What counts as a historical Jesus?

[davefoc]

I don't think JabbaPapa is unusual in thinking that if we can be sure that some more recent copies of the bible are an accurate reflection of what was originally written in the very first copies of gospels and Paul's letters etc., then our existing copies become more credible as accurate evidence confirming what Jesus actually said and did. Because in that case it means the detail of those gospel stories comes from people living much closer in time to the events.

The idea is presumably that it is more credible as evidence if the information is almost or precisely contemporary to the time of the events. As opposed to being written centuries later via a chain of copying by numerous Christian believers, which would obviously allow more scope and more persuasion for the inclusion of changes, elaborations, interpretations, and outright inventions.

However, as should be evident from my earlier posts, I think it's quite obviously not true that anyone can tell what was in any assumed original source of what later became written down as the earliest forms of the gospels, and which was then at a still later date selected as the preferred versions to compose a bible.

But I don't want to spend time furthering an argument amongst ourselves on that point of what can be ascertained from a 4th century or later copy relative to assumed original copies, unless JabbaPapa wants to make the argument I've just described above - ie attempting to say that a later preferred copy is so accurate to an assumed original, that the copy must constitute evidence that the Jesus stories are true.

I think you and I have a minor disagreement here on the margins of this issue. I think it is likely that the Gospels as they exist today are fairly representative of material that was created some time around 100 AD and perhaps you don't. Of course, it can never be proven what the original authors wrote, but I find the various lines of argument put forward by the scholars who have done this kind of research to be reasonable.

The main problem with the credibility of the Gospels is not that they were copied incorrectly, IMHO, it is that they were probably copied fairly well and the copies do not constitute reliable evidence about the nature of an historical Jesus. As has been said many times in these JREF discussions on this topic, they contain historical errors, they are self contradictory, they contain geographical errors, many of the story lines are flat out implausible even when the supernatural events are removed and the information about the authors that can be divined from them suggests that the authors were removed in time, place, culture and language from any events that they wrote about.

I agree that if this was a discussion about the nuances of the life of the historical Jesus then copying errors might be a big deal, but this is a discussion about whether he existed at all and for that discussion I think it's reasonable to just stipulate that the Gospels we have today are fairly representative of what the original authors wrote and move on to the issues of what the evidence is for and against the credibility of those authors.

As an aside, the issue about the nature of an HJ has been one that has interested me for a long time. At one time, I believed that with research I could move closer to finding out the truth. Today, past a certain point, I think that was a pipe dream. There is a significant information barrier between the events surrounding the life of the hypothetical HJ and the Gospels and there is no reliable way to bridge that information barrier today. And on the subject of information barriers, there is another smaller one that exists between the authors of the Gospels and the earliest identified church fathers and there seems to be no reliable information available to bridge that information gap either.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, it depends on how representative do you mean.

Even getting past the question of exactly when they were written, the biggest problem is that actually the four canonical gospels are representative of what Irenaeus and probably no more than a couple of other bishops liked by the end of the second century. We don't really know what other material was created at the time, since we're at the other end of almost 2000 years of such material being actively destroyed and carrying a horrible death sentence.

We only have a very vague and distorted idea of what other sects believed in, by what others wrote against them, but we also know that those others talked out the ass or argued against strawmen quite routinely. E.g., Tertullian writes a whole polemic against a supposed heresiarch called Ebion, from which supposedly the Ebionites get their name, and against his heretical writings... but the problem is that Ebion probably never actually existed, and Tertullian was just taking a guess in Greek as to the etymology of the name of a sect named in Aramaic. E.g., Epiphanius in one place even admits that he writes hearsay, and it's clear that he does go into flights of fantasy based on hearsay in other places too. E.g., when he confuses the Therapeutae with early Christians, and goes on for half a chapter about how they're the same.

If one can confuse a Jewish sect, and described in the available literature as a Jewish sect, with orthodox Catholics... what else is he confusing when he talks about other sects? See the problem?

And even Irenaeus and the gang that originally founded Catholicism didn't actually agree with the content as much as you'd think. Or at least not half as much as early Catholics. Maximara keeps correctly pointing out that Irenaeus vehemently disagreed with the gospel version of Jesus's age, or the length of his ministry, and a few other things. You know, in spite of the fact that he's one of those who selected those gospels as canon. In fact he (probably correctly) believes that both his age and the length of his ministry were based on numerology, not historical fact.

So basically yes, we have a sample from the second century, but it's a biased sample. Exactly how representative it is, is a good question.

And what makes it a good question is that precisely by text analysis we know that variants existed. E.g., even in the canon, the material known as Q has a distinctly Galilean rural theme, as opposed to the more Judaea and Jerusalem centered theme of Mark. What other regional or specific group themed stories were in circulation?

E.g., in Luke's Acts, there's the strange case of the court testimonies of those early Xians. They don't match Luke's style, they don't match the speeches he makes them give outside of court, and as Carrier points out, they never really mention the earthly gospel Jesus or his deeds (that Luke had just written a book about!) even when it would be the easiest way to get off the hook. I mean Peter would rather get stoned (luckily a judge calls for lenience) than say something like, "look, you know there was an empty tomb." Well, I'm not getting into whether the gospel is accurate this time, but for the topic at hand, obviously Luke had copied that court material from SOMEWHERE. There is some pre-Luke source that wrote or maybe made up about the trials of the apostles.

So... what else was in it? How many other such stories about the earliest Church in Jerusalem were there in circulation? In what ways did they differ from our version?

Or there is the curious case of Luke's stating at the beginning that he researched and compiled stuff -- i.e., he admits not being an eyewitness -- and he keeps a third person stance through Acts, yet curiously slips into first person mode as if he were travelling with Paul for the journey to Jerusalem. Was Luke copying and adapting from some earlier material that did relate it in first person?

So, yeah, we'll never know exactly how representative it really is.

 

[Belz...]

A very informative post, as always, Hans.

 

[pakeha]

^
That.

 

[maximara]

(snip)
And even Irenaeus and the gang that originally founded Catholicism didn't actually agree with the content as much as you'd think. Or at least not half as much as early Catholics. Maximara keeps correctly pointing out that Irenaeus vehemently disagreed with the gospel version of Jesus's age, or the length of his ministry, and a few other things. You know, in spite of the fact that he's one of those who selected those gospels as canon. In fact he (probably correctly) believes that both his age and the length of his ministry were based on numerology, not historical fact.

To be fair to Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 22 does use the Gospel and logic to present his case. In paragraph 6 he expressly cites John 8:56-57 which says "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

Irenaeus correctly points out "Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "You are not yet forty years old.""

In this case Irenaeus is not bacing his claim on numerology (as he does as why there are only four Gospels) but on what the Gospels themselves are saying and good old fashioned logic.

John itself implied Jesus had to be 46 years old and all Irenaeus did was take the ball and run with it.

 

[Dinwar]

Irenaeus correctly points out "Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "You are not yet forty years old.""

I'm not sure that necessarily follows. If 50 was a milestone of some importance, it may be used in the manner John uses it in regardless of age. For example, if a 20-year-old were to spout off on how he'd run things if he were the president, it'd be reasonable to say "You're not 35 yet; sit down and shut up". It doesn't have to be anything that official, either--if the culture (either at large, or locally) held those over 50 as being particularly wise and worthy of listening to, that might result in what John says.

That said, if the culture didn't view the age of 50 as particularly important, my arguments are irrelevant.

HansMustermann, you struck a point I made earlier: no matter what the technique, anything using extant texts to determine what the older texts said can only trace the lineage of the extant text. Any side branches will necessarilyi be missing. Worse, any text from the extant books that was removed would be missing as well. Such an event is unlikely, but not inherently implausible. Bibles in the past were collections of books, and those books included commentary and sections of other books and all sorts of other stuff. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the authors to have cut material that didn't suite the argument they were making (we do it all the time in today's society). There's also the fact that we know the cannonical texts were decided after much discussion and debate. It's not out of the question that the texts weren't debated wholesale; those deciding the cannon could easily have argued "I like these parts, but these others need to go", essentially.

We can get a sense of how representative our sample is, however. We have two samples of Biblical texts: the Bible itself, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. We can treat them like two different samples of the same population of animals (they ARE two different samples of the same population of texts). The overlap will allow us to estimate the number of texts that were floating around in the past. It's a very rough estimate, and of course more finds would help, but it'll give us an idea of how diverse Biblical literature was back then.

 

[davefoc]

...
So basically yes, we have a sample from the second century, but it's a biased sample. Exactly how representative it is, is a good question.

And what makes it a good question is that precisely by text analysis we know that variants existed. E.g., even in the canon, the material known as Q has a distinctly Galilean rural theme, as opposed to the more Judaea and Jerusalem centered theme of Mark. What other regional or specific group themed stories were in circulation?

...

I simplified a bit what I think about the possibility that driving farther down into the origins of the Gospels might provide more information about a hypothetical HJ. If a proto Mark was found or Q then we would have documents that were somewhat closer to the time of they hypothetical HJ and there is the possibility that they would be probative as to existence of the HJ. It is also possible that Gospels as we know them were preceded by other completely unknown documents that would provide more insight into the nature of an HJ.

As it is right now though, my guess is that the Gospels as we know them are a good representation of what the authors associated with them wrote and even an error free copy of what they wrote would not provide addition insight into the nature of an HJ. It is true that there were various theories extant during the formation of early Christianity but I suspect that the Gospels are representative of a very early thread of early Christian history. None of the various extrabiblical Jesus stories has been found to predate Mark and my suspicion is that this is because most of the development of Christianity was beginning around the time of the creation of Mark and the development of the various threads of early Christianity began somewhat after the creation of Mark. Certainly the only documents that provide information about the hypothetical HJ that survive today that are likely to predate Mark are Paul's writings.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nice fantasy.

No, in fact I was hoping that discussions would be possible that would be devoid of the kind of tedious blinkered preconceptions as you have just now evidenced.

Invent whichever "reasons" why I signed up that might fit your convenience -- but don't expect me to take your ludicrous, fact-free amateur psycho-whatsit seriously.

Not that I'm masochistic nor moronic enough to imagine that this forum might be a good place for me.

...and yet, you are still here...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm not -- that doesn't mean I'm not looking for at least some sense of closure, nor does it mean that I might be desirous of accepting various slanderous and objectively ignorant comments that have been made against my person.

Evidence?

How are you coming with that "Jesus didn't speak Aramaic" argument?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Projection. First of all, it's not a "trope". It's a fallacy. Second, YOU have demonstrated that you don't know what it is. Give it up. Try to learn rather than teach.

Then why the hell are you here ? Oh, I forgot. Adversarial.

Hyperbole ? Hyperbole would be saying that the post is so inaccurate that babies cry when they read it. Saying it's nonsensical gibberish has an actual meaning, JabbaPapa. Cripes, would you mind getting over yourself ?

...that one goes in the toolbox...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Evidence?

How are you coming with that "Jesus didn't speak Aramaic" argument?

They just can't ever get that last nail in on their own. But it can be interesting to watch them try.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Evidence?

How are you coming with that "Jesus didn't speak Aramaic" argument?

Well, there is the curious case of John 3, most famously known for John 3:3. It actually contains a pun in Greek that's not obvious in English, because there is no word in English that means both "again" and "from above". So Jesus's "born again" is taken literally as again by Nicodemus in 3:4 ("How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!") And Jesus's explanation makes it clear that he's talking about a birth in spirit, from above, i.e., from heavens.

Unfortunately, that pun doesn't work in either Aramaic or Hebrew either.

So, you know, it's possible that John contains BS that a historical Aramaic speaking peasant could never have said (even if he somehow learned some greek, it's unlikely he'd have such a mastery of the subtleties of Koine Greek), and there goes the bible infallibility and literal truth thingies right out the window. I know, I know, it sounds crazy

OR, as I explored as an unlikely possibility long ago in another thread, if that dialog actually did literally happen as John writes it, then it could only have happened in Greek. Which opens a whole other can of worms as to who the heck WAS that historical Jesus. That's definitely not the son of some poor worker from an insignificant village in rural Galilee, that couldn't have had more than like twenty houses total. (IF it existed at all at the time.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, there is the curious case of John 3, most famously known for John 3:3. It actually contains a pun in Greek that's not obvious in English, because there is no word in English that means both "again" and "from above". So Jesus's "born again" is taken literally as again by Nicodemus in 3:4 ("How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!") And Jesus's explanation makes it clear that he's talking about a birth in spirit, from above, i.e., from heavens.

Unfortunately, that pun doesn't work in either Aramaic or Hebrew either.

So, you know, it's possible that John contains BS that a historical Aramaic speaking peasant could never have said (even if he somehow learned some greek, it's unlikely he'd have such a mastery of the subtleties of Koine Greek), and there goes the bible infallibility and literal truth thingies right out the window. I know, I know, it sounds crazy

OR, as I explored as an unlikely possibility long ago in another thread, if that dialog actually did literally happen as John writes it, then it could only have happened in Greek. Which opens a whole other can of worms as to who the heck WAS that historical Jesus. That's definitely not the son of some poor worker from an insignificant village in rural Galilee, that couldn't have had more than like twenty houses total. (IF it existed at all at the time.)

Gasp!

 

[IanS]

I think you and I have a minor disagreement here on the margins of this issue. I think it is likely that the Gospels as they exist today are fairly representative of material that was created some time around 100 AD and perhaps you don't. Of course, it can never be proven what the original authors wrote, but I find the various lines of argument put forward by the scholars who have done this kind of research to be reasonable.

.

It's not so much that I have any clear view that existing Gospels definitely do not say the same thing as was said in any supposed original. I don't even get to that stage, because before we even get to that point I think it's obvious that there are far too many unknowns to make a useful judgement on any of this.

One obvious problem is that the entirety of the gospel stories about what Jesus said and did (they are presented as individual specific occurrences, eg Jesus went to place X, met persons A, B and C, and performed one of the many miracles ... it's a collection of various specific claims like that), may not have all appeared in the assumed original copies. Instead I think there are quite obvious reasons why the various stories may have been added bit-by-bit over the centuries.

I think that will also cause a huge problem if anyone is trying to guess from modern copies, what was supposedly written in any first original copy. Because it's quite obvious that most of the stories are untrue. They are fabrications. Eg, although people did not know it in the 1st century AD, we do now know that miracles are fictional. So the miracles stories are untrue. Afaik, a great deal of the other detail in the Jesus stories is itself actually part of the miracle stories, eg each individual story is something like "Jesus went to Galilee where he met Peter and James and told them X,Y,Z, and then he performed a particular miracle" ... the inclusion of peoples names and the name of a location appears to be added simply to set the miracle in context for the congregation who were listening to the preacher telling them each individual illustrative gospel story.

So if the above is correct, then what has happened to produce your current preferred copy of the bible, is that it has been composed by various fictional stories being added one-by-one over the course of time, according to what the church leaders decided to include or to reject at various times.

You can’t know from that sort of history that any current copy contains anything remotely like the original thing at all. Eg, the original may have been more like Paul’s letters and without specific mention of any miracles and specific miracle settings of different named places and people.

Why is the above plausible? It’s obviously plausible because the entire history of all religious belief, since long before Jesus, is one of people inventing completely fictional accounts of witnessing gods and devils, miracles and spirits etc. All of which, at various times, no doubt became local folklore. People believed stories like that, especially if they came from the most charismatic preachers.

As a specific example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is clear that people in that region, and through most of that same time from circa.170BC through to 70AD, were in the habit of constructing their religious beliefs from dreams which they believed to be revealing real events. They actually believed that their dreams about their messiah were reality. There was no distinction between dreamed visions and real events. It may seem absurd to us today, but at that time, the dreams were preached and believed by everyone as real events.

 

[pakeha]

Well, there is the curious case of John 3, most famously known for John 3:3. It actually contains a pun in Greek that's not obvious in English, because there is no word in English that means both "again" and "from above". So Jesus's "born again" is taken literally as again by Nicodemus in 3:4 ("How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!") And Jesus's explanation makes it clear that he's talking about a birth in spirit, from above, i.e., from heavens.

Unfortunately, that pun doesn't work in either Aramaic or Hebrew either.

So, you know, it's possible that John contains BS that a historical Aramaic speaking peasant could never have said (even if he somehow learned some greek, it's unlikely he'd have such a mastery of the subtleties of Koine Greek), and there goes the bible infallibility and literal truth thingies right out the window. I know, I know, it sounds crazy

OR, as I explored as an unlikely possibility long ago in another thread, if that dialog actually did literally happen as John writes it, then it could only have happened in Greek. Which opens a whole other can of worms as to who the heck WAS that historical Jesus. That's definitely not the son of some poor worker from an insignificant village in rural Galilee, that couldn't have had more than like twenty houses total. (IF it existed at all at the time.)

Gasp!

And golly and bookmarked.

 

[maximara]

Well, there is the curious case of John 3, most famously known for John 3:3. It actually contains a pun in Greek that's not obvious in English, because there is no word in English that means both "again" and "from above". So Jesus's "born again" is taken literally as again by Nicodemus in 3:4 ("How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!") And Jesus's explanation makes it clear that he's talking about a birth in spirit, from above, i.e., from heavens.

Unfortunately, that pun doesn't work in either Aramaic or Hebrew either.

So, you know, it's possible that John contains BS that a historical Aramaic speaking peasant could never have said (even if he somehow learned some greek, it's unlikely he'd have such a mastery of the subtleties of Koine Greek), and there goes the bible infallibility and literal truth thingies right out the window. I know, I know, it sounds crazy

OR, as I explored as an unlikely possibility long ago in another thread, if that dialog actually did literally happen as John writes it, then it could only have happened in Greek. Which opens a whole other can of worms as to who the heck WAS that historical Jesus. That's definitely not the son of some poor worker from an insignificant village in rural Galilee, that couldn't have had more than like twenty houses total. (IF it existed at all at the time.)

JohnArmstrong aka DeistPaladin has done a little video series on the Jesus Timeline and other issues regarding the story of Jesus (Jesus, Found in History or Mything in Action?) and he rightly points out that even among apologists John is a problematic Gospel.

1) John lists three Passovers requiring Jesus' ministry to be 3 years minimum a major problem as temporal markers in Josephus appear to John's death as occurring in 36 CE...the same year Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome.

2) As pointed out by Irenaeus c180 CE in Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 22 John points to Jesus being 46 or older during his ministry...causing a major temporal snarl with Jesus being 30 c29 CE per Luke also cited by Irenaeus.

3) John makes the Jews a separate group from Christians and is nearly anti-Semitic in its tone again suggesting later authorship.

Of the four canonal Gospels John seems to be the weakest as for telling us anything really historical about Jesus and when you consider the merits (or lack of) for the other Gospels that is saying a lot.

 

[davefoc]

It's not so much that I have any clear view that existing Gospels definitely do not say the same thing as was said in any supposed original. I don't even get to that stage, because before we even get to that point I think it's obvious that there are far too many unknowns to make a useful judgement on any of this.

One obvious problem is that the entirety of the gospel stories about what Jesus said and did (they are presented as individual specific occurrences, eg Jesus went to place X, met persons A, B and C, and performed one of the many miracles ... it's a collection of various specific claims like that), may not have all appeared in the assumed original copies. Instead I think there are quite obvious reasons why the various stories may have been added bit-by-bit over the centuries.

I think that will also cause a huge problem if anyone is trying to guess from modern copies, what was supposedly written in any first original copy. Because it's quite obvious that most of the stories are untrue. They are fabrications. Eg, although people did not know it in the 1st century AD, we do now know that miracles are fictional. So the miracles stories are untrue. Afaik, a great deal of the other detail in the Jesus stories is itself actually part of the miracle stories, eg each individual story is something like "Jesus went to Galilee where he met Peter and James and told them X,Y,Z, and then he performed a particular miracle" ... the inclusion of peoples names and the name of a location appears to be added simply to set the miracle in context for the congregation who were listening to the preacher telling them each individual illustrative gospel story.

So if the above is correct, then what has happened to produce your current preferred copy of the bible, is that it has been composed by various fictional stories being added one-by-one over the course of time, according to what the church leaders decided to include or to reject at various times.

You can’t know from that sort of history that any current copy contains anything remotely like the original thing at all. Eg, the original may have been more like Paul’s letters and without specific mention of any miracles and specific miracle settings of different named places and people.

Why is the above plausible? It’s obviously plausible because the entire history of all religious belief, since long before Jesus, is one of people inventing completely fictional accounts of witnessing gods and devils, miracles and spirits etc. All of which, at various times, no doubt became local folklore. People believed stories like that, especially if they came from the most charismatic preachers.

As a specific example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is clear that people in that region, and through most of that same time from circa.170BC through to 70AD, were in the habit of constructing their religious beliefs from dreams which they believed to be revealing real events. They actually believed that their dreams about their messiah were reality. There was no distinction between dreamed visions and real events. It may seem absurd to us today, but at that time, the dreams were preached and believed by everyone as real events.

No one living today knows who wrote the Gospels, where they were written, or when they were written. I think we agree on that.

The Gospels underwent various modifications from the time they were originally written. I think we agree on that.

It is not possible to know exactly what the original text of the Gospels was today. I think we agree on that.

The small area of disagreement between you and I is that I suspect that the Gospels as we know them are fairly representative of the original text and you seem not to. My view is based on the good correlation between the various codexes that have been used by scholars to make estimates of what the original content might have been like and the fact that we have very good data to suggest that the old testament underwent change very slowly over time once the written form was standardized on.

I also think that compared to other reasons to be suspicious of the credibility of the Gospels, copying errors and interpolations are a small problem. They could potentially be a huge problem if one was trying to use them as a source for determining the details of the life of a hypothetical historical Jesus, but as far as the issue of whether he existed at all or not I see the fact that the Gospels as we know them are not exactly what the original authors wrote as probably a small problem.

Even if an exact text of what the original Gospels writers wrote there is still no reliable way to bridge the information gap that exists today between what the Gospel writers wrote and the theoretical life of an historical Jesus. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the life and death of the hypothetical historical Jesus, there is no archeological evidence available about the life of the theoretical historical Jesus, There are no unequivocal references to the life of the hypothetical historical Jesus within even a hundred years of his life by secular writers, the Gospel writers clearly had a religious bias and it is conceivable that what they wrote was entirely driven by their zeal to promote Christianity.

The main problem I see with the credibility of the Gospels is that there is not a clear link between them and the writings of a theoretical first century Jewish sect associated with Jesus. Without that all we have is some religious zealots making up stories potentially out of whole cloth and whether we know exactly what they wrote or not just isn't that important with respect to the question of whether an historical Jesus existed or not.

 

[IanS]

No one living today knows who wrote the Gospels, where they were written, or when they were written. I think we agree on that.

The Gospels underwent various modifications from the time they were originally written. I think we agree on that.

It is not possible to know exactly what the original text of the Gospels was today. I think we agree on that.

The small area of disagreement between you and I is that I suspect that the Gospels as we know them are fairly representative of the original text and you seem not to. My view is based on the good correlation between the various codexes that have been used by scholars to make estimates of what the original content might have been like and the fact that we have very good data to suggest that the old testament underwent change very slowly over time once the written form was standardized on.

I also think that compared to other reasons to be suspicious of the credibility of the Gospels, copying errors and interpolations are a small problem. They could potentially be a huge problem if one was trying to use them as a source for determining the details of the life of a hypothetical historical Jesus, but as far as the issue of whether he existed at all or not I see the fact that the Gospels as we know them are not exactly what the original authors wrote as probably a small problem.

Even if an exact text of what the original Gospels writers wrote there is still no reliable way to bridge the information gap that exists today between what the Gospel writers wrote and the theoretical life of an historical Jesus. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the life and death of the hypothetical historical Jesus, there is no archeological evidence available about the life of the theoretical historical Jesus, There are no unequivocal references to the life of the hypothetical historical Jesus within even a hundred years of his life by secular writers, the Gospel writers clearly had a religious bias and it is conceivable that what they wrote was entirely driven by their zeal to promote Christianity.

The main problem I see with the credibility of the Gospels is that there is not a clear link between them and the writings of a theoretical first century Jewish sect associated with Jesus. Without that all we have is some religious zealots making up stories potentially out of whole cloth and whether we know exactly what they wrote or not just isn't that important with respect to the question of whether an historical Jesus existed or not.

Dave - of course I agree with all the above. However, you have rather side-stepped the central point I was trying to make to you. Namely ...

... although we do not know what any original spoken or written gospels actually said about Jesus, what we definitely do know is that throughout history all religions have constantly invented more and more stories about their beliefs.

And ... it is unarguable that the gospel stories that we do know (from existing copies) are largely composed of invented untrue stories of a supernatural miracle worker.

Hence the key point is - - it would hardly be surprising if the original spoken and written forms of the gospels evolved through an increasing series of additions and elaborations which were all entirely untrue and fictional.

In which case your existing copies are derived from a series of the earliest sayings and writing, in which the sayings about Jesus have started off in quite brief and basic form, and then become expanded over the decades/centuries as more and more fictional miracle stories have been added.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

JohnArmstrong aka DeistPaladin has done a little video series on the Jesus Timeline and other issues regarding the story of Jesus (Jesus, Found in History or Mything in Action?) and he rightly points out that even among apologists John is a problematic Gospel.

1) John lists three Passovers requiring Jesus' ministry to be 3 years minimum a major problem as temporal markers in Josephus appear to John's death as occurring in 36 CE...the same year Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome.

2) As pointed out by Irenaeus c180 CE in Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 22 John points to Jesus being 46 or older during his ministry...causing a major temporal snarl with Jesus being 30 c29 CE per Luke also cited by Irenaeus.

3) John makes the Jews a separate group from Christians and is nearly anti-Semitic in its tone again suggesting later authorship.

Of the four canonal Gospels John seems to be the weakest as for telling us anything really historical about Jesus and when you consider the merits (or lack of) for the other Gospels that is saying a lot.

Well, I'm not taking any of them as gospel or even remotely historical, as you probably figured out by now. That includes John too, obviously.

Nevertheless, people seem to cherrypick some facts about Jesus as historical and proclaim that set as the historical Jesus. And at that, without any evidence that their set is better supported than any other cherrypicking, never mind supportable as actually having happened. And cherrypicking a different set is IMHO a great way to show why their set isn't the only way to do it.

And John is pretty sweet for that.

For a start, it's not as easy to dismiss as later heresy, since it's canon and most people accept it as written in the 1st century. Yes, I know that the margin of error on P52 can put it all the way into the third century as worst case scenario (so really Irenaeus is the only upper limit on it), and you know that, but for most people John == 1st century as hard fact.

And then there are the contradictions with the synoptics, as you mention.

But really, what I like about it the most, is that you can cherrypick a VERY different Jesus from it.

E.g., as I was saying, he was making clever puns in Greek.

E.g., in the synoptics Jesus just loses it in the temple and kicks everyone out (of a stadium sized courtyard with thousands of people and armed guards; his kung fu must have been strong) In John he first goes and makes a nasty scourge out of leather and then goes and drives people and animals out with it. That's not quite so peacenic Jesus.

E.g., the common interpretation for why he got nailed is that it's because of losing it at the temple and driving people out. Apparently just because they happen one after the other. Well, in John they don't. In John, Jesus clears the temple at the START of his ministry, and then goes dicking around for three years without anyone minding it. I.e., if we take it as anywhere near based on something historical, then whatever happened in the temple actually must have been a minor incident that wasn't even arrest worthy, and was exaggerated as driving those people out in subsequent retellings. Like maybe Jesus only started screaming around that everyone should get out, and from there the rest happens as in John: a priest comes to ask him on whose authority (which makes more sense in John if there wasn't an attack in progress), Jesus gives a stupid answer, and they let him go. At any rate, and whatever may or may not have happened, clearly in John the temple incident couldn't possibly be the reason for the crucifixion.

 

[IanS]

Well, I'm not taking any of them as gospel or even remotely historical, as you probably figured out by now. That includes John too, obviously.

Nevertheless, people seem to cherrypick some facts about Jesus as historical and proclaim that set as the historical Jesus. And at that, without any evidence that their set is better supported than any other cherrypicking, never mind supportable as actually having happened. And cherrypicking a different set is IMHO a great way to show why their set isn't the only way to do it.

In all these threads (inc. on other websites too), whenever anyone points out that the miracle stories are obviously fictional, although no doubt believed in 1st century AD, those who strongly support a historical Jesus and insist that there is a mass of historical evidence for him as a real figure, almost always reply saying that 90% of the gospel detail about Jesus is not description of miracles.

However, that seems to me unconvincing if not downright deceptive, if that additional information is actually part of each miracle setting. Because it's perfectly obvious that such extra detail as the names of places and names of disciples etc. may very easily have been added just to set the miracle in a familiar context for the congregation who were listening to the preaching of the various stories.

That's apart from the fact that many of the early stories were probably lost before ever making it into what church leaders eventually accepted as their preferred "canon". So again, it would hardly be a great surprise if the discarded and now long lost stories were quite different from we have now in the surviving copies of a selected "canon".