Steefen said
A Way of Standing with the Majority of Critical Scholars Who Believe Jesus Existed
3. I ignore the gospels.
4. I look at Paul’s authentic letters.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
The gospels are not Apocrypha.
You can stop touting your dollar-store terrible self-published book any time now. Anyone on earth can self-publish a book now. It isn’t impressive, nor does it lend you any credibility. Go get your work peer reviewed in academic journals and publishing houses.
Robert said
Steefen said
Paul does not know much about Jesus. Paul refers to “Jesus” talking about teachers being paid for their work and he talked about marriage which is a far cry from the Jesus of the gospels talking about the good news of a coming kingdom, make sure in your theology, you see God as Father instead of as a fault-finding authority figure who blames misfortunes on disobedience, and faith healing. “Jesus made me the apostle to the Gentiles.” Yea, but he did not give you the most important Gentile sales territory, Rome, because when you got there, you found a Christian community you didn’t start.
Actually, you’ve picked one area, where one can rather easily trace Jesus’ teaching about marriage from Paul to the synoptic gospels. Likewise, ministers being worthy of their upkeep. It’s also often overlooked, but we also see traces of the Kingdom of God in Paul’s letters as well as a strong expression of God as father. Person A is making Person B’s case here. And the churches of Rome were likely founded by messianic Jews, and they were still prominent when Paul wrote his letter to the gentile Christians in Rome.
I know I actually picked one area where one can rather easily trace Jesus’ teaching about marriage from Paul to the synoptic gospels.
I know I actually picked another area where one can rather easily trace Jesus’ teaching about ministers being worthy of their upkeep.
There is no to the contrary here.
Person A is not making Person B’s case here. Traces of the Kingdom of God in Paul’s letters and God as father from Paul are not as explicitly forceful as from the Jesus in the Gospels. Paul is lacking.
You are making Person A’s point: Paul was not following the instructions of his Revealed Jesus Christ: speak to the Gentiles, not to the messianic Jews.
Chris_Hansen said
Steefen said
A Way of Standing with the Majority of Critical Scholars Who Believe Jesus Existed
3. I ignore the gospels.
4. I look at Paul’s authentic letters.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
The gospels are not Apocrypha.
You can stop touting your dollar-store terrible self-published book any time now. Anyone on earth can self-publish a book now. It isn’t impressive, nor does it lend you any credibility. Go get your work peer reviewed in academic journals and publishing houses.
I have no evidence you read the book; so, you are not qualified to pass judgment.
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
3. I ignore the gospels.
Non-scholar, ex-fundamentalist here. Bear with me:
2. How do we know that the authors didn’t know much about him? Maybe they had sources who did know a lot about him. What are the other reasons?
3. It seems to me that the very existence of the gospels is a strong indication that Jesus did exist. Why would multiple authors write variations of the same fairy tale?
RD said
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
3. I ignore the gospels.
Non-scholar, ex-fundamentalist here. Bear with me:
2. How do we know that the authors didn’t know much about him? Maybe they had sources who did know a lot about him. What are the other reasons?
3. It seems to me that the very existence of the gospels is a strong indication that Jesus did exist. Why would multiple authors write variations of the same fairy tale?
Because legends are popular. I think Jesus existed, but your argument is a bit poor here.
For example, scholars are pretty certain that Sigurd the Volsung did not exist. Despite this, we have multiple accounts of his life. The Nibelungenlied, the Volsunga Saga, the Prose Edda, the Poetic Edda, Thidrekssaga, old Nordic ballads (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Faroese), Rosengarten zu Worms, Das Lied vom Hurnen Seyfrid, Biterolf und Dietleib, and more all record Sigurd legends.
I could also point to other legends as well (we have multiple versions of the Flood myth in Mesopotamia; we have multiple versions of the Gilgamesh epic; we have multiple versions of the Osiris myths; we have multiple versions of the Adonis myths, etc.)
The reason multiple authors would record variations of “the same fair tale” (ignoring the fact that fairy tales, mythology, and legends are not all the same thing and the New Testament would better qualify as the latter two) is because the tale is popular. End of story.
RD said
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
3. I ignore the gospels.
Non-scholar, ex-fundamentalist here. Bear with me:
2. How do we know that the authors didn’t know much about him? Maybe they had sources who did know a lot about him. What are the other reasons?
3. It seems to me that the very existence of the gospels is a strong indication that Jesus did exist. Why would multiple authors write variations of the same fairy tale?
RD
It seems to me that the very existence of the gospels is a strong indication that Jesus did exist. Why would multiple authors write variations of the same fairy tale?
Argumentation Specialist
I would not use that line of reasoning. Suppose Jesus was an apocalyptic, spiritual, superhero of first century Jewish messianism, not a Captain America or a Batman but a superhero of righteousness and miracle healing and even healing people from death, an afterthought for how militant messianism’s rebellion needed to be socialized out of Judaism.
6. I look at the we document of Acts (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Let’s bring in Craig S. Keener:
In 1982, Keener got his B.A. from the Central Bible College (now part of Evangel University). He got his M.A. in 1982 and M.Div. in 1987 at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (now of Evangel University). In 1991, he received his Ph.D. in New Testament Studies and Christian Origins from Duke University.
6. I look at the we document of Acts (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D.
We need to discuss who the companion is to pluralize the first person to we.
Argumentation Specialist (using Wikipedia info)
The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew. The earliest manuscripts are anonymous, and the traditional view has been challenged by many modern scholars.
Let’s bring in Professor Bart Ehrman.
He received his Ph.D. (in 1985) and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger. Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.
Bart Ehrman, Ph.D.
To sum up: there is a kind of interpretive logic that can lead one to think that the books were written by Luke, a Gentile physician who was a traveling companion of Paul. This is what I myself thought for years, and it was based on this logic, that:
- The author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke
- That the author of Acts, and therefore of Luke, must have been a traveling companion of Paul (since he speaks of himself in the first person on four occasions)
- That this author was probably a Gentile because he was so concerned with the spread of the Christian movement among Gentiles (the whole point of the book of Acts)
- Paul himself speaks of a Gentile among his traveling companions in Colossians 4, naming him as Luke the beloved physician.
- Therefore this person was likely the traveling companion of Paul.
But there’s little reason to think the author was Paul’s traveling companion and virtually no reason, in my opinion, to think that he was a physician named Luke. (I should point out, even by the time the books were written, near the end of the second century, *most* followers of Jesus were gentile. So it’s not at all weird that this author would be, but rather it would be expected.) It is important to stress: no one – not a solitary author – claims that it *was* Luke until Irenaeus, writing in 180 CE. If the Gospel was written around 80 CE, that means the first time *anyone* of record indicates that the author was Luke was a full century after it had been placed in circulation. Earlier authors quote the book (e.g., Justin); none of them gives the authors name.
The evidence from Paul is not good evidence, since Paul in fact did not write Colossians, the one book that mentions Luke as a gentile physician.
The evidence that a traveling companion of Paul did not write the book is found in the circumstance that at virtually every point where what Acts says about Paul can be compared with what Paul says about Paul, one can find discrepancies … such as whether Paul preached about the importance of Jesus’ crucifixion. In Paul’s letters it is clear this is the one thing that mattered to him; in Acts, as it turns out, he never indicates in any of his speeches or words that Jesus’ death brought about an atonement for sin!
Luke, the gentile physician who was a traveling companion of Paul, did not write the book of Acts (and so, the book of Luke).
Luke did not write the gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.
The Third Gospel is anonymous. But is the book of Acts forged? If so, it’s one of those books that is forged by someone who doesn’t tell us his name. That is, he wants you to think he is someone he wasn’t (Paul’s traveling companion), but he doesn’t identify himself. In my book I called this an instance of non-pseudepigraphic forgery, i.e., a forgery that ironically is not written under a false name.
“So, was Luke Luke?” blog post 1/19/20
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy / Argumentation Specialist
Let’s look at the last paragraph.
The Gospel of Luke has an anonymous author.
The author of the Gospel of Luke is the same author as Acts of the Apostles.
Therefore, Acts of the Apostles has the same anonymous author.
Let’s suggest a possibility: Acts of the Apostles is a forgery, a non-pseudepigraphic forgery.
= = =
The existence of the Biblical Jesus is supported by the we passages in Acts?
The authorship of Acts is unknown, an anonymous author.
The companion of Paul producing the “we” passages is also unknown.
With an unknown companion in a book by an anonymous author, there is insufficient substance for this plank in the argument for the existence of Jesus.
Y
Steefen said
RD said
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
3. I ignore the gospels.
Non-scholar, ex-fundamentalist here. Bear with me:
2. How do we know that the authors didn’t know much about him? Maybe they had sources who did know a lot about him. What are the other reasons?
3. It seems to me that the very existence of the gospels is a strong indication that Jesus did exist. Why would multiple authors write variations of the same fairy tale?
RD
It seems to me that the very existence of the gospels is a strong indication that Jesus did exist. Why would multiple authors write variations of the same fairy tale?
Argumentation Specialist
I would not use that line of reasoning. Suppose Jesus was an apocalyptic, spiritual, superhero of first century Jewish messianism, not a Captain America or a Batman but a superhero of righteousness and miracle healing and even healing people from death, an afterthought for how militant messianism’s rebellion needed to be socialized out of Judaism.
You are not an argumentation specialist. You are a bumbler who knows how to self publish. Do you have self awareness, or is your ego seriously this unmitigated by reality?
Because legends are popular. I think Jesus existed, but your argument is a bit poor here.
For example, scholars are pretty certain that Sigurd the Volsung did not exist. Despite this, we have multiple accounts of his life. The Nibelungenlied, the Volsunga Saga, the Prose Edda, the Poetic Edda, Thidrekssaga, old Nordic ballads (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Faroese), Rosengarten zu Worms, Das Lied vom Hurnen Seyfrid, Biterolf und Dietleib, and more all record Sigurd legends.
I could also point to other legends as well (we have multiple versions of the Flood myth in Mesopotamia; we have multiple versions of the Gilgamesh epic; we have multiple versions of the Osiris myths; we have multiple versions of the Adonis myths, etc.)
The reason multiple authors would record variations of “the same fair tale” (ignoring the fact that fairy tales, mythology, and legends are not all the same thing and the New Testament would better qualify as the latter two) is because the tale is popular. End of story.
Miracles and healings aside, the gospels have a down-to-earth, human quality that I’m not sure is found in many myths and legends. Not much heroic here, no slaying of dragons, although there was the herd of swine that rushed headlong down into the sea. Rather a recount of the day-to-day activities of an itinerant preacher and his band of ne’er-do-well followers along with his many stories and parables and his frequent discussions and arguments with the Jewish leaders. Then in the end abandonment by his followers and a humiliating, painful death at the hands of the Romans. Not the stuff it seems to me that multiple authors would be inspired to write about unless it involved a real, charismatic individual.
RD said
Because legends are popular. I think Jesus existed, but your argument is a bit poor here.
For example, scholars are pretty certain that Sigurd the Volsung did not exist. Despite this, we have multiple accounts of his life. The Nibelungenlied, the Volsunga Saga, the Prose Edda, the Poetic Edda, Thidrekssaga, old Nordic ballads (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Faroese), Rosengarten zu Worms, Das Lied vom Hurnen Seyfrid, Biterolf und Dietleib, and more all record Sigurd legends.
I could also point to other legends as well (we have multiple versions of the Flood myth in Mesopotamia; we have multiple versions of the Gilgamesh epic; we have multiple versions of the Osiris myths; we have multiple versions of the Adonis myths, etc.)
The reason multiple authors would record variations of “the same fair tale” (ignoring the fact that fairy tales, mythology, and legends are not all the same thing and the New Testament would better qualify as the latter two) is because the tale is popular. End of story.
Miracles and healings aside, the gospels have a down-to-earth, human quality that I’m not sure is found in many myths and legends. Not much heroic here, no slaying of dragons, although there was the herd of swine that rushed headlong down into the sea. Rather a recount of the day-to-day activities of an itinerant preacher and his band of ne’er-do-well followers along with his many stories and parables and his frequent discussions and arguments with the Jewish leaders. Then in the end abandonment by his followers and a humiliating, painful death at the hands of the Romans. Not the stuff it seems to me that multiple authors would be inspired to write about unless it involved a real, charismatic individual.
Yes there is. In fact, they have so many heroic characteristics that scholars have consistently placed Jesus anywhere from 6-22 points on the Raglan archetype specifically because of this (though I place him closer to around 10-11).
Heroes are regularly abandoned by followers and have a humiliating or painful death. Siegfried/Sigurd is betrayed by his closest friends, killed by being stabbed in the back, his one and only weak place in the Nibelungenlied, and that spot is only vulnerable because he couldn’t reach it on his back with his hands… humiliating to no end there. I could also note Romulus, betrayed by the Senate and slain, but then he is claimed to have become a god and appeared to a follower afterword. Beowulf is abandoned by his followers, leading him to die by the dragon painfully. Need I continue?
And, you are forgetting, that Jesus then raises from the dead and in full Roman Emperor style is apotheosized thereafter and translated into the heavens… so, no his humiliation is but a precursor to the fact that he is super heroic in representation.
Not to mention, all of his day-to-day activities usually involved him either (A) performing a miracle (as heroes did), (B) prescribing laws (as heroes did), (C) schooling his opposition in knowledge (as heroes did), or (D) being taken up into the skies by Satan where they have a battle of temptation.
If we left the miracles and healings aside, there would barely be anything in the Gospels.
Stephen said
Miracles and healings aside, the gospels have a down-to-earth, human quality that I’m not sure is found in many myths and legends.I agree that the gospels aren’t best read as mythology. But then I don’t think they’re best read as Greco-Roman biography either.
I think mythology (or at least mythos-legend) is definitely the proper way to read them. Especially the Gospel of Mark, which is closely modeled using Roman Imperial cult imagery and mythic motifs. I think people shy away from such reading and understanding primarily because… well… the Gospels are still being shielded. I still think Jesus is historical and there may be history in the Gospels, much as in any mythology, but frankly I don’t think makes sense to ignore that they are mythological in nature.
Robert said
The question of genre in the gospels is, I think, best answered by placing the gospel story within its Jewish scriptural context. The Jewish scriptures were a combination of myth, history, and biographical stories, and the apocalyptic worldview out of which the gospels were born was especially prone to the adoption of a perspective of ultimate authority. Although the ‘Christian’ movement was quickly overtaken by gentile dominance, it is nonetheless remarkable how important the Jewish scriptures were for the role they played in the very earliest ‘Christian’ literature such as the gospels. The gospel authors saw themselves as consciously writing a continuation of scripture. For example, Mark begins his story as having its foundation in the prophetic literature of Isaiah.
That still makes it mythological. Jewish scriptures were very mythological. Myths are also, quite often, combinations of legend, myth, history, biographical stories, etc. That being said, I think people seriously overplay the Jewish elements of the Gospels. The Gospel of Mark is… well… incompetent when it comes to its links to Judaism, making regular and consistent mistakes of geography, practice, and religion, not to mention not even being able to really cite scripture accurately. The Gospel of Mark is, imo, a Greco-Roman biography in mythic fashion. I am fully in agreement with Dennis R. MacDonald on this (though I disagree with him on what the sources for the Gospel are).
Chris_Hansen said
If we left the miracles and healings aside, there would barely be anything in the Gospels.
Actually there is quite a lot in the Gospels in addition to miracles and healing. Thumbing through Mark one comes across the story of Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners and explaining to the Pharisees why he did so. Then there’s the detailed explanation of why his disciples were not fasting like the Pharisees and why they were picking grain from the fields on the Sabbath. Moving on we have the lengthy parable of the sower and a detailed explanation thereof. The discussion of putting a lamp on a stand and not under the bed and the parables of the growing seed and the mustard seed follow on. In Mark 7 Jesus rails at length about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In Mark 8 he describes the way of the cross. In Mark 10 we have a long response to the Pharisees about divorce, and discussions of children and the kingdom of God and the rich and the kingdom of God. Mark 12 includes the lengthy parable of the vineyard tenants, his thoughts on paying taxes to Caesar, the back and forth with the Sadducees about marriage and the resurrection, the discussion of the Commandments, and his warning about the teachers of the law. There’s more.
These writings are interesting and thought provoking but hardly exciting. My knowledge of myths and legends is minimal to non-existent but if I was writing to perpetuate a myth I think I would have concentrated on the miracles and healings. I’m not sure I would have included these writings at all, certainly not in much detail and certainly not because I thought they made for a fascinating tale. Yet the authors of the gospels took pains to do so, perhaps knowing on good authority that Jesus did in fact say these things. Which brings me back to my original conjecture, i.e., that the very existence of the gospels as written and by multiple authors is a pretty good indication in and of itself that Jesus was indeed a real person.
RD said
Chris_Hansen said
If we left the miracles and healings aside, there would barely be anything in the Gospels.
Actually there is quite a lot in the Gospels in addition to miracles and healing. Thumbing through Mark one comes across the story of Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners and explaining to the Pharisees why he did so. Then there’s the detailed explanation of why his disciples were not fasting like the Pharisees and why they were picking grain from the fields on the Sabbath. Moving on we have the lengthy parable of the sower and a detailed explanation thereof. The discussion of putting a lamp on a stand and not under the bed and the parables of the growing seed and the mustard seed follow on. In Mark 7 Jesus rails at length about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In Mark 8 he describes the way of the cross. In Mark 10 we have a long response to the Pharisees about divorce, and discussions of children and the kingdom of God and the rich and the kingdom of God. Mark 12 includes the lengthy parable of the vineyard tenants, his thoughts on paying taxes to Caesar, the back and forth with the Sadducees about marriage and the resurrection, the discussion of the Commandments, and his warning about the teachers of the law. There’s more.
These writings are interesting and thought provoking but hardly exciting. My knowledge of myths and legends is minimal to non-existent but if I was writing to perpetuate a myth I think I would have concentrated on the miracles and healings. I’m not sure I would have included these writings at all, certainly not in much detail and certainly not because I thought they made for a fascinating tale. Yet the authors of the gospels took pains to do so, perhaps knowing on good authority that Jesus did in fact say these things. Which brings me back to my original conjecture, i.e., that the very existence of the gospels as written and by multiple authors is a pretty good indication in and of itself that Jesus was indeed a real person.
Jesus eating with Sinners and Tax Collectors: Is a tiny passage which occurs in connection to Jesus healing a paralyzed man, followed by him rebuking Pharisees and more, in keeping with his prescribing and altering law and social conceptions and notions (again, all in alignment with hero patterning). The same applies with the Fasting episode, which is tied not only to the tax collector bit, but also to then Jesus declaring that he is lord of the Sabbath. So, everything you just listed, is in perfect keeping with mythological heroes and mythological philosopher writings (let’s be real, probably almost nothing of what is said of Socrates or Pythagoras actually goes back to them at all; and they all have habits similar to this).
Mark 7 also has exorcisms, the healing of a deaf man. The episode with him railing the Pharisees is not only in keeping with heroic tradition, but specifically has Jesus altering the previous law and reinterpreting it for his own means, and also reinterpreting cleanliness codes and defilement. So… again, perfectly in keeping with mythic traditions. Lastly, the railing of the Pharisees is only… at most half a chapter.
Mark 8 starts with the feeding of the four thousand miracle (8:1-13), continues with him discussing the miracle (8:14-21), healing a blind man (8:22-26), having Peter declare him the Messiah in secret, a big part of hero ideology (8:27-30), Jesus predicting his death in prophecy (8:31-33), and the “Way of the Cross” has Jesus declaring all manner of mythical items about himself, including that he is the way to the Father, which is just backing up Mark’s theology. If you think any of this lacks mythic character, you are simply unfamiliar with ancient literature.
Mark 10’s divorce episode may be the only “non mythic” item you have listed. However, it is, again, a smaller section. The rest of the chapter (verses 13-51) are chock full of mythic characteristics for Jesus. The episode with the rich has him spelling out more of his power and doing this strange commandment to sell all one’s possessions and follow him, again backing up the theology of Mark, the children episode has him giving a rebuking of his disciples offering him the ability to bless the children, after that he predicts his death a third time, Jesus performs a miracle on a blind man, and the episode with James and John has him again declaring himself in eschatological terms.
I do not think any of the parables are historical, parables are also a common mythic character way of conveying instructions and morals, so that means nothing in Mark 12. The episode with the taxes is just a show off for Jesus, again so they could be “amazed with him” as the text says. Also Jesus somehow pre-knows their hypocrisy, so it indicates that this is an episode of him displaying foreknowledge. Additionally, the rest of Mark 12 is chock full of events and teachings that display Jesus as an eschatological figure.
And they are definitely exciting… if you knew the first thing about thematics and how these all work to demonstrate Jesus’ character and pre-empt his resurrection in numerous ways. The fact that you admit your knowledge of myths is practically non-existent should tell you all we need to know. I would add that just about every single one of these things can be said of mythical biographies of completely non-existent figures as well. You should really study mythology before having anything to say about it. Your conjecture fails to be convincing because you clearly don’t understand the thematic elements going on in the Gospel of Mark in every single one of those stories you listed.
I’d also add, of all the stories you listed, they are, as I said, small fragments of chapters (the largest being only half a chapter long). You’ve provided, at best, three or four events, not even over 100 verses long in total. Note, there are 660 verses in the Gospel of Mark. So, in the whole Gospel, you found that not even 1/6 of it is “dull” or “not exciting”, which you only did by ignoring the passages in their thematic and also immediate context.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)