Unraveling the Jesus myth

[The Duke of Vandals]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.

By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

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

Sources:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

http://www.bibleorigins.net/

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/

http://www.christianorigins.com/

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

[Confused]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

No, sorry, not true. Jo never does this. He mentions the same Jesus of Naz twice, once when he speaks of his borther and once in the famous Tf. Now if he does speak of other guys named "Jesus" who did the same kind so of things,how do you know it's not the same guy?

could you show us where where one of these passages s located?


the idea that Jesus ilved a hundred years before he was suppossed to have has no backing whatsoever and basically comes from wishful thinking that the Qumran "teacher of reightousness" would be Jesus of Naz so it would destory christaintiy.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

what does that have to do with it?

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Certainly not inconcieveable, very understandable. you are judging by modern standards. They did not have mass communications. No tv, no radio, no tex messaging, no email, no teleraph. Some one had to get on a horse and spend a month or two crossing the desert to get news from jerusalem to Alexandria. Or they could use a ship, but even that took weeks.

Philo was upper class intellectual and most of the time that Jesus was doing his thing Philo was not even Alexandria but living in Rome and other parts of sotuern med.

He would have had no interest in Jesus anyway becuase Philo was concerned with philosophy, he did not care about Jewish religion in the sense of reforms and religiouis zealots. He would have seen Jesus in the way we see televangelists. Jesus would hvae been unworhty of his time.

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

travel time and lack of mass communications, and the socially unacceptable nature of Jesus would have meant he was off limits to most commentators. They were not newmen. they were witting for a highly selective group of the top 1% of society who could read and afford books. They were only concerned with upperclass people and philsophers and peopel who addressed the Senate.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

No it's not. SEveral histoirans mention Jesus from first and second century.


* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

* Galen (various writings, c.150)

* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).


* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)

* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

*Lucian (Second century)

*Numenius (Second cent.)

*Galerius (Second Cent.)

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

sorry, you have it all wrong here. There is devistating evidence of this fact. And it's the same kind of evidence that establishes the synopitic problem and the existence of Q. If you try to unseat textual criticism as a valid method you lose most of the critical theory that is used to disprove inerrency. The very arguments you make now depend upon this method so you are cutting your throught.

It is not based upon what the text states explicitly but how ti states it. by identifying an ealry reading they know that part of the exist existed before the version that chnaging the wording.

example:

In canoncial Gospels Jesus tells the lepper "go and sin no more"

IN the diatesseron he tells him "go and sin no more, and obey the law." So the textual critic says "obey the law" is more Jewish than just saying go and sin no more, so this is a form the reading that was copied form an older ms than the one that says just "go and sin no more."

by using this method they have found that there was a pre Markan version of the redaction that was circualted in writting as early as AD 50. this is not a fundamentalist idea. it's found by major liberal scholars and agreed to by crosson and Helmutt Koester.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

That's not an example from textaul criticism. It's over simplification. they do not just base it on what is said directly but on upon the content, the form the way it's said and its' comparision with other manuscripts.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce.

(1)I bet you cannot tell me what evidence leads critics to place it in AD 70?

(2)New evidence shows that Matt was written before 70. So Mark has to be written even ealier.


http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04 ... 6op041.htm




(3)there is more than one version of mark. The version used by LUke is not the same as that used of Mat. So the final form in which we find Mark wa from AD 70, probably, but there were ealrier versions.

(4) the argument is for a "Pre Mark" redaction. Mark was not the fist, we kno this. Obviously he wasn't, q was before Mark and so Thomas may have been. The Gospel of the savior there were other Gospels befoer Mark and a reaction of the Gospel before.

Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

that argument is invalid because it naively assumes that the final canoical form of Mark is the original form. It si not and I just demonstrated that. Mreover, there's a pre Markan redaction that includes the empty tomb. So that evolutionary miracles idea is wrong headed.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers.

totally unfounded assertion, show some evidence.

Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

that is a total lie, it was told by ;Doherty and he got it totally wrong. The Gospels are used by 1 Clement in AD 94 the oldest extra bibical work we have. They are clealry known to Paul, or at least a saying source of Pre Mrkan origin was that's demonstrated many times.

http://www.doxa.ws/Myth/Paul_Jesus.html






IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing

.


Athenagoras was not early in the second century almost all scholars palce it near the end. There were several documents way before that one that mention Jesus as flesh and blood:

1 Clemenet (95 AD)

Papias (110 AD)

Ignatious (110AD)

Polycarp (120 AD)


and others.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

That s the lie stated by Earl Doherty and is totally unsubstantated.


34 lost Gospels recovered in whole or in part demonstrate that Jesus was protrayed as flesh and blood in the first century. there is no record of any source that states otherwise before the major gnostic works of late second thorugh fourth century.


http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind2.html

While I think this would be an awesome thread to follow and contribute to, between Dukes long OPs and your long posts in response, I will have to sit this and the other one related to it out.

Duke, it you opt to break these down so that each OP and each response isn't an entire page, it may make it easier for those of us who are feeble minded to follow, but then you may not wish to hear our simplistic responses, if so, negate this post.

Metacrock, what happened to your attempts at spellcheck?

[Goose]

There's a lot to get to and I'm slightly pressed for time. For example, I want to discuss the issue of Philo and how there still hasn't been a rebuttal of the fact that Philo wrote about the early Essenes... and many other issues.

Before you get to all that. When are you going to answer my question from the first page regarding the disciples. How do you explain that a broken band of men, scared, unorganized, leaderless, and demoralized suddenly with in the matter of days and weeks turned into the Christian force that helped establish Christianity despite persecution? If you don't address this, I'll assume you are skipping it because you don't have an answer.

Oh, I'd love to hear your theories on the empty tomb as well. And why the Jews or Romans didn't just produce Jesus Christ's body and quell this whole little thing called Christianity.

For now, I want to concentrate on this quote:

If I were to put into circulation a peice of writting that said "The Duke of Vandals has converted to Christianity, he's bought the farm folks, hook line and sinker. He's running around telling everyone that he believes dead people can rise." Let me ask you. Would it bother you? Would you do soemthing about it? Would write a rebuttal or take some type of action? Probably. I would if I were a skeptic and my reputation were at stake and it could cause unwanted negative attention.

I'll bet you do. I'm asking for a legitimate text of some kind from one of the reported eyewitnesses that denies the resurrection.

This sentiment is very significant to this debate. It demonstrates the willingness of some apologists to award legitimacy to claims which contradict existing supported claims.

For the record, claims require evidence and the evidence must directly correspond to the claim.

Claims which contradict existing supported claims are "false until proven true". ".



As I've already stated several times, the entire Christian religion is based on the alleged eyewitness testimony of people who claimed to have seen events which we know to be impossible. People simply don't walk on unfrozen water, magically heal the sick or come back from the dead after being stabbed & crucified. Yet Christians argue as though these events are perfectly reasonable everyday happenings.

As I've already stated, there is no evidence for these events nor any corroboration. There is simply the claim that the eyewitnesses (who we have no evidence ever existed) died for what they believe in.

Guilt is a powerful motivating emotion. In the case of Christianity, it causes its followers to ignore the demand for more evidence / accept the disciples alleged deaths AS evidence. This is highly fallacious reasoning.

We've already established that the gospels were written far later than what is commonly held by apologists and we've already established that the disciples aren't evidenced. It is only the strong emotional attachment Christians have to this tale that holds them to it.

It is that same emotional attachment that causes Meta to label any scholar who disagrees with the gospel accounts to be a "christ-myther".

I see a lot of opinions, but not much substance.

[Goat]

As I've already stated several times, the entire Christian religion is based on the alleged eyewitness testimony of people who claimed to have seen events which we know to be impossible. People simply don't walk on unfrozen water, magically heal the sick or come back from the dead after being stabbed & crucified.

This has never been proven by either science or other disciplines. Since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, then it also cannot either prove nor disprove the supernatural workings of God. You're thus left with your own opinion.

We've already established that the gospels were written far later than what is commonly held by apologists..."

You did? Sorry, that's not a commonly held view by scholars. For a better chronology please review the following:

Scholars Date New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

Jesus is Lord!

Most of the scholars in that link go right in line with "The Dukes" statement. The link you provided actually agrees with him.

Out of the ones that don't, they are either at universities that have a 'statement of faith' that includes the bible being inerrent, or at least one was 19th century.

[Lotan]

Out of the ones that don't, they are either at universities that have a 'statement of faith' that includes the bible being inerrent, or at least one was 19th century.

No use wasting bandwidth on this issue goat. Easyrider knows that that website is dishonest and misleading. He just doesn't care.

[Goose]

Well, as for the apostles, we have no writing from them also. We have some writings in their name.

You are back onto this eyewitness writings thing again. If the writings regarding Christ and the claims of his resurrection were in circulation during the life of the witnesses, this is what matters. Even today, autobiography's are often written by another person other than the "eyewitness". But we don't call them into question. Most of the eyewitnesses were alive during the circulation of these claims. They could have refuted them if they were a lie. Especially if their reputation was called into question as the result of these writings.

That is an assumption and an asserstion on your part.
However, can't
demonstrate that these writings were in circulation during the lifetime of the alledged eyewitneeses, .

So your assumption is that texts apparently written during the time of the eyewitnesses were not in circulation. Or are you assuming they are written too late. If so please provide your source for dating. I've already mentioned 1 Corinthians dated to the 50's. Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source can be traced back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death. Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: 519-20. So it's pretty hard to believe Mark wasn't in circulation durring the life of the eyewitnesses.

Dr. William Lane Craig says, "All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

(Of course you won't like Craig because he's a Christian)

If you want to believe that the majority of the NT wasn't in circulation during the lifetime of eyewitnesses, be my guest. Can you show why they wouldn't be?The only option you would have is to use very Liberal dating.

nor do you have who the eyewitnesses are

Mary Magdelene, Two women returning from the tomb, Emmaus disciples, the 11 Apostles, multitude of 500, Paul, among others. Some on multiple accounts spanning over forty days. Paul was a hostile witness at the time that persecuted Christians. He then became one of the most prolific Christians.

If there were no eyewitensses, how could they 'refute' it? The 'eye witnesses' would always be someone else.

There were eyewitnesses and we know who they were. With the exception of the 500 hundred. As mentioned Paul basically said go and check it out for yourself regarding them. Why would Paul put himself in such a position? Give up his former life to profess Christianity when he was persecuting Christians not long before. Anyone could have gone to the 500 and gotten counter testamony to the resurrection sightings. Why didn't the Jews do this? Why didn't the Romans?

[pyrite]

The gospel Jesus never existed.

this topic is not worthy of debate.
Jesus is the single MOST documented historical figure known to man, his first-hand accounts numbering more than 200 times more than those of Julius Caesar for example.. argue with his teachings and whatever else, sure, but his existence is a given

[Easyrider]

As I've already stated several times, the entire Christian religion is based on the alleged eyewitness testimony of people who claimed to have seen events which we know to be impossible. People simply don't walk on unfrozen water, magically heal the sick or come back from the dead after being stabbed & crucified.

This has never been proven by either science or other disciplines. Since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, then it also cannot either prove nor disprove the supernatural workings of God. You're thus left with your own opinion.

We've already established that the gospels were written far later than what is commonly held by apologists..."

You did? Sorry, that's not a commonly held view by scholars. For a better chronology please review the following:

Scholars Date New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

Jesus is Lord!

Most of the scholars in that link go right in line with "The Dukes" statement. The link you provided actually agrees with him.

So Duke agrees that the New Testament was written during the probable / possible lifetimes of the NT writers? Then how does that constitute any worthwhile argument against Biblical Christianity?

Out of the ones that don't, they are either at universities that have a 'statement of faith' that includes the bible being inerrent, or at least one was 19th century.

This is something you and Lotan probably need to work on - insinuating that such people are either deluded or dishonest about Biblical dating just because they might be people of faith. That in itself is disingenous and unwarranted. You probably aren't even aware of the reasons for their conclusions, unless you want to now do a quick google search or something to suit your own biases.

[Easyrider]

Quotations of the Bible From Early Christian Literature

The number of such quotations of the Bible known from early Christian literature is vast - over 36,000 quotes are known from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (McDowell, p. 52). Sir David Dalrymple once asked himself the question, "Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the 3rd century, could it have been collected together again from the writing of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?" His answer? "...as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses." (McDowell, pp. 50-51)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was martyred around 180 A.D. He was a student of Polycarp, the long-lived disciple of St. John himself. Extant quotes of Irenaeus' writings include quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, I Corinthians, I Peter, Hebrews and Titus (By the time of Irenaeus the Gospels had clearly been around a good while, and all four were well known and recognized among Christians.).

Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.

Barnabas quoted from the N.T. around 70 A.D., Hermas 95 A.D., and Tatian 170 A.D. Clement of Alexandria, who lived 150-212 A.D., quoted from all but three books of the NT.

Justin Martyr, in 133 A.D., quoted from the Gospels, Acts, Revelation, and both Pauline and the other epistles. (McDowell, pp. 51-52). (History and the Bible)

On Luke’s narrative (Book of Acts) - His book ends with the main leaders still alive, which means it was written no later than 62. (Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer gives thirteen additional reasons why Acts was written by 62.) {3}.

If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official), that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, “in my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began t do and to teach..” The ‘former book” must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4, see citation below).

How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the latest Acts was written, and there had to be some time between Luke’s first writing to Theophilus and his second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is realistically 60 or before.

This date also makes sense in light of Paul’s quotation of Luke’s gospel. Writing sometime between A.D. 62-65. Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and calls it ‘scripture’ (1Tim 5:18). Therefore, Luke’s gospel must have been in circulation long enough before that time in order for both Paul and Timothy to know its contents & regard it as scripture. (By the way, this was no minor claim for Paul to make. In effect, he was making the bold assertion that Luke’s gospel was just as inspired as the Holy Jewish Bible. The Old Testament he treasured so much!)

If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been written in the mid-to-late 50’s if not earlier. Why question because Luke says that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems also good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught. (Luke 1-4)

Most scholars believe Mark’s gospel was one of those eye witness sources. And if those Dead Sea Scrolls fragments we mentioned above are really from A.D. 50-70, then certainly Mark is earlier. But even if Mark isn’t before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond reasonable doubt that Luke is before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eye witness testimony written between 25 or 30 years of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the eyewitness sources go back even earlier. How much earlier?

Some New Testament Book’s Were Penned In The 40s And 50s A.D., With Sources From The 30s (Only The A Few Years After The Death Of Jesus)

As certain as we are about the date of Luke’s records, there is no doubt from anyone, including the most liberal of scholars, that Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth (which is in modern day Greece) sometime between 55 and 56. In this letter, Paul speaks about moral problems in the church, and then proceeds to discuss controversies about tongues, prophecies, and the Lord Supper. This, of course, demonstrates that the church in Corinth was experiencing some kind of miraculous activity and was already observing the Lord’s Supper with in 25 years of the Resurrection.

But the most significant aspect of this letter is that it contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself. In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes down testimony he received from others and the testimony that was authenticated when Christ appeared to him:

For I delivered to you what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then the twelve. After that He appeared to more that five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remand until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all of the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB).

Where did Paul get what he ‘received’? He probably received from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). Why is this important? Because, as Gary Habermas points out, most scholars (even liberals) believe that this testimony was part of an early creed that dates right back to the Resurrection itself, eighteen months to eight years after, but some say even earlier. {4} There is no possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right back to the time and place of the event itself. {5} If there was ever a place that a legendary Resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have easily done so by parading Jesus’ body around the city.

More over, notice that Paul cites fourteen eyewitnesses whose names are known: the twelve apostles, James, and Peter himself (“Cephas” is the Aramaic for Peter), and then references an appearance to more than 500 others at one time. Included in those groups was one skeptic, James, and one outright enemy, Paul himself. By naming so many people who could verify what Paul was saying, he was, in effect, challenging his Corinthian readers to check him out. Bible scholar William Lillie puts it this way:

What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says, in effect: “If you don’t believe me, you can ask them.” Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. {6}

If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would have immediately lost all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.

In addition to 1 Corinthians, there are numerous other New Testament documents that were written in the 50s or earlier. Galatians (A.D. 48), 1 Thessalonians (50-54), and Romans (57-58) are all in this category. In fact (and we know we may be going out on a limb here!) all of Paul’s works had to have been written before he died, which was sometime in the mid-60s.

But it’s not just conservative scholars who believe these early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson, admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books, including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65.

The great and once-liberal archaeologist William F. Albright, after seeing how well the New Testament fit with the archaeological and historical data, wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80.” {7} Elsewhere Albright said, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and the 80s of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).” {8}

So we know beyond a reasonable doubt that most if not all the New Testament documents are early. But skeptics have a couple of objections.

SKEPTIC’S ADVOCATE
The Documents Are Not Early Enough

Some skeptics may think that a 15- to 40-year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him is too wide for the testimony to be reliable. But they are mistaken.
Think about events that occurred 15 to 40 years ago. When historians write about those events, we don’t say, “Oh, that’s impossible! No one can remember events from that long ago! Such skepticism is clearly unwarranted. Historians today write accurately about events in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s by consulting their own memories, those of other eyewitnesses, and any written sources from the time.

This process is the same one the New Testament writers used to record their documents. Like a good reporter, Luke interviewed eyewitnesses.{9} And as we’ll see in the next chapter, some New Testament writers were eyewitnesses themselves. They could remember 15- to 40-year-old events quite easily, just as you can. Why can you remember certain events vividly from 15 to 40 years ago and (if you’re old enough) even further back? You may be able to remember certain events because they made a great emotional impact on you. (In fact, those of us who are “over the hill” can remember some events from 30 years ago better than those from 30 minutes ago!)

Where were you and what were you doing when President Kennedy was assassinated? When the Challenger exploded? When the second plane hit the tower? Why can you remember those events so well? Because they made a deep emotional impact on you. Since an event like the Resurrection certainly would have made a deep emotional impact on the New Testament writers and the other eyewitnesses they may have consulted, it’s easy to see why the history of Jesus could be easily recalled many years later, especially in a culture with an established reliance on oral testimony (more on this below).

Furthermore, if the major works of the New Testament are eyewitness accounts written within two generations of the events, then they are not likely to be legend. Why? Because historical research indicates that a myth cannot begin to crowd out historical facts while the eyewitnesses are still alive. For this reason, Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White calls the mythological view of the New Testament “unbelievable”. {10} William Lane Craig writes, “The tests show that even two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.” {11} Inside of those two generation, eyewitnesses are still around to correct the errors of historical revisionists.

We are seeing this tendency right now with regard to the Holocaust. In early twenty-first century, we’ve begun to see some people claim that the Holocaust never happened. Why are the revisionists trying this now? Because most of the eyewitnesses have now died. Fortunately, since we have written eyewitness testimony from the Holocaust, the revisionists are not successful in passing off their lies as the truth. The same holds true for the New Testament. If the New Testament was written within 60 years of the events it records, it is highly unlikely those events could be legendary. And as we have seen, all of the New Testament documents were written within 60 years of the events, and many much earlier.

Why Not Earlier?

At this point the skeptic may say, “Okay, fine. The New Testament is early, but it’s not as early as I would expect. Why didn’t they write down their testimony earlier? If I saw what they said they saw, I wouldn’t wait 15 or 20 years to write it down.”
There are a number of possible reasons for the wait.

First, since the New Testament writers were living in a culture where the vast majority of people were illiterate, there was no initial need or utility in writing it down. A first-century people in Palestine, by necessity, developed strong memories in order to remember and pass on information. Craig writes,

In an oral culture like that of first-century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred traditions. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.{12}

In such an oral culture, facts about Jesus may have been put into a memorable form. There’s good evidence for this. Gary Habermas has identified forty one short sections of the New Testament that appear to be creeds, compact sayings that could easily be remembered and that were probably passed along orally before they were put into writing (one of these creeds we’ve already mentioned. I Cor. 15: 3-8.) {13}

Second, since some of the New Testament writers may have had high hopes that Jesus was going to come backing their lifetime, they saw no immediate need to write it down. But as they aged, perhaps they thought it wise to put their observations down on Papyrus.

Third, as Christianity spread all over the ancient world, writing became the most efficient means to communicate with the rapidly expanding church. In other words, time and distance forced the New Testament writers to write it down.

On the other hand, there may not have been a gap for at least one Gospel. If those fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls are really from Mark (and they most likely are), then that Gospel might have been written in the 30s. Why? Because the fragments are of copies, not of the original. If we have copies from the 50s, then the original must have been earlier.{14}

Moreover, many scholars believe there actually were written sources that predate the Gospels. In fact, Luke, in the first four verses of his Gospel, says that he checked with other sources, though some of these may have been earlier Gospels (e.g., Matthew and Mark).{15} Was one of his sources Mark’s Gospel? We don’t know for sure. It certainly seems like Luke is speaking of several other written sources, because he says, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…” (Luke 1:1). Luke may have referenced Mark’s Gospel and other written testimonies including public court records from Jesus’ trial.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether or not there were written sources that predate the New Testament. Nor does it matter if Mark was written in the 30s A.D. Why? Because the documents we do know about are early enough and contain early source material. As we’ll see in the next chapter, many if not all of the New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or their contemporaries within 15 to 40 years of Jesus, and some contain oral or other written testimony that goes back to the Resurrection itself. In other words, the real issue isn’t so much the date of writings, but the date of the sources used in the writings.

Why Not More?

Skeptics may ask, “If Jesus actually did rise from the dead, shouldn’t there be more written about Him than there is?” In response, we actually have more testimony that we might expect, and certainly more than enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. As we have seen, Jesus is referenced by far more authors than the Roman emperor at the time (Jesus’ 43 authors to Tiberius’s 10 to 150 years of their lives). Nine of those authors were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events, and they wrote 27 documents, the majority of which mention or imply the Resurrection. That’s more than enough to establish historicity.

For those who still think there should have been even more written about Jesus, New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg offers four reasons why that’s not a reasonable expectation: 1) the humble beginnings of Christianity; 2) the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire; 3) the small percentage of the works of ancient Graeco-Roman historian that have survived (this could be due to loss, decay, destruction, or all of the above); and 4) the lack of attention paid by surviving historical documents to Jewish figures in general.{16}

Nevertheless, some skeptics still think there should be testimony from some of the 500 people who allegedly saw the risen Christ. Skeptic Farrell Till is one of them. During a debate on the Resurrection that I (Norm) had with him in 1994, Till demanded, “Trot out one of those 500 witnesses or give us something that they wrote, and we will accept that as reliable proof or evidence.”{17}

This is an unreasonable expectation, for a number of reasons.

First, as we have already pointed out, first-century Palestine was an oral culture. Most people were illiterate and remembered and passed on information orally.

Second, how many of those predominately illiterate eyewitnesses would have written something even if they could write? Even today, with a much higher literacy rate and all the conveniences of modern writing and research tools, how many people do you know who have written a book or even an article on any subject? How many do you know who have written a book or article on a contemporary historical event, even significant even like 9/11? Probably not many, and certainly fewer than one out of 500. (Has Farrell Till ever written an article on a major historical event he witnessed?)

Third, even if some of those 500 average people did write down what they saw, why would skeptics expect their testimony to survive for 2,000 years? The New Testament survives intact because of the thousands of manuscripts copied by scribes for a growing church over the centuries. Historical works from the major ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny survive in just a handful of copies, and those copies are hundreds of years from the originals. Why do the skeptics think anything is going to be written, much less survive, from an ancient group of illiterate Galilean peasants?{18}

Finally, we do know the names of many of the 500, and their testimony is written down in the New Testament. They include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and James – plus nine who are named elsewhere as apostles (Matthew 10 and Acts 1).
So we shouldn’t expect more testimony than what we have about Jesus. And what we do have is more than enough to establish historicity.


{00} Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 38-40.
{0} See John 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:4; Heb. 5:1-3; 7:23, 27; 8-3-5; 9:25; 10:1, 3-4, 11; 13:10-11; Rev. 11:1-2.
{1} See Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? 65.
{2} See Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 343.
{3} Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 375-382. For a summary of Hemer’s reasons. See Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 528
{4} Most, if not all, scholars date the origin of this material prior to A.D. 40. See Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1996), 152-157; See also Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, forthcoming), chapter 7.
{5} In addition, by writing “I delivered to you,” Paul was reminding them that he had already given them that testimony earlier. So while he wrote them in, say, 56, he must have verbalized it to them during an earlier visit to Corinth, probably in A.D. 51. This also means Paul must have received it prior to 51, which means this information was in existence prior to then.
{6} William Lillie, “The Empty Tomb and the Resurrection,” in D. E. Nineham, et al., Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1965), 125.
{7} William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1956), 136
{8} William F. Albright, “William Albright: Toward a More Conservative View,” Christianity Today, January 18, 1963, 3.
{9} If Luke really did interview eyewitnesses as he claims, then his Gospel contains early eyewitness testimony that should be considered just as reliable as if Luke had seen it himself. Eyewitness testimony is primary source material even if it was recorded later by someone else.
{10} A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 189.
{11} William Lane Craig, The Son Rises (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 101.
{12} William Lane Craig, “The Evidence for Jesus.” Posted online at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... over2.html. Accessed August 10, 2003.
{13} Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Mo.; College Press, 1996), chapter 7.
{14} Some scholars think there’s other circumstantial evidence that Mark was written in the 30s. Mark mentions the high priest five times but doesn’t name him. The three other Gospels identify him as Caiaphas. Why doesn’t Mark identify him? Perhaps because Caiaphas was still the high priest when Mark writing, so there was no need to name him. If this is true, then Mark was written by A.D. 37 because that’s when Caiaphas’s high priesthood ended (Josephus, Antiquities, 18:.43).
{15} Some scholars believe New Testament writers used written records that predate the Gospels. Luke 1:1 seems to confirm this. However, many liberal scholars suggest that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts but were derived from one yet undiscovered source known as “Q”. For an outstanding critique of biblical criticism and the idea that there was a “Q” source from which the New Testament writers drew, see former “Q” proponent Eta Linnemann, Biblical Criticism on Trial (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2001); see also Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 618-621.
{16} Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.; InterVarsity Press, 1987), 197.
{17} For the debate on audiotape, see www.impactapologetics.com.
{18} Incidentally, while we may not have documents from the 500, their inclusion with fourteen eyewitnesses identified by name makes their seeing the risen Christ an unlikely invention of Paul.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/dating_the_nt.html

[Lotan]

This is something you and Lotan probably need to work on - insinuating that such people are either deluded or dishonest about Biblical dating just because they might be people of faith.

Who's insinuating? Maybe they're just plain wrong. Maybe they ignore evidence.

That in itself is disingenous and unwarranted.

It's completely warranted, considering the inherent assumptions that these "people of faith" base their arguments on.

You probably aren't even aware for the reasons for their conclusions, unlness you want to now do a quick google search or something.

I've read a few, just as I've read a few liberal arguments. I'm not qualified to judge, so I favor the consensus dates. If the conservative scholars are as objective as you would like us to think they are, there should be a few who argue for later dates than others, but I'm not aware of any. Those who favor early dates invariably toe the apologetic line regarding other matters as well. That website that you so frequently rely on is a classic example of cherrypicking evidence in order to support a preconceived result. I've demonstrated this in detail for you in the past, but you are unable to admit to its obvious bias.

[Goat]

Well, as for the apostles, we have no writing from them also. We have some writings in their name.

You are back onto this eyewitness writings thing again. If the writings regarding Christ and the claims of his resurrection were in circulation during the life of the witnesses, this is what matters. Even today, autobiography's are often written by another person other than the "eyewitness". But we don't call them into question. Most of the eyewitnesses were alive during the circulation of these claims. They could have refuted them if they were a lie. Especially if their reputation was called into question as the result of these writings.

That is an assumption and an asserstion on your part.
However, can't
demonstrate that these writings were in circulation during the lifetime of the alledged eyewitneeses, .

So your assumption is that texts apparently written during the time of the eyewitnesses were not in circulation. Or are you assuming they are written too late. If so please provide your source for dating. I've already mentioned 1 Corinthians dated to the 50's. Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source can be traced back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death. Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: 519-20. So it's pretty hard to believe Mark wasn't in circulation durring the life of the eyewitnesses.

Dr. William Lane Craig says, "All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

(Of course you won't like Craig because he's a Christian)

If you want to believe that the majority of the NT wasn't in circulation during the lifetime of eyewitnesses, be my guest. Can you show why they wouldn't be?The only option you would have is to use very Liberal dating.

On the contrary. The fact htere is 'liberal dating' at all proves Craigs statement 'All NT scholars say blah blah blah' is incorrect. Of course, the place he teaches as a statement of faith that says

The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

That is precisely one of criteria I said would be for peopel who are ultra conservative. They have a preassumption. Isn't it intresting you use as an example precisesly the type of person I already said I wouldn't trust??

On the other hand, other , more mainstread scholars, such as Father Raymond E. Brown ,a Catholic priest, will disagree. (See, I am using a Christian for my source, a catholic priest as that). Or, don't you think Cathoics are Christian (that attitude does exist).

nor do you have who the eyewitnesses are

Mary Magdelene, Two women returning from the tomb, Emmaus disciples, the 11 Apostles, multitude of 500, Paul, among others. Some on multiple accounts spanning over forty days. Paul was a hostile witness at the time that persecuted Christians. He then became one of the most prolific Christians.

If there were no eyewitensses, how could they 'refute' it? The 'eye witnesses' would always be someone else.

There were eyewitnesses and we know who they were. With the exception of the 500 hundred. As mentioned Paul basically said go and check it out for yourself regarding them. Why would Paul put himself in such a position? Give up his former life to profess Christianity when he was persecuting Christians not long before. Anyone could have gone to the 500 and gotten counter testamony to the resurrection sightings. Why didn't the Jews do this? Why didn't the Romans?

As for Paul, a lot of people have 'spiritual' experiances where they hear voices. If you notice about Paul, he never met or experianced "jesus" in the flesh. He only heard voices after Jesus was gone. I don't know about you, but in these current days, when people talk about hearing voices in the head, I think about schizophrenic episodes.