aa5874

Since 'matthew and 'luke' lived close in time to the events, why do we still have a discrepancy regarding the time of the birth of Jesus, as recorded by 'matthew and 'luke'. There appears to be at least a 10 year difference between Herod and Quirinius. Maybe the correct question is; which Jesus is historic, 'matthew's or 'luke's?

"Jesus existed" is an extraordinary claim, you must realise that Jesus was always regarded as an extra-ordinary person, it is for that fact why we are having these very discussions.

You state, 'if they accept the historicity of Jesus', now if are refering to the unknown authors ( matthew and luke) as 'they' , then that alone is good reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. 'Matthew' and 'luke' contradict each other, that is very good reason to doubt.

Chris Weimer

I argued that the two names on the independent genealogies in both Matthew and Luke which agree with one another is evidence of a pre-Matthean/pre-Lukan source. It's not so hard to see how Matthew drew it up, from Chronicles, but what of Luke? It makes sense that he picked up the names from tradition.

The Community Hypothesis is not in its stablest stage at the moment. Have you read anything related to Richard Bauckham's "The Gospels for All Christians"?

Implausibe, but I'm willing to hear your arguments for it.

jjramsey

Because his followers during his lifetime would have known him as an adult, not as he was growing up, and unless the disciples were interested in celebrating Jesus' birthday, they at best probably guestimated his age from his appearance.

"Jesus existed and was as extraordinary as the Gospels said he was" is an extraordinary claim. "Jesus existed but his followers presented an embellished portrait of him," is not an extraordinary claim, since people over the centuries have been all too prone to pious exaggeration.

aa5874

I think you are missing the point, 'Matthew's Jesus is born before the death of Herod and Luke's Jesus is born about the time of a census carried out by Quirinius. There is at least a 10 year difference in the two events, not unless you mean 'luke' or Jesus' disciples guessed that Herod was still alive during the census.



I think we are dealing with the claims of the Gospels, that is the extra-ordinary claim that Jesus existed. I have not come across any presentation by his followers, other than the presentation in the Bible.

Steven Carr

Couldn't they have asked his brother how old Jesus was?

Chris Weimer

If Jesus didn't know his own age, why would his hypothetical brother know it either?

darstec

Why postulate that Joshua didn't know his own age? According to their portrayal in the gospels, it was the disciples who didn't seem to know what Joshua was talking about or what was going on most of the time. They witness the dead being brought back to life. They witness the Transfixion when Joshua stood for a portrait with Moses and Elijah and yet they fear a few Roman soldiers. As superstitious as Josephus and Julius Caesar portrays the Roman soldiers, I think they themselves would fear someone who could bring an enemy back to life rather than someone who could kill.

But don't look at this too deeply as it is forbidden to sneak down the stairs on Christmas Eve or too early Christmas morning. One might find out something them don't want to.

Chris Weimer

I didn't, but J. J. Ramsey did. I don't need to - the gospels are in no way accurate, and in apocalyptic environments, one can imagine that age is not of any concern either.

You can't take these at face value - their likelihood of actually happening is almost nil.

Brother Daniel

It depends what you mean by "Jesus", does it not?

Someone named Jesus (Yeshua) existed in 1st-century Roman Palestine: Not an extraordinary claim at all. Probably several did. But at most one of them matters for this discussion.

If we define Jesus as someone of whom all the NT narrative claims are exactly true, then no one believes he existed. (Not even the traditionalists.)

If we define Jesus as someone of whom the NT claims are essentially true, then only the traditionalists believe he existed.

Even if we define Jesus as the founder of Christianity, we're awfully close to traditionalist assumptions. Did Jesus really intend to found a new religion? If so, is Christian theology (as we know it) really a reflection of what he taught about himself and about God? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not get the impression that there is a consensus in mainstream scholarship to answer these questions with "yes" and "yes" respectively. And if I'm right about that, then we can hardly claim that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus by this definition existed.

Any other ideas for definitions of "Jesus"?

And what is the difference, anyway, between (1) a historical figure whose biography is buried under layers of myth and legend and (2) a fictional character? Very, very little. And if I expand #2 to say "a fictional character who is 'based on' one or more historical figures", then the answer is: none at all.

To say that Jesus did or did not exist is to oversimplify the question, I think.

The real issue is: Where did this cosmic-Christ theology come from? If this role could attach itself to some recently-martyred Jewish guru, in a way that was unwarranted by his own teachings about himself, then could the cosmic Christ not just as easily morph into a new character who would then be written into history?

It would explain a hell of a lot.

skepticgirl

How likely is it that "oral tradition" stories were floating around in the culture and were being (unintentionally) modified by people who told them and retold them, and that Matthew and Luke worked from Mark/Q but also knew their own variations of "oral tradition" stories and included them in their gospels?