A Question about the historicity of Jesus

[Rhed]

Rhed. I'll address your claims when you provide citations

I will in due time. Allow me to finish my thoughts and I will. It won't be hard for me, it's mostly from the early Church Fathers writings.

 

[Rhed]

Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?

I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.

Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.

The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...

I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.

Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.

Ok, this is my 4th post: Peter's students:

So far, our timeline is this:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 60 Apostle Paul
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple
AD 70 Linus
AD 70 Apostle John
AD 95 Clement (7 books)
AD 100 Evaristus
AD 110 Ignatius (7-16 books)
AD 110 Polycarp (14-16 books)
AD 110 Alexander
AD120 Sixtus
AD 130 Telesphorus
AD 135 Hyginus
AD 150 Pius
AD 160 Justin Martyr (5 books)
AD 175 Tatian (20 books)
AD 185 Irenaeus (24 books)
AD 220 Hippolytus (24 books)

Peter communicated with Mark.
Mark had at least five disciple: Anianus (AD ?-82), Avilius (AD ?-95), Kedron (AD ?-106), Primus (AD 40-118), and Justus (AD ?-135)
Justus passed the message to Pantaenus, an ex-Stoic philosopher.
Pantaenus taught Clement of Alexandria. He quoted and alluded to all NT books except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
Clement passed the Truth to Origen. He included all of the NT books we have today, however has doubts James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
Pamphilus adopted Origen's work.
Pamphilus taught Eusebius. He strongly affirmed most scripture except less affirmed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

Now, let's plug these into our timeline:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 30-33 Apostle Peter
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 60 Apostle Paul
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple
AD 70 Linus
AD 70 Apostle John
AD 75 Anianus
AD 95 Clement (7 books)
AD 95 Avilius
AD 100 Evaristus
AD 100 Kendron
AD 110 Ignatius (7-16 books)
AD 110 Polycarp (14-16 books)
AD 110 Alexander
AD 115 Primus
AD120 Sixtus
AD 130 Telesphorus
AD 130 Justus
AD 135 Hyginus
AD 150 Pius
AD 160 Justin Martyr (5 books)
AD 175 Tatian (20 books)
AD 185 Irenaeus (24 books)
AD 195 Pantaenus
AD 210 Clement of Alexandria (22 books)
AD 220 Hippolytus (24 books)
AD 250 Origen (27 books)
AD 300 Pamphilus
AD 335 Eusebius (27 books)

This is the chain of custody from the life of Jesus to Eusebius years from AD 1 to AD 335). The Codex Sinaiticus/Council of Laodicea was from AD 350-AD 363.

The New Testament chain of custody preserved the primacy and scared importance of the eyewitness documents and delivered them faithfully to those who would later identify them publicly in the councils that established our present canon of Scripture.

The councils did NOT create the canon.

 

[Rhed]

Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?

I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.

Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.

The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...

I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.

Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.

Surely you have a mind and will look at the evidence circumstantially and see where ever that may lead...

From the time between the life of Jesus (AD 1-33) and the Council of Laodicea (AD 350-363) is well over three hundred years. So picture a timeline: Jesus on the left and a timeline to the first establishment of the canon of the Books. If we find writers about the Gospels and the Epistles closer to the right (the council) then skeptics will more than likely be correct that Jesus didn't exist and the New Testament is nothing but a fairy tale.

Before I list the pieces of evidence on the timeline of the Canon books let's consider if there is any evidence that the Gospels were written in the time period that it claims.

1. There is no description of the destruction of the temple.in AD 70, one of the most significant historical events. This would have corroborated with Jesus' prediction about the temple recorded in the Gospels. Jesus predicted others things as well and was corroborated later in the Gospels and Epistles, such as His death and resurrection.

2. There is no description of the siege of Jerusalem, another significant point in history. A 3-year war between the Romans and Jews.

3. Years before the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, in the Book of Acts, Luke doesn't mention the deaths of Peter (AD 65) and Paul (AD 64). Luke writes extensively about these two men.

4. Luke in the Book of Acts doesn't mention the death of James, the brother of Jesus (AD 62), although he mentions the deaths of James, the brother of John, and the death of Stephen.

5. The Gospel of Luke predates the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-2)

6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.

7. Paul summarizes the Gospels (1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated around AD 53-57. And Paul described his interaction with Peter and James (Gal 1:15-19; Gal 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the Gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within the 5 years of the crucifixion.

8. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel (Luke 22:19*20) in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (Luke's description of the Last Supper).

9. The Gospel of Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.
Luke readily admitted he was not an eyewitness, but a historian collecting eyewitness accounts.

10. Mark's Gospel appears to be an early "crime broadcast", meaning a brief and focused record of essential elements. The details will come later, just like what happens in crime investigations.

11. The Gospel of Mark doesn't mention key players by name due to protection of eyewitnesses. Later does the Gospel of John fill in the names (most scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written). The eyewitnesses were out of harm's way by that time.

Let's place this evidence on the timeline to see where the Gospels are located relative to the life of Jesus:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

It is reasonable to conclude from circumstantial evidence that the Gospels were written in the 1st century during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

Now I'll continue with the timeline from the eyewitness accounts from the Gospels to the next generation.

We’ll start with Apostle John and his chain of custody:

1. Apostle John (AD 6-100) taught Ignatius (AD 35-117)

2. Ignatius' letters describe what John has taught him about Jesus:

The prophets predicted and waited for Jesus
Jesus was in the line of King David
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
He was and is the Son of God
A star announced His birth
He came forth from God the Father
He was born of the virgin Mary
He was baptized by John the Baptist
He was the perfect man
He manifested the will and knowledge of God the Father
He taught and had a ministry on earth
He was the source of wisdom and taught many commandments
He spoke the words of God
Ointment was poured on Jesus's head
He was unjustly treated and condemned by men
He suffered and was crucified
He died on the cross
Jesus sacrificed Himself for us as an offering to God the Father
This all took place under the government of Pontius Pilate
Herod the Tetrarch was king
Jesus was resurrected
He had a physical resurrection body
...and on and on

He alluded to 7-16 New Testament books including most of Paul's letters and the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John..

3. John also taught Polycarp (AD 69-155)

Polycarp's letters describe the same as above. He referenced 14-16 NT book including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corthinians, Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, and 1 John.

Polycarp and Ignatius taught Irenaeus (AD 120-202)

4. Irenaeus mentions 24 books of the NT including Revelation.

Irenaeus taught Hippolytus (AD 170-236), the next generation. He was the first "anti pope" and was against the pagan influence of Christians. He also identifies as many as 24 NT books.


This next section will be about Paul's chain of custody...


5. Apostle Paul taught Clement of Rome (AD 80-140) . Clements description of Jesus is very similar to Ignatius and Polycarp; i.e.:

The prophets predicted the life and ministry of Jesus
Jesus provided His disciples with important instruction
He taught principles as described by Mark and Luke
He was humble and unassuming
He was whipped
He suffered and died for our salvation
He died as a payment for our sins
He was resurrected from the dead
He is alive and reigning with God
We are saved by Grace
He is Lord
All creation belongs to Him
He is our refuge and our High Priest
and on and on...

6. Clement passed the truth to Evaristus (AD ?-109) to
7. Alexander I (AD ?-115) to
8. Sixtus I (AD ?-125) to
9. Telesphorus (AD ?-136) to
10. Hyginus (AD ?-140), to
11. Pius I (AD 90-154).

12. Justin Martyr (AD 103-165) became known as the first apologist. He quoted or alluded to the four Gospels and Revelation.

13. Justin taught Tatian (AD 120-180), who identified the Gospels, letters of Paul, and the book of Acts.


Next, Peter's chain of custody:


14. Peter communicated with Mark.
15. Mark had at least five disciple: Anianus (AD ?-82), Avilius (AD ?-95), Kedron (AD ?-106), Primus (AD 40-118), and Justus (AD ?-135)
16. Justus passed the message to Pantaenus, an ex-Stoic philosopher.
17. Pantaenus taught Clement of Alexandria. He quoted and alluded to all NT books except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
18. Clement passed the Truth to Origen. He included all of the NT books we have today, however has doubts James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
19. Pamphilus adopted Origen's work.
20. Pamphilus taught Eusebius. He strongly affirmed most scripture except less affirmed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.


Now, let's plug these into our timeline:


AD 1-33 Life of Jesus
AD 30-33 Apostle Peter
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 60 Apostle Paul
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple
AD 70 Linus
AD 70 Apostle John
AD 75 Anianus
AD 95 Clement (7 books)
AD 95 Avilius
AD 100 Evaristus
AD 100 Kendron
AD 110 Ignatius (7-16 books)
AD 110 Polycarp (14-16 books)
AD 110 Alexander
AD 115 Primus
AD120 Sixtus
AD 130 Telesphorus
AD 130 Justus
AD 135 Hyginus
AD 150 Pius
AD 160 Justin Martyr (5 books)
AD 175 Tatian (20 books)
AD 185 Irenaeus (24 books)
AD 195 Pantaenus
AD 210 Clement of Alexandria (22 books)
AD 220 Hippolytus (24 books)
AD 250 Origen (27 books)
AD 300 Pamphilus
AD 335 Eusebius (27 books)

This is the chain of custody from the life of Jesus to Eusebius years from AD 1 to AD 335). The Codex Sinaiticus/Council of Laodicea was from AD 350-AD 363.

The New Testament chain of custody preserved the primacy and scared importance of the eyewitness documents and delivered them faithfully to those who would later identify them publicly in the councils that established our present canon of Scripture.

The councils did NOT create the canon.

Sources:

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/date.aspx

The Epistles of Ignatius to the Ephesians

The Epistles of Ignatius to the Romans

The Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians

The Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrneans

The Epistles of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

The Epistles of Ignatius Trallians

The Epistles of Ignatius to Polycarp

The Epistles of Polycarp to the Philippians

The First Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians

 

[Rhed]

Just to look at some of your claims:

1. There is no description of the destruction of the temple.in AD 70, one of the most significant historical events. This would have corroborated with Jesus' prediction about the temple recorded in the Gospels. Jesus predicted others things as well and was corroborated later in the Gospels and Epistles, such as His death and resurrection.

2. There is no description of the siege of Jerusalem, another significant point in history. A 3-year war between the Romans and Jews.

If I am writing historical fiction set during WW2 why would I include details of Sputnik? These events don't happen in the period covered by the story so why should they be included?

Stunning. I'm sure you are aware that the Gospels approximately took place between AD 33-AD 70 . Within that time frame is BEFORE the destruction of the Temple. Going with your WW2 and Sputnik analogy would be like writing about Germany in the years between 1930s to 1940s without mentioning the Nazis and Holocaust.

IAlso, your claims about Jesus predicting things are predicated on a) him having existed, b) the Gospels quoting him accurately and c) the Gospels having been written before these events. None of these are established.

For a), "him having existed" as if Jesus never existed is against the consensus of biblical scholars. For b), "the Gospels quoting him accurately" as if you didn't read nor comprehend my post. For c), "the Gospels having been written before these events" as if you didn't read or comprehend my post.

3. Years before the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, in the Book of Acts, Luke doesn't mention the deaths of Peter (AD 65) and Paul (AD 64). Luke writes extensively about these two men.

4. Luke in the Book of Acts doesn't mention the death of James, the brother of Jesus (AD 62), although he mentions the the deaths of James, the brother of John, and the death of Stephen.

IHardly conclusive. Details of Paul's and Peter's deaths are "traditions" and not established history. The author of Acts also doesn't demonstrate familiarity with Paul's letters.

This is coming from a person who doesn't believe 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and Luke 22:19 are related:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” - 1 Cor. 11:23-25

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. - Luke 22:19

5. The Gospel of Luke predates the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-2)

Possibly.

6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.

The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

True. The critics of Paul's authorship based their rejection on the following:

1. The vocabulary, grammar, and style of the Pastorals differ from letters that are almost unanimously viewed as being from Paul. A sound response to this objection is the role of a personal secretary (possibly Luke), the incorporation of earlier material, the letters' personal nature, and the unique subject matter account for linguistic differences.

2. Church organization reflected in the Pastorals look more like structures seen in the later era. A sound response is the early Church's adoption of the leadership structure of the synagogue accounts for the relatively advanced organization of the church early in its history (Acts 6:1-6; 11:30). Besides, the leadership structure is not as developed in the Pastorals as in the writings of the apostolic fathers at the closse of the first century.

3. The letters counter Gnostic teachings, which did not arise until after AD 100. A sound response is Paul countered a basically Jewish heresy (1 Tim 1:7; Ti 1:10,14; 3:9) containing some features of asceticism, or self-denial (1 Tim 4:3), with traces of Greek philosophical influence (2 Tim 2:18).

7. Paul summarizes the Gospels (1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated around AD 53-57. And Paul described his interaction with Peter and James (Gal 1:15-19; Gal 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the Gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within the 5 years of the crucifixion.

Do you understand the basic premise of the mythicist argument (i.e. have you read this thread at all)? Nothing Paul says is inconsistent with a purely celestial Jesus who died and rose again in a celestial realm. This hardly summarizes the Gospels as this version has no birth and no earthly ministry, only mentioning that people saw him after he rose from the dead (as Paul claims to have done so in a vision). Also, you are assuming Peter and James are followers of a human Jesus though nothing in Paul's texts indicate that they did anything other than have visions of Jesus like he did.

This is coming from a person who doesn't believe 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and Luke 22:19 are related:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” - 1 Cor. 11:23-25

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. - Luke 22:19

Paul mentions the last supper; Jesus doesn't appear to be celestial to me.

And to point out from the verses below, Paul mentions "died for our sins according to the Scriptures", he was buried, raised on the third day.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

8. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel (Luke 22:19*20) in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (Luke's description of the Last Supper).

This is a stretch. The language isn't really parallel here.

See above.

9. The Gospel of Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.
Luke readily admitted he was not an eyewitness, but a historian collecting eyewitness accounts.

So? This just suggests those gospels predate Luke, as most people agree.

It's reasonable to conclude that the Mark's account was already recognized, accepted, and available to Luke prior to his authorship of the gospel.

10. Mark's Gospel appears to be an early "crime broadcast", meaning a brief and focused record of essential elements. The details will come later, just like what happens in crime investigations.

This also happens in mythology where a basic story gets elaborated by later authors.

You can believe that, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

11. The Gospel of Mark doesn't mention key players by name due to protection of eyewitnesses. Later does the Gospel of John fill in the names (most scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written). The eyewitnesses were out of harm's way by that time.

This is a ridiculous supposition (apart from John being last). What evidence do you have for it?

It's brief, events are not in precise order, names are not mentioned, etc. Papias confirmed this about Mark's effort:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."

 

[SpecialFrog]

Rhed, there is no need to copy / paste entire posts again. We can scroll back. Ditto repeating the same paragraph.

If I am writing historical fiction set during WW2 why would I include details of Sputnik? These events don't happen in the period covered by the story so why should they be included?

Stunning. I'm sure you are aware that the Gospels approximately took place between AD 33-AD 70 . Within that time frame is BEFORE the destruction of the Temple. Going with your WW2 and Sputnik analogy would be like writing about Germany in the years between 1930s to 1940s without mentioning the Nazis and Holocaust.

The events of the Gospels collectively start slightly before the birth of Jesus and end slightly after his resurrection. Since your timeline clearly indicates Jesus's dates were 1CE to 31CE (I don't think any scholars agree with those dates, by the way) then the events take place before the destruction of the temple.

If you think otherwise, please explain because this claim makes no sense to me.

Also, your claims about Jesus predicting things are predicated on a) him having existed, b) the Gospels quoting him accurately and c) the Gospels having been written before these events. None of these are established.

For a), "him having existed" as if Jesus never existed is against the consensus of biblical scholars. For b), "the Gospels quoting him accurately" as if you didn't read nor comprehend my post. For c), "the Gospels having been written before these events" as if you didn't read or comprehend my post.

a) I know what the scholarly consensus says. However, we are talking about the evidence for Jesus existing. You can't use evidence predicated on his existence as evidence of his existence.
b) I understand your post I just don't concede that this is established fact. You can't use this as evidence unless you have evidence that it is actually a fact.
c) See b).

Hardly conclusive. Details of Paul's and Peter's deaths are "traditions" and not established history. The author of Acts also doesn't demonstrate familiarity with Paul's letters.

This is coming from a person who doesn't believe 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and Luke 22:19 are related:

Total non-sequitur. Also not what I said (see below).

The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

True. The critics of Paul's authorship based their rejection on the following:

1. The vocabulary, grammar, and style of the Pastorals differ from letters that are almost unanimously viewed as being from Paul. A sound response to this objection is the role of a personal secretary (possibly Luke), the incorporation of earlier material, the letters' personal nature, and the unique subject matter account for linguistic differences.

2. Church organization reflected in the Pastorals look more like structures seen in the later era. A sound response is the early Church's adoption of the leadership structure of the synagogue accounts for the relatively advanced organization of the church early in its history (Acts 6:1-6; 11:30). Besides, the leadership structure is not as developed in the Pastorals as in the writings of the apostolic fathers at the closse of the first century.

3. The letters counter Gnostic teachings, which did not arise until after AD 100. A sound response is Paul countered a basically Jewish heresy (1 Tim 1:7; Ti 1:10,14; 3:9) containing some features of asceticism, or self-denial (1 Tim 4:3), with traces of Greek philosophical influence (2 Tim 2:18).

1. My understanding is that the language is inconsistent with the New Testament as a whole and is much more consistent with 2nd century Christian writings. That points against it being written by Luke or a secretary of Paul's or even a contemporary, particularly lacking evidence that Paul wrote letters through intermediaries.
2. The structures described don't seem like they fit with synagogue leadership structures.
3. We have evidence of Gnosticism. Any evidence for this Jewish heresy?

Obviously it is possible that Paul wrote these epistles but possible is not probable.

7. Paul summarizes the Gospels (1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated around AD 53-57. And Paul described his interaction with Peter and James (Gal 1:15-19; Gal 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the Gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within the 5 years of the crucifixion.

Do you understand the basic premise of the mythicist argument (i.e. have you read this thread at all)? Nothing Paul says is inconsistent with a purely celestial Jesus who died and rose again in a celestial realm. This hardly summarizes the Gospels as this version has no birth and no earthly ministry, only mentioning that people saw him after he rose from the dead (as Paul claims to have done so in a vision). Also, you are assuming Peter and James are followers of a human Jesus though nothing in Paul's texts indicate that they did anything other than have visions of Jesus like he did.

This is coming from a person who doesn't believe 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and Luke 22:19 are related:

...

Paul mentions the last supper; Jesus doesn't appear to be celestial to me.

And to point out from the verses below, Paul mentions "died for our sins according to the Scriptures", he was buried, raised on the third day.

Again with the non-sequitur. Do you really think that constitutes an argument?

And yes, Paul mentions the ritual of the last supper and the death, burial and rebirth. So what? Are you familiar with the Dionysian cults and similar mystery religions of the era? They followed rituals based on the "life" of Dionysus, who died and was re-born, possibly in the underworld. Does this mean a) these stories are true and b) these stories have to take place on Earth?

8. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel (Luke 22:19*20) in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (Luke's description of the Last Supper).

This is a stretch. The language isn't really parallel here.

See above.

I agree it is describing the same ritual but not in such a way that it requires one to have been based off another.

9. The Gospel of Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.
Luke readily admitted he was not an eyewitness, but a historian collecting eyewitness accounts.

So? This just suggests those gospels predate Luke, as most people agree.

It's reasonable to conclude that the Mark's account was already recognized, accepted, and available to Luke prior to his authorship of the gospel.

I agree. So what? I don't see how this is significant.

10. Mark's Gospel appears to be an early "crime broadcast", meaning a brief and focused record of essential elements. The details will come later, just like what happens in crime investigations.

This also happens in mythology where a basic story gets elaborated by later authors.

You can believe that, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

What evidence supports this?

11. The Gospel of Mark doesn't mention key players by name due to protection of eyewitnesses. Later does the Gospel of John fill in the names (most scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written). The eyewitnesses were out of harm's way by that time.

This is a ridiculous supposition (apart from John being last). What evidence do you have for it?

It's brief, events are not in precise order, names are not mentioned, etc. Papias confirmed this about Mark's effort:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."

First of all, that passage is Papias quoting what John the Elder claimed about Mark and his relationship to Peter, which is hardly first-hand knowledge.

Secondly, this does nothing to support your claim that this had something to do with witness protection.

Thirdly, that rendition of the passage looks a little funny to me. Here is another version.

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Chreiais a form of Greek rhetorical device, which would be odd for Peter to have used and extremely odd for Jesus to have used. This is consistent with the Gospels as literary constructions rather than eye-witness accounts. This isn't necessarily an argument against historicity because ancient historians were prone to such devices in search of revealing the deeper truths of a story, but it makes treating the text as eye-witness accounts problematic.

 

[Rhed]

The events of the Gospels collectively start slightly before the birth of Jesus and end slightly after his resurrection. Since your timeline clearly indicates Jesus's dates were 1CE to 31CE (I don't think any scholars agree with those dates, by the way) then the events take place before the destruction of the temple.

If you think otherwise, please explain because this claim makes no sense to me.

Correct, maybe it was a typo - the Gospel do NOT mention the destruction of the temple or the Jewish Wars.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The events of the Gospels collectively start slightly before the birth of Jesus and end slightly after his resurrection. Since your timeline clearly indicates Jesus's dates were 1CE to 31CE (I don't think any scholars agree with those dates, by the way) then the events take place before the destruction of the temple.

If you think otherwise, please explain because this claim makes no sense to me.

Correct, maybe it was a typo - the Gospel do NOT mention the destruction of the temple or the Jewish Wars.

It wasn't a typo. Your points 1 and 2 argue that the fact that these events are not mentioned in the Gospels is significant when dating the Gospels. Since we both agree that the period described by the Gospels is before either of those events I do not see how this is even an argument.

Why should the Gospels describe events that take place decades after the story being told in the Gospels?

If that's not what you mean, what do you actually mean?

 

[Rhed]

It wasn't a typo. Your points 1 and 2 argue that the fact that these events are not mentioned in the Gospels is significant when dating the Gospels. Since we both agree that the period described by the Gospels is before either of those events I do not see how this is even an argument.

Why should the Gospels describe events that take place decades after the story being told in the Gospels?

If that's not what you mean, what do you actually mean?

So the Gospels were written before AD 70.

 

[SpecialFrog]

It wasn't a typo. Your points 1 and 2 argue that the fact that these events are not mentioned in the Gospels is significant when dating the Gospels. Since we both agree that the period described by the Gospels is before either of those events I do not see how this is even an argument.

Why should the Gospels describe events that take place decades after the story being told in the Gospels?

If that's not what you mean, what do you actually mean?

So the Gospels were written before AD 70.

This argument still makes no sense.

Is your expectation that if the Gospels were written after 70CE, they would have Jesus resurrect, talk to his disciples, send them away and then...what? Carry on with the story for another twenty years? Tack on some mention of later events at the end?

The story of Jesus -- which is what the Gospels were telling -- was done. Why should it continue?

 

[Rhed]

Is your expectation that if the Gospels were written after 70CE, they would have Jesus resurrect, talk to his disciples, send them away and then...what? Carry on with the story for another twenty years? Tack on some mention of later events at the end?

The story of Jesus -- which is what the Gospels were telling -- was done. Why should it continue?

Ok. Having eyewitness accounts (the Gospels) closer to the event (Jesus ministry) will be much more accurate than say further from the event. The farther you get from the event, the more likely you will have more alterations, more inaccurate accounts, etc.

Most liberal scholars want to believe they were copies of other writings, fabrications and alterations to the original.

We can narrow the time span between the eyewitness accounts and the destruction and siege of Jerusalem to AD 33 and AD 70.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Is your expectation that if the Gospels were written after 70CE, they would have Jesus resurrect, talk to his disciples, send them away and then...what? Carry on with the story for another twenty years? Tack on some mention of later events at the end?

The story of Jesus -- which is what the Gospels were telling -- was done. Why should it continue?

We can narrow the time span between the eyewitness accounts and the destruction and siege of Jerusalem to AD 33 and AD 70.

You are just ignoring my point and repeating your illogical argument.

According to you, how would the Gospels be different if they were written after 70CE?

 

[Rhed]

You are just ignoring my point and repeating your illogical argument.

According to you, how would the Gospels be different if they were written after 70CE?

I'm moving on. Sorry.

 

[SpecialFrog]

You are just ignoring my point and repeating your illogical argument.

According to you, how would the Gospels be different if they were written after 70CE?

I'm moving on. Sorry.

To my responses to your other ten points or from the discussion entirely?

Though I'm still curious to know how you think your argument on this point makes any sense.

 

[Rhed]

To my responses to your other ten points or from the discussion entirely?

Though I'm still curious to know how you think your argument on this point makes any sense.

I'll respond to the other points. Just a quick question, if Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection happened in AD 33, would you believe in the Gospels more so if they were written between AD 33 and AD 67, or between AD 100 and AD 200?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Just a quick question, if Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection happened in AD 33, would you believe in the Gospels more so if they were written between AD 33 and AD 67, or between AD 100 and AD 200?

I don't know.

Would they be the same Gospels written in literary Greek with an ending tacked-on to Mark and John being clearly written by at least two different authors?

It sounds like you are trying to make an appeal to consequences and say that the dates have to be earlier because otherwise they would be less convincing.

 

[Rhed]

Just a quick question, if Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection happened in AD 33, would you believe in the Gospels more so if they were written between AD 33 and AD 67, or between AD 100 and AD 200?

I don't know.

Would they be the same Gospels written in literary Greek with an ending tacked-on to Mark and John being clearly written by at least two different authors?

It sounds like you are trying to make an appeal to consequences and say that the dates have to be earlier because otherwise they would be less convincing.

Yes...you can be taught!

The Mark addition is clearly an artifact, so archaeology digging up ancient manuscripts helps us show what the original was like. No secret there, and modern Bibles have this as a footnote.

The two authors of John would be slightly plausible if it was written AD 110 (after to destruction of the Temple), but written before AD 70, it is less plausible.

See, I knew you would get it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Just a quick question, if Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection happened in AD 33, would you believe in the Gospels more so if they were written between AD 33 and AD 67, or between AD 100 and AD 200?

I don't know.

Would they be the same Gospels written in literary Greek with an ending tacked-on to Mark and John being clearly written by at least two different authors?

It sounds like you are trying to make an appeal to consequences and say that the dates have to be earlier because otherwise they would be less convincing.

Yes...you can be taught!

The Mark addition is clearly an artifact, so archaeology digging up ancient manuscripts helps us show what the original was like. No secret there, and modern Bibles have this as a footnote.

The two authors of John would be slightly plausible if it was written AD 110 (after to destruction of the Temple), but written before AD 70, it is less plausible.

See, I knew you would get it.

You realize an appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy, right? It is deciding what truth is acceptable and then discounting evidence and arguments that disagree with it.

So I don't think you are going to teach me to interpret evidence based on a desired conclusion rather than the other way around.

But rather than considering the scholarly consensus on John to be "slightly plausible" maybe you should consider this to be evidence relevant to determine the date of the work.

 

[Laurens]

Surely you have a mind and will look at the evidence circumstantially and see where ever that may lead...

From the time between the life of Jesus (AD 1-33) and the Council of Laodicea (AD 350-363) is well over three hundred years. So picture a timeline: Jesus on the left and a timeline to the first establishment of the canon of the Books. If we find writers about the Gospels and the Epistles closer to the right (the council) then skeptics will more than likely be correct that Jesus didn't exist and the New Testament is nothing but a fairy tale.

In actual fact the evidence suggests a gap of around 20 years from the supposed time of Jesus' death (30 - 33 CE) and the earliest Pauline Epistle (50 CE).

Despite what you say Paul is the earliest New Testament writer, Mark---the earliest Gospel is thought to have been written between 66 and 70 CE. So we have another 20 year or so gap between the authorship of Paul's first epistle and the gospel of Mark.

Given that Paul lived so near to the supposed death of Jesus it's strange that he does not recount anything that unambiguously places Jesus' life in recent history. He mentions his death and resurrection, but he never once puts it in Jerusalem at the hands of Pontious Pilate. He never talks about any of the supposed miracles or sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels. In the authentic epistles there is a stunning lack of biographical detail about someone that was supposedly a recently dead rabbi.

It is true that Paul appears to possibly mention a brother of Jesus, however this is at best ambiguous. As I mentioned here there are problems with it.

We then get to Mark, who doesn't appear to be writing biographical history, but merely fiction. All of the gospels bear the marks of fiction. We have instances in which the narrative is given from an omniscient perspective. For example in Mark 14:55-65 we are given an account of the chief priests are looking for testimony to use against Jesus in order to put him to death, yet no disciples are present during the events in order to recount them later as witnesses. Again in Mark 15:1-5 we are told of an encounter between Pilate and Jesus. Elsewhere in Mark we are told that Jesus was "moved with pity" (Mark 1:41) how does the narrator know how Jesus felt?

We are also told of Jesus going into the wilderness and being tempted by Satan (Mark 1:12-13, Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13). In none of these passages are we told that there was a witness present. So how are we told exactly what was said? You might argue that Jesus told the disciples at a later date, but this is not how it is presented. It is presented as a scene being described by an omniscient narrator.

Then we have the account of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-38, Matthew 26:36-40, Luke 22:39-45). We are told that the disciples are asleep when Jesus is praying, yet we are also told exactly what he said, when there were no witnesses present, or rather all the potential witnesses were asleep. Jesus has no possibility of being able to recount to the disciples what he said during his prayer because his is then seized by the authorities and subsequently executed.

You have to ask why a person writing history would add so much blatantly fictitious stuff.

We also have examples of events which are too symbolically pertinent to be actual history. Take the example of Barabbas (a name meaning son of the father), we are told that on special occasions the Roman authorities allowed people to choose a criminal to set loose (something that would never have happened under the ruthless Pilate). When Barabbas is released it is symbolic. Emulating the ceremony of Yom Kippur with two 'sons of the father' instead of sacrificial lambs. This adds a lot of symbolism of atonement and sacrifice to the crucifixion narrative. I think it's pretty clear that this is an allegorical and fictive account of the crucifixion.

There are many, many examples of elements in each gospel that are too convenient in structure to be actual historical events. Patterns and motifs can be seen in the structure of events---parallels drawn with Old Testament figures. I can only suggest reading Richard Carrier's book to get the full picture.

It is my contention that the gospels contain zero useful historical information. All of the fictive elements mean that we cannot devise a reasonable criteria by which to discern which content, if any, depicts actual historic events. In this article by Stephen Law he highlights a principle of contamination, by which the reliability of an account is diminished to the point of being useless due to the presence of such obvious fiction.

When you look closely at this chain of yours it would seem that it is pretty broken right from the get go. Paul says very little that can be regarded as biographical information and the Gospels are so wildly fictional that they cannot be trusted as historical sources for anything.



extract from a blog post I've been working on

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the scholarly consensus was that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were just traditions that later became part of the Bible's canonization.

There are two schools of Biblical scholarships: conservative and liberal. Liberal scholars don't believe the supernatural or miracles, therefore they will support a late date and canon was what the early church wanted; not inspired by God.

That does not really answer the question now does it? Do you have citations to show that the names attached to the Gospels were written by their namesakes or do you just believe that because of biblical tradition?

In addition, it seems like you are claiming that if the supernatural is real, than the early dates are correct, but if the supernatural is not real, than the later dates are correct. That is interesting, to say the least.

You are just ignoring my point and repeating your illogical argument.

According to you, how would the Gospels be different if they were written after 70CE?

I'm moving on. Sorry.

:lol:

 

[SpecialFrog]

There are two schools of Biblical scholarships: conservative and liberal. Liberal scholars don't believe the supernatural or miracles, therefore they will support a late date and canon was what the early church wanted; not inspired by God.

That does not really answer the question now does it? Do you have citations to show that the names attached to the Gospels were written by their namesakes or do you just believe that because of biblical tradition?

In addition, it seems like you are claiming that if the supernatural is real, than the early dates are correct, but if the supernatural is not real, than the later dates are correct. That is interesting, to say the least.

Your confusion is because you don't understand that evidence doesn't matter. What matters is deciding what is correct so you can filter out experts that support the wrong conclusion. The experts themselves only reach conclusions based on their own biases so you can work out what their biases are from their conclusions and know which ones are wrong.