Reproducible Electronic Publishing can encourage spreading around irresponsible scholarship.
This file made available by the restroom wall and the Internet
Infudgels
for The Free of thought
Web.
Did Jesus Christ Really Live? Annotated and Corrected
by J. P. Holding
By request we're having a look at this oldy moldy, found here in case anyone thinks we're making this up. Gauvin was one of those Christ-mythers who proliferated in the 18th-19th century, sort of like books on the Atkins diet can be found behind every toilet tank today. You'll see that Gauvin offered little more than the same old same old, though in his day it had yet to BE old. We'll intersperse comments in bold.
To begin, was Gauvin any sort of expert? No. Tekton Research Assistant Punkish notes: Marshall J. Gauvin was born near Moncton, New Brunswick, in 1881. As a youth he worked for eleven years for the Canadian National Railways as carpenter and cabinet maker. After years of self-education and preparation, he embarked on a career as a freelance public lecturer and educator. He lectured for fourteen years in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Minneapolis. In 1926 he came to Winnipeg at the invitation of the One Big Union. He lectured weekly in Winnipeg for fourteen years on rationalism and humanism in the Metropolitan, Garrick and Dominion theatres. He became well known for his anti-religious sentiments and his weekly "anti-sermons" which were well attended during the 1920's and 1930's. On retiring from the lecture platform in 1940, he worked for the duration of the war at MacDonald Aircraft Ltd. building and repairing planes for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Gauvin also wrote monthly articles for the Truth Seeker magazine until his health failed. Nice. An aviation mechanic as an expert on the Bible. This data can be found on record at the University of Manitoba where another reader also found it.
Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the
question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was
called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and
teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that
Christ was the son of God -- God himself in human form -- that he was the
creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew
the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the
servants of his will and changed their courses at his command -- such an idea
has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker
who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of
science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient
religious tales. Typical 18th-19th century freethinker arrogance here; Gauvin has already assumed that if you disagree, you must be dependent, unreasonable, and unscientific. Not that he needs to re-invent the wheel, but he doesn't need to pass out sound bites either. Why the number of worlds ("millions") or the size of the universe is at issue is one of those things never explained by the deists/freethinkers of this time. One is obliged to ask at what number of worlds these ideas became unreasonable. 30? 150? 5,374,876? Gauvin just threw the vague idea of "bigness" out as a non-argument. And of course he presented no coherent argument against the miraculous either.
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, by Gauvin's limited circle of freethinkers, not by Christians, though he doesn't mention that but his existence as a
man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of
the world deny that he ever lived at all. Nonsense. "Able" scholars in the appropriate fields never questioned the existence of Jesus, and we will note that Gauvin named not one and didn't even bother showing that they were qualified or "able" in any relevant field. Same as today. A commanding literature dealing with
the inquiry, Commanding? The literature was minimal and you won't find it reproduced anywhere today except by the "Irresponsible Infidels" and by publishing houses that also do stuff like The Christ Conspiracy. intense in its seriousness So if I do an "intense" and serious work on Bigfoot, will Gauvin be impressed? and profound and thorough in its
research, Actually all done by non-histoirans who don't do competent research. is growing up in all countries, Including Zaire? and spreading the conviction that
Christ is a myth. It spread so well that G. A. Wells had to produce more books for no other reason than that demand for works like Gauvin's made it impossible to do otherwise. 
The question is one of tremendous importance. For the
Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance.
The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or
for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has
stayed the march of civilization Sure it has. Like Gauvin was trained enough in social history to do more than say this. I won't insult the reader with my own simplified reply, but say instead that it requires more than a sound bite to make this case. It requires depth social study, comparisons of societies, and determinations of philosophical influence. The sound bite reply is that Christianity made modern science in the West possible., and made martyrs of some of the noblest men
and women of the race Like who? Gauvin does not specify. It's just a sound bite. and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of
freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of
mankind. More sound biting. You'd never know that most abolitionsist were Christians, and Gauvin had to wait a bit to see atheistic regimes in the Soviet Union and China do their thing. One sound bite deserves another if we're going to avoid depth social analysis. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic
superstition, Can you scent the bigotry? What's wrong with it being "Asiatic"? And note as usual that you are automatically "regressive" if you disagree. and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom
is complete. We're still waiting. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root
of the conflict between reason and faith; As an aside, Gauvin's definition of "faith" is skewed -- faith means trust in evidence analyzed by reason. and upon its determination depends, to
some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the
world. So if you are religious, you are also excluded from humanity?
Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the
churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It
is a question of science. The question is -- what does history say? And that
question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking
world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be
sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can
be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her
scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the
stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of
other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world. This much is correct and if Gauvin had started with this paragraph he'd have been a lot fairer to deal with.
What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man?
The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels
of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these
alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. False. Church tradition tells us more of them, though presumably Gauvin would have alleged replies for that as well. Moreover,
the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are
not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel
According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to
Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." And that's not a claim to be written by these people? Why not? If anything the "according to" is an even more direct claim that just an "of". No human being knows who wrote a
single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were
written, or where. Needless to say, you'll never see Gauvin do an ounce of comparison to how authorship is determined for secular works. See here -- compared to those other works, the Gospels have far better attestation in terms of authorship and date. Provenance ("where") is not so easily determined, nor is it for any document, but there are reasonable hypotheses, and "where" is not really that important. Punkish adds: Gauvin makes much of "Christian" authorities - but what of Skeptical ones? Renan has regarding gospel composition that the "according to Matthew" etc headings "signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles and claiming their authority. It is clear that, if these titles are exact, the Gospels... are of great value, since they enable us to go back to the half-century which followed the death of Jesus, and, in two instances, even to the eye-witnesses of his actions."! (Renan calls the gospels legendary though, with which we disagree) Gauvin is thus relying on extremist positions to make his late-dating points! Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel
of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are
that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other
three. As we have noted here, "shorter, simpler, more natural" are fairly poor reasons for claiming that Mark is oldest; it's also vague. As Gauvin goes into more detail, merely having acceped the arguments he wants to accept, no more can be said. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the
Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the
Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the
supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke. Why Mark's lack of these specifics are more "important" than what WAS included is not explained. Mark could have included these things and not others, and then we'd hear about, "The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the healing of the demoniac, the mustard seed parable, or of other important facts, on and on and on." Ancient biographers had the right to include or exclude what they deemed important. The virgin birth would have been reckoned no more special than any other miracle (see here). The teachings listed are of no particular importance over any other presented by Mark. If not, why not? It is outrageous for Gauvin to anachronize modern (for his time or ours) focus on one particular set of teachings. It's also oblivious to the point that such teachings would have been orally transmitted to converts long before they read a Gospel.
But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same
way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark,
Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original
Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. Gauvin refers here to the "Ur-Markus" thesis which has fallen into some disfavor since his time. What it
was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. That's not hard: hypothesize a document for which there is no tangible evidence, then object that no one knows anything about it. Just chase yourself in a circle. As noted, the Ur-Mark idea isn't held as much anymore. The more plausible, contextual idea is that Mark used oral and/or written sources, which were Aramaic (per Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel) derived from the ministry of Jesus. Don't tell Gauvin, though, because that upsets the argument. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. Vague: "admitted by" for what reason? How about evaluating those arguments? No? Gauvin will again not re-invent the wheel, but if you're going to propound a Christ-myth, positing arguments uncritically whole isn't the way to go. They as in, "those Gauvin agrees with" acknowledge
that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; Like the two are mutually exclusive? Why not an interpretation based on that life? that it gives us
an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been,
and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. This is now long outdated; since Gauvin's time John has been recognized as a very Jewsish document; this realization has come of comparisons to the Qumran literature and the Wisdom literature, and an understanding that Jewish thought itself was informed in some quarters by Greek philosophy. The
Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on
the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes
of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first
three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus
taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John
declares. For a response to this, see here. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two
entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to
Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while
John insists that he was God himself. Gauvin like most of his contemporaries was clearly unfamiliar with the Wisdom theology paradigm. John, Matthew and Luke all identity Jesus with this divine figure. Mark is not as clear on this, but he has such things as Jesus walking on water (which the OT says only God can do) and using the divine "Son of Man" title.
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any
of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred
years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. 130 AD. Note that today, the latest reasonable date offered is 95 AD. Christian
scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their
composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their
guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age
of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the
year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. See link above concerning dating. Not that Gauvin even explains how to date ancient documents, but he gives us this: Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made
as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew,
Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year
190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis
of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. False. Papias mentioned Matthew and Mark c. 125 AD. Not that even 190 is a big deal, since no mention is made of Tacitus' Annals, for example, any earlier than Tertullian, which is just as long as between Jesus' death and the time of Irenaeus. See again link above.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources
of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and
fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. There are actually quotes of and allusions to the Gospels in earlier writers like 1 Clement and Justin Martyr. For secular works like the Annals (see again link above) this is taken as evidence of their existence earlier. The Gospels though get their early references excused away as "floating tradition" or some such. Walter R. Cassels, the
learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever
written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the
literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single
distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after
the death of Christ." It would be interesting to see how Cassels excused away the allusions in earlier lit. Punkish adds that Gauvin fudges a bit here: Cassels actually has "with the exception of the third" after "any of those Gospels" so this is a misquote without ellipsis even. How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and
fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any
trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really
lived? Why not ask Tacitus and Tertuallian the same question? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a
man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred
and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his
narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single
statement in it could be relied upon. Notice how Gauvin slips in a ton of unfounded premises. Even IF he could get the Gospels dated so late, where does he get proof that they were not based on earlier documents? History recorded in secular works of the ancients used sources for events that long ago and longer and we don't hear secular historians panicking and calling what Josephus says of the Maccabeean era "romance" just because of the date and time between.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have
been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must,
therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age.
But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they
translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since
Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally
written in Greek. Oops. Long outdated. Now scholars like Casey have detected the underlying Aramaic sourcework, and Semitic overtones. Not that this makes a difference. Koine Greek was a lingua franca of the day and there is no reason someone educated like Matthew or Paul could not have written a Gospel in Greek with few or no signs of translation. Josephus is an example of a Jew who could do the same. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples,
or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a
foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to
have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus
lived. This proves nothing but that Gauvin has been dated.
But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of
authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The
Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been
lost or destroyed. So likewise the originals of EVERY ancient document of note, whether it be Tacitus, Livy, Josephus, or Seneca. For some reason the Skeptics who make this objection never stop to ask whether the Gospels are special in this regard, as if we have originals of everything else. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of
copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made
these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they
were honestly made. The same again could be said of every work from the ancient world. Anyone who had it in for Tacitus could go on about, "The oldest Annals that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Annals. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made." The standard point in reply is that we have far more and far better evidence for the texts of the Gospels and the rest of the NT than for any other ancient document. But don't ask the critics to be consistent on this. They refuse to mention other documents for good reason: It would expose their unfair criteria of judgment. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing
manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years.
It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained. "Between the earliest Annals and the oldest existing manuscripts of the Annals there is a blank gulf of 1000 years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Annals contained." Nothing but wild speculation as an argument, as if the Gospels of Tacitus had been mutated from sandal repair guides. Textual critics from Kenyon (even before Gauvin) to Metzger and the Alands today would find this unbearable.
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large
number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel
of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians,"
the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and
scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in
"The Apocryphal New Testament." But not one of them were broadly or solidly recognized as original; they went through tests and were found wanting. Their mere production means zero. Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names
of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of
importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name
of Christ. Not quite. See here -- there were stringent tests to cull out such products, and not all were intended to be taken as genuine, and most if not all were the products of heretics. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to
deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian
historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles
writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written
with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was
an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views."
The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of
literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of
God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. Vague sound biting without documentation. Since Gauvin produces no quotes of support for what Milman says, not much can be said, but one example often abused from Eusebius is treated here. Otherwise see link above. Punkish adds on Smith: Kicked out of Free Church College, Aberdeen for controversial views, then became editor of the Encycopedia Britannica, and was a motivating character (posthumously) behind the Encyclopedia Biblica, one of Gauvin's sources.
But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to
forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging
documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have
lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness
of the Christian cause. The use of sound bites is rather a testimony to Gauvin's inability to present a detailed and reasoned case.
Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life
of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they
agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke
says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and
both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but
two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much
the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero. What is "worthless" rather is Gauvin's knowledge of ancient genealogical practices. See here and here.
If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he
was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was
Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of
these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman
history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later.
Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.
Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten
years, as to the time of Christ's birth. Not quite. See here and here and here. The fact is that the early Christians
had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia
Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary
opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on
earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of
which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What
magnificent certainty! What a magnificent citation! The Encyclopedia Britannica? No date, volume, page number? Where does this factoid come from? Who knows? It's non-evidence. A reader noted that there is no sign of this quote in the modern edition. Unfortunately, at the time when Gauvin lived (1881-1940s) Britannica was in several previous editions, so I can't say with certainty based on the current edition that this quote is a fake like I did that spurious Pope Leo X quote. The reader adds, "Additionally, according to a Google search, three skeptics post this statement on their websites without citing page numbers for the quote." He wrote to see if two of them could identity it more closely. I doubt it; they most likely got it from Gauvin. Punkish adds: I still don't know the Encyclopedia reference, but this appears in Graves' 16 Crucified Saviours (!) so the edition is at the most the 9th (1875-89) and is probably the 8th (1852-1860). The quote appears all over the 'Net without reference; sometimes adding "Art. Chron." which according to the context of Graves' chapter (8) appears to be an article on chronology.
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned
Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to
every month in the year, at one time or another. Nice if true, but what of it? We have little certainty for the birth month OR year of the vast majority of ancient personages, even famous ones like Pilate, Caiaphas, and Josephus. Punkish adds what he found: The Jesuit priest Antonio Maria Lupi (1695-1737) was a prolific philologian; initially studying philosophy at Macarata, he became rector at the Roman Seminary at Siena, then professor of rhetoric and headmaster of the Jesuit College at Palermo. So whatever his nativity work was, it wasn't written in the late 18th century, and he got his name wrong. I'll add that he obviously was not an expert on this subject.
Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called
"Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the
impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. See link above on this. The Synoptic Gospels
represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this,
Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in
the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with
Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher.
Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that
his Gospel is not history, but romance. Gauvin's comments strengthens our own suspicion that he knows nothing about standard Jewish exegetical methods -- see here generally and here specifically on Micah 5:2. Such procedures used elsewhere do not indicate "romance" but the use of the OT to interpret actual history. Luke has it that his birth occurred at
Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment
called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing
is known in Roman history. See again links above. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman
custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his
place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his
wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. But, uh, why does it have to be REQUIRED? Amy thought of the wife WANTING to go, or the husband wanting the wife to go? This is a very simple point; why doesn't it occur to Skeptics like Gauvin? In the face of this established
custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two
provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had
to be Had to be! It says no such thing. accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a
mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at
Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and
the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city
of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take
place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious. Again, see links above. Note also that Renan, as Punkish notes, is quite happy with the birth i.e. existance of Christ! Renan actually said, "Jesus was born at Nazareth, a small town of Galilee, which before his time had no celebrity. All his life he was designated by the name of "the Nazarene," and it is only by a rather embarrassed and roundabout way that, in the legends respecting him, he is made to be born at Bethlehem. We shall see later the motive for this supposition, and how it was the necessary consequence of the Messianic character attributed to Jesus. The precise date of his birth is unknown. It took place under the reign of Augustus, about the Roman year 750, probably some years before the year 1 of that era which all civilized people date from the day on which he was born." (Life of Jesus, chapter 2. Not the introduction mind, a summary of scholarly/skeptical opinion of the day, but what even Remsburg - one of Gauvin's authorities - calls a romance!)
His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is
said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question
-- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work
written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English
language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a
city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of
Nazareth! Badly outdated. See this essay. The Anchor Bible Dictionary also reports evidence of Nazareth being settled at the time of Jesus in the form of Herodian tombs. Tekton Research Assistant Punkish adds: ...Encyclopedia Biblica as a source, the book itself argues (four columns of evidence/discussion!) that Galilee is the most probable intended reference but that it is uncertain. The conclusion (which is part of the "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time" sound bite) also says the problem is complex - the data is lacking due to events like the Crusades - and requires bravery to face the problem (hence sound bites are woefully insufficient!) and mentions the rock tombs up the hill, to the west. So this source doesnt deny Nazareth's existance, but it conjectures it as somewhere else. Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but
the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on
the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine
man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time
of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been
born, a matter of grave question! What amazing irony! On genalogical practice; nothing whatever compared to known birth data of other famous figures, and even the existence of Nazareth long since accepted by all expect the miseducated who don't realize Gauvin has been superseded!
After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the
exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of
him until he has reached the age of thirty years. Which is normal for ancient biography. The ancients believed that personality was static; childhood was seldom discussed, and if it was, it was done with brief cameos like Luke's. The account of his being found
discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve
years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this
discussion; Which means nothing, for reasons noted above. And here Gauvin does not mull over the implicit absurdity of demanding that what one reports, ALL must report. Why? And why not the same stringent requirement on secular historians reporting the same events? Even Josephus varied in what he reported of the same event between the War and the Antiquities. and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an
unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is
the meaning of this silence? It means the ancients did not normally report incidents from childhood in biographies because of their beliefs about personality. The exception would be if something done in childhood served as a foreshadowing of later greatness. If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the
life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years
of that life? For reasons given above. Plus that they sure didn't have the space to be any more than selective. What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years
is an absolute blank to the world? This one is a real treat. Gauvin obviously didn't do a lot of comparing to other ancient biographies. Suetonius starts his bio of Julius Caesar at age 15, and that only because Julie made a stink by refusing to honor an arranged marriage. For Augustus Suey reports one sentence about him losing his father at age 4, delivering a funeral oration at age 12, and nothing else until he was 16 when he became a military man. Of Claudius he only says his father died when he was a baby, and that his youth was plagued by disease and weakness. No details until adulthood. If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he
was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from
everlasting pain -- was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty
years of his existence among men? Answer: probably not. One may as well ask whether Claudius being sick all the time was the thing most "worth remembering" about one of Rome's greatest emperors. The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing
of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a
childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their
purpose. One may as well the same of Suey's work on the Emperors. No, the fact is that it is not "knew nothing" but "lived when childhood, youth and early manhood were not considered formative periods," and "they refrained from reporting a
childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their
purpose."
Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence No such rule, as noted. long enough to write the
Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is
proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement
that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that
they went a day's journey before discovering that he was not in their company; Nothing improbable about this. Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 49-51) notes that Mary and Joseph sought for Jesus "among their kinsfolk and acquaintance." This was a family travelling group, and young pilgrims like the 12 year old Jesus were considered safe as long as they were in the company as a whole (this in line with the extended-family concept of the ancients, not the nuclear family of today, which most critics have in mind). "On such journeys, parents may not see their sons for hours at a time." Rihbany argues therefore that Jesus must have been with the group as it left Jerusalem, and detached himself shortly after they started their journey.
and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and
answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous
improbabilities. Like what? Gauvin names no more. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke,
surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none
of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the
scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would
appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the
fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear. As noted above, it is rather Gauvin's lack of knowledge of ancient biographical methods that becomes clear. To say nothing of his predisposed bias against Jesus being what and who he was (and even if he was not, of chold prodigies).
The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they know
of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of
Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ
lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered
about three years. See here, relevant portion. The Synoptics teach that Christ's public work was confined
almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long
before his death. Jews went on pilgrimages to Jerusalem four times a year. What Gauvin sees here is a literary technique, not a chronology. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as
to the scene of Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of
Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. How? That John reports more events in Judea hardly means he "maintains" any such thing. Now,
between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last
few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee,
it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two
provinces away. Like it's a big trip to begin with. The distance between Galilee and Judea was less than 50 miles.
John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple
occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of any
serious consequences following it. See link above on differences of John. As for "consequences" what does Gauvin want? No one was killed, so Rome has no interest. The verbal confrontation John records is all the "consequences" we would expect for a prophetic performance art show. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the
purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this
act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Matthew says no such thing about the wrath of the priests. Mark 11:18 (and Luke 19:45-48) ties it in with this event AND that the people follow his teachings.
Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of
events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and
untrustworthy; Nothing like an Encyclopedia for assurance. See again link above. that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and
that the facts "show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical
precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined. Also see more on principles of ancient literary practice here.
Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he
preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by
multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted
hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and
sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the
authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem.
Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to
betray him? Gauvin practically answers himself: "...lest there be an uproar of the people." The betrayer is needed to inform the authorities of the safest time to pick up Jesus without causing an uproar. Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. Bingo. Judas was needed to tell off when Jesus was "in hiding" -- or rather, not surrounded by those who would cause problems if he was arrested. A man who appeared daily in the streets,
who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public
eye, could have been arrested at any moment. And that could have sparked a riot at any moment. Gauvin must have learned riot control tactics from Greenpeace. The priests would not have bribed a
man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's
betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in
Jerusalem must be false. More like Gauvin needs tot hink in more than one dimension, as noted.
Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The
civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest
lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and
fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the
executioner before being found guilty. This is a completely undocumented claim; tell it to Spartacus. And yet we are asked to believe that an
innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge;
that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared
that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!"
and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no
wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him
to the executioners to be crucified! Not quite. The mechanics of the trial and execution are much more detailed than Gauvin comprehends; see here. Jesus essentially pled guilty to sedition before Pilate. Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman
court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared
him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own
accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? "To a howling mob"? Where does Gauvin get that reading? Again, see last link to know what's going on. Pilate didn't have an innocent man's best interests at heart. A
Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of
civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading
the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction?
Surely not history. Like I said, tell it to Spartacus and the slave revolters.
On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that
during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art
represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation
of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on
Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Now this one is especially absurd. It is completely undocumented by Gauvin and is also incorrect. As Brown notes in Death of the Messiah, there are about a half-dozen depictions of the crucified Jesus dated between the second and fifth century. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. Nowhere is any of this documented by Gauvin. At the
close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth
Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should
take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years
to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the
Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was
his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and
reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the
Crucifixion? The claim appears to be derived from such sources as Higgins' Anacalypsis and there we find reference to a "Canon 82" which reads as follows: IN some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is painted to which the Precursor points his finger, which is received as a type of grace, indicating beforehand through the Law, our true Lamb, Christ our God. Embracing therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols of the truth, and patterns given to the Church, we prefer "grace and truth," receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In order therefore that "that which is perfect" may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in coloured expression, we decree that the figure in human form of the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited in images, instead of the ancient lamb, so that all may understand by means of it the depths of the humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory his conversation in the flesh, his passion and salutary death, and his redemption which was wrought for the whole world. Note that it is "some" pictures (not all) and that there is no hint of anything like Gauvin supposes, of doubt of a human Jesus. Here are some comments about that meeting I found online: The Quinisext Council 691-692 -- The Quinisext Council is also known as the Trullan Council, or Council in Trullo or the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils, it marks the beginning of icon theology. The Council issued 3 important canons; canon 73 recalled the importance of venerating the cross and forbade anyone to place an image of the cross on the ground where people might walk on it; canon 100 forbade the use of pagan sensuality in Christian art, but the most important ruling was canon 82. It forbade the use of symbolic representations of Christ. For the first time the connection was made between images of Christ and his incarnation. The theme of the incarnation was to become the very foundation of all icon theology....The reason for banning images of Christ as a lamb was because the period of Old Testament prefigurations of Christ is now over, we have had the full revelation of God in human form. The incarnation can only be clearly proclaimed by painting Christ as a human. Ouspensky feels that implicit in Canon 82 is the idea that icons must not just show Christ as human, but must aim to show both his humanity and divinity shining through his person. Symbolism was not removed from iconography completely, it is allowed in details, such as the stars on the Mother of God’s veil; a hand descending from the sky. However, one should no longer paint Christ as a fish or lamb....The reference is made to some early Christian art, depicting a lamb as Christ (unfortunately, we still see this in some of our churches) and John the Baptist pointing his finger at it and saying: "Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29). The fathers who decreed this regulation are saying that we respect the symbols of old, which foreshadowed man’s redemption and God’s grace, for the sake of what they represented even if those hints were not the source of grace in themselves. But now, He Who was promised is in our midst and from now on the person of Christ will be depicted, instead of a lamb, with all respect to His human character, so that by means of the human countenance we may recall His life in the flesh, His passion, His death and the fulfillment of promised Salvation.
And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament
describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought
youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command
returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? "The people" were in fact stooges set by the priesthood -- who had plenty of loyal Temple workers to make for a crowd. See relevant material here. Is it
not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized
-- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went
about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the
dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest
benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction? It's Gauvin being one-dimensional. Jesus threatened the social order and prominence held by the "establishment" (Pharisees, Sadducees) and it was this group that engineered his execution. Gauvin of course was far behind the eight ball on the social interactions of the NT era.
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of
Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of
nature. Don't ask Gauvin to explain why. Or why miracles are actually impossible. He has already assumed it. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless.
They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the
monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while
there is much in them that we certainly know to be false. The simple truth is, this is a lot of vague generalizing, and what few specifics Gauvin has offered show that he was no student of the NT era.
The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand
people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his
walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after
his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in
this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were
written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not
particular as to the truth of what they wrote. But ask Gauvin for a reasoned defense as opposed to "argument by implied credulity" and you will be disappointed. There is no argument here; Gauvin merely plays the "isn't this increible" card again and again, never providing any rational argument against miracles. The miracles of the Gospels were
invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we
know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the
imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at
Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the
Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we
can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; Hmm, Schmiedel must have been the Jesus Seminar of the day. Not that we will be priviliged to know from Gauvin what his arguments are, which doesn't open them to refutation or for Gauvin to have the courage to present and defend them. and Professor Arthur Drews,
Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, And a math teacher at a university, not a historian or scholar. analyses
these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily
have been invented. How so? It's not explained, nor is it explained why we can't go through ANY work of history and say the same of every passage just because we want it that way. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also
the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that
Jesus never lived. And also held that Buddha and Zoroaster never lived, and is laughed at by scholars from those fields as well. Punkish adds: [Robertson was] a politician (!). Skeptic Joseph McCabe critiqued his work thus: "However, Robertson who was tireless in research though not very critical when he found something that seemed to suit his theory" and,"Dr. Conybeare's deadly exposure (in The Historical Christ) of his methods would dispense me from replying if I had any inclination to do so." Also: Edward Carpenter in another pagan-myth book, writes that Robertson chiefly relied on solar and astronomical origins (i.e. not historical! Isn't that what Gauvin's article is supposedly about...historical evidence? Why rely on a work that doesnt focus on this?) and contains this despairing footnote in Chapter 1, "If only he did not waste so much time, and so needlessly, in slaughtering opponents!"
Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament
itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was
not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that
the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that
Paul really lived. Before long Gauvin will declare everyone in the ancient world a fiction. So who wrote Paul's epistles? And how does Gauvin keep his same arguments from rendering other historical figures fictions? The more outrageous ones like Robertson were at least consistent when they deleted Buddha and Zoroaster. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica,
relative to Paul: "It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times
differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has
made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with
invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly
developed Christians." Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done
its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. Where? How? In what documents? This sort of sound-biting we are to take as proof that Paul never existed? Punkish adds: And the Encyclopedia Biblica has this in a section called "The historical Paul" (!) having just dismissed a work by E Johnson where he doubts Paul's existance, the Encyclopedia says "For doubting...the historical existance of Paul and his activity as an itinerant preacher outside the limits of Palestine, there is no reason" - the legend bit is related to the usual assumptions of evolved religious views surrounding Paul's teaching - but nothing here about "manufacturing" the missionaries' existence! In truth, the
ablest Christian scholars reject all but [f]our of the Pauline Epistles as
spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very
existence of Paul is questionable. The idea of "none by Paul" is held only by a fringe which never answers the question of how we can know NONE are by Paul if we have nothing genuine by Paul -- and also of course never compares them to attestation for secular documents. "Four by Paul" is these days up to seven at least. For examples of how the rest can be drawn in, see here on the Pastorals and here on Colossians. Presumably Gauvin would doubt that Peter wrote 2 Peter 3:15-16.
But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really
lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from his
pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy; and they
are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long
before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who
lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Actually, that's not assumed at all, though it is likely Paul was around at the same time at some time in Jerusalem; note Acts 22:3, where he says he learned at the feet of Gamiliel. Also if Paul wrote the Pastorals, Gauvin admits a quote of Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, and so much for "long before the Gospels". Now, if
the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity,
Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges
that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his
life, his works, or his teachings. Yep. The old "silence is golden" trick, which we have refuted as presented by Earl Doherty here. He also forgets that Paul did claim to see the Risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15). Gauvin goes on to waste a paragraph or two listing all the things he thinks Paul should have mentioned, but since our answer is at the link, we'll skip that and give a brief answer to his closing application on this.
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the
teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in
his propaganda? Yep, but he would have used them 10 or more years before he wrote each of the letters. Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China
and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never
once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's
Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the
grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching
throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the
churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles,
the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? Yep. Like Doherty, Gauvin assumed his low-context values on the high-context ancient church. And o not these features constitute
Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then,
does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born,
miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That
is to say, he had not yet been invented! The answer is far more prosaic, and again, details, a great great many of them, are at the link above. Enjoy. Gauvin repeats himself a few more lines on this, so we skip to:
A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's
physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The
Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim,
Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early
Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a
character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth. Oops. This is not helpful to the Christ-myth because it is not that they denied that he existed, but that what existed was an illusion. In other words, you could see a Jesus walking around, but he was a holodeck image. Gauvin is trying to pull this illicitly into the Christ-myth category, but it doesn't work. Mosheim by the way lived 1694-1755 -- way outdated now.
Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents
in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are
untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have
invented the part that was natural. That was a tour de force of proof. Start with "miracles do not happen" on no basis, then go from there. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it
is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. Another brilliant tour de force of begged questions. It's easy to "invent" any history, but to get away with it and pass scrutiny is another matter. For this reason, the whole story of Christ -- the human element as well as the
divine -- is without valid claim to be regarded as true. Gauvin just also disposed of every other historical document, on no other grounds than that "it can be invented". Gauvin goes on further about miracles being impossible and says it 3 more ways to Sunday, so with that not new and no actual argument other than "I haven't seen any myself" we'll skip to:
If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that
attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the
authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has
not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age
of scholars and thinkers. This is where it'll get fun. Gauvin will try to explain away the secular testimony of Tacitus, Josephus, etc. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were
philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of
importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. "Every fact"? And we know this how? We can't, because if an "important fact" was known, it was only known through these writers, by this logic. So if they failed to report an "important fact" then how would be know, unless we beg the question of their completeness? Gauvin didn't see the absurdity of his own proposition. Some of the greatest
writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. Two, actually. Philo and Josephus. And yet, in all the
writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter,
about Jesus. Wait for it; he'll excuse away the secular references shortly after stacking the deck with dizzying polemic. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but
not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared
on earth -- a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed
five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the
grave and gave life to the dead. Of course this assumes that the persons agreed that he did such things in the first place, which is doubtful. But note that Gauvin does not bother to define "minor importance" or "extensively" -- this is just propaganda.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list
of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century
after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him. Remsburg erred quite bit on that -- see here for a look at all of his 42 writers -- trying to suggest that i.e., writers who taught public speaking methods should mention Jesus!
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was
born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after
the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near
Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to
have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these
things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. "Certainly"? Why? This assumes that a) Philo believed what he heard of Jesus; b) lived long enough to see Christianity become a force, which he did not. and make Jesus worthy of note
Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the
innocents, See here and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things
occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed
the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once
mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the
world. As noted, the silence is of no moment. If Philo thought Jesus a fraud, he would not have honored him with a mention.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish
historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work,
the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the
death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were
no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It
was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church
felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to
do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared,
in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise
man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a
teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him
both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when
Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to
the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he
appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold
these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Oops. Gauvin forgot to mention a second, shorter reference to James as "brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." As for it being a forgery see here -- Gauvin's "all forged" view is rejected by Josephan scholars in favor of a partial interpolation theory which makes most of the reference genuine. Despite Gauvin, it was NOT easy to make changes at all, not to an entire written tradition, without evidence. Even works we have only a few copies of show easy evidence of textual "families". Punkish adds: Although he's now considered outdated, Renan says that the Testimonium is essentially genuine (Life of Jesus, Introduction), with some later touching and additions (made in the 2nd, not 3rd century) - yet both Remsburg [Gauvin's source for this section] and Gauvin himself make note of this Skeptic - the latter even quoting a phrase from the book, evidently having these facts in front of him! What colossal incompetance in using sources! Hence his statements that "It is wholly a matter of evidence" and questions settled in the "court of historical criticism" are mere warblings.
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen
forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian
Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this
passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to
hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. They would? Why? All Josephus said was that Jesus existed, did some miracles, was executed, and had followers. None of the opponents of the church doubted any of this, so why would what Josephus said have been useful to JM, Terty, etc.? But it did not
exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that
writer had not acknowledged Christ. Origen said that he did not believe in Jesus as Messiah, which is not the same as not acknwledging that Jesus existed. This passage first appeared in the writings
of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in
the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Not by Josephan scholars today (see link above). Eusebius, who not
only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, See here. but who is know to have
tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers,
introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124),
in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning
our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above,
we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. Not according to Josephan scholars, of whom Gauvin is not one. It is written
in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. None of the Josephans agree. They find that which is authentic to be overwhelmingly in Josephan style and have used that as a criteria to cull out that which was authentic. Josephus was a
voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The
brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its
falsity. Brevity? Gauvin weasels in those non-specific words "minor importance" and "extensively" with no actual comparisons to othr persons written of by Josephus. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what
precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the
historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. See link above. Christ-mythers have now abandoned this argument. Josephus was a Jew
-- a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the
divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to say, it
makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not
possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace
Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive
proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery. As noted in the link, those portions Gauvin speaks of are indeed considered late interpolations, but the rest is considered genuine. And were not Jesus and the Apostles orthodox Jews?
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an
interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional
clauses." Whup! Milman agrees here with the "partial" view, not Gauvin's "abandoned" view. I guess Josephan scholars like Feldman are "dishonest". Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That
Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Oops! Note again that Farrar specifies the WHOLE passage AS IT NOW STANDS. The partial view again, not Gauvin's. Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too."
Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally
conceded to be an interpolation." These last two sound more like "full" but if you prefer these sound bites over later and more detailed scholarship, you are beyond our help.
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short
passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called
Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words
occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage
is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. See here -- the idea that this passage is interpolated is disreputable and is held by no Greco-Roman historian or scholar. It was not quoted by
any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only
one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been
made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. Note that this is the normal state of such ancient documents (Livy, Herodotus, etc.) and is never used by anyone else to suggest interpolations. Also we ask as with Josephus, who should have quoted it and why? It reports data no one would have disagreed with (Jesus was executed by Pilate and started Christianity -- only useful if someone doubts these things!). The
"Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus'
time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus. See link -- Tacitus was eminently reliable, a responsible and careful and studious historian. Just pawning it off as "written to late" is not sufficient. It also erases the usefulness of 90% of recorded history. So do we also throw out what Tacitus said about Nero because it is 70 years old? Augustus because it is 110 years old?
The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with
us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One
was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners;
another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they
heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years
went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised
and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed
with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem. This is all true, but so what? How does this prove that any one Jesus didn't exist? Gauvin never says.
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was
not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One." True, but again a "so what" Gauvin does not explain.
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who
would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men
who posed as Messiahs, No, he doesn't. He does not report of any other person than Jesus who was called this. He DOES report people who did "Messianic" stuff like bopping Romans, but that is not the same thing -- one could do these things without posing as Messiah. who obtained a following among the people, and who were
put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or
Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great
was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman
government. Another "so what"? At least this time we have some explanation:
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of
Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived
was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders
assumed the title of "Christ." No, none other did until Bar Kochba. And Gauvin gives no example of someone who was named Jesus AND did Messianic stuff. He is trying to confuse the issue by mushing them two together. All the materials necessary for the manufacture
of the story of Christ existed in that age. So if there were people named "Abraham" in 1860 and there were also Presidents, we have "all the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Abraham Lincoln." In all the ancient countries, divine
Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new
religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for
the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. If you want more than vague generalization, and a look at specific alleged "saviors" see here. None were of virgins; only some preached "new religions" (a very broad characterization that also includes historical figures like Joseph Smith and Muhammed!); only some performed miracles (a religious "gimme"!); almost none were crucified (excepting several after and influenced by Christianity!); none others atoned for sin, and none but a couple post-Christian rose from the dead or ascended. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In
the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his
"Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan
Christs." Who says that there were or needed to be new ideas? Jesus lived in an age where preaching something new was a good way to be ignored. The idea is that Jesus teachings the highest ideals known, not "new" stuff.
"But," says the Christian, "Christ is so perfect a character that he could
not have been invented." This is a mistake. It's also a strawman. No one today argues this and it is doubtful they did in Gauvin's time either. In what follows Gauvin lays down alleged claims of moral error by Jesus. Without cites I can only guess what he refers to. The Gospels do not portray a perfect
character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous
contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and
he was not; See here he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their
friends; see here he taught the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of
vipers; He also taught a doctrine of justice and righteousness; forgiveness requires one accepting forgiveness/repentance, and the two ideas are far from mutually exclusive he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he
would judge no man; see here he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable
to work miracles where the people did not believe; see here on Mark 6:5 -- and also, Gauvin forgets that the "all power" saying is AFTER the rez and long after Mark 6:5's incident he was represented as God and
did not shrink from avowing, "I and my Father are one," but in the pain and
gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: "My God, my God, why
hast Thou forsaken me?" And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the
dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by
two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm! How singular indeed is Gauvin's lack of knowledge. It was not a cry of anguish but of triumph (see here) and as for quoting a Psalm:
If there is a moment when a man's speech is original, it is when, amid agony
and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and
disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with
the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted
life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the
heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his
race! The Jews lived in an age when quoting from one's sacred lit was EXACTLY what someone would do in such life situations. A parallel example of the song of Mary which is a pastiche of OT allusions and quotes. For more on why this sort of this was done see here.
And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature,
could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of
Romeo? Do not Shakespeare's wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not
their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our
admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of
the imagination? Insert also Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Baha'a'ullah, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson...need we go on? Gauvin goes on in this vein about fictional characters who seem realistic, but he seems to forget that genre is one of those things you need to look at when considered historicity of a text. Thus he concludes:
Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the
world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the
splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind
and hold the heart enthralled. So likewise "could" any of the figures named have been "invented" but "could" won't get you a bus ticket to Peoria. The Gospels are in the genre of ancient biography and are meant to be taken as historical reports. Shakespeare is in the genre of plays. Any questions? But how account for Christianity if Christ did
not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the
Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these
movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The
Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not
produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ. Sociological theory, just add water. For a more complex analysis see here. Gauvin just throws these social movements in the air as though they were all the same and could be explained the same way. Try this: Explain the Reformation without a historical Luther; Socialism without a historical Marx. Gauvin closes out with some summary for his freethinking readers, and that's it. So what can be said? I can only hope the Secular Web provides this stuff as an example of what NOT to do.
| |
|
Copied too much
Ingracious Infidels 2 B.C.-2003. All errors ignored.
« disclaimer: we know this is no good!
»
|