# Why is the "Jesus Myth" theory universally disregarded? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392 "2012-05-28T23:09:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/121 "2012-06-05T12:53:22Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > That doesn’t really even make sense. An incident might have slight variety, but when you compare the earliest gospels, you get resurrection appearances in some and not in others (ie, the ending of Mark). You get virgin birth sin some and not in others. This isn’t simply mistaking the number of people there. > > Further, the gospels are not eye witness accounts. As I said above John is a eye witness. How much of his Gospel is his own writing is debatable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/122 "2012-06-05T12:54:57Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Be careful, any bible study group will call itself “scholars”. > That will not say if they are actually academic bible-historians nor if they are really knowledgeable about ancient History. > > Especially apologists will call anybody that supports their theistic views with bible quotes a “scholar”. We have had the same thing here where anyone who runs a bible doubting atheists web-blog is called a scholar. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/123 "2012-06-05T13:14:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > We have had the same thing here where anyone who runs a bible doubting atheists web-blog is called a scholar. ooh, touchy! I assume you are trying a dig at **Diogenes the cynic**. But, no, usually they are just known as ‘knowledgeable’. “Scholar” is mostly used as an attempt at argument from authority. Alas, having read the bible back to front twenty odd times and knowing several quote numbers by heart does not make you an authority on the history of the bible. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/124 "2012-06-05T13:52:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > As I said above John is a eye witness. How much of his Gospel is his own writing is debatable. Not according to most scholars, as I pointed out in post [86](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15122037&postcount=86): > [@](#): > > In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single “author” of John,\*\* but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process\*\*.[29] The final composition’s **comparatively late date** , and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, **renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus’ life in terms of literal historical truth**. - > [@](#): > > While a large number of 20th century biblical critics argue that the teaching found in John **does not go back to the historical Jesus** , they usually agree that gospel is not entirely without historical value. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/125 "2012-06-05T13:54:36Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > ooh, touchy! > > I assume you are trying a dig at **Diogenes the cynic**. > > But, no, usually they are just known as ‘knowledgeable’. > “Scholar” is mostly used as an attempt at argument from authority. > > Alas, having read the bible back to front twenty odd times and knowing several quote numbers by heart does not make you an authority on the history of the bible. I have no idea who DrDeth was referring to, I don’t think that DtC runs a blog. By scholar, I mean academics who research the Bible. I think there are good arguments for the various dates, authors, etc of the NT, one of which I mentioned earlier, so I’m not entirely appealing to authority in my posts either. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/126 "2012-06-05T14:02:49Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’ve read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on “eyewitness testimony.”) One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I’m a poor Googler, but did turn up [a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments](http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm).) I guess I should have written part of that post in a larger font and have made amends in this repost. To cite a page that quotes reputable scholars means I condone all the “scholars” quoted on that page? Good to know for future debates. > [@Meatros](#): > > You get virgin birth sin some and not in others. Uhh… Parts of the Gospels especially the weird Nativity add-ons occuring in only one or two Gospels are fictional? Do we have to repeat this obvious fact in every post here? :smack: If George W. didn’t really chop down a cherry tree does that mean he didn’t exist either? 🆒 > [@Latro](#): > > Be careful, any bible study group will call itself “scholars”. Be careful, some scholars expert in reviewing historical narratives, really are experts. Does anyone here claim as much expertise as Nicholas Sherwin-White or C.S. Lewis? > [@](#): > > I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that none of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn’t see this simply has not learned to read. [C. S. Lewis] > > Nicholas Sherwin-White commented on the authenticity of the historical statements of the Gospel writers in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament:: > > … it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material. I fully expect someone to point out that C. S. Lewis was (gasp!) a Christian! … who wrote (gasp!) fiction! Go ahead, I’ll not post further. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/127 "2012-06-05T14:18:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Uhh… Parts of the Gospels especially the weird Nativity add-ons occuring in only one or two Gospels are fictional? Do we have to repeat this obvious fact in every post here? If George W. didn’t really chop down a cherry tree does that mean he didn’t exist either? I’m not arguing that he didn’t exist - I’m arguing that your criteria does seem to fit - or if it does fit, it’s so vague that nothing can be made of it. But just like the cherry tree - we can accept that as fictional, how about the resurrection narratives? > [@septimus](#): > > I fully expect someone to point out that C. S. Lewis was (gasp!) a Christian! … who wrote (gasp!) fiction! Go ahead, I’ll not post further. I disagree with CS Lewis. I think it reads like ancient miracle tales. The miracles of vespasian, among others. Is there a historical core? I would and have said yes, but I do not think the evidence is overwhelming as some Christians try to maintain. I just think it’s convincing. As to White’s claim: > [@](#): > > … it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material. So what are we to make of the books that are not Canon? How about the other sects of Christians that floated around during the first few centuries? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/128 "2012-06-05T23:13:34Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I fully expect someone to point out that C. S. Lewis was (gasp!) a Christian! … who wrote (gasp!) fiction! Go ahead, I’ll not post further. I don’t care if he’s a Whirling Dervish; his logic sucks. To say that the alternatives he gave are the only two possibilities for the gospels, when it’s known that they were just four of many candidates that ran the gamut from tepid collections of sayings to extravagant fantasies, IMO makes all his conclusions suspect. ---
**Author:** ![VinnyJH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d6d6ee/32.png) [@VinnyJH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinnyJH)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/129 "2012-06-05T23:18:58Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I say we need to do some careful historical investigation at this point. My understanding is that early Christians were disproportionately represented from the upperwardly mobile classes, and not the riff-raff. (Cite: PBS: _From Jesus to Christ_). Frankly in a 19th- 21st century context, fighting the man looks like a real crowd-pleaser. But consider the backflips that Luke goes through to show that Jesus’ teachings were in fact compatible with being a good Roman citizen. > > **Meatros** : I’d like to see a detailed study of such luminaries as John Frum and Philip Nolan, fictional men who were believed to have existed within the past 200 years. That might permit us to contrast some of the characteristics of mythical humans vs. historical ones. The Jesus mythicists have some more work to do. It is my impression that the consensus of scholars still favors the idea that Christianity first spread among the lower classes. I think the fact that the evidence isn’t sufficient to resolve questions like this indicates just how difficult it is to draw any firm conclusions about the origins of Christianity, including what parts of the gospel stories are rooted in history. I agree that the mythicists have a lot of work to do and I think that the sources are just as problematic for them as they are for the historicists. ---
**Author:** ![VinnyJH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d6d6ee/32.png) [@VinnyJH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinnyJH)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/130 "2012-06-05T23:26:51Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’ve read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on “eyewitness testimony.”) One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I’m a poor Googler, but did turn up [a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments](http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm).) The quote from A.N. Sherwin-White is as follows: “\*t can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material.” That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the authenticity of the gospels. At best he seems to be saying that there might be some historical information in there somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![VinnyJH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d6d6ee/32.png) [@VinnyJH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinnyJH)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/131 "2012-06-05T23:37:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > As I said above John is a eye witness. How much of his Gospel is his own writing is debatable. Somebody other than the author of the bulk of the gospel seems to have added a note saying that the author had been an eyewitness. I don’t know that this constitutes persuasive evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/132 "2012-06-06T00:36:28Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > What do you mean by the ‘early christians’? This notion goes against what I’ve read, that the first hundred + years Christianity appealed to women and the poor, which is cataloged in Carrier’s “Not the impossible faith”. > [@VinnyJH](#): > > It is my impression that the consensus of scholars still favors the idea that Christianity first spread among the lower classes. I haven’t done a lot of reading on this topic, so please don’t consider that claim to be in any way authoritative. FWIW though, here is a cite from the PBS webpage, [Paul’s Congregations: Often portrayed as appealing only to lower classes, Paul’s Christian communities actually attracted people who were “upwardly mobile.”](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/congregations.html) Professor Wayne A. Meeks: The traditional view of the composition of the early Christian communities – and the ones we know anything about are the Pauline communities – is that are from the proletariat. … But if you actually look at the Book of Acts, and you look at Paul, and you begin to collect the people who are named… So you begin to get the impression that you have quite a variety of different social levels represented in these early Christian communities. Not people at the absolutely top level; you have, with the exception possibly of Erastus, no one from the aristocratic orders - no one who would be a member of the city council. You have no agricultural slaves, are at the bottom of the hierarchy. But, in the rest of the social pyramid, everything in between, you seem to have representatives in these early Christian groups. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/133 "2012-06-06T01:41:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If that interests you, read Gore Vidal’s historical novel [_Creation._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_(novel)) Cyrus Spitama, grandson of the prophet living in the Persian Empire during the reigns of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius\_I]Darius and [Xerxes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerxes_I_of_Persia) (some theories place Zoroaster centuries earlier than that, but never mind) I was half surprised Vidal didn’t sue the historians who wrote the papers claiming Zoroaster lived much earlier just for inconveniencing them. Instead, when questioned about it he just made some bitchicism about quasi historical characters being well suited subjects for quasi historians or some such. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/134 "2012-06-06T02:21:03Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Not according to most scholars, as I pointed out in post [86](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15122037&postcount=86): > > - Indeed, as said before your own cite and post makes my point. “In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single “author” of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.” Unless you don’t know that by “evangelist” they are referring to John aka \*John the Evangelist. \*😕 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/135 "2012-06-06T02:50:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Indeed, as said before your own cite and post makes my point. > > “In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single “author” of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.” Unless you don’t know that by “evangelist” they are referring to John aka \*John the Evangelist. \*😕 You are confused. The quote is saying that the **authorship** of the document should go to the person who put together the final text - as opposed to the source various authors of the source material. The ‘title’ refers to authorship, it doesn’t have anything to do with being an ‘evangelist’. As pointed out further in that post, most scholars do not believe that the Gospels go back to a historical Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/136 "2012-06-06T04:24:52Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > You are confused. The quote is saying that the **authorship** of the document should go to the person who put together the final text - as opposed to the source various authors of the source material. The ‘title’ refers to authorship, it doesn’t have anything to do with being an ‘evangelist’. > As pointed out further in that post, most scholars do not believe that the Gospels go back to a historical Jesus. sigh > **[Authorship of the Johannine works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works)** > > The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by biblical scholars since at least the 2nd century AD. The debate focuses mainly on the identity of the author(s), as well as the date and location of authorship of these writings. > Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he composed the gospel, and most theorize... “Raymond E. Brown, among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work.[56] In particular, Chapter 21 is very stylistically different from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition (known as the appendix). Among many Christian scholars the view has evolved that there were multiple stages of development involving the disciples as well as the apostle; R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with _the apostle,_ partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by _the apostle_, and additions by a final editor. At the very least, it seems clear that in chapter 21 someone else speaks in the third person plural (“we”), ostensibly as the voice of a community that believes the testimony of this other person called the “beloved disciple” to be true.” italics mine \* By _“the apostle”, RE Brown is speaking of_ The Apostle John\*. If you read Brown directly, which I have, this is very clear. So, both wiki cites use Brown as the major source. _Brown_ sez that _John_ was the source of the original material, _John_ possibly added a later synthesis, but other sources (likely John’s disciples) edited the material and added materials after the death of John. Thus, indeed there is material added to the Gospel after the death of John, there is little doubt of that. And, true, this later editing and additions do make it unclear what words come from John and what words do not. But, Brown- and most other scholars- say that the original source (in some way shape or form) was the Apostle. How much of Johns actual words remain is debatable and unknown. if you want a source other than Brown: “The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan’s Vie de Jésus (“Life of Jesus,” 1863).” Again- the _source_ of the original material was the Apostle. Again- not all the Gospel is in Johns words. No serious scholar claims the Gospel is entirely in Johns words. But in general, the consensus is that the final writers started with Johns memories. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/137 "2012-06-06T12:58:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > sigh > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine\_works](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works) > “Raymond E. Brown, among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work.[56] In particular, Chapter 21 is very stylistically different from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition (known as the appendix). Among many Christian scholars the view has evolved that there were multiple stages of development involving the disciples as well as the apostle; R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor. At the very least, it seems clear that in chapter 21 someone else speaks in the third person plural (“we”), ostensibly as the voice of a community that believes the testimony of this other person called the “beloved disciple” to be true.” italics mine Two things: 1. Raymond Brown was not the source of the quote you are responding to. **Lindars** is, and in the notes, it’s made clear. So you can ‘sigh’ all you want, but your **initial inference was incorrect**. “It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel” 1. Raymond Brown is not the end word on scholarship. The majority view holds that it comes from a Johannine community and not by any eye witnesses. Further your source says that, at most, it’s the traditions connected with the early apostle that were passed down - not anything like eyewitness testimony. > [@DrDeth](#): > > By “the apostle”, RE Brown is speaking of The Apostle John. If you read Brown directly, which I have, this is very clear. Yeah, no, this seems a strained reading of the text, just like you strained Lindars work to try to support your contention that ‘Evangelist’ was the same as saying ‘John’. But let’s suppose that this mangling does mean that John collected and edited the text (something that both our sources go out of their way to deny). All I can say is good for the **minority view** held by Brown if this is what he actually means (which seems unlikely given the context). This is not what the majority believes and for good reason - some of which I’ve put forth in this thread. > [@DrDeth](#): > > So, both wiki cites use Brown as the major source. Brown sez that John was the source of the original material, John possibly added a later synthesis, but other sources (likely John’s disciples) edited the material and added materials after the death of John. Thus, indeed there is material added to the Gospel after the death of John, there is little doubt of that. And, true, this later editing and additions do make it unclear what words come from John and what words do not. But, Brown- and most other scholars- say that the original source (in some way shape or form) was the Apostle. How much of Johns actual words remain is debatable and unknown. Now you are waffling. You admit that we don’t know how much, if any, of the words are johns. Further, Both places list a Johnnanine community, not John himself. Neither place support your initial contention that the Gospel was dictated by John. One thing is clear though, **no eye witness wrote/dictated it** and it grew in the telling. Let’s remember your [initial claim](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15116746&postcount=76): > [@](#): > > There’s also a consensus that John was the originator of the Gospel by that name. Mind you, **if so it was likely dictated to a scribe** and almost doubtless was edited after John’s death by John’s own disciples. Followed [up by](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15120529&postcount=85): > [@](#): > > _“That sez that steps 1&2 were done by John, as I said “Originated” by that Apostle.”_ (Steps 1&2 are: _An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus; A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources_) This is not what your sources OR mine are saying. Both are saying that the Gospel had it’s origins in the traditions of a **community**. Mine in particular, which the majority of scholarship hold to, deny that there was any eye witness testimony involved. My initial claim [was that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15118178&postcount=84): > [@](#): > > The consensus is that John is dated between 90-120AD and that it was not written by John or dictated by him: You are now essentially admitting this - even going so far as admitting that we don’t know how much, if any, of gJohn is original with John. > [@DrDeth](#): > > if you want a source other than Brown: Frankly I’d like a source that _actually supports_ your initial claim. > [@DrDeth](#): > > “The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan’s Vie de Jésus (“Life of Jesus,” 1863).” And his reasons for this, _assertion_? Also, if we accept this, then we have to reject your Brown quotes AND your early position in this post that “_And, true, this later editing and additions **do make it unclear what words come from John and what words do not**. But, Brown- and most other scholars- say that the original source (in some way shape or form) was the Apostle. **How much of Johns actual words remain is debatable and unknown** _”. You are simply trying to find any scholar who agrees with any smallest bit of your proposition and then throwing it out there to see what sticks. How about we just go with the consensus of scholarship, shall we? gJohn wasn’t dictated by John. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Again- the source of the original material was the Apostle. Again- not all the Gospel is in Johns words. No serious scholar claims the Gospel is entirely in Johns words. But in general, the consensus is that the final writers started with Johns memories. “Again”, this is not what you initially said, as I showed. The ‘source’ of the material could be said to have been Jesus, that doesn’t mean squat as far as what the material actually is - which is not an eye witness account. No serious scholar claims that it _is_ Johns word. I can’t find many scholars at all that suppose that it started with Johns “memories” and certainly not the majority of scholars and certainly not Raymond Brown - who you have had to discard in order to favor Robinson. There is good reason for this and I’m sure you are going to drop these claims like you did your earlier claims about what we should expect from ancient skeptics. ---
**Author:** ![VinnyJH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d6d6ee/32.png) [@VinnyJH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinnyJH)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/138 "2012-06-06T13:08:44Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Be careful, some scholars expert in reviewing historical narratives, really are experts. Does anyone here claim as much expertise as Nicholas Sherwin-White or C.S. Lewis? I don’t claim to have as much expertise as Sherwin-White, but I can claim that I actually read the book that apologists love to quote mine so much and it’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/139 "2012-06-06T13:16:39Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Two things: > > 1. Raymond Brown was not the source of the quote you are responding to. **Lindars** is, and in the notes, it’s made clear. So you can ‘sigh’ all you want, but your **initial inference was incorrect**. > > “It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel” > > 1. Raymond Brown is not the end word on scholarship. The majority view holds that it comes from a Johannine community and not by any eye witnesses. > > Further your source says that, at most, it’s the traditions connected with the early apostle that were passed down - not anything like eyewitness testimony. > > Yeah, no, this seems a strained reading of the text, just like you strained Lindars work to try to support your contention that ‘Evangelist’ was the same as saying ‘John’. > > . 1. Lindars was writing about Brown. My original quote, taken from your cite was : “The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[26] summarized by _Raymond E. Brown_ as follows:[27] _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.[28” italics mine. _Brown_ may not be the final authority but he’s widely regarded but Lindars uses Brown and I then quoted _John A. T. Robinson_. 2.\* You\* keep saying that but \*I keep quoting paragraphs \*that say the opposite. When you are i talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist, in that context when you use “the Apostle” or “the Evangelist” you are talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist. Just like here in this thread, when we use the term Jesus, we’re not talking about Jesus Garcia. More later. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392/140 "2012-06-06T14:20:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 1. Lindars was writing about Brown. My original quote, taken from your cite was : > > “The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[26] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[27] > 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.[28” > italics mine. > > Brown may not be the final authority but he’s widely regarded but Lindars uses Brown and I then quoted John A. T. Robinson. Okay? That still doesn’t clear up what you actually confused: \*"but your initial inference was incorrect. “It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel”"\* The passage was not saying that John was that evangelist. The passage was saying that the final editor/writer should be said to be the author. You specifically said:_“Unless you don’t know that by “evangelist” they are referring to John aka John the Evangelist”_ Which is **mistaken**. > [@DrDeth](#): > > You keep saying that but I keep quoting paragraphs that say the opposite. Where have you done so? I’ve quoted places that say that the majority doesn’t believe that John was either written or dictated by John. You have been making mistakes in reading what your sources are writing. From [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship): > [@](#): > > the majority do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it You keep confusing a Johnnanine community with John either writing it or dictating it. > [@DrDeth](#): > > When you are i talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist, in that context when you use “the Apostle” or “the Evangelist” you are talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist. Just like here in this thread, when we use the term Jesus, we’re not talking about Jesus Garcia. This, of course, is nonsense as I cleared up: Evangelist, in context, was simply referring to the Christian who produced the ‘final product’. Ie, in the notes of the wiki: _““It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who **is the real author** of the Fourth Gospel””_ Your initial assertions have been refuted, by both me, and your later post where you grasped for any other scholar to hold to your view and came up with the paradoxical (to your initial position) Robinson. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jesus-myth-theory-universally-disregarded/623392.md?page=8)