The Trouble With Timelines

[Badger]

Of the Gospels, which were written at least 40 years after the events. And M, L, Q are theoretical documents, but no one actually have a copy. I think the earliest fragments we have are from around 100 CE for any of the books in the New Testament, and I believe it was some of the Pauline epistles. So how can you be sure these sources were contemporary?

I'm not saying they were contemporary sources, but early sources. "M" tradition refers to all of the material in Matthew which is unparalleled in Mark or Luke; "L" tradition refers to the unique material in the Gospel of Luke; and "Q" document refers to the material Matthew and Luke have in common which is not found in Mark. The point in my last post was that these (hypothetical) sources predates the synoptic Gospels and they all refers to Jesus' miracles. I really recommend Christopher's site The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not saying they were contemporary sources, but early sources. "M" tradition refers to all of the material in Matthew which is unparalleled in Mark or Luke; "L" tradition refers to the unique material in the Gospel of Luke; and "Q" document refers to the material Matthew and Luke have in common which is not found in Mark. The point in my last post was that these (hypothetical) sources predates the synoptic Gospels and they all refers to Jesus' miracles. I really recommend Christopher's site The Miracles of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry.

Okay. Still, I can't be sure if they are in turn based on some other documents... it all comes down to a lot of speculation. For all I care, maybe aliens came down and used high-tech equipment to create the "miracles" (techo-sages) and wow and awe humans, just for the fun of it. Do we know if the M, L, and Q were written for the purpose we assume them to be? Just like Harry Potter is written in contemporary England, and even London is mentioned, the authors back then also used artistic liberty to create art. So again, I stay uncertain.

[Badger]

HanSolo, you should see, however, that Jesus' miracles were part of primitive tradition and not something that was invented much later by the Church. Do you accept this, at least?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, you should see, however, that Jesus' miracles were part of primitive tradition and not something that was invented much later by the Church. Do you accept this, at least?

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, people's stories about miracles and urban legends, just like today, were very likely common. It's very common in lesser educated countries for instance. But even in our civilized part of the world, people believe stories, even the more fantastic ones. For instance there are hundreds of thousands of members in the new Raelian Church who believes the aliens are visiting us and are coming back to save us from our own destruction. Go figure.

[Badger]

I take that to mean "yes."

[Ouroboros]

I take that to mean "yes."

Yes. I can see that they could have had stories about a miracle Jesus at that time. But I'm not sure when they started. There could have been a non-miracle Jesus first, and then the next generation of Jesus-followers had miracles added. Hard to say. It's a bit like the Saints in the RCC. Somehow they get ascribed more miracles after their death than during their life.

[Badger]

Mark wrote his Gospel at the end of the first Christian generation, and here we have, using words of Meier, "vast array of disparate streams of miracle traditions." He then continues: "Some already grouped in collections, some still stray bits of material, Mark alone constitutes a fair refutation of the idea that the miracle traditions were totally the creation of the early church after Jesus' death." Not only Mark but also "Q" document, which can't be much later than Mark if not earlier, testifies miracles (not to mention M and L traditions). All this argues strongly against the possibility that there was non-miracle Jesus first and miracle stories were added later. This is not proving, however, that Jesus was more than human.

[Ouroboros]

Mark wrote his Gospel at the end of the first Christian generation,

I think that is debated. My belief is that Mark is built on previous material and not written by the first generation. It's already influenced by "miracle" Jesus stories.

 

and here we have, using words of Meier, "vast array of disparate streams of miracle traditions." He then continues: "Some already grouped in collections, some still stray bits of material, Mark alone constitutes a fair refutation of the idea that the miracle traditions were totally the creation of the early church after Jesus' death." Not only Mark but also "Q" document, which can't be much later than Mark if not earlier, testifies miracles (not to mention M and L traditions). All this argues strongly against the possibility that there was non-miracle Jesus first and miracle stories were added later.

Based on the assumption that Mark wrote it. The dating of these books are hard, and are not based on hard facts. The date I've seen is between 60 and 90 CE. So at the earliest 30 years after Jesus died. And Mark died in 68. So it is very possible that he didn't write it at all. And it's very possible that someone else added stories to it. No one knows who wrote the Gospels, so to use that as an argument doesn't prove a thing.

 

This is not proving, however, that Jesus was more than human.

That's true. Even if (notice if) Mark wrote the story, and even if he saw the miracles, and also if he was honest in telling the story, still there are chances of him being had by a smart gang of con artists. But I think it's more likely all this got the same start and progress like Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, Scientology, Raelians, and all other more modern religious beliefs. They all are full of people who believe this stuff. You could have had any stuff in their "holy books" and they would have bought it hook and sinker. People are extremely gullible. We have a tendency to believe what we hear and see first, and even when we are presented by the facts and explanations, we cling to our first impressions. This is a psychological thing. We have to learn to be critical and avoid the mistakes of falling for scams.

[Badger]

My belief is that Mark is built on previous material and not written by the first generation. It's already influenced by "miracle" Jesus stories.

Are you saying that because Mark's Gospel is influenced by miracle stories, it can't be written by the first generation?

 

Based on the assumption that Mark wrote it. The dating of these books are hard, and are not based on hard facts. The date I've seen is between 60 and 90 CE. So at the earliest 30 years after Jesus died. And Mark died in 68. So it is very possible that he didn't write it at all. And it's very possible that someone else added stories to it. No one knows who wrote the Gospels, so to use that as an argument doesn't prove a thing.

Mark's Gospel is indeed anonymous, and I was referring to Mark as an author because the authorship is traditionally ascribed to him; I'm not saying it really was the Mark. Well, it would have been better to say Mark's Gospel was written at the end of the first Christian generation. Anyway, the main point is that in Mark's Gospel we have "vast array of disparate streams of miracle traditions." That is, the tradition of the first Christian generation. Also, at least two of Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms; this argues for their early existence. I think my point is still valid.

[Ouroboros]

My belief is that Mark is built on previous material and not written by the first generation. It's already influenced by "miracle" Jesus stories.

Are you saying that because Mark's Gospel is influenced by miracle stories, it can't be written by the first generation?

No, but I'm saying it is an assumption to say Mark's Gospel is the first written accord, and therefore would prove the first Christians to believe in a Miracle Jesus.

 

Mark's Gospel is indeed anonymous, and I was referring to Mark as an author because the authorship is traditionally ascribed to him; I'm not saying it really was the Mark. Well, it would have been better to say Mark's Gospel was written at the end of the first Christian generation. Anyway, the main point is that in Mark's Gospel we have "vast array of disparate streams of miracle traditions." That is, the tradition of the first Christian generation. Also, at least two of Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms; this argues for their early existence. I think my point is still valid.

Okay. Well, I can't say I'm convinced. Study of history contains a lot of assumptions and guesses, so again, I leave it without saying it must be either or.

 

So which two of the Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms?

 

And btw, wouldn't the lack of Aramaisms in the other stories give you a hint that the Gospel of Mark might not be the first edition of the stories, but rather a later with additional content? Or put it this way, if Mark was the first and most authentic story, shouldn't pretty much everything sound like bad translations from Aramaic? And another question, how do you judge something to be an Aramaism? (I seriously don't know, so I'm asking out of curiosity.)

[Badger]

No, but I'm saying it is an assumption to say Mark's Gospel is the first written accord, and therefore would prove the first Christians to believe in a Miracle Jesus.

Remember, I gave multiple strands of tradition (Mark, Q, M, L) as a proof.

 

So which two of the Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms?

 

And btw, wouldn't the lack of Aramaisms in the other stories give you a hint that the Gospel of Mark might not be the first edition of the stories, but rather a later with additional content? Or put it this way, if Mark was the first and most authentic story, shouldn't pretty much everything sound like bad translations from Aramaic? And another question, how do you judge something to be an Aramaism?

Let me cite Christopher,

 

Additionally, at least two of Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms: the raising of Jairus' daughter from death (5:41) and the healing of the deaf man (7:34). Because the gospel writers were attempting to reach a Greek speaking audience, most of the sayings and narratives are in Greek. The existence of an Aramaism, therefore, is generally regarded as evidence of early formation of the relevant tradition. See Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, page 202. ("The criterion of Aramaic linguistic features argues that traces of Aramaic syntax or wording underlying a tradition point to the tradition's age and authenticity.")

 

I think this is interesting point.

[Ouroboros]

No, but I'm saying it is an assumption to say Mark's Gospel is the first written accord, and therefore would prove the first Christians to believe in a Miracle Jesus.

Remember, I gave multiple strands of tradition (Mark, Q, M, L) as a proof.

I still don't understand why they are proofs. Q, M, L are purely speculative documents, are they not? Isn't Q for instance the one which came out from the Jesus seminars where Doc Robert Price was part of?

 

Let me cite Christopher,

 

Additionally, at least two of Mark's miracle stories contain Aramaisms: the raising of Jairus' daughter from death (5:41) and the healing of the deaf man (7:34). Because the gospel writers were attempting to reach a Greek speaking audience, most of the sayings and narratives are in Greek. The existence of an Aramaism, therefore, is generally regarded as evidence of early formation of the relevant tradition.

Notice one word in this paragraph you gave me: formation. Do you know what that suggests?

 

See Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, page 202. ("The criterion of Aramaic linguistic features argues that traces of Aramaic syntax or wording underlying a tradition point to the tradition's age and authenticity.")

 

I think this is interesting point.

It is interesting in the way that probably some of the miracle stories already started in Jerusalem and as part of the Jewish Jesus cult. It could mean that the Hero cult and the formation (the choice of word by Christopher) already started before 70 AD. Which isn't strange at all. And there's no link between Aramaic -> 1 Generation Disciples. It is very possible that the second or third generation of Christians were Jews and before 70 AD... no, let me correct that, it is very likely that the first converts to the new cult were Jews and hence would have stories and build new stories around Jesus in the Aramaic language. So what does this prove? I guess, nothing at this point.

 

It is obvious that Gospel of Mark is built upon earlier traditions and a mix of different stories and sources. But I fail to see what difference it makes if some of the sources happened to be in Aramaic, since the first generations of Christians most definitely were Jewish.

[Badger]

I still don't understand why they are proofs.

Because they refer to different strands of tradition.

 

Notice one word in this paragraph you gave me: formation. Do you know what that suggests?

What does it suggest to you?

 

no, let me correct that, it is very likely that the first converts to the new cult were Jews and hence would have stories and build new stories around Jesus in the Aramaic language.

So the early Church didn't control the oral tradition at all?

[Ouroboros]

I still don't understand why they are proofs.

Because they refer to different strands of tradition.

Reformation is a different stand of tradition than the Catholic Church. Does that make the Catholic Church first hand eye-witnesses to Jesus? No, it only proves a chain of traditions. So where are you going with this?

 

Notice one word in this paragraph you gave me: formation. Do you know what that suggests?

What does it suggest to you?

That he suggests that the "Miracle Jesus" stories were made up over time. They were formed, i.e. shaped. But around what? It doesn't say, since a shaped story can be true or false. So a formation around a miracle story doesn't make the original story true. Right?

 

Consider Romeo and Juliet. There are multiple modern stories based on that old story. That doesn't make Shakespeare a historian.

 

no, let me correct that, it is very likely that the first converts to the new cult were Jews and hence would have stories and build new stories around Jesus in the Aramaic language.

So the early Church didn't control the oral tradition at all?

No, I don't think so. I think it started a lot less organized and people contributing their own spin in different places. And when it was time to write down the "complete" story, several different sources, and perhaps even completely different roots (multiple Jesus-es) combined into one. Anything is possible, since we don't know what actually happened.

 

Just like we don't know if Rael did meet aliens for real in the 70's.

[Badger]

Reformation is a different stand of tradition than the Catholic Church. Does that make the Catholic Church first hand eye-witnesses to Jesus? No, it only proves a chain of traditions. So where are you going with this?

No. Mark, M, L, and Q suggest there were early traditions that reported miracles.

 

HanSolo, I think it's better to stop here since I don't have much to say. You made some interesting points and I would like to thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, I don't know enough. :-P

[Ouroboros]

No. Mark, M, L, and Q suggest there were early traditions that reported miracles.

 

HanSolo, I think it's better to stop here since I don't have much to say. You made some interesting points and I would like to thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, I don't know enough. :-P

Yes, I think we reached an impasse, and I can't claim to know enough either, and that's the exact reason why I'm agnostic about what the early Christians supposedly believed or not. The data is missing, and there's too many alternative explanations to really know.

 

And for once I didn't chew anyone out in the process! It must be a miracle.

 

--

 

And btw, I learned some stuff too, so it was a giving discussion.

[Badger]

that's the exact reason why I'm agnostic about what the early Christians supposedly believed or not.

What do you think of 1 Cor 15:3b-5 where, so it is said, Paul quotes a primitive tradition formulated within five years of the crucifixion (the Jesus Seminar, for example, dates the tradition no later than AD 33).

[Ouroboros]

Do you realize that something is not quite right with Paul's description of the events?

 

5 that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

1. Jesus supposedly appeared to the women first according to the Gospels, and not Cephas. He got the facts wrong, or the Gospels, or he is intentionally misinforming or excluding facts.

2. There weren't 12 disciples anymore, but 11

3. Paul is hinting that the 12 were not alive when he wrote 1 Cor. 1 Cor was written probably 50-60 CE, which is at least 5 years before Mark (earliest) was written. So he confirms here that Mark the disciple was not the author.

4. And then Jesus appeared to James. James who? Obviously not one of the 12 or the 500.

5. And then he appeared to the apostles... wait, is that the same as the 12 or not?

6. And then to Paul. Now, here's one interesting thing. Paul never met Jesus in real life, at least so he claims. He only saw Jesus in visions. And he includes his vision with the other "appearances" in the list, which would suggest... they all saw Jesus in visions and not in real.

 

Think about this, does the chapter say Jesus rose from the dead in his body, or does it allude to the idea of Jesus resurrected as a spirit (ghost)? The chapter even ends talking about being raised as a spiritual body, not a natural one.

[freeday]

very interesting read, thanks for the info.

[Badger]

Jesus supposedly appeared to the women first according to the Gospels, and not Cephas. He got the facts wrong, or the Gospels, or he is intentionally misinforming or excluding facts.

This is, actually, easy to explain. The tradition omits women because in that society their testimony had no much weight.

 

Think about this, does the chapter say Jesus rose from the dead in his body, or does it allude to the idea of Jesus resurrected as a spirit (ghost)? The chapter even ends talking about being raised as a spiritual body, not a natural one.

That is, of course, debatable wheter Paul think it was spiritual or physical body. But you said data is missing regarding what the early Christians believed. Does not this piece of tradition show they believed in resurrection (wether spiritual or physical)?

[Ouroboros]

Jesus supposedly appeared to the women first according to the Gospels, and not Cephas. He got the facts wrong, or the Gospels, or he is intentionally misinforming or excluding facts.

This is, actually, easy to explain. The tradition omits women because in that society their testimony had no much weight.

Then Paul and the Bible are extremely inconsistent. Didn't you say earlier that Christianity was portraying women in a better light and making them equal, and hence were so different from the ruling culture? Which is it? Why does the Gospels even mention the women, if the culture is to put them last? And if Christianity was breaking that rule, then why didn't Paul stay accurate? So on one hand we have Paul disregarding the women, and on the other hand building a church where they treat women more equal, and using Gospels which had no problem of mentioning the women. If the Gospels were made from an earlier tradition, and that earlier tradition did not respect women participation, then the stories would (just like Paul here) have removed the women from the story. It can't be both ways.

 

Basically, No, it's not an explanation at all. It's an excuse only, and a poorly one.

 

Think about this, does the chapter say Jesus rose from the dead in his body, or does it allude to the idea of Jesus resurrected as a spirit (ghost)? The chapter even ends talking about being raised as a spiritual body, not a natural one.

That is, of course, debatable wheter Paul think it was spiritual or physical body. But you said data is missing regarding what the early Christians believed. Does not this piece of tradition show they believed in resurrection (wether spiritual or physical)?

Read the chapter again. Does Paul say bodily? Does talk about spiritual bodies? Does Paul in some other epistle claim that he never saw Jesus in real, but only in a vision? And going back to 1 Cor, does he use the same verb for how Jesus appeared to the disciples, 500, and the apostles, and him, the same way? For me it's not even a debate, it's very clear he talks about visions of Jesus here, not physical. And it is also obvious he really doesn't know in which order who saw what, since he consider the disciples and the apostle to be different people. But yes, it is a debated part if Paul is talking about a ghost Jesus only or not, but to consider that he was educated and trained in the skill of debating and teaching, you would think he would be very careful in the details. Or, we could claim that they didn't care about details at that time, which would explain a lot why the stories were exaggerated and no one was sticking to the pesky details of the story. So which is it? They had a good tradition of exact oral communication, or they were sloppy? It's amazing that the silly hats of excuses go on and off in a rapid speed when we look at the details.

 

And you obviously didn't look into pathological science and N-rays. I could even bring up fact from psychology about false memories and recollection errors, but it just too tedious. But I can tell you this, people make up stories, and people sometimes remember things wrong. I would have to put a serious amount of trust in one person if we should build a whole religion on this. And going back to Rael, don't you trust him that he saw aliens in the 70's? Why would he lie? So why not become a Raelian?

 

You see, when people have visions it don't put too much trust in it. Drugs, mass hypnotic effects, seizures, and I can go on, can explain so many of these things. And I just can't see how you can trust Paul who can't even get the facts straight. If he's omitting things, then maybe he's adding things? It's a card house built on other cards.

 

Just think of the Hindu Milk Miracle, where this statue supposedly drink milk. The milk does disappear, and the scientists think they have some explanation, but people believe this and can swear up and down that Ganesh is drinking milk through his statue. So how can it be? People are convinced about this to be a miracle, even with science giving an alternative explanation. So how about 2,000 years ago when people didn't have science? It was a time when people didn't have logic and reasoning the was we have today, or knowledge about psychology, or text critics, or internet. And I should somehow build a whole life, and change politics, culture, influence on people, attitude about life, and twist and turn incoherently around the issue of morals, only because a few guys wrote in a book something they thought were true (or maybe they knew very well what they were doing and lied about it)? If you can't trust hundreds of thousands of scientists and their experiments, then why trust a few quotes in a very old book from a guy you don't even know? You pretty much make the decision to believe things that are poorly supported, in exchange for things which are strongly supported. I can't do that, because I have to be honest to myself first and foremost. I have to trust reality first, then we can add different flavors of faith. But it has to start with the things we do know for sure, and not reversed. It's a matter of keeping a skeptical mind at all times, even for claims in science, but it goes all ways. I find it fascinating how some Christians work so hard to disprove evolution, carbon dating, and so many other sciences which have a million times more pages written about them than the Bible, but they do this because they trust a few hundred pages--no, correction, they trust a few quotes here and there--instead. Get real. Wake up. Life isn't a fairy tale told in an old story, but it is real and it's here. Start with solid knowledge first, the things you can know, then take the rest with a grain of salt.

[Badger]

Is that your answer to my simply question "Does not this piece of tradition show they believed in resurrection (wether spiritual or physical)?" Wow. HanSolo, I'm not going to argue with you. I just asked your opinion.

[Ouroboros]

Is that your answer to my simply question "Does not this piece of tradition show they believed in resurrection (wether spiritual or physical)?" Wow. HanSolo, I'm not going to argue with you. I just asked your opinion.

Paul definitely did, and I'm sure many of them did. But as I said before, I'm not sure all of the earliest Jewish Christians did. Paul worked and described a certain cult of Christianity, which was built on an earlier cult, so by saying "they," do we include only those Paul talked about or the ones we don't know what they believed?

 

And still, you haven't really thought about the Raelians and if they have a valid belief or not. I'm certain that Blondlot believed in N-Rays, and his students too, but it was proven that their belief was wrong, and yet they kept on believing.

 

So what is your point? If Paul believed in a spiritual resurrected Jesus, where does it lead us?

[Heimdall]

Sorry, I had to bail last week, but I have had a bout of recurring arthritis in my upper neck and was on fairly potent medications…to say I was distracted and often just plain goofy and very sleepy is an understatement…this week the doctor has seen fit to change the medication and drop the dosage, so now I am only a little sleepy:

It seems you're saying that the Gospels can't be written in the 1st century, since no manuscripts from that century exist; right? Well, are you not aware that earliest manuscripts, for example, of Tacitus (AD 50-120) and Suetonius (AD 69-140) are from 9th century?

as for the historicity of the NT documents, the first mention is by Papias (working in the first half of the 2nd century) who refers to a collection of Jesus sayings and also mentions that the recollections of Peter recorded by Mark but neither of these references is to what we know as the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. These were not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (Polycarp, Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, the Book of Hermas).

 

The first mention of Gospels is made in the works of Aristides of Athens (mid 2nd century CE), who referred to “the holy Gospel writing” around 140 CE. Marcion, the founder of the Marcionite heresy, established the first canon, which included a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul (The oldest copy of a letter from Paul (Galatians) is dated at approximately 200 A.D. - Ehrman, 2005, p. 60) in the fifth decade of the second century. In 150 CE, Justin Martyr specifically refers the “memoirs” of Luke, Matthew and Mark but clearly he is not referring to the Gospels as we know them. Around a decade or more later, Tatian who was a student of Justin Martyr gathered the four gospels into a harmonized book that he wrote in his native Syric and called it the Diatessaron but it wasn’t until 180 CE that names were first mentioned – In Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies”

 

 

 

Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.

 

 

 

Another indication that the gospels were written in the Second Century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumors that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumors about Mary are a Second Century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175 AD. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumors must also have been from the Second Century.

 

 

 

Continuing with the Gospel of Matthew, those writers attempted damage control again in the passage about the resurrection, in which they claimed "this story [stealing the body of Jesus from the tomb] is still told among the Jews to this day (28:15).” In fact, there are no references to this story in the literature of the First Century and only in the Second Century is it mentioned by writers such as Tertullian [c. 155 - 230] and Justin Martyr [c. 100 - 165]. So, if the writers of Matthew are writing when these rumors are “still being told”, they must be writing in the Second Century, not the First.

 

 

 

Or consider the Gospel of Luke. Luke goes to great lengths to tone down the apocalyptic emphasis clearly present in Mark. Ehrman (1999) notes: “Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own lifetime. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. Why not? Evidently because he was writing after they had died… (p. 130).” Now consider what the “lifetime of Jesus’ companions” involved. Assuming Jesus died in 36 AD and assuming that some of his followers were 12 to 15 years old at the time (a reasonable assumption, particularly considering that “boy” is often mentioned), and assuming that it wasn’t unusual for a person to live to be 60 years old in those days (some people are said to live to be 100, but that’s probably an exaggeration), it means that the boys who attended Jesus would have lived until the end of the First Century. So if the writers of the Gospel of Luke were writing after the followers of Jesus were all dead, ipso facto, they were writing at the very end of the First Century, or more likely, in the Second Century. If you narrow the definition of "followers" to refer only to the disciples, we have to consider John, son of Zedebee, who was said to have lived to be 100. If John was 30 when Jesus died, and lived another 70 years, it still places the writing of Luke into the Second Century.

 

 

 

A further indication that the gospels are Second Century inventions comes from a careful study of the non-Christian writings (Van Voorst, 2000). The earliest works by Thallos (55 AD), Mara bar Serapion (73 AD), Pliny the Younger (100 AD), Tacitus (116 AD), and Suetonius (120 AD) contain virtually no historical information about Jesus, despite mentions of Christ, Chrestus, etc. But starting with Lucian of Samosata (165 AD), Jesus is mentioned as a "crucified sophist" and then with Celsus (175 AD) there is a plethora of historical information. Something happened between 120 AD and 170 AD that the non-historical Jesus suddenly assumed his historical mantle. Our assumption is that the appearance of the gospels, in the early to mid Second Century, accounts for this phenomenon. Had the Gospels been circulating in the First Century, historical material about Jesus would have appeared in the works of these writers early non-Christian writers such as Thallos, Pliny, and Tacitus.

 

 

 

We get still another indication that the Gospels were written in the Second Century from Pilate's title, Prefect. The office of Prefect was abolished around 46 AD, 10 years after Pilate had been removed from office. In 115 AD, Tacitus made the error of referring to Pilate as a Procurator, instead of a Prefect, probably because by that time the distinction had disappeared (Wroe, 1999, p. 65). Yet the Gospels refer to Pilate as a Procurator. Had they been written shortly after Jesus' death, the writers would have known about the difference between the Prefect and Procurator, and surely would have remembered the title of the longest serving Prefect in Judea. Instead, they use the term Procurator, implying that they are using the Tacitus error or, if not, they are writing at a similar time in which they and Tacitus make the same error. This places the gospel writings into the Second Century.

 

 

 

Another indicator that the Gospels are Second Century inventions comes from the rabid anti-Semitism contained therein. In the very early years, Christians were all Jews. By mid First Century, if the letters of Paul are to be believed, the Gentile movement took hold, but Jews and Gentiles still got along. But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups. Thus, the rabid anti-Semitism of the gospels is clearly a Second Century phenomenon. groups, cementing the schism between Christians and Jews. Prior to this date (approximately 90 AD), such vehement anti-Semitism would not have been expected.

 

 

 

Finally, our survey of the early Christian art indicates that prior to the Third Century there are almost no portraits of Jesus in any medium. Had Jesus’ life been celebrated by the gospels as early as the First Century, one would have expected any explosion of artwork in the Second Century. Instead, it is only in the Third Century that we find such an explosion, suggesting that the gospels and the celebration of Jesus’ life is a Second Century phenomenon.

 

 

 

To summarize – Evidence from carbon dating, language analysis (e.g., use of Pilate, rabid anti-Semitism, the allusion to rumors about Mary, etc.) and citation as well as First Century non-Christian sources, show that the Gospels were written in the Second Century. Moreover, inferences from the artwork confirm this conclusion. By 160 A.D. we know, without question, that all four gospels were in circulation, and by 180 A.D. they were considered authoritative. Yet this is more than 100 years after Jesus’ death . Of course this is using the standard date of his life as assigned by Christians, which “ain’t necessarily so” to quote my Old Grandpaw.

 

And still, the vast majority of scholars and historians agree that Jesus was historical figure even if a mere human.

And at one time the vast majority of scholars agreed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. What scholars believe today may not be what they believe tomorrow…after all, we have just as much evidence of the existence of Mithras, Erakles, Zoroaster and other religious figures as we do for the existence of Jesus and sometimes (Zoroaster) we even have writings of the individual…

 

Jesus was a nobody, and considered a heretic, and was killed for blasphemy by the Jews. That's it.

Whoa, wait a minute, you are telling me that your holy scriptures are fibbing…if Jesus existed and was a nobody, then he didn’t raise the dead, didn’t turn water to wine, didn’t feed thousands with some small fish and a few loaves of bread, didn’t heal the sick, didn’t walk on water, didn’t calm the storm, the dead saints wouldn’t have arisen and walked the streets of Jerusalem…that he was just a teacher, a rebel…you just destroyed you entire religion with those words. Now if he indeed did do all those miracles, the Jewish, Roman, Greek and Egyptian historians would have recorded all of his wondrous works in the same manner as they did for Apollonius of Tyana, who would have been roughly a contemporary with Jesus (assuming he existed). We have a large amount of contemporary reporting on Apollonius’ teachings, miracles and personal history – PLUS we have books that Apollonius wrote!

 

What about the Delphi Oracle? What did Apollo have to say about Christians?

To my knowledge the Delphi Oracle (through whom the god Apollo spoke) never mentioned the religion or the adherents and followers of Jesus, nor did he mention Jesus either….Your point is?

 

That Josephus calls Jesus as "worker of amazing deeds" can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker; the phrase itself is ambiguous since it can also be translated "startling/controversial deeds."

Again, the question, “If Jesus was a wonder-worker, why was he not reported on by the Jewish, Roman, Greek and Egyptian historians as was Apollonius of Tyana?” This could be the smoking gun that shows Jesus is not mentioned in the Testimonium.

We must not forget the another passage where Josephus mentions Jesus, the brother of James, who was called Christ (Ant. 20.9.1). Here Josephus distinguishes this Jesus from the many others he mentions who had same name using neutral description.

Ah yes, the infamous Jamesian Reference…Antiquities (20.9) - In this passage Josephus is talking about machinations to secure the high priesthood. Ananus comes from a dynasty of high priests. We have a passing, almost blasé, reference to someone called James, whom Joseph obviously considers a minor character:

"... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

Some translations, to preserve a more 'authentic' tone, have Josephus write "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ".

But if we read on, in the same paragraph, Josephus tells us that there were appeals to the new procurator (not over the stoning of James but because of the calling of the Sanhedrin by Ananus!) and:

"... Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

Josephus tells us precisely who James is the brother of – Jesus bar Damneus!

If you drop the spurious clause about "being called the Christ", doubtless inserted by a Christian editor, then this James would have been the brother of the guy who eventually made high priest because of James' execution! Moreover, the reference to "Christ" here relies on the thoroughly discredited "explanation" of the term inserted in chapter 18! (Testimonium Flavianum)

In Josephus' text, Jesus son of Damneus is the more important of the two, that's why he puts his name first. James may well have led a zealous faction of "law breakers", and he clearly had a brother in high places, but that's about all we learn from Josephus.

It is worth noting that Josephus does not bother mentioning the death of James in his Jewish Wars. Instead, it is Ananus who gets Josephus' sympathy:

"I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city (Jerusalem), and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city."

A little later, at 20.9.4 in Antiquities, Josephus explains how the "Ananus faction" regained the high priesthood but also how the two feuding sects continued their enmity:

"And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other."

Control of the high priesthood became more volatile as the clouds of war gathered. And much like Roman politics could become occasionally violent. - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

 

YoYo-Jesus was a nobody, and considered a heretic, and was killed for blasphemy by the Jews. That's it.

Heimdall-

Whoa, wait a minute, you are telling me that your holy scriptures are fibbing…if Jesus existed and was a nobody, then he didn’t raise the dead, didn’t turn water to wine, didn’t feed thousands with some small fish and a few loaves of bread, didn’t heal the sick, didn’t walk on water, didn’t calm the storm, the dead saints wouldn’t have arisen and walked the streets of Jerusalem…that he was just a teacher, a rebel…you just destroyed you entire religion with those words. Now if he indeed did do all those miracles, the Jewish, Roman, Greek and Egyptian historians would have recorded all of his wondrous works in the same manner as they did for Apollonius of Tyana, who would have been roughly a contemporary with Jesus (assuming he existed). We have a large amount of contemporary reporting on Apollonius’ teachings, miracles and personal history – PLUS we have books that Apollonius wrote!

 

To the Jews, he was nothing but heretic to the Jews, not me. I see your obvious position here Heimdall, and I don't think anything would suggest otherwise unless Christ himself appeared before you and handed you a personal copy of the events. For me, I see it as much to see. Christians were being hunted? Killed? They were heresy. Why on God's beautiful green Earth would there BE any writings about the man? Seriously? I wouldn't even suggest that there should have been? These messiah, magical, types were showing up everywhere then? right? Why would they consider a seemingly uneducated man the messiah? The Gospels presented Him as a confusion to the Jews. Why did Jesus thank the Father for giving His testimony to the 'babes'?

 

]YoYo-[/b]What about the Delphi Oracle? What did Apollo have to say about Christians?

Heimdall-

To my knowledge the Delphi Oracle (through whom the god Apollo spoke) never mentioned the religion or the adherents and followers of Jesus, nor did he mention Jesus either….Your point is?

 

I guess looking into your posts and responses, it doesn't really make a hill of beans It was an inscription that said, The just on earth are hindering Apollo, ..or something to that matter. I will give you a reference, but I don't think you would care to see it anyhow. If you do though, here it is.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=QXPA5iCja...onstantini+2.50.