Does it Matter if Jesus Existed?

By Rook Hawkins

While
thumbing through the May/June issue of American Atheist (2007), I was
compelled to read an article written by Rick Hillegas entitled, It Doesn’t Matter If Jesus Existed. An
erudite and cultivating piece, the article presents a case using two
other philosophers of antiquity; Pythagoras of Samos and Socrates of
Athens. Drawing on the evidence, and most of the time the problems with that evidence, Hillegas presents a tour de force against the notion that the skeptic shouldn’t be concerned about the historicity of Jesus. “Namely,”
Hillegas says in his opening paragraph, “the Jesus who has come down to
us is little more than a character sketched by his disciples.” I
don’t necessarily disagree with Hillegas on this point, although there
is a greater perspective I think Hillegas has missed in his article. Yes, it is true that the evidence for Jesus is lacking, and that his existence to an atheist is generally irrelevant. After
all, the atheist certainly does not think he was a God or even the son
of God, and the miraculous claims of the Gospels and Acts are probably
later legendary embellishments. Additionally, atheists don’t focus on a lot of claimed supernatural characters like Achilles or Hercules in the same manner. So
it is easy to see how Hillegas would come to the conclusion that, as
with Hercules and Achilles, Jesus should likewise be ignored and
forgotten.

As a historian, I cannot look at Jesus, or Achilles, or Socrates in this nonchalant manner. In fact, the position of Hillegas is not only indifferent, but also of ignorance. That is not to say that Hillegas is ignorant, to the contrary I found his knowledge of classical literature refreshing. If only others would find such a passion in the past. It is in this passion that Hillegas possesses, however, that its so difficult for me to admit that I find article so depressing. History is, in effect, the memory of societies past. It is those events in society’s youth that make the present what it is, and every piece of that past is important. Certainly, nobody but a fool would say their own memories are irrelevant or don’t matter. In
the same way, it is naïve to think that because we don’t believe in the
nature of the character in question, such a character should just be
thrown into the metaphorical trash can. Yet, this is the same sort of nonchalance that Hillegas and others have posited towards the question of Jesus’ historicity. Perhaps such a position wouldn’t be so difficult to consider if there also wasn’t some lingering air of defeat about it. For example, Hillegas concludes his piece with the following statement: “Who were these men? We don’t know. The men themselves recede from history, replaced by colorful characters in the stories their followers wrote.” The nature of this statement is one of pure loss. For Hillegas, we can’t know these characters historically; therefore, per Hillegas, we shouldn’t try to know them at all. One
can only imagine if such a concept were taken to heart, thousands of
archaeologists and historians would drop their tools, papyri and pens
and abandon the science of history all together, never to draw another
observation from the past. Indeed, this image is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous because we need to learn about the past to prevent humanity from making the same mistakes. If
Hitler had listened to the historians before starting a campaign in
Russia, the same sort of campaign that lead to the downfall of Napoleon
during the war of 1812, perhaps the second World War would have turned
out much differently.

It may be that such an example is extreme, but it is still a valid comparison. In
the same way we learn and educate ourselves through experience, the
same way we learn and educate society from its’ own failures and
accomplishments. Establishing the historicity of Jesus or Socrates is a part of what has to be done to determine what happened in the past. These
are the minute details that help explain the larger picture, the little
pieces that give the puzzle some depth and perspective. Without
them, there might always be a gap in our knowledge that would forever
ruin a chance at solving another mystery further down the line. Therefore,
I seek to amend Hillegas’ article and his position with the following
points which will help one understand the importance of establishing
specifically a historical or allegorical Jesus. (1) Where Hillegas seeks to compare Jesus to Pythagoras and Socrates, he fails to recall the nature of genre. (2) Based on genre, what can be significantly understood from the Gospels and the Epistles? It is from these two positions that this article will focus on from here on out.

On
the first position, Hillegas attempts to establish a link between the
three philosophers and concludes, “We can say they lived but we have
contemporary evidence only for a handful of their teachings….”[1] In
grouping Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus together in the category of
“teacher” he adds, quite to the amazement of the historically-minded
reader that “For Pythagoras and Jesus, the evidence is third hand at
best.” The surprise came from the manner in which
Hillegas seems to continually lump the evidence into one category, as
he does with the three subjects in question. But here is where lies the problem. Certainly, one would not hold Plato’s dialogues on the same level as Iamblicus’ On the Pythagorean Way of Life. One
is a way of expressing philosophical points and stressing the nature of
method, while the other is clearly written by somebody who sought to
explain the life of their patriarch. In Euthyphro, for example, did Socrates really say the things Plato ascribed to him? I certainly can’t answer that question without speculating, but such a question is irrelevant to the genre of the text. Plato
probably never meant for his dialogues to be taken as literal history,
at least he never makes it clear that they are to be taken as such. What matters in Plato’s dialogues is the manner in which the arguments are presented by the characters. In
Euthyphro, Socrates faces his trial, and even while knowing death is
lingering around the corner for him, his incredible desire to learn is
present, as is the desire to teach. To Plato, that point is more important than the events historicity. Indeed, the very etymology of the genre of dialogue (dialogos) means “through reason” or “through words” implicating the necessity of the language over the historicity of the accounts.

On the other hand, Iamblicus certainly expected his work to be considered historical. He writes clearly in the genre of a biography and even cites sources. What is interesting about Iamblicus as well is that like Arrian before him, he compares the literature of his sources. He
states on Pythagoras’ miraculous conception, “We must reject here the
views of Epimenides, Eudoxus, and Xenocrates, who assumed that Apollo
had intercourse with Parthenis (Pythagoras’ mother – Ed) at that time,
and when she was not pregnant, made her so, and announced it through
his prophetess. This view deserves no acceptance.”[2] It
doesn’t stop at Iamblicus however, and earlier attestations to
Pythagoras’ life are always written in the genre of biography or
history. Although only hinted at by Hillegas, biographies of Pythagoras existed early on, and were cited and used by later biographers. These early biographers included Aristoxenus, ironically dubbed the father of biographical literature.[3] According to this text, Pythagoras was “a wise man free of anything superstitious or supernatural.”[4] We have fragments of these works (despite Hillegas’ claim that we don’t).[5] Further,
additional contemporaries of Aristoxenus also wrote on Pythagoras in
the form of biographies and commentaries, such as Dicaearchus and
Timaeus of Tauromenium. We also have fragments of the
works of these classical authors as well, again the genre of these
authors reflect that of history and biography. Thus, in
comparing and lumping the evidence of Socrates and Pythagoras together,
the efforts of Hillegas seems more to be an effort in futility than
anything else. Certainly, on both accounts we can be sure such persons existed. So one can imagine why adding Jesus to the mix would complicate his position further.

Digressing for a moment, it should be noted that lack of evidence does not imply lack of existence. In history, it is certainly okay to assume the historicity of somebody even when there is barely evidence at all. And
in the cases of Socrates and Pythagoras, our evidence is actually
better then the majority of persons historians agree probably existed. The
problem is not with the amount of evidence where one should be
concerned, but rather the type of evidence, and the quality of the
evidence being presented. This is a very common misconception that is hardly ever corrected. We
have contemporary accounts of Socrates, some are not so pleasant
towards him, and that sort of type of attestation is very valuable
towards his existence. And again it is important to
remind the reader that what Socrates said and did is really irrelevant
to the position that Hillegas is holding, and what is important is
establishing historicity. Again, with Pythagoras, we have some decent, albeit late biographies. However,
in our earliest known attestation, certainly if it can be concluded
that there were in fact no supernatural claims, that is still pretty
good evidence for Pythagoras’ existence.

Back
onto the subject at hand, this leads into another question that needs
to be answered; why is determining the genre of the Gospels so
important—more specifically, what does the genre of the Gospels have to
do with the nature of Hillegas’ article? To state it as
simply as possible, the importance of genre determines the nature of
the image of Jesus the world presently possesses. For example, we have contemporary attestation to Socrates, but also dialogues presented by Plato his student. Where
we get little biographical information from the dialogues, the
attestation does give us insight into the character of Socrates. Xenophon,
another student of Socrates from Sparta, also gives us lots of
contemporary information and best of all we have all completed works
from him. Much of what he writes on Socrates is more plausible than
Plato who generally writes very positively about his teacher, where
Xenophon gives us less elaboration and more facts. We are also told of additional students of Socrates who had written about him, his life, hit trial and finally his death. Unfortunately we only have fragmentary pieces of these writings. In the same manner, we have two types of accounts for Pythagoras, both biographical and allegorical. Once
more, it is important to remember it’s the quality and type of
attestation that is more important and all we seek to establish in this
discussion is the existence of these individuals. With
Pythagoras and Socrates, these types of genres help us determine many
things about the time periods in which they were written and even give
historians some great insight into comparative study, where it can be
determined how certain literary tropes are used and reused to breed
intellectual or allegorical thought, but additionally as stated above,
make a case for historicity much stronger. With Jesus however, we only have four obscure pieces of literature, all of the same sort of genre. That
genre, however, is not written in the form of histories, as the authors
(which are unknown to us) do not cite sources even though we can prove
that they used each other. All one has to do is compare
Arrian’s methods to that of any of the four Gospel authors, there
simply is no viable means at showing similarity. They’re
certainly not dialogues either, as there is more to the text than
method (which admittedly is not so easy to discern) and meaning (which
is easier to discern than the method). So comparing this evidence to Socrates or Pythagoras is already stretching.

So what of our evidence for Jesus’ historicity then? Before moving into the Gospels, some time should be taken to explain our earliest sources on Jesus: Paul’s Epistles. It should be noted that Hillegas claims some things about the Pauline Epistles that are inaccurate and need to be resolved. For example, he states on pg. 18, “Here’s what Paul tells us: Jesus had brothers, including one named James, whom Paul met. Jesus had twelve disciples. Jesus was crucified. That’s all Paul tells us about the biography of his hero.” But this is really misleading. In
relation to Jesus’ brothers, no doubt Hillegas is referring to both
Gal. 1:19 and 1 Cor. 9:5, yet these are vague, and could have a
completely alternate meaning. When one looks at the Greek for example:

 
“Heteron de tôn apostolôn ouk eidon, ei mê Iakôbon ton adelphon tou kuriou.” (Gal. 1:19)

“Mê ouk echomen exousian adelphên gunaika periagein, hôs kai hoi loipoi apostoloi kai hoi adelphoi tou kuriou kai Kêphas…” (1 Cor. 9:5)

The Greek adelphon and adelphos are figurative for brother and sister, although they can mean “kin.” However, in early Christendom it was common for Christians to call each other “brother” and “sister” in fact Paul does it often. Paul states in Gal. 3:26-27, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Certainly, if we are all sons of God, and Jesus is the son of God, we are all brothers of Christ. This
is further explained, for example, in 1 Cor. 1:1, where he states that
Sosthenes is “our brother;” 1 Cor. 1:10 states “I urge you, brothers,
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ…;” Galatians 1:2, “…and all of the
brothers who are with me….” Certainly, Hillegas would not suggest that Paul is referring to literal kin here. Richard Carrier posits that the usage of the language is similar to a type of rank in the mysteries of early Christianity.[6] This is seen also in Paul’s use of telete (the initiated, perfected, the mature) in 1 Cor. 2:6, a term that has long been associated with Greek mystery traditions.[7] Ironically enough, Pythagoras was initiated (teletas) into the mysteries in the ancient Near East.[8]

This
is brought up because just as one must establish the genre of the
accounts of Socrates and Pythagoras, one must also establish that Paul,
a source for Jesus, was not a biographer. He was, in fact, writing letters to his friends at various locations. The
information he gives us is not helpful in any means at establishing a
life of an historical Jesus, and in fact gives us an impression of
Jesus that is other than human. He states in Gal.
1:11-12, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was
preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” These
are not the words of somebody who is getting his information from a
historical person, or even from somebody who knew Jesus. These are the words of somebody receiving teachings through revelation (apokalypseos). To
put it simply, had Paul learned of Jesus from a disciple, he would not
have said “I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it.” Instead,
had he actually spoken to a witness of a historical Jesus, you’d expect
him to say, “And from James I learned that Jesus, his brother, had been
crucified by Pilate,” or something to this effect. Yet Paul gives us nothing of the sort, no lingering information to a historical person at all.

Hillegas also claims Paul gives us his crucifixion. But
as G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty right pointed out, Paul talks about the
crucifixion being carried out by the Archons, or specifically a
celestial being that rules over a specific level of the heavens. [9] It’s important to keep in mind that Paul believes in multiple heavens as well, and discusses them in his Epistles. He says that he has visited these heavens, eerily similar is this story to the one found in 1 Enoch. The letters of Paul reveal more about Jesus than Hillegas has considered. As
there is a world of information in what Paul doesn’t say, and also in
the manner in which he does, we can get an understanding now of the
Gospels, which at least in some way understood the theology of Paul. As Robert Price points out in his book, Jesus is Dead,
Mark seems to agree with the teachings of Paul while Matthew, aware of
Paul’s dismissal of the 613 mitzvot, inks in the famous quote in
5:17-21, where Matthew has Jesus condemning those who alter the law or
ignore the law to a fiery afterlife.[10]

 
We should approach the subject starting with the basics. What
we know of the Gospels tells us a lot more than perhaps Hillegas would
like to give credit to, just as he fails to give credit concerning the
nature of the Epistles and the information it gives. The Gospels tell us that the authors knew and wrote in Greek, a task difficult for any Jew to achieve in the classical world. Certainly
it is possible that the author of Mark at least could have been written
in Alexandria, where not only was papyrus easier to come by, but also
where Jews were more assimilated into Greek culture than in Galilee.[11] It was also discovered that the author of Mark, whoever he was, drew many parallels to Homer’s epics,[12]
so historians can verify that the author of Mark probably went through
some sort of education in a school, perhaps even through gymnasium.[13] What can be gleamed from the Gospels doesn’t stop there, however.

The
Gospels genre itself can tell us something about the nature of the
character Jesus, as it can be admitted that the only evidence for Jesus
scholarship really has are the Gospel accounts. The reason for this is that up until a few hundred years ago, the Gospels were considered biographies. This
slip-up happened because there were no scientific methodologies that
historians and theologians employed then looking at the text. Thankfully in the last two hundred years, especially with the establishment of redaktiongeschichte schule in Germany during the mid-late 19th
century, such methods started to be adopted, and within the last fifty
years scholarship has finally become grounded in observation and
induction, using also the fields of sociology, anthropology, and
archaeology to give a better scientific understanding of the nature of
the manuscripts, times and genres. The ability to
determine the genre of a document allowed for better induction, finally
Josephus was not looked at as a historian as much as he was an
apologist. In the same way, scholarship can now appreciate true historians of the day, such as Arrian and Suetonius. Therefore, when the genre of the Gospels can be established, the nature of Jesus in the Gospels can be better ascertained.

The
development of the Gospel genre over the last two hundred years is too
complicated and lengthy to get into here, but a summery will be
available in my book when it is published.[14] However,
it can be established, and will be established in my book, that the
Gospels are a story that drew upon and rewrote existing tropes from the
Tanakh. Such a determination would completely change the way everyone looked at the New Testament and the early church history. All
of a sudden the deeds of Jesus would seem more like the deeds of Elijah
or Moses or Asa, and all of these biblical figures have been
established as allegorical and not historical.[15] Yet, this is the very matter we are discussing. Finally, we are starting to see the importance of evaluating the evidence, and the nature of the historicity of Jesus.

Indeed, when one reviews the evidence, the bigger picture starts to become clearer. Pieces
of the puzzle start to fall into place, from the smallest detail to the
largest corner section, we can make out the intricacies of the Gospels,
and where they fit into history. And that “where” is right along side of the Testament of Abraham, the Pentateuch, 1 & 2 Enoch, Job, and many others. The Gospels are just another way of retelling the same sort of trope that has existed in previous Jewish literature. They
use the same sort of literary method that the Greeks had used for
hundreds of years, called euhemerization, to fit a mythical figurehead
into a historical time frame to teach a message or parable.

Consider
the use of names to help solidify the story; Jesus is Joshua, the new
shepherd and guardian of his people, the name itself means “Yahweh
Saves.” Just as Abraham’s name was representative of his literary necessity, he was the “father of a multitude of nations.” We see in the first chapter of Mark, where John represents Elijah, wearing the camel hair robe with the leather accoutrements. Jesus
then takes the place of Elijah, into the desert for 40 days while being
attended to by angels, just as Elijah was attended to in wilderness for
40 days also by angels. Jesus and John reverse roles, as
Mark tries to confuse us; we are mislead intentionally, consistently
thinking that Jesus is Elijah, or that John is. Perhaps Jesus is the new Moses, based on his transfiguration and the talk with his disciples afterwards. It isn’t until the end of the Gospel of Mark, where Mark reveals his secret. And
it is the literary genius that he is, that nobody gets who Jesus is
except the Centurion, a Roman, who recalls the Suffering Servant of
Psalms when Jesus cries out “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtha’ni?” – A direct quote of Psalm 22:1. Jesus is the allegorical David. He
is the one who will lead his people to the Promised Land, just like
Abraham, and Moses, and Joshua, but this time like David, he is to
reign.[16]

This directly supports the second position that I had given above. The genre of the Gospels as allegory allows us to draw certain information that we otherwise could not draw. Such
literary tropes are important to not only our understanding of the
types of literature that existed in the first century common era, but
also such tropes put into perspective the context of the early
Christian thought. Why is it that we have biographies of
Pythagoras, and attestation to physical attributes and the personality
of Socrates, but neither of these things can be accounted for Jesus? Why is it that so many similarities exist between early Christianity and the Orphic and Dionysian mysteries? These are important questions that need answers, if only to fill in a large gap in our knowledge of the period. To
simply give up and say that determining the historicity of somebody is
irrelevant, that it doesn’t matter, or that it cannot be done is only
going to deepen ignorance. Ignorance is that which we should all be uniting against; certainly we should not be encouraging it.

So, in conclusion to this piece, I answer the final question I posed at the beginning. Does it matter if Jesus existed? Yes. It matters because it keeps people looking at the evidence, and brings up new data that otherwise we’d never know. It
matters because it presents a case against the dogma of a church which
seeks to force itself upon everyone and dominate everything. It
is important because it gives us insight into the memories of societies
past, clearing up our understanding of how cultures and societies
functioned and thought. Finally, it is important because no task should be idly pushed aside, no matter how daunting that task may seem. Through perseverance and patience man will ultimately bring more knowledge to our species. In
the end, it is that knowledge which may help humanity finally break
free from the stranglehold of religion, and take us places we currently
can only dream about.

______________________________________________________________

[1] It is noteworthy that there are absolutely no contemporary records of Jesus’ teachings.

[2] J. Dillon & J. Hershbell, Iamblicus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life (1991) Pg. 35

[3] J. Dillon & J. Hershbell, Iamblicus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life (1991) Pg. 6

[4] (ibid.)

[5] On page 17, Hillegas writes that these works are now “lost.” Yet, the fragments we have, have yielded information as to the nature of Aristoxenus’ Life of Pythagoras, Pythagorean Sayings and On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Not to be confused with Iamblicus’ account with the same name). They can be found in F. Wehrli, Aristoxenus (1945). However, the work is in German. This author knows of no present English translation.

[6] Rational Response Squad Radio Show, Episode 25

[7] The use of the term telete can be seen in a variety of classical literature. In Aristophanes, Plato, Epictetus, Euripides, and others, the use of telete has only been used to signify a follower of the mysteries. Philo and Josephus also use the term, which can be verified using the appropriate concordances and Loeb texts. Further information on this matter can be found in the book by M.B. Cosmopoulos, Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults (2003). See also: Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul (1992)

[8] According to Iamblicus, Pythagoras was initiated into the sacred rites in Byblos, TyreSyria. (See Iamblicus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life, p. 41) and

[9] As to the Archons, Paul refers to them as “rulers of the aeons.” G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament (2003), Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle (2005).

[10] R.M. Price, Jesus is Dead (2006)

[11] J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (1996). For information on Galilee, M.A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (2002) & Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (2006)

[12] D.R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (2000), Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (2003), & Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato and the Acts of Andrew (1994)

[13] The use of Homer’s Iliad and the Odyessy to teach students through the process of mimesis can be found in D.R. MacDonalds, The Homeric Epics, but also in other books such as Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (2000), Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny (1977), L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes & Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 3rd Ed. (1991), and D.R. MacDonald, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (2007)

[14] The title of the book is, Discovering the Gnostics: A Look at the Evolution of a Mystery Cult in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. It is currently being written and peer reviewed.

[15]
For a list of resources dealing with the ahistoricity of the Old
Testament and the Patriarchs, please consider the following books:
Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth ; The Early History of the Israelite People; The Mythic Past; The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Niels Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition; Miller-Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; Phillip Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel”; Matthews-Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East; James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement; Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel; Myth and History in the Bible; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History; Gosta Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (To name a few)

[16] Consult Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth (2006) and Robert M. Price, Jesus is Dead (2007), The Pre-Nicene New Testament (2006)