BEING DISCUSSIONS ON THE THEORY THAT
THE FIGURE OF JESUS IS NOT HISTORICAL BUT MYTHIC
Question: Why have you been involved in historical studies of early Christianity?
Answer: I lectured in Biblical Studies. It was in a secular university. But I was fortunate, because it was part of a broader Religious Studies program. So I could place those Biblical studies - historical, as you say, in a broader discussion. I could place them beside, contrast them to, religious perspectives.
Question: You appeared in a video clip, which is on Youtube, with many thousands of views, in which you support the theory that Jesus was just a myth…
Answer: Years ago. Yes. It was a favor to a friend, to appear in his video and talk about it. It is an old clip now.
Question: But is it still your view? Or has your view changed?
Answer: It hasn’t changed, but at the same time that video only offers a fragment, a cross section, of my views on what is a complex issue. Like all snapshots it misrepresents. I try to offer nuanced views on that video, but it does not really come across.
Question: But you still support the theory that Jesus was a myth?
Answer: Considered as an historical question, I tend to take that view. Or rather, you might say I am firmly of that view. But there is much more to be said about it. We shouldn’t say that Jesus was “just” a myth. There is no “just” about it. But – to put it negatively – I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. So the stories about him are essentially myths. It is a theory that has gained some traction in recent years - although not much in academia - and I happen to think - independently - that it best answers the evidence. But I could be wrong.
Question: So, you think there might have been an historical Jesus. Is that what you’re saying?
Answer: I’m saying that the polarity myth/history is a problem in itself. That is what I would like to be saying. Especially when dealing with religion. And certain religions in particular. As a historical matter, I think there might have been an historical Jesus, but I doubt it, and I don’t think there needs to have been in order to explain the historical record. Clearly, what we have in the record is a case of a myth being made into history. Not the other way around. Even if, somewhere, there was an historical germ: it was still largely a myth that was made into history. Not the other way around.
Question: Which is how it has usually been understood, yes?
Answer: Yes. It has always been assumed that there was an historical Jesus. And that over the course of time this historical kernel was amplified by mythology. This is an especially Protestant construction. There was the historical Jesus, but then the Church embroidered the whole thing with theology and myths. So the assumption has been that if we strip away the myths we will arrive at an authentic historical Jesus. It is a deeply Protestant project. But I think it is mistaken in its most basic assumption, its premise. Namely, there was an historical Jesus to start with.
Question: But Catholic historians share that assumption, don’t they?
Answer: They do. Of course. Because – and this is what makes it complex – it is not just a matter of history with which we are concerned here. It is a matter of dogma. The historicity of Christ is a dogma. And it is shared by all Christians, Catholic, Protestant, otherwise. It is a matter of the creeds. God became an historical man. Christianity is about a divine intervention into history. So – in any normative sense – Christians cannot think otherwise. It is a problem.
Question: What makes it a problem?
Answer: The problem is that historical research – godless, secular research – points to the conclusion that Christ was not a historical figure. Or he need not have been, anyway.
Question: Which is a controversial conclusion, isn’t it?
Answer: It is. Among Biblical scholars, it is definitely a minority view. It is regarded as a radical position. And widely rejected. In general, though, it is a controversial view because the historicity of Christ is a Christian dogma. And because even non-Christians share it as an assumption. It is only recently that a body of scholars and researchers, professional and amateur, have raised the serious possibility that Christ may not have been an historical figure. It is a shocking conclusion. It undermines the whole basis of Christianity – or at least, Christianity as an historical religion. For some people, though, that is a positive outcome. It is a theory promoted in anti-Christian circles. Anti-christian polemic. I am not attracted to it, as a theory, for any such reason. On the contrary.
Question: What do you mean?
Answer: I mean, I am not a vexatious researcher. Not an activist academic on an anti-religious crusade. I have only looked at it from a purely historical point of view. Other people – other proponents of the mythicist position – are atheists, or anti-Christian liberals. They have issues with Christianity. They set out to damage Christianity. I am not interested in that at all. I’m not an atheist and I’m not anti-Christian. But I do happen to conclude that, on the evidence, it is most likely that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is mythic rather than historical. I might be wrong about that, but on the evidence I think it is the case.
Question: But other scholars – or most scholars – would say that the evidence confirms an historical Jesus, yes?
Answer: Yes. I think – it is arguable – that the evidence is best explained by assuming that the figure of Jesus is essentially mythic. Although, you know, finally I have to say I am agnostic about it, and I think everyone should be. Because we are discussing a local event 2000+ years ago in what was effectively a war zone. So what can we know for sure? I read the evidence one way. But it is, by the nature of things, impossible to be sure. That will always be the case. So we should always be prepared to change our views. I have a firm view, but I’m always prepared to change my views, because I could be wrong. Although dogma - Christian dogma - complicates even that. Christian dogma, Christian metaphysics, depends upon the Incarnation. It's a Christological issue.
Answer: I lectured in Biblical Studies. It was in a secular university. But I was fortunate, because it was part of a broader Religious Studies program. So I could place those Biblical studies - historical, as you say, in a broader discussion. I could place them beside, contrast them to, religious perspectives.
Question: You appeared in a video clip, which is on Youtube, with many thousands of views, in which you support the theory that Jesus was just a myth…
Answer: Years ago. Yes. It was a favor to a friend, to appear in his video and talk about it. It is an old clip now.
Question: But is it still your view? Or has your view changed?
Answer: It hasn’t changed, but at the same time that video only offers a fragment, a cross section, of my views on what is a complex issue. Like all snapshots it misrepresents. I try to offer nuanced views on that video, but it does not really come across.
Question: But you still support the theory that Jesus was a myth?
Answer: Considered as an historical question, I tend to take that view. Or rather, you might say I am firmly of that view. But there is much more to be said about it. We shouldn’t say that Jesus was “just” a myth. There is no “just” about it. But – to put it negatively – I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. So the stories about him are essentially myths. It is a theory that has gained some traction in recent years - although not much in academia - and I happen to think - independently - that it best answers the evidence. But I could be wrong.
Question: So, you think there might have been an historical Jesus. Is that what you’re saying?
Answer: I’m saying that the polarity myth/history is a problem in itself. That is what I would like to be saying. Especially when dealing with religion. And certain religions in particular. As a historical matter, I think there might have been an historical Jesus, but I doubt it, and I don’t think there needs to have been in order to explain the historical record. Clearly, what we have in the record is a case of a myth being made into history. Not the other way around. Even if, somewhere, there was an historical germ: it was still largely a myth that was made into history. Not the other way around.
Question: Which is how it has usually been understood, yes?
Answer: Yes. It has always been assumed that there was an historical Jesus. And that over the course of time this historical kernel was amplified by mythology. This is an especially Protestant construction. There was the historical Jesus, but then the Church embroidered the whole thing with theology and myths. So the assumption has been that if we strip away the myths we will arrive at an authentic historical Jesus. It is a deeply Protestant project. But I think it is mistaken in its most basic assumption, its premise. Namely, there was an historical Jesus to start with.
Question: But Catholic historians share that assumption, don’t they?
Answer: They do. Of course. Because – and this is what makes it complex – it is not just a matter of history with which we are concerned here. It is a matter of dogma. The historicity of Christ is a dogma. And it is shared by all Christians, Catholic, Protestant, otherwise. It is a matter of the creeds. God became an historical man. Christianity is about a divine intervention into history. So – in any normative sense – Christians cannot think otherwise. It is a problem.
Question: What makes it a problem?
Answer: The problem is that historical research – godless, secular research – points to the conclusion that Christ was not a historical figure. Or he need not have been, anyway.
Question: Which is a controversial conclusion, isn’t it?
Answer: It is. Among Biblical scholars, it is definitely a minority view. It is regarded as a radical position. And widely rejected. In general, though, it is a controversial view because the historicity of Christ is a Christian dogma. And because even non-Christians share it as an assumption. It is only recently that a body of scholars and researchers, professional and amateur, have raised the serious possibility that Christ may not have been an historical figure. It is a shocking conclusion. It undermines the whole basis of Christianity – or at least, Christianity as an historical religion. For some people, though, that is a positive outcome. It is a theory promoted in anti-Christian circles. Anti-christian polemic. I am not attracted to it, as a theory, for any such reason. On the contrary.
Question: What do you mean?
Answer: I mean, I am not a vexatious researcher. Not an activist academic on an anti-religious crusade. I have only looked at it from a purely historical point of view. Other people – other proponents of the mythicist position – are atheists, or anti-Christian liberals. They have issues with Christianity. They set out to damage Christianity. I am not interested in that at all. I’m not an atheist and I’m not anti-Christian. But I do happen to conclude that, on the evidence, it is most likely that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is mythic rather than historical. I might be wrong about that, but on the evidence I think it is the case.
Question: But other scholars – or most scholars – would say that the evidence confirms an historical Jesus, yes?
Answer: Yes. I think – it is arguable – that the evidence is best explained by assuming that the figure of Jesus is essentially mythic. Although, you know, finally I have to say I am agnostic about it, and I think everyone should be. Because we are discussing a local event 2000+ years ago in what was effectively a war zone. So what can we know for sure? I read the evidence one way. But it is, by the nature of things, impossible to be sure. That will always be the case. So we should always be prepared to change our views. I have a firm view, but I’m always prepared to change my views, because I could be wrong. Although dogma - Christian dogma - complicates even that. Christian dogma, Christian metaphysics, depends upon the Incarnation. It's a Christological issue.
Question: Did your study of the problem of the historical Jesus fit comfortably with your other work and studies?
Answer: Not always. In Biblical Studies I determined to study the most extremely opposing possible positions. Ultra-traditional and ultra-radical. Personally, I saw it as a type of mental yoga. Stretching. On the other hand, my doctoral thesis concerned Plato's story of Atlantis. In that context I was always engaged with problems of myth and history, muthos and logos. It is an exactly related problem. I adopt Plato's rationalism, but also his play. Is Christianity the Noble Lie? I say that as a genuine question, from a Platonic platform, not as a swipe at Christianity.
Question: Not being anti-Christian. Is that one of the ways your views have changed?
Answer: No. No. I’ve never been anti-Christian. Although I have been, and still am, anti historical religion. I don’t subscribe to historical religion, in general. But that doesn’t mean I am anti-Christian, as such, except in as much as Christianity has a strong emphasis on historicity. But I do not have an anti-Christian agenda, whereas many people who propose the Jesus-as-myth theory do. They have a grievance with Christianity – usually in an American context – and they see the Jesus-as-myth theory as a way of damaging Christianity. I have never been party to that. Although, you know, we live in an era of deconstruction. We're not building anything. We are taking things apart. In my case, it is reluctant.
Question: But your support for a Jesus-as-myth interpretation helps that causes, doesn’t it?
Answer: It does. Which is unfortunate. I regret that. I regret that holding that position – a historical position – gives succor to atheists and God-haters. The Jesus-as-myth community of scholars and researchers is populated by such people. Largely, I don’t have anything to do with them. I am intolerant of atheists. I’m not an atheist, and I think it is lame to conclude from an historical argument about Jesus of Nazareth that there is no God. That is another issue. As it happens, on the evidence, I think the Jesus story is essentially mythic. It is unfortunate that this grates against normative Christianity, and I regret the fact that it might undermine the faith of some people. Because, for some people, some Christians, their faith is built on an historical Jesus. I regret that my views on that topic might erode their faith, which I take to be sincere and honest. I respect religious faith. I have much less respect for skeptics and skepticism and especially activist atheism.
Question: You regret the impact of the theory, but you still subscribe to it?
Answer: As an historical problem, yes. I studied this problem for fifteen or more years, but it was in a secular context. I taught Biblical Studies in a secular context. I always respected the fact it was a secular context. And I saw it as part of my duty to learn the secular sciences, secular history. It was never my job to preach apologetics. I studied the historical problem, Was there a Jesus of Nazareth? I concluded that the figure we meet in the New Testament is most likely a mythical character and not historical. That is my honest estimation of the evidence.
Question: What evidence?
Answer: There is not much of it. There is a finite amount of textual and archeological evidence. You look over the evidence and then come to your conclusion. My conclusion is that the Jesus story was originally mythological, but it has been fixed to a history, made historical. That is a much better explanation of the facts than having it the other way around, namely that it was a history that became mythicized. It is one or the other. I cannot escape the conclusion that it was first myth and was then historicized.
Question: By whom? And why?
Answer: The short answer to that question must be – by the Romans. Why is a more complex question, but in part it must have been a deliberate creation – an outcome, in part, of Roman propaganda wars with Jewish rebels in the Jewish wars. This claim needs to be carefully argued, of course, but I think it is basically correct. In any case, it means that Christianity was – from the outset – inextricably Roman. I am led, in this regard, to very Catholic positions, in some ways.
Question: How? What do you mean?
Answer: The Protestant position is that Jesus the Galilean – his religion, his cult – was taken over by the Romans. You had a Judean/Galilean history and then it was hijacked by the Romans and thus the Roman Church. That is the Protestant position. My view is that Christianity was Roman from its inception. The Church was first. And first it was guardian of a mythology, and then this mythology was made into a history. It was made to fit into a history. By Romans. The Church is really a continuation of certain aspects of the Roman civil service – but that’s another matter. I don’t care to argue the details of it here.
Question: No? Why not?
Answer: Because we are discussing its implications, not the theory itself. Of course, it is a theory and only a theory. It might be wrong. I’m reasonably confident it is right. It is the best explanation of the evidence. It is historically cogent. But this is a very problematic fact for Christians, of course, because it is impossible for Christians to accept a merely mythic Jesus. There is the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is a dogma. It is theologically indispensable. Christians will rightly resist the theory with everything they have. They must. Although it is perhaps not as difficult for Catholics – and Orthodox – as for Protestants. Those whose faith is based in history, in the idea that Christianity is historical, will have greatest trouble accommodating such a theory.
Question: But I don’t see how Christianity could be the outcome of ‘Roman propaganda’ as you put it.
Answer: I don’t put it exactly like that. No. Christianity is the product of a mighty battle, a collision of civilizations, the acute focus of which were the Jewish Wars. These were terrible, epoch-making events. It was not a casual exercise by some Roman propagandist. I am not suggesting that. But the New Testament is Roman literature, all the same. And the image of Jesus as the peaceful Jew – the antithesis of the Jewish militant – is a Roman construction. It is all based around historical events, of course. Especially the destruction of the Temple. And there may be a germ of history in the person of Jesus. But the core is the Logos doctrine. It is largely taken from Philo Judaeus. And then in the gospels it becomes history. Especially the Gospel of Luke. You can see how it is historicized. It was myth first, history later.
Question: Not being anti-Christian. Is that one of the ways your views have changed?
Answer: No. No. I’ve never been anti-Christian. Although I have been, and still am, anti historical religion. I don’t subscribe to historical religion, in general. But that doesn’t mean I am anti-Christian, as such, except in as much as Christianity has a strong emphasis on historicity. But I do not have an anti-Christian agenda, whereas many people who propose the Jesus-as-myth theory do. They have a grievance with Christianity – usually in an American context – and they see the Jesus-as-myth theory as a way of damaging Christianity. I have never been party to that. Although, you know, we live in an era of deconstruction. We're not building anything. We are taking things apart. In my case, it is reluctant.
Question: But your support for a Jesus-as-myth interpretation helps that causes, doesn’t it?
Answer: It does. Which is unfortunate. I regret that. I regret that holding that position – a historical position – gives succor to atheists and God-haters. The Jesus-as-myth community of scholars and researchers is populated by such people. Largely, I don’t have anything to do with them. I am intolerant of atheists. I’m not an atheist, and I think it is lame to conclude from an historical argument about Jesus of Nazareth that there is no God. That is another issue. As it happens, on the evidence, I think the Jesus story is essentially mythic. It is unfortunate that this grates against normative Christianity, and I regret the fact that it might undermine the faith of some people. Because, for some people, some Christians, their faith is built on an historical Jesus. I regret that my views on that topic might erode their faith, which I take to be sincere and honest. I respect religious faith. I have much less respect for skeptics and skepticism and especially activist atheism.
Question: You regret the impact of the theory, but you still subscribe to it?
Answer: As an historical problem, yes. I studied this problem for fifteen or more years, but it was in a secular context. I taught Biblical Studies in a secular context. I always respected the fact it was a secular context. And I saw it as part of my duty to learn the secular sciences, secular history. It was never my job to preach apologetics. I studied the historical problem, Was there a Jesus of Nazareth? I concluded that the figure we meet in the New Testament is most likely a mythical character and not historical. That is my honest estimation of the evidence.
Question: What evidence?
Answer: There is not much of it. There is a finite amount of textual and archeological evidence. You look over the evidence and then come to your conclusion. My conclusion is that the Jesus story was originally mythological, but it has been fixed to a history, made historical. That is a much better explanation of the facts than having it the other way around, namely that it was a history that became mythicized. It is one or the other. I cannot escape the conclusion that it was first myth and was then historicized.
Question: By whom? And why?
Answer: The short answer to that question must be – by the Romans. Why is a more complex question, but in part it must have been a deliberate creation – an outcome, in part, of Roman propaganda wars with Jewish rebels in the Jewish wars. This claim needs to be carefully argued, of course, but I think it is basically correct. In any case, it means that Christianity was – from the outset – inextricably Roman. I am led, in this regard, to very Catholic positions, in some ways.
Question: How? What do you mean?
Answer: The Protestant position is that Jesus the Galilean – his religion, his cult – was taken over by the Romans. You had a Judean/Galilean history and then it was hijacked by the Romans and thus the Roman Church. That is the Protestant position. My view is that Christianity was Roman from its inception. The Church was first. And first it was guardian of a mythology, and then this mythology was made into a history. It was made to fit into a history. By Romans. The Church is really a continuation of certain aspects of the Roman civil service – but that’s another matter. I don’t care to argue the details of it here.
Question: No? Why not?
Answer: Because we are discussing its implications, not the theory itself. Of course, it is a theory and only a theory. It might be wrong. I’m reasonably confident it is right. It is the best explanation of the evidence. It is historically cogent. But this is a very problematic fact for Christians, of course, because it is impossible for Christians to accept a merely mythic Jesus. There is the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is a dogma. It is theologically indispensable. Christians will rightly resist the theory with everything they have. They must. Although it is perhaps not as difficult for Catholics – and Orthodox – as for Protestants. Those whose faith is based in history, in the idea that Christianity is historical, will have greatest trouble accommodating such a theory.
Question: But I don’t see how Christianity could be the outcome of ‘Roman propaganda’ as you put it.
Answer: I don’t put it exactly like that. No. Christianity is the product of a mighty battle, a collision of civilizations, the acute focus of which were the Jewish Wars. These were terrible, epoch-making events. It was not a casual exercise by some Roman propagandist. I am not suggesting that. But the New Testament is Roman literature, all the same. And the image of Jesus as the peaceful Jew – the antithesis of the Jewish militant – is a Roman construction. It is all based around historical events, of course. Especially the destruction of the Temple. And there may be a germ of history in the person of Jesus. But the core is the Logos doctrine. It is largely taken from Philo Judaeus. And then in the gospels it becomes history. Especially the Gospel of Luke. You can see how it is historicized. It was myth first, history later.
Question: A clash of civilisations?
Answer: Yes. We ned to expand the context, our view of the context. Think of the Trojan War. Europe clashes with Asia. And think of how that conflict created a type of cultural overflow in myth and literature. Think of its place in Western civilization. The inception of Christianity is the same. Second Temple Judaism. It is an historical watershed. It gives birth to Christianity. Somehow. It is a mysterious process. It gives birth to Christian sanctity. It is the same clash, really. Europe clashes with Asia. We can say what we like about the grubby facts of history but somehow, out of those ancient events, Christian sanctity was born. I believe in Christian sanctity. Christianity is a sacred religion. Christian sanctity is a reality. It is mysterious how such a sacred thing can be born from the sordid processes of human history. I might hold certain views about history, but I am still mystified.
Question: Surely the Romans were anti-Christian?
Yes. And there is a very obvious and dramatic way in which Christianity is anti-Roman. I am very aware of it. The Crucifixion. Surely the lesson of the crucifixion is that Roman power is impotent. You can take a man and torture him and crucify him, but Christ has a moral victory over Roman brutality. That is the great lesson of the Crucifixion. In an obvious way, this is anti-Roman. It undermines Roman power. Doesn’t it? So I admit that aspects of Christianity are certainly anti-Roman, deeply anti-Roman, and no doubt the Roman establishment was anti-Christian, up to a point. So it is a complex matter. I have ideas on it, that I have formed over years, but I won’t elaborate on it all now. I want to explore the question of what Christianity does if it settles on the fact that Christ was not a historical figure. Is that possible? Is it something that can even be thought?
Question: Surely the Romans were anti-Christian?
Yes. And there is a very obvious and dramatic way in which Christianity is anti-Roman. I am very aware of it. The Crucifixion. Surely the lesson of the crucifixion is that Roman power is impotent. You can take a man and torture him and crucify him, but Christ has a moral victory over Roman brutality. That is the great lesson of the Crucifixion. In an obvious way, this is anti-Roman. It undermines Roman power. Doesn’t it? So I admit that aspects of Christianity are certainly anti-Roman, deeply anti-Roman, and no doubt the Roman establishment was anti-Christian, up to a point. So it is a complex matter. I have ideas on it, that I have formed over years, but I won’t elaborate on it all now. I want to explore the question of what Christianity does if it settles on the fact that Christ was not a historical figure. Is that possible? Is it something that can even be thought?
Question: So you also reject the reality of the miracles described in the Gospels?
Answer: They are a good example of how to read the Christian writings in context. The context is Second Temple Judaism. When Jesus "heals" people in the Gospels, what it is about is making such people ritually clean for the Temple. He "heals" Jewish exclusivism. The lame. The lepers. The defiled. He heals them. This is a metaphor for making them whole under the Law and suitable for the Temple. But in the Gospels these are presented as quasi-historical events. It's an extended metaphor - healing - but it is presented as quasi-historical events. I don't take them literally. It is a metaphor, and one of which the Romans would approve since Jesus breaks down Jewish exclusivity. I like the way these matters offer an arena in which to discuss important things. One cannot help but be a cultural Christian in some ways.
Question: And the Resurrection?
The best way to look at early Christianity is as a continuation of pre-Christian religion. It is also a breach. For example, it claims historicity. This is perceived to make it superior to mere myth. Christian polemic draws the distinction between Christ - who was real - and, say, Apollo, who was just a myth. It is important in Christian identity visa vis its pagan environment. All the same, pagan themes are continued in Christianity. The resurrection is one of them. In Christianity, though, it is not a myth but an historical event. That claim to history is crucial to Christianity. So, if we determine that Christ was essentially mythical, and that what we have here is historical myth, then that presents a real problem for normative Christianity. It must.
Question: How could you have a Christianity without Jesus?
Answer: There is Jesus, and then there is Christ. The Christ. The Logos. There are the two natures of Christ. God and man. But, of course, they are utterly inseparable in any normative Christian theology. The Incarnation is a dogma of Christianity. I like to distinguish, though, between an historical Christianity – which is really only a recent thing – and a cosmic Christianity. You can distinguish between the cosmic Christ and the supposed historical man. It is the historical man that becomes problematic, because historically what you find is a mythology. It has no impact on Christ as Logos, as a metaphysical reality. And for most of history that is all that mattered to Christians. The obsession with the historical Jesus is a modern preoccupation. That fact then becomes interesting. The entire question of the historical Christ in relation to the cosmic Christ, and historical religion, becomes an acute issue.
Question: Why are you opposed to historical religion?
Answer: Historical religion is a hardening, a coarsening of the religious life. My ideas on this are based, mainly, in such writers as Mircea Eliade, and Henri Corbin. For both of them, they identify historicity as a symptom of spiritual decay. But of course some religions want to present themselves as historical. The Abrahamic religions, mainly. I tend to think that all historical religions rest upon shaky history, if you are thinking in hard-nosed secular terms. Was there a man named Moses? Was the parting of the Red Sea an historical event? Noah’s Ark? I think you need to understand those things as mythic, or not at all. Alternatively, you are left with fundamentalist literalism. Fundamentalism is historical. The fundamentalist has lost the mythic sense altogether. That represents a hardening of consciousness. And unintelligent religion.
Question: So you don’t think Moses was historical either?
Answer: Or Noah. Or Adam and Eve. Or the Buddha, for that matter. I have not studied it but I suspect that the Buddha is largely if not wholly a mythic figure. This is not such a great problem, not in Mahayana Buddhism anyway. But in Christianity the historical nature of Christ is a matter of dogma, so it is a profound problem. Buddhism could easily adjust to a non-historical Buddha. I’m inclined to adopt a general policy of doubt regarding historical claims. I don’t believe the historical claims of Moses, or even King David. Or the Buddha. Or Lao Tse either. Lao Tse is almost certainly mythical. But this does not present any real problem in Taoism. We’ve reached a certain impasse today whereby we can see that much of our history – especially the historical claims of religious figures – much of our history is fabricated, or at least mythological rather than solid fact. I think that situation extends into the roots of Christianity. You either understand it as mythic or you fail to understand it at all. I entertain some radical views on history.
Question: Such as what?
Answer: Such as, suspecting that the works of Aristotle are late Roman forgeries, and that in fact the Romans invented the figure of Aristotle. That is, admittedly, a speculative conclusion, but I put it out as a possibility. I think Aristotle is probably a Roman phony. It is one of my crank ideas.
Question: The Romans again?
Answer: Indeed. Two great Roman projects – Aristotle and Jesus. The extent to which our civilization is Roman. Roman power. I see Roman power as adamantine. A force of nature. It completely shaped the world. And history. Don’t underestimate just how fantastically literate were the Romans. And their genius was in ‘foreign’ projects – the acquisition of Greek philosophy in Aristotle and the acquisition of Jewish sanctity in Christianity. The Romans are a special case. But, in general, I think most of our religious figures – and some of our philosophical ones – are creations, fictions, myths. Most of our religious heroes, in fact.
Question: Muhammad? Is Muhammad an historical figure?
Answer: Most likely, in his case. But not necessarily. And if so, then he is a shadowy Dark Age warlord. The historical Muhammad. He is, in any case, very, very different to the Muhammad constructed in the Hadith literature and in Islamic piety. There is no historical basis for the conventional image and hagiography of the Prophet. That is all a pious fiction. So the question becomes, what do we do about that? Now that our religions stand naked in the cold light of history, what do we make of them? That is the problem. Atheism is not a legitimate answer. It is a betrayal of the human state. I do not want to offer any ammunition to atheism. But historical religion is unsustainable. As I say, this is an especially acute problem for Christianity. I am sensitive to that problem. I take no pleasure in it. But it cannot be avoided all the same. The abyss is real. You can’t skirt around it. You can only confront it.
Question: But at least, for Muslims, Muhammad is – you say – an historical figure.
Answer: Most likely so. In the case of Muhammad the weight of probabilities favors historicity. Yes. But at the same time, most of the record of early Islam is fabrication. For example, the Prophet’s mosque. All the hadith about the Prophet’s mosque. The institution of the mosque comes much later, in fact. So the Prophet’s mosque was not historical. It is mythic. In any case, what are we to do with a story like the Night Journey, on the mythical beast, the buraq? How is that to be understood? Literally? As history? Or as myth? The Islamic construction of Muhammad is mythic even if, in his case, there was likely an historical figure upon whom it was based.
Question: The Koran?
Answer: The Angel Jibreel put it in the heart of the Prophet Muhammad in a cave one night in Ramadan. Are we to believe that as history? Or as myth? If we say it is “true” – what do we mean, exactly? What mode of truth, exactly? No doubt the text of the Koran has a human history and it is at odds with its sacred history. Muslims are not ready to face that fact. The simplistic binary myth/history is inadequate in religion.
Question: Are Christians ready to do away with the historical Jesus?
Answer: No. Not at all. But there it is, all the same. When the Protestant iconoclasts set out on the quest for the historical Jesus, they have to pursue it wherever the evidence may take them. I happen to think that the evidence leads to a shocking conclusion. In the past it was not such a problem for Christians. Not in the same way as now. That is interesting in itself. It was not such an acute problem in previous eras.
Question: Why not?
Answer: Because the spiritual reality of Christ completely overwhelmed the historical facts. History was dwarfed by a metaphysical sense of Christ as Logos. The sense of (Godless) history develops with modernity. You can see it in depictions of the Crucifixion, for example. In the early icons Christ on the cross is a metaphysical deity. Only after the Renaissance, with humanism, Christ becomes an historical person on the cross, suffering as a real man. There is a shift into history. It becomes an event in history rather than an event in eternity. That is the difference. A cosmic Christ lives in eternity. He is born in eternity. He dies in eternity. He is resurrected in eternity. It is an eternal, timeless story. But as soon as you place it in time you enter historical consciousness. That is where we are today. And now we can see the threads of the history, because we have lost sight of eternity. The net result of this is that we need a much more sophisticated doctrine of the Incarnation.
Question: And yet, you say, somebody – the Romans – historicized the Christ myth in the first century. Isn’t that what you are saying?
Answer: Yes. Because the Romans had a foreshadowing of that modern historical perspective. And Christianity had to define itself contra the mythic religions of the pagans. So it takes an historical form. The Romans were busy creators of historical myths. They readily turned myths into history. They were expert at it. And, we might say, that historical consciousness was subsumed – drawn into – a sacred perspective in Christianity. There are many ways we might think about it. It is a very complex thing. What is the relation between myth and history? That is a complex question. The skeptic, the atheist, thinks that Christianity was an historical fraud. That view is based on a simplistic binary scheme whereby myth and history are opposites, like lies and truth. We need other, more sophisticated models in order to think constructively about these things. Because something is a “myth” doesn’t make it a lie. The myth is a different mode of truth. If you are insensitive to myth then you are not likely to understand much about religion. Many religions are inherently mythic.
Question: How could you have a Christianity without Jesus?
Answer: There is Jesus, and then there is Christ. The Christ. The Logos. There are the two natures of Christ. God and man. But, of course, they are utterly inseparable in any normative Christian theology. The Incarnation is a dogma of Christianity. I like to distinguish, though, between an historical Christianity – which is really only a recent thing – and a cosmic Christianity. You can distinguish between the cosmic Christ and the supposed historical man. It is the historical man that becomes problematic, because historically what you find is a mythology. It has no impact on Christ as Logos, as a metaphysical reality. And for most of history that is all that mattered to Christians. The obsession with the historical Jesus is a modern preoccupation. That fact then becomes interesting. The entire question of the historical Christ in relation to the cosmic Christ, and historical religion, becomes an acute issue.
Question: Why are you opposed to historical religion?
Answer: Historical religion is a hardening, a coarsening of the religious life. My ideas on this are based, mainly, in such writers as Mircea Eliade, and Henri Corbin. For both of them, they identify historicity as a symptom of spiritual decay. But of course some religions want to present themselves as historical. The Abrahamic religions, mainly. I tend to think that all historical religions rest upon shaky history, if you are thinking in hard-nosed secular terms. Was there a man named Moses? Was the parting of the Red Sea an historical event? Noah’s Ark? I think you need to understand those things as mythic, or not at all. Alternatively, you are left with fundamentalist literalism. Fundamentalism is historical. The fundamentalist has lost the mythic sense altogether. That represents a hardening of consciousness. And unintelligent religion.
Question: So you don’t think Moses was historical either?
Answer: Or Noah. Or Adam and Eve. Or the Buddha, for that matter. I have not studied it but I suspect that the Buddha is largely if not wholly a mythic figure. This is not such a great problem, not in Mahayana Buddhism anyway. But in Christianity the historical nature of Christ is a matter of dogma, so it is a profound problem. Buddhism could easily adjust to a non-historical Buddha. I’m inclined to adopt a general policy of doubt regarding historical claims. I don’t believe the historical claims of Moses, or even King David. Or the Buddha. Or Lao Tse either. Lao Tse is almost certainly mythical. But this does not present any real problem in Taoism. We’ve reached a certain impasse today whereby we can see that much of our history – especially the historical claims of religious figures – much of our history is fabricated, or at least mythological rather than solid fact. I think that situation extends into the roots of Christianity. You either understand it as mythic or you fail to understand it at all. I entertain some radical views on history.
Question: Such as what?
Answer: Such as, suspecting that the works of Aristotle are late Roman forgeries, and that in fact the Romans invented the figure of Aristotle. That is, admittedly, a speculative conclusion, but I put it out as a possibility. I think Aristotle is probably a Roman phony. It is one of my crank ideas.
Question: The Romans again?
Answer: Indeed. Two great Roman projects – Aristotle and Jesus. The extent to which our civilization is Roman. Roman power. I see Roman power as adamantine. A force of nature. It completely shaped the world. And history. Don’t underestimate just how fantastically literate were the Romans. And their genius was in ‘foreign’ projects – the acquisition of Greek philosophy in Aristotle and the acquisition of Jewish sanctity in Christianity. The Romans are a special case. But, in general, I think most of our religious figures – and some of our philosophical ones – are creations, fictions, myths. Most of our religious heroes, in fact.
Question: Muhammad? Is Muhammad an historical figure?
Answer: Most likely, in his case. But not necessarily. And if so, then he is a shadowy Dark Age warlord. The historical Muhammad. He is, in any case, very, very different to the Muhammad constructed in the Hadith literature and in Islamic piety. There is no historical basis for the conventional image and hagiography of the Prophet. That is all a pious fiction. So the question becomes, what do we do about that? Now that our religions stand naked in the cold light of history, what do we make of them? That is the problem. Atheism is not a legitimate answer. It is a betrayal of the human state. I do not want to offer any ammunition to atheism. But historical religion is unsustainable. As I say, this is an especially acute problem for Christianity. I am sensitive to that problem. I take no pleasure in it. But it cannot be avoided all the same. The abyss is real. You can’t skirt around it. You can only confront it.
Question: But at least, for Muslims, Muhammad is – you say – an historical figure.
Answer: Most likely so. In the case of Muhammad the weight of probabilities favors historicity. Yes. But at the same time, most of the record of early Islam is fabrication. For example, the Prophet’s mosque. All the hadith about the Prophet’s mosque. The institution of the mosque comes much later, in fact. So the Prophet’s mosque was not historical. It is mythic. In any case, what are we to do with a story like the Night Journey, on the mythical beast, the buraq? How is that to be understood? Literally? As history? Or as myth? The Islamic construction of Muhammad is mythic even if, in his case, there was likely an historical figure upon whom it was based.
Question: The Koran?
Answer: The Angel Jibreel put it in the heart of the Prophet Muhammad in a cave one night in Ramadan. Are we to believe that as history? Or as myth? If we say it is “true” – what do we mean, exactly? What mode of truth, exactly? No doubt the text of the Koran has a human history and it is at odds with its sacred history. Muslims are not ready to face that fact. The simplistic binary myth/history is inadequate in religion.
Question: Are Christians ready to do away with the historical Jesus?
Answer: No. Not at all. But there it is, all the same. When the Protestant iconoclasts set out on the quest for the historical Jesus, they have to pursue it wherever the evidence may take them. I happen to think that the evidence leads to a shocking conclusion. In the past it was not such a problem for Christians. Not in the same way as now. That is interesting in itself. It was not such an acute problem in previous eras.
Question: Why not?
Answer: Because the spiritual reality of Christ completely overwhelmed the historical facts. History was dwarfed by a metaphysical sense of Christ as Logos. The sense of (Godless) history develops with modernity. You can see it in depictions of the Crucifixion, for example. In the early icons Christ on the cross is a metaphysical deity. Only after the Renaissance, with humanism, Christ becomes an historical person on the cross, suffering as a real man. There is a shift into history. It becomes an event in history rather than an event in eternity. That is the difference. A cosmic Christ lives in eternity. He is born in eternity. He dies in eternity. He is resurrected in eternity. It is an eternal, timeless story. But as soon as you place it in time you enter historical consciousness. That is where we are today. And now we can see the threads of the history, because we have lost sight of eternity. The net result of this is that we need a much more sophisticated doctrine of the Incarnation.
Question: And yet, you say, somebody – the Romans – historicized the Christ myth in the first century. Isn’t that what you are saying?
Answer: Yes. Because the Romans had a foreshadowing of that modern historical perspective. And Christianity had to define itself contra the mythic religions of the pagans. So it takes an historical form. The Romans were busy creators of historical myths. They readily turned myths into history. They were expert at it. And, we might say, that historical consciousness was subsumed – drawn into – a sacred perspective in Christianity. There are many ways we might think about it. It is a very complex thing. What is the relation between myth and history? That is a complex question. The skeptic, the atheist, thinks that Christianity was an historical fraud. That view is based on a simplistic binary scheme whereby myth and history are opposites, like lies and truth. We need other, more sophisticated models in order to think constructively about these things. Because something is a “myth” doesn’t make it a lie. The myth is a different mode of truth. If you are insensitive to myth then you are not likely to understand much about religion. Many religions are inherently mythic.
Question: Such as what?
Answer: Types of Hinduism, say. Or the Australian aborigines. If the scholars prove, from the archeological record, that there was no Giant Rainbow Serpent or Dreamtime, the Australian aborigines are not going to go through a spiritual crisis about it. It does not depend upon history. But Christianity does. And yet, I'm afraid, our history is radically different to the official version, or the received version. So what do we do about that? Let us just suppose that the Jesus-myth position is correct. What do we do then? I'm not a Christian and so it is not my place to think it through for Christianity. But it is a problem in contemporary religion. It is a possibility that Christians ought to address. The issue always takes us back to the myth/history dynamic in religion. The problem lies with the doctrine of the Incarnation. We need a non-historical mode of thinking about it.
Question: Is this what you taught in Biblical Studies?
Answer: No. I offered a wide range of viewpoints to students. Including ultra-conservative. The Jesus-as-myth theory was only offered as one possibility. I never used my university position as a soap-box to promote my own views. I am opposed to activist academics who do that. But the mythicist position is a legitimate one and it ought to be offered to students, especially in a secular university.
Question: Is this what you taught in Biblical Studies?
Answer: No. I offered a wide range of viewpoints to students. Including ultra-conservative. The Jesus-as-myth theory was only offered as one possibility. I never used my university position as a soap-box to promote my own views. I am opposed to activist academics who do that. But the mythicist position is a legitimate one and it ought to be offered to students, especially in a secular university.
Question: Are some Christian denominations better poised to deal with it as a possibility than others? You mentioned Catholics...
Answer: Yes. Traditional Christianity is better placed to deal with it. The Catholics. The Orhodox. Whereas the historical Christ is much more important in Protestantism. So it is a problem for Protestants - just as the issue - the Jesus quest, as they call it - arises out of Protestantism. Rather than finding the Galilean peasant carpenter that we thought we'd find, we find an early Christianity that is much more Roman, much more based in tradition and myth, theological from the outset.
Yours,
* * *
This post marks the untimely death, from cancer, of D. M. Murdock, a well-known popularizer of the Jesus Myth theory. Since the present author is known to entertain similar views on that subject, he publishes the above discussion in order to clarify his position on a controversial topic.
Yours,
Harper McAlpine Black
No comments:
Post a Comment