How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths

Synkrisis

by M. David Litwa

A compelling comparison of the gospels and Greco-Roman mythology which shows that the gospels were not perceived as myths, but as historical records

Did the early Christians believe their myths? Like most ancient—and modern—people, early Christians made efforts to present their myths in the most believable ways.
 
In this eye-opening work, M. David Litwa explores how and why what later became the four canonical gospels take on a historical cast that remains vitally important for many Christians today. Offering an in-depth comparison with other Greco-Roman stories that have been shaped to seem like history, Litwa shows how the evangelists responded to the pressures of Greco-Roman literary culture by using well-known historiographical tropes such as the mention of famous rulers and kings, geographical notices, the introduction of eyewitnesses, vivid presentation, alternative reports, and so on. In this way, the evangelists deliberately shaped myths about Jesus into historical discourse to maximize their believability for ancient audiences.

Genres: Religion, Christianity, History, Nonfiction, Christian History, Mythology

312 pages, Hardcover

Published August 6, 2019

Reviews

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over the years, I've heard some claim that Jesus is a myth and that the gospels are pure fiction based upon parallels with other myths and similarities with mystery cults. Sometimes the parallels are fabricated (claiming other gods were born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, died on cross and were raised on the third day), or are extremely improbable (like how some have pointed to a pagan cult that had initiates bathe in the blood and guts of bulls, and claimed Christian authors stole the idea of baptism from them). I have been amazed at how credulous a lot of self-proclaimed skeptics are and how easily they trust utter nonsense and bad arguments about the origins of Christianity.

Anyhow, in my book, anyone who appeals to these types of arguments against the gospels discredits themselves. Litwa takes a different and much more scholarly approach. Rather than any attempt to establish parallels and prove claims that Christians borrowed and stole ideas from pagan myths, instead, he reveals evidence that the gospels are similar to a type of literature in the first and second centuries world. It appears that what Christian authors were doing, lots of pagans were doing as well. As we recognize the mythic elements mixed within pseudo-history in texts outside of the Bible, it is reasonable for scholars to recognize the mythic elements mixed in with the history-like writings of the gospels.

Litwa shows that there was recognition in the ancient Roman world of myth (in the sense of falsehood, fiction) and history (facts as to what actually happened) and yet, there was a middle ground—things that would still fit within their plausibility structure in the ancient world and could make it in a work that was thought to be history, but many of these things are no longer in our plausibility structure. Several works are written as if they are actual histories, but include a lot of fantastic elements, and it appears that authors at this time would intentionally include historical details to better pass on myths, to make it more believable and acceptable. Others just felt comfortable, including lots of made-up padding to cover a few bare born facts.

Anyhow, we have different communities and authors, all with different views of Jesus, but with limited hard evidence on what Jesus did and taught. They have beliefs as to what is true, and some like Matthew want to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s story, that Jesus represents Israel, and as massive amount of details are fabricated to illustrate this (many drawn from the Old Testament) and they are mixed with a few bits of historical fact. I doubt Matthew would feel he was lying. He created myths to convey what he thought was true; in the absence of knowledge of what actually happened, he felt at liberty to fill in the details (like a work of historical fiction). He did it in a way that makes it feel like history. It would even fool people like C.S. Lewis, who had read a lot of myth, and noticed the gospels do not fit the category of pure myth. What C.S. Lewis did not appear to know is that we have this genre in the ancient world that is a mix of the two. As Borg calls it, mythicized history.

All in all, Litwa reveals why it is hard for modern biblical scholars to treat the gospels as accurate historical writings; to do so would be special pleading.

[Michael Ries · Rating 5 out of 5]

“How the Gospels Became History” by David Litwa looks at the relationship between history and myth in the Greco-Roman world at and around the time of the birth of Christianity. This study gives us the context in which the authors of the Canonical Gospels were writing, and likewise the contextual background for the readers of their documents. The author is not claiming that the Gospel writers were directly copying previous mythic stories, nor that these mythic elements demonstrate that the Jesus stories are purely fictional. Interestingly, these mythic elements would have made the stories more reasonable, and more plausible to its readers. The book is full of examples of texts from historians written contemporaneously with the Gospels, and indeed more ancient texts that would form a cultural background for these documents. We find that virtually all the fantastical elements in the Jesus stories, walking on water / empty tombs / miracles / incarnation / divine conception / ascent, are found in Greco-Roman historical texts. The first century Jewish historian Josephus tells us that, all historians agree that Alexander the Great parted a sea for his army to go through. The evangelists used these familiar historical tropes to present their stories as real, and to the ancient reader, if it was real, it followed that it was true. This book is beautifully written, a joy to read, and it is chock-a-block full of examples. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the origin of Christianity, and anyone who wants to understand more about the Canonical Gospels that we find at the beginning of the Christian New Testament.

[One · Rating 3 out of 5]

Litwa takes a look at different episodes of the Gospel narratives and sees if he can reconstruct them in a classical mytho-historical context. All the chapters (except for two) are clustered in terms of events that either concern the childhood of Jesus or the post-crucifixion events of Jesus. Litwa changed my mind and has shown, dead on, that the childhood narratives are indeed to be understood in terms of classical mythistory (or whatever term he likes). His two intervening chapters - that Jesus is modelled on a lawgiver, or trying to connect the miracles of Jesus with classical miracles - are extremely unconvincing. Szegedy-Maszak's paper on the subject is in Litwa's bibliography but he still doesn't seem to see the obvious and irreconcilable different between these "templates". In terms of what Litwa looks at in the post-childhood narratives, the only accounts I found convincingly to be understood or further considered in light of classical mythistory is 1) Jesus' spitting into a blind mans eyes to cure him his blindness pp. 150-2 2) the connections in the Aesop story pp. 158-167 3) the recognition of Jesus around Emmaus pp. 179-80 4) the hole in Jesus' finger during the Resurrection pp. 184-5 and possibly 6) the darkening of the sky during the translation of Jesus and Romulus pg. 188. Everything else, Litwa either gives bad evidence for or does not entirely succeed demonstrating. Often, it is because he is unable to produce the distinctive features between the Gospels and classical mythistory that cannot be found better rooted in Jewish texts, even though he is able to do this very well for the childhood narratives around Jesus. This might suggest that Litwa, in the second half of his book, often relies on much weaker evidence. In many cases, Litwa pays little attention or downplays the often superior Jewish background. For example, in all of Litwa’s discussion on figures ascending to heaven, he never once mentions the account of Elijah in the Old Testament which both has literary connections to the Gospel stories and not forgetting the fact that Elijah was one of the fundamental OT figures relating to the life of Jesus in the NT. I also thought the conclusion was pretty bad, basically a rant against Christians taking the Bible seriously, and is overconfident given the number of things Litwa sets out to demonstrate but does not actually do so.

[Scott Stoner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unbelievably fascinating. Smart man, with an excellent take on history, or at least perceived history.