TedM

Thanks. I never know how to put the innterpolation issue into perspective, because it seems so hard to conclude where there is one in most cases, since people don't always write in the most linear fashion. Sorry for repeating my lack of conviction on this issue.

ted

Toto

But if you examine the issue, the primary scholars arguing for interpolation (Walker and others) are prompted by their own analysis and an attempt to make sense of the text. They do not start with the proposition that Jesus never existed and try to fit the evidence to that idea. You may not agree with their methods or conclusions, but please do not impugn their motives.

Clivedurdle

Ellegard is interesting on Didache.

Doug Shaver

Is the "where" really such a hard question? Has anyone ever been baffled trying to figure out where Kahlil Gibran got his material from for The Prophet? Does anyone insist that Almustafa must have been a real person?

When he wrote it, for consistency with ahistoricism, is less important than when it became widely known within the Christian community. It could have been written anytime after the First Jewish War, but its existence is not unambiguously attested before the late second century. (And no, I don't consider Papias an unambiguous reference.)

Doug Shaver

I do not agree that Paul calls him a man.

I am aware of your proof texts, and you and I have debated them previously at great length. I see no point in starting that discussion over again in this thread.

I said: "For almost the entire first century of Christianity's known existence . . . ." If you count Josephus as a secular reference, you may arguably accuse me of a slight exaggeration. Aside from that, I stand by what I said pending evidence to the contrary.

If he was so easily ignored, then what did he do that made his followers think he was God's own son? We're talking about people who had known him up close and personal, and they were all Jews.

Why did he only imply it? Why did he not unequivocally state that he himself spoke with actual witnesses or people who had known actual witnesses?

Yeah, in a cryptic sort of way. Again, why the coyness?

Let's stipulate the Paul was not trying to write Jesus' biography, so we can forget him for a minute. But the gospels, canonical and otherwise, were supposed to be biographies, at least in some loose sense of that word. They purport to tell us about things Jesus did and things Jesus said. How did it happen that they are so poorly sourced? The writers of Matthew and Mark don't even pretend to have relied on anything but their own imaginations.

How did it happen that not a single literate person who knew Jesus wrote anything about him that survived? The extant Christian record does not reliably attest even to the existence of such a document. Papias' writings are not themselves extant (an oddity itself, considering what he allegedly knew), and in the statements attributed to him, he does not claim to have seen anything written by a disciple or any other acquaintance of Jesus. He claims only that some people told him such writings existed.

Meaning what? That there is no "This is a work of fiction" disclaimer in the front matter?

It's a matter of elimination. My argument is that when the totality of evidence is considered, we have good reason to doubt that their authors had any other intention. You cannot form a hypothesis about their intentions by examining the gospels in isolation from everything else we know about Christianity's origins.

Obviously, my mere assertion that the gospels are fiction is not any kind of argument for anything. I am telling you why I think they are fiction, That is an argument, and you are surely entitled to your opinion about how strong an argument it is.

You are likewise entitled to your opinion about the probability that we would have better evidence for Jesus' existence if he had indeed existed.

Your comments in the OP about the manner in which this debate is often carried out are, I think, well taken. I have seen an abundance of "twisted and distorted" arguments against Jesus' historicity, and not just in this forum. It is most unfortunate that so many self-styled champions of rationalism become so irrational on this subject.

For most of my life, I thought that only crackpots could question Jesus' historicity. A few years ago, I changed my mind about that, but it is still the case that ahistoricism attracts many crackpots. It is partly for that reason that I continue to concede the reasonableness of those who still believe there was a real Jesus, but it is mainly because I see that the evidence against that belief is, as a matter of fact, not conclusive. I personally have found it persuasive, and I think my reasoning is cogent, but I don't fault anyone for thinking otherwise.

Yes, it would be nice if we had it. I think it suffices, though, that there is no clear evidence for early creation.

Amaleq13

What does any cult leader do to obtain profound devotion from his followers?

I'm confused by the focus of your incredulity. From what I've read, it isn't all that amazing that a group of Jews might consider their leader to be the messiah or a Son of God or even God's Wisdom incarnate. Believing that a crucified dead man had been resurrected and continued to be the messiah despite that fact is, according to my understanding, much more problematic to reconcile with Jewish sensibilities.

How well sourced were biographies of the time?

If Paul is any measure, those who knew Jesus and believed he was raised considered that a sign that The End was near. It really does not make sense to expect anyone with such a belief to consider leaving a written record.

I have always thought so as well.

mens_sana

Which only means that what Paul does say about the HJ is secondhand knowledge, derived from his contacts with Peter and the "Pillars." This does not count against the existence of a HJ.

Geetarmoore

In Paul's letters, he doesn't speak of anything regarding Jesus that he didn't get from the vision of Jesus he had, does he? Paul certainly does nothing whatsoever to promote the idea of HJ.

aa5874

Why do you presuppose that an unknown character like "Paul" had real contacts? You have introduced "Peter and the "Pillars" without establishing their existence.

And, it is strange you use the phrase, "only means", when in fact, if you have no evidence for your position, then it only means you observation is in error.

If you are persuaded that "Paul" could not have received his information of this Jesus by revelation, then there are many possibilities, some of which may include fiction, mis-identification, chronology or location.

Historical facts are not mere suppositions, you need to show within reason, from some recognised credible non-apologetic writer or historian, like Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, or others of similar weight, that it could be reasonable deduced that Paul, Jesus, Peter, James and the "Pillars actually lived in the 1st century within the parameters of the NT and those of the apologetics.

Whether you believe Peter, Paul, James or Jesus actually lived, is of no real consequence to me, until you can provide some credible accepted historical fact or source for your opinion.


I cannot find any credible non-apologetic writer or historian that have, within reason, contra-indicated that James, Jesus and Paul were mere letters selected from the alphabet by unknown writers.

mens_sana

I would question whether his up close and personal followers considered him a Son of God. The Jewish Messiah didn't have to be a blood relation of the deity. And the Ebionites thought Jesus to be fully human, born of human parents. Presumably the Judaizers did also, but we know little of them beyond their penchant for circumcision and kashrut.

I wish more people would stipulate that. Paul was preaching the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected — no contracts with the Acropolis Publishing Company. And the source of his gospel was a vision, the authenticity of which he stressed fairly often. If he had attempted biography, it would have undercut his claim to apostleship.

Why do they have to be solely biographies? Why not theological histories that combine education in the new faith with encomium/aretology?

It has not been established that any literate people knew Jesus, although there may have been some village scribes that got his sayings secondhand. I don't find it curious that Papias' writings have been lost. Many early accounts have been lost. What we do have of Papias, I think is very interesting. Writings by Mark that retell Peter's accounts of Jesus events, but jumbled, not an orderly account — while the account we have is quite orderly. Therefore not the same accounts. And Matthew's sayings of Jesus in Hebrew/Aramaic with apparently no narrative, much like GThomas or Q. Therefore not the same account that we have now.

Q, the early parts of GThomas, Justin Martyr's "Memoirs of the Apostles, the Papias witness, P52, Marcion's "Luke" — I think these give us some evidence of relatively early creation, though not at all necessarily in the forms we have now.