Jesus, historical figure?

[quasar]

Since Jesus threads have been popping out like crazy these days, I thought about prolonging the trend.

So, here is my question:

The only references I have from his life are from the Bible--what I learned at Sunday school anyway, I really haven't read it. I imagine that, since his disciples were his biographers, the narrative is highly biased. What I want to know is: does exist an objective historical account of his life just as it does for every other prominent historical figure? Can I find a history book that will treat the subject of Jesus just like it covers Alexander the Great, Socrates and the like? Or, on the other hand, can the biblical narrations of the events regarding Jesus' life be considered as historically rigorous accounts or not?

[Gunslinger]

Short answer: No. I think he was mentioned by some Roman historian awhile after he died (see thread referenced below--it's in there), but no biographies or even contemporary accounts of his life.

There was a thread a few days ago about there being more evidence of the life of Jesus Christ than that of Julius Caesar. That ended pretty quick...everything we know about Jesus was written at least 40 years after his death by other people. Caesar wrote a f---in' autobiography, among other things .

[Speaker for the Dead]

Supposedly (if you believe tabloids) Jesus wrote a book that the Vatacain is hiding.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Gunslinger, i don't know if you meant to refer to my posts, but I have said that we have no absolute proof that Julius Ceasar existed (either), or that (more likely) he is not a "psuedo- mythological" person. Ie. a real person, to whom was attributed many deeds that were not really his.

There is no doubt amoung legitimate scholars that JC really lived. "Don't Know much About the Bible" (Ken Davis), Issac Asimov's Guide to the Bible, the Oxford History guide to that area/period, AND Cecil- all agree that JC was most likely a real person. These are all skepical, non-Christian sources.

There is a mention in a Roman history of "James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ", when he was killed. More importantly, during the persecutions, when the Romans wanted to discredit Christianity, they never claimed he was not a real person, and cruxified. And they had access to the actual records, then. So, if they COULD have shown there was no record of a Jesus Christ, who was executed, they would have. In fact, they did the opposite, and mocked the Christians for "their God being executed as a common criminal". Only in the last few centuries, has there been some who have sold books with the idea there was no JC, at all.

Of course, this does not mean that JC was possibly "only" a teacher, and a "rabbi", who had some great teachings, and maybe did a little faith-healing. And all the other "big" miracles are "mythological". Sure, but I choose to beleive otherwise. But if you want to think that JC was a real man, that, like King Arthur, was turned into a 'semi- mythological" figure, then, well, that's your choice. But your lack of faith, does not mean that you should say He never lived atall.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
Gunslinger, i don't know if you meant to refer to my posts, but I have said that we have no absolute proof that Julius Ceasar existed (either), or that (more likely) he is not a "psuedo- mythological" person. Ie. a real person, to whom was attributed many deeds that were not really his.

That is just silly, there is ample evidence from multiple sources, many of which are contemporary, of Caeser's existance. The same is not true for Jesus.

[Timothy Campbell]

Might I suggest that the point is moot?

As the "Jews for Jesus" repeatedly point out, Christianity is not likely to be a reflection of what a flesh-and-blood guy named Ieshua (Jesus) actually said. All we've got are second-hand accounts written by people who never knew the man. Indeed, what Paul preached may actually have annoyed Jesus (if he existed), since Paul spoke to "the nations", whereas Jesus (if he existed) spoke primarily to the Jews (albeit with tolerance for other groups).

I've heard some people say that one of my favorite guys may not have existed. Buddha (if he existed) preached some ideas that appeal to me. Whether or not Buddha (if he existed) actually walked the face of the earth is largely irrelevant to me. Indeed, after Buddha (if he existed) died, his actual status was of no interest to anybody but the worms -- and even they lost interest after a while.

There's an interesting saying in Buddhism: "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." It's not the man that matters, but the ideas -- provided you're not a fundamentalist.

[Liberal]

In the Antiquities, Josephus wrote in the early 90s CE, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities 18:63-64). (Possible Christian contaminations have been removed from the text.)

After the first century, there was an explosion of expository and other references (like paintings on walls) about Jesus in a surprisingly wide geographical area. (The oldest text of any gospel — I think it was Mark — to date was found in Egypt.)

That said, the canonical gospels are not the sole scriptural references to Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Q, and many other references (direct and indirect) exist.

PBS's From Jesus to Christ is a good starting point if you want to dig up some information.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Timothy Campbell
There's an interesting saying in Buddhism: "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." It's not the man that matters, but the ideas -- provided you're not a fundamentalist.

Tim,

I'm not familiar with that saying -- surely it's not common among Therevada Buddhists, and I can't imagine even a Mahayana Buddhist advocating killing; it's not "Right Action."

I certainly agree with the underlying concept: that it's not the man that matters. Indeed, the Buddha himself taught that there will be other Buddhas. (Not coming along too often, though; as I recall, the analogy was that as logn as it takes for a mountain to be worn down to nothing by rubbing it with a silk handkerchief is as long as it will take for another Buddha to come along.)

- Rick

[quasar]

I haven't checked out Lib's link yet. I will soon, but first, a couple of questions:

I'm pretty convinced that Jesus existed. What I want to know is if there is any evidence of any kind regarding his virginal conception--probably not, the miracles attributed to him and his resurrection. Of course, if the only evidence was written 40 years after his death by his disciples, it is highly unlikely that it is reliable…

My second interrogation refers to Libertarians mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to the movie Stigmata, the Catholic Church guards them with a great deal of secrecy. Supposedly its content has prejudicial implications for them. Does anybody have an inside scoop on what those documents deal with? Also, I had never heard about the Q, what is it?

[Kyberneticist]

It's one of the most quoted, played on, and appropriated zen buddhist sayings online.

Try running a search for "if you meet the buddha on the road" (phrase in quotes if your search engine supports that)

You'll get a few thousand hits. Here's one of the ones slightly more relevant to this discussion:
http://www.websyte.com/unity/westerv...od/pl-jebu.htm

Granted, he doesn't interpret it, (I don't take Zen, but I think it means that enlightenment comes from inside, not from an outside figure) but it makes a cool story about the closeness of Christianity and Buddhism.

Oh, and as for this thread. I think I'd have to go with the usual viewpoint that there were so many nutcases wandering around Palestine at that time, and Yeshua was so common a name, that probably quite a few Jesuses were crucified by Pontius Pilate. Matter of fact, I've even read an interesting interpretation that suggests that the trial scene in John was modified to appease the Romans by suggesting they wanted to release Jesus but the Jews wouldn't let them. (the level of jewish antagonism steadily rises, and the level of roman culpability steadily decreases with the dating of each gospel)

That interpretation points out that Bar Abbas means Son of the Father, a blasphemous title Jesus used for himself. Perhaps the two people were one and the same in an earlier story...

In any case, whether there was a historical Jesus or not, would be almost impossible to say now, and there are so many better targets to use to point out the absurdity of Christian beliefs without having to use that. My current favourite is the schizophrenia called Realised vs Established Eschatology - used to explain that the kingdom really did come within their generation.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by quasar

I'm pretty convinced that Jesus existed. What I want to know is if there is any evidence of any kind regarding his virginal conception--

What sort of evidence are you looking for?? There's certainly no physical evidence available today. Witnesses? The only one qualified to say whether or not Mary was a virgin was Mary.

Zev Steinhardt

[Timothy Campbell]

I am surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the Monty Python film "Life of Brian". When I first watched it, I was a Christian, and found it very offensive. However, years later, I understand how brilliant it was.

Basically, it showed a land where a downtrodden people were looking desperately for a messiah. In the end, some of them seize upon a fellow named Brian (there's a nice Jewish name). They start crediting him for miracles he didn't perform, and he ends up getting crucified, which led people to think that Brian was supposed to BE Jesus, but if you conclude that, the movie is just trite.

What makes the point of the movie evident is the heavy emphasis on political bickering.

It is conceivable that "Jesus" represented more than one person and the stories got kind of mooshed together. However, I think it more likely that there was one central figure who had all kinds of miracles attributed to him, aided by the fact that he knew his scripture well enough to know what prophecies he was supposed to be fulfilling.

If you think that's impossible, you have to consider the case of Appolonius (see http://sangha.net/messengers/appolonius.htm). The similarities to Jesus are remarkable, yet I doubt any Christian would consider him to be what the stories say he was. Well, whatever applies to him might also apply to Jesus.

When you come right down to it, our main problem is that they didn't have camcorders. Was Lazarus really dead, or had he eaten the local equivalent of fugu? Without real hard evidence, who can tell?

[Timothy Campbell]

Argh. The URL parser in this BBS software still has a ffew problems. Here's that URL for Appolonius, again...

http://sangha.net/messengers/appolonius.htm

Bricker: While I'm writing, I might as well mention that the saying about "killing Buddha" is not actually advocating killing.

[Chronos]

Can I find a history book that will treat the subject of Jesus just like it covers Alexander the Great, Socrates and the like?

Now you've got me wondering... What history books cover Socrates? Everything we know about the man, we know from the writings of Plato, his student. Jesus at least had several different biased sources writing about him... There's some belief that Socrates was not, in fact, a real person, but a fictional character invented by Plato in order to illustrate some of his ideas.

There are, of course, modern books that describe both historically, but they're based on some pretty limited sources.

[tomndebb]

My second interrogation refers to Libertarians mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to the movie Stigmata, the Catholic Church guards them with a great deal of secrecy. Supposedly its content has prejudicial implications for them. Does anybody have an inside scoop on what those documents deal with? Also, I had never heard about the Q, what is it?

The Qumran Scrolls came under the "protection" of a group of scholars in Israel that had an inordinate number of Catholics on the board, but that was, in no way, a "Catholic" organization. All of the complete scrolls were identified, documented, and translated by the late 1960's (although there are challenges to some translations). The remaining scroll fragments were jealously guarded by the group under whose protection they were kept and there were the usual cries of conspiracy and pettifoggery from scholars who were not "permitted" to review the scrolls.

Quite a few years ago, all the scrolls were photographed so that if anything happened to the originals, they would not be lost to history. Copies of those photographs were stored at Stanford University in California.

Several years ago, one of the authorities at Stanford decided that he could not, in good conscience, continue to hold those photographs private while so many scholars were denied access to them by the group in Israel, so he made the copies public.

There are, that I am aware of, no "secret" scrolls from Qumran. Many of the fragments have not been completely pieced together, but they are all available for review by anyone who can get access to Stanford's library.

As to two other points:
1) Q is simply the initial letter to the German word quelle, meaning source. The hypothetical Q is the reconstructed passages of statements attributed to Jesus that are found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not so much in Mark. The hypothesis is that there was probably a list of sayings to which Matthew and Luke had access that they each used, separately, along with Mark's Gospel to create their own Gospels in their own styles. There is no physical Q that has ever been found. There is no reference to Q as a document prior to its conjectured existence in the nineteenth century.

2) Libertarian mentions a reference to Jesus in the Qumran Scrolls. I have never seen such a reference. There are some scroll collections that refer to "the Teacher" that have been conjectured might have alluded to Jesus of Nazareth, but I have found the arguments against such a connection to be stronger than any arguments for it.

(I'm open to correction on this last point, but that is my memory of the situation.)

[Timothy Campbell]

By the way, somebody mentioned an oblique reference to Jesus by the historian Josephus, who had no reason to make stuff up. However, we must bear in mind that he didn't have access to a helicopter and probably got a lot of his information second- or third-hand. So when he spoke of James (half-brother of Jesus) being killed, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was there and interviewed the guy.

So I think the answer to, "Is there evidence outside the Bible that Jesus was an actual person?" I'd have to say, "A little bit."

But heck, who needs proof when you've got faith? Everybody knows that Mohammed was taken up bodily into heaven, and that John Smith recived golden tablets from the angel Moroni. It's right down there in writing, isn't it?

Of course, those writings aren't Christian, so they must be wrong ...

[LisaRx]

For naysayers:

Who of Jesus' contemporaries do you feel could have written about Him except for those that were extremely close to Him?

I don't think that Pontius Pilate was going to write an inside story about how great he felt about the whole deal.

We do have plenty of evidence that he existed. Are we disputing this, or just the facts of His divinity?

Who would you like to see write his biography?

There were very few who were privy to his entire life as an adult, even according to the Bible's accounts. I believe that they all went out to tell of His existence, and His remarkable story, even to face their own deaths. I'm not sure who would be more qualified to give an account than those who were eye-witnesses to it.

[Chronos]

Yes, LisaRx, the folks who lived their adult lives with Jesus would have been excellently qualified as biographers. Do you know of any such persons who did write about Him? If you do, I'm sure that there's a lot of biblical scholars who'd love to talk with you. The known gospels are all second or third hand reports.

Of course we're not disputing His actual existence, but I think it's safe to say that everyone, religious and secular alike, would like to be able to know more about His life than we do.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by Timothy Campbell

As the "Jews for Jesus" repeatedly point out, Christianity is not likely to be a reflection of what a flesh-and-blood guy named Ieshua (Jesus) actually said. All we've got are second-hand accounts written by people who never knew the man. [/b]

Umm, well no. Matthew & John were Apostles, and knew JC 1st hand. It appears Mark met JC late in His life. Of course, these are biased sources, but they are certainly 1st hand sources.

Chronos: where do you get the idea that the Matthew & John did not write (or in John's case, more likely dictate) their respective Gospels? Oh, sure, we have no proof, but like I said, very liitle of ancient history can be "proved".

Anyway, the Old Roman records were on hand until sometime after the Persecution, and the ancient Romans had no doubt what-so-ever of the "historical" reality of Jesus.

[egkelly]

A comment and a question: no one who reads the NT can come away without noticing some striking details-namely that Paul completely dominates the Christian scene after the death of Jesus. All of the apostles fade into history-and the letters of Paul become more important than the gospels. My question: how did Paul come to be such an important figure? Surely Peter (the "rock" that JC spoke of) had much more direct knowledge of Jesus-why was he pushed aside (as it were) by this upstart Paul?
Finally-did Paul know of the gospels? To my knowledge, he never mentions them in his letters.

[Beruang]

No one has cited Cecil yet?

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html

For shame!

[DRS]

Back to the original question--there have been several attempts to approach Jesus as an historical figure and write a biography accordingly. Probably the first of all of them is David Strauss' _Life of Jesus_ (1835), which is a landmark of Western intellectual history. Of a similar vintage and approach is Feuerbach's _Essence of Christianity_, which also tries to analyze Christianity from the point of view of a philosophy, not a revealed religion.

You may find both of them unimpressive. As the intro to my edition of Feuerback says, its insight is one that most college sophomores come to on their own, and then go beyond.

[Tinker Grey]

Originally posted by egkelly
A comment and a question: no one who reads the NT can come away without noticing some striking details-namely that Paul completely dominates the Christian scene after the death of Jesus. All of the apostles fade into history-and the letters of Paul become more important than the gospels. My question: how did Paul come to be such an important figure? Surely Peter (the "rock" that JC spoke of) had much more direct knowledge of Jesus-why was he pushed aside (as it were) by this upstart Paul?
Finally-did Paul know of the gospels? To my knowledge, he never mentions them in his letters.

From the 2nd book of Peter Chapter 3 (NIV)

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

{Emphasis Added}

If we assume what is commonly assumed (that Peter wrote Peter), Paul's writings were widely disseminated very early in church history AND Peter considered them scripture. (BTW, I checked both NIV and KJV on this passage.)

As to mentioning the Gospels, most if not all (I haven't checked) of Paul's writing were written before the Gospels. Some dates given for his execution are earlier than the dates given for the Gospels.

Tinker

[Chronos]

Well, I'm not so certain for Matthew, but if John wrote the gospel attributed to him, then he was awfully old when he did so. The earliest date I've ever heard quoted for the composition of the Gospel of John is AD 90, and some say several decades later.

[Sofa King]

As far as Socrates goes, while most of our information comes from Plato, it should be noted that he was lampooned by Aristophanes in The Clouds while he was alive, and Xenophon also wrote about him (although some claim Xenophon was merely parroting Plato).

Here's last month's discussion of the Jesus thing: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...threadid=33026

[bup]

This is a tangential point, as the thread isn't arguing
whether or not the man Jesus lived, but I think good
evidence that there was one man Jesus, is that shortly
after his life there were a few thousand Christians in
the Roman Empire.

Not just Jews who thought the end days were at hand, but
actual Christians. And when the gospels were written,
they were set in a time just decades before. I don't
think it's reasonable that a bunch of lore could be
assembled into the story of one man, and his lifespan
have been 'assigned' to such a recent time. That is,
as stories get melded into a framing figure, they are
usually spoken of having happened 'a long time ago,'
'in the days of yore,' etc. With Jesus, they were talking
about 'this guy our parents knew.'

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by Chronos
Well, I'm not so certain for Matthew, but if John wrote the gospel attributed to him, then he was awfully old when he did so. The earliest date I've ever heard quoted for the composition of the Gospel of John is AD 90, and some say several decades later.

Our best guess is AD100, or so. However, it is known that John lived until the time of Emp. Trajan (AD 98-112), thus having Johm dictate his Gospel when he was some 90 years old is not at all unreasonable. John was apparently born about AD9.

[Opus1]

Our best guess is AD100, or so. However, it is known that John lived until the time of Emp. Trajan (AD 98-112), thus having Johm dictate his Gospel when he was some 90 years old is not at all unreasonable. John was apparently born about AD9.

Except, of course, that "John" shows fairly strong reliance upon the Gospel of Signs, which itself was based upon oral and written sources rather than eyewitness accounts:

So even though, as we shall see later, "John 2" believed that "John" was an eyewitness to the Crucifixion and resurrection (John 19:26; 21:24), this cannot be the case, since "John" was dependent upon an earlier written source--the Signs Gospel--whose author was not an eyewitness either.

Randel Helms, Who Wrote The Gospels, Chapter 7, pp 116-117.

The Signs author's dependence upon earlier accounts can be seen in his use of the Lazarus story, a retold version of a similar story in Secret Mark.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

I have never heard of the "Gospel of Signs", nor of Mr. Helms or his book. The sources I have mentioned above do not mention any such Gospel, or book, or theory. There are a LOT of "crackpot" Bible theory books out there, and any single author, with any "pet theory" is very suspect. The "Gospel of Signs" is certainly not part of the accepted dogma.

But let us suppose that an earlier "Gospel", which was NOT written by an eyewitness, had a episode in it. Well, if that episode REALLY occured, as that writer had good sources, then you would expect it to be in a later "eye-witness" account. Just look at Luke, which was written by Pauls Dr. & clerk. There is some stuff there which is also in John. So what? They were recounting the same limited # of episodes. Matthew leans heavily on Mark, who was a late comer, and did not personally witness most of JC's life. But that does not mean that Matthew did not personally witness much of what he wrote about, just that Mark had such good sources that Matthew only had to add some and change a little.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Just supporting tomndebb (as usual), and clarifying misconceptions that Libertarian's post may have caused:

- There is NO mention of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were more or less contemporary (100 BC to 70 AD), but of course arguably most were written before Jesus's birth. There are references in one or two scrolls to a "Teacher", and it is unclear whether this refers to an existing (unnamed) leader or to some future person, and when the Dead Sea Scrolls were first found, there was huge excitement at the possibility that referred to Jesus. However, almost all scholars today think the "Teacher" is some prophetic mutterings of the sect that lived in Qumram and hid the scrolls.

- There is NO document called Q. As tomndebb says, it is a hypothetical construct, used by scholars to explain why the first three Gospels have so much common material -- they all used the same earlier resource, which is named Q.

- Libertarian gives a reference in Josephus that he says have been stripped of "possible Christian contaminations." I disagree: I think that whole comment is a later addition by a Christian apologist. It is highly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus as "a wise man, a doer of wonders", with "many who loved him." Josephus was a prize, A-number-one brown-noser; he switched sides to join the Romans, and he was a pathetic sycopant to Titus (later emperor). Even remarks that he himself made must be taken in context, and it is totally unbelievable that he would have said anything good about Christians or their Leader.

In short, there is no outside independent evidence of Jesus' existence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist: he was from a poor family, not involved in politics; there were no tax records or birth/death recordings in those days, except for the upper classes. He was a nobody, one of many executed by the Romans, and there would be no reason for anyone to made any record of him ... except for his followers, who are a biased source.

[Opus1]

There are a LOT of "crackpot" Bible theory books out there, and any single author, with any "pet theory" is very suspect. The "Gospel of Signs" is certainly not part of the accepted dogma.

Well, the Gospel of Signs is far from a crackpot "pet theory." Helms' work is hardly original. It is more of a condensation and recapitulation of research and analysis done by many other scholars.

I don't mean to argue from authority, but here is a brief list of just some of the other Biblical scholars who endorse the legitimacy of the Signs Gospel as a basis for John:

Robert Fortna has a book entitled The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel

Robert Funk (Head of the Jesus Seminar) and Robert J. Miller have written a book entitled The Complete Gospels, which includes the Signs Gospel

A footnote from an essay on this website reads:

Cf. his commentary on John: R. BULTMANN, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK 2, Göttingen 201985). Cf., e.g., the survey presented by G. VAN BELLE, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel (BETL 116; Leuven 1994). Two other scholars belonging to the number of the famous followers of this hypothesis are Jürgen Becker and Robert T. Fortna. Both scholars develop the hypothesis of Bultmann by tracing back more material to the assumed source; cf. J. BECKER, Das Evangelium nach Johannes I (ÖTK 4/1; Gütersloh – Würzburg 31991); R.T. FORTNA, The Gospel of Signs (SNTSMS 11; Cambridge 1970); id., The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Edinburgh 1989). Fortna elaborates this theory by assuming a ‘Gospel of Signs’ which contains the sign stories as well as a passion narrative.

So, it's safe to say that a good number of Biblical scholars such as Fortna, Becker, Van Belle, Funk, Miller, etc. all accept the legitimacy of an Signs Gospel later incorporated into the Johannine account.

Like I said, I don't care to argue from authority. I'm just demonstrating that the Signs Gospel is far from a crackpot pet theory which is outside of accepted dogma.

But let us suppose that an earlier "Gospel", which was NOT written by an eyewitness, had a episode in it. Well, if that episode REALLY occured, as that writer had good sources, then you would expect it to be in a later "eye-witness" account. Just look at Luke, which was written by Pauls Dr. & clerk. There is some stuff there which is also in John. So what? They were recounting the same limited # of episodes. Matthew leans heavily on Mark, who was a late comer, and did not personally witness most of JC's life. But that does not mean that Matthew did not personally witness much of what he wrote about, just that Mark had such good sources that Matthew only had to add some and change a little.

Well, generally when an author relies entirely upon other sources, it raises great doubt as to whether he was an eyewitness. Especially when not one iota of evidence suggests that he was.

The same goes for the Synoptic Gospels. Luke and Matthew often rely upon Mark not just for general content, but word for word, line for line. Here is one piece of excellent evidence which suggests that Luke's knowledge of Jesus came from nothing more than Mark and Q:

Mark 6:37-44 and Luke 9:13-17 are the same story of the feeding of the 5,000. But, look what comes next. Luke 9:18-27 is the same as Mark 8:27-9:1. Why does Luke skip all of Mark 6:45-8:26? The most likely explanation is that he was copying from a partial or damaged scroll, which was missing this section. This also accounts for the awkwardness of the transition from Luke 9:17-18. Immediately after the feeding of the 5,000, we are told simply that "It came to pass" that Jesus was praying alone with his disciples with him. (Huh? Is this a Clintonesque definition of "alone?") Luke, unable to discern the relationship either spacially or temporally between Mark 6:44 and Mark 8:27 (his next verse), has to resort to this construction. Had Luke been able to ask Paul or Peter or any other eyewitness, he would have done so. His omission of nearly two chapters of Mark indicates that Luke had no sources of information to consult other than written texts. Luke could have even asked Mark himself, based on his knowledge of him in Acts.

Matthew also shows evidence of not having been an eyewitness based upon his use of Mark. For example, Matthew "corrects" the Triumphal Entry so that Jesus rides in upon two animals instead of one. Since this is a misinterpretation of Zechariah, we can conclude only that Matthew was not an actual eyewitness, or that he was, but lied in order to better fulfill his understanding of an Old Testament prophecy. Either way is unsettling for Christian belief in scriptural inspiration.

CKDextHawn:

- There is NO document called Q. As tomndebb says, it is a hypothetical construct, used by scholars to explain why the first three Gospels have so much common material -- they all used the same earlier resource, which is named Q.

Almost. We do have Thomas, which is similar to Q. However, Q explains the similarities between Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark. Similarities between all three arise from the fact that Luke and Matthew copied from Mark. So only two Synoptics, not Mark, had access to Q.

[tomndebb]

The "Gospel of the Signs" sounds a lot like a Johannine Q. In other words, a reconstruction by someone of material that they don't actually have, to organize material that they suspect may have existed.

Similarly, much of the supposed Q material is found in the Gospel of Thomas. However, that simply indicates that the Q tradition (which may have been an oral tradition, given the low level of literacy in the first century) was widely known. It remains that we have no document of Q. The Gospel of Thomas could have also simply been an extraction of "sayings" from either Matthew or Luke. I think that the close parallels among Matthew, Luke, and Thomas indicate the presence of something (either written or oral), but we still do not have an actual Q to see how much was omitted or included or changed.

While you have not argued from authority, I'm afraid that an argument about authority is inescapable from your sources. Bultmann took the ideas of the late nineteenth century seekers of the "historical Jesus" and pushed them as far as he could, nearly claiming that the entire NT was simply invented to support the new faith. Unfortunately, while his insights are acknowledged as valuable, he drew a great many unsupported conclusions, based on how he felt Christianity should change its view of Scripture. The Jesus Seminar is simply the collection of scholars who have embraced Bultmann's philosophy and carried it to its furthest (to date) extreme.

Much of the work of the Jesus Seminar is based on what the particular scholars (and they are scholars) believe must have been true. I do not consider the Jesus Seminar a fringe element in scholarship, but they clearly make assumptions regarding what the early Church might have included, omitted, or modified that they cannot support with clear citations. Much of what they have produced is interesting; much of it is challenging. However, they have started with assumptions no less absolute than those of scholars who begin with an assumption that the Gospels are "true."

I am not dismissing any information presented from Bultmann or the Jesus Seminar, but I am pointing out that any information that comes from those sources carries its own issues of acceptance and reliability.

[C K Dexter Haven]

tomndebb: << that simply indicates that the Q tradition (which may have been an oral tradition, given the low level of literacy in the first century) was widely known. >>

Yes. It should also be noted that the first generation of Jesus' followers (those who knew him) expected him imminent return. He had risen from the dead, he was coming back to earth to overturn the temporal powers, the day of the Lord was at hand. There was therefore no need to write down stories about Jesus, he would be here soon himself.

So, I don't think it was simply a low level of literacy in the first century that led to the stories not being written down; I think it was the expectation that there was no need. My recollection is that, while literacy was low, it was higher in Judea than elsewhere.