Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[McCulloch]

Given that, and the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the first century, [...]

I am quite aware of the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the second century. Robin Lane Fox suggests that Christians composed about 2% of the Empire by 250. However, I am unaware that there is any serious documentation of such a rapid spread during the apostolic age, traditionally the period, dating from the Crucifixion of Jesus (c. 26–36) until the death of John the Apostle (c. 100). By the close of the first century, there may have been over 40 Christian communities.¹


_________________
¹ Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote: "By the year 100, more than 40 Christian communities existed in cities around the Mediterranean, including two in North Africa, at Alexandria and Cyrene, and several in Italy."

[Zzyzx]

.

I agree. Most debaters will probably accept that there is SOME factual, verifiable information contained in bible tales -- about characters and situations that are peripheral to the tales of "Jesus" and "god" -- rulers, civilizations, some battles, etc.

However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles -- or even Jesus?

Is there any reason that those characters could not be mythical or fictional? Mention in tales by storytellers is no assurance that characters in the story actually lived or did as they are purported to have done.

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived.

Are you attempting to debate against them HERE, in this thread? If not, what is the point in mentioning them?

I am underwhelmed by the weak defense of major bible characters.

I asked for factual, verifiable information about fifteen major characters in bible stories – and all that is provide is a weak reference to the brother of one of the characters – and speculation based on the spread of Christianity.

Apparently a claim is made that “John� and “Peter� (whoever they may have been) personally met Jesus. Is that correct?

Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating. I've even seen folk make generalisations like "no-one in the NT even claims to have met Jesus" - obviously poppycock in light of the works attributed to John, not to mention the claim in 2 Peter.

Are you referring to statements or claims in this thread – or are you creating a straw man?

Can “John� and “Peter� be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories? Are there records of their existence, is their identity known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources?

If not, they cannot be shown to be anything more than characters in a tale by storytellers. Characters in a story can be “made� to say anything since truth is not required in fiction and fable.

Josephus (Antiquities, xx.9) mentions the death of James the brother of Jesus around 62 CE, and similarly Paul mentions Jesus' brother as one of the the three 'pillars' of the church along with John and Cephas (Galatians 1:19, 2:9). Since Cephas and James were both dead by the time the fourth gospel was written, that's arguably a good starting point for the argument that the 'beloved disciple' was John by the way - a trivial point, but one I hadn't thought of before now. But given these two independant, first-hand references to the brother of Jesus, it's hard to imagine how anyone could honestly entertain the notion that Jesus didn't exist.

Evidently you know better than to attempt to claim the Testimonium Falvium as legitimate mention by Josephus of Jesus. One can’t say that Josephus mentions Jesus (knowing that will be challenged) so the fall-back (and very weak position) is that he mentions the BROTHER of Jesus.

WHY should it be necessary to dig for even remotely possible verification of the existence of Jesus and supporting cast?

The “creator of the universe� (or “his son�) visits the Earth for thirty years (according to the tale), contacts a few “chosen people� (the ones writing the tale), performs “miracles� including raising the dead, “teaches� multitudes . . . . . . . then comes back from death . . . . .

and no one notices the monumental events except “followers� – people involved in developing a new splinter group religion from Judaism.

How convenient. How unbelievable.

Given that, and the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the first century, it would seem strange indeed if every single one of his followers died without bothering to commit to writing their perceptions and recollections of his ministry.

This is what is known as SPECULATION. Rise of the religion does NOT indicate who wrote what.

Even in my short time in this forum I've lost count of how many times I've seen you in particular repeating your demands for evidence on some point or another.

Yes, that would be me – asking for evidence to support claims and stories.

Feel free to ask me for evidence to support any claims I make (quote verbatim my claim).

Granted it's only been 23 hours since my last post, but it seems strange that neither you nor any other have provided any evidence that the fourth gospel is false in its claim to be the product of an eyewitness (and, indeed, the confirmation of that claim by whoever wrote the appended chapter).

Kindly quote any statement from me regarding the “fourth gospel�.

Here is the actual exchange from earlier:

WHERE is the evidence that ANY of the "gospel writers" (whoever they may have been) had actual personal knowledge of "Jesus"? Unless they knew PERSONALLY what transpired, they are reporting HEARSAY (something hear from others).

What I'm wondering is WHERE is the evidence that the author of the fourth gospel was lying in the claim to have witnessed Jesus' death (19:35)? And, perhaps more importantly, how could the appended chapter make any sense if he were lying?

Are you making a claim regarding the “fourth gospel�? If so what claim do you make?

Did “John� (whoever he may have been) state that he personally witnessed the death of Jesus? Kindly quote verbatim where “John� claims to be an eyewitness.

Is there any evidence to indicate that the story told by “John� is an actual witness account of an event that really happened as told?


Notice carefully that I ASKED for evidence that gospel writers had personal knowledge of Jesus – and have received NONE – WHY NOT?

I'm an Aussie, so I know the game as 'Chinese whispers.' But under any name, a party game intended for that very purpose is not exactly a good choice of comparison with the dissemination of articles of faith for which many people were willing to die.

Mention of the game illustrates the distortion of stories when told from one person to others.

One may attempt to discredit that valid illustration by “interpreting� it as a “comparison� with religious faith – if they cannot find valid criticism of the idea presented and must resort to emotionalism such as reference to people dying for faith.

What I'm wondering is WHERE is the evidence that the author of the fourth gospel was lying in the claim to have witnessed Jesus' death (19:35)?

Where is the claim of the writer to have been a witness (verbatim quote)?

Simply writing a story as though one was a witness does NOT indicate that one WAS a witness. A story can be told through many people and then recorded as though the writer had been the one to have seen the event.

Was “John� actually present at the “crucifixion�? How does one know that (aside from his own tale)?

Even a totally fictional or fraudulent account can be written as though one was present

And, perhaps more importantly, how could the appended chapter make any sense if he were lying?

A lot of bible stories don’t make sense – such as tales of talking donkeys and snakes. Why start expecting the “appended chapter� to make sense?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived. Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating. I've even seen folk make generalisations like "no-one in the NT even claims to have met Jesus" - obviously poppycock in light of the works attributed to John, not to mention the claim in 2 Peter.

"Works >words?< attributed to John" indicates some doubt about the veracity of those very words, much like "deeds attributed to Jesus".

Josephus (Antiquities, xx.9) mentions the death of James the brother of Jesus around 62 CE, and similarly Paul mentions Jesus' brother as one of the the three 'pillars' of the church along with John and Cephas (Galatians 1:19, 2:9)...

Not many folks doubt someone could have a brother that died. What many doubt are the miracle and god-man claims attributed to Jesus.

Did Josephus ever witness any of Jesus' supposed miracles, or even meet the man Himself?

...But given these two independant, first-hand references to the brother of Jesus, it's hard to imagine how anyone could honestly entertain the notion that Jesus didn't exist.

The problem is in allowing a reasonable notion - Jesus' relatively unverified existence - and then using that to claim the tales attributed to Him were true and accurate.

Given that, and the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the first century, it would seem strange indeed if every single one of his followers died without bothering to commit to writing their perceptions and recollections of his ministry...

I think the biggest problem here is the passing of time, and retellings between the "originals" and the eventual codifying of the Bible.

Given the need of individuals to 'fit in' amongst the immediate members of their local community, there is some legitimate reason to wonder if this effect doesn't come into play regarding the speed at which a religion / notion spreads. How rapidly a notion spreads really says little about the veracity of that notion, and IMO is not sufficient evidence to accept the notion.

In an era of oral tradition, where many are illiterate and rely on that oral tradition, we simply have no way of knowing what errors or omissions / inclusions were involved. Only when that notion is later written down can it be "locked in", and even then errors in translation may occur. In an oral tradition there is often seen much emphasis on hyperbole, if only as a means of capturing the audience's restless attention. What story is compelling that speaks of the mundane?

Even in my short time in this forum I've lost count of how many times I've seen you in particular repeating your demands for evidence on some point or another. Granted it's only been 23 hours since my last post, but it seems strange that neither you nor any other have provided any evidence that the fourth gospel is false in its claim to be the product of an eyewitness (and, indeed, the confirmation of that claim by whoever wrote the appended chapter).

The requesting of evidence is common in debate. Where folks ask for evidence this fourth gospel is accurate, they need not be implying it is false.

Eyewitness testimony has been shown faulty immediately after the fact, let alone when such testimony is handed down through time.

Can you produce a document that shows where John, in his own words, wrote down his original thoughts on Jesus? Lacking such, why should anyone accept John's "account" as confirmed?

(edit for clarity)

[Mithrae]

Thanks for the further reply guys. Joey, it's nearly 2am here so I'm afraid I don't have time to reply in-depth to your post, but I'll get to it next time. However I'll briefly say in answer to your final comment that I'm not claiming anything about any details of John's account being 'confirmed' - in fact I've explicitly stated that his purpose seems quite clearly to have been theological and evangelical, not historical. There's no doubt that the long monologues of Jesus reflect John's lifetime of reflection on the gist of his mentor's teachings, rather than the kind of speech which Jesus actually used, for example. However, that doesn't have a great deal of bearing on whether or not the beloved disciple actually wrote the gospel in the first place.

Your opinions are well intended, but the fact is that modern biblical scholarship disagrees with you on several points.
Yes, all credible scholars agree that these people existed, but also that none of the gospel writers met Jesus, that John is not who you suppose he his. However, the writers were using Q and-or each other, as well as the oral tradition, which itself included people who had met or heard Jesus.
So once again, gospel bible worshippers and bible deniers both get it wrong. Your suppositions are just that, but not born out by scholarship. You seem interested though, so you may wish to read "Introduction to the new testament" by Werner Georg Hummel. For more recent work, Bart Erdman or JD Crossan or Karen King or NT Wright and many others may be helpful. Take a look at Bultmann too.
For Old Testament, textbooks by Bernhard Anderson (undergrad) and Brevard Childs (grad) are tops.

You seem to be fairly well-read on the subject, and as I've hinted there've been more than a few other well-read folk involved with the various groups I've frequented in past years. Others have recommended me to Earl Doherty or Robert M. Price, just as some Christians have recommended Josh McDowall or Norman Geisler. I've read bits here and there from authors on both sides of the fence, but if I were to take every recommendation to heart I'd be spending years in dedicated study before ever daring to post on a forum.

My single most vibrant memory of Crossan's work is a passage stating that while the gospels speak of a rock tomb and embalmed wrappings, thrown into a pit and being eaten by dogs was a more likely fate for Jesus' body. His evidence for this? I can't say that I recall any. I was 15 or so at the time, and since then I've seen some solid recommendations of his work from people I've come to respect. Some of those same people have raised some serious concerns about Erhman's more recent work however, and what little I've read from Doherty doesn't seem particularly enlightened. I wonder to what extent Price's views disagree with those of Crossan or Erhman? And to the extent that those disagreements stem from interpretation of the texts and their sitz im leben, rather than specific claims about date and identity of authorship, it nevertheless raises the question of how much bearing such interpretations have on those fundamental questions themselves.

An example: Mark 9:1 and 13:30 make ambiguous statements which, depending on the meanings of 'kingdom of God' and 'this generation' could refer to a 1st century return of Christ. In the gospel of Luke (17:21 and the interesting changes made to the prophecy in ch21), it's clear that those were not intended to be interpreted as a 1st century return of Christ. However in Matthew, 'kingdom of God' is changed to 'Son of Man coming in his kingdom' (16:28) and a brand new, even more specific prophecy is added to the same effect (10:23). To my mind, this is overwhelming evidence that the author expected Christ to return within a few years of writing, and the only event which could explain this is the same one which prompted the changes to the prophecy in Luke 21 - the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the temple. Yet in all the discussions I've read of why Matthew is often dated in the 80s CE, I've seen not a single reference to this rather obvious and striking facet of the author's theology!

The layman's appeal to authority is a reasonable position when it comes to physics, or chemistry, or climate science (though even here, we see many who doubt the scientific consensus). But in a field as comparatively uncertain as biblical scholarship, where even the experts disagree on many fundamental points, and in a forum specifically dedicated to the debate of these topics amongst reasonably-informed amateurs, I honestly hope that you have more to offer than that

--------------------

I am quite aware of the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the second century. Robin Lane Fox suggests that Christians composed about 2% of the Empire by 250. However, I am unaware that there is any serious documentation of such a rapid spread during the apostolic age, traditionally the period, dating from the Crucifixion of Jesus (c. 26–36) until the death of John the Apostle (c. 100). By the close of the first century, there may have been over 40 Christian communities.

Agreed; 'relatively rapid' is, of course, a relative term. 40 communities throughout the empire are 40 groups holding broadly similar religious views but not in frequent contact with more than a few nearby communities, if that. How were these communities to maintain their unity of belief and purpose? It is all but indisputable that by the 50s and 60s CE a prominent early Christian leader considered it important to write letters to half a dozen such communities ranging from Rome to Galatia, discussing morals, worship, theology and the importance of maintaining community and doctrinal purity.

Are we to imagine that, of all those who were actually taught in person by the founding figure of the movement, not one bothered to do likewise?

-----------------------

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived.

Are you attempting to debate against them HERE, in this thread? If not, what is the point in mentioning them?

You were the one who mentioned that view:
"Is there any reason that those characters could not be mythical or fictional?"
And I explained why, on seeing that comment in a different thread 12 hours after I'd responded to your post in this one, I considered it worth mentioning here:
"Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating."

Ignoring a response to your post in a thread discussing a potential eyewitness regarding Jesus, and instead posting elsewhere your acknowledgement "about characters and situations that are peripheral to the tales of "Jesus"" seemed interesting to me. But I appreciate that you've now decided to respond. I'll try to be brief in my comments, since I've too often seen genuine discussion lost in the midst of trivia - but if I accidentally overlook one of your important points, please let me know and I'll address it.

Are you referring to statements or claims in this thread – or are you creating a straw man?

Can “John� and “Peter� be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories? Are there records of their existence, is their identity known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources?

A strawman is a position put up in place of an opponent's for the purpose of easy defeat, without engaging the opponent's actual views. Since you seem quite careful to avoid stating any views of your own, merely questioning others' views and demanding evidence, and since I expressly stated that the views I mentioned belonged to folk on other forums, I wonder why you think that counts as a straw-man? Flinging out implications of logical fallacy in the hopes that something will stick is not a valid argument technique.

Off the top of my head, I'm actually not familiar with any of the references to Peter and John to be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd), Polycarp, Gospel of Thomas, Marcion, Justin Martyr etc. etc. I could look them up of course, but a fundamental element of sound thinking is the ability to critique your own thoughts - perhaps you could compile a short-list of the references you're able to find for all of our benefits? More to the point however, I wonder why you think that the canon of accepted writings compiled from the late 2nd century onwards has any bearing on whether something 'counts' as evidence? If I want to learn about Ghandi, I don't automatically exclude from my research every text studied at the University of New Delhi.

I'd be interested in understanding your reasoning here.

The “creator of the universe� (or “his son�) visits the Earth for thirty years (according to the tale), contacts a few “chosen people� (the ones writing the tale), performs “miracles� including raising the dead, “teaches� multitudes . . . . . . . then comes back from death . . . . .

I won't accuse you of using a staw-man, but since you've recently been talking with a Christian who has explicitly stated that he doesn't consider the miraculous stories to be 'factual' (ie, provable), since I myself have explicitly stated that I am not a Christian, and since even many Christians through the ages have raised questions about the deity of Christ and nature of his ministry and resurrection, I do wonder why this is relevant. I explained why my quote of your comment about a mythical Jesus was relevant to my thread. Hopefully you will do me the honour of explaining why comments about 'creator of the universe' and 'raising the dead' are relevant to the thread also.

Are you making a claim regarding the “fourth gospel�? If so what claim do you make?

Did “John� (whoever he may have been) state that he personally witnessed the death of Jesus? Kindly quote verbatim where “John� claims to be an eyewitness.

You can read, can you not? I've made many claims about the fourth gospel; about its language, style, content and themes, about scholars' opinions regarding it and about references to it by later authors, for starters. I'm not going to repeat them all simply because of your reluctance to engage in actual debate.

The author of John claims:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life - the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us - that which we have seen and heard we do declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ" ~ 1 John 1:1-3, NKJV

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." ~ John 1:1&14

"And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe." ~ John 19:35

This claim is confirmed by the author of the appended chapter:
"This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." ~ John 21:24

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

[Mithrae]

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived. Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating. I've even seen folk make generalisations like "no-one in the NT even claims to have met Jesus" - obviously poppycock in light of the works attributed to John, not to mention the claim in 2 Peter.

"Works >words?< attributed to John" indicates some doubt about the veracity of those very words, much like "deeds attributed to Jesus".

I think it's important that the language one uses in discussion reflects a recognition of what is established and what is still in dispute. Uncritical or biased language doesn't exactly help promote critical and unbiased thinking

The problem is in allowing a reasonable notion - Jesus' relatively unverified existence - and then using that to claim the tales attributed to Him were true and accurate.

Actually I'd say that the existence of Jesus is quite strongly verified, with two independant, first-hand references to his brother and potentially a first-hand account regarding Jesus himself, in addition to the two other stories of his life from within four decades of his death (Mark and Q). Compare that to the likes of Hillel the Elder, another Jewish teacher of equal significance in 1st century Palestine, who isn't mentioned by anyone until at least the 2nd century (from memory; perhaps even later). Kings and generals, governors and priests get plenty of mention in the historical record; teachers and sages often pass with considerable less notice, and it seems to me that in the case of Jesus there is remarkably strong evidence that he did, in fact, exist. This makes it all the more exceptional that even some learned and respected scholars such as Robert M. Price argue that he didn't!

In an era of oral tradition, where many are illiterate and rely on that oral tradition, we simply have no way of knowing what errors or omissions / inclusions were involved. Only when that notion is later written down can it be "locked in", and even then errors in translation may occur. In an oral tradition there is often seen much emphasis on hyperbole, if only as a means of capturing the audience's restless attention. What story is compelling that speaks of the mundane?

Agreed, and that's another reason why the fourth gospel is so interesting. The passage of time and the author's theological and evangelical purposes notwithstanding, this seems to have been the product of someone who was actually there. His tales of water turning to wine and walking on water are no more compelling than the folk nowadays who claim to have been abducted by aliens, of course, or reference to miracles performed by Vespasian or Simon Magus. Christians will no doubt believe that John was a sane and honest person whose memory of those events he mentions was accurate and trustworthy, but it's not going to convince the average atheist one iota. But having discussed topics like this through several forums over a number of years, it does seem at times that many sceptics seem either to have an axe to grind against Christianity or feel threatened by the possibility of any evidence regarding Christian origins.

It may seem like I'm picking on him, but since Zzyzx has been the most voluble and, at times, scathing critic of Christianity I've so far seen on this forum, that's why I find my discussion with him so stimulating. Knowing that it would be impossible to provide evidence of talking donkeys or the virgin birth, he seems to delight in making repeated demands for such regardless of how grossly off-topic they may be. Of course, if any such smidgeons of evidence were possible, one can't help but shake the feeling he'd readily dismiss it, as I would expect him to do (and as I myself do) in the case of claims about miracles by an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry.

But since he has recently requested evidence regarding the very existence of Jesus, I feel that I've amply met that request so far in this thread. It will be interesting to see his opinions regarding these various side-issues in general, but in particular his opinions about the eyewitness claims of the gospel of John, along with the author of its appended chapter.

[Mithrae]

Whoops... accidentally quoted rather than editting my last post.

Edit: Do/can mods here delete posts? If not I may as well make this one useful and note a change upon further re-reading:

But having discussed topics like this through several forums over a number of years, it does seem at times that many sceptics seem either to have an axe to grind against Christianity or feel threatened by the possibility of any evidence regarding Christian origins.

That should be 'some' sceptics, not many; of the secular sceptics I've met on forums over the years, I'd guess that comment would probably apply to no more than a third or a quarter if that.

If mods do delete posts, please do

[WinePusher]

I agree. Most debaters will probably accept that there is SOME factual, verifiable information contained in bible tales -- about characters and situations that are peripheral to the tales of "Jesus" and "god" -- rulers, civilizations, some battles, etc.

However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Apostles -- or even Jesus?

Is there any reason that those characters could not be mythical or fictional? Mention in tales by storytellers is no assurance that characters in the story actually lived or did as they are purported to have done.

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived. Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating. I've even seen folk make generalisations like "no-one in the NT even claims to have met Jesus" - obviously poppycock in light of the works attributed to John, not to mention the claim in 2 Peter.

Josephus (Antiquities, xx.9) mentions the death of James the brother of Jesus around 62 CE, and similarly Paul mentions Jesus' brother as one of the the three 'pillars' of the church along with John and Cephas (Galatians 1:19, 2:9). Since Cephas and James were both dead by the time the fourth gospel was written, that's arguably a good starting point for the argument that the 'beloved disciple' was John by the way - a trivial point, but one I hadn't thought of before now. But given these two independant, first-hand references to the brother of Jesus, it's hard to imagine how anyone could honestly entertain the notion that Jesus didn't exist.

Given that, and the relatively rapid spread of Christianity throughout the empire in the first century, it would seem strange indeed if every single one of his followers died without bothering to commit to writing their perceptions and recollections of his ministry. Even in my short time in this forum I've lost count of how many times I've seen you in particular repeating your demands for evidence on some point or another. Granted it's only been 23 hours since my last post, but it seems strange that neither you nor any other have provided any evidence that the fourth gospel is false in its claim to be the product of an eyewitness (and, indeed, the confirmation of that claim by whoever wrote the appended chapter).

I agree with your post, it is only those extreme atheists, such as richard carrier, who deny the historical existence of Jesus. I hate to get off the thread topic but, any atheist who wishes to deny the historicity of the existence of Jesus of Nazereth must account for the following

1) The historians Tacitus, Josephus and Suetunious who all mention a Christ
2) The massive widespread growth of Christianity in the Greco Roman World following the death of Jesus
3) The eyewitness testimonies of the disciples who claim to have seen the risen Lord

[Mithrae]

I agree with your post, it is only those extreme atheists, such as richard carrier, who deny the historical existence of Jesus. I hate to get off the thread topic but, any atheist who wishes to deny the historicity of the existence of Jesus of Nazereth must account for the following

1) The historians Tacitus, Josephus and Suetunious who all mention a Christ
2) The massive widespread growth of Christianity in the Greco Roman World following the death of Jesus
3) The eyewitness testimonies of the disciples who claim to have seen the risen Lord

1 - Tacitus and Suetonius, in my opinion, merely provide evidence that they were familiar with Christian belief in their 2nd century mileu. Chronologically, geographically and culturally, they had little basis (and little reason) on which to really know whether the Christian founder had actually lived. Josephus' direct reference to Jesus (the Testimonium Flavianum) was obviously tampered with, and I don't think it's particularly persuasive to speculate about an unaltered original. However, I don't believe there's any reason to doubt the authenticity of his comment about the death of James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

2 - McCulloch has made a comment about that, and while it's not something I know much about, I think it's safe to say that the numbers portrayed in Acts are somewhat exaggerated. Undoubtedly there were small numbers of converts in many cities, but even if the numbers were quite large, it really wouldn't provide much evidence for the existence of Jesus except perhaps converts in Palestine itself.

3 - To my knowledge there's three such claims in the bible; in 2 Peter, in John and by Paul. There's no evidence that Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus during his lifetime, and nor is there any mention of him seeing a 'risen Lord' in the weeks following his death; his experience and beliefs are not particularly different from folk who have visions of Jesus today. I think Paul's few and brief comments about the actual life of Jesus provide supporting evidence for his existence however, since he lived in the same time and region and would presumably at the very least be in a position to question the circumstances of his death - indeed may well have been in Jerusalem during that Passover. 2 Peter is widely believed by scholars to be a 2nd century creation, and given the parallels with Jude and the reference to Paul's letters as 'Scripture,' this seems to be fair assessment. That leaves John, and for those inclined to believe outlandish claims like the resurrection, the evidence suggesting its authenticity is probably even more interesting than to sceptics - if they happen to be interested in evidence, of course



Edit: My internet screws up frequently, so I try to keep my ratio of browsing to posting at a minimum. But with a little extra time atm, I think it's worth adding to the discussion that Justin Martyr (c 150 CE) turns to the 'memoirs of the apostles' for his reference to Jesus as the divine Logos, the only-begotten of the Father. He also directly quotes John 3:3 (http://www.ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.sh ... el_of_John). Not to detract from the fact that the gospel claims (and the later appender confirms) the discipleship of the author, it's interesting that Justin Martyr believed in its apostolic authorship also. Justin Martyr apparently converted to Christianity around 130 CE in Ephesus, where the gospel of John was reported by Irenaeus to have been written.

[Goat]

A forum I used to belong to had a few members who argued that Jesus was a mythical character who never actually lived. Radical views like that are one of the reasons why I consider subjects like the fourth gospel so illuminating. I've even seen folk make generalisations like "no-one in the NT even claims to have met Jesus" - obviously poppycock in light of the works attributed to John, not to mention the claim in 2 Peter.

"Works >words?< attributed to John" indicates some doubt about the veracity of those very words, much like "deeds attributed to Jesus".

I think it's important that the language one uses in discussion reflects a recognition of what is established and what is still in dispute. Uncritical or biased language doesn't exactly help promote critical and unbiased thinking

The problem is in allowing a reasonable notion - Jesus' relatively unverified existence - and then using that to claim the tales attributed to Him were true and accurate.

Actually I'd say that the existence of Jesus is quite strongly verified, with two independant, first-hand references to his brother and potentially a first-hand account regarding Jesus himself, in addition to the two other stories of his life from within four decades of his death (Mark and Q). Compare that to the likes of Hillel the Elder, another Jewish teacher of equal significance in 1st century Palestine, who isn't mentioned by anyone until at least the 2nd century (from memory; perhaps even later). Kings and generals, governors and priests get plenty of mention in the historical record; teachers and sages often pass with considerable less notice, and it seems to me that in the case of Jesus there is remarkably strong evidence that he did, in fact, exist. This makes it all the more exceptional that even some learned and respected scholars such as Robert M. Price argue that he didn't!

Please show these 'first hand references'. The Gospel of Mark appears to be written by someone who was not familiar with the geography around Jerusalem. Since that is the case, how do you know that it isn't just someone writing down an urban legend?

[Mithrae]

Actually I'd say that the existence of Jesus is quite strongly verified, with two independant, first-hand references to his brother and potentially a first-hand account regarding Jesus himself, in addition to the two other stories of his life from within four decades of his death (Mark and Q). Compare that to the likes of Hillel the Elder, another Jewish teacher of equal significance in 1st century Palestine, who isn't mentioned by anyone until at least the 2nd century (from memory; perhaps even later). Kings and generals, governors and priests get plenty of mention in the historical record; teachers and sages often pass with considerable less notice, and it seems to me that in the case of Jesus there is remarkably strong evidence that he did, in fact, exist. This makes it all the more exceptional that even some learned and respected scholars such as Robert M. Price argue that he didn't!

Please show these 'first hand references'. The Gospel of Mark appears to be written by someone who was not familiar with the geography around Jerusalem. Since that is the case, how do you know that it isn't just someone writing down an urban legend?

The two independant, first-hand references to the brother of Jesus:

Josephus (Antiquities, xx.9) mentions the death of James the brother of Jesus around 62 CE, and similarly Paul mentions Jesus' brother as one of the the three 'pillars' of the church along with John and Cephas (Galatians 1:19, 2:9).

Whatever else may be said of Mark, I think it's safe to say that the author wasn't a follower of Jesus - the early church tradition that it was authored by a mere interpreter of Peter would be strange indeed when they might instead have attached it to someone more significant. The possible first-hand reference to Jesus is John's gospel and, given that the known facts seem to fit quite well with a disciple recording his thoughts towards the end of his long life, it's interesting that I still haven't seen any evidence against the claims regarding it made by the author and confirmed by the latter appender and by Justin Martyr.