No one has cited Cecil yet?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html
For shame!
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.
From the 2nd book of Peter Chapter 3 (NIV)
{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
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.
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/showthread.php?threadid=33026
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.’
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.