Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,773 Year: 4,030/9,624 Month: 901/974 Week: 228/286 Day: 35/109 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Time Problem With A Mythical Jesus
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3468 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 11 of 76 (137841)
08-29-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jasonb
08-27-2004 12:13 PM


Gospels are late legends
Greetings JasonB,
quote:
We have a fragment of the gospel of John (John Rylands Fragment, p52) that has been dated to circa 125 AD. Unless we assume that we found the original manuscript, the gospel of John was written before 125 AD.
Well,
The date found in NA27 is 2nd century.
Sometimes P52 is dated more specifically to early 2nd century (100-150).
This figure 100-150 is often expressed as c.125 (i.e. plus or minus 25 years or so.)
But it is not correct to argue a figure of EXACTLY 125 from this. This tiny fragment of G.John could have been as late as 150, or even later.
It does NOT prove the entirety G.John existed in 125
quote:
Most biblical scholars place it around 90 AD.
When was the first citation by name of G.John?
quote:
Biblical scholars also say that the gospel of John was the last gospel to be written and that the epistles where written earlier than the gospels,
Several of the epistles were written as late as 2nd century.
quote:
thus pushing the body of the New Testament extremely close to actual events around 30 AD.
But the epistles which are CLOSEST in time (e.g. Paul) to the alleged Jesus show the LEAST amount of information (no mention of the miracles, the empty tomb, the trial etc.)
quote:
These claims aside lets assume the first NT book written was the gospel of John and it was written sometime after the death of the last apostle, say 100 AD. This would give us a starting time of 70 years after the death of Christ for the second generation Christians to begin preaching a mythical Jesus. This is simply not enough time for a mythical Jesus to emerge.
But if there was NO historical Jesus, then this period is irrelevant. Paul preached a spiritual Christ in the 1st century, the various Gnostics taught a spiritual Christ in the 2nd century. The historical Jesus was a LATER invention, unknown to Christian writers until 2nd century.
If the original Jesus was a mythical being, then the story could have been developing for centuries - which is exactly what we DO see - the various elements of the Jesus story can be clearly seen in the prior Jewish scriptures and pagan writers.
quote:
No one could make these claims to so many people without them being refuted by the many religious groups in opposition to Christianity at that time, unless the claims were grounded in fact.
Many religious writings of this primitive period were not "refuted" - e.g. the Golden Ass of Apuleis written in the same period as the Gospels was not "refuted" - that does not make them true.
Anyway,
The Gospels only come to widespread knowledge in the mid-late 2nd century, and when they do the contemporary pagan critic Celsus attacked them as fiction based on MYTHS.
3rd century Porphyry also called the evangelists "INVENTORS, not historians".
4th century Julian too claimed Jesus was a fabrication.
quote:
It is my assertion that even a liberal date of 70 years after the death of Christ for the first NT book to be written is simply not a sufficient amount of time for a legend like the mythical Jesus to even evolve, let alone spread.
In 70CE the Romans conquered Jerusalem,
in 135CE they destroyed the whole city and dispersed the Jews that remained.
Only AFTER that, did the Gospels become known to Christians - 2 wars and several generations after the alleged events. Legends have been known to arise in DAYS.
Gospel evolution
Mention of some Gospel elements begins in early-mid 2nd century - e.g. Ignatius, the Pastorals, Barnabas.
The first mention of proto-Gospels is from about the 130s with Papias - he refers to writings by Mark and Matthew which are not quite like our moden Gospels. He considered these writings of little value. Eusebius considered Papias was not very smart (he did believe all sorts of other nonsense.)
The first evidence for a Gospel is from Marcion about 142CE - his Gospel is now lost, but we know it -
* was called just "the Gospel"
* did NOT have the genealogies of Jesus
* did NOT call Jesus son-of-David (several early Christians denied Jesus was son of David)
The first written quotations of Gospel-like writings is from Justin in about 150 - he refers to "memoirs of the apostles" which are also "called Gospels". He does NOT name or number the Gospels. He does give many quotes - some match our modern Gospels, some do not.
The first evidence for FOUR Gospels being important is possibly from Tatian's "diaTessaron" ((Harmony) From Four) dated perhaps 172CE.
The first Christian to NAME the four Gospels was Irenaeus in the 180s.
Aristides dates the Gospel
Interestingly, one Christian church father Aristides refers to "...the Gospel as it is called, which (has been) preached a short time among them".
This tells us that in his day -
* the Gospel was un-named,
* the Gospel had only been preached "a short time".
Aristides wrote 138-161CE (we can tell because he named the Roman emperor), so this is further evidence that the Gospels were still un-named and fairly new in mid 2nd century.
In summary
the trajectory of the Gospel formation is as follows -
* 1st century - no Gospels, no Evangelists known
* early 2nd century - first mentions of Gospels, Evangelists
* c.142 - first Gospel published (Marcion)
* mid 2nd century - first quotes of Gospel-like material
* c.172 - Gospels Numbered as Four.
* c.180 - first Naming of the Four Gospels.
* c.200 - first significant MSS of Gospels (e.g. P75)
The Gospels developed over time, probably starting from early 2nd century, growing and changing thru the mid 2nd century, to finally crystalize in late 2nd century. Some changes still occured as late as 4th century (e.g. the Trinity.)
So,
between the earliest evidence for the Gospels, and the events they allege, lies -
* 2 wars,
* the famous Roman destruction of Jerusalem,
* the dispersal of the Jews (and the erasing of Judea from the map),
* about a CENTURY (several generations)
Finally, the Gospels were largely written, and read, in Rome and elsewhere - NOT in Jerusalem at all.
Thus,
there is PLENTY of time and space between the alleged events and creation of the Gospel myths.
Iasion
(pressed Submit instead of preview, last fixups done in Edit)
This message has been edited by Iasion, 08-29-2004 12:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jasonb, posted 08-27-2004 12:13 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 5:21 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3468 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 31 of 76 (137961)
08-29-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jasonb
08-29-2004 5:21 PM


Re: Gospels are late legends
Greetings JasonB,
quote:
You make many interesting claims about the dating of p52 and the other books of the New Testament. If you would like, please start a new thread and we can discuss this. But for this thread let focus on the time question, is 70 years enough time for a legend like the Mythical Jesus to evolve.
Hmmm..
But your question is based on a FAULTY premise.
YOU made the claim in this thread that P52 is dated to 100.
I pointed out this is WRONG in this thread (its more like 100-150, or even later)
Then you try to brush me off to another thread - is that because you realise you were wrong?
Furthermore,
it seems your are unaware of the late, pseudographical nature of many of the epistles.
Are you aware that many of the epistles are late forgeries?
Like the Pastorals, the Johanine letters and the Petrine epistles?
quote:
Please tell me how this does not tell of the empty tomb, He was buried .. He was raised. Clearly speaks of an empty tomb.
Pardon?
Paul does not use the word "tomb" at all - do you really think this is a "clear" reference to an empty tomb?
Seriously?
Paul could mean a GRAVE which may be empty.
Paul could mean a GRAVE which is still full (Christ rising spiritually.)
Paul could mean something else entirely - e.g. Christ (our soul) "dies" by being born in our body, and is "raised" back to heaven when the body dies (a common ancient analogy.)
There is NOT the slightest HINT of an "empty tomb" in Paul.
Your comments show you are retrojecting later beliefs into Paul.
Paul speaks of meeting Christ in a VISION - the other appearances are no different, merely visions.
What makes YOU think otherwise?
quote:
Is 70 years enough time for this to happened?
What 70 years are you talking about?
The FIRST mention of proto-Gospels is in c.130 by Papias
100 years after the alleged events.
The FIRST published Gospel was c.142 by Marcion
110 or so years after the alleged events.
The FIRST quotations from (still un-named) Gospels is in c.150 by Justin
120 years after the alleged events.
Furthermore,
why do YOU think 70 years (more like over a CENTURY) is not enough for legends to develop?
Legends about Augustus arose in DAYS.
Legends about Scheerson arose in months in the MODERN era.
Please explain why YOU think legends could not arise
* in a CENTURY or so
* in an illiterate culture
* after 2 wars and several generations
?
quote:
But you have a problem. The p52 fragment. The story had developed in only 70 years. (Granting that p52 dates to 125 AD and was written sometime before that, I choose 100 AD arbitrarily, I could choose a later date, but I could also choose a younger date)
False.
P52 is dated 100-150 (or later.)
But,
YOU chose the EARLIEST possible date of 100 (and you FALSELY claim it could even be younger! Why?)
In fact,
P52 COULD be as late as 150 (or even later.)
Your argument is based on a false premise, but you refuse to acknowledge this.
quote:
The rest of your argument assumes a late dating of the New Testament which I do not wish to debate in this thread.
Wrong.
I have researched (NOT "assumed") the dates of the NT writings, but it appears you have not.
You can find arguments for dates here -
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
You are trying to exclude the evidence which shows you are wrong!
That's not debate - its preaching.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 5:21 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 11:28 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024