Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

On the issue of whether Mark was writing fact or fiction, there are three strong arguments for fact. The first is simply that, in the Jewish culture at the time, there was strong pressure againt making up fiction on theological issues. Jewish identity was very tightly wrapped up in the scriptures and their correctness. A typical Jewish man raised at that time would simply consider it blasphemous and perilous to his own soul to make up claims like the ones Mark made.

This may be valid if Mark was committed to Judaism alone, but Mark seems to be a product of the diaspora. The mixture of Jews and Gentiles spread around the Roman empire shared ideas. The book of Mark, for instance, shares much with the legends of Homer. Some think Homer was the inspiration for his book. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus had very much in common with the message of the Greek Cynics.

Second, the Mark's gospel would be very strange fiction to write. If we suppose that Mark wanted to create a fictional narrative to support the church around the year 70, we'd conclude that he'd want to put the church in the most positive light. But, in fact, Mark's gospel does the exact opposite. It portrays the apostles negatively, and in fact makes it seem as if they never truly 'got it' concerning the divinity of Christ. It also leaves out the "great commision" in which Jesus forms the church and sends the apostles to spread the good news to the gentiles.

Maybe Mark wasn't interested in a church or the apostles. His book seems to climax in chapter 13, where he has Jesus promise that he will soon return and make things right. For the discouraged Jews spread far from their homes, reading a story of a miracle worker who would soon come and set the world straight would be interesting reading, whether they believed the story or not. Could it be that Mark simply wrote to give people hope, even as parents tell children of Santa Claus to inspire them?

Third, in texts from ancient Rome there are difference between fact and fiction. Those who are writing genuine history are much more likely to include specific places, dates, and time intervals; to mention by name prominent leaders, priests, and other well-known individuals; to give specific names for characters; to mention physical details about clothing, weapons, and such; and to quote exact dialogue rather than making summaries. All four of the gospels give a tremendous amount of this type of detail, which puts them in line with historical writing rather than mythology. So regardless of what you believe about Jesus, it is very safe to believe that the gospel authors themselves thought they were writing the truth.

It seems to me that writing legends with details was common, for instance we have found books describing the childhood of Jesus, which are clearly myth, but mention names and details.

 

[Johnnz]

My responses are in bold.

This may be valid if Mark was committed to Judaism alone, but Mark seems to be a product of the diaspora. The mixture of Jews and Gentiles spread around the Roman empire shared ideas. The book of Mark, for instance, shares much with the legends of Homer. Some think Homer was the inspiration for his book. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus had very much in common with the message of the Greek Cynics.

Greek philosophy was antithetical to Christian belief. An incarnate God and a bodily resurrection were inconceivable concepts for classical culture

Maybe Mark wasn't interested in a church or the apostles. His book seems to climax in chapter 13, where he has Jesus promise that he will soon return and make things right. For the discouraged Jews spread far from their homes, reading a story of a miracle worker who would soon come and set the world straight would be interesting reading, whether they believed the story or not. Could it be that Mark simply wrote to give people hope, even as parents tell children of Santa Claus to inspire them?

The Jews already had that hope. Their Messiah would bring about a return to Edenic conditions, restore Israel's autonomy in their land, and have their temple in Jerusalem as the centre of worship for all of humanity. That would have been Mark's and the other disciples expectation. The delay in Jesus' accomplishing that took a major mind shift. Plus, no temple (we are that temple now), no land (Jesus is the fulfilment of all the covenental promises) and a people consisting of all nations without special favour (one family in Christ) contradicted all Jewish messianic hopes.

It seems to me that writing legends with details was common, for instance we have found books describing the childhood of Jesus, which are clearly myth, but mention names and details.

Mark appears modelled on Isaiah according to some recent exegetes. Homer was worlds apart from Jewish thinking.

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's consider:

"Paul, an apostle not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead," - Galatians 1:1

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." - Galatians 2:21

Well yes, I mentioned in the OP that Paul mentions the death of Christ, so this does not come as news to me. Does Paul give any indication that this death was a recent death of a real man? He never mentions Pilate or Judas or Calvary or any of the earthly details of the crucifixion.

Paul tells us several times that he was crucified with Christ. Now if Paul and Christ were crucified together, exactly when and where did that happen? Do you agree that Paul was not actually saying that Paul himself was literally crucified, but that a spirtitual event happened in which when Christ was crucified, Paul was crucified with him? If Paul's crucifixion is figurative, how do you know that the crucifixion of Christ was not also figurative in Paul's mind?

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, "And to descendants," as referring to many, but as referring to one, "And to your descendant," who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16

Do you really want to get into that one? What does Genesis mean when God said he would multiply Abraham's seed? Clearly "seed" refers to the many descendants of Abraham. (Genesis 15 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version))

So could it be that Paul is wrong when he says Genesis was referring to one particular descendant when he spoke this promise to Abraham?

Much of the story of Jesus comes from the Old Testament. Clearly that was the source of much of Paul's story of Jesus. Paul takes a promise of many descendents from Genesis, converts it to be a promise of one descendent, and then declares Jesus that descendent. Since Paul is already spiritualizing the original story of many descendents, could he also be spiritualizing what it means for Jesus to be that descendent?

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law," - Galatians 4:4

Again Paul only seems to be echoing what he gleaned from his interpretations of Hebrew prophecy.

Isn't it odd that, to prove Paul was talking of an earthly man, we find poetic passages such as this to be the proof?

"But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." - Galatians 6:14

Interesting. The cross of Christ was that event in which the world was crucified to Paul, and Paul was crucified to the world. Read it. Thats what that event meant to Paul. This sounds a whole lot more like spiritual ideas of a spiritual crucifixion, as opposed to an assertion of a historical crucifixion of a recent man in history.

For one, the scope of Paul's letters wasn't to educate the Christians already familiar with the Jesus story about the basics of the Jesus story; but to give pastoral counsel on matters actually happening in those communities.

True, but remember that Jesus also had counseled many similar things, and Paul never seems to be interested in telling us what Jesus himself said about these things. Why not?

 

[doubtingmerle]

However, the bigger problem with the idea that Paul believed in a purely spiritual Jesus is that it would clash with everything we know about Paul. He was, both by his own admission and according to Acts, a Pharisee and a particularly zealous Jew prior to conversion. That means that he believed in one God only, knew and believed the scriptures, and was militant in upholding the Mosaic Law.

If Paul believed in one God, and then came to believe that Jesus also was God, doesn't he then believe in two Gods? Yes, yes, I know, its not 2 Gods--or 3 Gods--its 1 trinity. But as the belief in 1 trinity is very similar to belief in 3 Gods that work in perfect harmony, how can Paul suddenly be believing that someone beside the Father is God?

The Jewish God was so vastly different from humans. Jews were not even allowed to make an image to represent God. That a Jew in that day would declare a man to be God goes against all of their religion.

Paul's faith seems to have incorporated a lot more than just Judaism. Paul was a man of the Diaspora. As such, he had no problem with spiritual intermediaries on the right hand of God.

Then came his conversion and immediate willingness to worship Jesus Christ and to abandon or change portions of the Law. What would prompt such a change in such a man?

Money? Fame?

Or a vision?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes I agree that the believers had afflictions and hardships in the first century, especially the Jews that had lost to the Romans.I did not ask if they had hardships. I asked how you knew that anybody was a martyr in the 1st century for believing in an earthly Jesus.

So you do not believe being murdered for you faith can be considered a Hardship for those who survive?

Huh? I never said that, or anything close to that. Are you reading what I write?

Every murder for faith is a hardship. But not every hardship is a murder.

But [Josephus] does testify to the existence of Christ, which is what this thread is about is it not?

I will address Josephus when I get to the more lengthy post regarding this. I'm still back on post 26, and trying to catch up to everybody else.

Then why do you respond?

Uh, if I don't respond, then you would ask, "Why don't you respond?"

I'm danged if I do and danged if I don't.

I am requiring you to substantiate All the "historical" facts you have chosen to mis/represent.

My goal is the truth. I have not chosen to misrepresent any historical facts. If I am wrong on a historical fact, please mention one example of a fact I stated wrong, and how you know this is wrong.

Unless you can actually give an example, I can't do much in response.

 

[drich0150]

Huh? I never said that, or anything close to that. Are you reading what I write?

Evade

Every murder for faith is a hardship. But not every hardship is a murder.

selective ignorance

I will address Josephus when I get to the more lengthy post regarding this. I'm still back on post 26, and trying to catch up to everybody else.

evade

Uh, if I don't respond, then you would ask, "Why don't you respond?"

selective ignorance

I'm danged if I do and danged if I don't.

evade

My goal is the truth. I have not chosen to misrepresent any historical facts. If I am wrong on a historical fact, please mention one example of a fact I stated wrong, and how you know this is wrong.

evade

Unless you can actually give an example, I can't do much in response.

evade

Truthfully I don't even know why I try with you. either you donot know how to honestly answer a question, or you have over the course of your life learned how to selectively pretend to lose focus on a question just enough so you do not have to directly address it. I say pretend, or that there is a lack of honesty in your efforts because when you think you have one of us on the ropes you are fully engaged and committed to the question at hand. But, when your on your heels and you have to defend you POV, you all of the sudden, don't know what is going on.

This say alot about you and your character. Just know if I can poke holes in your weak understandings of biblical principle, then your "Judgment day defense strategy" is in alot of trouble.

Good luck with your "search" for truth.

 

[AlexBP]

This may be valid if Mark was committed to Judaism alone, but Mark seems to be a product of the diaspora. The mixture of Jews and Gentiles spread around the Roman empire shared ideas. The book of Mark, for instance, shares much with the legends of Homer. Some think Homer was the inspiration for his book. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus had very much in common with the message of the Greek Cynics.

The concept of Mark being inspired by Homer comes mainly from a book called The homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, by Dennis MacDonald of Yale. While it is a respectable academic piece of work, few people are convinced by it. The connections that MacDonald tries to draw between Mark and Homer are often very tenuous. For example, he points out that both contain sea voyages, yet it's hard to find much in common between Jesus' brief jaunt on the Sea of Galilee and the Odyssey, which takes place entirely on a voyage. MacDonald mentions that both Jesus and Odysseus visit villages and mountainous landscapes. However, it's hard to see much in that when most of the Mediterranean world had villages and has mountains. This review points out others:

I think, however, that Professor MacDonald often practices analytical overkill. Persuasive arguments are set side-by-side and given equal emphasis with farfetched comparisons, the cumulative effect of which is to undermine the force of the book's major thesis. (This despite the fact that MacDonald acknowledges early on that some parallels between Homer and Mark are weaker than others [9].) It seems implausible to find Homeric influence operating on Mark's depiction of Peter, which MacDonald sees as derived from Homer's characterization of Eurylochus. Both are said to be viewed in a favorable light initially and then to take on more unattractive characteristics (22). Yet as evidence for Eurylochus' good character MacDonald cites only two epithets ("godlike" [Od. 10.205] and "great-hearted" [Od. 10.207]); however, these epithets are probably only ornamental, no more meaningful in context than Penelope's "fat" hand at Odyssey 21.6. Chapter 9's argument that Mark's depiction of the death of John the Baptist owes something to Homer's account of the death of Agamemnon has little to recommend it. Likening Odysseus' "untriumphal entry" into the city of the Phaeacians to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem seems forced and strained (Chapter 13). Mark's water-carrier shares little in common with Homer's (Chapter 15). MacDonald goes so far as to compare Jesus walking on water to Hermes flying through the air over the water (Chapter 19). Nor does the fleeing Hector of Iliad 22 offer a convincing precedent for the Twelve, who "lost their starch when it became clear that the authorities would succeed in killing their master" (134). Is the death of Jesus really modeled on the death of Hector? Does the young man at the tomb in Mark recall Elpenor in the Odyssey? According to MacDonald, Mark based the death of Jesus on the death of Hector and then conflated the Iliad with the Odyssey by weaving in elements from the tragic story of Elpenor. Turning these tragic stories into a climactic tale of resurrection, Mark is supposed to have transvalued Homer, performing "a remarkable demonstration of literary dexterity"(167). This argument relies upon the most procrustean and reductive methods of interpretation.

Both you and Dr. MacDonald are swimming against the tide on this particular issue. As Boyd and Eddy point out in the book I previously mentioned, scholars have largely turned against the idea of close connections between Greek thought and early Christianity. Fifty years ago there might have been many scholars who were looking at that idea seriously, but in the past couple generations even skeptics have generally come to understand that the New Testament material reflects distinctly Jewish thought with little pagan influence. While Jews in that period may have lived side-by-side with gentiles frequently, we don't see evidence that lead to a shift in Jewish religious thought. In fact, there's some evidence that the Jews reacted against pagan thought around the time of Jesus and grew more strict in their holding to the Law. (Perhaps somewhat analagous to how some Muslims in Europe today embrace the most strict interpretations of Islam.)

 

[AlexBP]

It seems to me that writing legends with details was common, for instance we have found books describing the childhood of Jesus, which are clearly myth, but mention names and details.

If you're referring to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, its level of detail is much below that of the canonical gospels. It begins with the narrative of the birth of Jesus from Matthew and 'fills in the blanks', so to speak. While it takes names and places from Matthew, outside of that there are few. There are two new proper names in the entire work and no new place names. The same could generally be said for other aporcyphal gospels. It makes a sharp contrast with passages such as Mark 15:21 :"Then they compelled a certain man, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross." It makes little sense for Mark to name Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, unless this person was actually well-known in the Christian community.

However, the issue of names is just one small part of the discussion. There are a lot more instances of specifics appearing the Gospels. For example, all four make references to Jesus quoting, reading, and referencing particular passages of the OT. Quite different from apocryphal writing that only mentions "the scriptures" generally. But the issue is larger and more academic than I can summarize here. At risk of sounding like a broken record, try the book by Boyd and Eddy; they have a discussion of the criteria by which scholars of ancient literature distinguish fiction and non-fiction and references for further reading.

If Paul believed in one God, and then came to believe that Jesus also was God, doesn't he then believe in two Gods? Yes, yes, I know, its not 2 Gods--or 3 Gods--its 1 trinity. But as the belief in 1 trinity is very similar to belief in 3 Gods that work in perfect harmony, how can Paul suddenly be believing that someone beside the Father is God?

The Jewish God was so vastly different from humans. Jews were not even allowed to make an image to represent God. That a Jew in that day would declare a man to be God goes against all of their religion.

I think I already addressed this yesterday. There is no reasonable explanation for why Paul would radically alter his Jewish theology except if he believed that the Messiah had appeared. A spiritual intermediary who forgives sins and offers salvation would radically contradict Paul's early beliefs, but the apppearance of the Messiah would be the fulfillment of hopes based on those beliefs. As for the notion that Greek thought influenced Paul, what I said at the end of my last post addresses that. While he may have encountered Greeks that's not a reason to believe he merged their theology into his, and may even have been a reason for him to uphold strict Jewish belief and practice.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If Pentecost had indeed happened, you would think one of them would have noticed.

You have yet to account for the impossibility of having an un-biased opinion on the matter in that time. Anyone reporting favorably would, by definition, be a Christian. This is why the requirement of secular sources is thrown out.

It is impossible for humans to have an un-biased opinion on religious issues.

Satisfied? I have accounted for that fact. Does that make you feel better?

The issue is not that other writers fail to report favorably about the day of Pentecost. The issue is that they fail to notice it at all.

Many people noticed the Billy Graham Crusades, even if they did not agree. Many people noticed when the Pope came to America, even if they did not agree with him.

But nobody outside of a single biased source records the day of Pentecost. Nobody outside of a single biased source records that one day in Jerusalem many people saw many dead people walking around on the streets! (Matthew 27 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)). No other contemporary writer--Christian or Nonchristian--acknowledges those events.

Pardon me for questioning if they ever happened.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, Paul is emphatic that his gospel was revealed to him by God, and that he did not receive it from men.

Peter too! Doubting Thomas too! Just to keep things straight, they were in Jesus' physical presence.

Exactly. If the gospels are true, then Peter and Thomas were one of the few to have the unique priviledge of living a few years with God's Son.

And yet Paul declares that in nothing is he behind the chiefest apostle! (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Cr&c=12&v=11&t=KJV#11 ) He apparently thought his visions and scripture study were every bit as valuable as what Peter and Thomas experienced!

Perhaps Paul thought that Peter and Thomas never had the experience you say they had.

So I wonder why Jesus even taught on earth for years. If Paul could get the communication straight from God, why not just use that method, and never bother to have Jesus preach on earth?

Now you reveal the source of your doubts. While you say you defended the Faith, you never had it. It's based on the Incarnation, which you demonstrate here that you don't understand. Please read John 1 and report your thoughts re: Incarnation. Thanks.

Yes, yes, if the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, if some people beheld his glory and walked and talked with him on earth, that Incarnation was a most marvelous experience! And yet Paul says that in nothing is he behind the chiefest apostle.

Can you explain to me why Paul didn't think that Peter's 3 years of working intimately with the Incarnate Christ gave Peter one area in which Peter had an advantage over Paul?

 

[Johnnz]

It is impossible for humans to have an un-biased opinion on religious issues.

So, your thinking is pure, unbiased, acultural 'fact'? In fact its is just part of the Enlightenment mythology of the supremacy of 'objective' reason as the sole arbiter of all knowledge a view soundly exposed by Polanyi, denounced by Postmodernity, and seen as no more than a cultural artefact by social constructivism.

I seems to me you need your thinking updated im far more than biblical origins.

John
NZ

 

[food4thought]

In judging the accuracy of the writings based upon the number of sources one has for the account you are really missing the point IMO. For example, many people claim that the synoptic gospels were not independant writings but all based upon the same source for the main reason that they all record the same events. Yet here, in your case, you seem to be upset that there is only one account of Pentacost. No win situation for Christian writings there, and to be upset that there are no secular writings recording the event is preposterous considering how little there is that has been preserved from the 1st century. For all we know many people wrote letters to friends or people in authority regarding the incident but none of those writings were preserved. Fact is, VERY little of what was written in the first century has been preserved.

As for Paul's statement regarding his equality with the other Apostles... if you look at his statements to that effect in context you will see that he was speaking not of his experience with the Lord, but of his works. In that aspect, he was surpassing the rest of the Apostles as far as we can discern today. Please try to take scripture in it's context.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I wouldn't say it's an attack or propaganda really. I'm sure there are a number of ex-Christians who do subscribe to the "no historical Jesus" idea because it may appeal to them if they were particularly hurt by their former co-religionists or churches.

My fascination with the Jesus Myth has nothing to do with past hurts. I have had a lifelong interest in Christianity, first as a Christian, then as a questioner, then as a skeptic. Years after leaving the faith, I became intrigued with the evidence that Jesus might have been a myth.

I don't know if Jesus existed. I may be wrong, but the myth view seems to be the best explanation to me.

There's as much or as little historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as there are any number of historical figures. I mentioned Socrates by name specifically earlier, because our really only primary source about Socrates comes from the works of Plato who wrote the Socratic Dialogues. It's just as credible to deny the existence of Jesus as it is to deny the existence of Socrates.

Shouldn't we be agnostic about the existence of anybody we read about in history when there is scant evidence that he existed?

In Socrates' case, however, there appears to be ample evidence. If there wasn't, then sure, we would be justified in doubting his existence.

I think it's fair to be skeptical regarding the entire Christian narrative about Jesus and all the theology packaged into that narrative; after all if one wasn't skeptical or didn't out right disbelieve it they would be Christians.

Thanks for seeking to understand us.

Things like the resurrection, or that Jesus was the Messiah, or that He is Lord, Son of God and the uncreated Logos are all matters of faith, not objective historical inquiry.

How can the resurrection me a matter of faith, and not of historical inquiry? Are the miracles of Mohammed also a matter of faith? Are the golden plates that constituted the Book of Mormon also a matter of faith?

Can you see how some would think that hiding the resurrection behind the faith argument is special pleading, that this is simply a matter of choosing to hide whatever one wants to behind the inpenetrable barrier of faith, while not granting the same exception to other claims?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are two passages in Josephus that mention Jesus. For the first, which mentions Him in passing while describing the execution of James, you'd have to search hard to find any scholars who think that it wasn't actually written by Josephus.

Its agreed that Josephus probably referenced James here, but there is some dispute as to whether the introductory phrase about James, "the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ," was inserted later. After all, Josephus was copied down to the Middle Ages by Christian scribes, and that would have been an easy phrase for them to add. You yourself admit that Christian scholars added other phrases about Jesus to Josephus.

The second is the well-known Testimonium Flavianum

Today there is broad agreement that Josephus did not write this exact paragraph. Phrases such as "He was the Christ" and "as the divine prophets foretold" would not have been written by any Jewish man who wasn't convinced by Christian arguments himself. However, while a later Christian scribe certainly added these phrases, there is strong reason to believe that the bulk of the paragraph is authentic to Josephus. Outside of the Christain glosses, the vocabulary and syntax match up very well with the way that Josephus typically wrote. There's a good discussion of it here.

OK, so you agree that much of this was inserted by later editors.

A strong case can be made that this whole paragraph was inserted. For instance, early church fathers who quoted Josephus never mentioned this paragraph. The most likely explanation is that they did not quote this, because it did not exist in the writings of Josephus until the fourth century.
( See Josephus Unbound )

The argument that the passage about Jesus sticks out for being short doesn't add up. Josephus discusses several men who claimed to be the Messiah in 1st-century Palestine.

As you can see, the passage that Josephus wrote about Jesus is actually quite similar in length to the passages that he wrote about some other characters from the same time period.

Well yes, but those other characters didn't raise the dead or miraculously feed 5000 adoring followers. If Jesus lived on earth and did what he is reported to have done, one would have expected Josephus to have taken more notice of his life.

One can never be sure where these phrases come from in Josephus, but the fact that they are there hint that Jesus may have been historical. Some would say the evidence against the historical nature of Jesus is stronger.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You also didn't quote the rest of my post so you ignored the idea of other historical figures having the same or less historical data on them. Alexander the Great is a very good example that nearly everyone agrees existed but yet most writings about him were not for several centuries.

I think you are confusing the date of surviving manuscripts and the date the original was written. Though the surviving manuscripts that describe Alexander may by hundreds of years after Alexander, I sincerely doubt that the original sources from which these surviving manuscripts were derived are all hundreds of years after Alexander. How could a man conquer the world and have no man writre about him? If it was true that nobody had written about him for hundreds of years, then one would be justified in thinking the story was legendary.

But I suspect that you will find that there were many contemporaries who wrote of Alexander.

 

[ElijahW]

My fascination with the Jesus Myth has nothing to do with past hurts. I have had a lifelong interest in Christianity, first as a Christian, then as a questioner, then as a skeptic. Years after leaving the faith, I became intrigued with the evidence that Jesus might have been a myth.

I don't know if Jesus existed. I may be wrong, but the myth view seems to be the best explanation to me.

Which myth theory in particular were you originally attracted to or think is supported by what evidence?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think you are confusing the date of surviving manuscripts and the date the original was written. Though the surviving manuscripts that describe Alexander may by hundreds of years after Alexander, I sincerely doubt that the original sources from which these surviving manuscripts were derived are all hundreds of years after Alexander. How could a man conquer the world and have no man writre about him? If it was true that nobody had written about him for hundreds of years, then one would be justified in thinking the story was legendary.

But I suspect that you will find that there were many contemporaries who wrote of Alexander.

1) There are about 5 sources (Diodorus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian of Nicomedia and Callisthenes of Olynthus) that are considered "good sources" of Alexander's life. All these original manuscripts that have survived are approximately 300 years after the events. It is assumed, as you say, that these writers were drawing from sources written by contemporaries (or near contemporaries) of Alexander but such manuscripts are now lost to us. Now think about this for a moment: there are 5 lengthy manuscripts (the physical evidence) of a man who conquered the known world and these manuscripts are 300 years after the event. You accept that such a man lived while recognizing there may have been some twisting of the facts and mythologization.

2) There are 3 really complete NT manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus), all dated to approximately 250-300 years after the events of Jesus. It is assumed that the writers of these manuscripts were drawing from sources written by contemporaries (or near contemporaries) of Jesus but such manuscripts are now lost to us. Now think about this for a moment: there are 3 lengthy manuscripts (the physical evidence) of a man who did very little and certainly didn't conquer the world and these manuscripts are 300 years after the event. You don't accept that such a man lived at all and refuse to recognize that there may have been some twisting of facts and mythologization but rather just reject his entire existence.

What is the difference?

How can you say you're being objectively scientific when presented with nearly identical situations and rejecting one situation and accepting another? I don't care if you believe Jesus is God and Saviour but I do find it unscientific for you to conclude that he simply didn't exist.

Edit: Its also worth noting that there are multiple other fragments of the Gospels from much earlier. The earliest fragment is P52, a fragment of the Gospel of John dated to 125 AD.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Quintilian. He came from Spain. He was not a historian; his only surviving work is about rhetorical technique. Nothing he wrote has anything to do with the Jews or Palestine.

Thanks for the interesting post and links on Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch and Quintilian. It appears that I overstated my case. Thanks for clarifying this in my mind.

If Jesus had been a global phenomenon, talked about in every corner of the Roman Empire, then one would expect these writers to reflect that. But if Jesus was known mostly locally, as described in the gospels, then it is understandable that none of these men wrote about him.

I don't know if there were other historians besides Josephus who might have been expected to know about Jesus, but if not, then we are dealing with an issue of silence. We cannot say we know other local historians would have written about Jesus, or that we know that other local historians would not have written about Jesus.

Which again leads back to the oddity stressed in this thread. Of all the Christian literature before 70 AD, the life of Jesus seems to be strangely absent. That is a strong hint--but not proof--that many if not all of the earthly tales could have been an invention of Mark.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There were other Jewish writings, dated aroiund 2 BC onwards, which contain a mixture of material such as, historical, religious, prophetic utterances and wisdom material. The NT writings fit in well with such material as well as their having unique content.

I agree.

In my view, the New Testament documents were a product of their times. They reflect a growing tradition that started long before 30 AD, and grew into modern Christianity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Imagine that the Gospels and Acts did not exist, and all we had were the epistles and other early writings.

But we do have the Gospels and Acts. They are part of the literature and part of the evidence.

Correct.

But before 70 AD the Christians likely had none of the gospels or Acts. And before 90 AD, they possibly had only one gospel, Mark.

When we look at only those documents written before 70 AD, what picture do we get of Jesus?