----------
Mary wrote expressing doubts that Jesus was an historical character at all. On her
view, Jesus was entirely legendary. Anyhow, I responded:
I think doubts that Jesus was an historical character are silly. (Don’t
misunderstand. I’m not saying that you are silly.) Not only are there
references in non-Christian literature to him, dating from the first century,
there are also references to relatives of his (descended from the brothers
mentioned in the gospels), and there is the New Testament evidence itself.
Let me make a couple of points about that. First, if it is to be plausible that
Jesus never existed, then there must have been some time for a legend about him
to develop in such a way that it wasn’t simply dismissed due to inconvenient
conflicts with known facts. In particular, though there may very well be
legendary elements in the accounts we have, it is obviously easier for legend
to accrete around some kernel of historical fact than around ... what? – if
Jesus didn’t exist at all.
However, we have excellent reasons for thinking that all of the gospels were
first-century productions. There is a possible exception in the case of John,
but it doesn’t help much for two reasons. The first is that it is agreed on
virtually all hands to be the last of the gospels, so whatever date we accept
for it marks a terminal point: all the other gospels have to be earlier. The
second is that a fragment of John, the John Rylands manuscript, has been found
and dated at about 130 A.D. Since it was found at the opposite end of the
(then) known world from where the gospel was composed, it is highly likely that
it was in circulation for quite some time before 130. In other words, if John
was not actually composed in the first century, it was not composed long after.
Since John was the last, that puts the other three firmly in the first century.
There’s lots of disagreement on details of dating, but Mark was certainly the
first and a reasonable guess would put it somewhere around 65-70. Luke was
probably next, somewhere between 80 and 85. Matthew is about 90 and John, if
tradition can be trusted, dates to somewhere between 95 and 100 (and, in this
case, the Rylands manuscript shows that if the tradition is mistaken, it’s not
mistaken by much). Both Matthew and Luke also draw on an earlier document that
has not been preserved, but which New Testament scholars call “Q.” This may
have been a collection of “sayings” not organized as a narrative (and it may be
the document that one of the church fathers, circa 120, referred to as a gospel
written in Hebrew – which would mean Aramaic – by Matthew.) Taken together,
these considerations lend strong support to the thesis that accounts of Jesus’
life were circulating within the lifetimes of people who would have known him
if he existed.
In addition to the dating of the gospels, there are the unquestionably Pauline
letters, which are even earlier since Paul was executed in Rome no later than
about 67 or 68. The earliest of those, one of the epistles to the
Thessalonians, goes back to about 45 or 50 A.D. - within 15 to 20 years of the
life of Jesus (if Jesus existed). There is also quoted, in the first few verses
of I Corinthians 15, a piece of liturgy about the resurrection which was
evidently used in the early church. It probably originated within a decade
after the supposed death of Jesus and its original form was probably in
Aramaic. Thus, the “legend of Jesus,” if it was indeed a legend, was
circulating and being believed by contemporaries in the same part
of the world the supposed events occurred within a very few years of the
alleged events.
There’s plenty of room to think that things have gotten distorted in various
ways since the early part of the first century, and there are plenty of gaps in
our knowledge of Jesus. But thinking that there was no historic person behind
the stories at all is a position that can’t be taken seriously until someone
provides an extremely impressive and well-supported account of how the legend
was manufactured out of whole cloth and came to be believed by large numbers
who were in a position to have shot it down if Jesus had never existed at all.
So far as I know, no skeptic about the existence of Jesus has even remotely
approached presenting that impressive and well-supported account.
Rob
Mary responded:
> > First, if it is to be plausible
> > that Jesus never existed, then there must have been some time for a
legend
> > about him to develop in such a way that it wasn’t simply dismissed
due to
> > inconvenient conflicts with known facts. In particular, though there
may
> > very well be legendary elements in the accounts we have, it is
obviously
> > easier for legend to accrete around some kernel of historical fact
than
> > around ... what? - if Jesus didn’t exist at all.
>
> Well said. I certainly do not think the myth about Jesus came out of the
> air. That there was a historical core to the Jesus myth is most certain.
My
> position is only that the man called Jesus of Nazareth in the New
Testament
> did not exist as a human person. And, since name changing was a common
> practice, it is quite possible that the actual historical person, or
> persons, that the New Testament refers to as Jesus, had quite another
name,
> or names, altogether.
I don’t know what you’re saying. You say, “the man called Jesus of Nazareth in
the New Testament did not exist as a human person,” but in the next sentence
you say that he may have existed with a different name. Surely, that’s not a
significant point. No serious New Testament scholar thinks that Jesus was called
“Jesus,” anyhow. “Jesus” is an anglicized version of a Latin translation from
the NT Greek which was itself based on what the man was called in Aramaic,
probably something like “Y’shua.” This is no more a reason for thinking that
Jesus wasn’t a real person than the fact that we pronounce “Caesar” (with the
spelling preserved, even) differently than the Romans did is a reason for
supposing that Julius Caesar wasn’t a real person.
> I favor the view that the Jesus myth is a composite myth. A myth that
> encompasses the characteristics of two or three historical persons. A myth
> that also covers a far greater time period than what is generally assigned
> to the gospels.
I suppose that’s possible, but you haven’t given the least reason for thinking
it’s true. The myth, if that’s what it is, sets the life of Jesus at a
particular time and place. It began spreading from that place within a decade
at most after the time of the events alleged. If your account is correct, you
need to say a lot more about how it spread so fast and deceived people who were
around to know better. In particular, who were the “two or three historical
persons”? How did stories about them get amalgamated into the Jesus legend? Who
was behind it and why?
> Since
> biblical history is salvation history it is shortsighted to take it at
face
> value. Biblical history is an interpretation of history, it is an attempt
> to find meaning, to find salvation, to find God, within the reality of
> historical circumstances.
I don’t see that this adds anything. All historical accounts are interpretive
in one way or another. That doesn’t mean that they’re not interpretations of
anything that actually happened.
> All the written ‘evidence’ suggests, to me, is that historical
> circumstances gave
> rise to a new religious phenomenon. Written evidence, like the verbal
> word, can suggest but it cannot confirm historical reality. (Placing
> fictional characters alongside historical characters is pretty common
> practice in even modern day literature.)
> The new religious Renaissance arose in a particular historical time
period.
> Jesus became the symbol of this new birth, this new religious awareness.
> (And in view of Jewish Messianic expectations at the time, backdating a
> “human” symbol to the
> beginning of this new religious awareness was quite appropriate).
This is too vague to be refutable. What historical circumstances? What new
religious phenomenon? Why would a character who didn’t exist become the symbol
of the “new religious awareness”? Especially, why so soon after the events of
his “life”? The time for legend-building just wasn’t there.
> Regarding dating: I think the events that are condensed within the New
> Testament cover a time period from around 100 B.C. to around 130 A.D.
> Historical events, and theological legends or stories from this period
> have been evaluated and interpreted into salvation history. The result is
> the New Testament: A condensation, and salvation orientated
interpretation,
> of over 200 years of history.
Evidence?
> New Testament research has brought Christian belief to a crossroads. With
> traditional doctrines no longer being upheld by leading theologians, the
> average Christian, if he takes his faith seriously, is often perplexed.
New
> Testament research has forwarded alternative, non-supernatural,
> interpretations of long-standing doctrines such as the Incarnation, the
> Virgin Birth, the miracles of Jesus, and even his bodily resurrection. An
> increasing number of prominent theologians believe that Jesus of Nazareth
> was a normal human being.
I haven’t said anything to suggest that I think that Jesus was non-human or
that there was anything supernatural about his life. The question was whether
there was a human character there at all. The evidence is overwhelming that
there was. On a plausibility-scale, your thesis comes in somewhat ahead of the
fundamentalists who think everything reported in the New Testament about Jesus
is true. Since there are contradictions there, that’s logically impossible. It’s
a little bit ahead of the conservative Christians who’ll admit to minor
discrepancies but swallow all the miracle stories including the virgin birth
and resurrection. Their view is physically impossible. Yours, to the effect
that a legend about a man in a particular time and place spread from
that time and place, without there having been such an historical person at all
is merely sociologically impossible (and unsupported by any evidence, to boot).
Rob
