I didn’t mention the James passage in Josephus, but how does that make anything I did say false? The James passage (which is also not without dispute as to authenticity) mentions the stoning of one “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ.” I didn;t mention it because it does not go to the OP’s question of who Jesus was or what he was like. You seem to think I’m arguing that Jesus did not exist at all, which I’m not. My stance on that is that I just don’t know. Gun to my head, I’d guess yes.
This is absolutely not the stance of modern New Testament scholarship. At most, they think it might have authentic, anecdotal material embedded in it, but I’ve never seen any who think John actually wrote or dictated the Canonical Gospel. There is no hard evidence to support that and a great deal of evidence against it (late authorship, late Christology, historical anachronisms, identifiable compositional strata, etc).
Raymond E Brown, the expert on John sez The Gospel is sourced as follows:
*The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[28] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[29]
An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[30] *
Sure, it was written late, but that because John lived to be 90. Other issues can be handwaved due to editing or just poor memory on the part of a 90 yo man.
Mind you- true, it wasn’t WRITTEN by John. But almost nothing from ancient sources was written by that source. Instead it was written by a secretary or scribe. Caesar was considered exceptional as he wrote his stuff himself. But note that I said “John almost certainly has as it main source- the Apostle John himself” . "SOURCE. "
What is the actual evidence that John had anything to do with it at any point? Simply repeating the bare claim by a conservative Catholic scholar, is not in itself a citation of evidence. Brown is well-respected, but was also more conservative than the norm. I can literally cite dozens of scholars who dispute Brown on this.
Though, to be fair, I did say “I can’t think of any,” and Raymond Brown was a legit scholar who thought John really had something to do with that Gospel, so there is at least one.
Maastricht is slightly misusing Luke 19, in which Jesus is telling a parable about a king who says those words.
[QUOTE=Luke 19]
26 “He (the king in the parable) replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
[/QUOTE]
When this parable is read or preached about in church, verse 27 is usually skipped. I’m not sure what it is supposed to mean in terms of Christian theology, but the bible does not attribute those words as those of Jesus, but those of the king in his parable.
Such claims have been made about countless others, historically, and in fact, the world is still filled with faith healers, exorcists, psychics, etc. Do you believe that Jesus was the only real McCoy, and if so, how do you know?
I’m kind of surprised at the acceptance of the idea that there was a real Jesus in spite of the total lack of contemporaneous evidence of his existence. A couple of millenia from now I’m sure there will be those who insist there must have been a real tooth fairy.
Do you accept the idea that Buddha et. al. were real? If so, why is it easier to accept their historical reality, despite the 24k malarkey associated with them, than it is to accept that there was once some guy that we know today as Jesus Christ? Western atheists tend to have a laser-like focus on Christianity. Remember, we disbelieve in all gods, not just the one the Christians like.
Believing a person actually existed is quite a stretch from believing that a fairy existed. It is only when you add in the supernatural element that skepticism is merited.
Again we have Josephus, and even the Apostle John.
That being said the entire written record from that period would barely fill a bookshelf. We have few contemporaneous records that anyone existed. In fact, up until recently we had nothing solid to show that Pilate was real. Until 1961 some doubters claimed Pilate didn’t exist due to a lack of solid archeological evidence (besides Josephus &Tacitus ) and even so all we have is one badly damaged inscription. If one rejects Josephus and Tacitus, then pretty much, until recently Pilate was a myth also. Then there’s the fucking Antonine Wall , some 40 fucking miles of 10’ tall wall. All we have of *contemporaneous records *for that wall is the Augustan History , most of which is known to be a forgery or made up. So, there’s an entire fucking damn wall across the width of Scotland, and we have just one period document, and that likely bogus.
Generally, expecting there to be “contemporaneous records “ of some minor person or event in the ancient period just shows a lack of knowledge about archeological history. :rolleyes:
Are we being whooshed? The existences of Buddha and Lao Tse have much less evidence than that of Jesus – are they tooth fairies also?
Do you think Pontius Pilate existed? Due to his position, surviving contemporary documentation for him would be far FAR more likely than for Jesus, yet AFAIK no such contemporary document exists, and the reference nearest in time is in connection with Jesus Christ! :
[QUOTE=Tacitus, 1st century historian]
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
[/QUOTE]
I think it was Dr. McCoy from Star Trek, stuck in the past for a week or so. Going around curing people saying things like “I’m a doctor, not blessed peace maker”.
I, for one, am perfectly happy with the idea that Buddha is some amalgam of non-contemporary religious figures none of whom could actually be considered the “real” Siddhartha, or even a wholly mythic construction. And I’m a Buddhist.
Basically, I consider Jesus or Buddha or Lao Tze to be of the level of King Arthur or Siegfried when it comes to historicity - sure, you can poke around and find some Romano-Briton general or Frankish king that is the basis for the legend, but the actual person is not the figure of legend. It’s possible you might find one (or likely several) Jeshua/s preaching around Jerusalem at the time. But IMO, that don’t make he/them “historical Jesus”, it makes he/them “The basis for Jesus”, and to me, there’s a difference. Sigurðr may be based on Sigebert I, it doesn’t mean Sigebert 1 was “the historical Sigurðr”.
