Clivedurdle

Excellent summary.

And it is not handwaving to propose an alternate explanation.

The orthodox one has far more very serious holes in it than alleged difficulties about pillars - which the only evidence for is the disputed writings themselves and especially cross reading of Paul and Acts - when Acts may be a document to try and rewrite history!

It is of note how weak the pro hj case is, using arguments like trendkills

This is the alleged prototype of Flash Gordon, saviour of the universe. If we were talking about a real person, I would almost guarantee that Paul, a most passionate writer, would let slip a tiny bit of gossip that he had heard about Jesus or his mum or his family - but there is nothing! He writes notes about such and such - he does pass on news. Paul never writes boring doctrinal treatises!

karlmarx

No, you're right, he wasn't writing a gospel. However, he WAS writing to clarify what HE thought Jesus wanted. Doesn't it stand to reason that, instead appealing to his own personal revelation, he would appeal to what Jesus actually did and said?

Consider Christians today, who mostly believe that Jesus was historical and that the NT is literal history. When debating the finer points of doctrine, do they not quote scripture, in the belief that this is what Jesus said and did? Of course they do, because that carries a lot more weight than appeals to mere "personal revelation". Of course, there was no NT back then, but as you yourself admit, there must have been a body of common knowledge. If there was a body of common knowledge of what Jesus said and did in Paul's time, then there's even MORE reason for Paul to use it, as Paul would be able to drive his point even more forcefully.

You could very easily imagine Paul saying - "let us follow the example of our leader when he did the following...", and "consider when our leader said the following...", etc, etc. But he doesn't, even though the two are supposedly near contemporaries. The best he can muster is "personal revelation". This is a hole in the HJ hypothesis that you can drive a truck through.

ph2ter

I always ask myself how much self deception is needed to really believe this. It is like not seeing an elephant in the room.
Paul is not interested in Jesus' teaching at all. He invents teaching about Jesus. If the Gospel story is only partly true, this is totally illogical.

purple_kathryn

I also deny the existance of Bilbo Baggins and Xena Warrior Princess

DBT

How significant is a few decades? Doesn't Acts mention Saul/Paul, his birthplace, etc, and is generally taken to have been to be written around c. 60?

Perhaps...but Suetonius does mention that 'punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians' - c 64. Doesn't that suggest that Christianity was already being spread throughout the Empire at that early date?

spin

Acts could have been written at almost anytime before 200 CE.

Suetonius is writing a list of minor public disturbances that were taken care of and here we suddenly hear about the execution of christians (same verb used for the execution of christ in the Tacitus witness, hmmm), pu-lease don't tell me you think it's kosher, especially when you consider the classical texts were preserved by christian scribes. (Besides, this Suetonius was writing 80 years after the purported events and so is not a source for them.)


spin

dettus

The more I looked the less I found.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Purple_Kathryn,

Just wait until we find Gabrielle's lost manuscripts, then you'll see.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Minimalist

Did someone named Jesus son of Joseph exist in the first century? There were probably a hundred of them, both were common names.

Did any of them come back from the dead? Of course not.

aa5874

The first mention of Acts of the Apostles is actually about one hundred years later, c 175 CE, by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies". Justin Martyr, who wrote around 140 CE, in all his extant writings, never mentioned Acts of the Apostles, Paul or any epistles to any Churches.

Another critical factor is that the name Paul became exteremely common at the same time as the Acts of the Apostle, in the last quarter of the 2nd century.

Also, with the finding that more than one person used the name Paul to write Epistles that are now canonised, this is an indication that the history of this character is dubious and now cannot be ascertained.

The mention of "Christians" in the 1st century does not suggest that Jesus was a figure of history, it must first be ascertained who these Christians were and if they were actually followers of Jesus of Nazareth or some-one else. It is necessary to note that there were people who were called Christians, not because of Jesus, but because they believed they were anointed of God or anointed with oil of God, the actual root of the greek word "christ".

In effect, some Jews may have been called "Christians", or believe they were "Christians" long before Jesus of Nazareth was fabricated.