Last week I was asked by a reporter from the African-American newspaper, Our Weekly, to respond to the notion that Jesus wasn’t a historical person but really just a reheated myth based on religious myths that preceded it. What follows, with few changes, are the notes that I prepared for that interview. Extremely little of what I told her was extemporaneous because, since we were doing it on the phone, I knew I could write out what I anticipated to be her questions and then read it verbatim. Which I did, with a few exceptions. I don’t feel misrepresented by what she wrote but since (not surprisingly) her article pruned my responses by about 80 percent, I thought I would recount what I told her:
First, and I can’t emphasize this enough, the notion that Jesus wasn’t an historical person, but just a rehash of earlier myths, commits the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of it). Just because something chronologically follows something else doesn’t necessarily mean that what preceded it was its cause. For example, if someone said, every time we take Mary to the park it rains, so let’s not take Mary to the park anymore,” he would be committing the post hoc fallacy. Similarly, even if there were close parallels that predated Jesus’ life (which there aren’t), that doesn’t necessarily mean that those other myths were the cause of belief about Jesus. Instead, the evidence for Jesus’ life must be examined on its own historical merits.
Second, this idea is historically wrong from the start. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger in The Riddle of the Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East wrote: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.”[1]
I then specifically mentioned two gods that she had brought up in a prior article—Krishna and Mithras. About the supposed resurrection of Krishna, apologist Mike Licona wrote the following:
What about Ms. Murdock’s [AKA, Acharya S], claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Penguin World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.
When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, “That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion.” He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heel. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there for him could not really see it. [2]
Regarding Mithras dying and being raised, Günter Wagner wrote: “Mithras does not belong to the dying and rising gods, and no death and resurrection ritual has ever been associated with this cult. Moreover, on account of the lateness of its spread, there is no question of the Mithras cult influencing primitive Christianity.”[3]
Third, there is impressive extra-Biblical testimony to the life of Jesus. For example, the Romans suspected Emperor Nero for setting the fire that destroyed Rome in A.D. 64. In 109 Tacitus wrote about that:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”[4]
Here Tacitus substantiates that the Christians got their name from a historical person called Christus who “suffered the extreme penalty” during the reign of Tiberius being sentenced by Pontius Pilatus. And what would the reference to “a most mischievous superstition” be? That Jesus was raised from the dead! It was the early Christian’s testimony to the resurrection of Jesus that resulted in their being burned to death in the Roman coliseum.
Fourth, the notion that Jesus never even existed is preached only by the loony fringe. I pointed out, a la Gary Habermas, that the overwhelming majority of skeptical NT scholars, even those who don’t consider themselves Christians at all, consider Jesus to be a historical person. Any belief to the contrary is silly.
Consider 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
About this even the liberal, Jesus Seminar co-founder, John Dominic Crossan says 1 Corinthians was “Written from Ephesus in the winter of 53-54 C.E…..”[5] and that the non-Christian German New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann wrote, “We can assume that all the elements in the tradition [of 1 Cor. 15:3-8] are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus.”[6]
Here are several more quotes from skeptical scholars:
John Dominic Crossan: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[7]
Crossan: “I take it absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Security about the fact of the Crucifixion derives not only from the unlikelyhood that Christians would have invented it but also from the existence of two early and independent non-Christian witnesses to it, a Jewish one from 93-94 C.E. and a Roman one from the 110s or 120s C.E.”[8]
Gerd Ludemann, “It is certain that Jesus was crucified around the year 30.”[9]
Ludemann: The fact of Jesus death as the consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”[10]
I emphasized that these guys were first-rank scholars who may not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead but they certainly had no doubts that Jesus once lived!
She then asked about the resurrection of Christ (which seemed a little off topic) and I pointed out that the early Christians immediately began preaching that Jesus was raised soon after His crucifixion. Thus atheist Michael Martin, in The Case Against Christianity, wrote that it “is correct that the Resurrection was proclaimed by the early Christians.”[11] Also, consider the words of Gerd Ludemann:
It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ…. The only thing that we can certainly say to be historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in Jerusalem) soon after Jesus death.[12]
Thus the non-Christian, yet New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman wrote:
Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.[13]
Luke 1:1-4: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”
Amen.
[1] Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Riddle of the Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (Stockholm: Almqvist &Wiksell, 2001), 221. See also Jonathan. Z. Smith: “The history of the comparative venture reviewed in these chapters has been the history of an enterprise undertaken in bad faith. The [skeptic’s] interests have rarely been cognitive, but rather almost always apologetic. As such, no other purpose for comparison has been entertained but that of genealogy.” Jonathan. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity, (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990), 143.
[2] Mike Licona documenting a personal conversation with Edwin Bryant in “A Refutation of Acharya S’s book, The Christ Conspiracy,” http://www.risenjesus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=109 [Accessed 8-12-2010]. This is a fabulous resource on the alleged comparisons between Jesus, Krishna and Buddha.
[3]GĂĽnter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and The Pagan Mysteries: The Problem of the Pauline Doctrine of Baptism in Romans VI. 1-11, in the Light of its Religio-Historical “Parallels”, trans. J. P. Smith (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967), 67-68.
[4] http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html.
[5] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 427.
[6] Gerd Ludemann, Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995), 38.
[7] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 179.
[8] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 372.
[9] Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 8.
[10] Ludemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 39.
[11] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University, 1991), 90.
[12] Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, 80, 81.
[13] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: OUP, 2001), 231.
Instead, the evidence for Jesus’ life must be examined on its own historical merits.
Dr. Jones,
Would you agree the historical context of our Jesus stories includes a culture awash with stories about walking talking miracle working godmen?
.
When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.
When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.
In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.
When Vespatian’s spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.
When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.
When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.
When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.
When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.
When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.
When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a myth. woman
When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.
When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.
So how come when Jesus is described as
the Son of God,
born of a mortal woman,
according to prophecy,
turning water into wine,
raising girls from the dead, and
healing blind men with his spittle,
and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks…
how come that’s not a myth?
Moonsray
Hi MT,
Why do you suppose that top-rank skeptical scholars like Ludemann and Crossan don’t consider Jesus to be a myth?
Also, you end your post talking about hell. Isn’t that the real problem? I mean, if Jesus is a real person and really was raised from the dead, then none of us can just live for our piggy little selves but must submit ourselves to Him?
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
MT, it isn’t too late to repent of your sins and receive eternal life. I’m praying for you. Really.
Clay
Dr. Jones,
So, seen in isolation our Jesus stories seem real. But when we consider the totality of the evidence, in particular the context of a culture awash with stories about magic miracle working sons of god, we discover that over and over key elements of our Jesus stories are key elements of the stories the ancients told about their other godmen.
And you agree all those other godman stories are myths. And you can provide no analysis of the cultural context evidence to explain those similarities—other than the obvious answer: As far as the evidence goes, Jesus is just another ancient myth.
———-
Why do you suppose that top-rank skeptical scholars like Ludemann and Crossan don’t consider Jesus to be a myth?
As Hector Avalos says, current academic NT scholarship is not so much real scholarship as it is an excuse for liberal theology.
Selection bias # 1. The “top-rank” silliness is the product of liberal theologians . They don’t pick Robert Price or Dennis MacDonald not because they can refute their scholarship. They don’t pick them because their heretical scholarship is about ideas theologians are not interested in.
Selection bias # 2. People who recognize the fairy tale nature of the stories don’t see a career about a fairy tale as worthy of their life’s work.
Also, you end your post talking about hell. Isn’t that the real problem? I mean, if Jesus is a real person and really was raised from the dead, then none of us can just live for our piggy little selves but must submit ourselves to Him?
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
MT, it isn’t too late to repent of your sins and receive eternal life. I’m praying for you. Really.
Yes. And if Dionysus is a real person and really does provide salvation, as His gold tablets promise, then each of us must submit ourselves to Him. To date your analysis of the two is identical.
Moonsray
Pingback: Clay Jones on the Jesus Myth Theory | Apologia
Hi MT,
Regarding Ludemann and Crossan (and a majority of other NT scholars whether Christian or not) you really didn’t answer my question. Avalos’s simply dismissing them as unscholarly is just ad hominem.
But let’s put that aside for now and examine just the post hoc issue.
Even if there were close parallels to Jesus’ life (which I absolutely don’t think there are), that doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t an historical person. One needs to examine the evidence and not just dismiss Jesus as an historical person because there are many stories that we do regard as myths.
Clay
Dr. Jones,
Thank you for the excellent article. I’ve run into this very objection myself, and I generally feel the same reaction–“What!?” To deny that there was a historical figure of Jesus would mean that we should deny just about any historical figure, for the historical evidence about Jesus vastly outweighs the amount of evidence we have for persons like Alexander the Great.
I agree with Moonsray. A handful of liberal theologians that say Jesus was likely historical does not make conclusive evidence or likelihood that he existed. However, I’d like to point out that even though I am a skeptic, I think I personally believe that Jesus existed in some form, though I am not a bible scholar. I just don’t believe in the miracles, or that he was the son of God. Of course I could be wrong, but extraordinary claims such as talking snakes, virgin births, and resurrections, require extraordinary evidence. As Moonsray mentioned, we feel free to ignore similar ancient stories of miracles, just as we do current day UFO abductions, Bigfoot and Elvis sightings. The Bible stories can easily be a mix of truth, history, myth, morals, mistakes, copying errors, embellishments and parable. There is no reason to believe it has to be all true or all false. I think its possible Socrates existed, but I don’t assume all the stories about him are perfectly true either. Karen Armstrong, in her book “The Case for God” makes the claim that back when the old and new testament books were written, that having perfect historical accuracy just wasn’t as important back then as it is now. It was more about getting the theological and moral point across.
I’d like to respond to this comment:
“Also, you end your post talking about hell. Isn’t that the real problem? I mean, if Jesus is a real person and really was raised from the dead, then none of us can just live for our piggy little selves but must submit ourselves to Him?”
Sadly, this is a common attack many Christians use against anyone that disagrees with them. The argument is basically “You’re bad, you want to keep being bad, so you choose not to believe the way I do.” This argument is as flawed and self-serving as it is ancient. Christians have also used this same logic against each other. Martin Luther accused Erasmus of being a skeptic a non-christian, all the way back in the 1500’s, because they disagreed on certain theological points. The fact is that people often believe things, right or wrong, for purely intellectual or experiential reasons. Muslims believe in Allah because they were raised Muslims, Hindus because they were raised Hindu, etc. Some people convert to Christianity because they have certain experiences that lead them to believe that Jesus is the way and some people reject Christianity because the have experiences that make them believe its a false, man-made religion.
I can tell you as a skeptic, I do not reject Christianity because I want to keep “living for my piggy little self.” I’m not saying I’m perfect or sinless. However, if I really thought the claims of Christianity was true, I would gladly convert. What’s not to like? You live a life of honorable self-sacrifice for a finite number of years, secure in the knowledge that a Perfect God is commanding you to do the Right Thing and help others, you avoid some petty little sins, and you die secure in the knowledge that you and your loved ones will live eternally united with the Supreme Being in perpetual bliss. Sounds like a fair deal to me. Where do I sign up?
I would like to meet God and would gladly kneel before Him. I just don’t think he exists, or at least not in the way you Christians think he does.
Hi Fregas,
I only brought up hell because MT ended her first post complaining about it. Otherwise it wouldn’t have occurred to me.
I appreciate your candor so let me cut to the chase. Do you agree that the early Christians soon began proclaiming Jesus resurrection, and, if you do, what is your explanation for that?
Clay
Dr. Jones,
Thank you for your kind response.
Regarding Ludemann and Crossan (and a majority of other NT scholars whether Christian or not) you really didn’t answer my question. Avalos’s simply dismissing them as unscholarly is just ad hominem.
“Ad hominem” would be apt if Avalos dismissed them because they are Poo Poo Heads. In fact Dr. Avalos cites facts and gives reasons.
But let’s put that aside for now and examine just the post hoc issue.
I jotted something simply to avoid appearing impolite by ignoring what seems to me a non sequitir. I agree, put citations of authority aside. Let’s see what the facts are and make our own decisions.
Even if there were close parallels to Jesus’ life (which I absolutely don’t think there are), that doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t an historical person.
I agree. In the ancient world real historical people had mythic elements added to their stories. Proving that Jesus’ virgin birth is mythic would not prove there was not a real person at the core of the story. But it would prove the gospels include myths, right?
One needs to examine the evidence and not just dismiss Jesus as an historical person because there are many stories that we do regard as myths.
Yes, and the question I have been inviting you to answer is, Why are all those pagan stories myths but our story history?
So far your analysis fails to examine relevant evidence. The evidence is, the ancients attached mythic stories to persons real and imaginary. The question arises whether our stories about Jesus reflect real events or traditional ancient mythic invention.
Alexander the Great was a historical person around whom the traditional myth of a god-father/ mortal mother developed. Alexander was historical. The story was mythical.
It was said of Augustus that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Romulus that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Scipio that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Plato that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Dionysis that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Apis that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Glycon that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Vulcan that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
It was said of Apis that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
QUESTION : Would you agree with me Dr. Jones that although some of these people were historical, the stories of their divine births are not historical?
God father/ mortal mother was not a random incidental story element. It was a recurring feature of ancient thought. It had standard pagan-theological meaning, as described by Origen Contra C. 1:37.
It was said of Jesus that he had a divine father and a mortal mother.
And, says Origen, the function of the divine birth in the Jesus story is the same as the function in the pagan stories.
QUESTION :
1 Dr. Jones, who do you think knew/ knows more about ancient religion—you or Origen?
2 How does your analysis explain these facts?
3 Would you agree with me that the fact Luke’s gospel includes the traditional ancient pagan mythic element of a divine birth, Luke is overall less valuable as a source of reliable history?
Moonsray
Clay,
I will answer that question with a question–do you agree that many people claim to see Elvis and Aliens? People claim to see the Virgin Mary, on multiple occasions in multiple places. What is your explanation for that?
But to be more frank, yes, it seems that some people thought they saw jesus, and many, many more simply believed those that claimed they did. People have a variety of bizarre experiences, religious and non-religious. That doesn’t mean I should assume they are true.
My issue was not that you mentioned hell specifically, but the assumption by many religious people that the skeptic is evil and he chooses his beliefs so they can continue to be evil. Its just patently false. And of course Christians assume this of Muslims, Muslims assume it of Christians, Protestants of Catholics and so on. Its just so preposterous that everyone believes everyone else is vile and evil and that their own religion is the sole keeper of goodness and truth.
Yet often, belief is not a choice. Our beliefs choose us, not the other way around. Let me ask you another question. The day after Jesus ascended into heaven, according to your beliefs, what happened to all the people in China and India who died?
fregas
Hi MT,
Sorry for the delay. I’ve gotten very busy so I really need to establish one point at a time. Just to be clear, so you aren’t arguing that Jesus never existed as a historical person, what you are arguing is whether many of the stories about him are mythical. Is that correct?
Clay
Hi Fregas,
Sorry for the delay. Things are very busy. As I mentioned to MT, I really need to handle one point at a time.
Are you then agreeing that some people did (for whatever reason–whether right or wrong) claim to see the risen Jesus?
Clay
Dr. Jones,
Thank you. One point at a time is always best.
I’m not arguing. I’m testing where the evidence can take us, hoping to identify the points on which we agree and disagree. I’m taking the side that Jesus Wasn’t a Real Person? is less dumb than you suggest.
A consistent reading of the ancient evidence will show that Jesus’ story contains traditional ancient mythic elements fulfilling traditional ancient religious functions.
The evidence will then show that divine-man stories need not involve a historical person.
It is this evidence that must be added to the ancient Christian documentary evidence before one may answer Was Jesus Real? .
Your likely responses include 1. Jesus is different, and 2. the NT is reliable.
Neither will be sustainable. In particular #2 will be circular. The actual documents, and their actual dates, will not support your factual assertions or the conclusions you construct from them.
Moonsray
Clay,
Sure, I think its possible that some people really did think they saw Jesus, but at the same time I think its also possible that people felt they experienced Jesus (in their heart, or whatever) after he was gone, or just preached what he did, and later it developed into a mythological story of “jesus rose from the dead.” I don’t know, I wasn’t there. I’m certainly no scholar of ancient writings. My main point is that it doesn’t matter. We feel free to ignore people who claim (often loudly) to see supernatural junk all the time, past and present. In order to prove the claim that he really rose from the dead, you need overwhelming evidence that it actually happened, not merely that some people, who were obviously biased and indoctrinated, believed it did.
Craig
This discussion reminds me of a documentary I saw not too long ago. It was about some compound that this cult lived in. The leader claimed to be Christ / the Messiah and was having sex with all the wives in the compound, and the husbands went along with it because he was the incarnation of God. The children were completely indoctrinated and wanted to stay, even when some of the parents got out of the cult.
At the end of the documentary, the leader claims that they are about to witness Armageddon and be whisked away into paradise, something he had been preaching for years and that the cult members had been waiting for. They go to some hill or field or something for a midnight vigil. They all begin singing and yelling and the leader leads them in a sort of chant of “we’re free! we’re free!” They wait and wait. Nothing happens.
Then they all go back to the compound singing. You can tell many of them are visibly disappointed. Yet none of them leave the cult. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their leader was a scumbag and a liar, they continued to believe in him.
I’m not comparing this guy to jesus, but just illustrating that religious belief can make people say and do bizarre things even if reason and evidence show that reality is contrary to what you believe.
Sorry everyone for the delay! A Windows file was corrupted on my regular computer which is being fixed by the IT department and I just got a loaner. I’ll respond as soon as I can!
Clay
A portuguese version these excellent article: http://questaodeconfianca.blogspot.com/2010/08/jesus-nao-foi-uma-pessoa-real-isto-e.html
I’m thankful you found my post helpful, Douglas!
Clay
Let’s chat sometime. You can look me up on Facebook or send me an email to clay.jones@biola.edu
Pingback: Arguments In Relationship | Attraction Dynamics for REAL in Dating
Sorry, again, everyone. I’m back in the saddle, kind of. This has been an extremely busy week and my regular computer is still in the shop which has made everything a little more difficult.
Okay, MT, let’s examine one piece of evidence at a time. In 109 the historian Tacitus wrote:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”
Is this not evidence that there really was a man named Jesus?
Clay
Craig,
Your comment that you think it is possible that some people think they saw Jesus alive makes me want to back up a bit.
Do you think that we can have any confidence that we can know things that happened in the first century A.D.?
Clay
It seems to me that people are dismissing something very important here. It seems that we agree (to some point) that Jesus existed. The issue seems to be, whether he died and rose from the dead. I agree that the story told by the disciples is perhaps somewhat similar to many other myths told before, but lets not forget that it was not an easy thing to call yourself a Christian in 1st century. Christians were persecuted and killed, I dont know about any of you, but i certainly would not die for something that i know its false.
Clay,
I think we can be reasonably confident about certain historical events, but there’s always room for doubt. I don’t assume that we know everything about Socrates or even Lincoln, and I’d assume at least a small part of what we think we know is false. But saying “Alexander the Great existed” is not the same caliber of claim as “Jesus rose from the dead and did miracles.”
Felix,
Yes, I think that’s exactly the issue. But there is no reason to think the disciples were necessarily lying. People have bizarre spiritual experiences all the time that causes drastic changes in behavior…that doesn’t mean they are true. And other than the disciples and maybe Paul, the early Christians only heard about Christ–they didn’t see him. This all occurred in a time when there was no secular science and people assumed that gods, magic and the supernatural existed and were part of the everyday world. Religion can be very compelling.
Ancient peoples sacrificed themselves and their children to gods they never saw and Islamic jihadists today blow themselves up in order to enter paradise–none of them are liars, they are just mistaken. Its not so hard to believe that some Christians really believed in the resurrection and were willing to die for it, regardless of whether they had sufficient evidence or actually saw Jesus rise themselves. People do these kinds of things in the name of religion all the time, without necessarily being “liars.”
When its our own religion, we call them “believers” when its someone else’s religion we call them “brainwashed.”
Dear Dr. Jones,
Thank you for your kind response.
In 1997 when the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and others wrote about the Heaven’s Gate cult, each report described the space gods cult members believed were coming to earth in the trail of the Hale Bop comet. Dr Jones you and I both know these reports are not evidence of the reality of the new comet-Gods. We both know the imaginary gods were mentioned in contemporaneous accounts because the reporters were explaining the new cult by describing it’s basic beliefs.
Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian each mention Christ in the context of a new cult, Christianity . They explain the new cult by describing it’s basic beliefs. Pagan authors’ descriptions of the new cult’s basic beliefs are evidence of the cult and of the belief, not of the reality of the cult’s new god.
.
Further, as you know the ancients dealt with the gods uncritically:
At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away, on the advice of Serapis (whom this superstitious people worship as their chief god) fell at Vespasian’s feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth….
At first Vespasian laughed at them and refused, but they insisted. …. he stepped forward with a smile on his face and did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man’s eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, 4.81
May we agree that eye witness testimony notwithstanding, Tacitus here is evidence of belief in Serapis and belief in Vespasian’s miracle healings, but that Tacitus is not evidence that Serapis or the miracles were real?
.
I agree with you. The 2d century pagan accounts of Christianity, when they mention the god of the new Christian cult, are consistent with there having been a real Jesus—just as the Times and Newsweek accounts are consistent with there having been real comet gods. But the accounts are also exactly the sort of reports one would expect had there been nothing more than a new cult whose members believed in a yet another ancient godman—a godman whose existence was no more real than Vespasian’s eye witnessed miraculous cures or Serapis and His life changing miraculous advice.
.
The evidence you present therefore fails to make the belief that Jesus never existed “dumb” .
.
I observe that you fail to account for all the evidence. In particular your theory of Christian origins fails to explain all those godmen with divine fathers and mortal mothers, born in fulfillment of prophecy, raising the dead, healing, and setting things up so Their believers got eternal life in Heaven. How come are their silly stories myths and our silly stories are not?
Moonsray
Moonsray,
First I’d like to say that your knowledge of history is impressive. I’ve learned a lot both from you (and Clay) on what the ancients believed, even if we disagree on what those things mean.
I think your case would be less confusing if you would say “yes, Jesus most likely existed, but as a man, not as a god.” You seem to be saying this in a round about way but its not entirely clear whether you believe he was an actual historical person who, like Alexander the Great, had mythical elements added to his story later on, or whether you doubt his existence entirely. Just curious.
Hi MT,
The reason you don’t find me answering other things you bring up is because I prefer to deal with one point at a time. I understand that you consider there to be a lot of mythical elements regarding Jesus and we can discuss those.
But one point at a time. Presently, what I’m asking is related to what Fregas brought up. Was there a real person named Jesus that was the basis of Christian belief? Some of the things you wrote above make me think you that you think so but that you reject what you consider to be many mythical accounts about him.
Clay
Hi Fregas,
Let me back up one more step in our discussion. Do you believe it is possible that God exists or are you committed to naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is)? The reason I’m backing up is because there is no point in discussing whether or not certain aspects of the accounts about Jesus are true if you are committed to naturalism because, indeed, if there is no God then Christianity is a false religion, accounts of his resurrection are mythical, and the belief in Christianity should be abandoned.
Clay
Dr. Jones,
Again, I am taking the side that Jesus Wasn’t a Real Person is less dumb than you suggest. I will start by arguing Jesus is entirely mythical. Let’s see how the evidence forces reasonable people away from that.
So far you have mentioned the 2d century pagan references to Christianity. I have shown that those fail to indicate a real Jesus. You have not disagreed. Point settled.
.
Let us then examine other relevant evidence.
Alexander the Great was a historical person around whom the traditional myth of a god-father/ mortal mother developed. Alexander was historical. The story was mythical.
It was said of Augustus that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Romulus that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Scipio that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Plato that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Dionysis that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Apis that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Glycon that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Vulcan that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
It was said of Apis that he had a divine father and a mortal mother .
QUESTION
Would you agree with me that although some of these people were historical, the stories of their divine births are not historical?
God father/ mortal mother was not a random incidental story element. It was a recurring feature of ancient thought. It had standard pagan-theological meaning, as described by Origen, Contra C. 1:37.
It was said of Jesus that he had a divine father and a mortal mother . And, says Origen, the function of the divine birth in the Jesus story is the same as the function in the pagan stories.
QUESTION :
1 Dr. Jones, who knew/ knows more about ancient religion—you or Origen?
2 How does your analysis explain these facts?
3 Would you agree with me that the fact Luke’s gospel includes the traditional ancient pagan mythic element of a divine birth, makes Luke overall less valuable as a source of reliable history?
Moonsray
Hi MT,
As I’ve said before, I only argue one point at a time. Because I haven’t addressed the other points you mention doesn’t mean I have conceded them. You are arguing on my site and so I get to decide how many issues will be examined at one time.
So now that I am sure that you are actually arguing that Jesus wasn’t even an historical person, I will go back to my earlier question.
Tacitus wrote the following:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”
Yes or no. Is this evidence that there really was a man named Jesus?
Clay
Dr. Jones,
I appreciate your kind attention.
Tacitus wrote [ ….]
Yes or no. Is this evidence that there really was a man named Jesus?
Answer: No.
But Dr., if you believe the conclusions that may reasonably be drawn from the 2d century pagan authors’ mentions of Christianity and it’s godman can be reduced to “Yes or no,” then we have arrived at a point where our views diverge. I believe this complex subject can be meaningfully understood only with a more nuanced analysis.
In 1997 when the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and others wrote about the Heaven’s Gate cult, each report described the space gods cult members believed were coming to earth in the trail of the Hale Bop comet. Dr Jones you and I both know these reports are not evidence of the reality of the new comet-Gods. We both know the imaginary gods were mentioned in contemporaneous accounts because the reporters were explaining the new cult by describing it’s basic beliefs.
Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian each mention Christ in the context of a new cult, Christianity . They explain the new cult by describing it’s basic beliefs. Pagan authors’ descriptions of the new cult’s basic beliefs are evidence of the cult and of the belief, not of the reality of the cult’s new god.
.
Further, as you know the ancients dealt with the gods uncritically:
At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away, on the advice of Serapis (whom this superstitious people worship as their chief god) fell at Vespasian’s feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth….
At first Vespasian laughed at them and refused, but they insisted. …. he stepped forward with a smile on his face and did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man’s eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, 4.81
May we agree that eye witness testimony notwithstanding, Tacitus here is evidence of belief in Serapis and belief in Vespasian’s miracle healings, but that Tacitus is not evidence that Serapis or the miracles were real?
.
I agree with you. The 2d century pagan accounts of Christianity, when they mention the god of the new Christian cult, are consistent with there having been a real Jesus—just as the Times and Newsweek accounts are consistent with there having been real comet gods.
But the accounts are also exactly the reports one would expect had there been nothing more than a new cult whose members believed in a yet another ancient godman—a godman whose existence was no more real than Vespasian’s eye witnessed miraculous cures or Serapis and His life changing miraculous advice.
.
The evidence you present therefore fails to make belief Jesus wasn’t a real person “dumb” .
Moonsray
Hi MT,
Let’s start looking at the Tacitus passage itself and see how it lines up with what you’ve written.
You say the ancients dealt with new cults “uncritically.” However, in the passage in question, Tacitus calls Christianity a “most mischievous superstition” that was “evil.” Is that not critical of Christianity?
Clay
Clay,
He did not say that they deal with new cults uncritically, he said:
the “ancients dealt with the gods uncritically”
If I’m understanding MT correctly, he’s saying that they generally accepted that there were various gods, supernatural events and miracles, without critically evaluating the evidence for such claims. Just clarifying.
As far as whether I believe in the possibility of God, thats a complicated question. I am an agnostic so the short answer is yes, I think its possible, just unlikely based on the current evidence. Yet even if I were committed 100% to naturalism, I would like to think that my view could be altered if there was evidence that Jesus really did miracles or rose from the dead. I don’t think a commitment to naturalism is a reason to just end the discussion…there’s no reason to be dogmatic, whether atheist or christian. However, I think you have to have really overwhelming evidence for such claims however, because we all feel free to ignore other religions’ supernatural claims, as well as other incidents i’ve mentioned such as aliens and astrology.
I practice zen meditation and read some stuff on buddhism Although Zen does not specifically talk about God using the same language as Christian theists, and much of Buddhism is “pantheistic” much of the language they do use (Mu, buddha-nature, nirvana, etc) starts sounding a bit like a transcendent God if you know both traditions. The language is different but some of the parallels are striking. Some of the experiences I’ve had during meditation are very similar to experiences I had when I was a Christian, but i’m not prepared to defend these experiences as “proof” of anything one way or the other or expect other people to take my word on it.
My personal view is that the atheists are likely 100% or 99% right. I think either God does not exist, or he does exist and is very different then what all the religions say about him. God does not hand out parking spaces, smite people with hellfire, turn them to salt or heal them using mud made out of spit. In any other religion other than our own we call that superstition.
Thanks,
Fregas
Hi Fregas,
Okay, so here’s a classic syllogism.
Everything that begins to exist as a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
How do you respond to this?
Clay
Ah the Cosmological Argument.
I would first respond to this by saying that in my opinion, the most honest and rational answer is “we don’t know.” However, not knowing is a truly far cry away from proving a deity. This is the classic “god of the gaps” thinking, that god must exist because to explain the gaps in our knowledge. The ancients didn’t know that the sun was a ball of hot gas formed by nuclear fission, but that doesn’t mean their theory on apollo was correct.
Secondly, as to the origins of the universe, we know through relativity that space and time are one and that they began with the big bang. So asking “what caused the big bang” might be pointless, because there was no time to exist before it. Cause and effect imply the concept of time. Such questions might be completely meaningless. I think they are interesting to ask but might be unanswerable.
Even if you inject God as the cause of the big bang outside space and time, it begs the question “Why does God exist?” It just moves the question back a step.
Hi Fregas,
Do you agree with premise one: Everything that begins to exist has a cause?
Clay
In general, yes. In regards to the origins of the universe, we don’t know. As I’ve already mentioned, cause and effect assume time and since time didn’t exist before the universe, talking about what “caused” the universe, which time is a part of, might be unintelligible.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume I say “yes” everything that begins to exist has a cause. Then what?
Dr. Jones,
You say the ancients dealt with new cults “uncritically.” However, in the passage in question, Tacitus calls Christianity a “most mischievous superstition” that was “evil.” Is that not critical of Christianity?
.
ANSWER
You are correct. The Tacitus passage is “critical” of Christianity—in the sense of inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably.
But the meaning I have in mind is exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation, as in “critical scholarship.”
.
QUESTION
Will you agree with me Dr., that had Tacitus exercised the sort of careful judgment you yourself would use and had he judiciously evaluated the Serapis and Vespasian miracles as you would, that he would have discovered that Serapis was not a real god and Vespasian’s miracles did not actually happen?
QUESTION
Do you agree with me that eyewitness testimony notwithstanding, Tacitus Annals 4.81 is evidence of belief in Serapis and belief in Vespasian’s miracle healings, but that Tacitus is not evidence that Serapis or the miracles were real?
Moonsray
Hi MT,
So based on Tacitus’s comment that Christianity was a “most mischievous superstition” that was “evil” which he aligned with “all things hideous and shameful,” that Tacitus was, in some sense, an enemy of Christianity?
Clay
Dear Dr. Jones,
No.
Moonsray
Hi MT,
Although there are gradations, to be sure, there are really only three basic positions: Tacitus could be Christianity’s friend (which based on your previous responses seems to be a view you don’t hold), Tacitus could be neutral (neither friend nor enemy) to Christianity, Tacitus is (at least to some extent) Christianity’s enemy.
So my question is: if Tacitus isn’t Christianity’s enemy, are you suggesting that he was in some since neutral towards Christian belief even though he said that Christianity was a “most mischievous superstition” that was “evil” which he aligned with “all things hideous and shameful” ?
Clay
Although there are gradations, to be sure, there are really only three basic positions: Tacitus could be Christianity’s friend (which based on your previous responses seems to be a view you don’t hold), Tacitus could be neutral (neither friend nor enemy) to Christianity, Tacitus is (at least to some extent) Christianity’s enemy.
.
1. Your analysis here departs from the plain meaning of the text and sets off to speculate about the motives of people you and I don’t know from a culture you and I don’t understand. My life experience convinces me speculation about other peoples’ motives is highly unreliable. If you have evidence to support your claim that this sort of speculation gives correct results, you have not yet given it. Until you do, let us agree your claims here are highly theoretical and unreliable.
2. Respectfully Dr Jones, in my opinion the idea that all ancient writers “was either fur us or agin’ us” is apt for cowboy movies, but not for scholarship. I cheerfully admit I may be wrong. If you have evidence to support your assertion that “enemy” and “friend” are meaningful scholarly categories, please give it. That failing, we shall have identified the point at which our opinions differ.
——
So my question is: if Tacitus isn’t Christianity’s enemy, are you suggesting that he was in some since neutral towards Christian belief even though he said that Christianity was a “most mischievous superstition” that was “evil” which he aligned with “all things hideous and shameful” ?
.
The failing of your analysis here is two fold.
1. Your analysis assumes Tacitus, or whoever wrote this passage, was guided by membership in the simplistic category “enemy” or “friend.” I can’t agree. They may have also
a have had complicated human reasons
b have been guided by their particular social class and prejudices
c have been guided by Roman ideas and conventions
d have been guided by literary convention
e have been guided by other motives
f etc. etc. etc.
2 Your analysis assumes you can discern the inner motives of an ancient writer by considering two or three phrases in his writing out of context. In this, as before, your analysis fails to account for basic evidence.
Your analysis attributes motives to Tacitus while failing to account for Tacitus uncritical approach to claims about gods.
Your analysis attributes motives to Tacitus while failing to account for Tacitus context as an ancient Roman.
Your analysis attributes motives to Tacitus while failing to to account for Tacitus as an individual.
Your analysis attributes motives to Tacitus while failing to recognize and account for the long history of Roman use of the word “superstitio.”
Your analysis attributes motives to Tacitus while failing to consider Tacitus’ discussion of other gods.
Your analysis attributes motives to Tacitus while failing to consider Tacitus’ other habits and practices and aims.
If you want to base your theory on speculation about Tacitus’ motives, you’re going to need do more than lift a phrase or two out of context. You’re going go need to read, understand and reference the body of Tacitus’ work, in the context of ancient Roman culture. Until you do, we shall have arrived at a point where our opinions differ.
Moonsray
Hi MT,
Trying to disallow the question isn’t answering it and, honestly, I think for other readers of this blog, whether skeptic or not, the answer is clear–Tacitus holds Christianity in contempt and holding something in contempt is to be, in some sense, its enemy.
Also, I’m not asking you to speculate about his motives. For example, if Jack said “Jill disgusts me, I think she is vile,” to ask if Jack is, in some sense, Jill’s enemy isn’t asking you to speculate as to why Jack is her enemy.
My question is, based upon the clear statements Tacitus has himself made, whether in some sense we could consider Tacitus to be an enemy to Christian belief.
Although “enemy” is a fine word, whether we use the word enemy or not isn’t the point.
So I’ll use a different word. Would you say that Tacitus’s own statements reveal that he is not neutral towards Christianity but is in some sense hostile towards Christianity?
Clay
Fregas,
I’ll take that as a yes.
Do you agree with premise 2.
The universe began to exist?
Clay
Sure, for the sake of argument.
Then something or someone caused the universe to exist. Right?
Sure. Your point?
Not trying to be impatient but I think i know where you’re going with this…
Doesn’t that render naturalism–the belief that nature is all there is–false? If not, why not?
No. Naturalism isn’t rendered (as far as I can tell) 100% false (or 100% true for that matter.)
Okay, let’s say something outside the known universe *might* have caused the universe (though as I’ve already illustrated, the question may currently or forever be unintelligible.) But this thing outside the universe, may itself be naturalistic. There are theories such as the black hole multi-verse theory and energy/matter creation from nothing due to quantum fluctuations (proven in the laboratory) that could “create” the universe. I’m not asking you to accept these theories on faith nor am I contending that they are scientifically proven, only to suggest that there are a myriad of other possibilities other than any particular deity that could explain the arising of space, time and energy. The honest answer again is “we don’t know.” Saying that doesn’t prove super-naturalism. Doing so is “god of the gaps” thinking.
What we’ve noticed over and over throughout history is that things previously considered supernatural–the arising of species, the movement of the sun and starts, weather, diseases, etc. that were all explained through supernatural means because of lack of knowledge have since been properly explained through purely natural mechanisms. Its possible that the creation of the universe will one day be explained through naturalistic means as well.
Of course, I don’t think that will kill religion, because whatever THAT thing is can then be seized upon by religious people. Let’s say they prove without a doubt, that the universe was created by quantum fluctuations of energy, a current possibility. Its discovered that this process itself exists out of space and time as we know it and caused the big bang. Religious people could then say “Well, these fluctuations must themselves have a cause or reason for being, so that means there must a god” thus starting the whole argument anew. I have a deep suspicion that the God concept is technically unfalsifiable, which is a sure sign that it can never be scientifically proven.
Of course, even if God is the answer, the likelihood of it being exactly the Christian God (and which Christian God would it be?) is small. It could be the universe is essentially pantheistic or created by some other deity. This is just my personal opinion and I don’t mean to offend your religion. However, the deity that created the laws of natures, the mathematical elegance of the universe, the beauty of the cosmos, cause and effect, logic, the mysteries of quarks and black holes, etc. would not be the illogical god of the bible, interested in animal sacrifice, that has to expidate his anger through a piece of himself, and then offers this escape route from his wrath to a small percentage of humanity while the rest of consigned to infinite torture for a finite amount of sins that were initially triggered by their first ancestor eating an apple because his wife listened to a talking snake. Not likely to be the same God. At best, I think the universe suggests deism, not Christianity, but this is just opinion.
Dr. Jones,
Tacitus does not state his inner thoughts and motives. You imagine you can identify them. Respectfully, I find your methods trivial. Being asked, you failed to expand your ideas in a scholarly way. We have identified a point at which our analyses differ. Thank you for taking time to put forward your hypothesis.
.
This avenue being exhausted by your theory’s failure to encompass relevant evidence and it’s failure, as we went along, to answer simple questions, I observe again that your theory has so far also failed to explain the relationship between Jesus’ divine father/ mortal mother birth all those pagan myths about all those other godmen with divine fathers / mortal mothers births, etc.
Moonsray
Clay, this has been a truly excellent and a exhausting exchange.
I am always fascinated by folks who miss the point that it is very difficult to get people to endure torture and die for what they know to be false.
The disciples of Jesus died for their belief in Jesus’ resurrection and that they would have known if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. We are not saying that the poor saps were tortured to death for what they thought was true, but if they had just studied the evidence a bit more they could have found out was in fact false.
The Christian position is that 11 of the 12 died for what they were able to know was true or false. These disciples knew whether or not he had risen and decided to endure torturous deaths in order to obtain life beyond this life. The alternative explanation is that 11 of the 12 endured torture and death for the myth that they themselves fabricated.
Folks who are mistaken or misled may die for what they believe is true. The suicide cults MT mentioned are a good enough example. These people had no ability to know if there were or were not comet gods. The disciples on the other hand were able to know if the Jesus they saw resurrected was in fact the same as the Jesus they lived with for the last three years. They would have also known if they had fabricated a myth about his life and resurrection. This is the point not that they were willing to die, but that they were able to know and were willing to die.
I agree about the suicide cults, Dave! Thanks for writing.
Clay
Hi Fregas,
What is unintelligible about the universe, if it had a beginning, needing a cause for its existence?
Clay
Hi Clay,
I thought I already explained that but maybe I didn’t do so well. I’ll try again.
The idea that the universe had a cause is based on our everyday ideas of cause and effect. Cause and effect however, only exist as far as we know them, in the stream of linear time–something happens, causing something else, which causes something else, etc. The problem with asking “what caused the universe” is you are essentially phrasing a question with the assumption that linear time existed, but before the universe existed there was also no linear time, so cause and effect questions and answers may not make any sense–they may be unintelligible. Paul Davies, who is a theist though not a christian, talks about this a little in his book “the Mind of God.”
To put it in your terms, asking “What caused the universe?” may in fact be similar to the famous question “What was God doing before the universe began?” to which Augustine said that the question was unintelligible because God exists outside time and created time as part of the universe. Of course his answer also suffers the same fatal flaw, because to say God created time is to phrase the question as if time already existed, or some sort of “meta-time” in which there was a time where time did not exist, then God created time, then time did exist. All of which talk in the sense of “cause and effect” and imply the cause and effect stream of linear time–but before time began.
I hope this helps. We are asking questions to which our science is limited and our rational minds cannot wrap our brains around the cause of time itself, seemingly a contradiction in terms. The most honest answer in my opinion is “we don’t know.” I don’t know why this scares people so much.
Wow, there are so many things to discuss here, Fregas. As you know I want to try to take them one at a time.
At the outset let me say that I’m glad you agree that linear time didn’t exist before the foundation of our universe. After all, if time always existed then we would never have gotten here because we would have had to cross an actual infinity.
Now, as to the question being unintelligible. I still don’t get it. If time and space had a beginning and if everything that has a beginning has a cause, then I don’t see how saying that “something must have created it” is unintelligible. I understand the statement. How is saying that it is “unintelligible different from just saying “I don’t know”?
Clay
Clay,
I dont think I mean to suggest that time definitely didn’t exist before the universe. Our current scientific understanding seem to be headed in that direction, but then again time is relative. Time may have existed in other universes, and so one universe with its own space/time could spawn other universes with a new space time. But thats a tangent we don’t need to get into right now.
Maybe unintelligible is not the right word. What I am basically suggesting is that asking the question “what came before the universe” might be meaningless. It may be an unanswerable, logically flawed question. Since time and space are part of the universe, and time is what defines cause and effect, we are asking “what caused cause and effect?” Well if cause and effect do not exist, how can you ask about something causing them? It may be like asking “how many sides does a line have?” or “what does a square circle look like?”
I could be totally wrong about this, but it seems like a strong possibility. Talking about what existed before anything existed, including time, is hard to wrap our minds around. We just don’t know. It certainly doesn’t “prove” God or super-naturalism is the answer, although I understand why you think it does.
I’d like to respond to something else you said:
“After all, if time always existed then we would never have gotten here because we would have had to cross an actual infinity. ”
I don’t buy that. Let’s say time is infinite, the universe keeps rejuvenating itself through a “steady state” model or contracting and expanding forever. If time flows infinitely forward, how could we NOT get here? There might be infinite time before us, but there will also be infinite time after us. It had to get to us eventually. Incidentally this is what the multi-verse view implies, that some universes spawn other universes, so every possible universe will eventually come into being, including those with life.
Hi Fregas,
While it is true that logically someone could live forever, but they can never reach the end of “forever.” On the other hand, if the universe had no beginning, then talking about steady state doesn’t make any difference because an infinite series of events would have had to transpire before we got to this day and so an actual infinity would have to have passed to get here. do you see what I mean?
Clay
I think I see what you mean, but I don’t think it matters. If there is an endless stream of time, in either direction, eventually you will reach any given moment of it. Of course, there will always be new moments being created forever.
In any case, infinity is hard to talk about or think about. I think that’s the real cause of our difficulty.
In my opinion, the bottom line is we don’t know what happened at the moment of or “before” the big bang. It could be there were other universes and time lines before the big bang, it could be there was nothing before the big bang (not even time) or it could be there as something transcendental from our perspective. I hesitate to say supernatural but that could work too before the big bang, such as God.
I reject that there is logical proof of super-naturalism or any deity. We just don’t know. And we don’t have any hard evidence, because we can’t see that far back.
I’d like to add here that this doesn’t necessarily have to be the end of the discussion, just that one possibility is that question may be unintelligible (either permanently or just until science and human logic finds a way of catching up.) We should keep trying to extend the reach of our knowledge. That’s why I agreed with you for the sake of argument.
Did this make sense or did i add to the confusion? Are you busy again? 🙂
By the way, I think MT should have flat out answered that Tacitus WAS hostile towards Christianity, at least at the time that he wrote that. Yet at the same time, there have been several questions that myself or MT asked you that you have not answered.
Fergas,
Even if time doesn’t exist before the universe, logic did. I think that what my help Clay and you see this from the same point of view is that causes logically precede their effects. This language removes the obstacle of time.
Whatever caused the universe logically precedes the beginning of the universe. I hope this offers some clarity.
David,
What does it mean to say that logic existed before the universe? It sounds like you are saying the same thing just in a different way. Saying that “causes logically proceeds their effects” is to bring in the concept of cause and effect, before and after. You’re still implying change and therefore time.
Fergas,
You are correct the terms before and after have little meaning if the dimension of time that we currently live in does not exist.
As I recall the more precise phrase would be “logically prior to…”
In the sense that causes are logically prior to the effects they cause, even if they are not temporally prior to. If A causes B then A must be logically prior to B even if time and the universe does not exist.
I do believe there was a change that introduced the universe and time. It is the cause of the change that I am most interested in.
but again, you implied time. in order for something to change, there has to be the flow of time. time = change and vice versa. cause and effect.
I’ll reply at the bottom of this page.
Hi MT,
On several occassions you’ve written that I wasn’t handling this in a scholarly manner and you’ve dismissed the scholarship of Ehrman, Ludemann, Crossan, et. al., but you are using a pseudonym? If you let us know who you are it might lend weight to your claims of scholarship?
As for the matter at hand, the trouble is that you don’t want to admit that if someone says that Christianity is a “most mischievous superstition” that was “evil” and was aligned with “all things hideous and shameful,” that that person would be at the very least be critical of Christianity. Again, I think that most readers of this blog, whether Christian or skeptic, wouldn’t think this was trying to examine his motives but is no more than a simple acknowledgement that such a person was hostile towards Christianity.
Isn’t the problem that if Tacitus was hostile towards Christianity (and the context of this quotation reveals that he was very hostile) then that would render false your claim that he passed on his views about the gods “uncritically”?
Clay
Dr Jones, I am not interested in argument, I am interested in discussion—in the exchange of ideas. I outlined detailed reasons why I can’t agree. You chose not to address those reasons.
Please, tell your many blog readers, Dr. Jones won! .
Moonsray
Hi MT,
I would never announce myself the winner. The reader will have to decide the merit of our arguments.
Clay
Hi Fregas,
I’ve been very busy. Also, my hard drive suffered a mechanical failure and had to be replaced. I just got my computer back yesterday with a new hard drive but I’ve been spending a lot of time getting used to the upgraded operating system.
I’ll get back to you on the other issues soon.
You are right that MT should have just admitted that Tacitus was hostile towards Christianity but that would have led her to contradicting her earlier statements. I would have gotten to the other issues in time, but there was no point in going on to discuss other things until we came to some rather obvious conclusions about the passage at hand.
Clay
No problem. Sorry about the computer failure. I’m a software developer so I deal with computer issues all the time and feel your pain.
Shalom!
actually Jesus was a real person. As proven by ancient documents where his opposer’s tried to debunk his abilities as God’s son. In doing so they did the opposite of what they intended. They proved he existed during their time. That doesn’t mean many will believe he had powers etc. But it does prove he existed. A number of secular writers who lived close to the time of Jesus made specific mention of him. Including Cornelius Tacitus, -Annals, XV, 44.
Also Jewish historian Flavius Josephus – Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200 (ix, 1)
Hi Fregas,
Did you notice that I responded to your comment above?
Clay
I did. You need an email notification for comments.
I looked in the wrong place, Fregas. I’ve replied.
Hi Fregas,
So we are left with something outside of time causing the universe to begin. Do you not agree that it is at least logically possible that what made this extraordinary event happen was a being we call God?
Clay
Clay,
Sure. I’m open to the idea of a transcendent deity. Its possible that it was a supernatural being, but just as possible a natural process we don’t understand. Its possible it was faeries instead of God. Its possible the universe “just is” with nothing creating it, because there was no cause or effect before time.
Hi Fregas,
Okay. So when we look at the resurrection, then, you are not ruling out the possibility that Jesus was actually raised from the dead by God. Now, I’m obviously not saying this is the case, I’m just asking to clarify whether you are ruling out a possible supernatural explanation before we even begin. Do I understand you?
Clay
I don’t rule it out “a priori” if that’s what your asking. I just don’t think there’s strong evidence of supernaturalism of any kind, including the resurrection.
I also think its unlikely God would use Jesus’ resurrection and people’s faith or lack thereof as the way to judge souls (although I don’t believe in souls or dualism) because so many people will not hear about Jesus and many people will hear about Jesus and not believe simply because of their culture. So that tends to make me also not believe that the Resurrection happened. It would be a horrible system of judgment. I think Paul and Martin Luther were wrong and I think Jesus was wrong or possibly just misquoted or mischaracterized by the bible authors later on who were not interested primarily in accurate historical representations. Its weird that Jesus asked God to forgive those who were crucifying him yet earlier condemned people who did not believe in him.
Hi Fregas,
I’ll be glad to discuss the resurrection with you since you aren’t ruling out the possibility of a supernatural explanation before we even begin. I’ve just finished a 12 day vacation so I’m behind. I’ll get to it soon.
Clay
ok. take care clay.
For about the next eight weeks I’m going to be very busy. Sorry. I’ll try to get to it soon.
I’ll keep track of your other thread on the Resurrection.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
I found this article kind of interesting regarding what we were talking about. There’s a possibility that time may not in fact exist. I read a book called “The End of Time” that talked about this but the math an physics were daunting. It could be the universe is just eternal. From our perspective, it looks like things change from moment to moment, but in reality, its one big eternal continuity of frames that always exist, including the big bang and the end of the universe and everything in between. Its sort of how you imagine an Eternal God views the universe–outside time and space. Except in this case the universe it outside of time and space, or at least time and space are simply in the universe. If this is the case, then there is no need for a “cause” to the big bang. It just is. Of course, this will be unsatisfying to some, who may continue to ask “why does the universe exist eternally?” But of course, you could ask the same thing of God.
Clay, The minute you said this is my website is like a kid saying it’s my ball we play by my rules. There is no physical evidence that Jesus ever existed, That is the bottom line. The first gospel of Jesus was written 140 years after Jesus existed, Think of any figure who existed 140 years ago say Jessie James an outlaw, they can make all the movies and write all the books about him but know one knows for sure what he said or his thoughts. Jessie never wrote a book or anything he became a legend of the 18th century. The legend of Jesus much similar as to Jessie, He had a few followers and was considered by the authorities to be rebel or a trouble maker. Jesus also never wrote a word of his existence or his believes . Here say is never proof of someone existence.
Hi Billy,
Do you have any doubt that Jesse James was a real person?
Clay