Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors

Thanks, Paul, I am interested.Those seem like good fundamental points for a historical Jesus.
Next comes the evidence. I've recently come across some mythicists who think Doherty is quite conservative in that he believes there was a Paul. They hold that the Pauline documents were created later for support for various positions. But I haven't really checked that out.The writings and fragments of writing tha early church has are open to lots of confusion and problemes in dating and attribution. The epistles that are well accepted as written by Paul could be taken to support Jesus if only in passing but I can also see why Doherty and the mythicist also see in them the idea of a fully mythical Christ. The segue into the Gospel According to Mark which so relies on the old testament and has such a tight literary structure of chiasms etc. that it can look like a midrash on the old testament in support of the Christ vision of Paul that in the end was taken to describe an actual person.I'm not commited to either conclusion but interested in how to clarify the problem to a resolution. I don't at this point agree with sfs that Doherty is a crackpot. He and the other mythicist I've read seem to be arguing from the texts but they weight the slim evidence differently.And then there is trying to understand the literature in terms of its milieu. Miracles, miraculous healings, birth, etc were apparently accepted during that era for lots of people including Roman Emperorers, so it's easy to see that reports of the life of a teacher would easily pick up lots of miracle stories.I find the evidence to be slim but not entirely negligible for the historic Jesus. I am still fascinated by Doherty's thesis though perhaps because of all the questions about the historicity issue, it would be a relief to sweep it away. But sfs believes that creates more problems.lfen

Earl Doherty's explication of this found on his website and I quote a small section of his reply to someone who had written him asking of this passage: Both the historicist and the mythicist arguments depend on more than one passage or source of course. I put this forth as an example of the
passages cited as supporting historicity being susceptible to a mythicist interpretation.sfs stated that he found Doherty's explanations "strained". I hope I am presenting his position correctly. My endeavor at this point is to clarify the nature of the problem, the relevant texts, and the interpretations that have been made of the texts. At this point I don't see myself capable or willing to do that amount of work, especially as unlike Doherty I don't read the languages the texts were written in. I am here trying to present as factual a countercase to the historist position as I can and I am depending on Doherty's writing to supply that case.lfen

This looks like an interesting discussion. I was suprised to find no mention of 1 Corinthians in your discussion of Paul's writings. I posted the following in a thread in the "Faith and Belief" forum that appears to be nearly identical to this one.The two best-attested books in the NT are 1 Corinthians & Galatians. We know that 1 Corinthians was written around 50 AD (about 15 years after, Jesus' crucifixion); in part, due to a later document, 1 Clement. In 1 Corinthians, Paul lays out the "gospel", which includes Jesus death & resurrection. He also mentions that there were over 500 other eye-witnesses of these events. We know from Galatians that those people were Jews in and around Jerusalem before 35 AD.So, we know that there were Jews in Judea who believed that Jesus had lived, had died, and had been resurrected no more than 5 years after his death. I feel that this is pretty strong evidence for his existence at least. No one makes up a myth with events 5 years in the past; you have to put things far enough into the mythical past to where they cannot be disproven.Evan

Hi bambooguy and welcome to the discussion which on my part is just starting up...one passage at a time. But you've advanced the discussion to this: I excerpt a portion of a much longer explanation by Doherty of the mythicist position: Now I only read and understand english. This translation has Paul including his experience of the Christ in the same way as the others that is it was an appearance. So this was a visionary experience, no?
And not a testimony that Christ was present on this earth in the same way Paul and the others were.My participation here is to see how well the mythicist position holds up to historicist argument. sfs started off by dismissing Doherty as a crackpot. But I still find his arguments in total persuassive and am slightly inclined in favor of the mythicist position though they do have a bit of an uphill battle it seems. I'm not setting out to convert historicist, I just want to see if I can get them to admit that their position is not the only plausible explanation.lfen

Just a few more comments.Doubting the existence of Jesus is one thing - the evidence is certainly weak - although not unusually so for a minor figure eho left no writings. But doubting the existence of Paul seems perverse.While it is not unusual for religions to invent false histories for themselves it is very unusual for them to place them in the recent past - and it would be unusual indeed for one to erase its past history in favour of a fiction. Since it is also clear that the Jerusalem Church existed at the time of Paul's activities it follows that it probably originated in the correct time period for Jesus to be the founder. (The preference of the early Christians for oral over written accounts also suggests a recent origin).Moreover the acceptance of Paul as an apparent equal suggests that the founder was dead at the time of his conversion. The founder would almost certainly have had sufficient "clout" to keep Paul in second place - and cult leaders tend to desire complete control. Again this fits with the idea that a historical Jesus started the Jerusalem Church.On the other hand Paul needed the recognition of the Jerusalem Church. While it can certainly be argued that he effectively founded a new religion, its roots were clearly in the preceding Jerusalem Church. And it is from the Jerusalem Church that the original Jesus story must have come - Paul admits that his vision of Jesus was the last of the "appearances".So it seems to me that the basic idea of a historical Jesus fits well with the situation as it was in Paul's time. Christianity is a newish sect within Judaism, its founder is dead and they revere Jesus who at least comes to be regarded as the earthly founder in a period of a few decades.

A 'minor religious figure'? According to the gospels, Jesus performed mutliple startling miracles (raising the dead, healing the sick, etc.), attracted a following so great that five thousand people were willing to treck for miles on the off-chance he might speak without even so much as preparing themselves a meal and had people celebrating in the streets as he entered Jerusalem.Five thousand might not be that much now but back then it was a good sized army. To suggest that the Jesus of the bible is a 'minor religious figure' not worthy of note is absurd in the extreme.

Greetings Mr. Jack,Have you sources prior to Mark that tell of large crowds and miracles? What does Paul have to say about this? Particularly have you non bibical sources? It doesn't appear that Jesus had much impact historically in Palestine. Later the Christians in Rome seemed to have come to the attention of the authorities there.The evidence for Jesus is so slim that a group of scholars called mythicist don't believe he ever existed. The historicist position is that a teacher did exist and his followers later in talking about him created the myths of Christ.I'm thinking of the Revival movement in the United States when faith healers healed people in tents. In the period around 1 CE there were lots of faith healers, miracles, and resurrections all over the Mediterreanen.The question the historicist and mythicist are dealing with is why there was so little historical note until decades if not centuries later.According to legends about the Buddha many miracles accompanied his birth and life also. They were obviously added after the fact and can't be cited historically, the Gospel account are suspect as reliable history.So I find nothing absurd in the assertion that Jesus if he existed was a minor religious figure, but I suppose that depends on how you define minor or major. Religious figures other than high priests for the most part were mythical anyway. Was Paul in his time anything other than a minor wandering religious teacher? And there are those who doubt Paul existed but I've not found where they give their evidence.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 07-05-2004 09:44 AM

Ifen,If you read the message I was replying to you will see that Sfs was responding to someone else's claim that the lack of evidence about Jesus was strong evidence against the historical validity of the Gospels. If the Gospels are historical then Jesus is not a 'minor religious figure' so defending a claim that they are by claiming so is self defeating.I too have no problem with the idea that the Jesus myth is based around a minor religious figure of the time.Cheers,Jack

Mr. Jack,I missed that the argument was going the other way. But at what point, do you think,would the Christian religion with it's gospels have grown in influence enough to qualify Jesus as a major figure? Certainly after the adoption by Constantine, but before that?lfen

I'd say the adoption by Constantine is the key point, if there be such a thing, but I won't claim to have the historical knowledge to make that a solid judgement.

I wrote my post in response to posts like 37 and 38 of this thread, and I'm not trying to give a full-blown proof. I find that internet discussions prohibit that sort of thing. The long posts are boring, and generally the discussion ends in a shouting match. But, I did want to respond to your post.I don't think we can assume that Jesus was "spiritual" at this point, that explanation doesn't completely fit the text. The word Paul uses for "resurrection", is always used for a bodily, physical resurrection. They considered Jesus to be a real person, with a body who lived in history.Evan

Hi Evan, It is out of consideration of that that I've tried to keep my posts focused as tightly as possible and for example use just one citation at a time.
I'm not sure what the uses of the internet for this are. This site is interesting and has drawn me in, but I'm not sure what the value will be to me, other than to learn to express myself more concisely? My lack of knowledge of the original languages is very handicapping. Earl Doherty goes into the language in the original. But no one is assuming Paul meant a "spiritual" Christ, rather that is what is to be proved or at least a case made for.Doherty goes into his case quite at length. I'm trying to learn how to sort these arguments and textual criticisms out. I understand only some of the mythicist position and some of it sounds quite good but that doesn't mean it's ultimately convincing. I had always assumed some sort of historical person who was later mythologized until I read The Jesus Puzzle. Turning things on there head has an appeal for me. Instead of a real man who becomes a myth, a myth figure is recast as real. I suppose that reverse symmetry has an aesthetic appeal to me, not that that proves anything.lfen

Greetings all,Sorry I missed this before...Justus of TiberiasAre you arguing that ONLY Kings would be found in the work?
But then, Moses was NOT a King, was he? so thats not correct.
Jesus WAS seen as a political figure by some, he could easily have been mentioned if he existed.
I agree with Photius that it is surprising he wasn't.PhiloMany of Philo's works were semi-historical (e.g. on Abel, Cain, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Joseph.)
Two in particular cover recent history - Flaccus, On The Embassy.
Others could have easily mentioned a Jesus, if he existed - On Dreams, Virtues, Every Good man is Free, On the Contemplative Life.
Philo mentions many minor figures such as - Zipporah, Thyestes, Theodorus, Tamar, Syleus, Stephanion, Silanus, Phayllus, Pentephoe, Onomarchus, etc...
It is entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that he would have mentioned Jesus.
Of course it is not certain he would have, but this absence adds to others. (I can't seem to track down the reference to Philo being in Jerusalem, but considering he travelled to Rome about events at the Temple, it seems very likely.)Seneca"Why would Seneca, living in Rome when he wasn't in exile, have heard of Jesus' teachings?"Well, Christians argue Nero had heard of Christians by then.
Supposedly Paul and Peter were in Rome by this period.
Again, it is not certain that he would have heard of, or mentioned Jesus - but its another silence by someone would could, perhaps should, have mentioned Jesus.
You didn't answer why Christians would FORGE a correspondence between Paul and Seneca if a connection was not plausible?HebrewsHebrews is a very odd document -
* it refers to a "new covenant" but never mentions the Last Supper,
* it says nothing about the empty tomb,
* it never gives any sayings of Jesus,
* it imagery is heavenly and Platonic, not historical.
* it has a FIRST coming, a not second (10:37)I agree with Doherty that this document does not contain references to a historical Jesus - the quotes you gave are tiny snippets taken out of the spiritual context of the letter. I refer you to -
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot TerbesarMatthew & Gospels"And your claim is wrong, since the author of Matthew was a Christian author, wrote before the early 2nd century, and showed detailed knowledge of the content of the gospels. "Are you REALLY claiming a Gospel as proof for the Gospels?
So, when is the first clear reference our written G.Matthew?"What authors are there who could have displayed a knowledge of the Gospels before the early 2nd century? "How about the first century of Christian writings? The first dozen or so books written by Christians show NO mention of the Gospels or their events (not counting the original core of spiritual crucifixion and resurrection) -
Hebrews (60s)
Colossians (70s)
James (80s)
1 John (80s)
2 Thessalonians (80s)
Ephesians (90s)
1 Peter (90s)
Revelation (90s)
Clement (90s)
Jude (100s)
Didakhe (100s)
2 John (120s)
3 John (120s)Not one of these works shows clear knowledge of the Gospels or their contents (baring vague references to spiritual events.)Not until the early 2nd century do any clues to the Gospels existence arise -
* Papias
* JustinIgnatius"There are a number of lines of evidence that indicate that Matthew was written well before 130. Ignatius (whose letters, despite your rejection of them, are nearly universally accepted by the relevant experts) is one."The Ignatiana is notoriously corrupt - 8 letters are considered spurious, the rest come in several versions of unclear provenance. Their authenticity has been questioned for centuries - Dallaeus (1666), Lardner (1743), Joly 1979, Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmller (1795), Neander (1826),Killen (1886)
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/KillenIgnatius.pdfDutch radicals argued they were spurious :
Seite nicht gefunden – Hermann DeteringIgnatius from 130sBernard Muller makes a convincing case that the letters date to about the 130s -
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html
I agree with Bernard - these letters were written c.135One author even argues a specific forgery conspiracy -
http://www.thecosmiccontext.de/christianity/Ignatius1.htmlFurthermore, the connection between Ignatius and G.Matthew is NOT clear - at no time does he specifically name or quote a written Gospel - he uses the early form of "gospel" (singular, un-named) meaning the good news. His failure to distinguish between these two, shows he has no knowledge of a written Gospel. He does give a few phrases similar to Gospel sayings, but in general shows only little knowledge of Gospel events.Polycarp"Polycarp's clear quotation of Matthew is another. The date of Polycarp's letter was probably around 110-120."Polycarp makes NO clear quotation of G.Matthew.
He does NOT mention a "Gospel"
He does NOT refer to "Matthew"
He merely gives a few Sayings of Jesus that are similar to some also found in G.Matthew and elsewhere in the NT.
But the date of this letter is not certain, Kirby gives 110 (or 120) to 140.Papias"There's also Papias, who wrote sometime in the period 120-140; he reports traditions about the origin of written gospels, placing them in the generation of the apostles."Oh sure -
4th century Eusebius, the master forger, wrote that Papias wrote that he had heard from followers who heard from the elders who heard from.... talk about Chinese Whispers.
Anyway -
Papias refers to a G.Mark NOT like our modern one (not in order.)
Papias refers to a G.Matthew NOT like our modern one (in Hebrew.)
Papias then explicitly says these "writings" are of LESS VALUE than a living voice."Whether the traditions are accurate or not is unimportant; what matters is that by the time of Papias, there were already written gospels (attributed to Mark and Matthew) that were old, old enough to have accumulated traditions. "Oh?
It doesn't matter if what he says is accurate? Provided he agrees with you? Ridiculous.
What matters is that Papias DISMISSES these writings as of little value.
What matters is that Papias describes proto-gospels NOT like our modern ones.Clement"Where did you get these numbers? I just went through Clement's letter to the Corinthians..."Straight from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, here -
Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Where you will see the notes go up to 261.I provide an detailed analysis here -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
Where you will clearly see the evidence for the numbers I cited."I also note that your claim was that there was no evidence that any of the Gospel stories or events were known earlier than the 2nd century. Since Clement is late 1st century, and knows stories of Jesus teaching, your claim would seem to be wrong."OK, I wrote unclearly.
By "stories" I meant events, e.g. the Cleansing of the Temple.
I admit there ARE references to some SAYINGS of Jesus before the other gospel stories were known - but belief in SAYINGS of Jesus does NOT depend on a historical person - e.g. Paul gets his knowledge of Jesus from visions and scripture.Summary"...you were saying that the Gospels were stories, written a century later. What exactly have I misunderstood about that sentence? "
D'oh
You got me. Of course I do suspect this, but it is not certain and it is NOT my argument. The actual date of WRITING is unclear, and may never be known.My argument is -
there is NO CLEAR EVIDENCE for knowledge of the Gospels (or their contents as historical events) before early-mid 2nd centuryThe examples you cited do not stand up to scrutiny -
* Hebrews - platonic imagery and spiritual happenings - unclear allusions at best.
* Ignatius - probably from the 130s, no clear mention of Gospels.
* G.Matthew - vague reference in Papias c.130, otherwise unknown until mid-late 2nd century
* Polycarp - knowledge of some NT sayings from 110 to 140.
* Papias - mention c.130 of proto-gospels NOT quite like ours, which he dismisses as of little value.
* Clement - mention of 2 sayings of Jesus, NOT exactly like the Gospels - but NO mention of Gospels, NO mention of Evangelists, yet MANY cites to OT and Paul.So,
not one of your examples stands as clear evidence for the Gospels, or the events therein, before early-mid 2nd century.Iasion

Ifen, please don't take anything too personal. I'm glad that you're exploring these kinds of topics, as someone famous said, "the unexamined life is not worth living". I've read your posts on this thread, and they are some of the better posts I've read. It's a shame that these important topics are not always discussed with your civility.I've actually never heard of Doherty, is he good? I'm thinking that his ideas might be a good topic for a new thread, what do you think? Do you want to start one?Evan

bambooguy,I'll let you judge Doherty for yourself. Here is the link to his website: AgeOfReasonThis is another discussion you may or may not find interesting:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/It is a single thread and the discussions are focused on scholarly analysis of the first 4 centuries. It's moderated so it is kept focused on the defined topics.There are so many interesting forums here but often different threads end up discussing very similiar issues and so I hesitate to add to the redundancy. Perhaps as I get better acquainted with the folks here and how the conversations work I'll start a thread about the historicest vs. mythicest interpretation of early Christianity. I'll be interested in what you think of Doherty's site.lfen