# Resolved: Jesus did not exist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230 "2011-01-03T16:11:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/101 "2011-01-05T18:45:43Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > I think my point is that if we boil down the definition of Jesus to what you’ve just boiled it down to it becomes meaningless, IMHO. > > We are almost certain that cult leader rabble rousers were executed by Roman authorities with some regularity. How does that make them Jesus? Well, not unless they inspired the Gospels. > [@](#): > > The historical King Arthur Existed! Why? Because we know there were a bunch of kings commanding small groups of warriors during the migration period, and there were plenty of round tables! So that there was a king, with a round table and some warriors around him is not implausible. Well, no, it’s very likely to have happened, but why are any of these kings King Arthur? Did he draw Excalibur from the stone? Did Lancelot steal his girl? Did he go searching for the holy Grail? Not the same thing at all. The problem with Arthur deserves its own thread, but it is quite unlike that of Jesus. At base, the Arthur of Mallory _is_ pure myth. There may or may not have been a romano-british war leader who inspired the (much later) mythology, but he resembled not at all the (invented hundreds of years later) mythological Arthur of legend. For example, the Arthur of legend was supposed to have created a unified kingdom, have invaded Europe, etc. It is essential to the legend that he do these things. They did not happen, ergo “Arthur” is pure myth. > [@](#): > > Maybe it’s just semantics, and I’m being pedantic, but the best we could say is that one or more of those kings may have been the root of the Mythologicla King Arthur, just like we can say one or more of those Judean cult leaders who got wacked by the Romans may have been the root of the Jesus mythology. > > Jesus as per the Gospels NO ONE IS. In contrast with Arthur, the Jesus of the Gospels could very easily have “really existed” in the sense of being a Judaic cult leader who inspired a group of disciples who later (or their descendants) wrote the Gospels, incorporating his sayings. We can of course never really know, but it certainly seems more likely than not; after all, _something_ clearly created this cult, and if not an inspirational leader, then what? The fact that the gospels are riddled with inconsistecies is just par for the course for ancient history. Similarly, there are many inconsistencies in the records concerning much more historically significant (at least, in their own time) figures. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/102 "2011-01-05T18:46:51Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I don’t think I understand this last part. We don’t have any manuscripts that don’t have the miracle stories, so how do we know when they were added? Skammer, the best I recall is that the early dates that scholars put on Mark starting about 70 C.E.., and others following about this time are that they didn’t have the miracle stories then, but I believe were mostly teachings. I think my source for this was McCabe, but I’d have to dig for it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/103 "2011-01-05T18:49:50Z")
You might be thinking of the Q source embedded in Matthew and Luke which is all sayings and does not contain miracle stories (or narrative stories at all). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/104 "2011-01-05T18:58:25Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Again, you provide no cites for either of these assertions (although personally I recognize the doubt concerning traditional Gospel authorship, you have provided no evidence for it). **Diogenes** does far more than just recognizing a certain measure of doubt. Rather, he flat out declares that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were definitely NOT the authors of the books in question – a claim that grossly misrepresents the broad spectrum of scholarship on this matter. Indeed, he goes beyond even that. **Diogenes** goes so far as to conclusively and emphatically declare that the authors of these books – whoever they were – were complete strangers to the Apostles. Such a claim is decidedly extreme, and it goes far beyond what even liberal scholars would comfortably state regarding their authorship. That is something to keep in mind when evaluating **DtC** ’s claims. He states things emphatically, and to the casual reader, this makes him sound knowledgeable. In reality though, he pulls these claims out of thin air, grossly exaggerates the actual state of scholarship, demands standards of historical evidence that go far beyond what actual historians require, and generally resorts to bluster when painted into a corner. And he does so, as you and several other posters have correctly pointed out, by repeated assertion and without providing any actual citations for his claims. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/105 "2011-01-05T19:14:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why does the author of John think that Christians were expelled from synagogues while Jesus was still alive? There are two separate concepts in Jewish Law, either one of which might be interpreted as being ‘put out of the synagogues’. Those are the concepts of _Nidui_ and _Cherem_, both of which are laid out at length in the Talmud. In short, _Nidui_ is less severe and _Cherem_ is more severe. _Nidui_ is a temporary expulsion from the synagogue and an order that all persons keep four cubits away from the person being punished. Cherem was anathema; excommunication, in other words. (And was, in fact, later transformed by the Catholic Church into their version of excommunication.) Further, within that binary distinction, there appear to have been further divisions in severity of punishment. What we typically think of as the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues, known as the _birkat haminim_, was certainly a case of _Cherem_ occuring around 85-90 A. D., though even there we don’t have as many details as some people seem to think. If John 9:22 was a reference to case of _Nidui_, then there is no error. In addition to the simple fact that _Nidui_ was more common and plausible, there are several other facts that support this interpretation. First of all, John 9:22 uses the Greek word _aposynagogos_, and according to Dr. Blomberg “occurs nowhere else in early discussions of the _birkat haminim_.” Hence it seems that John was aware of the possible confusion and deliberately tried to avoid it by choosing a different word. Second, nothing else in John’s Gospel is in keeping with there being _Cherem_ in place against the Christians, and much only makes sense if there was not. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/106 "2011-01-05T19:20:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You might be thinking of the Q source embedded in Matthew and Luke which is all sayings and does not contain miracle stories (or narrative stories at all). I’ll buy that the Q source is just a collection of sayings, but that’s a far cry from stating that the earliest versions of Mark (or any of the Gospels) had no miracles in them. There’s no evidence of that at all; in fact the earliest manuscripts we do have have very few and minor differences for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/107 "2011-01-05T19:43:46Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’ll buy that the Q source is just a collection of sayings, but that’s a far cry from stating that the earliest versions of Mark (or any of the Gospels) had no miracles in them. There’s no evidence of that at all; in fact the earliest manuscripts we do have have very few and minor differences for the most part. Hey Skammer, I found what I was looking for. All of my books on McCabe don’t have a suffix, so it takes me awhile sometimes to find what I’m looking for; especially since I spent most of my reading on all of this some 20 years ago. But I remember going back over this just recently, including finding an on-line source for it too which you can read from it in its entirely [here](http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_12.html) since it is too long to put here, but I will quote some of it. > [@](#): > > The first condition of any confidence in the Gospels is to ascertain that the writers lived within a reasonable time of the events described; and one hundred and fifty years of biblical scholarship have not succeeded in finding any proof of that. At present the general opinion is that Mark, the oldest Gospel, was written between 65 and 70 A.D.; and Matthew and Luke in the last decade of the first century; and John in the second century. Mark, it will be remembered, knows nothing about the miraculous birth of Christ; the first account of that turns up at least ninety years after the supposed event! > > Moreover, the resurrection story and other details are not supposed, and cannot be proved by anybody, to have been in Mark by the year 70. Scholars have come to the conclusion that there existed at first a simple sketch of the life of Jesus which is the groundwork of the first three Gospels (and is best seen in Mark) and a collection of teachings which is most used by Matthew. At what date this sketch was written nobody knows. What precisely was in it nobody knows. You cannot put your finger on a single verse and say that it is part of the original Gospel. And, even if you could, there is not a scrap of evidence that it was written within thirty years of the death of Christ. Remember Ali Mohammed and his miracles! > > If a religious reader thinks that he can dismiss all this as “Higher Criticism stuff,” and points out how much these critics have changed their theories and how contradictory they are, let him reflect on his own position. He trusts the Gospels without any evidence whatever; without making the least inquiry into their authority. His preachers dogmatically say that the Gospels were “inspired” – though the opening verses of Luke plainly say the contrary – and he takes their word as simply as a child does. > > This “Higher Criticism,” which he hears so much reviled, is a very serious and conscientious effort of Christian divines, sustained now for more than a hundred years, to prove that the Gospels are worthy of ordinary historical credence. It has failed. The miraculous birth, the death on the cross, the resurrection and ascension, and the healing miracles, it is compelled to sacrifice altogether. By great effort it then concludes that some sort of, small Gospel or life of Jesus was in existence thirty years after the death of Christ; but that is too late to be reliable, and no one knows exactly what it said. > > Moreover, while there is no evidence at all that the Gospels, our Gospels, existed before the end of the first century, there is very serious evidence that they did not. No Christian writer mentions one of our four Gospels until a hundred years after the death of Christ or makes any clear and certain quotation from any one of them. That is serious, surely. Yes, you may say, if it is true; but it may be another bit of Higher Criticism or of Rationalism. It is not. It is the very serious verdict of a committee of historians and divines appointed to study this question by the Oxford (University) Society of Historical Theology, an ecclesiastical society. They courageously published this disappointing result of their labors in “The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers” (1905). > > Pope St. Clement of Rome, for instance, wrote an important letter, which we have, about 96 A.D.; and a second letter bearing his name, though probably a Christian forgery, was written later. About the same time, or a little earlier, there were the so-called “Epistle of Barnabas” and the first part of the “Teaching of the Apostles.” These never quote from, or refer to, the Gospels. For the first three decades of the second century we have the second part of the “Teaching,” the “Pastor” (supposed to be by “Hermas”), and letters of Bishops Ignatius and Polycarp. Not one of these mentions the Gospels or makes a clear quotation from them. They quote certain words which roughly correspond to words in Matthew, Luke and (at a late date) John; but this proves nothing, as by the second century these sayings of Christ certainly circulated in the Church. We must say the same of the “Sayings of Our Lord” (or “Logia”), a second-century fragment containing seven “sayings,” two of which are in the Gospels. It has no significance whatever, unless it be to discredit the Gospels. The writer clearly knew of no Gospel collections. > > It is not until about 140 or 150 A.D. that Christian writers refer to and quote from the Gospels. They are clearly known to Justin, Marcion and Papias. The latter, the Bishop of Herapolis, an ignorant and credulous man who writes a good deal which nobody now believes, is known to us only from quotations in the fourth century historian Eusebius; a man who notoriously held that the use of statements to the Church was more important than their accuracy. This fourth-century quotation of a second-century obscure bishop is the only “serious” evidence for the Gospels! Papias says that he learned from older men that Mark and Matthew really wrote Gospels. That is not evidence that any historian would credit, and, in fact, divines do not believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/108 "2011-01-05T20:19:14Z")
Thanks **razncain**. Some of that I have no issue with (I think the earlier dates he gives for the Gospels are in the ballpark, although Mark especially may have been even earlier). The second half kind of goes off the rails, though; his “very serious evidence” that the Gospels were not written in the first centruy is an argument from silence and ignores internal evidence of earlier authorship. We can’t assume the Gospels hadn’t been written yet just because none of the earliest patricarchs quoted them. At the most, this indicates that they had not yet been widely distributed or widely accepted as canonical. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/109 "2011-01-05T21:44:31Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Only from conservative apologist sources will anyone think these books were written by the names later added onto them. Nothing mainstream about it at all. They are all guesses, and second century guesses at that. While I am not convinced at how compelling the evidence is, from what I can tell there is _a little_ more to it then just guesses. [See here](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html). > [@](#): > > However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter’s speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, “beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached.” Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously. Now, Justin Martyr could have been going off of early tradition. He was, after all, 100 years after the fact. The second bit about motivation is also a little more then just a guess, but not much more, I admit. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/110 "2011-01-05T21:55:48Z")
It seems to me that both Mark (disciple of Peter), and to a lesser extent Luke (a companion of Paul), are both fairly obscure figures to attach to the Gospels that bear their name. That’s not proof of course, but most pseudo-Gospels are attributed to more major figures such as Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or Peter. I’m not convinced of Markan or Lukan authorship necessarily, but I think we lack convincing evidence either way. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/111 "2011-01-05T21:56:10Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > **Diogenes** does far more than just recognizing a certain measure of doubt. Rather, he flat out declares that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were definitely NOT the authors of the books in question – a claim that grossly misrepresents the broad spectrum of scholarship on this matter. Well, I’m not definitive and neither are the experts that I’m aware of. I think that some arguments can be made for authorship and others not so much. Here’s some info I’ve scrounged up (I’m just listing some sources here, there’s more to it then what I’ve posted/ pro and con): I’ve covered Mark, here’s info on Matthew: [From here](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html): > [@](#): > > It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis. > > It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author’s first-hand experience. [Luke, here](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html): > [@](#): > > pi, a leading city in that district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We spent some time in that city. … As we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl with an oracular spirit, who used to bring a large profit to her owners through her fortune-telling. She began to follow Paul and us, shouting, ‘These people are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.’" Paul exorcised her and was imprisoned for his trouble. Paul was saved as an answer to his prayer, and he proceeded to travel through Thessalonica, Beroea, and Athens. Paul set sail for Syria by way of Ephesus, landed in Caesarea, and went to Antioch. After travelling around Galatia and Phrygia, Paul came to Ephesus in Asia Minor where Apollos was baptizing in the name of John. After an upset with the silversmiths in Ephesus, the first person narration picks up again as follows: “When the disturbance was over, Paul had the disciples summoned and, after encouraging them, he bade them farewell and set out on his journey to Macedonia. As he travelled throughout those regions, he provided many words of encouragement for them. Then he arrived in Greece, where he stayed for three months. But when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return by way of Macedonia. Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, from Beroea, accompanied him, as did Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia who went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. We sailed from Philippi after the feast of Unleavened Bread, and rejoined them five days later in Troas, where we spent a week. On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight. … We went ahead to the ship and set sail for Assos where we were to take Paul on board, as he had arranged, since he was going overland. When he met us in Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. We sailed away from there on the next day and reached a point of Chios, and a day later we reached Samos, and on the following day we arrived at Miletus. Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order not to lose time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if at all possible, for the day of Pentecost.” (Acts 20:1-16) Notice that the first passage refers to “Paul and us” and that the “we” who sailed to Assos are distinct from Paul, who travelled overland. Notice also that the “we” narration drops off at Philippi and then picks up in the second passage with “We sailed from Philippi.” This nonchalant and matter-of-fact dovetailing convinces me that the author of Acts was among those who were left behind at Philippi and joined up with Paul to sail from there later. The distinction between Paul and “us” discredits the idea that the first person perspective in these passages is some kind of literary device, which would take the perspective of Paul (for example increasing the drama of Paul’s adventure or increasing the connection of Paul to the group), and for which there is no precedent in ancient literature. The alternative is that the author of Acts was making a false affectation to being a companion of Paul. This prompts the question of why the author made this claim in such a subtle way, instead of ensuring that the reader could not miss it by emphasizing the point, as apocryphal writers often did. It also leaves us wondering as to why the false claim to participation is restricted to a few passages, leaving Paul alone for most of the narrative–though this is understandable if the author’s participation was in fact sporadic. The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke’s patron Theophilus was already aware. [And here’s John](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html): > [@](#): > > Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920): > > ``` > The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status. > > ``` > > There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the “beloved disciple” need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, “[John] was worth of martyrdom.” Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, “he [John] was killed by the Jews.” In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): “That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had ‘drunk the cup’ that Jesus had drunk and had been ‘baptized with the baptism’ with which he had been baptized.” Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John. > > If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness. There is more to each of these and I would suggest that those interested read the source material, as I’ve just tried to quickly post some stuff to spark conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/112 "2011-01-05T21:58:22Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’m not convinced of Markan or Lukan authorship necessarily, but I think we lack convincing evidence either way. I would agree with this. I think that anyone making definitive statements has to put forth a great case (towards those two, not the others). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/113 "2011-01-05T22:06:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > There are two separate concepts in Jewish Law, either one of which might be interpreted as being ‘put out of the synagogues’. Those are the concepts of _Nidui_ and _Cherem_, both of which are laid out at length in the Talmud. In short, _Nidui_ is less severe and _Cherem_ is more severe. _Nidui_ is a temporary expulsion from the synagogue and an order that all persons keep four cubits away from the person being punished. Cherem was anathema; excommunication, in other words. (And was, in fact, later transformed by the Catholic Church into their version of excommunication.) Further, within that binary distinction, there appear to have been further divisions in severity of punishment. > > What we typically think of as the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues, known as the _birkat haminim_, was certainly a case of _Cherem_ occuring around 85-90 A. D., though even there we don’t have as many details as some people seem to think. If John 9:22 was a reference to case of _Nidui_, then there is no error. In addition to the simple fact that _Nidui_ was more common and plausible, there are several other facts that support this interpretation. First of all, John 9:22 uses the Greek word _aposynagogos_, and according to Dr. Blomberg “occurs nowhere else in early discussions of the _birkat haminim_.” Hence it seems that John was aware of the possible confusion and deliberately tried to avoid it by choosing a different word. Second, nothing else in John’s Gospel is in keeping with there being _Cherem_ in place against the Christians, and much only makes sense if there was not. You seem to be arguing that there was some kind of temporary expulsion of Jesus’ followers from synagogues prior to his crucifixion. Cite that such an expulsion ever occurred? Not a single other writing, inside the NT or out, makes refernece to it. Why should we magine such a thing when it clearly makes more sense to assume that John was referring to the expulsion around 85-90 that his audience already knew about (the objection that John uses Greek words to refer to it instead of Hebrew is specious to the point of being silly. John was speaking to a Greek speaking Gentile audience, not a Jewish one. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/114 "2011-01-05T22:09:22Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I would agree with this. > > I think that anyone making definitive statements has to put forth a great case (towards those two, not the others). I agree - I’m skeptical of the others as well. As a Christian I give Matthew and John equal canonical authority to the others, but I acknowledge that the identity of the true author of Matthew has been lost and that John was quite possibly written by the Johanine community a few decades after the others. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/115 "2011-01-05T22:10:44Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > **Diogenes** does far more than just recognizing a certain measure of doubt. Rather, he flat out declares that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were definitely NOT the authors of the books in question – a claim that grossly misrepresents the broad spectrum of scholarship on this matter. > > Indeed, he goes beyond even that. **Diogenes** goes so far as to conclusively and emphatically declare that the authors of these books – whoever they were – were complete strangers to the Apostles. Such a claim is decidedly extreme, and it goes far beyond what even liberal scholars would comfortably state regarding their authorship. > > That is something to keep in mind when evaluating **DtC** ’s claims. He states things emphatically, and to the casual reader, this makes him sound knowledgeable. In reality though, he pulls these claims out of thin air, grossly exaggerates the actual state of scholarship, demands standards of historical evidence that go far beyond what actual historians require, and generally resorts to bluster when painted into a corner. And he does so, as you and several other posters have correctly pointed out, by repeated assertion and without providing any actual citations for his claims. I assure you, you don’t know what you’re talking about on this subject. There is no evoidence at all in favor of those authorship trafditins and an abundance against. In the piece I linked up thread, I go into great detail expounding on this. If you wish, I can certainly do it in thread too. Your perecption of scholarly consensus on this is in error. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/116 "2011-01-05T22:12:27Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’ll buy that the Q source is just a collection of sayings, but that’s a far cry from stating that the earliest versions of Mark (or any of the Gospels) had no miracles in them. There’s no evidence of that at all; in fact the earliest manuscripts we do have have very few and minor differences for the most part. I know. I was just suggesting that **razncain** might have been confused about what he read. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/117 "2011-01-05T22:15:16Z")
Well, I’ve tried to continue posting here three times now, and every. single. time. something gets in the way. No point in restarting now. Geez, ever have a day like that? Where everything keep getting in the way? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/118 "2011-01-05T22:15:27Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > It seems to me that both Mark (disciple of Peter), and to a lesser extent Luke (a companion of Paul), are both fairly obscure figures to attach to the Gospels that bear their name. That’s not proof of course, but most pseudo-Gospels are attributed to more major figures such as Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or Peter. > > I’m not convinced of Markan or Lukan authorship necessarily, but I think we lack convincing evidence either way. Those names were taken from letters of Paul. Folk traditions probably accrued to them in conjunction with them as being possible authors of Gospels which originally had unknown authors. There are severe problems with both traditions, though, and really no good evidence to support them. They are 2nd Century traditions at best. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/119 "2011-01-05T22:28:07Z")
They are both mentioned once each in Colossians and Philemon (and 2 Timothy, but ISTR Pauline authorship of 2 Tim is doubtful). Mark is also mentioned once in 1 Peter. But Paul mentions a lot of other folks in his letters too, and it just seems odd that someone would intentionally pick one of these obscure disciples when there would be more cache in having your gospel written by Barnabas or Silas or any of the apostles (like most of the extra-canonical gospels did). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230/120 "2011-01-05T22:43:31Z")
They had to pick someone, I guess. Whatever the reason, there is not any substantive evidence connecting them to those Gospels. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-jesus-did-not-exist/566230.md?page=7)