But even with paper, ink, and literacy being scarce, we do have contemporaneous writings about Jesus. Many of them got compiled into what we now call the New Testament. People object that we can’t count those, because they came from Jesus’ followers… but of course they did. Anyone who thought that a guy was really performing miracles would of course be a follower of that person, because even if they weren’t before, the miracles would convince them.
And we don’t apply that standard to anyone else. That’s why I mentioned Julius Caesar: We have all sorts of evidence for him. But all of that evidence came from his followers, too. Maybe the government of Rome decided they needed a dramatic figure to write myths about, and created Gaius Julius Caesar out of whole cloth (and then, having invented him, stamped coins with his likeness, and so on). It could have happened… but nobody ever claims that it did.
Don’t we have Julius Caesar’s memoirs? My understanding of the argument that we can’t take the writings we have about Jesus too seriously is not that they are not contemporaneous, but that they are from decades later, and none written by people who were witnesses to the events. For Julius, on the other hand, we have (as I understand it), a *first person *account of (parts of) his life. (Granted, with the self-aggrandizement that comes with that, but still)
There may have been a direct, official, Roman record that some guy named Jesus was indeed crucified. And it may well have been destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Or in any of seven separate events over 1400 years, each known as the “Sack of Rome.” Or in any of a hundred natural or manmade disasters.
Heck, my grandfather claimed to have been born in rural Hungary in 1882. We can’t even find any direct record for that (we did find a baptismal certificate for my grandmother, though.)
I have books and articles. you counter with a freaken YOUTUBE cite?? :dubious::rolleyes: By a well known atheist?
Geez, “language they were written in”? Really? You hang your hat on that old chestnut? Other than Julius Caesar, few worthys actually put pent to paper, they employed scribes and secretaries.
John pretty much claims to have been written by the “beloved Apostle” .
The big argument for John not being written by that Apostle is that it is full of Gnostic theology (more or less true). And Gnosticism was thought to be around well after AD100, thus John , who *at the max *died in 105 AD, could not have penned it. But the Dead Sea scrolls proved that theory totally wrong. Gnosticism was alive and well in the later parts of the 1st Century.
Actually, no, there are very few. As we have pointed out, there are almost no records of Pilate, who was a much more important figure than some backwoods preacher.
I listened to that Youtube, and he never mentions a “consensus”. He even admits they *may *have been written by Matthew and John, but he says it doesnt matter. His two big arguments are:
They were written in Greek, not Aramaic. Yep. And so? Many Jews of the period spoke Greek, and even if they didnt- there are these things called 'secretaries" and “scribe” who surely did. And even tho perhaps John didnt speak Greek as a very young man in AD30, he could have learned it in the next 70 some odd years. Really a stupid argument. I can find Bibles in English, German, french, Italian and a few hundred other languages. That just means the translators spoke that language.
The Gospels dont agree. Yep. Ok, you can find a hundred bios of Geo Washington, and none of them agree. Even first hand accounts of the same incident dont usually agree. Actually , this is evidence of the Gospels being authentic.
Define contemporaneous. Because in my book, a book written decades after the death of the man whose important acts it is meant to detail, is not “contemporaneous” with that man.
ETA:
DrDeth, I am unswayed by any of the sources you have provided. I neither believe that John was written by an eye witness, nor that the belief that an eyewitness named John wrote the gospel and associated letters and apocalypse that comprise Johannine literature represents a scholarly consensus amongst historians. That’s it. Consider also reviewing:
No, it really isn’t. There are other possible explanations for the gross discrepancies in the narratives, ranging from “the tellers didn’t remember the original events/story that well” to “the tellers weren’t really that worried about factual accuracy anyway because that wasn’t the point.” None of these explanations support the notion that the accounts are based on real events; at best they provide no evidence one way or the other.
If they were fake, they’d have made sure they were not contradictory. remember, the idea there was no Jesus is based upon a* elaborate hoax*:dubious: by Paul and the early Church leaders. If you’re gonna have a elaborate hoax, then you’re gonna make sure things align.
Also I think you’re making some assumptions about the type of hoax, here. In the scenario where these people are trying to build a religion around a mythological figure, they may half-believe it themselves, but not be overly concerned about putting words in the mouth of their icon. (Much like a lot of modern christians, making him suddenly care a whole lot about homosexuality and such.) After all the point is to brink people over to your way of thinking, not maintain a consistent tale for the sake of the consistency itself.
Note that Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuals. It was Paul. And even he rated it about on a level with adultery and drunkenness.
But the idea is that it was a massive and well orchestrated hoax. That simply cant be true.
Nobody said it was a “hoax”. I’m saying it’s a myth, and the evolution of the narrative over time shows this. Mark is the earliest gospel written, and it has no mention of the virgin birth or a physical resurrection, and has Jesus doing things like cursing a fig tree for being out of season or wondering why God has forsaken him. By John, the last gospel written, Jesus is going around telling people he’s the son of God, performing miracles willy-nilly, and all but daring the Romans to execute him - the driving the money-changers out of the temple, which in Mark happens at the end of his ministry, now happens at the beginning.
When Paul writes about Jesus, which is earlier than any of the gospels, he doesn’t even seem to think of Jesus as having had a physical existence, but as a purely spiritual being who can only be known through revelation. All this tends to suggest that the earliest Jesus cults didn’t consider Jesus to have been a man who walked on Earth within recent years, and that as Christianity evolved he gradually came to be viewed as a historical personage.
Not necessarily. There is a good case to be made that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written in that order, with each successive Gospel meant as a critique of or in an effort to supplant the other. Each Gospel depicts a distinctly different version of Jesus, adding or omitting certain elements from what came before, because each author has their own take on the nature of Christ and his teachings that he wants to have heard above all others.