Was Jesus a real person?

[Ant Sinclair]

Enough, let's get a it straight about Jesu;

Je'su means I go up

Je'su was an Igyption mystery(science school)

A Je'su-it was an initiate of the school

A Je'su-g was a graduate

A Je'su-s was a superior graduate

And a Je'su-S was a Supreme graduate akin to today's Professors.

Ahkenaten who first promoted monotheism was a Je'su-S.

Nefertiti's tomb was never found in Igypt because it's Roslyn Chapel In Scotland.

[Ten oz]

 

Well, Paul mentions that he met James, brother of Jesus (in one of the epistles whose authenticity is not disputed). That is pretty close. Especially because Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews also mentions James, and that he had a brother Jesus who was called Christ. This phrase is found in several independent versions of Josephus' texts, even those without the obvious Christian insertions.

 

For historians of antiquity, this is more or less a smoking gun. If you do not accept this, you will have to deny a lot of more persons who are supposed to be historical.

 

Mythicists of course have a great strategy here: if a text seems to hint to the existence of Jesus, then it is a later Christian insertion.

Paul mentions James. Paul also claims to have met Jesus post ressurrection. Paul is not the primary source for the details about the life of Jesus. If Jesus had been real and Paul had known someone who was contemporary to that real person, like a brother, it is logical to assume Paul would have had more details about the life of Jesus. That is one reason why I don't feel the merely mentiong James is enough. We know Paul believes or at least wants his readers to believe in Jesus. So the simply proving Paul mentioned things which might imply Jesus was real isn't enough. There is no clear connections.

[Eise]

[edit:] Probably that phrase by Paul is disputed, where is it?

 

By mythicists, yes, of course. But not by most historians.

 

Further, the Josephus section is disputed, in part because it does not exactly mention "James, the brother of Jesus". See the last part of the page http://www.christianorigins.com/doherty-muller.html

You mean this, from your page?

 

Once again, despite Doherty's efforts, the evidence points strongly to a human Jesus on earth. In Paul's epistles & 'Hebrews', he is described as a man and a descendant of Abraham, Israelites, the tribe of Judah, Jesse & David and also requiring a woman in order to "come" as a Jew. He lived in a world of "flesh & blood", as one of them, among sinners, some opposing him. There he was tempted (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses. This Jesus, at one time an apostle, had a brother called James, that Paul met several times and Josephus knew about. His "manifestation", suffering and "sacrifice" happened in the near past (relative to the "ministries" of Paul and the author of 'Hebrews').

Against these, the best that Earl can do is to raise some doubts or/and mistreat the evidence.

Paul mentions James. Paul also claims to have met Jesus post ressurrection.

 

No historian takes Paul visions of a resurrected Jesus seriously as proof or hint that Jesus existed, so that reference is useless.

 

Paul is not the primary source for the details about the life of Jesus. If Jesus had been real and Paul had known someone who was contemporary to that real person, like a brother, it is logical to assume Paul would have had more details about the life of Jesus.

Paul's interest was mainly theological and political. Why should he write about Jesus, if there were enough people around him knowing the events in Jesus' life? And now you are supposing motives of Paul you don't know about! Just read the epistles, then you can see with what Paul was mostly concerned.

 

 

We know Paul believes or at least wants his readers to believe in Jesus. So the simply proving Paul mentioned things which might imply Jesus was real isn't enough. There is no clear connections.

 

Yes, Paul believed in Jesus, an he took his existence for granted.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Eise

[Ten oz]

 

No historian takes Paul visions of a resurrected Jesus seriously as proof or hint that Jesus existed, so that reference is useless.

Paul's interest was mainly theological and political. Why should he write about Jesus, if there were enough people around him knowing the events in Jesus' life? And now you are supposing motives of Paul you don't know about! Just read the epistles, then you can see with what Paul was mostly concerned.

 

Yes, Paul believed in Jesus, an he took his existence for granted.

Right, historians pick and choose which things Paul wrote to take seriously. That was my point. Paul "interest" was and took for "granted"? That clearly references internal motivation and world view. You are basically saying you know what Paul was or was not interested in and why. Those are things that can't been known.

 

If the conclusion was that we simply don't know I wouldn't be debating. I don't claim to know if there was or wasn't not a Jesus. My issue is with the automatic erroring on the side of there was a Jesus. As if until proven otherwise there must have been. To me that is looking at things backward. Until proven otherwise it should be maybe, maybe not.

[Eise]

Right, historians pick and choose which things Paul wrote to take seriously.

 

Yes, on good grounds. You are over-generalising. Do you know of one 'fact' accepted by historians, based on visions written down by some person in antiquity? Of course one leaves out such things.

 

That clearly references internal motivation and world view. You are basically saying you know what Paul was or was not interested in and why. Those are things that can't been known.

 

Obviously you have not read the epistles of Paul. He is concerned mainly with the building up of his churches everywhere in the Mediterranean, and solving the social and theological problems arising there. And therefore he had to write letters. And some of them have survived.

 

If he would have been interested in making a chronicle of Jesus, he would have written more about Jesus life, don't you think?

 

If the conclusion was that we simply don't know I wouldn't be debating. I don't claim to know if there was or wasn't not a Jesus. My issue is with the automatic erroring on the side of there was a Jesus. As if until proven otherwise there must have been. To me that is looking at things backward. Until proven otherwise it should be maybe, maybe not.

 

Right, we cannot be sure. But taken all hints together, the by far simplest explanation is to assume that an apocalyptic preacher called Jesus stands at the beginning of the religion that is called Christianity.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Eise

[Memammal]

I already divulged my personal opinion and to date I have not found any reason to reconsider. The main reasons for my personal conclusion that a historical Jesus-like figure probably existed and that he was likely an Essene preacher of the same ilk as John The Baptist, are as follows:

 

The way in which he was portrayed, particularly by the author of Mark but also the authors of Luke & Matthew (who might have used parts of Mark as a source), makes a lot of sense if one evaluates it against the backdrop of the specific socio-political-religious dynamics of that (Second Temple) era. It seems quite possible that Jesus & Co had a factional (i.e. pro Essene) agenda against the other prevailing sects of the time and that he attempted to convert Jews. As such his alleged crucifixion might have been motivated by all these various conflicts of interests, as I described earlier in my post #626;

The many differences in the day-to-day historical portrayal of his short public life among the various gospels as opposed to what appear to be mostly correlated representations of supernatural events let me to believe that there was a concerted effort w.r.t. a later apotheosis possibly by means of interpolation of original scriptures. The well-known later addition to the original Mark scripture that deals with the post-resurrected Jesus seems like a confirmation of what probably happened with many other parts of the gospels;

Paul's doctrine changed a lot of the emphasis of the Jesus narrative. The idea of Jesus who died for humanity's sins is that of Paul, not Jesus. I quote: Paul was the principal theologian of that component of early Christian movement called Pauline Christianity. It eventually won out over Jewish Christianity, Gnostic Christianity and other competing Christian groups to became the dominant religious force in the Roman Empire. Paul's (unique) message as well as his strong push to expand the early churches were frowned upon by both James and Peter (according to Acts they had a fall-out between them), who appeared to have been loyal to- and more in line with the (original) Jesus message;

The Dead Sea Scrolls offer further valuable insight into this. It was allegedly written and kept by the Essenes and never amended again until its discovery. There are similarities to be found with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount while its references to the Teacher of Righteousness are intriguing.

 

The above are by no means conclusive, but for me it paints a rather convincing explanation for what might have transpired.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

 

By mythicists, yes, of course. But not by most historians.

 

You mean this, from your page?

[..]

 

 

Let's see... I ask where Paul supposedly did that statement that you introduced, and you answer "by mythicists [..]" ... next your comment on arguments by Doherty starts with the question if I made that summary - which I coincidently found with DuckDuckGo...

No more questions!

[..] I don't claim to know if there was or wasn't not a Jesus. My issue is with the automatic erroring on the side of there was a Jesus. As if until proven otherwise there must have been. To me that is looking at things backward. Until proven otherwise it should be maybe, maybe not.

 

Right.

I think that it's reasonable to assume that either Christianity started with a real, earthly Jesus, or that it did not start with a real, earthly Jesus.

Those hypotheses lead to very different expectations concerning the early church, New testament writings, etc.

 

In this long thread, was any attempt made to compare the evidence (pro and contra) of both hypotheses? If so, starting with which post?

 

[edit] To clarify: for example post #656 is a fraction of 1/4 of the comparison that should be made, in order to allow forming a well informed opinion. One way to go about would be to compare books such as by Doherty with books such as by XXX (I have Doherty's book and I know many now out of date Christian books, but I don't know which is a good up-to-date book that promotes and defenses the earthly Jesus hypothesis).

Edited September 9, 2016 by Tim88

[Eise]

Let's see... I ask where Paul supposedly did that statement that you introduced, and you answer "by mythicists [..]" ... next your comment on arguments by Doherty starts with the question if I made that summary - which I coincidently found with DuckDuckGo...

No more questions!

Hmmm... Let's see what you really said:

 

[edit:] Probably that phrase by Paul is disputed, where is it?

 

Further, the Josephus section is disputed, in part because it does not exactly mention "James, the brother of Jesus". See the last part of the page http://www.christianorigins.com/doherty-muller.html

So your question starts with a statement (not a question!): "Probably that phrase by Paul is disputed". I reacted on that. For me you were displaying mistrust, and I did not found it necessary to answer your question anymore. It sounds to me you already have made your mind up: "If it is written somewhere, then it is a falsification, an insertion by later Christians. If we cannot be sure, it is wrong".

 

Then you are asking something that, if you were really following the discussion, should have known yourself, or could have looking up with Google: search for "Paul meets James", and you are done: Galatians 1:18-20.

 

Then you come with a similar suggestion ("the Josephus section is disputed"), and cite a web page that is critical of Doherty's position. Your reference to 'last part of the page' is unclear as unclear can be. I found nothing there that supports what you are saying. And in the light of you referring to this text, and asking where Paul mentions that he met James, the brother of the Lord, your complete posting does not make much sense: in this text it is mentioned where Paul has written that he met James. So obviously you do not really read, and just throw in a few opinions.

 

If I my judgement of you is wrong, then my apologies. But then: better avoid that people get such impressions, by writing better, more contentful postings.

[Tim88]

Hmmm... Let's see what you really said:

 

So your question starts with a statement (not a question!): "Probably that phrase by Paul is disputed". I reacted on that. For me you were displaying mistrust, and I did not found it necessary to answer your question anymore. It sounds to me you already have made your mind up: "If it is written somewhere, then it is a falsification, an insertion by later Christians. If we cannot be sure, it is wrong".

 

Then you are asking something that, if you were really following the discussion, should have known yourself, or could have looking up with Google: search for "Paul meets James", and you are done: Galatians 1:18-20.

 

Then you come with a similar suggestion ("the Josephus section is disputed"), and cite a web page that is critical of Doherty's position. Your reference to 'last part of the page' is unclear as unclear can be. I found nothing there that supports what you are saying. And in the light of you referring to this text, and asking where Paul mentions that he met James, the brother of the Lord, your complete posting does not make much sense: in this text it is mentioned where Paul has written that he met James. So obviously you do not really read, and just throw in a few opinions.

 

If I my judgement of you is wrong, then my apologies. But then: better avoid that people get such impressions, by writing better, more contentful postings.

 

I had bad luck with keyword search, so that in 5 minutes I did not find Gal.1:18-20. And I do not understand the word "mistrust" in the context of scientific discussion.

 

Many years ago I followed -and participated in- about one year of such discussions on a dedicated forum. When I noticed this thread I was curious to see how far the discussion here has come, and if the discussion relates to a good overview of arguments. If so, I could perhaps read something that I did not already know, and add some essential information that is lacking. But as I clarified in post #657, I do not consider it worthwhile to participate in a discussion in which only a fraction of the evidence is considered.

I also gave links that point to information that I found useful (indeed, I merely threw in a few links in order to point to that information in the most useful way), although possibly such have already been fully discussed here. It certainly is not my purpose to discuss here discussions on websites or to repeat the contents of several books; I consider that a waste of time.

 

And indeed I already formed an opinion, as obviously you did as well; however that could be altered if I there is a somewhat scientific, non-apologist theory about a historical Jesus that can explain (mostly postdict) an impressive number of details of the New testament books, the early church writings, etc. The theory that has the most convincing arguments and that shows the least amount of serious problems is the most likely to me. As the OP did not answer my questions, I do not intend to spend more time on this thread.

 

My best wishes with the further discussion.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tim88

[Eise]

And indeed I already formed an opinion, as obviously you did as well; however that could be altered if I there is a somewhat scientific, non-apologist theory about a historical Jesus that can explain (mostly postdict) an impressive number of details of the New testament books, the early church writings, etc.

 

Well, not an impressive number. Otherwise there would not be any discussion at all. Of several hypothesis, historians must choose the explanation that fits best to the material we have. And we do not have much material, if we filter out all inconsistencies, additions with obvious Christian theological purposes, etc etc. But still, the simplest explanation is that Christianity goes back to a preacher called Jesus at the beginning of the first century. But of course, the simplest explanation might not be the correct one.

 

My best wishes with the further discussion.

 

Thanks. But I won't say much more either. I've made my contributions, and what happens now is mostly just repetition of arguments that were already given.

 

At what Forum did you already discuss this topic?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Eise

[Memammal]

Notably Doherty's book The Jesus puzzle is worth studying, as it has a scientific approach to the issue. Based on some indications he got the idea that perhaps Jesus never really existed, and next he tested that hypothesis by looking for evidence that could falsify or render more support for it. But likely that has already been discussed in this thread.

I just want to return to this statement. It seems like a strange way of dealing with a historical fact-or-fiction question. Did he also contrast it with the alternative hypothesis?

 

In any event, the mythicists "hypothesis" of Doherty & Co might have some merit if one looks specifically at the gospel of John as well as Revelations, but I find it difficult to seriously consider a situation whereby all the other gospels, Acts and all the epistles, in their entirety, have been orchestrated around a mythical Jesus figure. If that was the case, it would have been far easier to align the narrative and (for example) to have Jesus proclaiming, in no uncertain terms, that he had to die for humanity's sins considering the fact that it became of such importance to the Christian dogma. Only, according to the other three gospels, he never said that. In stead the pre-crucified Jesus missionary was clearly to promote the Essene way of living and believing. He seemingly had no ulterior motives or universal ambitions beyond the Jewish culture. And I think we can safely discard any alleged post-crucified, or other supernatural events (virgin births, temptation by Satan, transfiguration event, etc.). We should rather ask the question as to how these last-mentioned events ended up in the scriptures (for example the late addition to Mark) and why they are still being taken seriously?

[Strange]

Enough, let's get a it straight about Jesu;

Je'su means I go up

 

 

That appears to be wrong:

 

"The name Jesus used in the English New Testament comes from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), related to the name Joshua.^[1][2] The name is thus related to the Hebrew verb root √yšʿ "rescue, deliver" and one of its noun forms, yešuaʿ "deliverance".^[3] There have been various proposals as to how the literal etymological meaning of the name should be translated, including YHWH saves, (is) salvation, (is) a saving-cry, (is) a cry-for-saving, (is) a cry-for-help, (is) my help.^{[4][5][6][7][8]}"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)#Etymology

 

 

 

Je'su was an Igyption mystery(science school)

 

I assume you mean "Egyptian"?

 

As the only references to such a thing are places like the David Icke forum, I think we can assume it is nonsense. Unless you can provide a credible reference?

 

 

 

Nefertiti's tomb was never found in Igypt because it's Roslyn Chapel In Scotland.

 

As the Chapel wasn't built until more than 2,700 years after her death, that seems like a pretty mad idea.

 

It sounds like it might be in Egypt: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/queen-nefertiti-tomb-egypt-king-tutankhamun-have-we-found-secret-lost-burial-a6942696.html

[Tim88]

 

Well, not an impressive number. Otherwise there would not be any discussion at all. Of several hypothesis, historians must choose the explanation that fits best to the material we have. And we do not have much material, if we filter out all inconsistencies, additions with obvious Christian theological purposes, etc etc. But still, the simplest explanation is that Christianity goes back to a preacher called Jesus at the beginning of the first century. But of course, the simplest explanation might not be the correct one.

 

At what Forum did you already discuss this topic?

 

These discussions are bound to continue due to a combination of causes, such as:

 

- too incomplete consideration of evidence (we do have much material!)

- differences in appreciation of evidence (and influenced by personal bias)

 

It's more than a decade ago and I forgot the name of that forum, but maybe they are still discussing! I'll see if I can dig it up and then I'll put that information here.

I just want to return to this statement. It seems like a strange way of dealing with a historical fact-or-fiction question. Did he also contrast it with the alternative hypothesis?

 

In any event, the mythicists "hypothesis" of Doherty & Co might have some merit if one looks specifically at the gospel of John as well as Revelations, but I find it difficult to seriously consider a situation whereby all the other gospels, Acts and all the epistles, in their entirety, have been orchestrated around a mythical Jesus figure. If that was the case, it would have been far easier to align the narrative and (for example) to have Jesus proclaiming, in no uncertain terms, that he had to die for humanity's sins considering the fact that it became of such importance to the Christian dogma. Only, according to the other three gospels, he never said that. In stead the pre-crucified Jesus missionary was clearly to promote the Essene way of living and believing. He seemingly had no ulterior motives or universal ambitions beyond the Jewish culture. And I think we can safely discard any alleged post-crucified, or other supernatural events (virgin births, temptation by Satan, transfiguration event, etc.). We should rather ask the question as to how these last-mentioned events ended up in the scriptures (for example the late addition to Mark) and why they are still being taken seriously?

 

Bold face mine. Yes, much of Doherty's book consists of comparing his hypothesis with the real Jesus hypothesis. But in detail, the part in bold face is not at all the idea; that was not supposed to be the case. Nevertheless it's a real puzzle, and different people fit the pieces together in different ways.

John's gospel is estimated to have been written more than half a century after the (real) letters by Paul. And the other gospels were finalized much later, it seems, when the church already was matured.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

John's gospel is estimated to have been written more than half a century after the (real) letters by Paul. And the other gospels were finalized much later, it seems, when the church already was matured.

Most of the reputable on-line sources seem to agree w.r.t. the age of the gospel of John (late first century), but not about it being the first of the gospels...rather the last. Mark is commonly regarded as the oldest of the canonical gospels (around 65 - 70 CE).

[Tim88]

Most of the reputable on-line sources seem to agree w.r.t. the age of the gospel of John (late first century), but not about it being the first of the gospels...rather the last. Mark is commonly regarded as the oldest of the canonical gospels (around 65 - 70 CE).

 

You are right, I oversimplified it too much.

[edit:] An original, short version of Mark (without such additions as the ones you mentioned) was probably written many years after Paul's letters and perhaps years before John's gospel; however the estimations are more speculation than science. One scholar argues that the early version of Mark was written after that of John.

 

Just now I refreshed my memory on this topic, so I edit this post accordingly. The estimated timeline of the different manuscripts - not limited to those found in the bible - was a guide for the development of Doherty's theory. A cornerstone of that development is the assumed historicity of Paul, and the fact-based assumption that his writings are the oldest bible writings about Christ that have been found.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tim88

[Tim88]

 

[..]

It's more than a decade ago and I forgot the name of that forum, but maybe they are still discussing! I'll see if I can dig it up and then I'll put that information here. [..]

 

Too late to edit that update in, so I add it.

 

It turns out that some 15 years ago I stumbled on the website of Earl Doherty, and after some discussions with him he directed me to the Jesus Mysteries Yahoo group, which, I think, was mainly used by bible scholars.

Apparently the group still exists. Activity is reducing but old posts can be accessed, there is even a database : http://thejesusmysteriesforum.blogspot.ch/

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

Just now I refreshed my memory on this topic, so I edit this post accordingly. The estimated timeline of the different manuscripts - not limited to those found in the bible - was a guide for the development of Doherty's theory. A cornerstone of that development is the assumed historicity of Paul, and the fact-based assumption that his writings are the oldest bible writings about Christ that have been found.

I don't quite follow you and I don't see how it impacts on my earlier statement #661. I know that the authenticity of a number of the Pauline epistles are being disputed but that the (authentic) epistles are regarded as the oldest written manuscripts that are contained in the NT. Was Doherty claiming something else?

 

Dates of composition​

Development of the New Testament canon​

[Ten oz]

@Memammal, one huge barrier that prevents clear discussion on this matter is the prejudiced history of it. There actually hasn't been a lot of independent non-religious scholarly work done. Rather, many historians have conceded various matters to Christian theologians to avoid the hornets nest. Plus at various times throughout history it was illegal, immoral, and etc to even question Jesus, the Bible, Gospels, and so on. So we have a census of scholars who agree Jesus probably existed but in truth the many of them have not researched the matter and are not interested in a debate about about it. Just as many people don't discuss evolution, climate change, political preference, and etc to avoid conflict many people who may be experts on Roman history, antiquities, Aramaic, and etc don't want to fight. And make no mistake it is a fight. To say evidence for Jesus is X, Y, or Z or the challange the gospels will be met with stern rebuke from the devoted. So of course Christians theologians are the primary source for authenticating Christian materials and their judgements are loosely accepted as whats most probably. Just a Pastor's explanation of a bibical verse is accpeted by all those in the congregation. To disagree casts yourself against. It is a fight few want.

 

In my opinion saying "most" scholars agree in reference to anything bibical is akin to saying most jouralist agree is reference to matters of science. There is actually a small pool that has done peer reviewed work on the historicity of Jesus. If we could limit this discussion to focusing on specific work that directly, not loosely, addresses the issue I think it would be helpful. People like Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Hoffman, Richard Carrier, and Philip Davies (to name a few) have worked specifically on the issue we are discussing and do not fall into any category of being polite, dismissive, or etc.

[Memammal]

@ Ten oz: I don't have any issues with what you posted and suggested above; it is your thread after all. I would assume that most of the specific work that directly addresses the issue have already been discussed earlier during this thread, no? My discussion with Tim88 earlier had reference to my question as to how one would explain a mythical Jesus considering my p.o.v. as raised in #656 & #661 against the backdrop of an assemble of mostly first century manuscripts, some contained in the NT, some external (for example the relevant parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls as alluded to in my post #656)?

 

PS:

 

@ Tim88: There is very good reason to think that John was written later than Mark (and the other gospels?). It has to do with the way in which the author of John dealt with the transfiguration event, almost as a side comment as if his readers would have already known what happened. Given that he was one of the alleged witnesses of said event, it is somewhat strange. It does seem to suggest that it might have been written by somebody else (not John, who would have been very old at that time...if he was still alive) and also later than (at least) Mark. It may also be an indication that interpolations (pertaining to supernatural events) date back to the first century..?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Memammal

[Ten oz]

@ Ten oz: I don't have any issues with what you posted and suggested above; it is your thread after all. I would assume that most of the specific work that directly addresses the issue have already been discussed earlier during this thread, no? My discussion with Tim88 earlier had reference to my question as to how one would explain a mythical Jesus considering my p.o.v. as raised in #656 & #661 against the backdrop of an assemble of mostly first century manuscripts as contained in the NT (plus the relevant parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls as alluded to in my post #656)?

My post was not a rebuttal to anything you said. Rather I was just casually sharing my point of view which is why I didn't qoute anything specific you said.

[Tim88]

I don't quite follow you and I don't see how it impacts on my earlier statement #661. I know that the authenticity of a number of the Pauline epistles are being disputed but that the (authentic) epistles are regarded as the oldest written manuscripts that are contained in the NT. Was Doherty claiming something else?

 

Dates of composition​

Development of the New Testament canon​

 

No, that is exactly what he assumes to be correct to start with. He does not at all hypothesize a single, great conspiracy but instead a natural development of ideas from different sources over a large time period, as born out by the archaeological evidence (or, I should say of course, his interpretation of that evidence; that's for anyone of us to judge).

[..]

 

@ Tim88: There is very good reason to think that John was written later than Mark (and the other gospels?). It has to do with the way in which the author of John dealt with the transfiguration event, almost as a side comment as if his readers would have already known what happened. Given that he was one of the alleged witnesses of said event, it is somewhat strange. It does seem to suggest that it might have been written by somebody else (not John, who would have been very old at that time...if he was still alive) and also later than (at least) Mark. It may also be an indication that interpolations (pertaining to supernatural events) date back to the first century..?

 

That's what makes it so difficult to be sure about exact timing.

Indeed, since evidently some parts of Luke and Matthew were copied from other manuscripts, how can we know that no similarly messy things happened to John? Therefore it's probably better to not rely on a precise dating of the Gospels for the question if there was a historical Jesus Christ who started Christianity.

 

PS. This gives of course some leeway to theories. For Doherty's theory, the Gospel of John (or maybe the original part of it) fits best as the earliest of the Gospels, as it is closest to Paul's letters in its portrayal of the Christ. However, Doherty notices that there is a difference in view of Christ between that writer and Paul: Christ the Revealer vs. Christ the Sacrifice.

 

Too late to edit that update in, so I add it.

 

It turns out that some 15 years ago I stumbled on the website of Earl Doherty, and after some discussions with him he directed me to the Jesus Mysteries Yahoo group, which, I think, was mainly used by bible scholars.

Apparently the group still exists. Activity is reducing but old posts can be accessed, there is even a database : http://thejesusmysteriesforum.blogspot.ch/

 

Also, while the new website of Doherty is trying to sell his book, with the webarchive a lot of interesting discussions can be unearthed:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070205161003/http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/whatsnew.htm

 

And in addition, linked from the Jesus Mysteries forum I came across another site that could be useful as basis for the discussion here as it presents and compares a variety of ideas, in addition to many manuscripts of that time: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tim88

[Ten oz]

@Tim88 & Mamammel, one notion that hasn't been explore well as it could be in this discussion is the presumption that the existence of Christians is evidence that there was most likely a Jesus. The argument that the simplest explanation for there being Christians is that there had been a Jesus. I have seen if mentioned and seen it used yet I am not sure such to be consistent with the creation of other religions. We do not assume Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, and etc to have been real people for that reason (?). So which actually makes more sense if we compare the notions against what we know about other major religions origin stories?

[Tim88]

@Tim88 & Mamammel, one notion that hasn't been explore well as it could be in this discussion is the presumption that the existence of Christians is evidence that there was most likely a Jesus. The argument that the simplest explanation for there being Christians is that there had been a Jesus. I have seen if mentioned and seen it used yet I am not sure such to be consistent with the creation of other religions. We do not assume Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, and etc to have been real people for that reason (?). So which actually makes more sense if we compare the notions against what we know about other major religions origin stories?

 

That notion is explored in the references. But I suppose that Mohammed really existed, is that also in doubt? Historians now also reject the historicity of Guillaume Tell...

 

Another simple explanation for there being Christians, is the strong expectation of his coming in that time period. It's a natural later development of thoughts of believers that he thus must have come in that time, in one way or another. We know for fact similar developments in later times, such as early Christians expecting the kingdom of God on Earth and then the Catholic Church claiming that God's kingdom has come through the Church; or the later Bible students predicting Jesus' coming in or around 1914, and then concluding and even announcing that Jesus has been present since that time.

 

PS. Indeed, those two contrary explanations are perhaps at the heart of the discussion, for these lead to contrasting theories that "predict" different developments of the portrayal of Christ in Christian and related writings as function of time and place.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Tim88

[Memammal]

Any attempt to differentiate fact from fiction, or history from myth, needs to differentiate between an earthy Jesus (the preacher/rabbi who had very little ambitions other than to convert Jews towards the Essene sect, as I referred to in my posts #656 & #661) and that of a heavenly Jesus, so-called son of God, the redeemer & saviour of all of humanity. The second depiction was an invention of Paul (Christology of redemption) as portrayed through his epistles and (later) by the author(s) of John (Christology of incarnation) and Paul's companion, Luke The Evangelist (likely author of the Gospel Of Luke as well as Acts). The differences of opinion and the notion of conflicts between Peter and James (the alleged (half-)brother of Jesus) on the one hand, and Paul on the other, are both interesting and important; something that has to be taken into account.

 

And in addition, linked from the Jesus Mysteries forum I came across another site that could be useful as basis for the discussion here as it presents and compares a variety of ideas, in addition to many manuscripts of that time: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

I had a quick look at this and it seems like a very good source to explore. It covers a wide spectrum of resources i.t.o. reputable authors/researchers (including some of the authors that Ten oz already listed earlier) with varying opinions re Jesus...much more than just "earthy" and "heavenly", but also including the various myth theories.

[Ten oz]

 

That notion is explored in the references. But I suppose that Mohammed really existed, is that also in doubt? Historians now also reject the historicity of Guillaume Tell...

 

Another simple explanation for there being Christians, is the strong expectation of his coming in that time period. It's a natural later development of thoughts of believers that he thus must have come in that time, in one way or another. We know for fact similar developments in later times, such as early Christians expecting the kingdom of God on Earth and then the Catholic Church claiming that God's kingdom has come through the Church; or the later Bible students predicting Jesus' coming in or around 1914, and then concluding and even announcing that Jesus has been present since that time.

 

PS. Indeed, those two contrary explanations are perhaps at the heart of the discussion, for these lead to contrasting theories that "predict" different developments of the portrayal of Christ in Christian and related writings as function of time and place.

The historicity of Muhammad is something that does get debated. I am not educated enough regarding the Qur'an to go in depth with that debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

 

Was there a flood? I have heard my whole life that while Noah and the Ark may not be literally have happened it is "probably" based on a real event. Same argument for the Ark of the Convenat. That while there was not a chest with magical powers there may have been something carried with symbolic meaning. My point is referencing those 2 examples is to highlight our cultures (western) tendency to error of the side that stories from the bible are probably based on real events. It isn't something we automatcally do for the Qur'an, Shruti, Adi Granth, and etc. While it is true that all stories have inspiration there seems to be an insistance the bibical inspiration almost always is based on real people and real event that have simply been exaggerated. We have all seen or read theories (raw speculation) that perhaps when Moses parted thhe sea what really happened was a low tide created a temporary land bridge.

 

Jesus as a figure is very similar to Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and etc yet it is not argued all were once real people. Seems only Jesus like figures with modern living followers get the "they were real" treatement. There are Hindu historians that argue Krishna was real. Just as Buddhists historians who believe Gautama Buddha was real. Perhaps all are were real. However it cannot be ignored that as a matter of culture, tradition, and indoctrination these figures have millions of biased people who through practice and faith impact the way the history is told and understood.

 

So what does that prove; nothing. I say all that to explain why, for me, all attempts to argue there is a linear logic to the creation of Christianity which is easiest explained by the existence of a Jesus doesn't work. We simply do not know enough to make such assumptions. I do not assume to know Paul's motivations or the full extent of his authorship and influence over other works. Many liberties seem to be taken when weighing the Pauline Epistles and the gospels. For all we know Paul suffered for schizophrenia and 90% of what he wrote was based on delusions extrapolated from things he had seen, heard, and or read. Or perhaps Paul was of sound mind and everything he wrote was accurate as he was able to make it. We simply do not know. Which is why, for me, all that matters is the dating of the work and comparison in narrative against the gospels. Since neither are clear I think saying we do not know is more appropriate than saying "probably".