The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

Textual analysis of the books of the Bible has been going on for several centuries. The scholars have long ago found evidence that biblical texts went through evolution, like how the Pentateuch was put together by combining from several sources and that there was at least three authors for Isaiah. From the New Testament side it was recognized that there was more than one author for Pauline epistles.

Given this large existing body of research, it should be possible to figure out the evolution of the Gospels, shouldn't it?

It turns out that they have uncovered evidence that they included parts of older texts in them. Possible earlier texts include the one called Q, Signs Gospel, and a Passion Narrative. There is no uniform agreement for what these contained or if they all existed, especially Passion Narrative seems to divide opinions. They have also found out that in the late antiquity two different versions of Mark were circulating, longer and shorter ones.

The consensus opinion is that the canonical gospels were written over a short period of time. It took only a couple of decades from writing Mark and Q before they were included in Matthew and Luke and after that the texts stayed essentially unchanged. You propose a much longer period for stabilizing the text. Do you have any evidence for that evolution? Such as linguistic changes in the text that were originally used to identify Deutero-Isaiah? Or a collection manuscripts that are copies from gospels made at different stages of text evolution?

I don't "propose" any particular dates or anything about "stabilizing" anything.

You are presumably referring the fact that I just replied to Craig where I thought he was repeatedly asking me to say at what date I thought g-Mark was written, and where (without checking back what I wrote), I probably said that (a)I had no idea whether it was written as one original copy c.70AD, or whether it's roots were much earlier than that (they probably were, since all sorts of messiah belief had been preached centuries before the time of Jesus), or whether the first written copies were actually much later than 70AD ... I expect that I explained to Craig that I really could not say which of the options of that sort was most likely.

But whatever it's date, in any known or supposed forms, g-Mark does not contain any credible evidence of anyone ever meeting a human Jesus.

There are the two different Marks, but what about the other gospels? If they went through long evolution, where's the evidence?

We know that there existed a version of Luke that was strikingly different from the current one even though there are no extant manuscripts for it, and you need to be able to explain its existence if you want to propose that Luke was written centuries after Jesus.

Why do I "need to be able to explain its existence if you want to propose that Luke was written centuries after Jesus"? I have said not a word about the date when g-Luke may have been first written down.

Again, g-Luke does not contain any evidence of anyone ever really meeting a human Jesus. And that's what this thread is about - the evidence, or lack of it, for a human Jesus known to anyone.

The standard version of the story goes like this:

* sometime in the 130s a rich merchant called Marcion converted to Christianity. Around 140 he moved to Rome and became an active member in the church of Rome.

* at some point he became convinced that the teachings of the church to are wrong, and went on to start a reformation.

* he denied the humanity of Jesus altogether and claimed that he was full god all the time.

* Marcion thought that the only reliable gospel was Luke, but that it had been corrupted and he produced a purified version of it by removing all references to the Old Testament and to the humanity of Jesus, such as the birth narrative as a god couldn't be born from a woman.

* in 144 Marcion was kicked out of the church of Rome and he formed his own gaining a following that evolved into the Marcionite sect that survived about 300 years.

* in early 200s Tertullian wrote an account where he enumerated the errors of the Marcian heresy where he went through the changes that Marcion had made to Luke.

If you want to argue that the texts that Tertullian used for the four gospels were not essentially the same as the modern gospels, you have to take the full forgery route where a later writer authored a text in the name of Tertullian where he put him railing against a heretic living 50 years earlier. Gets a bit too conspirational for my tastes, but I'm certain that soon there will be a post here explaining that it's the only possibility. After all, the other thing that Marcion accepted in addition to the purged Luke were the Pauline epistles.

Why do you think I need to say anything at all about any of that!? I certainly do not. You may be interested in ideas and proposals such as the above, but I have not said one word about such ideas about Marcion or Tertullian. Neither I or any other sceptics have to produce any speculations about any of that.

The fact is that the NT biblical writing contains no evidence that its authors or anyone named by it's authors ever made any credible claim to having met a human Jesus, ever ... nobody.

You can also argue that Marcion's Luke was the orginal one if you want. If you do, please give that argument together with some textual analysis that shows that Marcionite and non-Marcionite parts of Luke had a different author. Even if you uncover find the evidence that all other scholars have chosen to ignore, that still doesn't change that Tertullian had essentially the modern Luke. If you deny that, you are back at the full forgery.

I am not arguing anything about Marcion or any notions you have about "full forgery", or any "forgery" about anything. Try to find a quote form me anywhere on this entire forum saying any such thing at all.

What I am saying is that a positive belief in Jesus (e.g. saying you think he is more likely than 50-50) really should be based on credible evidence of his existence. But the biblical writing is neither credible as a source of any factual information, and not does it contain evidence of anything except peoples 1st century religious beliefs in supernatural prophesised messiahs ... it does not contain any evidence at all of anyone ever meeting a human Jesus.

The existence is of Pythagoras is not important to you, so you apply one standard for him. The non-existence of Jesus is important to you, so you apply another. Of course, a Jesus who was 100% human and 0% god is just as damaging to Christianity as a Jesus who is 100% invention so there's no need for the different standards. If your aim is to try to convince billions of Christians or even one singe Christian that Christianity is false, then using double standards might not be the best route.

I am not applying one standard for Pythagoras and a different standard for Jesus. That is purely your own erroneous misrepresentation of it.

What I said about it is that figures like Pythagoras are known for, and historically important for, the entirely factual human things associated with their names. E.g. the discovery of a mathematical theorem or the presentation of a philosophical idea, etc. Whereas in the case of Jesus, completely unlike Pythagoras or Caesar or any of the others, it is the existence of Jesus himself which is absolutely crucial and essential to the existence of Christianity today ... if Jesus did not exist then today’s Christianity has no factual basis, it would be an untrue religious belief based on a fictional figure ...

... whereas if Pythagoras did not really exist, the importance of Pythagoras Theorem would not be discredited one iota ... the theorem would not suddenly be rendered non-existent or invalid ...

... but if Jesus did not exist, then Christianity is certainly rendered invalid and based upon pure fiction.

And that's apart from the fact that such comparisons are completely bogus, if not deliberately dishonest, anyway. Because neither Pythagoras, nor Caesar, nor any of the numerous figures trotted out for comparison by HJ proponents, ever became famous primarily because of any miracles claimed for them ... Pythagoras was famous only for his theorem and his philosophies, and not at all because someone later wrote that he performed any miracles ... and the same is true of the rest of them such as Caesar (who is the most commonly deployed comparison by HJ proponents) ... Caesar is famous for many hundreds of entirely human things which were done under his rule, but not at all famous for anyone claiming miracles about him ....

.... Jesus in stark comparison is famous purely and entirely for the claimed string of constant miracles. He is not famous for anything else except the supernatural and the prophetically divine sayings attributed to him. He is not known for any factual remains at all.

 

[dejudge]

Paul doesn't say...

The Pauline Corpus does not say anything about Joseph.

The Pauline Corpus does not anything about Mary.

The Pauline Corpus does not say anything about Nazareth.

The Pauline Corpus does not say it was compiled c 50-60 CE.

The Pauline Corpus says Jesus was the Son of God and a woman.

The Pauline Corpus say Jesus was made a Spirit.

The Pauline Corpus says Jesus is God.

The Pauline Corpus says Paul was NOT the Apostle of a man.

Galatians 1:1---- Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.....

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman....

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit

Colossians 1.16-17 ...... all things were created by him, and for him 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


Philippians 2.5-6 .....Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Romans 8.3..... God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh


Jesus is God Incarnate in the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus is God of God, the Lord from heaven, a Spirit who was made flesh.

Jesus is absolute MYTH in the Entire Pauline Corpus.

 

[waters]

Even though the OT tells us David's physical father was Jesse, this passage tells us as King, he was the Son of God. Mark is sending us the message that Jesus is such a kingly figure.

1. "David's physical father was..." Who was Jesus' physical father?

2. David was a King. Jesus was not. David was anointed by the people, Jesus was not.

3. If only a simple metaphor, or analogy say, then, why take the trouble to add, in tiny, tiny, very tiny letters, the nomina sacra corresponding to "son of god", in Mark 1:2 of Codex Sinaiticus. Were it that unimportant, or simply an expression, and not the intention of the authors to suggest that Jesus was literally the son of YHWH, then, why bother to add those nomina sacra to Codex Sinaiticus?

4. If you examine Psalms 2:7 at Codex Sinaiticus, you will observe Nomina Sacra employed to represent "lord", but not for "son of God".
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=26&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
If the designation is simply a method of letting the reader know that Mark's good news is the arrival of a "kingly figure", and not the physical son of God, then, why employ nomina sacra in gMark, but not in Psalms 2:7 of the same Codex Sinaiticus?

n.b. The Hebrew version of Psalms 2:7 does not have "adonai" ("lord", or "kurios"). Nope, it has YHWH. In other words, Craig, if you wish to cite Psalms 2:7, then, you need to realize that this passage makes clear that the person making this unnamed King in Psalms 2 his son, is YHWH. People adopt orphans all the time. Are there any kings in Jewish history, who had been orphaned as infants?

Question A: Do the ancient Hebrew texts, i.e. Tanakh, aka "holy scriptures", "old testament", have any stories involving YHWH impregnating a young Jewish girl?

Question B: Is parental inheritance important to the Jewish nation? Are there any significant "kings" of Israel, whose family history is unknown?

Question C; Do the ancient Greeks have any history of myth fables involving impregnation of youthful lassies by Zeus and his cohort up there on Mount Olympus?

 

[dejudge]

....It turns out that they have uncovered evidence that they included parts of older texts in them. Possible earlier texts include the one called Q, Signs Gospel, and a Passion Narrative. There is no uniform agreement for what these contained or if they all existed, especially Passion Narrative seems to divide opinions. They have also found out that in the late antiquity two different versions of Mark were circulating, longer and shorter ones.

No older texts have been found so speculation about their contents is really of no use in this discussion.

Why do you think older texts would say anything different to the COPIES?

If you suppose that the manuscripts we have now are COPIES of older texts then we would expect them to contain the same mythological/fiction character called Jesus.

The consensus opinion is that the canonical gospels were written over a short period of time. It took only a couple of decades from writing Mark and Q before they were included in Matthew and Luke and after that the texts stayed essentially unchanged.

You have ZERO supporting evidence for your claims. In fact, you are writing fiction.

You are making stuff up. We have NO actual manuscript called "Q".

We have no actual manuscript of gMark dated to the 1st century.

We already know you have NO evidence for an historical Jesus and that you are making stuff up.

You should have followed the thread because the claims in your post have been rejected and debunked as baseless speculation.

 

[IanS]

Even though the OT tells us David's physical father was Jesse, this passage tells us as King, he was the Son of God. Mark is sending us the message that Jesus is such a kingly figure.

"The OT tells us David's physical father was Jesse ..." - was David a real person then?

As we noted before in the YouTube clip with Richard Dawkins - bible scholar John Huddleston explains that current scholarship accepts that there is no actual historical or physical evidence of any kind for King David and that he may well have been only a fictional figure of early Jewish religious legend ...

... if David was not a real person, then he could not have had a human father named "Jesse", could he?

Or are you arguing, against Huddleston, that in fact there is good evidential reason to believe David was real figure and that Jesse was really his human father?

 

[maximara]

That's not an answer to Brainache's question which is

What do you think such evidence would look like?

I have already addressed this several times using Josephus account of the Egyptian as an example.

Well, no. Modern Historians don't accept any ancient "Authority", they analyse texts and critically examine them within their cultural and historical context. IanS wants us to produce "credible evidence" of someone meeting a living "Jesus", but he would just dismiss any text that contained such testimony as not credible. So would any Historian. Historicity depends on more than the words in any one text.

You do realize that François Chassebœuf de Volney who invented the modern version of the Christ Myth was a historian, right?

You do also realize that Bruno Bauer, Allard Pierson (leader of the Dutch Radicals), Edwin Johnson, Harry Elmer Barnes, Arthur Drews were all historians, right?

You also realize that the idea that Jesus didn't exist at all was taught as fact in the Soviet Union by historians from 1920 on, right?

And that if Hayyim ben Yehoshua is to be believed in Asia "Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris" ie by the lay people and historians alike.

Modern Historians have determined that these things are fake by analysing the texts and understanding the cultural/historical context. Exactly the same tools they use to conclude that Jesus probably existed.

Not if Michael Grant is any example. His evidence (and I use the term very loosely here) was to quote two NON historians (Roderic Dunkerley and Otto Betz) from NON scholarly publications as his evidence. Not one name of the "first-rank scholars" that "'again and again" "answered and annihilated" the idea Jesus didn't exist is presented. Nor is there any reference to any papers to support this claim. It might as well be like the claim that experts were trying to figure out what was going on in the Bermuda Triangle.

The reality is Modern Historians care as much about Jesus being a historical person as much as they care about Robin Hood or King Arthur being historical people - in the larger scheme of things it doesn't really matter as the mythology that grew up around them (if they existed at all) is what drove people.

 

[Craig B]

1. "David's physical father was..." Who was Jesus' physical father?

In the original sources, not God. Presumably Joseph. My point is that in the OT you can be a "son of God" while you have a known physical father who is not God. Deny that, and I can paste my OT citations again.

David was a King. Jesus was not. David was anointed by the people, Jesus was not.

Mark is representing J as a King.

If only a simple metaphor, or analogy say, then, why take the trouble to add, in tiny, tiny, very tiny letters, the nomina sacra corresponding to "son of god", in Mark 1:2 of Codex Sinaiticus. Were it that unimportant, or simply an expression, and not the intention of the authors to suggest that Jesus was literally the son of YHWH, then, why bother to add those nomina sacra to Codex Sinaiticus?

That's nonsense. I don't give a toss about why these scribes centuries later wrote tiny letters.

If you examine Psalms 2:7 at Codex Sinaiticus, you will observe Nomina Sacra employed to represent "lord", but not for "son of God".
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=26&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
If the designation is simply a method of letting the reader know that Mark's good news is the arrival of a "kingly figure", and not the physical son of God, then, why employ nomina sacra in gMark, but not in Psalms 2:7 of the same Codex Sinaiticus?

See my last response.

I have no idea what you are getting at with the rest of your post, so I won't comment on it.

 

[Craig B]

... Jesus is absolute MYTH in the Entire Pauline Corpus.

Romans 1:3

his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

 

[dejudge]

Romans 1:3

Romans 1.3 does not mention Joseph, Mary or Nazareth.

Romans is evidence AGAINST an historical Jesus.

Romans is a well established source of myth/fiction and WITHOUT corroboration in historical sources.


Jesus is the Son of God and the LORD God in the ENTIRE Epistle to the Romans and the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus.

Jesus is GOD INCARNATE in the ENTIRE Epistle to the Romans.

Jesus is a RESURRECTED Ghost/God/man in Romans 1.

Jesus is ABSOLUTE Myth in Romans 1.

Romans 1.3 is in agreement with doctrine of the Church that Jesus is God of God, the Lord from heaven, a Spirit.

Romans 1 1

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3 Concerning ]his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

The earliest HANDWRITTEN manuscript of the Epistle to the Romans is dated c 175-225 CE and was NOT written by Paul if Paul did exist and lived before c 70 CE.

The earliest HANDWRITTEN manuscript of the Epistle to the Romans is not an historical account but a myth/fiction story about a Resurrected Son of a God called Jesus.

The utterly non-sensical claim that the resurrected Jesus was of the seed of David is the same as the claim that Abel was the seed of Adam.

The Pauline writers were KNOWN Liars since at least the 4th century.

The myth/fiction stories of Jesus in the Epistle to the Romans and the Pauline Corpus are completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

 

[IanS]

In the original sources, not God. Presumably Joseph. My point is that in the OT you can be a "son of God" while you have a known physical father who is not God. Deny that, and I can paste my OT citations again. Mark is representing J as a King. That's nonsense. I don't give a toss about why these scribes centuries later wrote tiny letters. See my last response.

I have no idea what you are getting at with the rest of your post, so I won't comment on it.

Well whether or not the gospel writers thought Jesus was the son of God (with or without Joseph as a father of any kind), those gospel writers thought insisted that Jesus was multiply and constantly supernatural, didn't they!

So they were certainly describing Jesus as some sort of heavenly creature weren't they! E.g., they were quite sure that he was seen to rise from death and ascend through the skies to his heavenly father.

 

[Marras]

No older texts have been found so speculation about their contents is really of no use in this discussion.

Yes, I already know that you don't believe in textual analysis. Which is a bit weird because that has been the main way how people have showed that various books of the Bible couldn't have been written by their supposed authors.

Why do you think older texts would say anything different to the COPIES?

You are mistaken. It's IanS who is saying that older texts are different from their later copies. I'm saying that the earliest manuscripts of the gospels were probably essentially the same as their earliest extant manuscript.

 

[Brainache]

I have already addressed this several times using Josephus account of the Egyptian as an example.

Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Well, no. Modern Historians don't accept any ancient "Authority", they analyse texts and critically examine them within their cultural and historical context. IanS wants us to produce "credible evidence" of someone meeting a living "Jesus", but he would just dismiss any text that contained such testimony as not credible. So would any Historian. Historicity depends on more than the words in any one text.

You do realize that François Chassebœuf de Volney who invented the modern version of the Christ Myth was a historian, right?

You do also realize that Bruno Bauer, Allard Pierson (leader of the Dutch Radicals), Edwin Johnson, Harry Elmer Barnes, Arthur Drews were all historians, right?

And? Are you saying that those guys would accept a line in an ancient text that said "I knew Jesus" as credible evidence for a human Jesus?

You also realize that the idea that Jesus didn't exist at all was taught as fact in the Soviet Union by historians from 1920 on, right?

If what was taught in the Soviet Union in the 1920s is your standard for objective Historical analysis, I don't know what to say. It was all about teaching what the regime wanted people to believe. Look up "Lysenko".

And that if Hayyim ben Yehoshua is to be believed in Asia "Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris" ie by the lay people and historians alike.

An example of this would be good to see, because I have no idea who Hayyim ben Yehoshua is and whether or not he should be believed.

Modern Historians have determined that these things are fake by analysing the texts and understanding the cultural/historical context. Exactly the same tools they use to conclude that Jesus probably existed.

Not if Michael Grant is any example. His evidence (and I use the term very loosely here) was to quote two NON historians (Roderic Dunkerley and Otto Betz) from NON scholarly publications as his evidence. Not one name of the "first-rank scholars" that "'again and again" "answered and annihilated" the idea Jesus didn't exist is presented. Nor is there any reference to any papers to support this claim. It might as well be like the claim that experts were trying to figure out what was going on in the Bermuda Triangle.

What? I was talking about how the apocryphal texts like "The Letters of Pilate" etc that you mentioned were determined to be fake. Scholarly analysis can be very useful for that stuff.

The reality is Modern Historians care as much about Jesus being a historical person as much as they care about Robin Hood or King Arthur being historical people - in the larger scheme of things it doesn't really matter as the mythology that grew up around them (if they existed at all) is what drove people.

Right, OK then find me the modern secular University History course that teaches that Jesus didn't exist. I'll be very interested to see that.

 

[maximara]

Right, OK then find me the modern secular University History course that teaches that Jesus didn't exist. I'll be very interested to see that.

Did you forget the two university professors who were either forced to retire or fired for saying Adam and Eve were non historical so soon? I haven't. And when you have universities teaching that Adam and Eve are historical people you know American academia is wonked in the head.

 

[IanS]

You are mistaken. It's IanS who is saying that older texts are different from their later copies. I'm saying that the earliest manuscripts of the gospels were probably essentially the same as their earliest extant manuscript.

I don't think I could have said that. Because I have no idea what was in any earlier non-existent texts. It's better if you quote what I actually said.

What I expect I actually said, because it's a point I have made since the very first of these HJ threads I ever saw, which is as far back as 6 or 7 years ago now (!), is that since we only know what was said in the relatively complete and readable extant copies of gospels from about 4th to 6th century onwards, we cannot actually know what was said about Jesus in any earlier writing.

For all we know, any much earlier original writing or the earliest preaching, may well have made clear that Jesus was regarded as a spirit figure rather than what we would now regard as a normal human man. In fact even the extent gospels and letters of Paul come very close to openly describing a spirit Jesus anyway.

I expect that, in fewer words, is what I actually said.


One reason that has to be distinctly possible, is because we know that the later copyists who produced the extant 4th-6th cent. copies, were in the habit of changing any details that they came to disapprove of. If original copies had suggested that Jesus, or “the Christ”, was merely a figure known to them from OT prophecy, or merely a spirit form, then that’s just the sort of thing they’d be likely to change or omit ... it only takes a few words like that to be omitted or changed.

 

[Brainache]

Did you forget the two university professors who were either forced to retire or fired for saying Adam and Eve were non historical so soon? I haven't. And when you have universities teaching that Adam and Eve are historical people you know American academia is wonked in the head.

The fact that that story made the news indicates to me that it doesn't happen all that often.

Here's the story:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20070922/NEWS02/112180007/0/news/

...Sarah Smith, director of the school's Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.

"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."

And Southwestern Community College in Red Oak Iowa isn't exactly Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge, is it?

How often has this happened since then (2007)?

 

[maximara]

Well whether or not the gospel writers thought Jesus was the son of God (with or without Joseph as a father of any kind), those gospel writers thought insisted that Jesus was multiply and constantly supernatural, didn't they!

So they were certainly describing Jesus as some sort of heavenly creature weren't they! E.g., they were quite sure that he was seen to rise from death and ascend through the skies to his heavenly father.

As I have pointed out this is a poor argument because the same supernatural issues pop up with Apollonius of Tyana to the point he is called the Pagan Christ but there is a at least some evidence that Apollonius was a historical person (we have what are supposedly Apollonius's own writings for example)

A far better question how well does the non supernatural stuff with Gospel Jesus hold up?

Answer: Very poorly.

The geography is a total FUBAR sundae with a SNAFU coating and a TARFU cherry on top. Neither birth story holds up to historical scrutiny and the same is true of both the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate trials.

Heck, Josephus in Antiquities 20.1 outlines just how the Romans handed political troublemakers regardless of the number of fanatical supporters surrounding them:

"So he seized upon three of their principal men, who were also the causes of this sedition, and ordered them to be bound, and afterwards had one of them slain, whose name was Hannibal; and he banished the other two, Areram and Eleazar."

From what Josephus tells us about Pontius Pilate wasn't one to let a potential problem run around loose any more then Fadus was as seen in Antiquities 18.85-87.

So the idea that Pontius Pilate would have wasted any time having a trial for someone claimed to be preaching sedition is iffy bordering on laughable.

In fact, it is more likely Pontius Pilate would have sent in the army killing who would have killed anyone in their way to get at this guy and likely cut him down right there.

When even the mundane aspects of the story fall apart you have problems.

As I have said before if Jesus did exist the Gospel stories are more akin to FDR American Badass! then Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

 

[dejudge]

No older texts have been found so speculation about their contents is really of no use in this discussion.

Yes, I already know that you don't believe in textual analysis. Which is a bit weird because that has been the main way how people have showed that various books of the Bible couldn't have been written by their supposed authors.

You write fiction. You have not been following the thread.

Textual analysis of the Pauline Corpus shows that it is a compilation of multiple UNKNOWN authors, forgeries, false attribution, fiction, falsehood and mythology.

Textual analysis of writings of antiquity show that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was fabricated sometime AFTER writings attributed to Celsus c 180 CE.

People here already know that you have no evidence for an historical Jesus.

... I'm saying that the earliest manuscripts of the gospels were probably essentially the same as their earliest extant manuscript.

Well, if what you say is true Jesus was a myth character from the beginning since the earliest EXTANT manuscripts [Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46] state Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

We have NO manuscripts of the Jesus stories from the 1st century pre 70 CE and the stories of Jesus that we have are all utter nonsense about a Ghost/God/man who was raised from the dead.

We have the EARLIEST existing evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a Ghost/God/man character.

You have NOTHING but your imagination.

Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real existence and was fabricated in the 2nd century or later by people of antiquity who believed a Ghost was a REAL person.

It was a Ghost that gave the disciples the power to preach the Gospels according to Acts of the Apostles.

The Holy Ghost is a FIGURE of History in the Bible.

The Canonised NT is a totally bizarre non-historical nonsensical compilation about a Resurrected Ghost/God/man called Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

And Southwestern Community College in Red Oak Iowa isn't exactly Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge, is it?

How often has this happened since then (2007)?

There are Chapels at Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambrige where people who believe Jesus exist worship him as a God and pray to him for their salvation.

People who worship Jesus must tell people that Jesus did exist because Jesus will deny them before the father.


Matthew 10:33 KJV---33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Go to the Chapels of the leading Universities and you may find HJers or Christian Scholars asking Jesus to save them from eternal damnation.

The vast majority of people who claim Jesus existed use the Bible as history.

 

[IanS]

As I have pointed out this is a poor argument because the same supernatural issues pop up with Apollonius of Tyana to the point he is called the Pagan Christ but there is a at least some evidence that Apollonius was a historical person (we have what are supposedly Apollonius's own writings for example)

I don't think that makes it a poor argument.

Because I am not arguing that it’s “proof” that Jesus could not have been real, or that later gospel writers or their Christian congregations could not have believed he was real. What I am saying is that the gospel descriptions were not those of an ordinary human person ... they were descriptions of someone who was supposedly on earth in human looking form, but was actually overtly supernatural and apparently the “son” of Yahweh in the heavens.

I am not suggesting that the gospel writers, or later Christians in general, thought of Jesus only as a heavenly spirit.

I am suggesting that they wrote about him as a figure that was not a normal human preacher.

That leaves you/us/one with the possibility that Jesus really was in fact a human who existed and who was only written about in mistaken terms as if he was a supernatural non-human from a heavenly God ... but in that case that line of argument just reduces again to what I have said all along, i.e. - in that case where is the evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone? Answer - there is none. No evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone at all.

If that’s also exactly the case with Apollonius, then as with Jesus, I’d say there is no good evidential reason to think such figure was real.

IOW - the evidence in the letters and gospels of the NT is evidence of someone who was believed not to be a human person (as we now think of or “know” actual human’s to be). The evidence of those biblical stories is of belief in an overtly supernatural figure sent from, and returning to, God in heaven.

 

[dejudge]

....That leaves you/us/one with the possibility that Jesus really was in fact a human who existed and who was only written about in mistaken terms as if he was a supernatural non-human from a heavenly God ... but in that case that line of argument just reduces again to what I have said all along, i.e. - in that case where is the evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone? Answer - there is none. No evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone at all.

The lack of evidence for an historical Jesus does not and cannot exclude the argument that Jesus of Nazareth had no real existence.

The claim that it is possible that Jesus existed has ZERO effect on the argument that Jesus of Nazareth had no real existence since there is no evidence at all to contradict.

Essentially, the HJ argument cannot be sustained. It was "stifled" to death.

The "oxygen" [historical data] for the HJ argument is fully depleted.