I read this book many, many years ago. I found the proposed theory interesting. I am not saying that I believe it.
Why even assume it happened?
I feel like a lot of the big historical points had to have happened in some form or another in order to get enough people talking about it and spreading the word in the first place. Its easy to spread a lie, it’s hard to spread one so thorough and believable that it shapes and integrates itself into the structure of human society potentially forever
The fact that the Romans crucified people is indisputable.
If Jesus of Nazareth existed, there is no reason to believe he was actually crucified (and it would have been a weird thing to do for violating Mosaic law since Jews didn’t do that) and he certainly wasn’t resurrected.
Remember, none of the Gospels were written during Jesus’ lifetime and Mark, the earliest, was written decades later at best and the other gospels copy a lot from it. On top of that, the canon was established by committee centuries later.
So there is simply no reason to assume Jesus was crucified and there is some reason to believe that, if he existed, he wouldn’t have been.
The concept of resurrection wasn’t even new when Christianity started, it was something that existed in prior religions. Most likely inspired by someone who everyone thought had a mortal wound healed up over a few days merged with the concept of plants growing anew in the spring. Mix it with something like Prometheus being tortured for sharing knowledge and you have the creation and Jesus dying for our sins. The parts are all there from prior to the timeline that Jesus was supposed to have lived.
Like entertainment media, if you look at what came before you can see the inspiration for whatever was the big thing at any point in time. There isn’t really anything new under the sun, just new takes on existing concepts.
Personally I think that someone named Jesus probably did live and inspire people who eventually wrote stories that were inspired by prior religious stories and attributed them to him. He was probably crucified, and the resurrection was likely something that someone a couple hundred years later wrote while inspired by other religious stories.
**The concept of resurrection wasn’t even new when Christianity started **
You point was clearly made by the Bill Maher movie “Religulous”
It’s the same “story” recycled over and over with a bit of a different touch based on the culture
But there is a big difference between a human spreading a message of hope and kindness and a divine presence.
That was my reasoning. All the gospel accounts were written decades after the supposed events. They have copying errors and congruity that parallels primary school level homework copying. It is easy to claim anything about “witnessed” accounts with crowds when most of those people are dead, and no one is there to substantiate the narrative. Religion and politics were inextricably bound in this era. There was an opportune religious/political career path amongst the displaced diaspora in the void left behind after the first Jewish-Roman war of 66-74 CE. They had every reason to see the opportunity, copy someone else’s homework and play along with the sham. There was no doubt an enormous amount of prejudice against any Jewish faith as they had lost everything.
In a time of centralization of government, monotheism is simply an easy method of radical political factions control. Populist torch and pitchfork movements are harder to create when one can not randomly invoke a rare god or make up a new one.
The problem is that there is no evidence of anyone else being crucified by the Romans for violating Mosaic law despite Jesus not being the only claimant to be the messiah during the Roman occupation of Judea. In fact, Josephus mentions multiple other resistance leaders who he at least implies were claimants to be the Jewish messiah, but not Jesus. (The passage about Jesus in Josephus is almost certainly a later Christian forgery to correct this.)
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. The evidence points at opportunism taking advantage of a traumatized group, which is a much more believable narrative than magic moon water walker
I think the more believable narrative is that it didn’t happen and was just part of a hagiography of a messiah claimant.
Harsh word drop!
- hagiography - a biography that idolizes or idealizes the person (especially a person called a “saint”)
Exactly. And it’s pretty difficult to argue that the New Testament gospels don’t fit that description.
Because it’s an interesting theory. And if it’s true it certainly doesn’t make you a believer
Speculation about the historical events in the Gospels is never going to be productive because there is so little evidence from the time.
Consider Pontius Pilate. Until 1961 there was no contemporaneous evidence that he existed. He was the prefect of Judea. Imagine how much documentation must have been created by the day to day dealings of a Roman governor. And not just on flimsy scrolls, but engraved into buildings. (Like the Pilot stone). (Almost) All erased by time.
What chance could a religious figure, even a famous one, have at leaving a mark that could reach 2000 years into the future?
