Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors

Ifen,I'm a bit overwhelmed by Doherty's site! I don't want to say anything too negative, because you seem to appreciate his insight, just take him with a grain of salt.I've just skimmed his site, so this is an initial opinion. I'm just a little worried about his method, he appears to think he can disprove a historical Jesus because of a lack of records. But there are a lot of different reasons why there may not be any records.Besides the somewhat obvious reasons (manuscripts lost, etc.) there are some other good reasons why we don't have the records. One, most of the early Christians were probably illiterate, especially those that would have known Jesus. Two, no one but Christians would have cared about Jesus, and it appears that their religious ideas were mainly transmitted orally.There may be other explanations that I haven't thought of, but I don't think that Doherty has a leg to stand on.Evan

Evan, I'm doing more than a grain of salt. I am subjecting his claims to scrutiny and test. I don't have a problem with personal opinion. It's not useful if personal opinion is confused with objective argument is all. My personal interests lie in Eastern philosopy. I'm not invested in Doherty or anyone's viewpoint on Christianity. Even if the mythicist postition is proved wrong I think it serves a good function if it results in the historicist getting their postion even clearer.The mythicist respond to the lack of historical information but as you mentioned there are lots of explanations for that. As I understand Doherty he has correctly identified two critical points that have to be demonstrated convincingly. I think he has a good analysis of the problem. The question lies with whether his solution will hold up or not.The two critical points are not surprisingly Paul's Epistles and the Gospel of Mark. The question that mythicist have to demonstrate is that Paul has never heard of an earthly teacher named Jesus. Certainly reading Paul translated into English it seems he has. Doherty argues from his reading of Paul in the original that what appears to be references to a earthly man are rather mythic references to the sub heavenly realm. I'm not convinced by Doherty, partly because I don't know Greek. His arguments may be as sfs asserted "strained", still at this point I see the possiblity of plausibility.If Paul's Christ can be shown to be entirely spiritual then the next key point is to explaing the Gospel of Mark which is cleary a story about a human being. Doherty tries to show that Mark is performing a midrash on Scriptures as a way of illustrating the qualities of the Saviour. So, did Mark draw on any traditions about a man? Or did he set down with the bible and using prophecies construct a life to fit the texts he found in the bible?There was a long thread on the JesusMysteries group analyizing the crucifiction as an exegesis on the 23rd psalm. Mark also tightly organized his gospel with symmetries in the narrative (chiasms they are called) and I wonder how well that fits an actual biography.So I'm open to objections about any of these arguments. With a historic figure as the basis of the Jesus stories we get all the different interpretations of who Jesus was. The mythicist postition clears all that a way. It's a Gordian Knot solution that appeals to me, but that doesn't mean it's so.Now in addition to Paul, and Mark, if there are other sources that independantly support a historic Jesus the mythicist postition becomes untenable.Feel free to disagree with my outline of the mythicist problem. I am looking for dialectial argument that will improve my understanding of this issue.lfen

To get even more explicit about Paul. It's not enough for Doherty or any mythicist to note that Paul has little to say about Jesus's earthly life. It could be that the more common explanation is correct, to wit, that Paul focused so strongly on the spiritual Christ because he hadn't known Jesus and wanted to make himself equal to the Christians who had.But what the mythicist must do is to look at the few places Paul seems to refer to an earthly Jesus and show that it can be interpreted in another sense and that interpretation is somehow more fitting.It's a tall order. I don't know enough about Paul to know if Doherty carries this out. I think the mythicist postion has a certain plausibility but it must be shown that it's not neccesary to strain for it.lfen

Here is an excerpt to give some taste of the issue Doherty is dealing with in his analysis of Paul. Paul's Lord Supper doesn't have clear "this world" derivation. Doherty is claiming that Mark would later work from this and create a story illustrating it. This is the reverse of the traditional view. And yet there is a logic here that may or may not break down. But Paul is so chary of details and Mark's account so depends on prophecy that I think there is a chance this is the way it happened. But it will be hard to prove.So to look at one example that on first reading would appear to refer to Christ suffering on earth: The biggest problem for me is that this approach entails going through every passage in Paul that a historicist takes as an example of earthly reference and showing that it is vague about the time and place and could easily or best be interpreted as taking place in a mythical or spiritual realm.Others of you may see a more general way to refute Doherty's claim. I haven't the inclination or education to do this myself. Here I only want to make the case that the mythicist postition is more sophisticated than a flat claim that lack of early historical references equals a myth. It seems to be rather the lack of specificity of the references that Paul does make and that they can be read as coming from Platonic realms of archtypa.lfen

Greetings bambooguy,"In 1 Corinthians, Paul lays out the "gospel", which includes Jesus death & resurrection. "Sure.
But what makes YOU think he is refering to physical, historical events?
He fails to give any details which indicate he considered Jesus a real, recent person.
He gives no dates, times, places, names...
Paul never once mentions the Sermon on the Mount, or the empty tomb, or the Cleansing of the Temple, or the miracles or healings by Jesus etc, etc, - there is nothing in Paul to show he clearly believes in a physical historical Jesus at all."We know from Galatians that those people were Jews in and around Jerusalem before 35 AD."Pardon?
Where is your evidence for this?"So, we know that there were Jews in Judea who believed that Jesus had lived, had died, and had been resurrected no more than 5 years after his death."No we don't.
We know that ONE person wrote he had HEARD from others that Jesus had appeared (i.e. in a vision) to 500 people.
What on Earth makes YOU think this is actual evidence for 500 people believing in Jesus resurrection?"No one makes up a myth with events 5 years in the past; you have to put things far enough into the mythical past to where they cannot be disproven."Firstly - myths can arise within DAYS, there are many cases (e.g. Augustus, Schneerson)
Anyway, Paul's myths about a spiritual Jesus could have been developing for decades or centuries.And when it comes to the Gospels, we find -
* no Christian knows the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century
* mid 2nd century shows variant proto Gospels, UN-NAMED
* our modern Gospels only took form LATE 2nd centuryThe Gospels stories were essentially unknown until the 130s and after -
* a CENTURY after the alleged events
* the Jewish War of 70AD
* the total RAZING of Jerusalem in c.135When the Gospels finally arose in early-mid 2nd century,
there was NO Jerusalem left,
all the Jews had been DISPERSED.
Who could check? How, exactly?Suppose I made up a story now set in New Guinea in 1903, a century ago, (about the same period it took for the Gospels to arise) - how easy would that be to disprove, even in our modern era? What about in primitive iron-age culture? After TWO wars?Iasion

Iasion,You make some good points. I would like to clarify that I am not trying to prove anything. I originally wrote this message with a header that explicitly said that, but it seemed out of place in this thread. I'm not saying I have a lack of proof, only that this forum isn't conducive to such proofs.Secondly, I'm not asking you to believe this because it's my personal opinion, this is mainstream thought in NT scholarship. I would encourage you to do some more research if you are interested.And last of all, regarding the Gospels and myths in general. I chose not to discuss the Gospels with good reason, they are not well-attested, unlike 1 Corinthians. And regarding myths in general, I'd like to point out that your two examples of quick myths (Augustus & Schneerson) include historical people. Some of the tales about Jesus are probably mythical in nature, but your examples do not prove that a myth can arise in days without some sort of true, historical figure.Evan(the following part is edited)P.S. You claimed that Paul's Jesus, could have developed over decades. Though that might be theoretically possible, it does not fit the evidence. The essential parts of the Jesus story (in Paul's mind) arrive complete in 1 Corinthians which was written approx. 15 years after his "conversion". Since there are no intermediate stories, I find it difficult to believe that it developed over decades.This message has been edited by bambooguy, 07-08-2004 07:09 PMThis message has been edited by bambooguy, 07-08-2004 07:11 PM

Ifen,Thanks for the informative posts. They leave a lot of room to think. Thank you.Evan

Evan,I'm just trying to get some understanding of the conflicting interpretations of what appears to be ambiguous historical data. I'm not sure about the different claims. It does appear a lot rests on how the writers that cite the material are viewed in terms of reliability.I know some folks don't trust Eusibius at all and think he made a lot of this up. Others accept him and other early chuch fathers. The first few centuries of Christianity appears to filled with controversy then and now. I don't know if documents or scholarship will emerge that clarify it or not.lfen

Greetings again,Thanks for your reply bambooguy : "And regarding myths in general, I'd like to point out that your two examples of quick myths (Augustus & Schneerson) include historical people. Some of the tales about Jesus are probably mythical in nature, but your examples do not prove that a myth can arise in days without some sort of true, historical figure."Pardon?
We've seen that myths and legends can arise within days of historical figures (even in the modern era).But,
you seem to argue that myths and legends about a MYTHICAL figure couldn't develop in days after, um .. after what?The myths of Jesus could have been developing for decades before Paul wrote down the first version - myths always have a first version, then they grow and develop."The essential parts of the Jesus story (in Paul's mind) arrive complete in 1 Corinthians which was written approx. 15 years after his "conversion". "Not really sure what you mean here...
The creed in 1 Cor. is hardly the complete Christian belief set. We do not know what was in Paul's mind. 15 years is plenty of time for legends to change."Since there are no intermediate stories, I find it difficult to believe that it developed over decades."Pardon?
The record we have DOES show intermediate versions developing over the decades.
The first version is apparently the Foundation Myth of Christianity, Paul has heard it from prior figures -pre-Pauline Version (unknown date.)
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve,
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James;
then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."Note that "according to the scriptures"seems to mean Paul is describing a new interpretation of the scripture, and that THAT is where the details about Christ are derived.Pauline Version (mid 2nd century) -
Paul fleshes out the myth with several new details about the Risen Christ -
Son of God
Seed of David
the crucifixion
the cross
the blood
the resurrection
that he suffered
and was pierced(but only in spiritual terms of the Risen Christ - no historical details - no ministry of Jesus.)Pre-Gospel versions -
Barnabas (early 2nd century) gives a rather odd view of Jesus - he adds or fleshes out details such as the Ascension, and the Passion. He gives an early version of the vinegar and gall story, he discusses the Cross, he talks about Jesus as scapegoat. Yet he doesn't seem to know about a ministry of Jesus.
Ignatius (early-mid 2nd century) is the first to mention Herod, Pilate amd the virgin.
Justin (mid 2nd century) knows most of the Gospel stories (but does not know the four Gospels by name. and gives quotes not always like modern Gospels.)G.Mark's Version -
(The Gospel stories only become known in mid 2nd century.)
G.Mark was written first, and its the plainest Gospel -
it has no birth stories
it has no miracles
it has the Messiah as a secret
it originally had no resurrection (16:9-20 is a late addition.)G.Luke, G.Matthew versions -
Both these versions were derived from the earlier G.Mark. and both add -
birth stories (different to each other)
miracles (different to each other)
Messiah no longer a secret
post-resurrection stories (very different to each other)G.John's version -
This Gospel is even more different - Jesus is Logos etc.Other versions -
Many other versions developed, some quite early :
G.Thomas (2nd century)
Protoevangelium of James (2nd century)
The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel (early 2nd century?)
The Egerton Gospel (early 2nd century?)
The Gospel of Peter (2nd century)
The Epistula Apostolorum (2nd century)
The Gospel of Philip
Sophia of Jesus Chist
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of Truth
The Traditions of Matthias
The Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
The Gospel of the Egyptians
The Secret Book of James
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Gospel of the Nazoreans
The Dialogue of the Savior
The Gospel of the HebrewsSummary
The sequence is clear -
1. primitive foundation myth
2. Pauline version
2a (intermediate versions)
3. G.Mark version
4. G.Matthew, G.Luke (G.John) versions
5. Later variant versions)Iasion

As far as I can remember, I've been responding to claims that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and also to claims that the gospel material and the idea of a physical Jesus arose much later than Paul. I don't recall defending the historicity of the gospels per se, and I certainly haven't suggested that everything in them is historically accurate. In particular, taking any ancient document's estimate of the size of a crowd at face value would be pretty silly.I doubt we have the data to determine how large a following Jesus had. How large a following do you think it would have taken for Jesus to count as a significant religious figure to someone like Seneca living in Rome?

PaulK's answer was a good one. An expert might offer a slightly longer list, but I'm not an expert. I vaguely recall E.P. Sanders (noted for his role in placing Jesus in his Jewish context) included Jesus' selection of 12 disciples as one the core facts, but I could be misremembering. Since we have a copy of most of Paul's letters that dates from earlier than Eusebius, that seems like an odd theory.

I'm arguing that a work described as a history of kings is likely to focus on kings, and that the absence of someone who wasn't a king is hardly surprising. Not by name, but he was certainly the political leader of the Jewish people, so including him would be appropriate. Who? Who thinks Jesus was a political leader of Judah? This is really reaching. Commentary on scripture has little to do with contemporary history-writing (especially given Philo's tendencies as an interpreter). Both concerned with the conflict in his own country, and in which he participated. He did not write about Palestinian history. I'll repeat my previous question: how many times does Philo mention John the Baptist? Why should he have mentioned Jesus more often than John? This is exceedingly weak. I think it entirely possible that Seneca had heard of Christians. Why should he have mentioned Jesus, even if he knew who he was? As for Peter and Paul, I have no idea whether they were in Rome or not, but if they were, what of it? Is it your position that Seneca should have mentioned every person who was known to someone who was visiting Rome?

I've looked at it, and at a number of his other pages. I haven't been able to find the references to spiritual beings who take on flesh and blood while not becoming historical. Could you point them out, please? I did note that Doherty discusses Paul's description of Jesus' descent "according to the flesh" without mentioning Paul's use of the identical term in the same letter, since Paul's clear meaning there would have demolished his argument. Does Doherty mention that item elsewhere? Because if he doesn't, I find it hard to see his approach as intellectually honest. Yes, I'm really claiming that Matthew's use of Mark is evidence that Mark already existed. There's nothing obviously silly about such an argument, so why are you suggesting that there is? A few points. First, the dates you have assigned to most of these books are pure guesswork; several of them could easily have been written before Matthew. Second, one of the books, Clement, quotes material that sounds very much like Matthew. So either Matthew already existed, or gospel material that sounded very much like the canonical gospels was well known. Either way, it certainly makes dubious any claim that the gospel stories were second century creations. (I already pointed out how Clement's manner of quoting strongly suggests that he has a historical Jesus in mind.)On your more general point, that these books don't mention anything about a non-spiritual Jesus, I think you're mistaken.I John 4:2. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (Similaly in II John 2:7.)I Peter 2:21-24. To this you wre called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."Can you find anything from a mystery religion that sounds at all like either of these passages?(Note also that the Pastoral epistles, which many date to around 100, contain clear references to gospel materials.)

None of which affects the fact that the virtually unanimous consensus among the relevant experts (i.e. professional scholars, not people who write web pages, and counting only those who wrote within the last hundred years) is that the text of the seven Ignatian letters preserved in the middle recension is genuine, and dates from earlier than 120. "[I am] totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent, Son of God with respect to the divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, truly nailed in the flesh for us under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrach."
Sure sounds to me like he knew the basics of the gospel story. (Oh, and note that he uses the same phrase as Paul for Jesus' physical descent from David, the one that Doherty finds so ambiguous.)

Then why do we have a copy of the gospel of John that dates from early in the second century?