Metacrock

Gospel of John can be dated to the 90's. that blows the Doherty theory.




My theory is that the Johonnine community went to Asia Minor, based upon the Chruches of Revelation. The Earliest copies of the Gospel turn up in Egypt, but that could be explained by the Schizmatic faction metioned in 1 John. They were gsotics (1 John, the Elder is battaling the Gnostic herasy that Christ's fleshly existece was illusory). The schizmatics spirt from the group (they went out from us because they were not truley of us). They could have gone to Egypt and taken the Gospel with them. The first appearances of the work in Egypt are among Gnostic groups. The Johannine community probably formed an alliance withe the Pauline circle at some point, based up mutual adoration of Jesus as Divine, and that opened their Gosple to wider Christain circles.As for Koester, speaking of Mark, comparing it to other Gospel attestations he says,



"Although a rather early date must be assigned to the Gosple of Mark, the eariest attestation is markedly poorer than the attestation for Matt. and Luke; to say nothing of the early appearance of the Gospel of John from Egypt."
[P 237 Koster says: "Several Gostic writtings in Egypt used it and the fist commentaries ever written on any Gospel are commentaries on the Gospel of John which derive form Egypt."


These sources are Valentinian commentaries in Clement of A and Iranaeus. He goes on to agree about the major early second century bulwarks such as Ignatious not mentioning it, but also indicates that Ignatious lanaguage is very Johonnine. In a book by Eugene R. Fairweather (U. of Toronto--Anthology of Chruch Fathers, a passage is marked from Ignatius and Polycarp which appear to be quotes form John. The problem with my theory is it didn't show up in Asia minor until latter in second century, but that could just be because we don't know everything about what they did.Apparently it was circulating in Egypt before that.



The Gospel of John:
Introduction, Argument, Outline
by

, Daniel B. Wallace


Dr. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater. His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. His email address is: wallace@bible.org

Wallace argue for Johannine authorship. I do not support that, but the same documentation also works to indicate an early date for John, and its link to someone named John, as I believe that the Gospel was written by the "Edler John" (Papias and 1John) this documentation supports my view as well.



"As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John’s Gospel1 affirm authorship by anyone other than John.2 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John’s Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying. Further, although B and P75 are closely related, textual studies have demonstrated that P75 is not the ancestor of B—in fact, B’s ancestor was, in many respects, more primitive than P75.3 Hence, the combined testimony of B and P75 on Johannine authorship points to a textual tradition which must be at least two generations earlier than P75. All of this is to say that from the beginning of the second century, the fourth gospel was strongly attached to the apostle John.
Wallaces Footnote to the point point above,

1 I.e., which contain John either in its entirety or at least which have the first few verses, permitting them to reveal their inscription. It should be added here that P52, which is to be dated c. 100-150, only contains portions of five verses from John 18.


2 The simplest inscription is kataV jIwavnnhn, found in a B (“according to John”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily eujaggevlion kataV jIwavnnhn ([A] C D L W et al. [“The Gospel according to John”]), while still later it was called a{gion eujaggevlion kataV jIwavnnhn (28 and others [“the Holy Gospel according to John”]). Curiously, the two earliest MSS (P66 and P75) have eujaggevlion kataV jIwavnnhn, a fact which suggests that this gospel—even more than the synoptics—was already well accepted in the early part of the second century, for such accretions were usually associated with books which had a long-standing history of acceptance with the church. This further illustrates that even though these two papyri are our earliest (fairly) complete witnesses to John, the great codices of the fourth century may, at times, be more reliable guides to the wording of the original text.

The Ms evidence of the titles support an early date, so do he mentions by chruch fathers.

Wallace.



"Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus’ testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability. The list of fathers include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. Further, the Muratorian Canon suggests that John was given the commission to write this gospel after Andrew received a vision indicating that he would do so. If one were to sift out the possible accretions in this statement, the bare fact of Johannine authorship is not disturbed. Finally, the anti-Marcionite Prologue also affirms Johannine authorship.In countering this external evidence are two considerations. (1) There would be a strong motivation on the part of patristic writers to suggest authorship by an apostle. Further, the internal evidence, when compared with the synoptics, strongly suggests John as the leading candidate. But ;'this is off-set by the remarkably early documentary testimony of Johannine authorship4 as well as early patristic hints (Ignatius, Justin, Tatian)".
Earliest fragmens of NT support early date for John

Wallace:


Further, P52—the earliest fragment for any NT book—contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is to be dated as early as 100 CE5; and the Papyrus Egerton 2, which is to be dated at about the same time, draws on both John and synoptics for its material.6 Although the early patristic hints and the early papyri do not explicitly affirm Johannine authorship, they do illustrate its early and widespread use, an implicit testimony to its acceptance by the church. Indeed, there seems never to have been a time when this gospel bore any name other than John’s.

[wallce footnotes this source]

5 For a survey of the dating of this MS, cf. D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 (1990) 177-78 (n. 6).]

Philip Schaff, 1882 provides several possible quoatations of John by early chruch fathers, who are said by skeptics not to metion him. This is an outdated source, but it makes really good use of the Apostolic fathers and that information has not changed.

Etherial Library
Philip
Schaff



But we can go still farther back. The scanty writings of the Apostolic Fathers, so called, have very few allusions to the New Testament, and breathe the atmosphere of the primitive oral tradition. The author of the "Didache" was well acquainted with Matthew. The first Epistle of Clement has strong affinity with Paul. The shorter Epistles of Ignatius show the influence of John's Christology.30
Polycarp (d. a.d. 155 in extreme old age), a personal pupil of John, used the First Epistle of John, and thus furnishes an indirect testimony to the Gospel, since both these 'books must stand or fall together.31

32John 1:40-43; from which it has also been inferred that he knew the fourth Gospel. There is some reason to suppose that the disputed section on the woman taken in adultery was recorded by him in illustration of John 8:15; for, according to Eusebius, he mentioned a similar story in his lost work.3334


Here from the footnotes where he lines up the quotations. Quotations of Ignatius drawing upon the 4G..


quote:
Comp. such expressions as "I desire bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ ... and I desire as drink His blood, which is love imperishable," Ad Rom., ch. 7, with John 6:47 sqq.; "living water," Ad Rom. 7, with John 4:10, 11; "being Himself the Door of the Father," Ad Philad., 9, with John 10:9; [the Spirit] "knows whence it cometh and whither it goeth," Ad Philad., 7, with John 3:8. I quoted from the text of Zahn. See the able art. of Lightfoot in "Contemp. Rev." for February, 1875, and his S. Ignatius, 1885.


[here quotes Polycarp]
31 Polyc., Ad Phil., ch. 7: "Every one that doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is Antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the mystery of the cross is of the devil." Comp. 1 John 4:3. On the testimony of Polycarp see Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for May, 1875. Westcott, p. xxx, says: "A testimony to one" (the Gospel or the first Ep.) "is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other."Eusebius32 According to Eusebius, III. 39. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for August and October, 1875.


33 Eusebius, H. E., III. 39, closes his account of Papias with the notice: "He has likewise set forth another narrative [in his Exposition of the Lord's Oracles] concerning a woman who was maliciously accused before the Lord touching many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."


Here From Justin MartyrThe quotation is not literal but from memory, like most of his quotations:Justin, Apol., I. 61: "For Christ also said, Except ye beborn again [ajnagennhqh'te, comp. 1 Pet. 3:23], ye shall in no wise enter [eijsevlqh'te, but comp. the same word In John 8:5 and 7] into the kingdom of heaven (the phrase of Matthew]. Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is manifest to all."John 3:3, 4: "Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born anew [or from above, gennhqh'/ a[nwqen], he cannot see [ijdei'n 3: 5, enter into] the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"Much account has been made by the Tübingen critics of the slight differences in the quotation (ajnagennhqh'te for gennhqh'/ a[nwqen, eijselqei'n for ijdei'n and basileiva tw'n oujranw'n for ba". tou' qeou') to disprove the connection, or, as this is impossible, to prove the dependence of John on Justin! But Dr. Abbot, a most accurate and conscientious scholar, who moreover as a Unitarian cannot be charged with an orthodox bias, has produced many parallel cases of free quotations of the same passage not only from patristic writers, but even from modem divines, including no less than nine quotations of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, only two of which are alike. I think he has conclusively proven his case for every reasonable mind. See his invaluable monograph on The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 28 sqq. and 91 sqq. Comp. also Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. 83, who sees in Justin Martyr not only "an unquestionable allusion to the Nicodemus story of the fourth Gospel," but other isolated reminiscences.


Luke T. Johnson The Real Jesus



"Although the Gospels undoubtedly bear within them evidence of firsthand sources and even eyewitnesses, such material is not identified as such, and the narratives as a whole were most probably composed by authors of the generation after that of Jesus' immediate followers." (Luke Timothy Johnson, 1996, p.107)

Iasion

Greetings Bede,

thanks for your reply,

Actually no,
it would be more like someone in the early 1800s claiming Swift was invented, which would be rather different - your analogy is falsely skewed.

Furthermore, if Swift had
left no writings,
left no evidence of his existance,
and had a life story that mimicked other fictional figures of his time,
then such claims would be a different kettle of fish entirely.


Indeed, many Christian writings of great importance date from this century -
do you similarly dismiss the Nicene creed as late?
do you also reject the 4th C. writings of Augustine and Jerome?


I collected a sample of doubts covering the early centuries, which shows various doubts about Jesus and the Gospel stories.


I generally use whatever translations I am able to access - I do not know what you refer to as "unclear translations".
I am not aware I made any unusual readings.


Iasion

Peter Kirby

Why does that blow Doherty's theory?

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

While Mark as we know it is not an eye witness account, and is based upon an older versin of itself, that tradition upon which our version of Mark is based is very old, probably about AD 60.




The UrMarkus

Neil points out that the study for an "UrMark" the Gospel behind Mark, is really very old, stretching back into the 19th century. But Helmut Koster traces the actual textual criticism to show that there is clearly a Gospel behind the Gospel of Mark. This primary material is much older than the version of Mark as we know it, and there is good reason to believe that it is of great historical significance.

The Gospel of Mark as we know it, draws upon many sources. One such source already mentioned is the Passion Narrative which all the Canonical and the Gospel of Peter draw upon. But Koseter also shows that there was another whole version of Mark that was apparently not known to Matthew and Luke. Whether or not this is the same source as that of the passion narrative we cannot say. In addition to this other version, there are several other sources which can be seen in the Gospel. These may be sources used by the original or they may be those drawn upon by the redactor who put the work into the form in which we know it.





"External evidence for two different versions of Mark circulating at an early date can be derived only from the observation that Luke does not reproduce the section Mark 6:45-8:26. Luke 19: 19= Mark 8:27 follows directly upon Luke 9:17= Mark 6:44. Luke may have used a copy of Mark that had accidentally lost a few pages. However there are some special features which differentiate this particular from the rest of Mark's Gospel. It begins with Jesus going to Bethsaida (Mark 6:45) and ends with the healing of a blind man from Bethsaida (Mark 8:22). Thereafter Jesus goes to Cesaria Philippi and the town of Bethsaida never occurs again the Gospel. This section is also of a number of other doublets of Markan pericopes. 6:44-54 the walking on the water is a variant of the stilling of the tempest (Mark 4:35-41). 8:1-10 the feeding of the 4000 is a secondary elaboration of the feeding of the 5000 (Mark 6:30-44)...The cumulative evidence of these peculiarities may allow the conclusion that an earlier version of Mark, which was used by Luke did not yet contain the Besiada section (Mark 6:45-8:26) whereas Matthew knew the expanded version which must have come into existence very soon after the original composition of the original gospel." (Koester, 285)."



Koester doesn't' argue for a complete UrMarkus ..as a more permeative version of the Gospel, but this evidence does suggest different versions of the same Gospel. While we can't find an UrMarkus, we can see clearly that the redactor who first formed the Gospel used several sources. The passion narrative has been mentioned, moreover, a miracle story source that is compatible with John, two written documents of saying sources are also recognizable. These include a collection of parables and one of apocalyptic material. (p.287)

But does this mean that Mark [the primary redactor] is merely a "cut and paste" which destorts previous sources and collects rumors and legends with no historical value? Where the skeptic sees this aspect, Koester does not. What Koester sees is a faithful copyist who has collected materials known of be of value to the community, and forged them into a certain order for the purposes of edification to the community.



"Mark [the primary redactor] is primarily a faithful collector. In so far as he is also an author he has created an overriding general framework for the incorporation of traditional material but he has still left most of his material intact.His Gospel is therefore a most important witness for an early stage for the formative development of the traditions about Jesus. The world which these traditions describe rarely goes beyond Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem, which is not the world of the author [primary redactor] or the readers for whom the book was intended. Mark's information about Palestine and its people is fairly accurate whenever he leaves his sources intact. But from his redaction of the sources it is clear that the author is not a Jewish Chrstistian and that he does not live in Palestine." (Koester p.289)

Authorship

These problems with Mark would seem to idiota that the attribution of the work to John Mark, the interpreter of Peter, is just a legend. But there is actually an argument to be made that some of the material behind the present form of the work is actually the account of Peter's teachings left to John Mark in Rome. The overall work as we know it, in its final form cannot be the work of Mark. But the redactor Mark might actually draw upon the account made by John Mark of Peter's reminiscences. The flowing points speak to that possibility.

*Why name a work after Mark? He's not mentioned in the New Testament, aside from the attribution of this Gospel he would be totally unknown. Most of the time when works were attributed to people who did not write them the true author used the name of some famous figure. Of course the author himself doesn't name who wrote the work in the Gospel itself, but even so, why should church tradition name an unknown if they did not have solid information indicating that he wrote it?


*Most of the Gospel is set in Galilee. Neil and Write indicate that Galilee is for Mark the world of goodness where honest people seek God, Judea is the world of hate into which the Savior goes to seek and save the lost. Of course Papias the second century church historian tells us that Peter gave Mark the material in his gospel and Mark wrote it out of order (see Koester). Peter was from Galilee as was Jesus. Thus the world of Galilee is pictured as the good realm and most of the reminiscences are set there.


*Koster points out that when the redactor sticks to his sources the information about Galilee and Palestine is fairly accurate. Peter would know Palestine and we should expect that his reminiscences would be fairly accurate.


*There is strata of Aramaic words underlying the Greek of Mark. Peter needed Mark as an interpreter and would have spoken Aramaic in relating his memories of Christ.


*The Passion Narrative is taken from a single source shared by all four canonical and the Gospel of Peter. Why would one preliminary source be so influential that it would inspire and be used by all the major redactors of Gospels? Because it was from a very authoritative source.


Community as Author?


Thus it is a possibility that Mark's account of Peter's reminiscences stands behind the actual redacted gospel that bares his name. But that is only speculation and cannot be proven. What can be proven is that earlier material stands behind the account. Koster and Crosson both see the Passion narrative as coming from the earlier period, probably the middle of the century. Thus we can assume that the community is the author and that the material used has a certain historical validity as it would be produced by a community containing many eye witnesses.



"We are thus brought back to the earliest stage of the formation of the Gospel tradition. Originally the episodes and the accompanying, circulated singly among the believers. At a very early date some of the single traditions may have coalesced, through similarity of subjection or verbal correspondence. For the most part this tradition is oral--the stories pass from mouth to mouth; but quite soon after the death of Jesus the first steps may have been taken
It is not difficult to imagine how self-contained units of Christian teaching came to be hammered out, first orally than witten flysheets or tracts--often in several differing though related shapes, occurring to the contexts in which they were used.
When therefore John Mark (for example) sharpened his reed pen and dipped it in ink to write, he had already behind him a considerable tradition of Christian speaking and writing. by Peter and many others--recognized patterns of argument and exhortation, of defense and attack,ofinstruction and challenge--from among which me might select his material and sayings. The earliest Christian writers were probably heirs to an already considerable body of tradition.'

"To what do we owe the preservation of these
stories? There can be only one answer, the belong to the history of the community and particularly to its character as a worshiping community."(Neil p.239 quoting C.F.D. Moule).



That this was an effective means of passion on accurate information is clear. There are not a vast plethora of differing Christ legends from the first century. There are not counter traditions which have Jesus dying in other cities, in other ways, or not at all. There are not counter gospels with Jesus not claiming to be the son of God, or setting the action in far off places, change the principle characters. Jesus is always sounded by the 12 Apostles, he is always crucified, and in Jerusalem, and raises form the dead after three days, and so on. The communities that first told the stories would have been filled with eye witnesses and probably told the stories with the witnesses in attendance and probably as the featured story tellers. The stories were set in stone at least in so far as their basic details and passed along in a form that was set from the beginning. This is probably because the whole community saw what happened. The whole community knew that Jesus rose from the dead and told the story and just 19 years latter when the "cross Gospel" or the Passion narrative were written down there were plenty of eye witnesses to keep them stairght. Thus the community may well be the true author of Mark and the community probably did a good job.

Sources:

Helms, Randel McCraw. Who Wrote The Gospels? Millennium Press, 1997.
Johnson,Luke Timothy. The New testament Writings,
Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.
Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961, Oxford University Press,1964
N.T.Wright The New Testament and the People of God, Fortress Press, 1992,




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock

If Earl's theory just says that some people didn't believe in a flesh and blood Jesus in the frist century, that's fine by me. I understand his theory to say that no one did. That the chruch didn't begin to put a concrete history and personhood to Jesus the spirit being until the early part of the second century.

but Koester says (and he's not the only one, may others have also observed) that John appears to have been heavily redacted, and shows signs of endless debate, as though the whole community was constantly going over it.

See The Johannine Circle Ersnt Kasemann, and Ancient Chrisitan Gosples Helmut Koester. So if this is true, then there were prior tradtions which streach back into the 80s, the 70's perphas the 60s. Isn't that a contradiction to Dohery? I mean I find it hard to believe that this one readactor could invent a traditon against his whole community out of this body of work that had been heavily circulated, and then just get everyone to believe that it was orthodoxy, all in the space of one decade.


I'm also assuming it reached its final form in the 90s.

Metacrock

Meta =>What if there were writtings by a dozen people saying he did exist?



Meta => O yes, it's a lovely century. Now I can't tell if you really just don't understand the principles and methodologies of Biblical criticism? Or if you think that emotive arguments will beat histoircal fact? I have nothing against the century personally. But the point of fact is, that writtings from the century are just not good evidence for what wnet on in the first century, see?



Meta => NO you didn't! All you did was to say "why didn't so and so mention this?" That's not a doubt, expcept maybe your own. It's not an argument, it's not proof, it's a nice intreeging question, but it doesnt' prove anything. any conclusion reached based only on asking that question is not a sound conclusion.

I ask questions, you don't answer the, why doesn't that prove something?

Bede

Iasion,

You said:

"Actually no, it would be more like someone in the early 1800s claiming Swift was invented, which would be rather different - your analogy is falsely skewed."

Swift was active in the early 1700s, three hundred years befo.tre 1998. Jesus was active in the early first century, three hundred years before the fourth century. My analogy is not skewed.

"Furthermore, if Swift had left no writings, left no evidence of his existance, and had a life story that mimicked other fictional figures of his time, then such claims would be a different kettle of fish entirely."

Do you reject the historicity of all people about whom this is true? Besides, Jesus's life story does not mimic fictious figures of the time. We have been through this a dozen times on these boards with the Raglan criteria et al and found they have no basis in fact. We found that Churchill, Julius Caesar and Napoleon all fitted the mythic hero criteria as well or better than Jesus. We found that with suitable special pleading you can fit just about anyone to a broad enough category. You are brighter than this, Iasion, so stop making comments you know were shot down ages ago.

"Indeed, many Christian writings of great importance date from this century - do you similarly dismiss the Nicene creed as late?
do you also reject the 4th C. writings of Augustine and Jerome?"

Yes, I reject all three as sources of information about the historical Jesus and whether or not he existed. I also reject all other third century and later works whether Christian or pagan with regard to this question. They are too late to be relevant.

"I collected a sample of doubts covering the early centuries, which shows various doubts about Jesus and the Gospel stories."

Except you keep them on your site when they have been shown to be spurious. What 2nd century references to Jesus not existing do you have?

"I generally use whatever translations I am able to access - I do not know what you refer to as "unclear translations". I am not aware I made any unusual readings."

Anyone who claims Paul is not talking about an earthly Jesus is making an unusual reading.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

There is a howler! Augustine would probably be used by some systematic theologians (amongst other sources of course) but I don't know of any serious scholar who would use Augustine to either 1) reconstruct the historical Jesus or 2) use him as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Peter Kirby talked about a cut off line before somewhere on these boards. Why don't we stick to first century sources or the 100 years rule or even a 50 years rule. We could then stratify our sources and then discuss them. This way the red herrings get left behind.

I am sure you would dispute Tacitus' reference to Jesus. If so, why would you dispute Tacitus but place weight on these other 2d references? That certainly may be valid as sources are to be analyzed individually. I am just curious what relevance people in the second century who doubted the existence of Jesus (assuming you are correct) have on all the extant first century texts? How do you determine that Tacitus is just repeating what he heard from Christians and had no independent evidence but that Joe Smith who doubted the historicity of Jesus had access to carefully transmitted knowledge coming from over a century ago. Or do you argue the laughable claim that Tacitus HJ material is an interpolation?

Can this carefully transmitted material about the non-historicity of Jesus be maintained in light of a literary silence on the issue? Possibly since Jesus was a nobody to the outside world. But mythicists can't use that argument because they complain about why writers who had no business mentioning Jesus don't and argue for non-historicity on those grounds. Not to mention all the literary evidence favors historicity but you date all the Gospels to the 2d so we are ships passing in the night here.

Vinnie

Iasion

Greetings again,

Hmmm.. very poor math.
Swift was around a little under 300 years ago,
Jesus was allegedly around 2000 years ago.

You failed to maintain a proper PROPORTION.

The 4th C. was about 15% of the time from Jesus to now - i.e. much closer to then, than now.

The early 1800s was about 15% of the time from Swift to now.

But,
1998 is about 98% of the time from Swift to now, and within CLOSE memory of all of us.

Your false analogy skewed the proportion from about 15% to about 98% in the direction which supports YOUR position.


Of course we should not reject the historicity of figures who fit the hero type, just BECAUSE stories are told about them.

Churchill, J.Caesar and Napoleon are totally false analogies as there is vast evidence for their existence - whereas for Jesus we have a few tiny, late, arguable fragments that support his existence.

J.Caesar - had children we know by name from history
J.Caesar - we have coins and statues of his likeness
J.Caesar - many writings from his own hand
J.Caesar - extant contemporary writings in STONE about him
J.Caesar - numerous contemporary records of his actions
J.Caesar - much direct archeological evidence of his actions

Jesus - no children
Jesus - no likeness
Jesus - no writings
Jesus - no evidence
Jesus - no contemporary evidence

The historicity of Jesus is not rejected just because he shows a few similarities with the hero archetype, but because this supports the OTHER clues that he was mythical.


Fair enough.


I did neglect to update my site last time we did Trypho - I forgot, my apologies. However, once I realised my error yesterday, I immediately fixed my site to suit. Furthermore, may I remind you the doubt is not spurious, its in the text, I merely made an error of interpretation, now fixed.

I consider Celsus an important 2nd C. witness - in the generation that the Gospels became widespread, he directly attacked them as FICTION based on MYTH - an attack so damaging, the church set out to destroy the work.

Yes, its true Celsus ASSUMED Jesus existed - but that is NOT evidence that he did - Celsus does not INVESTIGATE whether Jesus existed.

But Celsus does argue the Gospels are fiction, and its the Gospels which form the vast majority of the story of Jesus.

Furthermore the 2nd century shows various doubts and denials about Jesus :

* those who deny Jesus who came in the flesh (1 John)
* those who do not believe in the Son (1 John)
* those who do not believe Jesus was physical (doketics etc.)
* those who DENY the crucifixion and the incarnation (M.Felix)
* those who defend Christianity WITHOUT mentioning Jesus (Athenagoras, Theophilus, to Diognetus)
* the many who deny the resurrection
* (those who claim the truth was falsified (Caius))
* (those who argue the "scriptures of the Lord" were changed)

These many and various doubts argue against the existence of Jesus.


Ah, I thought you meant in the current thread, yes my view is in the minority, and not "usual".

Nonetheless, I think my reading can be supported, and I am not alone in doing so - Paul's few vague comments CAN be read as a historical person, but can also be read in a spiritual sense.

Many of Paul's comments about Iesous Christos cannot be taken to refer to a historical personage (e.g. our old man being crucified with Christ.)


Iasion

Metacrock

J.Caesar - had children we know by name from history


they were made up too

J.Caesar - we have coins and statues of his likeness


I have an american dime with Mercury on it, does that mean Merckury existed?

J.Caesar - many writings from his own hand


they were made up by the Pizzo family, which was commissioned by used Chariot salesman in Souther Itally who wanted the Ronius Pizzo to run for Cesar. He ran on a platform of tax cuts for the Patricians, and had to create Cesarism to have a hero image he could fit.

J.Caesar - extant contemporary writings in STONE about him


made up. why don' twe have a birth cirtificate? Why don't those writtings say anything about his graduation form highschool?

J.Caesar - numerous contemporary records of his actions

yea but none of them talk about his graduation. Don't you find that suspcious?

J.Caesar - much direct archeological evidence of his actions

No there isn't. It's only evidence of the plot to make people think he existed.

Jesus - no children


Well, he had a brother whose mentioned in history

Jesus - no likeness

There was a snap shot of him visiting Kashmir, but it was taken with an instamatic. Of course they have the hotel registry to prove he was there: "J. Chrsit, party of 13"


Jesus - no writings

writtings by his freinds about him

Jesus - no evidence

No evidence? What do you call what you just said? Only the fact that almost 12 major historians of the era and several chruch fathers who knew his friends, and the 19 or so Gsopels that dipict his doings and date to the first or early 2nd century, and the fact that Passion narrative goes back to AD 50, why is that not evidence?

Jesus - no contemporary evidence

ajaha, so you think if you repeat yourself it will make it look like you have more? No contemporary evidence of Ceasar except the stuff that's made up, which is all of it.

The historicity of Jesus is not rejected just because he shows a few similarities with the hero archetype, but because this supports the OTHER clues that he was mythical.

LIke the other things you make up