How many independent sources do we have of Jesus' life?

Great Debates
1

I want to stress independent. I’m looking for a summary of scholarship, and I hope it doesn’t become a debate. First, I am drawing primarily upon a staff report, Who Wrote the Bible?

In many theological discussions, it often boils down to “God said…”, “Jesus said…”, or “Jesus did…”. But we don’t know what Jesus said or did, we only know what’s written about him. And if two sources write much of the same things but are known to have collaborated somehow, it really doesn’t strengthen the historical evidence at all.

I want to know how many independent, original (as far as possible) sources of Jesus’ existence we have. I realize that these may not be absolutely, positively, independent, but scholarly opinion suggests that they probably are.

I’m temporarily ignoring such dubious sources, which certainly are not primary, as Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, etc.

Source #1 – The Synoptic books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of which probably drew upon Q or each other.
Source #2 – John, who did not draw upon Q or the Synoptics?
Source #3 – Paul, who did not draw upon Q, the Synoptics, or anything else we know about?

I’m aware that these names are probably not the actual apostles, and have been assigned for convenience, not because of real authorship.

If I am correct, we have only three independent sources of Jesus, and it’s possible (how likely?) that the later ones had at least passing knowledge, perhaps oral history, of the earlier ones.

Which might reduce the body of evidence of Jesus – his existence, works, and life – to only one source, and one that is only available to us indirectly.

What say our scholars?

2

What do you mean by original. Do you mean contemporary and first person?

I’m pretty sure that the number of sources of Jesus life written at the times of his life by someone that was there is 0.

3

Yes, more or less. We have that many written sources. The question of whether John had knowledge of the other three gospels is one of the most endlessly debated one in New Testament scholarship with no proof either way. As far as whether any of the gospelers were familiar with Paul’s epistles, I’ve never seen any convincing evidence that they are.

It’s widely agreed that Matthew and Luke both compiled their gospels by merging together Mark, Q, and separate bodies of sayings (sometimes called ‘M’ and ‘L’). Q has spawned its own cottage industry among scholars, with theories as to whether it was one source or many, written or oral, etc… But nothing can be known about that for sure.

It’s worth remembering that for the enormous majority of ancient world figures including ones who are quite well known, historians consider themselves lucky to have even one written source, even if it’s written several centuries after the life of that individual. By comparison, the New Testament gives us a wealth of information about the life of Jesus, all* written roughly 35-70 years after the fact.

  • A few small pieces such as 2 Peter may have been written later than that.
4

As I said in the OP, as original as possible. As far back as we can go. The least number of times something was copied. I’m well aware that we have no accounts from eyewitnesses.

Granted. Let’s go one step further, to 1 or more.

Which would suggest that those pieces built upon earlier writings and weren’t independent.

But if this “wealth” is merely regurgitated from a single source, it isn’t much use as corroborating evidence, is it?

5

It all basically boils down to Josephus, a Jewish historian who actually mentions a guy named Joshua who was a “wise man” put to death in Jerusalem.

Of course, one of the two of Josephus’s writings that mention Jesus have been proven to be a forgery added on by later Christian transcribers. In my estimation that makes him unreliable, but biblical scholars still cling to him because, outside of canonical writings (which can’t be taken as serious historical writing given the plethora of supernatural events and contradictions contained within), they have very little independent evidence to corroborate that Jesus existed.

Most reasonable scholars at this point acknowledge that there probably was a guy named Jesus preaching in Jerusalem, but that his life was greatly embellished in subsequent generations in order to make him seem like an important historical figure. There is simply no evidence (outside of canonical writings) that imply he was anything more than that.

6

Josephus is not a good candidate for “original” source, forgery or not. He wrote from a distance, a later time, and didn’t make any claim of original authorship. Whether or not his source was one of the known biblical works, I don’t know.

7

Perhaps I’m not quite clear what you’re saying. Is it that in the end, all information about Jesus Christ began with Jesus Christ, was remembered and transmitted orally for a time, and then written down, thus making Jesus Christ the “single source”? If so, the sentence remains true if you replace his name with any other historical figure. Alternately, if you have some other source in mind, what is it?

8

He was closer in time to Jesus then most of the synoptic gospels, and unlike most of the gospel writers, actually lived in Jerusalem. It’s still kinda unclear what “original” means here, but I’d dispute a definition that included the synoptic gospels but not Josephus.

9

Just to elaborate on where I am going with this…

I am well aware of the debate among biblical scholars about whether Jesus existed at all, was a real person who became a legend, or some combination of truth and myth. I am not in the league of such scholars and cannot challenge their superior knowledge or research.

What I am suggesting is that if we can narrow down our most reliable source(s) to only one (or two or three who might have been heavily, if not exclusively, influenced by only one), then the possibility exists that a single writer might have dreamed up the initial story from nothing more than his fertile imagination, or have written down a “fireside ghost story” that had been passed down orally, growing with the telling.

And the rest is history. Wishful thinking, rumors, similarities with other contemporary deities, teachers, prophets, seers and subversive persons might have contributed and elaborated the myth to become a super-myth, not to mention a religion.

Which would explain the lack of evidence compared to, say, Greek personages and Roman Emperors.

10

I was not aware of that. If true, then the validity of his writings would seem to be of paramount importance, even eclipsing the Synoptics. I can’t recall anyone arguing that – got a ref or cite?

11

Are you suggesting that the people Jesus hung around with—Peter, James, John, etc.—are all products of this same fertile imagination? And what about the early Christian community, which included these people and others who knew them personally? Are they also made up?

12

Don’t forget, we also have St. Thomas’ scandalous tell-all, Friday the Rabbi Got Nailed.

13

Who can you cite who knew them personally? Our only knowledge of Peter, James, John, etc., are those names in the same suspect works. If Peter says, in a work of unknown authorship, that he knew John, that is not confirmation that either exists.

What external confirmation do you have that Jesus “hung around with” anyone?

14

This is flatly untrue. Josephus’ Antiquities mentions Jesus twice. The second mention, in book 20, is a genuine reference to Christ. There’s no serious argument otherwise. The first, longer reference is the Testimonium Flavianum in book 18, is of disputed authenticity. While scholars generally agree that some words within this passage were added by later, Christian scribes, the majority also agree that the core of the passage is genuine. (Cite)

15

That’s incorrect. Antiquities was probably written sometime between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that all three synoptic gospels were written before that time, and John right about the same time.

16

He has a biography on wikipeida. He’s born in Jeruselum shortly after Jesus’s death, and lives there most of his young life. That makes him at worst a contemporary of the earliest gospel writers, and given that at least some of the same had never been to the Holy Land, physically closer as well.

Paul says he met several people who knew Jesus (including one blood relative). Its hard to see him as having made that up, since a) his audience has other sources of information, and presumably think those people exist independently of Paul b) Paul doesn’t depict himself as getting along particularly well with Peter et al, which doesn’t make a lot of sense if he made them up. So you’d need a whole conspiracy of people in early Jerusalem saying they knew Jesus to make it work, but even then, its kind of hard to see that conspiracy fooling people who lived close by at the time (like Paul, Josephus, and presumably most of the members of the Jerusalem Church who weren’t in on the conspiracy).

17

I mean Josephus himself, and his experiences in Jerusalem predate the Gospels. He wrote Antiquities as an old man (living in Rome, IIRC).

18

I’m not. Bible scholars debate whether Jesus existed at all the same way that 20th-century Jewish historians debate whether the Holocaust happened at all, which is to say that they don’t. The argument that Jesus did not exist is advanced chiefly among online cranks. In living memory the most famous advocate of the position was G. A. Wells, who had no relevant scholarly credentials and who has since changed his mind. The most active pushers of the theory today are Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty: the former is not a Bible scholar and the later is not any sort of scholar. If there is now or ever has been any debate about whether Jesus existed in journals of Bible scholarship, I’d be interested to hear about it.

N. T. Wright, a real Bible scholar at University of St. Andrews in Scotland, was once asked to debate against a “mythicist”. He responded that that would be like an astrophysicist debating against someone who thought that the moon was made of green cheese.

19

Maybe you need to get out more. You’re sounding a lot like a pious apologist, not a biblical scholar or a neutral observer. Faith is not a worthwhile factor here. These are not “online cranks”:

Did Jesus Exist, by Bart D. Ehrman (argues that he did exist)

The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (argues that he is a myth)

Also see works by Richard Carrier, with a new book coming out next year. There are more. Yes, this is a controversy, and I’m not qualified to dismiss all arguments. Apparently, you feel you are.

20

As I mentioned in my previous post, Dr. Carrier and non-Dr. Doherty are not Bible scholars. That fact has not changed in the ten minutes since I posted it. Their lies have been exposed countless times. Our most recent instance on this message board was in this thread just a few days ago.

You referred to “the debate among biblical scholars about whether Jesus existed at all”, implying that there are Bible scholars on both sides of the debate. I’ve challenged you to post the name of any Bible scholar who’s doesn’t believe that Jesus existed. Based on the contents of your last post, it would appear that you can’t.

But we can’t do so, can we?