The Historical Jesus II

Status
Not open for further replies.

dejudge

Philosopher
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
5,825
This is the continuation of the Historical Jesus thread found HERE. This was done for length only. Feel free to quote older posts in this thread. Thank you.
Posted By: Loss Leader





We have about the best direct evidence we're ever likely to get of how the process of literary invention works in the Nag Hammadi cache: someone adapting a 'wise sayings' source from the 1st century BC to create a Jesus narrative.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ is clearly dependent on Eugnostos the Blessed, both of which were unearthed at Nag Hammadi (in two differing copies for each). The Sophia of Jesus Christ transforms Eugnostos into a dialogue with Jesus. Douglas M. Parrott places the two side by side in his translation for the book The Nag Hammadi Library in English edited by Robinson.


Not one early Apologetic writer made reference to the Sophia of Jesus Christ or Eugnostos the Blessed.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ is a very late writing and the earliest manuscript is from the 4th century.

The story of Jesus is clearly dependent on the Septuagint--NOT the Sophia of Jesus Christ and Eugnostos the Blessed.

The birth of Jesus is based directly on Isaiah 7.14 and Micah 5.3

The voice from heaven at Baptism is based on Exodus 4.22.

The Temptation of Jesus is based on Deuteronomy 16.6, 16.8, 8.3,

The healing miracles of Jesus are based on Isaiah 53.

The Triumphant Entry is based on Zechariah 9.

The Passion of Jesus is based on Psalms 22.


The authors specifically identified books of the Septuagint as the sources of their story.

1. Matthew 1:22 KJV---Now all this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet

2. Matthew 2:5 KJV----And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,


3. Matthew 2:15 KJV----And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying , Out of Egypt have I called my son.

4. Matthew 2:17 KJV----Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying ,

5. Matthew 3:3 KJV---For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying , The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

6. Matthew 4:14 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying ,

7. Matthew 8:17 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying , Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.


8. Matthew 12:17 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying ,


9. Matthew 13:35 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying , I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.


10. Matthew 21:4 KJV----All this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying ,


11. Matthew 24:15 KJV----When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth , let him understand )


12. Matthew 27:9 KJV----Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying , And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued , whom they of the children of Israel did value ;

13. Matthew 27:35 KJV---And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sometimes a picture more accurately captures a sentiment than words could accomplish:
OverYourHead.PNG
 
OK, well, then we differ on just that one point.

But there is absolutely no obligation on any of us here to propose any specific myth theory. There is no legal force, nor any other force requiring anyone here to do that.

Richard Carrier may feel compelled to provide a specific theory, but that's because he is trying to sell a commercial book where his publishers probably insist that he does endorse some particular theory. Most publishers probably would not think it was a good business idea to try selling books which merely pointed out why the evidence was not good enough.

But beyond that it's hardly a situation crying out for some amazing explanation, as if it was impossible to imagine how uneducated superstitious people in the 1st century could possibly come to believe in a fictional miraculous deity. At that time everyone believed in one such fictional deity or other. And they had believed such things for thousands of years before anyone ever mentioned Jesus. More than half the world still believes that today (apparently).

So there is no great mystery about that. And in fact as authors like Randel Helms have shown (Gospel Fictions), the gospel stories of Jesus are easily found to have been taken from what had been written centuries before in the Old Testament as so-called "citation fulfilment". So it's quite obvious where the Jesus stories came from, and why Paul kept saying that his beliefs were "according to scripture".

The idea that we must all have some specific myth theory in order to understand how on earth messianic Jesus belief could have possibly come about unless Jesus was real person, is frankly an argument from naive incredulity which turns a blind eye to all the countless previous fictional religious deity figures. Figures which often had many features in common with the later stories of Jesus, e.g. the idea of dying and rising again as symbolic proof of salvation granted to the faithful.

It does not need any theory of Paul or anyone else deliberately inventing Jesus as a complete "lie" in order to deceive anyone. Nobody needs to have lied or invented anything. Religious beliefs of that kind were ubiquitous throughout that region, and especially the belief that Yahweh would send a saving messiah as prophesised long before in the OT.


Nice post, Ian.

Logically speaking, it’s of course correct to say that the onus of proof resides with those who insist on an historical Jesus.

In that all the available evidence or information we do possess points at a mythical beginning, where’s that leave them though? Whereas forming a proper historical conclusion entails or includes offering a more plausible alternative.

For numerous reasons, not the least interpolation, we can dismiss the testimonies of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, without an historical scruple.

The New Testament is the last place to look for historical facts, being largely a collection of church dogma, narrative theology or midrash, drawing on the Old Testament and pagan creeds, with the conception of a son of God who came to earth, a benefactor of man, one who died and rose again, already widely prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean pagan world. Paul, similarly, preached dogma, largely only concerned with the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the means of redemption through his death, a death no more historical than that of many pagan entities.

There existed numerous first-century Jewish cults, and Jewish mysticism, combined with Hellenistic philosophies, especially the Stoic, gave birth to the legend of Jesus. And as concluded by numerous scholars as early as the eighteenth century, once the Gentiles became prominent during the second century, the spiritualism of Paul and the Gnostics in general, was found to be far too refined. They insisted on the resurrection of the material body of Christ, together with immaculate conception, which together with a host of other embellishments culminated in the canonical gospels toward the end of that century. In fact, analogy with the tales of Homer seem far more apt than something like the battle of Thermopylae.

In other words, the historicists are bereft of all historical evidence on which to mount any sort of plausible argument, yet, as said, forming any sort of viable historical conclusion demands alternative explanation.

Sure, guided by their publishers, today’s authors are all on the lookout for some novel new angle by which to flog yet another book.

I completely agree that there’s really no great mystery, in fact, it’s been done to death by an army of scholars as from as early as the eighteenth century.
 
As for dejudge’’s spurious claims, Brainache, your comments seem largely predicated on somehow holding me accountable for your own conveniently assumed ignorance, and on ignoring all that’s been said, as well as all of the available evidence.

Contrary to your assertion, it’s even doubtful that Earl Doherty is “currently trying” to come up with any other kind of plausible scenario than he has already.

Reading his reply to Carrier Jesus Puzzle review, it’s pretty clear that as far he’s concerned, he’s already done so.

Doherty: -

“Consequently, in this case, as Garraghan puts it, “the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.” On these grounds, maybe the mythicist case ought to be considered something approaching a “slam dunk.”

Thus, when the full range and character of the silence in the early non-Gospel record is recognized and taken into account, I maintain there can be no feasible, let alone convincing, explanation to account for such a state of affairs which still preserves for these writers a knowledge of an historical Jesus. Certainly none has yet been put forward. All these features raise the AfS, in this particular case, to an elevated level. I would maintain that it not only conforms to Garraghan’s standards, it is the closest we could expect to get in demonstrating the non-existence of such a figure—at least in the sphere of those circles represented by this portion of the record (more on that later).

Similarly, I would maintain that the ‘balance of probability’ as presented by the total picture of the Christian evidence—a cultic movement that ignores, excludes and is complete without an historical Jesus, the absence of first century holy sites, relics, artifacts, Aramaic originals or sources lying behind its documents, etc., contemporary secular silence, silences extending even into major second century Christian apologists, the problems and peculiarities inherent in the Q tradition, and on and on—should lead the neutral observer to adopt that balance of probability.”

So, where the heck do get such nonsense like “whether or not he is successful remains to be seen”!

If you took the trouble to study the evolution of the many religious writings leading up to the canonical gospels you’ll indeed discover that Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you accordingly present substantiated evidence to the contrary; a bit of ignorant and vague hand waving doesn’t fly!

Again, as Doherty observes: “These writers present topics such as the beginnings of the faith, the nature of the Christ they believe in, the source of the movement’s ethics and preaching gospel, in ways which do more than simply ignore, or happen not to mention, an historical Jesus—which would in itself be almost inexplicable. The picture presented is not only complete and coherent without him, the language and mode of expression gives every indication that no recent historical Jesus can be present in these writers’ minds. In some cases it is even more than this. The silence is “exclusionary.” The writer’s words exclude him by definition; they make no room for this missing historical Jesus figure.”

You say you’ve never heard of Edwin Johnson, and ask for a link.

Again, what’s your own ignorance got to do with me? Consult the Internet, and find plenty of links.

The quote from Humphrey’s Site isn’t just an “interesting assertion”, but merely one appropriate conclusion to a massive body of work, first commencing centuries ago.

The mere fact that you bothered to write four lengthy summaries on Eisenman’s absurd flights of fancy, seem to render your opinions somewhat suspect from the start, I would have thought.

What do you think Edwin Johnson wrote about, but the Dead Sea Scrolls!

I’m the only person you’ve ever seen who disputes that Mark was the first of the Gospels?

Well, you obviously missed my posted where I pointed out that Robert Price holds the same view, together with a raft of eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, apart from the fact that there exist a multitude of other opinions on the order of the canonical gospels; whereas the church fathers, almost to a man, insist that Matthew is the first.

Not only that, but Markan priority is intrinsically linked to the existence of the hypothetical ‘Q’ document, as well as first century Gospel origin. Having the one without the other two doesn’t make sense.

In almost all of the theories, and that includes our modern scholars, too little regard is paid to all the evidence indicating a late second-century origin, as well as the scant regard of their close connection to the apocryphal gospels, or even what’s called the ‘law of accretion’.

As Sunderland pointed out: “At least three of the four gospels have had no real authors, as we usually understand that word. They are the work of editors; they are compilations; ’mosaics’ …”

By contrast, see Doherty’s conclusions: -

“First, I would briefly like to ‘fine-tune’ Carrier’s summary of my position. I would not regard the original versions of some or all of the Gospels—certainly Mark, the first one—as the product of a politically motivated Church seeking advantages inherent in an historical Jesus.

I have argued, however, that such a perception would have been mistaken, and furthermore that the element of a death under Pilate was a complete and recognized (at the time) fiction on Mark’s part.

As the second century progressed, however, all four Gospels came to be regarded as corroborating accounts of historical events, and were undoubtedly edited and expanded with political advantage in mind.”

Mark’s priority is mere supposition based on outdated and ill-based premises, two of the Gospels were definitely influenced by political considerations, the elements of death under Pilate were already recognized in the Acts of Pilate as well as other manuscripts, and the four gospels did not ‘progress’ over the course of the second century, but were in fact final products (ignoring later interpolations), compiled from preceding manuscripts.

Is it my contention that the author of Mark edited his Gospel from a version of Luke?

No, the painstakingly work of people like Schleiermacher demonstrate conclusively that each of the Gospels, as well as Marcion’s, were variously composed from earlier manuscripts, and without necessarily entailing one author copying from any other.

If today’s authors really paid heed to some of these early scholars, including the Dutch Radical, it would leave them with scant to write about.
 
Whoever suggested that Philo was a Gnostic, dejudge!

Asserting that Jesus was fabricated to explain the Temple destruction is puerile nonsense.

Mark indeed displays Gnostic overtones.

Well, it’s been fun, but I don’t think I’ll waste more of my time.
 
As for dejudge’’s spurious claims, Brainache, your comments seem largely predicated on somehow holding me accountable for your own conveniently assumed ignorance, and on ignoring all that’s been said, as well as all of the available evidence.

Contrary to your assertion, it’s even doubtful that Earl Doherty is “currently trying” to come up with any other kind of plausible scenario than he has already.
...

Still no links, just bare assertions.

I'll disregard the rest as the self-serving nonsense that it is. Still waiting for a plausible Mythicist scenario. And please leave the braggadocio where it belongs.

It is not at all "self-evident" that Jesus was based on a myth rather than a human teacher. A human teacher is the most plausible explanation, give the number of them floating around a the time and the total lack of any "Celestial Jesus" cults in evidence.

It isn't me that needs convincing though, is it? It is the Academic world that needs to be convinced and it will take a bit more than bare assertions to do that.

Good luck!
 
It's almost as if you didn't read the thread, except to confirm what you already thought.

The difference between us is that I have read the thread and I have understood it.

This 'holding history hostage' thing has been tried here on more occasions than I care to count.
 
[ . . . ]This 'holding history hostage' thing has been tried here on more occasions than I care to count.


The last effort seen in this thread of that ploy, involving the letters of Plato, is especially odd, given modern scholarship apparently concludes all those letters are spurious.
Or pseudo-epigraphical, if you will.
 
Still waiting for a plausible Mythicist scenario.

It's already a well established fact that people who write these sort of theological works are perfectly capable of invention when it suits them.

Most of the 'historical Jesus' scenarios begin with cutting large portions of the surviving texts out, so even bible scholars accept the pervasive tendency of bible writers to create stories we have no reason to think are actual events.

For example, here is an examination of one of these tales that even some early christians read as allegorical:

----------------

Jesus’ Cleansing of the Temple: Rationalizing a Miracle

by Tim Widowfield

...As you no doubt already know, the cleansing of, or what many Historical Jesus (HJ) scholars today often call a disturbance at, the Temple is an event recounted in all four gospels, which imagines a lone Jesus disrupting all business occurring in the outer courtyard.

HJ scholars who claim Jesus was some sort of apocalyptic prophet prefer to believe the event really happened, because it fits in with the eschatological message of their reconstructed Jesus...

...other NT scholars don’t buy into the historicity of the event. For example, in A Myth of Innocence Burton Mack called the story a “Markan fabrication.” (See p. 292.)

...

Origen suspected that we should understand the purification story as an allegory.

t is not surprising that Origen casts a doubt on the historical value of this narrative, by the expression, εἴγε καὶ αὐτὴ γεγένηται (if it really happened), and at most admits that the Evangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, καὶ γεγενημένῳ συωέχρήσατο πράγματι (also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence). ([David Friedrich] Strauss [in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined], p. 402, bold emphasis mine)

Take note: Borrowing the form of an actual occurrence means that the gospel writers used the form of an historical event to convey a religious truth by means of symbolic language. It is a parable masquerading as history.

http://vridar.org/2014/06/09/jesus-cleansing-of-the-temple-rationalizing-a-miracle/#more-52256

----------------

Far from lacking a 'plausible scenario' the literary origins of 'Jesus anecdotes' is almost universally acknowledged and accounted for by leaving the majority of the texts on the cutting room floor when trying to construct a plausible 'historical Jesus'.
 
The last effort seen in this thread of that ploy, involving the letters of Plato, is especially odd, given modern scholarship apparently concludes all those letters are spurious.

Or pseudo-epigraphical, if you will.

Although even if all the Pauline epistles are as spurious as the Plato letters it doesn't tell us much about the real existence of either person.
 
Contrary to your assertion, it’s even doubtful that Earl Doherty is “currently trying” to come up with any other kind of plausible scenario than he has already.

Reading his reply to Carrier Jesus Puzzle review, it’s pretty clear that as far he’s concerned, he’s already done so.

Doherty: -

“Consequently, in this case, as Garraghan puts it, “the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.” On these grounds, maybe the mythicist case ought to be considered something approaching a “slam dunk.”

Thus, when the full range and character of the silence in the early non-Gospel record is recognized and taken into account, I maintain there can be no feasible, let alone convincing, explanation to account for such a state of affairs which still preserves for these writers a knowledge of an historical Jesus. Certainly none has yet been put forward. All these features raise the AfS, in this particular case, to an elevated level. I would maintain that it not only conforms to Garraghan’s standards, it is the closest we could expect to get in demonstrating the non-existence of such a figure—at least in the sphere of those circles represented by this portion of the record (more on that later).

Similarly, I would maintain that the ‘balance of probability’ as presented by the total picture of the Christian evidence—a cultic movement that ignores, excludes and is complete without an historical Jesus, the absence of first century holy sites, relics, artifacts, Aramaic originals or sources lying behind its documents, etc., contemporary secular silence, silences extending even into major second century Christian apologists, the problems and peculiarities inherent in the Q tradition, and on and on—should lead the neutral observer to adopt that balance of probability.”

So, where the heck do get such nonsense like “whether or not he is successful remains to be seen”!

It would indeed be silly to expect more from Doherty, especially when such harrumphing comes from quarters where his work is not even read.

If you took the trouble to study the evolution of the many religious writings leading up to the canonical gospels you’ll indeed discover that Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you accordingly present substantiated evidence to the contrary; a bit of ignorant and vague hand waving doesn’t fly!

Again, as Doherty observes: “These writers present topics such as the beginnings of the faith, the nature of the Christ they believe in, the source of the movement’s ethics and preaching gospel, in ways which do more than simply ignore, or happen not to mention, an historical Jesus—which would in itself be almost inexplicable. The picture presented is not only complete and coherent without him, the language and mode of expression gives every indication that no recent historical Jesus can be present in these writers’ minds. In some cases it is even more than this. The silence is “exclusionary.” The writer’s words exclude him by definition; they make no room for this missing historical Jesus figure.

These quotes do a brilliant job of summarizing how a 'mythical Jesus' theory is not reliant wholly on the AfS.

You say you’ve never heard of Edwin Johnson, and ask for a link.

Again, what’s your own ignorance got to do with me? Consult the Internet, and find plenty of links.

The quote from Humphrey’s Site isn’t just an “interesting assertion”, but merely one appropriate conclusion to a massive body of work, first commencing centuries ago.

The mere fact that you bothered to write four lengthy summaries on Eisenman’s absurd flights of fancy, seem to render your opinions somewhat suspect from the start, I would have thought.

What do you think Edwin Johnson wrote about, but the Dead Sea Scrolls!

Thanks for the mention of Edwin Johnson - he seems to be an historian of distinction.

I’m the only person you’ve ever seen who disputes that Mark was the first of the Gospels?

Well, you obviously missed my posted where I pointed out that Robert Price holds the same view, together with a raft of eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, apart from the fact that there exist a multitude of other opinions on the order of the canonical gospels; whereas the church fathers, almost to a man, insist that Matthew is the first.

Not only that, but Markan priority is intrinsically linked to the existence of the hypothetical ‘Q’ document, as well as first century Gospel origin. Having the one without the other two doesn’t make sense.

In almost all of the theories, and that includes our modern scholars, too little regard is paid to all the evidence indicating a late second-century origin, as well as the scant regard of their close connection to the apocryphal gospels, or even what’s called the ‘law of accretion’.

As Sunderland pointed out: “At least three of the four gospels have had no real authors, as we usually understand that word. They are the work of editors; they are compilations; ’mosaics’ …”

By contrast, see Doherty’s conclusions: -

“First, I would briefly like to ‘fine-tune’ Carrier’s summary of my position. I would not regard the original versions of some or all of the Gospels—certainly Mark, the first one—as the product of a politically motivated Church seeking advantages inherent in an historical Jesus.

I have argued, however, that such a perception would have been mistaken, and furthermore that the element of a death under Pilate was a complete and recognized (at the time) fiction on Mark’s part.

As the second century progressed, however, all four Gospels came to be regarded as corroborating accounts of historical events, and were undoubtedly edited and expanded with political advantage in mind.”

Mark’s priority is mere supposition based on outdated and ill-based premises, two of the Gospels were definitely influenced by political considerations, the elements of death under Pilate were already recognized in the Acts of Pilate as well as other manuscripts, and the four gospels did not ‘progress’ over the course of the second century, but were in fact final products (ignoring later interpolations), compiled from preceding manuscripts.

Is it my contention that the author of Mark edited his Gospel from a version of Luke?

No, the painstakingly work of people like Schleiermacher demonstrate conclusively that each of the Gospels, as well as Marcion’s, were variously composed from earlier manuscripts, and without necessarily entailing one author copying from any other.

If today’s authors really paid heed to some of these early scholars, including the Dutch Radical, it would leave them with scant to write about.

It seems to be the fashion to dismiss early scholars out of hand - unless it's to assert that other early scholars have debunked them already.
 
Whoever suggested that Philo was a Gnostic, dejudge!

Asserting that Jesus was fabricated to explain the Temple destruction is puerile nonsense.

Mark indeed displays Gnostic overtones.

Well, it’s been fun, but I don’t think I’ll waste more of my time.

Your claim that Jesus was rooted in Gnosticism is un-evidenced and BASELESS .

You have NO 1st century Gnostic source which mention Jesus of Nazareth.

gMark is NOT a Gnostic source.

The REASON for the Fall of the Jewish Temple is DOCUMENTED in Multiple Apologetic writings--it was because the JEWS KILLED the Son of their own God.

1. Hippolytus in "Treatise Against the Jews" did claim that the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God.

Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews"
7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?
Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?

Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?

Was it for the blood of the prophets?

Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.


2. Examine "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen --it is claimed the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS Killed Jesus.


"Against Celsus"
in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ.......................................If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ..

3. Examine "Justin's Dialogue with Trypho".

The Fall of the Temple and Desolation of Jerusalem was because the Jews Killed Jesus.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho
....your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.' For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision.

For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him...

4. Examine Tertullian's "Answer to the Jews".


Tertullian's Answer to the Jews
...let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him.
 
Last edited:
If you took the trouble to study the evolution of the many religious writings leading up to the canonical gospels you’ll indeed discover that Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

Your claim is an established fallacy. There are no actual existing manuscripts that show Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual being.

You have ZERO source about an early Jesus as a Gnostic spiritual agent.
 
The Gospel of the Hebrews, the second century’s most prominent manuscript, not only displays various Gnostic concepts, but also parallels notions expressed in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

For a full rundown of Gnostic manuscripts see –

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cac.htm

Gnosticism, as for orthodox Christianity, of course incorporates many mythica and spiritual elements, and for all I know you may prefer the following: -

October 9, 2010 - Page 96. RationalSkepticism.

dejuror wrote:

Mythers can show that the evidence for the myth Jesus is OVERWHELMING and that the written evidence of mythological Jesus INUNDATES virtually all of the writings in and out the Bible and for hundreds of years and that Christians themselves for hundreds of years did argue against the historical Jesus.

The abundance of evidence is there for the myth. It permeates all of history from antiquity to the present.

What book would you read to find out that Romulus was a MYTH?

You would read Plutach's Romulus and in that book, Romulus vanished and ascened to heaven.

What book would you read to find out that Achilles was a MYTH?

You would read Homer's Iliad and there you find that Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess.

Now, what books would you read to find out that Jesus was a MYTH?

You know the books and in them you will find that

1. Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a virgin. Matt 1.19

2. Jesus was described as the Word and equal to God. John 1

3. Jesus was described as the Creator of heaven and earth. John 1

4. Jesus was tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple. Matt. 4.

5. Jesus used spit to cure a speech impediment. Mark 7.33

6. Jesus used spit to cure blindness. Mark 8.23

7. Jesus cursed a tree and the tree withered away. Mark 11.

8. Jesus walked on the sea with Peter in his arms. Matt 14.31

9. Jesus was transfigured and his face radiated like the sun and his clothes like white light. Matt 17.2

10. The dead prophets, Moses and Elijah, appeared before Jesus during the transfiguration. Mark 9.4

11. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after the body began to rot. John 11.39

12. Jesus was resurrected. Mark 16.6

13. Jesus changed his appearance after he was resurrected. Luke 24.16

14. Jesus entered a building through the walls or when it was shut tight after the resurrection. John 20.26

15. Jesus cooked and ate fish after he was resurrected. Luke 24.42

16. Jesus ascended through the clouds on his way to heaven. Acts 1.9

17. " Paul" a supposed contemporary of Jesus only saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead. 1 Cor 15.8

18. It is claimed Jesus was seen alive after he was supposed to be dead and that it was not certain if it was lawful to call Jesus a man. Antiquities XVIII.3.3

19. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was no different to Greek mythological Gods. "First Apology" 21.

20. Trypho the Jew claimed the virgin birth of Jesus was similar to Greek mythology. "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII.

21. Tertullian claim it was agreed that Jesus had a spiritual nature, it was his FLESH that was questioned. "On the Flesh of Christ"

22. Origen claimed many persons who were called Christians disagree about the nature of Jesus. The preface to "De Principiis".

23. Eusebius claimed Jesus was both divine and human. "Church History" 1

24. No Gospel writer claimed they wrote history about Jesus. See all the Gospels.

25. No Gospel writer claimed that they were eyewitnesses of any event with Jesus. See all the Gospels.

26. No Gospel writer claimed they personally saw Jesus anywhere, or talked and interacted with him about anything. See all the Gospels.

27. Virtually all the events about Jesus from birth to ascension are implausible or fiction. See all the Gospels.

28. Many events with Jesus are inconsistent from Gospel to Gospel. See all the Gospels.

29. No Jewish writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Jewish writings

30. No Roman writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Roman writings.

I could go on and on but that would be an overkill.

The evidence to support mythological Jesus INUNDATES. It is huge. It OVERWHELMS.

Now, let's get the single piece of rejected evidence for historical Jesus.

I will write it so that everyone can see.

Antiquities XX.9. That is it. But, it was rejected even by the Church. Antiquities XX.9 could not be about Bible Jesus.

Wrong James. Wrong Jesus. See "De Viris Illustribus" 2 and Papias' "Fragment 10".

The historical Jesus has been smoked and debunked.
 
The Gospel of the Hebrews, the second century’s most prominent manuscript, not only displays various Gnostic concepts, but also parallels notions expressed in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

For a full rundown of Gnostic manuscripts see –

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cac.htm

Gnosticism, as for orthodox Christianity, of course incorporates many mythica and spiritual elements, and for all I know you may prefer the following: -

October 9, 2010 - Page 96. RationalSkepticism.

dejuror wrote:

Mythers can show that the evidence for the myth Jesus is OVERWHELMING and that the written evidence of mythological Jesus INUNDATES virtually all of the writings in and out the Bible and for hundreds of years and that Christians themselves for hundreds of years did argue against the historical Jesus.

The abundance of evidence is there for the myth. It permeates all of history from antiquity to the present.

What book would you read to find out that Romulus was a MYTH?

You would read Plutach's Romulus and in that book, Romulus vanished and ascened to heaven.

What book would you read to find out that Achilles was a MYTH?

You would read Homer's Iliad and there you find that Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess.

Now, what books would you read to find out that Jesus was a MYTH?

You know the books and in them you will find that

1. Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a virgin. Matt 1.19

2. Jesus was described as the Word and equal to God. John 1

3. Jesus was described as the Creator of heaven and earth. John 1

4. Jesus was tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple. Matt. 4.

5. Jesus used spit to cure a speech impediment. Mark 7.33

6. Jesus used spit to cure blindness. Mark 8.23

7. Jesus cursed a tree and the tree withered away. Mark 11.

8. Jesus walked on the sea with Peter in his arms. Matt 14.31

9. Jesus was transfigured and his face radiated like the sun and his clothes like white light. Matt 17.2

10. The dead prophets, Moses and Elijah, appeared before Jesus during the transfiguration. Mark 9.4

11. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after the body began to rot. John 11.39

12. Jesus was resurrected. Mark 16.6

13. Jesus changed his appearance after he was resurrected. Luke 24.16

14. Jesus entered a building through the walls or when it was shut tight after the resurrection. John 20.26

15. Jesus cooked and ate fish after he was resurrected. Luke 24.42

16. Jesus ascended through the clouds on his way to heaven. Acts 1.9

17. " Paul" a supposed contemporary of Jesus only saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead. 1 Cor 15.8

18. It is claimed Jesus was seen alive after he was supposed to be dead and that it was not certain if it was lawful to call Jesus a man. Antiquities XVIII.3.3

19. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was no different to Greek mythological Gods. "First Apology" 21.

20. Trypho the Jew claimed the virgin birth of Jesus was similar to Greek mythology. "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII.

21. Tertullian claim it was agreed that Jesus had a spiritual nature, it was his FLESH that was questioned. "On the Flesh of Christ"

22. Origen claimed many persons who were called Christians disagree about the nature of Jesus. The preface to "De Principiis".

23. Eusebius claimed Jesus was both divine and human. "Church History" 1

24. No Gospel writer claimed they wrote history about Jesus. See all the Gospels.

25. No Gospel writer claimed that they were eyewitnesses of any event with Jesus. See all the Gospels.

26. No Gospel writer claimed they personally saw Jesus anywhere, or talked and interacted with him about anything. See all the Gospels.

27. Virtually all the events about Jesus from birth to ascension are implausible or fiction. See all the Gospels.

28. Many events with Jesus are inconsistent from Gospel to Gospel. See all the Gospels.

29. No Jewish writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Jewish writings

30. No Roman writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Roman writings.

I could go on and on but that would be an overkill.

The evidence to support mythological Jesus INUNDATES. It is huge. It OVERWHELMS.

Now, let's get the single piece of rejected evidence for historical Jesus.

I will write it so that everyone can see.

Antiquities XX.9. That is it. But, it was rejected even by the Church. Antiquities XX.9 could not be about Bible Jesus.

Wrong James. Wrong Jesus. See "De Viris Illustribus" 2 and Papias' "Fragment 10".

The historical Jesus has been smoked and debunked.

Looks like there has been a glitch in the Mythbot...

Why is DougW quoting a long dejudge post from RatSkep without any content of his own?

???:boggled:
 
Why? Maybe I’m simply not interested in wasting my time debating issues with someone who patently hasn’t the slightest interest in getting at the truth. Someone whose sole interest lies in repetitively exploiting the numerous gaps in our historical knowledge in order to distort and misrepresent what we do know, using it as a means of substituting their own spurious assertions. One who for years now has totally ignored all contrary evidence, simply repeating the same tiresome spiels and who will continue to do so, here and elsewhere, long after I’ve ceased posting.

No actual manuscripts that show Jesus Gnostic beginnings?

Gnosticsm comprised many diverse strands, rendering demands for some single simplistic explanation innately pointless. I already mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, and even ignoring the mass of other early writings, even the early Gospel of Peter displays docetic elements, Christ a spirit, with only an apparent body - the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical. And I’m really not interested in penning some long screed about the Gnostic thought world inhabited by Paul and the early Christian faith, one replete with Jewish elements adapted to the cosmology prevailing at that time, Philo’s “heavenly man’ concept merely an intermediate stage.

Even if I did, dejudge would merely ignore it, instead coughing up a whole new raft of false assertions – no thanks!

First you complain about no links. When I do, you complain about lack of content!

I suggest you do your own homework - here are some more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html
 
Why? Maybe I’m simply not interested in wasting my time debating issues with someone who patently hasn’t the slightest interest in getting at the truth. Someone whose sole interest lies in repetitively exploiting the numerous gaps in our historical knowledge in order to distort and misrepresent what we do know, using it as a means of substituting their own spurious assertions. One who for years now has totally ignored all contrary evidence, simply repeating the same tiresome spiels and who will continue to do so, here and elsewhere, long after I’ve ceased posting.

No actual manuscripts that show Jesus Gnostic beginnings?

Gnosticsm comprised many diverse strands, rendering demands for some single simplistic explanation innately pointless. I already mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, and even ignoring the mass of other early writings, even the early Gospel of Peter displays docetic elements, Christ a spirit, with only an apparent body - the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical. And I’m really not interested in penning some long screed about the Gnostic thought world inhabited by Paul and the early Christian faith, one replete with Jewish elements adapted to the cosmology prevailing at that time, Philo’s “heavenly man’ concept merely an intermediate stage.

Even if I did, dejudge would merely ignore it, instead coughing up a whole new raft of false assertions – no thanks!

First you complain about no links. When I do, you complain about lack of content!

I suggest you do your own homework - here are some more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

Fair enough. I don't think anyone here takes dejudge seriously anyway, so I wasn't sure why you were getting so tied up with his nonsense.

But I'm still not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that gLuke came before gMark and gMatthew, that is contrary to every Scholar I've read on the subject. Could you perhaps expand on your reasoning there?
 
The evidence from antiquity for a Myth Jesus is overwhelming.

Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence.

Based on the existing manuscripts, Codices and writings of antiquity the Jesus story and cult began AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple [after c 70 CE] when it was propagated that the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple was because the JEWS Killed the Son of Their own God and that the same Jesus would soon appear for the second time.

Multiple Apologetic writers from the 2nd century and later did claim that the Killing of Jesus, the Son of God, was the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

In fact, it was claimed in Apologetic writings that it was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel that the Jewish Temple would Fall AFTER the advent of the Jewish Messiah.

Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, also claimed that the Prophet Daniel predicted the Fall of the Temple by the Romans.

It is extremely easy to deduce that the Jewish Temple FIRST Fell BEFORE it was claimed the Messiah had come.

The Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was the supposed SIGN that the Messiah had already come.

Essentially, if the Jewish Temple never fell there would be no claim of the advent of the Jewish Messiah.

1. In Antiquities of the Jews 10 attributed to Josephus composed c 93-94 CE
In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.

All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel...

Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" also claim the Prophets Daniel and Hosea foretold of the second coming.


2.Justin's Dialogue with Trypho
O Trypho," said I, "some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold..



3. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 5.25
To this purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously."[/u][/b]


4. Tertullian's "Answer to the Jews"
Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel....

5. Origen's Against Celsus
The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world.

Jesus the Son of God in gMark was preaching the Prophecies found in the book of Daniel.


6. Mark 1
Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying , The time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye , and believe the gospel.

7. Mark 13:14 KJV
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand ,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity do show that the Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

Essentially, the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was supposed to be the FIRST PRIMARY Sign that the Jewish Messiah had already come.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

NO one preached Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the BEFORE c 70 CE or since 37-41 CE.

The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE--STORIES of Jesus were invented in the 2nd century or later---then the Pauline Corpus. no earlier than c 180 CE.
 
Last edited:
OK Dejudge, perhaps you can explain for your readers why Josephus talks of so many "Deceivers" as he calls the Messianic pretenders who brought about so many of his country's woes? These people were followers of the "Star Prophecy" which was about a great leader who would emerge and free the land of their oppressors. Weren't these the people that were fighting the Romans in the war which led to the fall of the Temple? Else why was there a war?
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews.

Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.

Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men.

This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

So who were these "Zealots" who brought about the destruction by Rome, and what were they fighting for?

What was this "Fourth Philosophy" which was kicked off by "Judas and Sadduc" at the time of the census of Cyrenius and which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

How can you argue that this OT prophecy only came into play after the war was over?

Who was Theudas?
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-5.html

NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government...

Why was he trying to lead people across the Jordan? Why was that a problem?
 
The Gospel of the Hebrews, the second century’s most prominent manuscript, not only displays various Gnostic concepts, but also parallels notions expressed in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

For a full rundown of Gnostic manuscripts see –

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cac.htm

Gnosticism, as for orthodox Christianity, of course incorporates many mythica and spiritual elements [ . . . ]

And
Gnosticsm comprised many diverse strands, rendering demands for some single simplistic explanation innately pointless. I already mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, and even ignoring the mass of other early writings, even the early Gospel of Peter displays docetic elements, Christ a spirit, with only an apparent body - the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical. And I’m really not interested in penning some long screed about the Gnostic thought world inhabited by Paul and the early Christian faith, one replete with Jewish elements adapted to the cosmology prevailing at that time, Philo’s “heavenly man’ concept merely an intermediate stage. [ . . . ]
here are some more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

Thanks for opening up these vistas, DougW.
I'm still slowly getting my head around the implications of the presence of the Sator Square in Pompeii and rereading a curious book I found in Athens Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6576.html

From the introduction
[ . . . ]we have transcendent mysticism as well as chthonic howling, but telling them apart is sometimes difficult;the more closely these texts are actually read, the harder it is to maintain any distinction between piety and sorcery [ . . .]

Meyer points outs
Larger shifts in cultural milieu can also help us understand an interest in more private rituals as opposed to participation in public rituals. During the Hellenistic period there was a great breakdown in the authority of the city-states, accompanied in a decline in the ceremonial forms of worship around which social identities cohered.People became citizens of a much larger world [ . . . ]Private associations and small cultic practices throughout the late antique world with great mobility.

I think this social context also provides us with an explanation of why early Christian literature is neither history nor honest fiction but rather occupies a place in that fluid realm of hagiography or narrative theology.


...the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical.

Is there anything from the canonical literature which can be taken as "anything more but allegorical"?

Here's another take on that all-too-familiar cleansing of the Temple scene*
http://vridar.org/2014/06/09/jesus-cleansing-of-the-temple-rationalizing-a-miracle/#more-52256
And even though Roman troops were watching from the Antonia Fortress, as were the priests, we presume, from the Temple steps, Jesus left the scene without a scratch. It’s as if you went to an NFL game in the Meadowlands and single-handedly cleared the parking lot of all tailgaters, turning over their barbecues, and dumping out their beer. If you got past the first group alive, it would be astonishing. If you finished the task unscathed and managed to keep from getting arrested, that would be a miracle.

Strauss cites the unusual features of the story, including the fact that the gospels normally depict Jesus as avoiding public displays and violent outbursts. Hence, “it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to everything revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him.” (p. 402) By the time of the trial before the Sanhedrin, it would appear everyone had forgotten the demonstration at the Temple.
http://vridar.org/2014/06/09/jesus-cleansing-of-the-temple-rationalizing-a-miracle/#more-52256

Enough of early morning musings.
Time to make some decent coffee and read some solid scholarship as an antidote to the insubstantial mirages of the early Christian world.



*
El Greco's vision of that scene can be seen here
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDO1XIg9u...600/christ.money+changers+temple.el+greco.jpg
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
I think this social context also provides us with an explanation of why early Christian literature is neither history nor honest fiction but rather occupies a place in that fluid realm of hagiography or narrative theology.
...and narrative iconography.
 
:p

Seriously, however, I think one of the stronger cases - if hardly employed - for a more purely literary Jesus is the iconography of nearly every subject within the narrative.

If not for a character, then the preference of icon over actual has at the least rendered any possible concept of "Historical Jesus" entirely futile; yet more concerning, such attempt negates the value of the icons within and to whom such were of value.

In some ways, the Historical Jesus pursuit is a social whitewash which ignores recognition of cultural belonging in exchange for a convenience of attempting chronology in some fixed manner relevant to the inquiring cultural view instead.
 
Last edited:
The Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity which means Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

One of the Apologetic sources to mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus is Tertullian.

There are at least 33 writings attributed to Tertullian including "Against Marcion".

An Apologetic writer sated that the Works under the name of Tertullian are APOCRYPHA.

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

Every single writing of antiquity which mentions Paul as a figure of history and the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus.


Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Corpus, 2 Peter, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome , Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and others are themselves interpolated, forgeries or false attribution.


Paul in the NT, the Hebrew of Hebrew, the Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin NEVER had any real existence.

Paul and the Pauline Corpus were invented to historicize the fiction story of the Resurrection of the Son of God in the fables called Gospels.
 
Dejudge, I have no idea who you are responding to.

I think he might be responding to me, but I can't be sure. I was asking him about why there even was a war between The Jewish people and Rome. What kind of thinking led to the war, who were the ring-leaders etc, but he just goes on about things that happened after the destruction of Jerusalem, he can't seem to bring himself to talk about what might have been going on in Judea/Palestine before the war. I even linked to Josephus to give him a few hints.

Oh well...
 
:p

Seriously, however, I think one of the stronger cases - if hardly employed - for a more purely literary Jesus is the iconography of nearly every subject within the narrative.

If not for a character, then the preference of icon over actual has at the least rendered any possible concept of "Historical Jesus" entirely futile; yet more concerning, such attempt negates the value of the icons within and to whom such were of value.

In some ways, the Historical Jesus pursuit is a social whitewash which ignores recognition of cultural belonging in exchange for a convenience of attempting chronology in some fixed manner relevant to the inquiring cultural view instead.


Perhaps that's a bit strong, comparing the HJ pursuit to a social whitewash.

Still, the vexing question of how to determine what, if anything, has an historical basis in the NT literature has provoked strong reactions from writers observing the HJ proponents' reasoning.
Here's an example from Vridar, posted in 2012 about Ehrman's Apocalyptic Prophet for a New Millennium
Look at Ehrman’s explanation at the conclusion of his discussion pointing out the mythical nature of the narratives of the birth and death of Jesus:

My examples, then, have to do with accounts about Jesus that appear to be contradictory in some of their details. Let me stress that my point is not that the basic events that are narrated didn’t happen. Since these particular accounts deal with the birth of Jesus and his death, I think we can assume they are historically accurate in the most general terms: Jesus was born and he did die! My point, though, is that the Gospel writers have given us accounts that are contradictory in their details. These contradictions make it impossible for us to think that the stories are completely accurate. (p. 32)

Oh dear! Stories of angels appearing and virgin births and the day turning to night at the full-moon are not “completely accurate”? But since they are about a birth and a death and people are born and do die . . . . “I think we can assume they are historically accurate in the most general terms”!!!??
http://vridar.org/2012/03/25/histor...history-bart-ehrmans-history-as-a-case-study/

There's a lively discussion in the comments section, too.

What do I get from this?
I get the impression searching out the historical bases for the NT literature is an excellent excuse for learning about a fascinating epoch in our history, the 1st century.
 
Perhaps that's a bit strong, comparing the HJ pursuit to a social whitewash.

Still, the vexing question of how to determine what, if anything, has an historical basis in the NT literature has provoked strong reactions from writers observing the HJ proponents' reasoning.

Differences of opinion make horse races. :D

Because of the cultural significance of christianity this subject has generated hundreds and thousands of persons to invest a lot of thought and effort into trying to turn the meagre evidence into a persuasive theory.

We certainly wouldn't get as much mileage arguing about the existence or no-existence of Boudicca!

Here's an example from Vridar, posted in 2012 about Ehrman's Apocalyptic Prophet for a New Millennium

http://vridar.org/2012/03/25/histor...history-bart-ehrmans-history-as-a-case-study/

There's a lively discussion in the comments section, too.

What do I get from this?

I get the impression searching out the historical bases for the NT literature is an excellent excuse for learning about a fascinating epoch in our history, the 1st century.

I agree - it is an interesting period of history.
 
We have writings attributed to contemporary 1st century non-Apologetic authors and writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger and none of them mention Jesus of Nazareth or that Jesus of Nazareth predicted the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Josephus, in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, admitted it was Jesus the Son of Ananus who predicted an imminent calamity in Jerusalem.

Josephus lived in Galilee and did not acknowledge any character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and people of the Roman Empire or believed to the prophesied Messianic ruler of the Jews.

Effectively, the Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

Paul, the Pharisee, the Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin NEVER had any real existence and NEVER wrote letters to Churches of a Jesus cult.

When one examines the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles it would appear that the Jesus cult was expanding a phenomenal rate with thousands of converts even on a daily basis long before the Fall of the Temple.

Before the conversion of Paul in Acts there were at least 8000 converts in Jerusalem in a matter of days.


1. Acts 2:41 KJV-----Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

2. Acts 4:4 KJV-----Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed ; and the number of the men was about five thousand.


3. Acts 21:20 KJV----And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest , brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law.

4. 13 Epistles to supposed Churches all over the Roman Empire were attributed to Paul.

5. At least three stories of Jesus of Nazareth were attributed to supposed authors called Matthew, Mark and Luke BEFORE c 70 CE.

6. The DSS, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius wrote NOTHING of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples or Paul.

7. The Jews expected their Prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler Up to c 66-70 CE and later c 133 CE in the time Simon Barchocheba.

The evidence adds up.

The Entire NT, including the Entire Pauline Corpus, is historically bogus, riddled with fiction, forgeries, false attribution, discrepancies, contradictions and events which did not happen.

All supposed early writings which claimed Paul is a figure of history and that he wrote Epistles to Churches are themselves forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

Paul and the Entire Pauline Corpus were unknown up to at least c 180 CE.
 
The Entire early history of the supposed Jesus cult Church pre 70 CE is bogus.

Examine "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Church History 6.25.
4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter....

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts.

Last of all that by John.


Now examine Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"? page 181-182.

It is also true that we do not know who wrote the Gospels............They were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Amazingly, Apologetic writers and the very Roman Church have NO idea and established history of who wrote a single story of Jesus and have NO idea when they were written.

The Gospels in the Canon of the very Church are APOCRYPHA.

The Gospels in the Canon are NOT Genuine.

In fact, ALL writings called Gospels are NOT genuine.

How is it that NO-ONE in antiquity knew of a Genuine Gospel in or out the Canon?

Where did the Gospels come from?

They did NOT come from or originate with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Why did the Roman Church or Apologetic writers INVENT fake 1st century pre 70 CE authors for the Gospels?

The answer is extremely easy to deduce.

The Gospels in the Canon were COPIED from 2nd century or later sources and then BACK-DATED under the names of Fake authors--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John under the pretense that they were disciples and followers of the Jesus cult since the time of Tiberius to Nero.

It appears that it was the so-called HERETICS who INVENTED the stories called Gospels.

The so-called HERETICS did NOT copy Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--those authors NEVER existed.

It is the complete REVERSE.

The Gospels of the so-called HERETICS were MUTILATED [MODIFIED] and then falsely attributed to Fake pre 70 CE authors.

Multiple Apologetic writers admit that people in Egypt or taught in Egypt knew stories of Jesus which were similar to the Canonised Gospels.

The real authors of the Jesus stories may be Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Basilides, and others.

See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", Tertullian's "Prescription Against the Heretics" and Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies".

The Gospels MOST LIKELY originated with the so-called the Heretics since Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were FAKES.


Dialogue with Trypho
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps that's a bit strong, comparing the HJ pursuit to a social whitewash.
I don't think that it's very strong; it was intended as a reflection of the byproduct of the Historical Jesus pursuit.
The pursuit focuses on the matter of the figure, and from there then considers all information as it is only relevant to that figure.

There have been scores of authors and books cited in this thread, and in many threads of this form, all regarding this Jesus figure.
For exercise of the point, count or name those authors and books cited who inquire or examine the cultural relevance and belonging of these same texts so often cited for either position of the HJ debate.

Whoever the specific and varied peoples were who valued these varying texts; they are lost - we will never know them explicitly; we will only know them possibly in inference, at best.

What do I get from this?
I get the impression searching out the historical bases for the NT literature is an excellent excuse for learning about a fascinating epoch in our history, the 1st century.
Quite so.
 
[ . . . ]We certainly wouldn't get as much mileage arguing about the existence or no-existence of Boudicca! [ . . . ]
O my personal favourite 'hero', Til Eulenspeigel.


[ . . . ] Josephus, in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, admitted it was Jesus the Son of Ananus who predicted an imminent calamity in Jerusalem. [ . . . ]

I hunted out that Josephus reference. Here's the entire passage for the curiousreader:
THE GREAT DISTRESS THE JEWS WERE IN UPON THE CONFLAGRATION OF THE HOLY HOUSE. CONCERNING A FALSE PROPHET, AND THE SIGNS THAT PRECEDED THIS DESTRUCTION.

1. WHILE the holy house was on fire, every thing was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity, but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests were all slain in the same manner; so that this war went round all sorts of men, and brought them to destruction, and as well those that made supplication for their lives, as those that defended themselves by fighting. The flame was also carried a long way, and made an echo, together with the groans of those that were slain; and because this hill was high, and the works at the temple were very great, one would have thought the whole city had been on fire. Nor can one imagine any thing either greater or more terrible than this noise; for there was at once a shout of the Roman legions, who were marching all together, and a sad clamor of the seditious, who were now surrounded with fire and sword. The people also that were left above were beaten back upon the enemy, and under a great consternation, and made sad moans at the calamity they were under; the multitude also that was in the city joined in this outcry with those that were upon the hill. And besides, many of those that were worn away by the famine, and their mouths almost closed, when they saw the fire of the holy house, they exerted their utmost strength, and brake out into groans and outcries again: Pera (17) did also return the echo, as well as the mountains round about [the city,] and augmented the force of the entire noise. Yet was the misery itself more terrible than this disorder; for one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it, that the blood was larger in quantity than the fire, and those that were slain more in number than those that slew them; for the ground did no where appear visible, for the dead bodies that lay on it; but the soldiers went over heaps of those bodies, as they ran upon such as fled from them. And now it was that the multitude of the robbers were thrust out [of the inner court of the temple by the Romans,] and had much ado to get into the outward court, and from thence into the city, while the remainder of the populace fled into the cloister of that outer court. As for the priests, some of them plucked up from the holy house the spikes (18) that were upon it, with their bases, which were made of lead, and shot them at the Romans instead of darts. But then as they gained nothing by so doing, and as the fire burst out upon them, they retired to the wall that was eight cubits broad, and there they tarried; yet did two of these of eminence among them, who might have saved themselves by going over to the Romans, or have borne up with courage, and taken their fortune with the others, throw themselves into the fire, and were burnt together with the holy house; their names were Meirus the son of Belgas, and Joseph the son of Daleus.

2. And now the Romans, judging that it was in vain to spare what was round about the holy house, burnt all those places, as also the remains of the cloisters and the gates, two excepted; the one on the east side, and the other on the south; both which, however, they burnt afterward. They also burnt down the treasury chambers, in which was an immense quantity of money, and an immense number of garments, and other precious goods there reposited; and, to speak all in a few words, there it was that the entire riches of the Jews were heaped up together, while the rich people had there built themselves chambers [to contain such furniture]. The soldiers also came to the rest of the cloisters that were in the outer [court of the] temple, whither the women and children, and a great mixed multitude of the people, fled, in number about six thousand. But before Caesar had determined any thing about these people, or given the commanders any orders relating to them, the soldiers were in such a rage, that they set that cloister on fire; by which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong, and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves. Nor did any one of them escape with his life. A false prophet (19) was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance.

3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star (20) resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, (21) [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner (22) [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
https://www.google.es/search?q=Gree...finition+greek&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I found Joseph's conclusion most intriguing
However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
 
I don't think that it's very strong; it was intended as a reflection of the byproduct of the Historical Jesus pursuit.
The pursuit focuses on the matter of the figure, and from there then considers all information as it is only relevant to that figure.

There have been scores of authors and books cited in this thread, and in many threads of this form, all regarding this Jesus figure.
For exercise of the point, count or name those authors and books cited who inquire or examine the cultural relevance and belonging of these same texts so often cited for either position of the HJ debate.

Whoever the specific and varied peoples were who valued these varying texts; they are lost - we will never know them explicitly; we will only know them possibly in inference, at best. [ . . . ]

I can see your point of view, especially in light of a hideously inappropriate remark I made to an Evangelist friend and colleague yesterday:
"What? You can't possibly believe speaking in tongues is anything other than a learned behaviour!"

:(
I'd thought to talk about glossolalia in the context of wonder-workers in general, but to my colleague Acts is the word of God.
Why couldn't I have seen the writing on the wall and made an excuse to leave the table rather than react his thoughts on Pentecost?

So yes, I'll have to go along with the social white-washing figure after all.
And figure out a way to repair the damage done.
 
That's one of the reasons (the primary being that I enjoy the endeavor thoroughly) why I spend my time, not reading all of these named authors of expertise on divining the canonical texts, but instead applying the simple methods of anthropological analysis upon these same texts as well as (deep breath) all of the texts from the era (a task I will never complete in my lifetime).

So far, just working on the four canonical texts, and some correlated texts, has taken a considerable amount of time, and while I feel closely satisfied with the general direction of considerations, I am yet far from seeing the faces of those who found their value - for whom the expressions were directed.

I think these texts remarkably perform wonderfully well as a gateway to an entire array of movements which have yet to come to even a slight understanding but by a small fraction of analysts who admirably sift through the remains daily in an attempt to stitch back together the giant hole of cultural history that has been created out of religious zeal by all bodies subsequent who preferred to create a mythology of a direct lineage from the central figure to their own professions.

I doubt most, even among the array of authors cited in here, could name major trade routes of value to the considerations within the region of the Mediterranean, let alone something far more specific as the nature of religious zeitgeist of Antioch or Galilee within the 2nd c BCE to 2nd c CE time frames.
Nor could most probably answer a rather simple question of why exactly was Galatia of any mention at all? Or why was there an obsession of the Anatolian coastline? Or, why Bethlehem? Why Egypt? Why magi? Why is there an account of infanticide? Why only in Matthew?
Why is Mark formatted in the manner in which it is formatted?
Why does Mark reverse out to Hebrew so perfectly, but clearly stand evident as never having been written in Hebrew?
Why does Mark employ Latin, Greek and Aramaic, and why does it use all of these three with Hebraic prose? Where in the world would this be intelligible and recognized?
It may have the illusion of a silly and simple question, but why does Mark have a short and long form of itself?
Why is John such a disarrayed blend of disjointed form and grammar?
Why do John and Revelation differ on this (though Revelation is still a terrible entry of grammar in its own right), yet share so much in common in theatrical theme and melodrama?
Why is Luke so perfectly written by comparison? Why does it have a near flawless narrative structure, and why does it have such beautiful mastery of Greek sentence; providing nearly the most efficient sentences possible?

Who are these kinds of things of iconic and general value?

Basically, rather than looking for proof of things actually happening, flip it around and ask why were these items put in - who cared for these items to be in there, or could understand them?
For even if the stories were true, during this period in time, it was not uncommon to simply omit content which was not popular, or add that which was - so either way, the questions are applicable.

In this respect, Jesus as an historical consideration is the least meaningful piece of information.
 
Last edited:
...
Why is Mark formatted in the manner in which it is formatted?
Why does Mark reverse out to Hebrew so perfectly, but clearly stand evident as never having been written in Hebrew?
Why does Mark employ Latin, Greek and Aramaic, and why does it use all of these three with Hebraic prose? Where in the world would this be intelligible and recognized?
It may have the illusion of a silly and simple question, but why does Mark have a short and long form of itself?
...

Just on these gMark questions: Do you give any credence to the Church tradition that the Author pieced it together from the sermons of Peter?

Do these questions suggest that the Greek was written by someone translating directly from Aramaic?

IIRC correctly it was Clement who was supposed to have handed down that bit of Church history, do you think it is at all likely to be true?
 
There is a massive amount of apologetic writings and manuscripts about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The evidence is overwhelming--Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul the Hebrew are ALL Fakes.

Paul the Hebrew claimed he met characters who NEVER had any real existence like Peter, James and the Lord Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

Every single supposed early writing which mention Paul the Hebrew are themselves forgeries or falsely attributed.

The supposed first writer to mention the Pauline Corpus was Irenaeus but his claims about Paul are irreconcilable since Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE.

Paul the Hebrew could not have preached Christ crucified and resurrected since 37-41 C
when he should have been alive.

Now, an author under the name of Tertullian, supposedly writing late 2nd to 3rd century, gives the impression that he also knew of the Pauline Corpus in "Against Marcion".

However, in the Decretum Gelasianum, it is declared that writings under the name of Tertullian is APOCRYPHA--[Not Genuine].

It must be noted that Eusebius in "Church History" did not acknowledge that Tertullian wrote Against Marcion.

Jerome, in "De Viris Illustribus" claimed Tertullian wrote AGAINST the Church.

In fact, in "Church History" and "De Viris Illustribus" there are at least 9 writings Against Marcion and none are attributed to Tertullian.

It is claimed these authors wrote Against Marcion--- Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Philip, Dionysius, Modestus, Barsadenes, Rhodo and Hippolytus.

Tertullian is MISSING.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" was INVENTED after the end of the 4th century.

In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian it is claimed the Gospels of John and Matthew came first and then followed by gLuke and Mark.

The author of "Against Marcion" used the WESTERN order.

The WESTERN order of the Gospels is Matthew, John, Luke and Mark.

The earliest recovered and dated Western Order of the Gospels is from the 5th century or later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

There was also another order, the "western order of the gospels", so called because it is typical for the manuscripts which are usually a representative of the Western text-type.

1.Gospel of Matthew
2.Gospel of John
3.Gospel of Luke
4.Gospel of Mark



This order is found in the following manuscripts: Bezae, Monacensis, Washingtonianus, Tischendorfianus IV, Uncial 0234.

The pattern is consistent. Late writings were either forged or falsely attributed to earlier authors.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" was most likely composed AFTER the BEZAE manuscripts.

Passages omitted from the Bezae manuscript of gLuke are also missing in Tertullian's "Against Marcion"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom