Ask the Atheist

Correction: there are only 3 in your batch who are openly atheist. A little public exposure of atheism might bring more out. I bet they're just as scared as you.

There's no way to say that you think another person's belief system is without basis so that he/she can't possibly take offence. The very existence of atheists is a slap in the face to some people. On one forum I met a fellow who always put 'atheists' in quotes, to imply we're really something else.

You have to remember, and let people know, that you are not criticising them personally. It's only the religion you've rejected. You don't want to offend people, so that means you're fully aware that your reasons are not intended to offend. If someone does take offence, you should take them to task and explain why that was not your intention. An argument is much easier to lose if the point you concede is that you're not being insulted.

You might have to brave a few short debates at first just to find out what kind of arguments are being thrown at you. After that, you can have some short replies ready to shut them down when they are used again. Just having short, simple answers to common arguments says to the world that you really have thought about this, you've made an informed decision and reciting a few platitudes at you won't have any effect.

A few examples:

"So you hate God?"
"How would I hate God if I don't think He exists? That's like hating Darth Vader." (insert other fictional characters at will)

"You must worship the Devil."
"If there's no God, how could there be a Devil?"

"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
"No, I can't. But I don't see any good reason why He must."

"Why don't you believe in God?""
"There's no available evidence." (There might be follow-up questions, but you know why any of the things they'll bring up are not evidence.)

"If you're wrong, you'll go to Hell."
"If I'm wrong, there are a zillion possible gods to worship and I've got almost no chance of picking the right one."

"So where did the universe come from?"
"I don't know. Nobody does. God's one answer; there might be others."

"Atheists just want to do what they like without being called to Judgement."
"If that's true, why aren't I out stealing and killing? Why am I still being a good person?"

Get the idea? A short statement which not only refutes the argument but makes it sound a little bit misguided. There are comebacks to all of the above, but once you've established that convincing you would take some work you can simply say that you'd appreciate it if they respected your conclusion of atheism the way they'd expect you to respect their faith in Catholicism. (Personally I don't know why faith in itself deserves respect, but they think it does.)

If some people still want to engage you and bring you back to the fold, why not point them to websites like this one? Firstly it will likely have instant answers to much of what they would have said to you, and secondly it will show them that you have your own community behind you and they're not just up against one person.

I honestly don't think you can avoid some confrontations coming out as an atheist in such a staunchly Catholic community. The best thing is to tough it out and learn how to make them as short as possible without insulting people. Those who take offence for no good reason will do so no matter what, so don't think you're not still a nice person if it happens.

Good luck.

- SmartLX

My E-mail response:

"Actually we aren't in a pissing match , we are searching for a way to communicate our views with theists that push their faith / belief into society; Schools, government, neighborhoods... Chamber of commerce meetings.

It just so happens that we live in the USA and christianity is the majority religion. You said it yourself, we have to work harder to fit into this society and the fact that fanatical christians are accepted easier has to have yourself asking if that is fair and why?

The Rational Response Squad uses an "in your face" "catch your attention yet?" type of marketing. Does that mean every single one of us in the squad agree on every single point? NO. As with any group dynamic, it takes all kinds. Within the Rational Response Squad there are what I would consider "hardcore atheists" and "warm and fuzzy" atheists. We all work together within one of the most *diverse in personality* atheist groups in America. There can't be just ONE way to stand up to religion.

Thanks for the time you took to respond! Maybe some day atheists can actually work together instead of against one another! I would pray for that but, well, you know."

************************

My intention while being part of the group of RRS affiliates is to target "agnostics" and atheists that have 'heard' the RRS are *hardcore crazy atheists that are mean and angry*. (and yes I have been told this) I targeted agnostics when setting up my friends list so that I could slowly expose them to the RRS and what we have to offer in the way of community and information. I expected to have the biggest push-back from them. However, so far the biggest challenges presented have been by those that consider themselves atheist. Every e-mail I get from the nay-sayers actual fuels me to continue to push the message that Jake passed on a few weeks ago: "There is no ONE way"

-Renee
Rational Response Squad Chicago
Reposted from my blog on RRS
Jamie Kilstein

Welcome back to the world of blogging. You realise of course that an explicitly anti-religious blog will expose you to a multitude of people each of whom thinks they know exactly what will change your mind.

And you know what? Maybe one of them will. You might read a comment or an article which, try as you might, you cannot fault and must accept as a good reason to believe in a god. I hasten to add that this is REALLY unlikely if you fully analyse what you read.

I encourage you to read as much of the theist-suggested material as you can, because it'll be useful to familiarise yourself with the common arguments and good analysis practice. Also, if something has you stumped we want to know about it.

Like the RRS did long ago, you've stepped on a hornet's nest by expressing doubt on the existence of Jesus, even only as a man. The most common view is that enough extra-Biblical sources mention him within a century of his death for it to be likely that he was at least based on a real person. Apologists fight tooth and nail to defend the supposed evidence.

Rook Hawkins is our resident historian who has thrown himself at that evidence hard, and his answers here are joined by plenty of other writings on the RRS main site. Otherwise, a good place to start is the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus, and especially the links at the bottom.

As for links to other documentation, try searching Amazon and your local library. Amazon will have ready-made reader critiques of controversial books, and the library will of course let you read them for free. Have a browser window open as you read, so that you can check facts as you go.

My advice for improving your writing is simply to read. Read similar blogs to understand the style and the audience, read fiction to fuel your creativity and read the news to learn brevity.

Finally, decide what the main purpose of your blog is. What do you want people who read your blog to do? This will drive your writing and your research. Work it out.

Best of good fortune in your endeavours.

- SmartLX

Far too often apologists and evangelicals bring up Josephus as a source for a historical Jesus. This is a continuing error among scholars, and it is fueled by secular scholars who are either persuaded by pseudo-scientific evaluations of the texts, or for reasons dealing only in their presuppositions, such as those discussed above. The Testimonium Flavianum is generally brought up by both apologists and historical Jesus questers more than any other document. Although other supposed mentions of Jesus exist, the subject, so as to not seem as if an Argument from Silence is the only means at which one can attain the position held in this book, will be limited to the Testimonium due to its importance and scope of usage. For this reason, included here in this section is a specific refutation towards the use of this passage, as will be provided ample evidence for its entire dismissal as an interpolation.

Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work.

The problems of conformity of the manuscripts are a huge deal, although generally not touched upon by dissenters of the Josephan controversy over the Testimonium. The first attestation to this passage is found in the forth century, and even then it seems to not have been set in stone, as Steve Mason cites that Jerome (p. 230) had a different version of the transcript in his Lives of Illustrious Men, and in the 10th century yet an additional manuscript is found in Agapius (ibid.). But it doesn’t stop there, as Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch quotes another variant text in the 12th century. So many alterations exist. Mason asks, “Where did such equivocal versions of Josephus’ account come from?” (p. 231) And not least of all, the fact that there are alternative translations which exist from Robert Eisler and John P. Meier spark additional questions. Why are there no copies of Josephus before Eusebius in the fourth century for scholarship to adequately translate? Perhaps Christians didn’t feel the need to preserve it beforehand, and that should raise additional red flags.

The peculiar placement of the text is additionally odd. Looking at the text from a distance, without really comparing the accounts of the context around the Testimonium, it may seem possible that it fits. It does deal with Pilate, that is for sure, and certainly it contains accounts of followers of a cult, referred to as a “tribe,” that Josephus didn’t hold to, much like those of the cult of Isis he discusses a section down. But further examination reveals a troubling reality. After Pilate arrives in Judea, Josephus follows with two incidents; (a) Pilate allows the Roman images into Jerusalem during the night, and (b) Pilate’s use of temple funds to build an aqueduct. Immediately following the Testimonium, (c) Josephus discusses the destruction of the temple of Isis and the crucifixion of Egyptian priests, (d) Jews are expelled from Rome because of Jewish troublemakers, and (e) Pilate destroyed the Samaritan movement and their settlement at Gerizim. Mason states that, “Like a tourist negotiating a bustling, raucous Middle-Eastern market who accidentally walks through the door of a monastery, suffused with light and peace, the reader of Josephus is struck by this sublime portrait.” (p. 227) Events (a), (b) and (e) involve incidents that look unfavorably upon Pilate, but the Testimonium blames the fiasco of the crucifixion not on Pilate—who seems more like a puppet being played—but on the “denunciation by the leading men among us.” Every single event save for the Testimonium in Antiquities 18 is described as some form of outrage or uprising, yet there is no tumultuous event here, no uprising to speak of. Overall, Mason makes the observance that “he is pointing out the follow of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers,” (ibid.) yet in the Testimonium, Josephus speaks highly of Jesus and his followers, a stark contrast to the rest of the context. Finally, Josephus starts the section concerning the Isis temple as “another outrage,” for which George A. Wells and others have argued both events (b) and (c) to have originally been adjacent, leaving the probability for the Testimonium to have been inserted later.

The debate over the language of the Testimonium has been all over the place, to say the least. The hard fact is, however, that the passage reeks of Josephus but in a completely bizarre manner and at the same time seems to resemble normal Christian apologia. Mason cites several words and phrases which seem Josephan until considered in context; that being “doer (poietes) of wonderful deeds,” “they did not cease,” “he was perhaps the Christ (Christos)” and “tribe (phyle) of the Christians.” The use and language of these words does not fit into the normal Josephan style, and even in the case that they were Josephan in style they would not fit into how Josephus used the terms, they are missing further explanation, or would make little sense to his intended audience; the Greeks and Romans who would be fully unaware of the meaning behind “Christ.” In the same manner, the high regard in which he holds Christ, even in the regard that our earliest attestation, Eusebius, has him being referred to specifically as Christ is downright ridiculous. Not only is the language reflective of a Christian apologist in the forth century, but it doesn’t sound like something a first century pious Jew would write, especially in the context that Josephus was writing in (Jewish apologetics).

Silence is golden except when one is trying to prove their God existed, and then one should want to be as loud with information as possible. Yet early Christians seemed to be loud on everything except the Testimonium, which would have been completely revolutionary in terms of evidence in the early Christian centuries, especially against Trypho, Celsus and Prophyry. Yet strangely the reader of the polemics against these pagans seems to be missing the Testimonium, even though they cite from Josephus over and over again. Mason writes that “Origen expressed his wonder that the Jewish historian ‘did not accept that our Jesus is Christ’,” (p. 229) which is accurate. But there is more troubling information to consider here. That nowhere does Origen ever cite or attempt to cite anything remotely close to the Testimonium is damning. Instead one only sees reference to James, in which Origen seems to have recalled that Josephus referred to Jesus as “the one called Christ.” It is odd that this appears only in Origen and not before. For example, this passage is never brought up by Justin Martyr in his dialog with Trypho. What else is odd is that out of the blue you have Ananus killing James. The apologist would have one believe that he killed James because Jesus was his brother, but what purpose would that have served? Instead, looking at the context another probability possibility itself, and seems to be the more probable.

The order of Chapter 9 is as follows: (1) Ananus takes the high priesthood away from Josephus by order of Agrippa. (2) Ananus seems to have not been very patient, a member of the sect of the Sadducees, he felt the need to flex his muscles so, (3) while Albinus—the new procurator of Judea sent by Caesar after the death of Festus—was yet enroute, (4) he arrested James and some companions and (5) brought forth accusations against him. (6) He then had them stoned. (7) Citizens who felt James was just and upright sent out for Agrippa while others met Albinus on the road. (8) Agrippa removed Ananus from the High Priesthood and gave it to Jesus, son of Damneus. James, in the context of the chapter, is said to be “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”

There seems to be two possible solutions for this, and both seem adequate in light of the evidence. First, it seems more accurate that Josephus is here referring to Jesus, son of Damneus. Among our first solution, consider the passage is authentic with absolutely no tampering; even Mason agrees that the use of Christos in this fashion seems more appropriate as it is a nickname rather than a title. (p. 228) Mason suggests that titles were common among first century Jews because of the lack of common names in use. Jesus here is nicknamed “anointed.” Jesus son of Damneus did in fact get selected to be the High Priest, in which he would have been anointed for the position which the scripture commands in Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1, and thus his nickname would apply. This example gives too much credit to the originality of the text, however, and although it certainly is possible that this section of the text could be authentic, it is still doubtful considering the list of early Christians who would have had no problems tampering with it. In the Greek, the text for Antiquities 20.9.1, 200 is as follows (translated here from the Koine):

“When Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”

It is odd that this verse is considered to be authentic completely, especially considering the almost nonchalant nature of Josephus’ discussion of James, as if he wasn’t the subject at all. Instead, it seems that Jesus was the subject of this verse specifically, which is why his name is brought up at all. What other reason would Josephus have to discuss Jesus in relation to James? How does Jesus fit into this discussion, especially if he was already dead which oddly enough is never mentioned in the text? Nowhere does Josephus say “Jesus who was called Christ, who had been crucified by Pilate.” Jesus doesn’t even get discussed in past tense in any way; in fact it could be argued that it seems as if Jesus is still alive when James was put on trial. These oddities lead to the position that Jesus son of Damneus is the Jesus who is the brother of James, who is being tried by Ananus.

This is even more anomalous then, that Origen notes that James is to blame for the fall of Jerusalem instead of Jesus, as he writes (emphasis added):

“Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.”

It should be obvious to those who would read this that Origen only knew of this passage in Josephus, and perhaps the only reason why he even considered it to be in regards to Jesus was that he had copies of Luke, and also of Paul which he would have read as being the same James. It does not even appear as though Jesus was called “the Christ” in this passage, but rather Origen simply interpreted it at this time to mean Jesus Christ. This should lead to some consideration as to how much Origen really read of the text in Josephus’ Antiquities. He certainly did not know of the Testimonium, as he never refers to it, where it would have been valuable to do so. Moreso the passage here in Antiquities 20 does not seem to mean what many think it does, and probably didn’t receive its final stature until either right before or immediately after Origen, but certainly before Eusebius. This can be witnessed in that Eusebius himself doesn’t seem to have a completed interpolation either, and perhaps even he had received a slightly reworked text before reading it himself.
Consider that, while returning to the list concerning the Testimonium, Eusebius’ understanding of the text is exactly the next subject to be discussed. For Eusebius quotes the Testimonium as if he didn’t know where it fit. He suggests for example that the passage of Jesus is found after the passage of John the Baptist, which is erroneous to the manuscripts we have today. Mason writes that “even at Eusebius’ time the form of the Testimonium was not yet fixed…in fact...[it] remained fluid.” (p. 230) Not only does it seem to be fluid, but Eusebius seems to have an alternate reading of the text—or perhaps he is altering it even more himself—in Demonstratio Evangelica 3:5 below:

"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate (c) condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed."

This is a very damning case for Eusebius and his Testimonium. What is worse is that all seven of these problems, with the addition of the James passage, make Josephus’ testimony hard to take seriously. The Testimonium appears completely nonexistent prior to the forth century, and even then we don’t have any manuscript evidence until after the tenth century. And all the manuscript data we do have conflict with each other in ways you shouldn’t expect to find, especially among the same people! Admitting these problems as well as the fact that many, albeit not near a consensus, in the scholarly community have suggested the complete removal of the Testimonium, Mason suggests that a complete interpolation seems unlikely. It is hard to believe that somebody can truly feel this is the case after looking over the evidence, and one has to wonder if there are any additional motivations in wanting the text to be authenticated. However, suffice from ever gaining that knowledge one can only hope that Mason can provide some sort of sound evidence for his claims. He does put forth a few reasons why such a complete interpolation would not seem likely. (1) He claims that Christian copyists were “quite conservative in transmitting texts.” (p. 232) His evidence for this point is that (a) there seems to be no other suspicious tampering in Josephus and that, (b) no evidence exists in Philo which would also have been helpful to their cause. Mason states, “But in the case of Philo and Josephus…one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal altercation.” (ibid.)

But Mason’s claims here are dubious, and full of pseudo truths. For starters, his final claim that one is hardpressed to locate any “serious” scribal altercations is hard to take seriously, as he is discussions a very serious scribal altercation in his very paragraph! Indeed, the whole reason why Christian scribes were conservative is because to interpolate more would be to cause additional problems. In fact, it is probably the reason why textual critics did not find more than just one paragraph, as had the interpolators used any additional space it would have made copying the rest of the manuscript much more difficult, and perhaps they would have even run out of room. This is why when we see interpolations they are minimal, and not extensive. For example, we do not see the Gospel narratives fully embedded in Josephus precisely because such a thing would be difficult for an interpolator to accomplish while still recalling the other two full books he would have to copy.

Bart Ehrman shows how this is impossible due to scroll length. Papyrus scrolls—basically glued-together sections of papyrus sheets—seldom measured longer than 35 feet in length due to convenience. Thus, authors, and later those copyists who would transmit the texts onto fresh scrolls later—would generally separate long works into “books,” each accommodating one scroll. Josephus’ Antiquities was made up of 20 such books, so the scribal interpolator would need to be conservative in order to avoid running out of space. This is perhaps why textual critics see small interpolations in the Gospels, such as 1 John 5:7, and not whole sections of text, at least not until much later when the cost of codifying made it cheaper to transmit texts.

Indeed, it seems that when Christians started using Codices as opposed to scrolls, it would have become much easier to interpolate a selection of text. It would have cost significantly less than interpolating a scroll—Ehrman recounts that in terms of value one would save up to 44% by having something copied in Codex form as opposed to Scrolls—and even more so when the Christian copyists started using parchment sheets instead of papyrus leaves. Such a change from papyrus to parchment made copying texts onto both sides of a sheet much easier to accomplish than using the sheets of papyri, in which the direction of the fibers made transmission difficult and annoying.

This would explain then why we don’t really see an interpolation until after Eusebius, after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Not only was the use of Codices more popular as is discussed by Eusebius concerning the fifty copies of the scripture to be Codified by the order of Constantine, but the fact that there were now whole groups of professional scribes focused on transmitting texts just for Christians, something that probably was state sanctioned if Constantine were commanding it. Prior to this time, it would probably still have been too expensive for the Christian to pay for a copyist to transmit the texts in this great a number, and additionally we know many of the early Christians were slaves, criminals, women and their children, who would probably not have had the means at interpolating any specific passages themselves.

That aside, the notion that Christian scribes were always conservative is truly bunk. Especially when one considers the Old Russian copies of Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, where there seem to be several interpolated passages attesting to Jesus. In refutation of Mason’s claim that “Christian copyists were quite conservative,” George A. Wells writes, “This seems to overlook the considerable interpolations…in the Old Russian translation of The Jewish War, and there are extensive Christian interpolations in other Jewish writings of the period, now known as the OT Pseudepigrapha.” (p. 51-52) For a complete viewing of these manuscripts, Frank Zindler has an informative article on the Old Russian manuscripts in his work The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (2003), p. 60-71.

In the end it must be concluded that there is not a single reason to accept any part of the Testimonium, indeed any reference to Jesus in Josephus should be looked at skeptically and avoided as any use for evidence of a historical Jesus. To accept the Testimonium is to cherry pick the translation, the text variant and the church father one likes the best, and nothing more. This is not the means to attaining honest research and certainly should not be considered good scholarship.

I will not be answering comments here, please reply to this entry at the following link: Jesus on Josephus

I’ll do my best to answer your question as precisely (and concisely) as I can. It is said that historical and literary critical scholarship “is wissenshaft, not metaphysics.” That stands true for this article. I say that because these questions are not easy to answer and involve a little bit of scholarly elbow grease to really understand. First and foremost, there is no definitive answer to either of these questions (which we’ll get into), and all the information that we have is really evidence of how much we don’t know, not how much we know. So, when compiling the answers to these questions, scholars will generally be a little liberal with their speculations and more often then not they are answering with ‘Bible-colored glasses’—especially if you look at any monograph or historical critical book before the 1970’s. But, luckily for us and all literary critical and historical critical scholars everywhere, scholars finally started to remove those ‘Bible-colored glasses’ (See my new introduction to my book posted here).

Archaeological evidence and new methods of textual criticism has lead many scholars to reevaluate what they had originally thought about the dating and authorship of Biblical texts. For several hundred years, scholars had assumed the authenticity of the Bible narratives themselves, leading many to falsely assume that the original composition of the majority of the Bible was in Hebrew and Aramaic, leaving only the New Testament (for the most part) room to have been written in Koine, or common, Greek. But recently the authorship and composition dates have been challenged, and a new, more probable conclusion on these issues has led some scholars to question the composition language of the texts, most specifically in the Old Testament. Additionally, new finds at Qumran have allowed for a great deal of revisionist thinking on scribal methods and composition language. And finally, with fresh new perspectives on Diaspora life for both Jew and Gentile, these new revisionist ideas started to fit in more broadly to the conclusions of composition language, no longer allowing scholars (specifically on the conservative side) to take this vital subject for granted.

What is now being argued, specifically by the Copenhagen school, and the incredibly brilliant scholarship of Philip R. Davies, is that the original composition was not even in Hebrew, as was previous thought, but rather it was written in Greek. This revolutionary thinking is based on a lot of very fine research, and fits in quite well with the socio-cultural settings of Hellenistic Jews. Since we do not have any copies of the Old Testament, at least in the vein of a collected group of works such as the Torah, prior to the Hellenistic Age, and so many Jews during the Hellenistic period used the Septuagint, it leaves Davies conclusions in a very compelling position. It was assumed for a long time that the composition of the Greek Old Testament was ordered by a Greek King during the period to add to his extensive library, which is part of the reason many scholars in earlier decades believed that the Greek translation came later. But this story was eventually discovered to be a product of Jewish fiction. What we know from that period is that so many Jews wrote fictions (like the story above about the Greek King), and they did so writing them in true Hellenic fashion; that is, they wrote them in Greek.

To be clear, that is not to say that these traditions did not exist prior to the Hellenistic Age, Thomas Thompson has provided a good case for (and now the majority of Old Testament scholars agree) the dating of these traditions to the Persian period (538-323 BCE roughly), but up until the Hellenistic age, these stories were not compiled or written down. Because of the new government sponsored school systems called Gymnasium, many elite Jews and wealthy Jewish families who were politically sealed with the Greek rulers, were permitted (as citizens) to attend school and receive formal training in the art of literature composition, rhetoric, and philosophy. Part of this schooling was very dependant on using older narrative models to teach basic grammar. Using these literary models is a process called imitatio or imitation—a form of mimetic learning and eventually authorship. The foundational models used by practically all schools were the Homeric epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. With these Greek epics, one can clearly see the parallels found in Old Testament literature, and why so many Hellenistic Jews played with this model when writing many of the dozens of pseudepigraphical and deuterocanonical books. Even Josephus and Philo play with the themes of this Greek model when writing their own ‘histories’ of the Patriarchs and other Old Testament figures.

So, with all of this in mind, the Torah, some of the Prophetic books, and many of the wisdom books were probably originally composed in Greek, and later adapted for Jewish settlements and villages in both the Greek polis’ and the chora (rural areas in Egypt), as well as other Diaspora settings where these settlements are not fully or mostly Hellenized and still communicated in Aramaic. There are perhaps some narratives that were originally composed in Hebrew, such as 1 Maccabees, Ester (although it seems more likely composed originally in Greek, the debate continues), Ecclesiastes (although some debate on this continues, the dating ranges from the fifth – third centuries BCE), and some of the prophetic books. Virtually all of the deuterocanonical books of the Hebrew Bible were not written in a Semitic language but rather in Greek.

Additionally, New Testament scholarship had for a very long time thought that the original composition of some of the Gospels (if not all of them) was in Aramaic, reflecting eyewitness authorship which no longer is assumed. Today, it is understood that the Gospels are not the works of eyewitnesses writing on historical events, but also literary creations composed by anonymous authors with very different motivations. The Gospel narratives, like many of the Old Testament literature, were written in Greek. All of Paul’s letters and the various pseudonymous epistles and Revelations were also written in Greek. And probably most of the Gnostic literature found at Nag Hammadi were also originally composed in Greek, and then later copied into Coptic – the language we currently have most of them in today (although some Greek fragments remain for some of them). The language adaptation of the texts reflects the adaptation of the interpretation by the authors of other narratives. It is all relative, and represents the times and culture of the day.

These phenomena may seem strange to those who believe the scriptures to have been authored by the names represented as their titles. But it is also important to keep in mind that there was no “canon” of scripture. The concept of “canon” was not yet developed, so the nature of reinterpretation, creation and development was not limited to what was considered “inspired” – it was all considered to be inspired. It was just not considered inspired by what churches today believe it to be. People wrote and rewrote the text in the language that reflected their communities. There was no “orthodoxy” of Jewish doctrine, that concept did not exist for another few hundred years. Even today I would hesitate to say there is one unified doctrine, especially in light of the hundreds of Abrahamic religious sects; from Judaism with its hundreds of sects, to Christianity with its tens of thousands of sects, with Islam and the interpretation of the Quran. There was never a ‘unified orthodoxy,’ nor will there be. Everyone interprets and copies the texts into their own languages, and still to this day interpret them based on their own understandings and their own communities needs, politics and demographics. This has always allowed for the continuation of redactions, reinterpretations and expressions of both ones faith and their religious texts.

In the end, it will depend greatly on the faithful to one day understand this fact, that there is no absolute answer, and there never was, and certainly the authors of the Bible didn’t believe there to be. The sooner those who believe understand this, the sooner we can all progress as a society.

The best,

Rook Hawkins

You're a classic cultural Christian, as Richard Dawkins often describes himself when people ask him about Christmas. It doesn't mean that you're Christian and love culture, you're just "culturally Christian".

A cultural Christian is a former Christian who acknowledges the large role Christianity played in his/her upbringing, and may even participate in some of its rituals for the sake of community, while continuing to publicly reject its doctrines. I'm in this category too.

It's true that the language is difficult to shake off. I was particularly fond of the word "hell", but now I think of its literal meaning every time I say it and it sounds silly. You'll get rid of it all in good time if you really want to. Just take notice every time you use a Christian phrase, and ask yourself quietly what else you could have said. You need to build up a new secular vocabulary, and this will help you do that. For example, use the German "gesundheit" when someone sneezes. It means "good health".

In the meantime, if someone regards you as a Christian who has lost the faith, ask them if such a person is still a true Christian at all. Most every Christian has a very specific definition of "true Christian", and few are willing to include an atheist in theirs.

You were raised Baptist. You're kinda stuck with that. Don't be ashamed of it, most atheists had some religious upbringing. Be proud that you were able to escape its hold on your heart and your mind.

- SmartLX

(I recently answered a question concerning the Gospels, and their genre as literary fictions. This is a follow-up)
----------------------------------

Yes. There are quite a few examples I could give, but because I’m short on time because my book demands so much from me, I’ll use the most simple example with the most groupings I can list without having to go into a whole lot of details. The book of Tobit. Tobit is, for lack of a better way to put it, edifying fictions. The story uses very specific literary motifs and tropes, as well as Greek folklore (the dangerous bride, the greatful dead, etc…). Nothing in this story is meant to be taken as historical narrative.

I’ll lay out some basic bullet points for you concerning Tobit and Homer.

There are four main characters in both books (Mainly books 1-4 of the Odyssey).

HOMER

(1) Odysseus (father)

(2) Telemachus (son)

(3) Mentor (The Goddess “flashy-eyed” Athena disguised in human form)

(4) Penelope (mother, weaver)

TOBIT

(1) Tobit (father)

(2) Tobias (son)

(3) Azariah (The angel Raphael takes on the guise of human form - sounds kind of like the whole Jesus thing, huh?)

(4) Anna (mother, weaver)

The Greek author of Tobit draws heavily on the Homeric hexameter, in which he portrays sometimes verbatim, Homeric tropes through a Greek literary process called mimesis (or imitation). As was the sort of mimetic practice of the day, the authors of Jewish narratives throughout the Hellenistic period often set out to redefine, reinvent, interpret or completely recreate an event from scripture, by pulling on influence from a variety of Hellenic sources. (In this case, the author of Tobit also draws on themes and tropes from Genesis to supplement those which he draws from Homer) It is also important to remember that this was not considered blasphemous or even odd to a Jew during the Hellenic period. Many Jews, especially those born into the Diaspora, say in Alexandria, two generations out from the conquest of the land by Alexander the Great, would have grown up in a Hellenized society, having been themselves assimilated into the culture without ever really knowing that. Think of it in more modern terms: I’m an Italian, but I was born in America (second generation), so I am effectively Americanized, as was my father - my grandfather was brought up in America but was still not fully accommodated and assimilated into the American way of life like my father and I were. While we are still Italian by blood, we are American by culture and although we still maintain many Italian traditions (mainly family traditions), we also have developed many more new traditions and in most ways adapted Italian traditions to our American culture. The same thing was taking place for Jews (as well as Greeks!) in the Hellenic ancient Near East.

There was also no canon. It is important to keep in mind that many Old Testament books were still being written during the Hellenistic age, without a process of canonization until 200 CE (final), and it also was not until then that we see the Mishnah in written form and the start of the long process of collecting the volumes that form the Torah. (which would not be complete for another 400 years) So where one sees in the Letter of Aristeas a curse on those who would alter the scripture in any way (familiar to Matthew 5:17-21), such curses played no part in reality. The authors of the narratives such as Tobit, even Job, did not set out to replace or challenge the scripture, but rather to disguise it, dress it up, accompany it or act as commentary towards that literature. (One could even argue that those works that had more Greek influence were more theologically rich than those without that influence)

Sorry about the brief digression. I find it is important to have a mutual understanding of the times and cultural phenomena that were taking place before actually establishing the similarities (correlation does not always = causation, so it is important to establish a factual grounding for such causality to exist) Back to the similarities:

In both stories:

The father sends the son forth to accomplish a very important task for the family (Tobit needs to obtain a special treasure to save his family from financial ruin while curing his fathers blindness; Telemachus needs to journey away to find means to rid his household of the suitors which also threaten his families financial wellbeing), upon being given the task, a supernatural heavenly being appears in the guise of kindred (somebody related specifically to the family to gain the trust of the son). In both cases, a son is mourned by his mother who has to weave day and night (in the case of Tobit, it is to make ends meet. In Homer’s epic, it is to deal with the constant strain of the suitors who she must weave for). Upon their arrival at a city of more kindred and family friends, they enter a home where there is wedding feast taking place. Both stories have the recently married couple invite the two guests to spend time with them. While there, trials take place after which the son finds a bride and marries. Upon the finding of the wealth, there is a triumphant return home where the financial situation of the families are great and the hero’s honor is returned.

These are only brushing the surface mind you. There are so many minor similarities that to list them would take up several additional pages to adequately explain their interpretative abilities. But, I hope this suffices enough for now. You may find my blog of interest. There are actually quite a few posts dealing with this issue (recently, a response to Rick Hillegas in a magazine article).

For Additional Reading:

(1) Dennis R. MacDonald, Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (2001)

(2) The Harper Collins Study Bible, NSRV. (2006, Revised)

(3) Erich Gruen (et al.), Hellenistic Constructs (1997)

(4) Erich Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (1998)

(5) Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth (2007)

(6) Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (1996)