Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

I agree on that but given how common the name "Jesus" was and how many would be messiahs were about one cannot rational say that there wasn't some obscure would be messiah named Jesus in 1st century Galilee that Paul for what ever reason latched on to when he had his vision and then somebody either purposely or via vision creates the core of a life story for this Jesus sometime between 70 and 130 CE.

(restored snipped portion)

In the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread, I talked about how you could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 making the Gospel Jesus mythical and nonhistorical
In this thread I postulated a man going for the 1st century version of suicide by cop by running into the Temple and trashing the place while yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being run through with a sword by a guard. Again not historical as there is no sermons, no followers, etc, etc.

Are you arguing that one can rationally assume there was as Jesus of Nazareth who was baptized by John and crucified after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple without the supporting evidence?

The answer to that question is in the section you snipped to grace us with this question.

Do either of the examples above talk about being baptized by John or crucified after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple? No. Do either of the above describe a plausible flesh and blood Jesus? Yes.

So, why ask a question that is already answered?

Stop taking sound bites and read the entire post before wasting our time with nonsense irrelevant to the post you are responding to.

 

[maximara]

Here ya go:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

And here is why that essay isn't worth beans:

"This essay is in part an attempt to clarify procedural issues relevant to what is sometimes called the “Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis—an argumentative approach to the New Testament based on the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist." (Hoffmann 2012)

EXCEPT all the following have been called "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis:

1) Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58) (Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

2) "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that a flesh and blood Jesus may be behind part of the myth). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 Christ Myth theory)

3) "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.


4) The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24) Given Wells' current position fits definition number 1 above this makes sense.

5) The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

6) Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)


If you are going to talk about the "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis you HAVE to acknowledge that it has been and still is a LOT more then simply "the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" because thanks to the internet we can check that definition and once we show it is WRONG you loose the argument.

When it can be demonstrated by several works over 100 years on both sides of the issue that the very definition Hoffmann gives us is WRONG then the paper isn't worth beans because his very starting point is in error. When a historian presents demonstrably incorrect information regarding the definition of a term that is the very foundation of their arguments then their view is worthless!

I mean what good is a historian who seems to not know the very history of the term he is using?!? Especially when part of that history isn't even 20 years old (Wells)?

 

[Brainache]

And here is why that essay isn't worth beans:

"This essay is in part an attempt to clarify procedural issues relevant to what is sometimes called the “Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis—an argumentative approach to the New Testament based on the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist." (Hoffmann 2012)

EXCEPT all the following have been called "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis:

1) Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58) (Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

2) "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that a flesh and blood Jesus may be behind part of the myth). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 Christ Myth theory)

3) "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.


4) The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24) Given Wells' current position fits definition number 1 above this makes sense.

5) The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

6) Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)


If you are going to talk about the "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis you HAVE to acknowledge that it has been and still is a LOT more then simply "the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" because thanks to the internet we can check that definition and once we show it is WRONG you loose the argument.

When it can be demonstrated by several works over 100 years on both sides of the issue that the very definition Hoffmann gives us is WRONG then the paper isn't worth beans because his very starting point is in error. When a historian presents demonstrably incorrect information regarding the definition of a term that is the very foundation of their arguments then their view is worthless!

I mean what good is a historian who seems to not know the very history of the term he is using?!? Especially when part of that history isn't even 20 years old (Wells)?

You are still doing it!

This argument of yours is extremely silly.

Conflating one definition with another is the kind of argument I'd expect from an eight year old.

Terms can have more than one meaning.

Why is this news to you?

 

[Belz...]

There is NO evidence at all of the Jesus story and cult in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

What do you think the gospels are evidence of?

I think you are both using the word "evidence" in an odd way. Of course the NT is evidence for something. It's at least evidence for the belief that this man had lived and performed miracles. What's the best explanation for that belief, in your opinion ?

 

[Belz...]

Not evidence of any sort, just links to more links to more links

Since the first link is to a post, and that post's links lead directly to articles, I can only conclude that you didn't click on any of the links, making your sentence above misleading at best, because you couldn't possibly know.

 

[Belz...]

And here is why that essay isn't worth beans:

"This essay is in part an attempt to clarify procedural issues relevant to what is sometimes called the “Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis—an argumentative approach to the New Testament based on the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist." (Hoffmann 2012)

EXCEPT all the following have been called "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis:

You are still playing with definitions. We seem to be in general agreement here, and this author as well, that MJ is a group of related hypotheses that Jesus as a man did not exist, but was rather built up from a previous preacher, or several of them, or from preexisting myth, etc., while HJ argues that there was a man in the early first century who was the founder of Christianity, however little else he might have in common with the Jesus of legend.

Based on this understanding, the essay aims to discredit MJ in general, not an MJ that you, Maximara, want to redefine here. You have to take his essay as addressing that MJ, not yours.

Did you read it past that paragraph, or did you, as you put it to Dejudge, "take sound bites" ?

 

[dejudge]

Do either of the examples above talk about being baptized by John or crucified after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple? No. Do either of the above describe a plausible flesh and blood Jesus? Yes.

I am arguing that it is extremely plausible that there was NO flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth based on the existing dated evidence from antiquity.

My position is that the actual existing evidence from antiquity support a Mythological Jesus.

There is no pre 70 CE recovered manuscript of Jesus and the manuscripts that have been found describe him as a Myth [God Creator, the Son of God and Born of a Ghost who walked on the sea.]

If you want to argue plausibility without evidence that is your own problem.

So, why ask a question that is already answered?

Stop taking sound bites and read the entire post before wasting our time with nonsense irrelevant to the post you are responding to.

I am arguing that your position is nonsense because you have no evidence for your imagined plausible Jesus.

Your sound bite that your Jesus is plausible is worthless unless you are prepared to present actual evidence from antiquity.

Belief of plausibility is NOT evidence of anything.

Satan the Devil, Adam, Eve and Romulus would easily become plausible if we remove all the Myth around them.

 

[DOC]

There is no pre 70 CE recovered manuscript of Jesus .

This is quite normal for ancient writings. For example the span between the original manuscript and the earliest known copy currently in existence is the following:

Plato - 1200 years

Caesar - 1000 years

Tacitus (famous Roman historian) - 1000 years

Aristotle - 1400 years

The span for some New Testament writings are given in the below link:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Also, we don't even need manuscripts of the originals, because the early church fathers quoted the New Testament so much that we can recreate the entire New Testament (except for about 11 verses) simply by using the huge number of New Testament quotes the early church fathers used in their own writings.

 

[proudfootz]

It is a complete failure of logic to argue that Jesus existed because it is taught by historians and Christian Scholars at Universities.

How long can Brainache continue with such a horrible fallacious argument?

The existence of an HJ can ONLY be confirmed or argued with actual evidence from antiquity.

There is simply NO archaeological evidence, no artifacts and no manuscripts from the 1st century pre 70 CE about Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bible is NOT credible and is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

A list of a billion historians and Christian Scholars has no value as evidence for an HJ.

The present existing evidence state Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator and Born of a Ghost who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection and then ascended in a cloud.

A billion historians and Christian Scholars cannot change the existing mythological evidence for Jesus just like they cannot change the existing myth evidence for Adam, Eve, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost, the God of the Jews and the Angel Gabriel.

You are 100% correct, it doesn't matter how many scholars believe any proposition. It's not a popularity contest.

Bart Ehrman indicates that people in academia haven't much thought about why they believe as they do and claims his book is the first

Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise.

http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-as-part-one/

Belief in an historical Jesus has apparently been a tradition, but not a conclusion based on scholarship.

 

[Brainache]

You are 100% correct, it doesn't matter how many scholars believe any proposition. It's not a popularity contest.

Bart Ehrman indicates that people in academia haven't much thought about why they believe as they do and claims his book is the first



Belief in an historical Jesus has apparently been a tradition, but not a conclusion based on scholarship.

Well then, it should be easy to show all those blind faith Historians just how wrong they are...

What are you waiting for?

Where is this compelling MJ Scholarship?

 

[DOC]

Also, we don't even need manuscripts of the originals, because the early church fathers quoted the New Testament so much that we can recreate the entire New Testament (except for about 11 verses) simply by using the huge number of New Testament quotes the early church fathers used in their own writings.

Here are some sources for the above info:

The book "I Don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek basically states on page 228 that the New Testament was quoted so much by 2nd and 3rd century writers (over 36,000 times) that you could reconstruct the entire NT (except for 11 verses) just from their non-biblical writings.

But scholars Geisler/Turek are not the only ones who say this. Former skeptic and biblical scholar Ralph Muncaster says something very similar but he says all but 10 verses are included in the writings of that time (instead of 11) and he names more writers.

From the article: "Copies of Copies of Copies of Copies" from Remnant Report.com :

"In fact, the lives of the early Church Fathers overlap one another starting around 50 A.D. onward. There are no "gaps" in time when they could have departed from the teachings of their predecessors without oversight or criticism from their peers.
Instead, Church Fathers form an unbroken, overlapping group of teachers and students. The dates of their lives and writings show unbroken unity as they quote one another and the New Testament writings. In fact, all but ten verses of the New Testament are included in their writings. These provide scholars with valuable information about the early New Testament documents. Let's look at the overlapping dates of their lives or writings:

We have John writing Revelation in about A.D. 95.
The Didache, a manual of first-century church practices
Clement of Rome, 30-100
Ignatius, 35-107
Papias, 60-163
Polycarp, 69-155
Justin Martyr, 100-165
Irenaeus, 125-202
Clement of Alexandria, 150-315
Tertullian, 160-220
Hippolytus, 170-235
Origen, 185-253
Cyprian, 200-258
Eusebius, church historian (time of Constantine) 263-339

(Muncaster 2005, 89; Bercot 1998, xvii; The Didache, 2002)

http://www.remnantreport.com/cgi-bin/imcart/read.cgi?article_id=483&sub=22

 

[proudfootz]

So, where were the so-called Heretics like Basilides, Cerinthus, Marcion, Valentinus, Carpocrates, the Ebionites, the Justinians, Cerdo, Simon Magus, Menander and others?

To whom did Irenaeus write "Against Heresies" and claim Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or when he was an old man?

To whom did Hippolytus write "Refutation of All Heresies"? To the insiders??

It is clear that the term Christian did not always and only mean believers of the Jesus story.

So-called Christian Heretics did NOT magically appear from nowhere.

I do not argue they came from nowhere.

There just isn't any evidence letters like those attributed to Paul or gospel narratives were in general circulation for believers and non-believers alike to peruse at their leisure.

You may know of evidence such a thing is true.

Christians were NOT ignorant of their beliefs.

There were Christians who did believe in other Gods and another Son of God--Not Jesus.

Theophilus of Antioch was called a Christian and did NOT believe in the story of Jesus at all.

What I should have been more precise in my post: persons we might describe as christians apparently had a wide variety of beliefs, and undoubtedly knew what they themselves might have believed.

But it is my perception that based on the evidence we have there was no wide agreement on what being a 'christian' meant. Thus Pliny's christians could have been totally ignorant of the gospel narratives, or a bishop might not know that 'christ' was a messianic title.

Why would Pliny Christians mention Jesus if their cult worshiped Christ as a God?

Given the very mundane and sketchy beliefs Pliny includes it would seem to me that it would be reported if these christians believed anything more interesting.

Don't HJers argue that the Historical Jesus was NOT the Christ?

Some seem to argue that.

Ehrman argues that the real Jesus was a little known Apocalyptic preacher.

Who would worship a little known preacher as a God when he was NOT the Christ?

That's one of the gaps in the HJ argument. No persuasive mechanism has been put forward to get from a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months.

 

[proudfootz]

Well the Jesus Seminar version of Jesus where IIRC they threw out all of John and only accepted something along the lines of some 20% of the synoptic were through to be actual teachings of Jesus. So even in this HJ realm you have the acknowledgement that the Gospel Jesus (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem) is a composite character with a staggering 80% coming from elsewhere.

Remsberg who felt there was a HJ also felt Paul and the Gospels told you nothing about the man's actual teachings which again brings us right back to the issue of what is a HJ?

I've asked that question many times.

Since it's not easy to get a coherent answer we'll have to hammer out something on our own.

For the sake of this argument I will assume there are two possibilities: there was a single person upon whose career the christ myth was based or there wasn't.

There are broadly three possible ways to deal with this fact:

a) there was such a person

b) there was not such a person

c) we don't have enough evidence one way or the other

Option c) is the often excluded middle. We could call it Agnostic about Jesus, or AJ.

Now I am OK with people putting words in Jesus's mouth and it is not dispositive one way or the other. So even if 'only' 20% of the sayings are actually attributable to a single founding person in Palestine who vaguely fits the description of Jesus then that is an HJ.

The question for us is on what basis should we place any confidence in such a proposition? It would appear that an historical Jesus is assumed, and that the goal of these ongoing 'quests' is to flesh out that assumption by various methodologies.

 

[Brainache]

...
That's one of the gaps in the HJ argument. No persuasive mechanism has been put forward to get from a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months.

I agree with what you said in that post (mostly) except for this bit.

No one that I know of has been arguing that the HJ went from "a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months."

Where did you get that idea?

 

[dejudge]

There is no pre 70 CE recovered manuscript of Jesus and the manuscripts that have been found describe him as a Myth [God Creator, the Son of God and Born of a Ghost who walked on the sea.]

This is quite normal for ancient writings. For example the span between the original manuscript and the earliest known copy currently in existence is the following:

Plato - 1200 years Caesar - 1000 years

Tacitus (famous Roman historian) - 1000 years

The span for some New Testament writings is given in the below link:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Your assumptions about originals are worthless. You have no pre 70 CE evidence to argue for an HJ of Nazareth and the existing 2nd century or later manuscripts describe Jesus of Nazareth as a Myth-- the Son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

You ought to know the time span between original manuscripts and copies has no effect on myths like Adam, Eve, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, the God of the Jews, the Holy Ghost, Romulus, Remus and Apollo.

It is a horrible failure of logic to assume that normal time span between originals and copies suggest Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

Also, we don't even need manuscripts of the originals, because the early church fathers quoted the New Testament so much that we can recreate the entire New Testament (except for about 11 verses) simply by using the huge number of New Testament quotes the early church fathers used in their own writings.

I am delighted that you can re-create the entire New Testament from quotes.

The early church fathers quoted the NT where it is stated that Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected.

Jesus of Nazareth was a myth character in the re-created originals.

 

[proudfootz]

Well, well, well!! The Jesus Seminar used copies of copies of copies of manuscripts of unknown authorship from the 2nd century or later to determine what Jesus said when they don't know what he did say if he was a little known crucified criminal who caused a disturbance at the Temple.

Please, please, please, even if Jesus did live and was crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE he did NOT write any of the manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

There is no evidence that We have any words of Jesus--- we have the words of Unknown 2nd century or later authors whose EXISTING stories of Jesus are full of fiction, historical problems and discrepancies.

As usual, you are correct.

The practice of simply striking out the miracles and concluding the remaining dregs are somehow materials for history is rather dubious.

 

[proudfootz]

Which brings us back to GA Wells current position where Paul's Jesus is a legendary mythical person while the Gospel Jesus is based on an actual preacher named Jesus of 1st century Galilee who was not crucified but this was woven into what could be remembered about the man so as to fit Paul's vision.

George Walsh (professor emeritus, Salisbury State Univ.) in 1998 stated "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory."

C.H. Dodd, in his 1938 History and the Gospel under the heading "Christ Myth Theory" Manchester University Press pg 17 similarly stated the Christ Myth Theory was the idea Jesus started as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

Well, Wells has Paul's Jesus being originally a myth (Christ-myth by definition) and that the Gospels are up to a point based on a historical individual (historical Jesus theory). By the definition put forth by Dodd and Walsh some 60 years apart Wells current position is clearly Christ Myth and involves more then one person it is by the criteria you set forth a MJ hypothesis...even though he says the Gospel account is based on a flesh and blood Jesus.


You see the MJ and HJ line is not as sharp as you people would like to believe.

The Jesus myth theory over at Rationalwiki goes over the positions that have been called mythist over the years. And some of the things called Christ-myth are a real hoot:

"But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history, MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press pg 40)

I think this is why it is useful when discussing a particular argument to try and suss out what they are trying to 'prove' and the evidence and logic of how they support their conclusions.

It's utterly vapid and useless to say 'a thousand scholars agree there was an historical Jesus' when we don't have any clue what that is even supposed to mean and on what grounds each of these persons might (or might not) have for their belief.

It is my personal belief that if there was a man whose career significantly contributed to what is now known as christianity he was merely a bit of flotsam in an already centuries long process of cross-pollination between Hellenistic culture and Judaic culture.

Much like it would appear Dodd's thesis to be: the myth was already more powerful than any single man.

 

[Brainache]

As usual, you are correct.

The practice of simply striking out the miracles and concluding the remaining dregs are somehow materials for history is rather dubious.

Good thing that isn't how Textual Analysis works then, isn't it?

 

[pakeha]

Actually the story of Jesus ben Pandira seems to make more sense - as he was stoned which makes more sense for the accusations, and his disciples were pursued which also is a more rational course of action.

If indeed several of the wandering preachers that are supposed to have traveled the dusty roads of Palestine contributed something to the Christ myth this 1st century BC trouble-maker is a very likely candidate for inclusion.

A good point.

You really need to understand the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof" because there is plenty of evidence:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

DOC, this is evidence of the manuscripts' existence, not of the existence of an HJ.
Do you understand the difference between these two ideas?

 

[proudfootz]

What do you think the gospels are evidence of?

Keep in mind that when scholars talk about "the gospels", they do not have even any relatively complete and fully readable examples until the 4th century and mostly much later than that, i.e. mostly 6th century onwards.

For example it is hugely misleading to talk about any 2nd century copies of the gospels, because the only thing we have from the second century is P52, which is a fragment thought to be from g-John and said to date from c.125AD. But it is tiny, and only has a few words on either side, and no quotes of any "teaching from Jesus".

It is also only dated by palaeographic means. I.e. by educated guesswork based on the shaping of the letters. But several later scholars have shown that similar shaped lettering was also used into the 3rd century - it was not confined to early 2nd century. E.g. see dating by Nongbri in this Wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52.

None of that can possibly be evidence of any of the copyist authors ever knowing what Jesus said or taught prior to c.30AD, because all of that extant readable gospel copying is centuries too late.

And as anonymously written copying, which does not even ever name any traceable source of it’s information (i.e. no mention of any named person who claimed to know Jesus and who gave that testimony to any original gospel writers), as “evidence”, at best that late anonymous gospel copyist writing can only be evidence of peoples un-evidenced uncorroborated religious beliefs in a messiah that none of it’s late authors could possibly have ever known.

I agree the method of transmission can be problematic, but I do think the gospel tales are evidence of the desire of the authors to influence their readership.

It is unfortunate that these texts have been such theological and political footballs that that have been sliced, diced, re-arranged, redacted, edited, etc. to the point that when it comes down to it we can't be sure what the original MS consisted of.

Nor do we know what the intent of the authors might have been - which is a problem for bible study methodologies which depend on our knowing what might 'embarrass' the authors.

One thing that always strikes me is not only how 'late' these narratives arrive in the scene, but also that they seem to be wholly a product of Greek literature and there is nothing from the land where this cult supposedly originated.

It's as if we only knew about Confucious from texts originating in India.