Iasion

Greetings Vinnie,

thanks for your response.

You wrote,

I think I vaguely remember that it is your position that the Gospels are second century but I'm not sure.

Indeed I do, based on the chronology of the evidence - more below.


Anyways, there is wide critical acceptance of a date of sometime slightly before or after 70 A.D. for Mark...that Matthew and Luke were written within 20 to 25 (at the latest) years of GMark...that these two independent sources both used GMark extensively before 90 to 100 AD.

Indeed there is, but as far as I can tell its all based on analysis of INTERNAL evidence, coupled with some faith, and much inertia.

I'd agree with Peter and would like to see the evidence spelled out, because it doesn't jell with the rest of the evidence.


Somehow it seems that at the very least, GMark had reached the limelight much before your suggested date of 130 A.D. for the Gospels.

Aha!
thats just it.

The chronology of the Christian documents only shows the Gospels reaching the limelight in mid 2nd century, with the first mentions in early 2nd century and nothing before that :

(My datings, from Doherty et al)

60s - 70s : Hebrews
NO knowledge of Gospel contents.

70s : Colossians
NO knowledge of Gospels contents

80s : James, 1 John
NO knowledge of Gospels contents

90s : Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1 Peter
NO knowledge of Gospels contents

90s : Revelation
Very different Jesus than the Gospels

c95 : Clement
No clear knowledge of the Gospels or their contents.

100s : Jude, the Didakhe
No clear knowledge of the Gospels or their contents

110s : Barnabas
Shows possible familiarity with Gospel themes.

125 : Aristides
Mentions the Gospel which was a "short time preached".

130s : Papias
Mentions proto-Gospels, not quite like ours.

140s : Marcion
First Gospel on record.

150s : Justin
The FIRST author with many Gospel quotes - along with many quotes which are NOT in the Gospels - suggesting the Gospels were still very fluid at this time.

170s : Tatian
The FIRST to number the Gospels as Four (diaTessaron)

180s : Irenaeus
The FIRST to NAME the four evangelists.


So, we have documents from every decade of early Christianity, and while this may not be all that was written, it gives a clear indication of what was widely known and believed at each stage.

What the evidence clearly SHOWS is :[*]the very FIRST mention of Gospels was in 130s,[*]the very FIRST clear quotes from the Gospels was in the 150s.[*]our modern four Gospels were not fully formed until c.180.


I find it a very weak argument to claim that they WERE known, but somehow no document we have now mentions them or their contents.

Later Christians, when the Gospels WERE obviously known, fill entire libraries with endless repetitions and vast exegesis of Gospel passages.

Why did early Christians not do so, if they knew the Gospels?


The only reasonable conclusion to the total silence about the Gospels and the Life of Jesus of Nazareth before early-mid 2nd century, is that they were UNKNOWN at that time, even to Christians.


If G.Mark was written in the 70s - why did no Christian show any knowledge of it until 60 years or more later?


Quentin David Jones

Jayhawker Soule

So, what you really meant was not "Clearly" but "clearly ... (although a little obtuse)", e.g., "2b : ... : not clear or precise in thought or expression" [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
Justin was weaving a story. Nothing was "recorded".
You slide effortlessly from speaking of

• doubting the reality of Jesus, to
• doubting Jesus

I suggest that Rabbi Akiba took Simon Bar Kochba and 'fashioned a Messiah for himself'. Where in this suggestion is the historicity of Bar Kochba questioned?
Now we're getting somewhere! Who were these "doubters" and where is this "record"?
It is "clearly" ( ) no evidence at all.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Happy 2003, Quentin!

Here's a quick speech, and the link to the longer one :boohoo:.

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

So much in New Testament history hinges on the
Rylands Papyrus (P52). After all, this is supposed
to be the earliest fragment of the New Testament
that we possess. In every standard Introduction to
NT, it is said that this tiny piece of writing, which
contains only 118 legible letters, is dated "at about
125 AD".

...

Supposedly, the discovery of P52 had been a big
triumph for the early daters of the gospels, since
GJohn is generally seen as the latest gospel of the
four. So if even the latest gospel had already been
in circulation in Egypt by 125 CE, this means that
all the gospels are very early, right?

Well, I'm saying that the whole thing is, quite
simply, a fraud. Here we have an unprovenanced
scrap of writing the size of a postage stamp, and
this little piffle has somehow changed the state of
the discipline? Yeah, right...

[end quote]

Cheers,

Yuri.

CX

Postage stamp? That'd be one big postage stamp. Did you mean address label?

Yuri Kuchinsky

I think "Brown's Intro" is just so typical for its question begging and even outright dishonesty. This is what's going on in this field.

Well, jeepers! Doesn't he assume his own conclusions here? Indeed, if Lk _is_ a 2d-century Christian text, then I guess this will mean that interest in Jerusalem as a Christian center DOES match the outlook of 2d-century Christian literature, after all!

Quote:

For Asia Minor and specifically for Ephesus the writer of Acts seems to know only a church structure of presbyters (Acts 14:23; 20:17). there is no sign of the developed pattern of having one bishop in each church so clearly attested Ignatius for that area in the decade before 110.

And here he tries to buttress his argument by an appeal to the "Epistles of Ignatius", which are, themselves, most likely fake, and don't date "before 110". Thus, yet another circular argument. And so it goes on and on...

What a bunch of con-artists these Brown and Co. are...

Yuri.

luvluv

Iason:

I could very easily read most of your citations above as being examples of individuals denying the historical accuracy of several facets of Jesus' existence. Denying that Christ was born from Mary, for instance, does not equal denying that Christ existed. I am a professing, believing Christian and I myself do not put much stock into the story of Jesus' birth and early childhood. The only quote which seemed to support your theory is from Marcion, the rest could easily be described as simply doubting the Gospel accounts and doubting that Jesus had anything BUT an earthly existence.


I still would like to see you reconcile that opinion with 1 Corinthains 15 which seems to make very explicit references to specific names and places where Jesus was seen after his ressurection. The epistles make very explicit claims about Paul's persecution and about the fact that the faith of Christians was being challenged, and that no one thought of challenging the faith with explaining that Jesus didn't exist.

Further, do you admit that whoever wrote the John 2 chapter you cite was a contemporary to Paul of the epistles? If so, then your own quote from 2 John would seem to PROVE that Christians DID BELIEVE that Christ came in the flesh, unless 2 John comes from a much later date. Thus, we WOULD expect Jews and all enemies of Christianity to counterattack on the basis that Christ did not exist. Why would John warn against believing that Christ did not come in the flesh unless the writer of 2 John BELIEVED that Christ had come in the flesh? Do we have some reason to believe that 2nd John is a much later epistle, closer to the writings of the gospels? And if not wouldn't this suggest that Christians of the time did believe that Christ was a real person? And wouldn't the Jews have therefore sought to undermine his reality?

Intensity:

If Paul did not mention a historical details of Christ's life, that is evidence that Paul did not mention a historical details of Christ's life: NOT evidence that a historical Christ did not exist.

I'm sorry if I seem to be dismissing a lot of Doherty's arguments out of hand but they do seem ludicrously unfounded to me. I find it hard to imagine how someone could read the twelve part introduction and seriously consider reading the book. And the story I have heard from Seminary friends is not that the Jesus-myth is so disturbing that contemporary historians won't respond to it, it is that they consider the hypothesis so ludicrous it is not worth the EFFORT to respond to it. This is true (I'm told) even of atheist historians. I'm just repeating what was told to me, don't shoot the messenger. These same folks take much more seriously the efforts of the Jesus Seminar, for example. Their perspective is perhaps more damaging to Christianity than that of the Jesus-mythers and they spend a considerable amount of time and effort combatting it.

I'm also wondering what convinced you to become a Jesus-myther if you have only read half of Doherty's book?

I'm going to have to flatly deny this attempt to shift the burden of proof. To me, by far the most parsimonious explanation is to assume the reality of SOMEONE behind the Jesus stories, even if these stories were later inflated and fabricated, and the burden of proof is on whoever would have us deny the obvious conclusion. By your standard of historical inquiry, we would have to present you with evidence for the existence of every historical figure who was ever born, and this would certainly lead us to deny the existence of plenty of people who actually lived. (I'm told there is very little explict evidence that Socrates ever existed, as opposed to his being a literary invention of Plato, for example). If historical trends and the application of the rules of cause and effect lead us to conclude that a person existed then we are justified in believing he did until proof is offered to the contrary.

Greg2003

I thought parsimony was not a quality of an explanation. Rather, isn't parsimony the quality of giving the benefit of the doubt to the person making a controversial argument. In other words lets assume that Jesus existed, then we can evaluate that claim by looking at the evidence we have that is claimed to support it. Isn't that what parsimony means?

So in being parsimonious to the JMers we would assume that Jesus isn't historical and then evaluate the evidence to see if it supports that position.

IMHO all of the contemporary literary, mythological and archaelogical evidence supports the mythical origin of Jesus. There could still be a man behind the story, but since all of his actions and his role as redeemer are mythic in origin and his teachings all come from prior sources, I fail to see how we can talk meaningfully about a single man behind this story who could be solely responsible for starting christianity.

I think 2000 years of belief by all christians in the historical jesus is enough parsimony. Intellectual honesty requires a little parsimony for the other position, don't you think?

Uzzah

I'm guessing you mean 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, to which you would have found your answer on Doherty's site had you dug a bit.

I don't think I'm breaking the fair use law by posting his answer here, if any mods feel I am, please delete away. The original can be found here:

http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/sil12cor.htm

Quote:

53. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (kata tas graphas), 4and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 5and that he appeared to [lit., was seen by] Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. I make a full discussion of this passage in Supplementary Article No. 6: The Source of Paul’s Gospel. Here I will highlight those elements relating to the theme of silence. The first, following on the previous several items concerning the work of the Spirit, is that the verb "received" in the opening verse above must be taken in the sense of personal revelation, and not passed-on tradition through human channels from others. Not only does Paul show no sign anywhere else of receiving "apostolic tradition" in the sense of a gospel about Jesus which has come from those who supposedly knew him, he denies any such thing quite vehemently, namely in Galatians 1:11-12 where he states that he received his gospel "from no man, but from a revelation of/about Jesus Christ." If verse 3’s "received" thus refers to personal revelation, this has two immediate effects. The first is that the elements he states in his gospel, Jesus’ death, burial and rising, are not likely to refer to historical events. If all three were the subject of eyewitness and historical record (at least from the Christian point of view), it would be more than faintly ludicrous for Paul to refer to knowledge of these things as coming to him through personal revelation. Second, he in fact tells us where he got such information: from the scriptures. Although kata tas graphas is regularly interpreted as meaning "in fulfilment of the scriptures" (an idea Paul nowhere discusses), it can just as readily entail the meaning of "as the scriptures tell us," and this fits the entire presentation of scripture in the early Christian epistles as the source of knowledge about the Christ, and even as the repository of Christ’s own voice. As I discuss in Article 6, the verb used for the "appearings" is regularly found in the context of personal visionary experience. And since Paul includes his own at the end of the list in such a way as to suggest that the nature of his experience is the same as all the rest, this leads to the conclusion that the itemized sightings of Jesus by the Jerusalem people refer similarly to perceived visionary experiences. This means that there is no necessary temporal connection between verse 3-4’s death, burial and rising, and the series of visions. The former is the stated gospel about the Christ’s redemptive acts in the spiritual realm, information which is derived from scripture. Both the gospel and the appearances are things which Paul has formerly "passed on," in the sense of told about, to the Corinthians, and about which he is reminding them here. The "received" idea applies only to the elements of the gospel. (See Article No. 6 for a full discussion of all these points.) The other major silence to be addressed here is that this account of the appearances of Jesus does not fit the Gospel one. The latter, of course, is not a unified account, and in fact contains many contradictory elements between the various evangelists—not the least being the fact that the earliest Gospel, Mark, has no appearances of Jesus at all, while the later Gospels become ever more complex in their picture of the risen Jesus’ activities. But what they all contain is something which Paul breathes not a word of: the first presence at the tomb, and the first sighting in all the later Gospels, being that of certain women. Where in all the early Christian epistles is there anything about Mary Magdalene and other women who were privileged to be the first to receive the message about the resurrection and even the first sighting (in Matthew and John) of Christ’s risen state? As for Paul’s definite statement that Peter was the first to see the risen Jesus, not one Gospel agrees with him.

Uzzah

luvluv

Not just that part Uzzah but also the rest of the verse which basically states that if Christ is not raised from the dead our faith is in vain:


1 Corinthians 15:12
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

1 Corinthians 15:13
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

1 Corinthians 15:14
and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

1 Corinthians 15:15
Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

1 Corinthians 15:16
For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

1 Corinthians 15:17
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:18
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

1 Corinthians 15:19
If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

1 Corinthians 15:21
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.



Specifically, what does Paul mean here in 1 Corinthians 15:21 when he says that by a MAN, (Jesus) came the ressurection of the dead. What does it mean for an angelic figure to "die" and "rise again"?

George W.

I can name multiple mountain peaks, river valleys, and several glaciers on Mt. Ranier, several mountain lakes, and groves of old growth conifer forest. Those who believe in Bigfoot have reported him in several named areas. Yet there is not proof that Bigfoot exists.

It is the same for Jesus. Any number of Jews, Greeks, and Romans could name places around Judea-Samaria. It means nothing.

Paul during his 14 year exile in Tarsus was surrounded by the majority religion's adherents, Mithraists. He applied the story of Mithra to the foggy legend of Jesus. This included the death and resurrection, 7 sacraments (7 horned beast of Revelations), saving grace, being "Born Again", being the lamb of God, the Light, the Son of God (Ormuzd or Ahura Mazda), and part of a Zoroastrian Trinity.

Christianity at the time was divided into multiple sects, the Ebionites were Messianic Jews who may have taken their Jesus from the Talmud (Jesus ben Pandira, son of Mary Madalene, born 150 years earlier during the reign of King Alexander Jannaeus long before Roman occupation.) The Ebionite Jesus had an active cult in Palestiine before the Roman protectorate or anexation. They didn't consider Jesus to be a God (that would be blasphemy.) The Nazarenes were similar but made Jesus more than a mere human. Arians made Jesus a lesser created God than God the Father (YHWH). The Athanasians and Gnostics made him a full fledged God, and part of a Trinity. Constantine's mother an Athansian convert influenced her son.

So when Constantine for political unity reasons decided to merge the dominant faith Mithraism with the fstest growing one, christianity, and the similar Cult of Sol Invictus the Sun God and Aten the Egyptian sun god. He did so at the Council of Nicaea in 324 CE. His troops surrounded the building and threatened any bishops who failed to renounce the competing christian sects in favour of the Athanasian Trinitarians. Thus it became the official religion of the Empire.

If Constantine's mother had been an Arian, or a Druidess, history would have been vastly different.

George W.