Tammuz

I wonder, if the New Testament didn't exist at all, would outside sources confirm Jesus' existence as a historical person, or would Jesus be dismissed as mythical in the same way as Krishna and Mithras?

Toto

The gospels do not add to the historicity of Jesus. If the NT did not exist, Jesus would be more likely to be regarded as a shadowy figure from history; but the picture of Jesus in the gospels is an argument for mythicism.

Jesus Outside the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Gamera

The texts included in the NT are some of the best preserved, earliest mss from antiquity. So the question is similar to asking, if Herodotus' and Thucydides' histories didn't exist, as well as any other references to the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, would we know anything about them or would we think they were mythical. The answer is probably the latter.

But of course that's true of virtually all historical persons and events. Their reality to us depends on a few mss, mostly young and of dubious origin. Of all those mss, the NT mss tend to be the oldest and best preserved and sourced.

Jeffrey Gibson

They don't? Why don't they?

Jeffrey

Toto

The gospels are obviously theologically driven stories, with supernatural and literary elements, so that the best a historian can do is speculate that there might be a historical figure behind the gospels.

I know that there are those who try to extract some history from the gospels with various "criteria", but those criteria are quite worthless, as has been discussed here.

Gamera

You need to provide evidence of this, Toto. Or rather, that this makes them any more fictional than Josephus or Tacitus, intensely political writers.

Indeed, there is no obvious difference between the gospels and the typical histories of the time, which are filled with biases, nostalgia, miracles and what not.

In short, you are judging the gospels by a standard that is modern and which if applied would basically efface history. That's OK, efface antiquity if you must. Just be consistent about it.

As far as the quality of the NT mss (and subsequent texts from church authorities) qua historical texts, they far exceed most other "historical" mss from antiquity, which tend to be bad copies of late origin of dubious origin. From a strictly textual perspective, we have better evidence of Jesus than Pericles any way you cut it.

Jeffrey Gibson

But what do you mean by "theologically driven" -- and, more importantly, why does being theologically driven render a text from the ancient world, especially one that is framed as. and is, from the point of view of genre, an example of greco roman bioi, worthless or next to worthless for historical purposes?

Jeffrey

Roland

The gospels are NOT written like other histories of the time. They are anonymous, quote no sources, and are written as DRAMAS (with characters, dialogue, rising and falling action etc.) rather than as historical accounts a la Josephus or Tacitus. That would be like comparing Tolstoy to Gibbon. The Jesus of the gospels has much more in common with Pierre Bezukhov in "War and Peace" than with Napoleon.

Toto

Sorry, I don't feel the need to go another round in this. If you like to believe in fairy tales or the historical Cinderella, go ahead, I won't stop you.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd be grateful if you could show me how the Gospels fit the form that "dramas" were cast in in the first century. I'd also be grateful to hear whether you think that when classifying the genre of the Gospels, we are limited to only two choices, either dramas or histories ala Josephus or Tacitus and whether dramas are the only forms of 1st century literature that have the characteristics of "characters, dialogue, rising and falling action, etc.)

Thanks in advance.

Jeffrey