to reflect a well known mythic tradition in attempt to win more converts or appeal to different cultures? Possibly, certainly there is evidence of this in later Catholic history.
As to Alexander he actually cultivated the belief that he was a god, and like others before him sought legitimacy in the fulfilment of ancient religious ritual.
I think you may be getting confused between between the historical FACT of his(Jesus) existance and the truth/veracity of the claims made about him.
I think you and I have different standards of evidence, particularly if you believe in the resurection. What evidence outside of the bible leads you to belive that this was
a)an actual event
b)supernatural
And we haven't even started with Islam or Buddhism with such historical Characters how can you not be Muslim or Buddhist.
But nice technique answering a question with a question. Like I said I would like you to refine the post a little and answer the question.
One Mithras does not an amalgam make.
As a student of ancient history, this is a fascinating discussion for me, and I am curious to know a few things from Peter.
Have you read any serious historical Jesus books? If so, which one(s)? This might help me know where you are getting your information from, because at the moment I just don't recognize your thoughts as part of the academic conversation about Jesus.
Also, can you name a contemporary ancient historian or biblical historian in a reputable university who thinks the Gospel narrative is based on Mithraism? Frankly, this sounds nuts to me, especially when virtually all of the cultural backgrounds of the Jesus story can be found right where you'd expect them, in the Palestinian Judaism Jesus and his followers were raised in.
If I were an advisor to the new atheism, I would strongly recommend you guys give up such overreaching theories - it only makes you look strained and fundamentalist. But since I am playing for the other team, I say, keep up the good work!
Cheers,
John
Hi John Dickson,
I have read Habermas, Ehrman, Mack, Price and couple others. I guess Strobel and couple of books from Matthias Media does not count. I have even read one of John Dickson's booklets and seen the "Christ Files". (Are you the author of those?)
John wrote:
"can you name a contemporary ancient historian or biblical historian in a reputable university who thinks the Gospel narrative is based on Mithraism?"
I have not claimed anything like that, please read my posts again. I have so far only wanted to establish [regarding Mithraism] that Mithraism predates Christianity.
Dear Peter,
Thanks for replying.
I see that you have read only from the fundamentalist fringe (eg., Habermass) and the hyper-sceptical fringe (eg., Ehrman, Mack). May I suggest you read some of the scholars who represent the mainstream and thus continue to submit their work to peer review - eg., Ed Sanders, James Charlesworth, Sean Feyne, James Dunn, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, John P Meier, et al.
As for my own work, it is generally pitched at a popular audience - though the Christ Files does represent fairly the overwhelming conclusion of mainstream scholarship - whether Jewish, Christian or agnostic - that the Gospels must be taken seriously as historical sources for understanding Jesus.
Some forms of Mithraism certainly predate Christianity; so does Buddhism, which says nothing about whether Christianity borrowed from either. I apologise if you were not suggesting that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, but I was led astray by the wording of your response to Michael's critique of this fanciful notion:
Peter wrote: "You also ignored a lot of other known parallels between Mithraism/Zoroastrianism and Christianity, and these point to mithraistic priority. You admitted that Christianity is known to copy ideas from other religion ..."
If you were not trying to salvage the mithraic influence on Christianity, I misunderstood your intention. Nevertheless, readers of these posts should observe that the mithraic influence on Christianity, which is oft-repeated by populist a-theologians - is utterly implausible for historians.
Regards,
John
Hi John,
Thanks for the recommendations, I will put couple of those to my to-read list. I think I came accross Charlesworth before when reading about Dead Sea Scrolls. The problem I have seen with mainstream peer reviewed historical Jesus experts is that many of they try to date the Gospels ridiculously early and often jump to conclusions without considering alternatives. "Fringes" provide more interesting ideas, but the reader needs have a bit background knowledge. I am surprise that you call Habermas as "Fringe". Everyone seems to claim he is the resurrection expert and I don't understand how Ehrman is "hyper-skeptical", he believes in historical Jesus.
In your, or any, popular audience pitched work I see the problem that the evidence is presented one sided and seemingly unfairly. The idea seem to be to convert people, not to tell the truth. No wonder general audience thinks we have solid extra biblical records of Jesus, but I guess that is the goal. If you really start looking for the evidence there is very little if any.
I hope this is not out of line but for example
- your material advocates that Baraitha Sanhedrin 43a passage has words "Jesus of Nazareth" which it does not.
- you mentioned that Mara Bar-Serapion can only point to Jesus, while scholars know that there a several other good candidates
- your material barely mentions anything about the issues with Josephus' two passages
- You advocate that DSS might have NT fragments, while main stream scholars reject the idea.
- You advocate the popular odd apologist idea that myths need a long time to evolve, while there a thousands of counter example
The problem I see with these extra biblical "evidences" apologist present is that once you start investigating the reliability of those you run into problems. Nothing makes me more skeptical than misinformation or forgery presented as evidence. I can understand this from the apologist point of view, but not if you want to find the truth.
And when Christians talk about "mainstream scholarship", they of course mean "Christian mainstream scholarship", which again is one-sided if discussion turn to supernatural, like resurrection.
You stated that "the Christ Files does represent fairly the overwhelming conclusion of mainstream scholarship". I agree with the statement, but it does not mean that the conclusion is right. Each extra biblical evidence of Jesus much stand on their own merits and all of them have wobbly legs.
Regards,
Peter
Hi John,
I see Christian apologists often claim that "Christianity predates Hellenistic Mithraism and Mithraism copied from Christianity". Once you show them the historical and archological evidence how old the Mithraism is, suddenly they claim that "there are no parallels" and use the words "utterly implausible";-)
So far in this discussion I just wanted to establish that Hellenistic Mithraism predates the Christianity. We can look the evidence of parallel ideas, beliefs, symbols, doctrines and festivals one at the time. Then we can look at the evidence of possible copying, adaptation or maybe both religions coping from a common source. There is plenty of evidence if you start looking for those. Christianity does not seem to have many unique features and strangely many of those appeared in Mithraism just before (proto-)Christianity.
I don't think Gospels are copied/adopted from Mithraism even when there is a hint of similar flavor; I think Gospels point to a different direction.
Regards,
Peter
Peter,
Thank you again. Several brief points deserve mention.
1. You misunderstand 'mainstream' in my usage. I thought you had read the Christ Files. This term has nothing to do with being "Christian", as you say, and everything to do with being part of the peer reviewed scholarly conversation about the subject, whether Christian, Jewish or agnostic. Scholars like Habermas and Ehrman ply the scholarly craft for an apologetic agenda (on different sides of the debate) and neither is a significant player in the contemporary discussion about the historical Jesus. Of course, the fringe needs to be heard. As you say, they are 'interesting'. But, as with most serious academic disciplines, the mainstream is where the most responsible work is being done. Take climate change science, for example. Sure, we should listen to the sceptics but when the vast majority of scientists say something different, it is wise to listen more carefully to the mainstream.
2. baraitha Sanhedrin 43a does indeed refer to "Jesus of Nazareth". Give me your email address and I'll send you a photograph of the Hebrew Munchen manuscript.
3. Mara bar Serapion is universally thought to be referring to Jesus. Please name the other plausible candidates and any scholars who argue for such. I suspect you will find you have exaggerated things here.
4. You are completely mistaken that I claim the Dead Sea Scrolls contain NT texts. What an odd thing to say. Again, I thought you had engaged with the Christ Files.
5. On the Jospehus passages, I say quite a bit about their status. In the TV doco I say something like: most scholars reject several lines of the Antiquities 18 passage as Christian attempts to improve Josephus' words. In the book version, I give it quite a bit of attention. There is no serious scholarly dispute about the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20. There is a very wide consensus that Josephus referred to Jesus as a teacher, wonder work and martyr, whose brother James was also executed. Again, you will have to scratch around the fringes to find a scholar who disagrees.
I look forward to speaking with you when you have read some mainstream historical Jesus literature. I think you will find that certain things are virtually beyond dispute: Jesus lived, was a Galilean Jew, gained a following, had reputation for teaching and healing, clashed with the Jerusalem elite, was crucified and was heralded as the risen Messsiah almost immediately after his crucifixion. Only arbitrary scepticism seeks to argue otherwise.
Regards,
John
John, thanks for your comments, lets look at the evidence again:
John Dickson wrote:
baraitha Sanhedrin 43a does indeed refer to "Jesus of Nazareth". Give me your email address and I'll send you a photograph of the Hebrew Munchen manuscript.
John, you know that Munich manuscript of the Talmud is from 1342 CE and the term "Yeshu Ha-Notzri" was added to that version. That term is not found in that passage in four other early manuscripts and the Munich manuscript is considered by main stream scholars to be far too late to have any authority. Addition to that if you read the story it disagrees with Gospel accounts.
This is what makes me skeptical when apologist try to push medieval forgeries as "evidence". I know you have studied this issue, which really makes me wonder...
John Dickson wrote:
Mara bar Serapion is universally thought to be referring to Jesus. Please name the other plausible candidates and any scholars who argue for such.
Many "fringe people" have put forward several other candidates. (For example Dr. Robert Price this blog has been discussing about). For example Essene "Teacher of Righteousness" and Judah the Essene. Onias III was exiled and killed in a city next to were Mara bar Serapion came from. All of them were mentioned in a holy writings and were more famous than Jesus before Gospels were written and if Mara wrote after Gospels were available his writings are of course not independent witness. So there is no logic to use Mara bar Serapion as an evidence, it is just apologist pushing the agenda.
John Dickson wrote:
On the Jospehus passages, I say quite a bit about their status
I have only seen your Christ Files video, not read the book. Your video version was too generous on its authensity and your Simply Christianity booklet does not mention any problems regarding Josphus' two passages.
John Dickson wrote:
There is no serious scholarly dispute about the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20.
This of course not true, but anyone I put forward to dispute this you will again call "fringe". Even "main stream" scholars argue if "who was called Christ" was originally in that passage. The odd thing about this is that no early Church father (until Origen) quotes this even when this would have completely refuted the docetic Gnostics.
John Dickson wrote:
You are completely mistaken that I claim the Dead Sea Scrolls contain NT texts.
This is a quote from John Dickson's Simply Christianity booklet (page 10) currently selling in Sydney Churches.
"The earliest manuscript portions date from 125 AD (although the recently discovered ‘Jesus papyri’ may date from around 70 AD); existing copies which contain much or all of the New Testament date from around 200 AD."
Jesus papyri is of course the reference to Dead Sea Scrolls "containing" NT (7Q5,6..).
You are clearly pushing this idea to recruit new Christians. All main stream scolars disagree with you. I find it astonishing that you are publicly arguing against your own writings.
John Dickson wrote:
I look forward to speaking with you when you have read some mainstream historical Jesus literature
I actually studied Jesus and Christianity as a Christians over ten year both in Catholic and Protestant environments. I have also recently read a lot of "fringe" writers both skeptics and fundamentalist Christians. I think I am fairly familiar with all sides of the Jesus issue, but I am happy to be corrected. When you stated that certain things are virtually beyond dispute, so far I find that Christians just offer forgeries and misinformation to make their case, please correct me with evidence if I am wrong.
You ask me to read about
"mainstream", but many of your main evidences are not "main stream". You are often arguing against mainstream Scholars.
So many times Christians (while walking away) tell me that read this or that book and then you will accept the Jesus story. I keep reading but the arguments are the same in all the books.
Regards,
Peter
Dear Peter,
Ouch! Our exchange seems to be descending in tone. I apologize if I started that.
I’ll try to be brief and helpful. I think by now, though, I am writing for undecided lurkers rather than the dogmatists on either side.
Your take on b.Sanhedrin is a little marginal and seems to resemble the Wikipedia entry on the topic. Again, I can’t avoid suggesting that you (or the lurkers, at least) read a serious discussion of the matter, such as Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament, widely applauded as a model of measured scholarly appraisal. I apologise, Peter, for recommending yet another book—I can see how this would come across as annoying and patronizing—but our conversation thus far has not given me confidence that you have read anything from the ‘middle’ of scholarship, only from the ‘fringes’. You (or the lurkers) will find that most scholars are persuaded that the reference in b.Sanhedrin is an apologetic slight on Jesus of Nazareth, casting him as a duly processed sorcerer. On the textual detail, it is much easier to explain the absence of ‘ha-Notzri’ in the Florence manuscript (as an omission to avoid offending Christians) than it is the addition of the expression in the Munchen manuscript. I mean Christians were hardly going to turn a vague slander about an unknown Yeshu into a precise blasphemy against their Lord Yeshu!
Then there is the more basic fact that I don’t actually make much of the Sanhedrin reference in the first place. From memory I think I say something like “Given the late date of this tradition (late 2nd century) it is difficult to know how much historical weight to give the passage.” Thus, I suspect that readers who venture beyond the wonders of Wikipedia will conclude that you are not justified in describing me as an “apologist trying to push medieval forgeries as evidence.” And just as unrecognizable is your statement about me: “many of your main evidences are not main stream. You are often arguing against mainstream Scholars.” Again, Ouch! May I suggest you read the foreword to The Christ Files in which the head of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University describes my approach in very different terms (viewable at http://johndickson.org/books).
On the Mara text, I am glad you show your hand here – your source is a blog by well known theologian-sceptic, Robert Price. This is like Christian fundamentalists citing Michael Behe to prove that evolution is false! Sure, the guy has a PhD in the field (and, in Behe’s case, he is a full professor), but he is not exactly representative of the scholarly conversation! Anyway, as I say in The Christ Files (book and doco), we cannot be sure Mara was referring to Jesus when he mentions a wise Jewish teacher and king who was executed by his own people shortly before Palestine was conquered, but most scholars think he was. You keep repeating that I am an apologist pushing an agenda when, in fact, The Christ Files simply reports what mainstream scholars – whether Christian, Jewish or agnostic – are saying. Read the literature and you’ll get a sense of that.
On Josephus, I clearly acknowledge the dodgy bits in Antiquities 18 and report the overwhelming consensus of scholars today that, while the passage has been ‘improved’ by a Christian copyist, Josephus really did refer to the teacher, wonder-worker and martyr called Jesus whose brother James was stoned to death. The reference in Antiquities 20 is not seriously questioned. You may not like it but that is the current state of the question. Again, a glance at the relevant literature will clarify this for those interested.
Now, Peter, you really threw me by digging up the Simply Christianity course booklet. You’re right to say that mainstream scholars reject the so called ‘Jesus papyri’. Part of me just wants to say that anything I wrote before I studied history is likely to contain some embarrassing errors. However, in this case, I can say that I didn’t even write the section you are referring to (and I think you’ll find that it says so in the booklet). Still, it is a little embarrassing that it’s there in the extra information of a course with my name on the front, so I’ll ask the publisher to remove the statement. Thanks for pointing it out. All other clangors gratefully received.
A final comment. You say you have “read a lot of sceptics and fundamentalists” and that you are therefore “fairly familiar with all sides of the Jesus issue.” It seems to me that reading the extremes of an argument is precisely not the way to become familiar with a field – that’s what the fundamentalist Christian and the fundamentalist sceptic does to reinforce their positions. For example, a person who has read only the extreme Climate Change Evangelists (who say we’ll all be dead in 5 years) and the extreme Climate Change Sceptics (who deny any problem) is not in a position to say “I am fairly familiar with all sides.” I reckon that any fair minded lurker who reads our exchange and then reads anything on the historical Jesus by R. Bauckham, M. Borg, R. Burridge, J. Charlesworth, B. Chilton, J. Dunn, S. Freyne, P. Fredriksen, M. Hengel, J. P. Meier, B. Myer, E. P. Sanders, G. Stanton, G. Theissen, C. Tuckett, G. Vermes, R. van Voorst – all recognized leaders in the field – will quickly discover that I am not being unfair by questioning your familiarity with the topic.
Regards,
John
Hi John,
We digressed and I guess Mike is never going to admit that Hellenistic Mithraism predates Christianity. This kind of blog post is an example how false historical Christian beliefs propagate.
Regarding b.Sanhedrin we need first to separate the issues of what was in the manuscript and does it refer to Jesus of Nazareth. I am arguing from the earliest and the most reliable manuscripts, you are arguing from the manuscript which was modified 1000 years after the text was originated!
This usage of late modified manuscript is the reason why we have Mark's ending, trinity, Great Commission, New Convenent and many other christian doctrines and people accepting Josephus.
Regarding Mara, referring to my source is a Red Herring; anyone can read about those in 2. Maccabees and Dead Sea Scroll books. Your comparison to Behe is a false analogy; Behe tries to "prove", Price and other just suggest that there are other possibilities.
I can not remember were I first read about it, but it might be from a author who you and your friend John Lennox misrepresent as "a professor of modern German literature".
You asked in you Christ Files video "Who else can it be?" and I answered you. I am filling gaps in your knowledge, but oddly you seem to think that *I* need to read more books. I already stated that I studied Christianity as a Christian and all the books were "authorised" by the Church(es). But that is irrelevant, this is about the merits of the issues. But like I wrote before, I will read couple of the books you suggested.
Regarding Josephus John Dickson wrote:
I clearly acknowledge the dodgy bits in Antiquities 18
In your Simple Christianity booklet you "forgot" to mention this and countless new Christians don't know that now. Again this is the way to suck people in and once they believe they need to find the actual truth themselves (which they don't).
The reference in Antiquities 20 is the best thing Christians have going. Unfortunately early Christians likely modified it and we can not be sure what it originally said. This writing is from year ~93 CE and according to Christians, Christianity was spread around the Empire so it might not be an independent verification of Jesus. But from all the "evidence" this passage would be the most interesting to discuss about (but not on this blog comment); there are plenty of good arguments on both sides.
Regarding to "Jesus papyri", I check the booklet and it actually states after the section end notes that pages 10-14 are compiled by another author. I appologise for falsely accusing you of endorsing the "Jesus papyri". You were listed and pitched as the author of the booklet and I did not realise those five pages were not yours; clearly my mistake.
regarding the final comment
John Dickson wrote:
It seems to me that reading the extremes of an argument is precisely not the way to become familiar with a field that’s what the fundamentalist Christian and the fundamentalist sceptic does to reinforce their positions.
You seem to misrepresent people who you do not agree with as "fringe", "fundamentalist", "a professor of modern German literature", etc.; no point undermining the people, but please focus on the issues. I would recommend to read all sides of the issues, not just scholars you listed. It is like reading about Mohammed, read the scholars and the critics, and make up your own mind.
John Dickson wrote:
[reading the] recognized leaders in the field – will quickly discover that I am not being unfair by questioning your familiarity with the topic
No need to question my familiarity, I do not claim to an expert; but if you need to undermine my knowledge we talk about why are you are unfamiliar with Mara Bar-Serapion story or your understanding how quickly myths appear? (but not on this blog) I know enough to recognise people misinterpreting history from late manuscripts and to point out that the three best evidences presented for Jesus; b.Sanhedrin, Josephus and Tacitus; are late and shaky.
Regards,
Peter
Thanks, Peter.
I am happy for my previous response to stand as an adequate answer to your most recent post as well, at least in substance if not in the particulars. And the new issues you introduce have the ring of a person backed into a corner.
I am also content that there is enough in our exchanges for the undecided to judge for themselves which position is measured and which protests too much, which urges us to look to broader scholarship and which is nourished from the edges.
Thanks for the repartee, Peter. I look forward to doing it again sometime.
Regards,
John
Thanks John, I'm happy to "backed into a corner" ;-) by you and we can let the readers to decide who uses more reliable sources.
If anyone wants to study historicity of Jesus also discussed in this thread I would recommend that you do your own homework. Read what the oldest and most reliable manuscripts and the early Church fathers actually say. Modern popular apologist writings are unfortunately so unreliable. For example you need to check Latin (not modern) wording when reading from Tacitus or Suetonius. Read what Jewish scholars say about Talmud. When reading about Josephus check also the Syriac and Arabic versions we have and what the Catholic Churches stand is. Read yourself (not someone's interpretation) Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Didache to understand early Christianity. I think you will be surprised what you find.
If anyone is interested in Mithraism Mike correctly pointed out that you should first read Cumont. His Mysteries of Mithra and Textes et monuments seem to be also online. Modern scholars somewhat disagree with his writings but he is the classic to read first. David Ulansey and Roger Beck are modern popular Mithraism experts. University of Sydney Fisher Library has excellent collection of Mithraism writings. It also has the book everyone refers to when the discussion turns to the type of conception of the Persian Mithra. I'm happy to discuss this or give a short presentation if someone is interested.
Regards,
Peter
Peter, suggesting that people should read Cumont before modern scholars on Mithraism is like suggesting that need to read Lamarck before Darwin... or the Da Vinci Code before Ed Sanders.
And don't forget that the discipline of textual criticism doe snot always equate 'oldest' with 'most reliable'.
Mike
Mike,
Unfortunately your analogy is completely wrong. You could have compared Cumont to Darwin based on how they started/revolutionised the field, their exhaustive field study and their legacy. You can not find a single person in the field of Mithraistic studies who has not read/studied/quoted Cumont, while there are plenty of evolutionary biologist who have not read On the origin of the Species let a alone Lamarck. With all due respect if you had even opened the Textes et Monuments you would understand why (available online and in the Uni of Sydney Fisher library).
Mike wrote:
don't forget that the discipline of textual criticism doe snot always equate 'oldest' with 'most reliable'
You are absolutely right, but if someone offers a known 14th century textual variation as "authority" when talking about 200-500 CE text, (while all scholars reject that reading) one must wonder what the motivation for that is. If Christianity is true Christians should be able to honestly use the most reliable ancient text to argue their case. Unfortunately many Christians don't bother to check what their Church fathers tell them, trust me I've been there too.
Mike, if you believe your friend John that Mithraism predated Christianity I think the honest thing would be to change your blog post to reflect the truth. Like I wrote before if someone want to know about basics of Mithraism, let me know.
Regards,
Peter
Peter, my blog has always observed that Persian Mithraism predated Christianity.
Mike wrote first:
All of the parallels between Jesus and Mithras mentioned above are parallels with the Roman Mithras. And here's the clanger: he came after Jesus.
and now:
Peter, my blog has always observed that Persian Mithraism predated Christianity.
We were not talking about Persian Mithraism. Now that you have read about the Third Mithridatic War by Plutarch and studied the archological evidence do you accept that Hellenistic Mithraism was established in the Roman Empire by the first century BC.?
It is so often really hard to get Christians even to accept real historical evidence, while they often offer "improved" late manuscripts. It almost seems that Christianity clouds their honest judgment. If only Christians would follow the evidence where ever it leads...
Post a Comment