Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[Ebionite]

It's not bias. It's the natural limitation of reconstructing the past.

So you think that its natural for people to reject facts that don't conform to their worldview?

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isaiah 6:9

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Jesus is not well attested. The Gospels all copy Mark and Paul only knows of a vision of Jesus.

This is a mess. Jesus is well attested- while Matthew and Luke certainly used Mark, they had other sources as well. Same goes for John. And while Paul never met Jesus, he met and knew Jesus's brother James.

 

[Ebionite]

Because we have precisely zero authenticated examples of supernatural beings and events.

Your opinion about what constitutes authentication isn't relevant.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah certainly not a 50-50, but in my earlier days as an atheist I would have probably been more sympathetic to mythicism as an ideologically driven polemic against Christianity. Nowadays, I just view it as a distraction from more interesting questions (like who Jesus of Nazareth was, what he was really like). And I think Ehrman's point about the non-existence of early critics of Christianity arguing that Jesus didn't really exist is a good point- if there was any genuine question on this point, surely someone would have raised it- as is his point about the fact that no 1st century Jew is going to invent a story about the purported messiah having been crucified by the Romans, as I've argued here.

Obviously there are not genuine certainties when dealing with ancient history, but I do think that for the most part we can reasonably take it for granted that there was some historical counterpart to the Jesus of the Gospels; we've heard the arguments, the case for mythicism is ****-poor, and what few valid arguments have been sufficiently answered in my mind.

Now never say never, but I do think it likely that we never have any credible firsthand reports about Jesus. I think that's just something we'll have to accept, given that his associates were, apparently, illiterate peasants. But its worth noting in this connection- and in relation to mythicists bizarre claims about Paul not believing in an "Earthly Jesus"- that Paul knew Jesus's brother James. I'll take a look at David FitzGerald's argument, I would love to have a not-pitiful version of the mythicist position to work with, if you go with e.g. Carrier's version there's just nothing there to even work with.

I don't think Carrier's a fool, but his prose shares the vice of prolixity with more than one other in the No HJ camp. I agree that the odds we'll find archaeological evidence of Jesus are extremely small but not zero.

Aided by his readability as well as his scholarship, Ehrman comes across as a careful but clear guide to the HJ case, though unavoidably a number of his arguments come down to assessing the odds one way or another.

 

[Niatero]

Now never say never, but I do think it likely that we never have any credible firsthand reports about Jesus.

Maybe not firsthand, but some of it looks to me like a credible secondhand report abut a real person. Paul talks about people who claimed to have known Jesus personally. In order to discount that, we would have to think that what Paul says about the apostles was not actually written by him; that he was lying about them claiming to know Jesus; or that they themselves were lying about knowing him, that their whole story about following him around and being taught by him was totally fabricated. If we think that what Paul says about the apostles was actually written by someone else, then we would have to think that everything that he says about the apostles is totally fabricated. I'm not sure how credible that is.

(later) I suggested that to ChatGPT 3.5 and got this answer:

Furthermore, Paul’s letters contain specific details about the life and teachings of Jesus that line up with what is recorded in the Gospels. For example, Paul mentions Jesus’ humble origins, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. These details would be difficult to fabricate or invent, especially considering the early date of Paul’s letters.

Additionally, Paul’s letters were written to particular churches and individuals, addressing specific issues and circumstances within these communities. It would be strange for Paul to invent details about Jesus and the apostles that were not relevant to his audience or their theological concerns.

Overall, the consistency and coherence of Paul’s letters, along with his firsthand interactions with other early Christian leaders, suggest that his accounts of Jesus and the apostles are credible and based on genuine historical sources. While there may be some theological interpretation and reflection in Paul’s letters, the core historical details about Jesus and the apostles appear to be reliable.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So you think that its natural for people to reject facts that don't conform to their worldview?

If it can't be checked/tested it's not a fact.

 

[joelr]

Agreed.

I'm wondering why I never see anyone in these debates talking more about the allusions to Old Testament passages in the gospels, and the wisdom in the sayings of Jesus that reveals itself in practice, and the fallacy in thinking that the gospels couldn't have been written before the destruction of the temple, and Paul's meetings with the apostles, and other observations that seem much more convincing to me than the most popular arguments for his existence.

Because Mark used OT narratives in his writing doesn't make the story true?

The wisdom is mostly Hillilite wisdom from Judaism?

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How does that make a supernatural being real?



Several of Hillel's teachings are explained by comparison to what Shammai (Hillel's principal adversary, rival or disputant) taught on the same subject.
Some of Hillel the Elder's teachings remain commonly known. However, at least two other notable Hillels came after him, and some scholars have suggested that some sayings attributed to "Hillel" may have originated from them.[17]
The saying of Hillel that introduces the collection of his maxims in the Mishnaic treatise Pirkei Avot[18] mentions Aaron HaKohen (the high priest) as the great model to be imitated in his love of peace, in his love for his fellow man, and in his leading mankind to a knowledge of the Law[19] (Pirkei Avoth 1:12). In mentioning these characteristics, which the aggadah attributes to Moses' brother, Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.

The Oral Law​

A gentile came to Shammai and asked how many Torahs there were. Shammai answered "two": the written Torah and the Oral Torah. The gentile did not believe him and asked to be converted on condition he only had to learn the written Torah. Shammai sent him away. The gentile went to Hillel who converted him and then started teaching him the Torah(s). He started with teaching him the Hebrew alphabet: the first letter is "aleph", the next letter is "bet", etc. The next day, Hillel taught him: the first letter is "tav", the next letter is "shin", etc. (the alphabet backwards). The convert said that this was different to what he had been taught the previous day. Hillel replied that in the same way you need an oral teaching to learn the written alphabet, so you need an oral explanation to understand the written Torah [20]

The Golden Rule​

The comparative response to the challenge of a prospective convert who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel gently chided the man: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[21] This rule is commonly called the Golden Rule, which has been practiced by a wide range of peoples, and through Christianity, the Enlightenment Age and Kant's Categorical Imperative is practised to this day.

Love of peace​

The exhortation to love peace emanated from Hillel's most characteristic traits—from that proverbial meekness and mildness—as in the saying: "Let a man be always humble and patient like Hillel, and not passionate like Shammai".[22] Hillel's gentleness and patience are illustrated in an anecdote that describes how two men made a bet on the question of whether Hillel could be made angry. Though they questioned him and made insulting allusions to his Babylonian origin, they were unsuccessful.[22]

Obligations to self and others​

From the doctrine of man's likeness to God, Hillel deduced man's duty to care for his own body. According to Midrash Leviticus rabbah he said "As in a theater and circus the statues of the king must be kept clean by him to whom they have been entrusted, so the bathing of the body is a duty of man, who was created in the image of the almighty King of the world." In this work, Hillel calls his soul a guest upon earth, toward which he must fulfill the duties of charity.
In Avot, Hillel stated "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[23] The third part contains the admonition to postpone no duty, the same admonition he gave with reference to study: "Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time."[24]
The precept that one should not separate oneself from the community, Hillel paraphrases (referencing Ecclesiastes 3:4) in the following saying: "Appear neither naked nor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping."[25] Man should not appear different from others in his outward deportment; he should always regard himself as a part of the whole, thereby showing that love of man Hillel taught. The feeling of love for one's neighbor shows itself also in his exhortation (Avot 2:4).
How far his love of man went may be seen from an example that shows that benevolence must be given with regard to the needs of the poor. Thus, Hillel provided a riding horse to a man of good family who became poor, in order that he not be deprived of his customary physical exercise; he also gave him a slave, that he might be served.[26]

Other maxims​

• "Do not separate yourself from the community; do not believe in yourself until the day you die; do not judge your fellow until you have reached their place; do not say something inappropriate, for it will then be appropriated; and do not say, 'When I am free I will study,' for perhaps you will not become free."[24]
• "Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[27]
• "A name gained is a name lost."[28]
• "Where there are no men, strive to be a man!"[29]
• "My humiliation is my exaltation; my exaltation is my humiliation."[3

 

[joelr]

That's not correct, and some of their “gods” actually did exist.

No he said savior deities, he's talking about dying/rising demigods

‘the variety of mystery cults makes them exceptionally difficult to summarise both briefly and accurately’.28 Consequently, the most recent attempts to define the Greek Mysteries are much more cautious and abstain from a catch- all definition.29 They usually agree that important characteristics shared by all these cults are secrecy and an emotionally impressive initiatory ritual.30 To this I would add their voluntary character (passim),31 nocturnal performance (Ch. I n. 57), preliminary purification (passim), the obligation to pay for participation (passim), rewards promised for this life and that of the next (passim), and the fact that the older Mysteries were all situated at varying distances from the nearest city (passim). With the exception of the Mithras cult (Ch. V.2), they also seem to have been open to male and female, slave and free, young and old (passim)...

"rewards promised for this life and that of the next"

Uh......one of the main messages and sayings of Christianity??

"they also seem to have been open to male and female, slave and free, young and old (passim)..."

Yes

Trends in Hellenistic religion

- Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)

- Four big trends in religion in the centuries leading up to Christianity

- Christianity conforms to all four

You just added more evidence to trend 4 -

- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it

In later antiquity, the Mithras cult developed a specific cosmology and soteriology, which was not a feature of the earlier Mysteries (Ch. V). This variety means that we should probably be content to stress the Wittgensteinian family resemblances of the various Mysteries rather than attempt to offer an all-encompassing definition...

Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

when the emperor Hadrian’s much younger boyfriend Antinoos drowned in the Nile before the emperor’s very eyes in AD 130, several Mystery cults were instituted in memory of him, such as in Antinoopolis, the city that Hadrian founded on the site of the accident, in Klaudiopolis, Antinoos’ birthplace in Asia Minor, but also in Mantineia on the Greek mainland, presumably in order to gain privileges from the emperor.54 We know virtually nothing about how this new cult was organised, but it is striking that his memory was celebrated through a Mystery cult.

Also not a dying/rising savior.

We are somewhat better informed about our second example: Mysteries created as part of the cult of the emperor. Not surprisingly, these new Mysteries were modelled on the most prestigious Mysteries of the ancient world, the Eleusinian Mysteries. In these imperial Mysteries, which we know only through a few inscriptions, there were singers of hymns, as in Eleusis, as well as a hiero- phant and a sebastophant, in other words, functionaries who displayed holy objects and the image of the emperor, respectively, perhaps instead of the display of a statue of Demeter as probably happened in Eleusis (Ch. I.3). There was also heavy eating and drinking, and initiation into these Mysteries was clearly not for free.55

JN Bremner - Initiation into the mystery cults of the ancient world

The Eleusinian Mysteries were one example of a religion that was Hellenized like Judaism. Judaism encountered Hellensim and created Christianity, the Mycenaean religion encountered Hellenism and became

Elusinian Mysteries.

Other examples given by Dr Carrier are:

Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


and of course:


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic


J.Z. Smith, a scholar who specialized in Hellenism and the origins of Christianity had no problem backing up everything Klause and others say about Hellenistic religion. Jan N. Bremmer looks to be looking more at early Greek religion.

From Smiths piece in Britannica:

-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme


-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)

- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries





Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions




But I would like to read his book on the soul in Greek religion.

 

[joelr]

<yawn>

If true, given that the historicity question focuses on historicity rather than divinity, there is nothing more to discuss. See, for example, Wikipedia>Historical Jesus which begins:​

​

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the life and teachings of Jesus as interpreted through critical historical methods, in contrast to what are traditionally religious interpretations.[1][2] It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived.[3][4][5][6] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[7][8][9][10][11] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.[12][13][14][15]​

​

Moving on: this is interesting ...​

<yawn>

Oh that is really funny, pretend like you are all sardonic and then post an outdated WIKI quote. HA HA HA HA.
Seriously, before you go with the false yawn, make sure you are saying something instead of falling flat on your face.


First of all I know what historicity means.

Let's look at your "sources" (7,8,9,10,11).

1. Law, Stephen (2011). "Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus". Faith and Philosophy. 28 (2): 129. doi:10.5840/faithphil20112821.

APOLOGETICS HA HA HA..........oh wait.........<yawn>. HA HA HA H

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. pp. 256–257

Good scholar. Him and Carrier have a good debate going, Ehrman won't debate him though. But I've listen to his side, they need to debate. There are issues with Ehrman's points he needs to address. But he won't.

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61

Robert Price does take mythicism seriously, that isn't a source? Yes in 2009 there were no good peer-reviewed monographs on the subject.

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Yes in 2004 there were only apologetics like Atwell's Caesar Messiah. Crank.

1. ^ Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."

Also in 2004 and only crank apologists were making claims on bad evidence



Here are 44 HISTORIANS who take mythicism seriously.

List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously​

List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously • Richard Carrier Blogs

There are legitimate reasons to doubt Jesus existed, even as a mundane man whose legend became exaggerated (which is, definitely, always plausible too). These reasons have survived peer review—twice. And yet a common fallacy deployed against this fact is that “no relevant experts take this...

www.richardcarrier.info

This is based on Carrier and Latasters scholarship, which is fairly recent. I'm sorry you are so tired, but when you feel better maybe you can get up to date on things you want to argue?

 

[joelr]

This is a mess.

Your first comment is to claim a straightforward statement is a "mess". Gaslighting is one option to start a reply.

"Jesus is not well attested. The Gospels all copy Mark and Paul only knows of a vision of Jesus."

Jesus is well attested- while Matthew and Luke certainly used Mark, they had other sources as well. Same goes for John.

As I said, Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction puts together a strong argument for Mark as the source.

Going further Mark Goodacre has really put a strong case against Q with his recent work:

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

This Synoptic Problem Web Site is the home page for Q sceptics. It expounds the Farrer Theory, which maintains Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. Its author, Mark Goodacre is Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

markgoodacre.org

It isn't needed.


Ehrman doesn't find John reliable:
"My views are that John is (a) *very* different from the other Gospels and that it is (b) *not* a reliable guide to the word of the historical Jesus. "

The Gospel of John, like all the gospels, is anonymous. Since I'm a "mess" I'll go to the Oxford Annotated Bible:


the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (p. 1744):


Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.



They look to follow the Mark story and embellish, John being the most forward and we see miracles and super-powers increase dramatically from Mark to John. A sign of myth writing. But Mark is pure fiction, especially when analyzed in a literary sense.

So stories are not well attested anything except well attested tales of fiction.

And while Paul never met Jesus, he met and knew Jesus's brother James.

"Paul also never says Jesus had biological brothers. Brothers by birth or blood appear nowhere in Paul’s letters. He only knows of cultic brothers of the Lord: all baptized Christians, he says, are the adopted sons of God just like Jesus, and therefore Jesus is “the firstborn of many brethren” (OHJ, p. 108). In other words, all baptized Christians are for Paul brothers of the Lord, and in fact the only reason Christians are brothers of each other, is that they are all brothers of Jesus. Paul is never aware he needs to distinguish anyone as a brother of Jesus in any different kind of way. And indeed the only two times he uses the full phrase “brother of the Lord” (instead of its periphrasis “brother”), he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians (more on that below; but see OHJ, pp. 582-92).

Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord • Richard Carrier Blogs

On the matter of the historicity of Jesus, Bart Ehrman has replied to what I recently summarized about the problems with Paul’s reference to brothers of the Lord in the Epistles. In Carrier and James the Brother of the Jesus (already distorting his facts in the title; Paul never uses the phrase...

www.richardcarrier.info

He goes on to comment:

"
Then I summarized some of the details elaborating on this under Argument 14. The relevant citations and evidence are in my peer reviewed book, at the pages designated.

Ehrman concedes that “brother” can be meant non-literally, a “spiritual brother” as Ehrman describes it, meaning “someone who is connected by common bonds of affection or perspective to another.” That actually isn’t what any peer reviewed mythicist argument claims. Christians were not brothers because they were “connected by common bonds of affection or perspective.” They were brothers because they were at baptism the adopted sons of God. Literally. Paul explicitly says that. And this made them all brothers of the Lord Jesus. Again, Paul explicitly says that. And I reiterated this point in my assessment of Ehrman’s Argument 14. It was disingenuous of Ehrman to only respond to the non-peer reviewed arguments for mythicism and ignore the peer reviewed arguments. Ask yourself, why would he do that?"



Although it cannot be proven either way, the point is we do not know. Paul never mentions any Jesus on Earth. He knows visions and some scripture that says something.

 

[joelr]

. Not only is he attested from within a reasonable timeframe, he is multiply-attested; all of the Gospels use sources that are provably independent from one another.

Completely wrong. The Gospels don't even pretend to use sources. They literally say:
"

Gospels do not even explicitly claim Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as their authors. Instead, the Gospels have an abnormal title convention, where they instead use the Greek preposition κατα, meaning “according to” or “handed down from,” followed by the traditional names. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is titled ευαγγελιον κατα Μαθθαιον (“The Gospel according to Matthew”). This is problematic, from the beginning, in that the earliest title traditions already use a grammatical construction to distance themselves from an explicit claim to authorship. Instead, the titles operate more as placeholder names, where the Gospels have been “handed down” by church traditions affixed to names of figures in the early church, rather than the author being clearly identified."

Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels » Internet Infidels

The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee—are not held to be the Gospels' actual authors by the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Christian apologists nevertheless...

infidels.org

Jesus Archaeology # 8 Does the Gospel of John Have any Worthwhile Historical Evidence?

Dr James Tabor
4:14 We have 2 sources for Jesus, Mark which Matthew and Luke use and John.

6:40 Matthew rewrites Mark, Luke rewrites Mark

7:00 It is likely that John knows Marks Gospel.


"Despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars hold that all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses."
The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies among these three versions and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable with regard to the historical Jesus."

Gospel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These views are still the consensus.

You will have to explain away all the evidence, internal and external:

Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels

Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels » Internet Infidels

The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee—are not held to be the Gospels' actual authors by the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Christian apologists nevertheless...

infidels.org

And they are remarkably consistent on the large-print details- name was Jesus, born of Mary, came from Galilee/Nazareth, preached an apocalyptic message, went to Jerusalem, was crucified. And the overall episode is a familiar one, since Jesus was not the only peasant-preacher during that time and in that place.

Yes that happens when you take a story and rewrite it.

Moreover, the alternative, that someone would invent this figure, does not pass the relevant historical principles. It is a widely used principle in history that when people invent things, they invent things that help their own interests. They tend not to invent things that harm their interests. And for 1st century Jews, the messiah was a glorious military and political figure who would expel the Romans and re-establish Israel under the Davidic covenant.

You seem to have forgotten about Hellensitic Judaism, which didn't work out but my have become Christianity.

It's also why many Jews didn't want a Hellenized savior figure. In Hellenism "salvation" means get your soul into the good afterlife.
It was trending, popular and happening in places the Greeks invaded.

Under those circumstances, no one one invent the notion of a crucified messiah. And yet that's just what Jesus was- a criminal who not only failed to expel the Romans, he got crushed like a bug and killed and tortured in a way explicitly vilified by the Jewish Bible. And the patent absurdity of a crucified messiah is why Christians struggled to covert Jews (it was, as Paul described it, a "stumbling block" for the Jews, but not for the Gentiles). Far more plausible is the notion that some Jews thought Jesus was the messiah, Jesus got killed, and his followers had to re-invent the concept of being the messiah.

Far more plausible in it's a religion combining Hellenism with Judaism.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

Within the confines of what was then the Roman Empire, long before and during the dawn of Christianity, there were many dying-and-rising gods. And yes, they were gods—some even half-god, half-human, being of divine or magical parentage, just like Jesus (John 1:1-18; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Philippians 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3). And yes, they died. And were dead. And yes, they were then raised back to life; and lived on, even more powerful than before. Some returned in the same body they died in; some lived their second life in even more powerful and magical bodies than they died in, like Jesus did (1 Corinthians 15:35-50 & 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Some left empty tombs or gravesites; or had corpses that were lost or vanished. Just like Jesus. Some returned to life on “the third day” after dying. Just like Jesus. All went on to live and reign in heaven (not on earth). Just like Jesus. Some even visited earth after being raised, to deliver a message to disciples or followers, before ascending into the heavens. Just like Jesus.

Here's a couple other things. Christianity had many opponents, including from the very beginning. Christians were widely blamed for drawing the ire of the gods, because Christians refused to participate in pagan rites and one thing pagan gods did when not enough people worshipped them was smite the people with lightning and famines and so forth. Christians were accused of all sorts of infamy... save one charge that was curiously not leveled against them. That charge was of believing or inventing a false religion. Now if there was any truth to the notion of CHristians inventing Christ, surely there would have been some accusations of such, especially from the period where people would have been in a position to know?

On each of these points, mythicisism has only bad answers. Its simply no contest: the evidence for the historical Jesus is overwhelming.

None of this argues against mythicism. Historicity is entirely possible, a Jewish Rabbi, teaching Hilell wisdom and Persian end-times.
Josephus writes there were several Joshua-Messiahs running around preaching this stuff.


2nd Peter, we did not follow cleverly disguised myths. That is an argument against people saying Jesus is a myth.

Justin Martyr also makes a similar argument. Yes, he says Jesus is just like all the Greek demigods. So that means people were saying that.
His answer? The devil made Greek demigods look like Jesus to fool people into thinking Jesus was a Greek rip-off.


Chapter 69. The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius





Justin: Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, 'having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,' worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ. It is thus written:



Chapter 70. So also the mysteries of Mithras are distorted from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah


Justin: And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?



And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.



Uh huh. The deceiving serpent? Or maybe, it's all a syncretic borrowing? No, deceiving serpent, definitely that one.

 

[joelr]

Furthermore, Paul’s letters contain specific details about the life and teachings of Jesus that line up with what is recorded in the Gospels. For example, Paul mentions Jesus’ humble origins, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. These details would be difficult to fabricate or invent, especially considering the early date of Paul’s letters.

Because Mark used the Epistles, a lot.

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

Sourcing from:
The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (De Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)
• Christine Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (De Gruyter 2015).
• Mar Pérez I. Díaz, Jesus in the Light of Paul’s Theology (Mohr Siebeck 2020).
• John-Christian Eurell, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: Reconsidering the Relationship Between Paul and the Synoptics,” Journal of Early Christian History 12.2 (2022): 1-16.

See also (as concurring):

• Michael P. Theophilos, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark,” in Paul and Mark Comparative Essays Part I: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Oda Wischmeyer, David C. Sim, and Ian J. Elmer (De Gruyter 2014): 45–71 (cf. other scholars in that same volume).
• Harm W. Hollander, “The Words of Jesus: From Oral Traditions to Written Record in Paul and Q,” Novum Testamentum 42.4 (2000): 340–57 (346).

Additionally, Paul’s letters were written to particular churches and individuals, addressing specific issues and circumstances within these communities. It would be strange for Paul to invent details about Jesus and the apostles that were not relevant to his audience or their theological concerns.

How does writing to a church make a story true? So if people wrote to churches about Joeseph Smith or Muhammad tyat makes their stories true?

Overall, the consistency and coherence of Paul’s letters, along with his firsthand interactions with other early Christian leaders, suggest that his accounts of Jesus and the apostles are credible and based on genuine historical sources. While there may be some theological interpretation and reflection in Paul’s letters, the core historical details about Jesus and the apostles appear to be reliable.

7 are authentic. The others are forged. What is this A.I. on about? Also there are no earthly details about Jesus. It does not line up at all.
Jesus doesn't sit at a last supper and say I am the body and bread.." he tells Paul to tell future Christians.
In Mark, he is still not a spirit and is at an actual supper. See what Mark did. It's called fiction.

Bart Ehrman:

Pauline Forgeries: 2 Thessalonians as a Test Case | The Bart Ehrman Blog

In my previous post I started answering the question of how the letters not by Paul differ from the letters that are by Paul. In that post I pointed out that we know that there were Pauline forgeries in the early church (that is, letters written by authors who were…

ehrmanblog.org

In my previous post I started answering the question of how the letters not by Paul differ from the letters that are by Paul. In that post I pointed out that we know that there were Pauline forgeries in the early church (that is, letters written by authors who were claiming to be Paul when they were in fact someone else). No one doubts that. We have letters from outside the NT that claim to be by Paul but were absolutely not: 3 Corinthians, the Letter to the Laodiceans, and the 12 letters exchanged between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca. These are all forged.

But are there letters that falsely claim to be written by Paul that are also *in* the New Testament? Critical scholars (as opposed to fundamentalists and very conservative evangelical Christians) agree that there are. Scholars normally place the thirteen Pauline letters of the New Testament into three categories: The Pastoral Epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, which are very widely recognized as having been written by someone other than Paul; the Deutero-Pauline letters of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, which are fairly widely as being written by other authors (three different authors; these must be judged as authentic or not on a case by case basis); and the other seven letters, which are called the “Undisputed Paulines”: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

When I say these are “undisputed” that’s a bit of an exaggeration since, as you probably know, scholars dispute *everything*. It’s in their DNA. But just about every (not quite every) New Testament scholar on the planet agrees that Paul wrote these seven.




Mythicism or historicity, doesn't matter. Mythicism scholarship gives about 3 to 1 in favor of. Doesn't make definitive claims. If new evidence presented itself maybe it would change. Either way, the Gospel tales are no different than stories about Joseph Smith or Muhammad. They claim witnesses, they have elements that appear to be reliable. So what? They are still made up tales with historical places and some facts in them.
Before Carrier and Lataster mythicism used apologetics logic. Twist truth, ignore history, create false narratives. But apologetics still does it.
Why does everyone forget Lataster also has a peer-reviewed work on mythicism as well?

 

[Augustus]

No he said savior deities,

The quote said “All Mystery religions have personal savior deities”.

They do not.

dying/rising demigods

A category that is generally considered not to be very meaningful by modern scholars.

"rewards promised for this life and that of the next"

Uh......one of the main messages and sayings of Christianity??

So? It would hardly be surprising if Christianity was influenced by its time and place of evolution.

You would expect this regardless.

Also not a dying/rising savior.

But like all other “gods” who were deified close to their purported lives, he was someone that actually existed.

All mythical gods seem to have existed in either mythic time, or at least in a long distant past. This is to be expected.

Can you think of any purely mythical gods who were deified close to their purported lives by people who were their contemporaries or would Jesus be completely unique in that regard?

 

[Ebionite]

If it can't be checked/tested it's not a fact.

You're confusing facts with the scientific method, which is based on testability. Facts are public observations or inferences which can be derived from those observations.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Aided by his readability as well as his scholarship, Ehrman comes across as a careful but clear guide to the HJ case, though unavoidably a number of his arguments come down to assessing the odds one way or another.

Well and this is where differences can justifiably come in, since people can/will assess the relevant probabilities differently on the same evidence. And I agree on Ehrman- great introduction to Biblical scholarship, he's a very good communicator. Funny, too.

But its certainly safe to say that the historicity of Jesus is far more probable than its negation. But I don't think mythicism is generally a position one genuinely reasons oneself into- its far more ideological than rational or evidential- which explains why discourse with mythicists tends to be such a futile endeavor. Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, as they say.

 

[blü 2]

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

I've just realized I haven't paid enough attention to the title of this thread, which is ─

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?​

I accept that it's a bit more likely than not that Jesus was a character in history.

But in my view "Jesus Christ" properly so called is not a character in history, since Jesus was never recognizable as a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people nor ever anointed by the Jewish priesthood (this latter being the literal meaning of "messiah" and the reason it was translated into Greek as "khristos" whence "Christ").

That Christians later no only gave him that title but are themselves named after it, are matters for Christian politics, it seems to me. Those politics are matters of history, but the necessary anointing of Jesus is not.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I've just realized I haven't paid enough attention to the title of this thread, which is ─

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?​

I accept that it's a bit more likely than not that Jesus was a character in history.

But in my view "Jesus Christ" properly so called is not a character in history, since Jesus was never recognizable as a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people nor ever anointed by the Jewish priesthood (this latter being the literal meaning of "messiah" and the reason it was translated into Greek as "khristos" whence "Christ").

That Christians later no only gave him that title but are themselves named after it, are matters for Christian politics, it seems to me. Those politics are matters of history, but the necessary anointing of Jesus is not.

yeah Jesus Christ of the Gospels vs Jesus of Nazareth, 1st century itinerant preacher in Roman Judea.

 

[XerxesMcDallas]

Looking for some feedback on this. Here's an idea for a line of argument/reasoning I'd like to try out: prove to me that the President of the United States exists.
If I want to be cynical about his existence, there is no amount of evidence that proves his existence.
For example, there are numerous writings about him and the events of his presidency, but the various sources are contradictory. There are numerous pictures and videos, but those can be fabricated. All current scholars agree that Joe Biden exists, but consensus is not proof. "If the president existed, he would fix the border crisis."
Does this make sense as a line of reasoning to demonstrate that one cannot prove the existence of anyone, regardless of the amount of historical evidence? Or is this stupid, and why?

 

[Niatero]

Looking for some feedback on this. Here's an idea for a line of argument/reasoning I'd like to try out: prove to me that the President of the United States exists.
If I want to be cynical about his existence, there is no amount of evidence that proves his existence.
For example, there are numerous writings about him and the events of his presidency, but the various sources are contradictory. There are numerous pictures and videos, but those can be fabricated. All current scholars agree that Joe Biden exists, but consensus is not proof. "If the president existed, he would fix the border crisis."
Does this make sense as a line of reasoning to demonstrate that one cannot prove the existence of anyone, regardless of the amount of historical evidence? Or is this stupid, and why?

It's stupid, and I'm sure all the scholars here will agree with me.

(later) More seriously, it doesn't include anything that needs to be included in a paper about history. For example, no analysis of sources, not even a list of them.

On the other hand, it might have as much credibility for me as most of the arguments in online forums about the historicity of Jesus anything. I'll think about it some more, and try to give a more serious and helpful response that just saying it looks stupid to me. Sorry. I'm feeling crabby just now, and I don't even know why.

(later) I still want to think about it some more, but possibly the main reason I see for a possible lack of credibility in your argument is that it might not appeal enough to the prejudices and delusions of any large faction. Seriously. Yes, I'm still feeling crabby, but I'm saying that seriously.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You're confusing facts with the scientific method, which is based on testability. Facts are public observations or inferences which can be derived from those observations.

Since when is for example parting of the sea a public observation?