[QUOTE=spoke-]
So my take is that Jesus was an actual person, that there were people with living memories of him at the time the Gospels were written.
[QUOTE]
Or rather, at the time the earliest gospels were written.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think we’ve established that it’s quite common for a group of people to adopt beliefs that in some cases are completely fabricated. You questions don’t necessarily disprove the notion that Jesus was a mythical character. Going back to my earlier “urban legend” examples, I could ask the same questions: If someone invented the microwaved-poodle lady, who was it? How did he manage to convince so many people? The answers, respectively, are: “We don’t know”; and “By word of mouth”. Or to use Diogenes’ excellent example: Who invented the “Elvis is alive” story? How did he manage to convice so many people? The answer is that it’s simply not that hard to do.
No, I don’t think, with the scant evidence that’s available, that one can disprove the notion that Jesus might be a mythical person. HOWEVER, I’m perfectly willing to accept that there was a man named Jesus, because it’s not an extraordinary claim.
“There was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.” - That’s not an extraordinary claim, and I don’t see any reason NOT to believe it. The mere question of whether there was a man named Jesus is simply not important enough for me to care whether it’s true or not. It only becomes important when we attach extraordinary attributes to that person.
“Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead.” - That IS an extraordinary claim, and as such would require extraordinary evidence, which I don’t believe exists.
If, as the OP’s linked article suggests, much of what Jesus supposedly said and did comes from earlier stories, legends, and myths, does it really matter if Jesus was a real person?
I couldn’t find this sect’s name. However, I found a brief mention in a book which stated that this sect survived until the X° century, and was following (according to them) the teachings of James and Peter, and mentions attacks against Paul’s teachings. It also mentionned a study done by someone called Shlomo Pines about them, which allowed me to find this page .
It’s the analysis of an arabic manuscript which according to the author is derived from texts written by members of this sect. He doesn’t state to which group they belonged, but mention they could be related to the Nazarenes, or indeed, the Ebionites.
He apparently doesn’t mention the hostility against Paul, but do mention that they followed the jewish Law (shabath, not eating pork, circumcision, etc…) and that, you’re right again, didn’t believe the Christ was God.
I also found a mention of another early christian sect following the Jewish Law : the “Elchasaites”, who were still existing during the IV° century and had at least Peter’s homilies amongst their scriptures. According to Epiphanus of Salamine : “Not being christians, nor Jews, nor Pagans, but something inbetween, fundamentally, they’re nothing”.
I have the overal feeling from what I read that the main difference between the teachings of Peter and the teachings of Paul (or rather the teachings of christian sects claiming to be faithful to Peter or Paul) was the issue : “has the Law been abolished?”. Some of these “Jewish christians” even believed than only Jews could be christians, and that the pagans couldn’t convert to christianism.
On the overall, there were so much messianic sects, more or less christians, more or less Jewish, sometimes dualists, believing the christ was god or simply human, sometimes that there has been several incarnations of the messiah, sometimes with plain weird beliefs (at least when compared to the more orthodox beliefs) between the first and the fourth century that one quickly becomes lost.
These are excellent points. I have a few thoughts . . .
It is not an extraordinary claim that there was a man named Jesus that was crucified by the Romans. The mythology surrounding this person who may or may not have existed is an extraordinary claim, just as you have stated.
People who believe in the mythology surrounding Jesus would not have a leg to stand on if it was proven that the man never even existed. But since this can’t be proven conclusively, it’s neither here nor there. Also, I think that most people who want to believe will continue to believe no matter what evidence exists that refutes their beliefs.
Some thoughts about the various writings in the Bible:
- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John waiting so long after Jesus’ death to write the Gospels: These men were of the same generation as Jesus, and so were the people they originally evangelized. During their time of evangelizing, they had access to literally hundreds of people who were witnesses to Jesus’ existence. Jesus was crucified during the Passover, a major Jewish holiday. There were Jews coming to Jerusalem from all over the country to observe the Passover. The site of crucifiction was near enough to the city gates that everyone entering the city witnessed it. Jesus crucifixion was common knowledge. Indeed, after Jesus’ resurrection, He joined two of His followers walking down the road, and they failed to recognize Him for one reason or another. He said to them, (paraphrasing) “Hey, why do you look so unhappy?” And the disciples were incredulous, answering Him, “How can you not know what happened?” This makes it apparrent to me that nearly everybody in Jerusalem knew what had happened. Even if they didn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah, at least they knew that he had been crucified. Hence, the followers’ astonishment at the idea that somebody didn’t know about it.
So, because the Gospel writers were preaching to their contemporaries, the things that Jesus did were easily provable thanks to plenty of witnesses Everybody knew what had happened - they’d seen it themselves. But as the people of Jesus’ and the disciples’ generation began to pass away, the Gospel writers, getting old themselves, decided that the story should be written down for future generations. It’s also not unreasonable to believe that the Gospel writers were of the actual Twelve Disciples. I’ve heard speculation that, despite the depictions in da Vinci’s The Last Supper painting, the twelve disciples may have ranged in age from teenagers to men in their early 20s. Remember that in Jewish culture, you became a man at age 13. Who’s most likely to accept a new teaching? The youth. Older Jews would probably be very set in their ways, and less receptive to Jesus. If John was 15 when Jesus called him, and 18 at the time of the crucifiction, then he would have been around 85 years old when he wrote or dictated his Gospel. Not inconceivable.
-
Paul not mentioning the particulars of Jesus life: Keep in mind that Paul’s letters were addressed to established churches in various cities. Paul had already met these people in person, and had already converted them. Therefore, the addressees already knew the details and there was no need for Paul to tell them what they already knew. The letters are addressing mostly specific issues that had arisen in those churches.
-
the Jewish Christians requiring observance of dietary laws: A matter of personal preference, I think. I used to work for a man who was half Egyptian, half Italian, and who had been raised in Pakistan. His mother was Muslim, and so he grew up observing Islamic dietary laws. Because of that, as an adult he had no taste whatsoever for any kind of pork. It was repulsive to him, inspite of the fact that he was not a practicing Muslim himself. If I were to convert to Shinto and move to Japan, I wouldn’t suddenly find myself craving sushi sashimi. I simply have not been raised with a taste for that kind of food. Similarly, despite the fact that the Jewish Christians may have been free to eat what they wanted, they still didn’t suddenly develop a craving for bacon. Somehow, I think that the early Jewish Christians were no different from anybody else who is put into a position of authority - eating “forbidden” foods was repulsive to them, and so they didn’t want others eating the stuff in their presence. And so they found a reason to stop people from doing that. Indeed, Paul stated that “you are free to eat what you choose, but if doing so causes somebody else to stumble, you should refrain.” Perhaps he and the Jewish Christians were in basic agreement, and the argument was simply based on whether it should be made a requirement or not.
I don’t think it matters whether or not the religion was formally established in those churches. After all the “particulars” of Jesus were dogmatized, the majority of writings afterward were peppered with the Christian characteristics of a divinely-born world saviour without thought to the audience reading it, much like Christian-based, theoretical documents of today. Certainly, at least one detail about Jesus as the son of God would have been mentioned, but there was nothing in the earliest of letters.
I can’t buy this either. The disagreement wasn’t so passive. The evidence of this is in the tone of the writing in Galatians. Paul is pissed about the lack of cooperation with Peter, and it’s only natural he would be. Circumcision and dietary laws were serious considerations in the Jewish and Jewish-Christian faith. This wasn’t like people smoking in public.
Not exactly. They were written between 70-100 CE. I don’t think the authors of the Gospels were evangelizing the same generation 40-70 years after the crucifixion, especially in an era where life expectancy was less than 50. I don’t know what you mean by “waiting so long” but if you’re suggesting that any of the writers of the Gospels were contemporaries or even apostles of Jesus, you are mistaken. No one knows who wrote the Gospels but they weren’t anyone who ever knew Jesus.
During their time of evangelizing, they had access to literally hundreds of people who were witnesses to Jesus’ existence.
[/quote]
Cite?
Jesus was crucified during the Passover, a major Jewish holiday. There were Jews coming to Jerusalem from all over the country to observe the Passover. The site of crucifiction was near enough to the city gates that everyone entering the city witnessed it. Jesus crucifixion was common knowledge.
[/quote]
Crucifixion itself was an extremely common occurrance. Pilate crucified thousands of Jews. There is no reason that the execution of Jesys would have stood out from the rest or been “common knowledge” in Jerusalem. Certainly no contemporary Jewish historians took any notice of it.
A bit of circular logic here. You’re using a story from the Gospels to support the validity of the Gospels…not very convincing, that.
No they weren’t.
Hardly. They were speaking of events that had occurred 40-70 years prior, certainly not in the living memory of most of those who they were evangelizing. The Gospels were also pitched largely at a gentile audience after the destruction of Jerusalem. There were no written records to look at at and few or no living witnesses to the life Jesus. Your assertion about “thosands” of witnesses having “seen it themselves” is wholly unsupportable by any extra-Biblical evidence.
It’s quite unreasonable for a number of reasons to suppose that the Gospels were written by Apostles. Right off the top, Mark and Luke were not apostles but simply traditional companions of Peter and Paul, respectively. There is no shred of empirical evidence for these traditions, however, and those Gospels do not name their own authors (in fact, none of the Gospels do). Matthew was written in 80 CE, in Koine Greek (not Aramaic or Hebrew) and most importantly, it is abjectly dependant on Mark and Q as written sources. A real apostle would not have had to crib word for word from other sources, especially not from a secondary (at best) source like Mark.
John was written in 100 CE, far too long to have been a disciple. It’s also written in Greek, a language that John would not have been literate in. John is widely regarded in contemporary scholarship as the least historical and the most highly embellished of the Gospels.
The truth is that there is not a word of the NT which can be reliably attributed to an eyewitness source.
85 was much older then than it is now. The Gospel of John is also written in the wrong language for it to have been written or dictated by John and it shows evidence of layered composition, meaning that it was the work of more than one author. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Gospel itself which says that the author was John, nor is there any compelling reason to suppose it other than tradition.
Paul never met Jesus, so I wouldn’t regard his testimony regarding the historical Jesus as having much value anyway, even if he had given it. Still, it’s curious that he would found a new religion based on this character and never make any reference to his life or his teachings in any of his letters. All he talked about was an abstract “Christ” Soteriology which conveys no useful information about any real person.
What about circumcision? Requiring that new converts keep kosher and be circumcized was much more than a peronal food reference. It showed that Peter and James still thought of themselves as Jews and not some new religion. It means they thought that the law still held. It suggests that they did not think Jesus was a “savior.” That was Paul’s innovation.
Fixed coding
Not exactly. They were written between 70-100 CE. I don’t think the authors of the Gospels were evangelizing the same generation 40-70 years after the crucifixion, especially in an era where life expectancy was less than 50. I don’t know what you mean by “waiting so long” but if you’re suggesting that any of the writers of the Gospels were contemporaries or even apostles of Jesus, you are mistaken. No one knows who wrote the Gospels but they weren’t anyone who ever knew Jesus.
Cite?
Crucifixion itself was an extremely common occurrance. Pilate crucified thousands of Jews. There is no reason that the execution of Jesys would have stood out from the rest or been “common knowledge” in Jerusalem. Certainly no contemporary Jewish historians took any notice of it.
A bit of circular logic here. You’re using a story from the Gospels to support the validity of the Gospels…not very convincing, that.
No they weren’t.
Hardly. They were speaking of events that had occurred 40-70 years prior, certainly not in the living memory of most of those who they were evangelizing. The Gospels were also pitched largely at a gentile audience after the destruction of Jerusalem. There were no written records to look at at and few or no living witnesses to the life Jesus. Your assertion about “thosands” of witnesses having “seen it themselves” is wholly unsupportable by any extra-Biblical evidence.
It’s quite unreasonable for a number of reasons to suppose that the Gospels were written by Apostles. Right off the top, Mark and Luke were not apostles but simply traditional companions of Peter and Paul, respectively. There is no shred of empirical evidence for these traditions, however, and those Gospels do not name their own authors (in fact, none of the Gospels do). Matthew was written in 80 CE, in Koine Greek (not Aramaic or Hebrew) and most importantly, it is abjectly dependant on Mark and Q as written sources. A real apostle would not have had to crib word for word from other sources, especially not from a secondary (at best) source like Mark.
John was written in 100 CE, far too long to have been a disciple. It’s also written in Greek, a language that John would not have been literate in. John is widely regarded in contemporary scholarship as the least historical and the most highly embellished of the Gospels.
The truth is that there is not a word of the NT which can be reliably attributed to an eyewitness source.
85 was much older then than it is now. The Gospel of John is also written in the wrong language for it to have been written or dictated by John and it shows evidence of layered composition, meaning that it was the work of more than one author. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Gospel itself which says that the author was John, nor is there any compelling reason to suppose it other than tradition.
Paul never met Jesus, so I wouldn’t regard his testimony regarding the historical Jesus as having much value anyway, even if he had given it. Still, it’s curious that he would found a new religion based on this character and never make any reference to his life or his teachings in any of his letters. All he talked about was an abstract “Christ” Soteriology which conveys no useful information about any real person.
What about circumcision? Requiring that new converts keep kosher and be circumcized was much more than a peronal food reference. It showed that Peter and James still thought of themselves as Jews and not some new religion. It means they thought that the law still held. It suggests that they did not think Jesus was a “savior.” That was Paul’s innovation.
I’ve never heard before of The Jesus Scroll, but the theory you’re talking about, or some form of it, is mentioned in Holy Blood, Holy Grail,* by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, a book which is extensively discussed and dissected in a concurrent GD thread: “Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Were Gospels omitted from New Testament?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241541
But I don’t suppose there’s any doubt among scholars as to whether John the Baptist was a real or a legendary figure?
I’m reminded of a scene from the film adaptation of the Kazantzakis novel The Last Temptation of Christ: Jesus (having survived the crucifixion and settled down to raise a family) comes across Paul preaching in a marketplace, and confronts him, telling him, “I’m Jesus of Nazareth! And I didn’t die on the cross!” Paul replies, more or less: “So what? If you are Jesus, you’re not the Jesus I’m talking about. People need to know that God loves them and I’m giving them that. I’m glad I met you, so I can start forgetting you.”
John the Baptist was written about by Josephus.
There is also a possibility that the tomb of J the B’s father, Zachariah, has been [url=http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s900660.htm]discovered in the Kidron valley in Jerusalem.
I think scholars pretty well accept J the B as historical. I believe some mythicists doubt his existence but I see no reason to dispute Josephus in this case.
Yes, one of the best scenes in the movie, IMO…and maybe not too far away from how Paul actually felt.
Diogenes:
If we don’t know who they were, then how do we know that they didn’t know Jesus? 
I guess I should have made it clear that I am a Christian, and am arguing from that position. In the Christian circles of which I’ve been a part (mostly conservative), the Gospels are considered to have been written by the disciples whose names they bear.
Again, speaking from the Christian perspective, and believing the truth of the Gospels, I can count the people He healed, the multitudes He fed, and the hundreds who saw Him after the resurrection as witnesses. And so again, based on the belief that the Gospel writers were Jesus’ actual disciples, they had access to those witnesses.
Not the first time something has been swept under the rug. As far as the historians were concerned, Jesus was probably just another charlatan claiming to be the Messiah - there were many, as has already been mentioned.
I was unclear. I was attempting to point out that the writer of that story was indicating that many of Jesus contemporaries were actual witnesses to His existence and execution. So to that generation, His existence was not in question. Whether those same contemporaries all believed His claims is irrelevant - they knew He existed and was executed. Hence, writing the Gospels for that generation would have been telling them what they already knew. Future generations, however, would not have firsthand knowledge of His existence or execution, and so it was written down for them.
D’OH! By “preaching” I meant their in-person evangelizing, not their Gospel writing. You can’t verbally preach to people who are not your contemporaries, so you write it down for them.
Of course, nobody was bilingual back then
I’ll have to give you that one, as I don’t possess the requisite skills to determine this for myself.
True enough.
The incident on the the road to Damascus, which resulted in Paul’s conversion, is considered to be a meeting between the two of them. And he became acquainted with a number of Jesus’ disciples who were able to fill him in. That he didn’t spend time on history in his letters is meaningless. There are any number of Christian books today, written by and aimed at Christians, that assume certain basic understandings on the part of the reader. Heck, even a typical software manual assumes that the reader already understands how to use the mouse, how menus work and how to open and save files, and so doesn’t waste time explaining those things. Considering that writing materials were probably fairly hard to obtain back then, in addition to the fact that Paul wrote or dictated many of the letters from prison, I can understand his need to be concise, and not use up materials repeating himself.
I’ll concede that point. I haven’t read that bit in a while, and so my memory failed me.
It isn’t much discussed, since John isn’t (anymore) the leading figure of any religion. However I vaguely remember having read is some book which was, IIRC, quite negative concerning the validity of the gospel’s content that there was some evidences of his existence outside scriptures. I think it’s an interesting question. Does anybody knows?
I’m not sure at all, but isn’t he mentionned in Josephus ? If so, what is written about him, and is there any reason to believe it’s an interpolation, like the famous quote about Jesus?
Scroll up. I already quoted the relevant passage from Josephus. 
Yes, he is, though it’s not a major religion by any standards. See my above post about the Mandaeans.
I can’t quite tell if you’re arguing your own perspective or not, but this doesn’t really work. You can’t prove the Gospels are accurate on the basis of what’s written in the Gospels.
Indeed. I remembered that you had posted this info right after having hit the “submit reply” key. An interesting information. I’m always curious about not well known religions, and especially those which have managed to survive despite being marginalized.