Books- "The Jesus Mysteries" and "Jesus Puzzle" - highly recommended

[NAO]

There have been quite a few books in the past few years making the case that there was no historical "Jesus of Nazareth" - that there was no actual person that led disciples, healed the sick, was crucified by the Romans, and whose teachings formed the basis of the Christian Religion.

This is not a new notion - Gerald Massey wrote of it extensively in the 1880s. Massey proposed that the early church fathers took a figure who was originally mythical and retrojected him into history as if he were a real person. This is why the earliest Christian writings - the letters of Paul - which came BEFORE the Gospels were written - do not ever mention any of the things about Jesus' (alleged) life. Paul's letters do not even mention anything "the historical Jesus" is alleged to have done or said; they do not even suggest the idea that Jesus was a man who had recently lived.

The DVD "The God Who Wasn't There" http://thegodmovie.com does a nice job of getting this idea across in a powerful and compelling way.

The writings of Earl Doherty - to be found online at http://jesuspuzzle.com - are IMHO the most compelling and most thoroughly documented case against the notion of a historical figure Jesus. Doherty makes an air-tight, interlocking, inescapable argument that early Christians worshiped a heavenly Christ figure, not a man who had recently lived. Doherty's site is highly recommended, as is his book, "The Jesus Puzzle".

Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ" gives an excellent overview of the massive erudite works of Gerald Massey and Alvin Boyd Kuhn. It is especially enjoyable to read as it is also a narration of Harpurs's own de-conversion from Literalist Christianity.

I'm just finishing Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries", and I can emphatically say that this is THE best book on the origins of Christianity and the creation of the fictional-turned-historical character Jesus. It is very comprehensive and extensively documented. The argument is very coherent, and while Doherty does an excellent job of proving the early Christians did not believe in a historical Jesus, Freke and Gandy do this AND they also demonstrate HOW the Jesus Myth was derived from Pagan sources, and how it was a natural, predictable outcome of the Hellenistic influence on Judaism. They show how the Egyptian/Greek dying/rising godman/savior concept was adapted to Judaism by grafting the classic Dionysus-Osiris myth elements onto the Jewish Messiah concept, thereby producing the Jesus Myth.

Freke and Gandy further show that early Christians (i.e. Gnostics) did NOT take the myth to be history, and that Christianity as we know it today emerged when one later type of debased Christianity - Literalist Christianity - mistook the myths for history and then systematically suppressed all rival interpretations and systematically destroyed all evidence that documented their plagiarism and forgery.

Earl Doherty's website articles are even better than his book "The Jesus Puzzle" - and they are free. Although I loved that book, and Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ" too, I think that Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" is overall the single best book on this important (and largely ignored) topic.

[starroute]

1. The feeling I have about this . . .

. . . is that attacking the historical Jesus isn't going to make much of an impact on Christianity.

What would be far more interesting would be if some people started worshipping the purely mythological Jesus -- the god whose descent and passion took place entirely in non-earthly realms -- and demanding to be accepted as Christians. As the only true Christians, even.

That would certainly shake thing up a bit.

[NAO]

4. Tom Harpur worships the Mythical Christ, as detailed in his book

"The Pagan Christ". He de-converted from Literalist Christianity and now believes he has found a more pure truth in the Mythical Christ.

I don't think the discrediting of the historical Jesus would have any impact on "spiritual" Christians - people in the mold of Origin or Clement of Alexandria - who did not take the Gospels as literal history anyway. But I do think it would serve to disillusion millions of shallow believers who believe that every bit of the gospel fables as literal truth.

[papau]

12. link

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Doherty2ndC_Review.htm

[Roland99]

2. I prefer L. Michael White's "From Jesus To Christianity"

I find it hard to believe the person Jesus was a fiction.

PBS Frontline used his book as part of a show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html

[NAO]

3. Glimpse at Doherty's site if you can't concieve there was no person Jesus

Doherty does a VERY thorough job of showing that even Christians, until after about 120 C.E., did not believe in a historical person. He uses the writings of Paul in the New Testament, and more strikingly, the writings of the early Christian Apologists.

If you take a look at Paul's letters, you will be struck at how Jesus' #1 fan does not know ANYTHING about him. It's just inconceivable. When Paul went to Jerusalem (as he tells in Galatians 1), he did not visit Calvary? Or the Empty Tomb? He preaches "Christ Crucified" but never talks about Calvary? He never mentions any of the miracles, or the sayings, or the ministry of Jesus. Everything is "Christ in the Heavenly Realm". God has made know his Son to us THRU scripture (i.e, not thru the historical ministry of his incarned Son who walked in Palestine).

Take a look at Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. Take a look at the section called "The Sound of Silence". Doherty goes thru scores of passages in the New Testament, which were written BEFORE the gospels, which not only do not mention a historical Jesus, the EXCLUDE the notion. If you're still not convinced, take a look at the article called "The Second Century Apologists". Same unbelievable silence on any historical material. Everything on Doherty's site is remarkable and compelling.


****
****


Consider "The Smoking Gun" provided by Hebrews 8:4. This is ONE passage, among HUNDREDS, that does not show any awareness of even the idea that Christ Jesus was a man who had recently lived.


excerpt from Doherty's site:

No Footstep Heard

Finally, there is a startling statement made in chapter 8, one which most commentators manage to gloss over or ignore completely. The writer is speaking of Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and begins to compare him to the earthly high priest. At verse 4, he says:

"Now, if he had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest . . ." - Hebrews 8:4

No matter how one tries to detect a feasible qualification to this phrase, there is no denying that the writer seems to be saying that Jesus was never on earth. The Greek is “ei men oun en epi ges,” which is literally: “Now, if accordingly he were on earth . . .” The verb en is the imperfect, which is strictly speaking a past tense, and the NEB (above) chooses to reflect this. But the meaning within the context is probably present, or at least temporally ambiguous, much like the conditional sense in which most other translations render it: “Now if he were on earth (meaning at this time), he would not be a priest.”

However, the writer has qualified this statement in no way whatever. He does not say, if he were now on earth (instead of earlier), if he returned to earth, if he were still on earth; not even: “While he was on earth, he was not a priest . . .” The writer says nothing which shows any cognizance of the fact that Jesus had been on earth, recently, that it was on earth where an important part of his sacrifice, the shedding of his blood, had occurred. (In contrast to scholars, who regularly feel constrained to point this out.)

The point he is making in this verse is that Jesus on earth would have nothing to do, since there are already earthly priests performing the duties which the Law prescribes, and they do so “in a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly” (8:5). Yet how could any writer say that Jesus would have nothing to do on earth when he did, in fact, have so much to do? How could he imply that earth is the scene only of human duties in a human sanctuary when here was where Jesus had performed his sacrifice, shed his blood—on a hill called Calvary outside Jerusalem? Surely no writer could express himself this way without at least a qualification, something which would give a nod to Jesus’ recent presence in the physical arena. (Of course, such a life and death on earth, as noted earlier, would have thrown a monkeywrench into his carefully crafted Platonic picture.)

Ellingworth has glimpsed the edge of the abyss, and hastily drawn back. In analyzing this passage (op cit., p.405), he questions the normal interpretation of the imperfect en, and with it the NEB translation (which he admits “is grammatically possible”), because it “could be misunderstood as meaning that Jesus had never ‘been on earth’.” He claims that this “goes against the context”—which is to say the common assumption over the last 19 centuries that an historical Jesus existed, one who had in fact been on earth. In the face of the overwhelming evidence which Hebrews alone provides, it is time to question that very assumption, rather than try to reject the natural meaning of an innocent verb.

[Roland99]

5. There's much more to Paul...I highly recommend the book I mentioned.

Looking at Doherty's site I'm reminded of the low-rent conspiracy sites that follow that cheesy HTML layout.

[BurtWorm]

6. Cheesy?

Don't judge Doherty's book by its cover. He knows what he's talking about.

[Roland99]

8. I have serious doubts about that.

[BurtWorm]

10. It's good to be skeptical.

;)

[NAO]

11. I have the White bk; despite what you "know" just look thru the telescope

When Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter thru his telescope, the priests refused to even look thru the telescope because they already knew how things were.

Reading Doherty is like looking through Galileo's telescope. His theories fit the evidence naturally, like Copernicus' theory, rather than fitting the evidence to the theory, as the Ptolemic astronomers had done.

Astronomers before Copernicus had worked out elaborate scholarly explanations for the motions of the planets - they had to fit the data to their model of the solar system. By positing 'epicycles' they explained what they saw in a consistent way that everyone agreed upon. New Testament scholars are doing the very same thing when they assume a historical Jesus and then work on the data from that point. Nobody asks, "would all this make more sense without the assumption of a historical person Jesus?" or "is the evidence we have best explained by a historical Jesus, or some other phenomena?"

If you take the time to merely read a bit of Doherty's material, I think you might change your appraisal of his work, even if you don't agree with his conclusions. It's extremely well presented, well argued, and well documented.

Further, I suspect you will find the material much more compelling than your a-priori notions about the existence of an historical Jesus would suggest.

As far as Doherty's "layout" how does that impact his argument? Do you discredit books that are cheaply printed? Doherty's articles are formatted so they can be printed easily directly from the browser. That is the entire purpose of the material - to be read. And it's more comfortable read on paper than on-screen, which is why I think Doherty choose that layout.

[BurtWorm]

7. It's an excellent site.

It changed my thinking entirely. Another very interesting book, a bit more hostile to Christianity but, nevertheless very entertaining, is Joseph Wheless's 1930 treatise "The Forgeries of Christianity," which is available in its entirety on-line. (The book is very rare and expensive in print).

[NAO]

9. Joseph Wheeles' first book "Is It God's Word" is also excellent

Both books are available in paperback reprints from Kessinger Books (can be purchased at Amazon.com)

[beam me up scottie]

13. Wow. Richard Carrier changed his mind too.

From Earl Doherty's response to a critique by a poster on an internet forum:

While I won't get overly offended by Bede's snide accusation about the quality of my Greek, its lack of proficiency remains to be demonstrated—by "good" scholars or otherwise. Simply assuming that one of those "good" scholars could demonstrate it (which is his implication) won't do. It's similar to the common claim that a "good" scholar or historian could shred the mythicist case if only they would undertake to do so. This remains an assumption—and thus invalid as an argument—until someone actually does it and shows that it's possible. However, I am offended on Richard Carrier's behalf, whose proficiency in Greek is undoubtedly superior to mine and does not merit such offhanded disparagement. And since Carrier has in fact offered an explanation for his recent conversion to the probability of the mythicist position, one can only assume that Bede has been forced to ignore or dismiss this as well.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm

[BurtWorm]

14. BMUS, can you provide a brief synopsis of this particular controversy?

Who is Richard Carrier? Why is it significant that he of all people converted to the mythicist position?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Sounds intriguing

and if I get the nerve I'll read them. (took me a while to watch The God Who Wasn't There.) I don't like my "beautiful mind" messed with.

hahaha...hmmmm. didn't somebody else say that??

Only half kidding. But I have one outright question/comment. Paul DID refer, and often, to the crucifixion of Christ...his death. Doesn't that point to his believing Jesus was a real person?

[NAO]

16. No, the Crucifixion and Resurrection were in the "Heavenly Realm"

Paul does often speak of the death (not necessarily crucifixion, as portrayed in Mel Gibson's gore flick) and resurrection of Jesus, but he DOES NOT place them geographically or chronologically. He does not refer to these events as having happened on earth, in the recent past, in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

When Paul talks about 'the ones who put Christ Jesus to death', he refers to 'powers of darkness' - as in the realm of angels and demons; he does not talk about human political rulers.

This notion made even more sense to me after reading some of the Psuedepigraphal writings that were produced during the same time period. They talk of 'seven heavens', which are in layers above each other. These writings speak of happenings in the "Third Heaven" or wars between angels in the "Fifth Heaven". Paul even talks about being caught up to the Third Heaven in II Corinthians 2:12.

This is discussed in "The God Who Wasn't There" both in the movie itself, and more extensively in the interview with Earl Doherty that is included in the bonus features.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I'm unimpressed by "The Jesus Mysteries"

I'm reading it at the moment, but am considering giving up, because I think they're cherry-picking their evidence to suit their argument. They are eliding all Greek mystery ceremonies together, while not talking about important differences (eg the sex of the god being worshipped), and they give various 'similarities' of the mysteries, Mithras and other worship without making it at all clear what time these date from. If you're trying to work out what was original, and what was derived, the order in which things happened is vital, but they don't seem to make the effort to show this.

I see there's a chapter "Was Paul a Gnostic?" - does it produce convincing evidence for this?

[NAO]

18. Dating the Mysteries, Sex of the Savior Gods; Paul as Gnostic Simon Magus.

"...not talking about important differences (eg the sex of the god being worshiped"

I'll admit that I was a bit put off, early in the book, by Freke and Gandy's glib new-aginess, but I don't see how they "cherry-picked evidence". The sources they cite are in most cases mainstream academic scholars. And I don't know why anyone would consider the sex of the gods of the mysteries to be an important difference - as far as I know all the dying/rising gods of the Mysteries were male. Osiris, the major prototype, was male. Dionysus was male. As were Attis, Adonis, Mithra. I guess Tammuz was female. But that is the exception, not the rule.

"they give various 'similarities' of the mysteries, Mithras and other worship without making it at all clear what time these date from"

As far as the Mysteries pre-dating Christianity, I think they make a good case. Euripides' play is hundreds of years before Jesus. So is Plato's "Apology of Socrates", which has the "30 pieces of silver" and "living on the 3rd day". I took out my copy of Plato's Dialogues and hand-verified those references in real-time while reading the book. The "gospel" material that is derived from Osiris is attested to on the inscriptions on the pyramids, dating over 1,000 years B.C.E. I also verified these references in Budge's "Egyptian Book of the Dead". In all three cases the parallels seemed to be too fantastic, and I suspected that Freke and Gandy were fudging or glossing; they are not - as least on Plato, Euripides, and Osiris.

"there's a chapter "Was Paul a Gnostic?" - does it produce convincing evidence for this?"

As far as Paul's being a gnostic, I thought they made a good case for that. Many mainstream New Testament scholars believe that the heretic arch-gnostic called "Simon Magus" in the writings of the Apolostic Church Fathers is really a code-name for Paul. The (post-Pauline) author of the Book of Acts tried to "assimilate" Paul and his Christians into orthodox literalist Christianity by writing stories about Paul (which contradict Paul's own letters, widely believed to be genuine) and put him on an equal plane with Peter.

Paul's own writings - read without reading the Gospel material back into them - make a strong for his Gnosticism.

Freke and Gandy also made a good case for Origin and Clement of Alexander being Gnostics or proto-gnostics. And, I was surprised to learn that Tertullain AND Ireanaeus AND Hippolytus became heretics and embraced a form of Gnosticism at the end of their lives.

If you want a more dry and scholarly argument for Paul as a Gnostic, check out Gerald Massey's article "PAUL THE GNOSTIC OPPONENT OF PETER, NOT AN APOSTLE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY" which was written in the late 19th century. The article is available online here:

PAUL THE GNOSTIC OPPONENT OF PETER, NOT AN APOSTLE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY (published 1907) go to page 29
http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/Gerald_Masseys_Lectures.pdf

or in HTML:
http://mysticalkeys.com/library/Massey/massey_paul.htm

All of Gerald Massey's works are foundational to the Jesus Myth. Massey was one of the earliest to suggest that Christ was entirely Mythological and that the teachings of the Mysteries had been corrupted and "Historicized" by the Church Fathers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. It's their representation of the Eleusinian Mysteries

After one brief mention of the Great Mother goddess, they describe them as "Mysteries of Dionysus", and claim Dionysus was the central character. But the Mysteries were in honour of Demeter and her daughter Persephone. There was a supporting character, Iacchos, who is generally identified with Dionysus; but the main thrust of the mysteries was the celebration of the return of agricultural fertility, symbolised by Demeter retrieving her daughter from the Underworld. See eg http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gpr/gpr07.htm , http://users.erols.com/nbeach/eleusis.html , http://www.classics.upenn.edu/myth/hymns/eleusis.php , http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9032367 . But 'The Jesus Mysteries' tells you nothing about this. They refer to the Eleusinian Mysteries several times in the book, but have never, as far as I can tell, admitted they have represented it in a completely different way to other people. And with that occurring so early on in the book, I carried on reading with a sceptical eye to their claims. They claim that baptism comes from pagan baptism ceremonies, but ignore the ritual purification in Judaism - see eg http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=baptism . So this is what I see as 'cherry-picking' - and it makes me wonder how many other times they have ignored inconvenient evidence for their thesis.

As for the dates - yes, plenty of their evidence does come from before Christianity, but at other times they switch to quoting someone from the second or third century CE without saying so - and you have to look up the dates of each person in the back to find that out. So it seemed they were throwing quotations at the reader without regard for whether they were relevent to the argument they were making. I felt it was sloppy writing. While the thesis itself may stand up, this book didn't seem like a good exposition of it. I'll take a look at the Massey article.