Tag Archives: Ancient History

News

James Crossley compares Joseph Atwill’s Jesus conspiracy theory to Dan Brown fiction

3 Comments

J. Warner Wallace tweeted this article from the UK Daily Mail featuring comments by atheist historian James Crossley. The article responds to a sensational story that came out in the past week about an alleged conspiracy by ancient Romans to “invent” Jesus. Naturally, this was reported far and wide in the press. But this article by Dr. Crossley offers a more sober assessment.

Here’s the introduction:

An American scholar claims to have made a controversial discovery that proves the entire story of Jesus was made up by Roman aristocrats.

Joseph Atwill asserts that Christianity did not start as a religion, but was instead created as a sophisticated propaganda tool to pacify subjects of the Roman Empire.

He says he noticed a pattern forming when he was studying the only surviving account of first-century Judea, which he claims contains dozens of parallels between the life of a Roman emperor and that of Jesus in the New Testament.

Mr Atwill argues that these ancient ‘confessions’ provide ‘clear evidence’ that the biography of Jesus is ‘actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar’.

The theory itself seems to be based on finding parallels between the New Testament sources and other ancient sources:

[Atwill] says he stumbled upon his discovery while studying War of the Jews by Josephus – the only remain first-person account of first-century Judea – alongside the New Testament.

He said: ‘I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts.

‘Although it’s been recognised by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more.

‘What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus.’

[…]Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that ‘the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and that the solution to that puzzle is “We invented Jesus Christ and we’re proud of it”.’

I’m not very optimistic about these Jesus-parallels approaches to history, but maybe there is something to it this time.

But Dr. Crossley doesn’t think that there is:

But bible academic Professor James Crossley, from the University of Sheffield, compared Mr Atwill’s theory to a Dan Brown fiction book.

He told Mail Online: ‘These types of theories are very common outside the academic world and are usually reserved for sensationalist literature.

‘They are virtually non-existent in the academic world.’

He also suggested the theories are not taken seriously by experts.

Mr Crossley said: ‘People do debate about how much we can know about Jesus, but the idea that Romans invented stories about Jesus is outside of the academic world.’

He added that this sort of theory can be ‘irritating’ to religion academics.

Dr. Crossley has debated against evangelical scholars, in particular Dr. Michael Bird and Dr. William Lane Craig. Although he is on the other side, he is aware of the reasons why people believe in a more traditional picture of the historical Jesus.  It’s good to see experts on the other side weighing in on these sensational stories.

Related posts

Commentary

Craig Blomberg on the historical reliability of the New Testament

2 Comments

In J. Warner Wallace’s Cold-Case Christianity, chapter 5, he leverages the work of two experts on the New Testament. He cites Dan Wallace on textual transmission, and Craig Blomberg on textual criticism. Let’s take a look at an article written by Craig Blomberg which presents 10 reasons why the gospels are reliable. (H/T Chris S.)

Here are points 4 and 5:

Fourth, ancient Jews and Greeks meticulously cultivated the art of memorization, committing complex oral traditions to memory. Even before the Gospels or any other written sources about Jesus were compiled, Jesus’ followers were carefully passing on accounts of His teachings and mighty works by word of mouth. This kept the historical events alive until the time they were written down.

Fifth, the ancient memorization and transference of sacred tradition allowed for some freedoms in retelling the stories. Guardians of the tradition could abbreviate, paraphrase, prioritize, and provide commentary on the subject matter as long as they were true to the gist or meaning of the accounts they passed on. This goes a long way to explaining both the similarities and the differences among the four Gospels. All four authors were true to the gist of Jesus’ life, yet they exercised reasonable freedom to shape the accounts in ways they saw fit.

Take a look if you want a quick overview of reasons why we should give the gospels the benefit of the doubt unless they prove faulty in one or more areas.

Polemics

Why didn’t Luke mention the deaths of Paul, Peter and James in the book of Acts?

1 Comment

J. Warner Wallace makes the case for an early date for Luke’s gospel.

Excerpt:

I make a much more elaborate and cumulative case for the early dating of the gospels in Cold Case Christianity, but a portion of this case revolves around Luke’s omission of three important deaths in the Book of Acts: the deaths of Paul, Peter and James. A recent listener to the Stand to Reason “Please Convince Me” Podcast recently wrote: “Firstly, perhaps such historical events were simply beyond the scope of the author of Acts? It has been suggested that the author may have been aware of the aforementioned events, but he chose instead to end his account thematically with the Gospel finally reaching the heart of Gentile civilization, Rome… Is it really viable to suggest that these possibilities are less reasonable than the early dating hypothesis?” One of the evidences in the Book of Acts that makes the omission of Paul, Peter and James’ death so powerful is the inclusion of two other deaths in the narrative: the deaths of Stephen and James, the brother of John:

Acts 7:58-60
When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of da young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 12:1-2
Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword.

As important as Stephen and James, the brother of John, were to the early Church, it can hardly be argued that Paul, Peter and James, the three most important Christian leaders of the first century and the primary characters of the Book of Acts narrative, would not be considered important enough to describe their deaths. Is it possible (viable) that Luke “may have been aware of the aforementioned events, but chose instead to end his account thematically with the Gospel finally reaching the heart of Gentile civilization, Rome?” Of course it’s possible, because anything and everything is possible. But it’s not reasonable.

I am one of those people who thinks that all three synoptic gospels should be dated prior to 65 A.D. and this is one of my main reasons for thinking so. I might be willing to concede later dates in a debate situation, but I think that the synoptic gospels were written from 40 to 65 AD.

By the way, if you haven’t got your copy of Cold Case Christianity, what are you waiting for? The thing is getting rave reviews from everyone!