Jesus Myth Theory

[d.thomas]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

[theopoesis]

THANK YOU! This is something I have been saying for YEARS now on assorted threads. In fact, Justin never quoted ANY NT writings...period.

Catalyst

It has been something you are saying for years, and yet every time I've challenged you on it, you're retorted with "I'll get to a response, but I'm busy. Give me a few days." Well, in some cases, it has been years.

[Student]

However it is incorrect to assume from this that the gospel must have been in circulation for a long time to achieve this degree of distribution/acceptance. The evidence from the secular papyri shows that personal documents could travel great distances in a very short period of time e.g. Asia Minor to Alexandria [800 miles] in two months, so it would not be impossible for copies of John to circulate the length and breadth of the Empire in less than a year.

And longevity was not always required for documents to be promoted as authentic e.g. Irenaeus accepted the Pastoral Epistles as authentic even though these cannot have been in circulation much before the middle of the second century.

The issue is not simply how far a manuscript could have travelled or whether an individual might be inclined to believe something, but how the work might come to be accepted as authoritative in such diverse sects and locations - from gnostic to orthodox, from Gaul to Assyria and Egypt - in such a short time-frame compared with the synoptics it's ranked alongside.

You make an assertion but fail to acknowledge that the same fact therefore applies to the Pastoral Epistles. They also became authoritative in a short period of time. If they could be accepted as canonical, within a relatively short period of time, why not the Gospel of John?

> Additionally (as we've previously discussed) the appendix's apology for the "beloved disciple's" death and affirmation of Petrine leadership (21:15-23) simply don't make sense unless they were written shortly after the alleged disciple's death, which would strain credulity even in the early 2nd century.

I don’t recall discussing these verses with you, or anyone else for that matter! Perhaps you could explain why it should make more sense if it were written shortly after the ‘beloved disciple’s’ death?

The tradition that Jesus would return soon, and that his hearers would not all die before his return goes back to Paul's epistles and Mark's gospel. John's appendix obviously downplays that expectation, painting it as some kind of misunderstanding. No-one downplays an expectation which does not exist, and that expectation could not have existed in the mid 2nd century. So the passage (which goes on to imply knowledge of the beloved disciple's authorship of the gospel) was most likely written shortly after the alleged disciple's death. We discussed this and these other points in this thread:
Likewise John 21:15-23 only makes sense if someone believed to be the 'beloved disciple' had lived sufficiently long after the others' deaths and after the Jewish Revolt to become the remaining sign and hope of Jesus' expected return. After even he had died, the author of the appendix downplays that failed expectation and reaffirms Petrine leadership of the church.

Thank you for providing a link. The reason I don’t recall it is that I specifically chose not to respond to it. Now you have drawn attention to it I will remedy that defect.

You are expressing an opinion, but you do not provide any evidence to support of your statement. In effect you are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion. You assert that John 21:15 - 23 only makes sense if the author of John “had lived sufficiently long�, but you fail to provide any evidence in support of your claim. Just because ‘it makes sense’ to you does not mean that it must ‘make sense’ to anyone else, or that it must be true.

> Furthermore (again previously discussed) the anachronistic comments about Jesus' followers being put out of the synagogue and associated polemic against "the Jews" most likely reflects precisely that; Jewish communities dissociating themselves from Jewish Christians, which would probably be in the 80s or 90s CE as Judaism began to more clearly define itself without its temple.

Presumably, in the immediate aftermath of the expulsion, and for several years there-after, those Christians who had previously worshiped in the synagogues would have known that the expulsion only took place long after Jesus’ death. Certainly there would have been a growing antipathy towards their Jewish neighbours at the perceived injustice/slight but the perception, that the situation had prevailed since Jesus’ time, would only be possible when the Christian community was almost entirely composed of people who had never worshipped in the synagogue, or were too young at the time of the expulsion to remember. Consequently the verses could only have been authored, and been accepted as reflecting the truth, after a significant passage of time i.e. many decades after the event.

Sure, if we suppose that mid 2nd century Christians were less likely to know that Jesus' disciples continued in the synagogues, and if we suppose that John was written and intended to be read in strictly literal/factual terms. Both very dubious points from where I'm standing; knowledge of Acts or any of the synoptic gospels (or even Paul's epistles) would have confirmed that there was no great ostracism of early Jewish Christians, and those sources became more widely known over time, not less. Similarly the opening verses, long and detailed dialogues and great divergence from the synoptic gospels all suggest that John was neither written nor intended to be read as a strictly literal/factual account. That peculiarities in the stories usually reflect the authors' own time and concerns is a fundamental principle of any literary analysis. It would be very strange to abandon it here.

Well I agree that literary content is often indicative of the author’s time and location. There are exceptions of course, such as where the author deliberately constructs his story to imply a different time and place such as in the epilogue to John.

In John we encounter a fully Hellenized Christ far removed from the Jesus of the Synoptics; the Christology is far more developed than in the Synoptics, there are expressions of a divinity not a million miles from Gnostic mysticism; and the characterisation of Jesus as the cosmic Lord leaves John open to the accusation of naïve docetism. All indicative of the second century religious milieu that produced Justin’s logos theology.

> And again (which, our readers may or may not be surprised to learn, we have talked about previously) the author of John displays some knowledge of the period of construction work on the temple (19 BCE to c.28 CE, cf John 2:20) which would be remarkable of any mid 2nd century author.

Given that many thousands had laboured on Herod’s reconstruction of the Temple, the scale and duration of the work would have passed into the folk lore of many communities. So it would have been common knowledge that the work started in 19 to 20 BCE and continued for another 80 odd years. Even if the author of John had been unfamiliar with the fine details of the project he could have learnt about it from Josephus (Ant. XV.11; BJ V.5). So it would be more remarkable for a 2nd century author not to know something of the details of the reconstruction of the Temple.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. How many 2nd century Christians read Antiquities of the Jews all the way through? Why would knowledge of the temple's construction be passed on for two generations after its destruction? I really think you're grasping at straws there. It's possible that a mid 2nd century author might have read when the temple was started and calculated when Jesus was around, but that knowledge is obviously much more likely of someone who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss.

I am amazed that you have the audacity to claim that I am clutching at straws when all you have done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. Why wouldn’t knowledge of the temple's construction have been passed on for many generations after its destruction? Wasn’t the Temple the most important symbol in Jewish life, the focus of the Jewish religion, a source of pride and deference? Was all memory of the Temple erased after its destruction? Well, according to you it was, with only someone who had seen the temple remembering the details of it’s construction. But where is your evidence supporting such a claim?

I have shown that someone else made a record of the details of the construction of the Temple. Just how likely would it have been that Josephus and John were the only two to have memories of the Temple and its construction?

If anyone is clutching at straws, it’s you.

So I reckon there's good reasons to believe that the gospel was written by a Jew believed to be a follower of Jesus, around the period in which rabbinic Judaism was forming and dissociating itself from Jewish Christians.

Here we go again, more unsubstantiated assertions. What evidence do you present to show that the author of John was a Jew or when or where the gospel was composed? Which bit of John was written by the Jewish John? The prologue? The bits in the middle, or the appendix? If John was Jewish, why does he use the term ‘the Jews’ in 60 verses, and invariably a disparaging context, but never ‘we Jews’?

You may choose to believe whatever you wish, however if you wish to debate the matter I would prefer that you offer up some evidence, rather than simply asserting your beliefs and your opinions.

[Mithrae]

The issue is not simply how far a manuscript could have travelled or whether an individual might be inclined to believe something, but how the work might come to be accepted as authoritative in such diverse sects and locations - from gnostic to orthodox, from Gaul to Assyria and Egypt - in such a short time-frame compared with the synoptics it's ranked alongside.

You make an assertion but fail to acknowledge that the same fact therefore applies to the Pastoral Epistles. They also became authoritative in a short period of time. If they could be accepted as canonical, within a relatively short period of time, why not the Gospel of John?

1 and 2 Timothy were evidently known to Polycarp in his epistle to the Philippians (c 120-140CE) and, besides a shaky inference from their exclusion from Marcion's canon (c140 CE), my very brief glance at the info showed me nothing which compels us to suppose a mid 2nd century date for them at all. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ suggests a possible range of 100-150CE without explaining that lower limit, but according to a not-very-neutral Wikipedia article:
According to Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997), the majority of scholars who accept a post-Pauline date of composition for the Pastorals favour the period 80-100.

Polycarp's unreferenced allusions to the pastorals can't be considered endorsements of their authority even remotely comparable to Tatian and Irenaeus' ranking of John alongside the synoptics, of course. So there may have been up to 90 years between the pastorals' composition and their endorsement by Irenaeus, and indeed without specific references I'm not sure how strongly even Irenaeus endorsed them.

The tradition that Jesus would return soon, and that his hearers would not all die before his return goes back to Paul's epistles and Mark's gospel. John's appendix obviously downplays that expectation, painting it as some kind of misunderstanding. No-one downplays an expectation which does not exist, and that expectation could not have existed in the mid 2nd century. So the passage (which goes on to imply knowledge of the beloved disciple's authorship of the gospel) was most likely written shortly after the alleged disciple's death. We discussed this and these other points in this thread:
Likewise John 21:15-23 only makes sense if someone believed to be the 'beloved disciple' had lived sufficiently long after the others' deaths and after the Jewish Revolt to become the remaining sign and hope of Jesus' expected return. After even he had died, the author of the appendix downplays that failed expectation and reaffirms Petrine leadership of the church.

Thank you for providing a link. The reason I don’t recall it is that I specifically chose not to respond to it. Now you have drawn attention to it I will remedy that defect.

You are expressing an opinion, but you do not provide any evidence to support of your statement. In effect you are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion. You assert that John 21:15 - 23 only makes sense if the author of John “had lived sufficiently long�, but you fail to provide any evidence in support of your claim. Just because ‘it makes sense’ to you does not mean that it must ‘make sense’ to anyone else, or that it must be true.

We're both just expressing opinions here. But let's remember that the Johannine literature claims to be the work of a witness of Jesus' ministry (1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 19:35) and that claim is confirmed by the appendix (21:24), so if anything it is your opinion that the gospel was written in the mid 2nd century which carries the greater burden of proof, particularly since I gather that's very much a minority view in contemporary scholarship. If you want to rule out all "arguments by assertion," the eyewitness claim stands regardless of whether or not early/mid 2nd century authors quoted the gospel.

John 21:23 does, very clearly, downplay the earlier expectation found in Mark etc. that a disciple would live to see Christ's return:
Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?�
No-one downplays an expectation that does not exist. And that expectation could not exist in the mid 2nd century. It's quite a simple, logical argument, and I'm not seeing you dispute any of those points. Unfortunately I don't have the advantage of being able to quote scholars' opinions in addition to my own opinion, but it seems obvious that this downplayed expectation (along with the re-affirmation of Petrine leadership) perfectly match a follow-up to the alleged disciple's death, and match the mid 2nd century very imperfectly if at all.

Sure, if we suppose that mid 2nd century Christians were less likely to know that Jesus' disciples continued in the synagogues, and if we suppose that John was written and intended to be read in strictly literal/factual terms. Both very dubious points from where I'm standing; knowledge of Acts or any of the synoptic gospels (or even Paul's epistles) would have confirmed that there was no great ostracism of early Jewish Christians, and those sources became more widely known over time, not less. Similarly the opening verses, long and detailed dialogues and great divergence from the synoptic gospels all suggest that John was neither written nor intended to be read as a strictly literal/factual account. That peculiarities in the stories usually reflect the authors' own time and concerns is a fundamental principle of any literary analysis. It would be very strange to abandon it here.

Well I agree that literary content is often indicative of the author’s time and location. There are exceptions of course, such as where the author deliberately constructs his story to imply a different time and place such as in the epilogue to John.

In John we encounter a fully Hellenized Christ far removed from the Jesus of the Synoptics; the Christology is far more developed than in the Synoptics, there are expressions of a divinity not a million miles from Gnostic mysticism; and the characterisation of Jesus as the cosmic Lord leaves John open to the accusation of naïve docetism. All indicative of the second century religious milieu that produced Justin’s logos theology.

All interesting points, but they don't address the fact that the author of John was obviously quite preoccupied with Jewish Christians being put out of the synagogues - and that is a point on which earlychristianwritings.com quotes scholars' opinions (and at least one strange opinion that the anachronism is inconceivable for an eyewitness; no-one ever said scholars were perfect ).

As for your other concerns, in Philippians 2 and elsewhere in Paul's letters we see that the view of Jesus as a fully-divine being come to earth went back at least to the 50s CE. Paul also provides the negative attitude to the 'world' and the 'flesh' and the mythical/spiritualized presentation of Jesus which (I would guess) provided the foundations for docetism and gnosticism in the late 1st/early 2nd century. While I believe the likes of Earl Doherty drop credibility by the wayside in proposing a wholly spiritual Christ from Paul's letters, his description of the resurrected body in 1 Cor. 15 is potentially open to that interpretation. Hence Luke's gospel - probably written by a companion of Paul c. 80-100CE - shares with John the quirk of having Jesus' disciples confirm his flesh-and-blood resurrection body (24:39).

In short docetism might be traced back ultimately to novel interpretations of Paul's epistles (as witnessed by Marcion's insistence on them) and could easily have begun to develop in the late 1st century. Both Luke and John seem in part to be reactions to this. I'm really don't know much about gnosticism, but given their use of the work I agree it's possible that some of John's ideas could have helped shape the movement; mere similarities don't automatically mean that the gospel was shaped by the movement! If you'd like to go into more detail on those points to correct any misunderstandings I have, could I request that we do so in old thread where I'm trying to collect all the arguments concerning the Gospel of John?

Given that many thousands had laboured on Herod’s reconstruction of the Temple, the scale and duration of the work would have passed into the folk lore of many communities. So it would have been common knowledge that the work started in 19 to 20 BCE and continued for another 80 odd years. Even if the author of John had been unfamiliar with the fine details of the project he could have learnt about it from Josephus (Ant. XV.11; BJ V.5). So it would be more remarkable for a 2nd century author not to know something of the details of the reconstruction of the Temple.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. How many 2nd century Christians read Antiquities of the Jews all the way through? Why would knowledge of the temple's construction be passed on for two generations after its destruction? I really think you're grasping at straws there. It's possible that a mid 2nd century author might have read when the temple was started and calculated when Jesus was around, but that knowledge is obviously much more likely of someone who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss.

I am amazed that you have the audacity to claim that I am clutching at straws when all you have done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. Why wouldn’t knowledge of the temple's construction have been passed on for many generations after its destruction? Wasn’t the Temple the most important symbol in Jewish life, the focus of the Jewish religion, a source of pride and deference? Was all memory of the Temple erased after its destruction? Well, according to you it was, with only someone who had seen the temple remembering the details of it’s construction. But where is your evidence supporting such a claim?

I have shown that someone else made a record of the details of the construction of the Temple. Just how likely would it have been that Josephus and John were the only two to have memories of the Temple and its construction?

I apologize. That wasn't intended to be an offensive comment. I meant specifically that the comment "it would be more remarkable for a 2nd century author not to know something of the details" seemed rather far-fetched.

I've lived the almost 29 years of my life in Australia - never even left the country. The first seven years I lived in an outback town, and visited family there several times since, and the last 19 I've lived in Brisbane. The greatest artificial landmark of my hometown is the mine - it's the reason there's a town there at all - and especially its smelteries' 'big stack' and 'little stack.' In Brisbane the most distinctive landmarks would probably be the 'batman building' which characterizes our skyline (black with twin spires atop) and perhaps the Treasury casino or Storey bridge. Australia's most distinctive artificial landmark would obviously be the Sydney Opera House. Yet for none of these still-standing landmarks could I give you the year or even decade in which their construction began!

Now obviously, as you note, prior to 70CE the Jewish temple was far more culturally important to Jews than any of those are to Brisbanites or Australians. Having been among those who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss, Josephus might even have known the year in which Herod began the temple upgrades simply from memory. But to suggest that this would still be common knowledge (even amongst Christians!) two generations after the temple's destruction... I'm sorry, but that is a very big assumption.

Like I say, a mid 2nd century Christian might possibly have read Josephus or some other information about the temple, and calculated when Jesus would have visited it. I don't deny that. But that knowledge is much more likely of someone who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss.

So I reckon there's good reasons to believe that the gospel was written by a Jew believed to be a follower of Jesus, around the period in which rabbinic Judaism was forming and dissociating itself from Jewish Christians.

Here we go again, more unsubstantiated assertions. What evidence do you present to show that the author of John was a Jew or when or where the gospel was composed? Which bit of John was written by the Jewish John? The prologue? The bits in the middle, or the appendix? If John was Jewish, why does he use the term ‘the Jews’ in 60 verses, and invariably a disparaging context, but never ‘we Jews’?

If the author were not even a Jewish Christian, then general knowledge concerning the temple would be correspondingly less likely. If memory serves you yourself in one thread quoted a scholar suggesting that John (along with Revelation and Mark) was among the most linguistically "vulgar/Semitic" of the NT documents, and I've read elsewhere (a 1970s Time magazine article from memory, citing William Albright) that there are striking similarities in terminology between John and some of the manuscripts from Qumran.

But more the point, the author's obvious preoccupation with Jewish Christians being put out of the synagogues is the big clue here, which I have been 'substantiating' at length. The gospel (like the synoptics) makes it abundantly clear that Jesus and his followers were Jews, observing the Jewish festivals and disdaining Samaritans. And contrary to popular myth, while he does seek to exonerate Pilate, John still seems almost sympathetic to the plight of the priests and Caiaphas, explaining their genuine concern that a Messianic leader would bring Roman wrath on their land and the divine plan which made Jesus' death necessary (11:47-52). Ironically (and disturbingly) it's in Matthew, the most overtly Jewish of the gospels, that we find "His blood be on us and on our children."

So there was certainly tension and even bitterness, between Jews who'd accepted Christ and those who had not. But that's no more reason to suppose (contrary to his claim as a disciple) that the author was not himself a Jew, anymore than Paul's tension with the judaizers suggests that he wasn't a Jew! On the contrary, the gospel itself clearly emphasises the reason for that bitterness; that 'the Jews' themselves were ostracising Jewish followers of Christ.


Hope this helps clarify my views, without giving undue offence

[Student]

1 and 2 Timothy were evidently known to Polycarp in his epistle to the Philippians (c 120-140CE) and, besides a shaky inference from their exclusion from Marcion's canon (c140 CE), my very brief glance at the info showed me nothing which compels us to suppose a mid 2nd century date for them at all.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ suggests a possible range of 100-150CE without explaining that lower limit, but according to a not-very-neutral Wikipedia article:
According to Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997), the majority of scholars who accept a post-Pauline date of composition for the Pastorals favour the period 80-100.

Polycarp's unreferenced allusions to the pastorals can't be considered endorsements of their authority even remotely comparable to Tatian and Irenaeus' ranking of John alongside the synoptics, of course. So there may have been up to 90 years between the pastorals' composition and their endorsement by Irenaeus, and indeed without specific references I'm not sure how strongly even Irenaeus endorsed them.

I’m sorry for the delay in posting a reply. Broken fingers play havoc with touch typing.

In my opinion, research should not consist of simply trawling th‘interweb and cherry picking those bits that suit our needs. There are practically no restrictions on what may or may not be published on a website and as a consequence wild and unsubstantiated opinions are often presented as fact. Even where more moderate views are expressed they are frequently lacking proper attribution or substantiation, and as a consequence represent a covert expression of the bias of their publishers. [Even you note apparent bias on Wikipedia] Accepting indiscriminately and uncritically the contents of these websites will almost inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions.

Unfortunately that is what your “very brief glance at the info� appears to be. For instance, the primary source of your information is a website that is not a recognised academic resource, whose author states that he has no relevant qualifications, who has done no original research and, although he acknowledges his indebtedness to Metzger’s book (The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance), he fails to be faithful to it.

Based upon the information contained on this website you write that the Pastorals were “evidently known� to Polycarp.

What then is this evidence that Polycarp “knew� the Pastorals?
Well, according to your source “The Letter to the Philippians has quotations (of approval) from these writings� [‘these writings’ in this case include 1 & 2 Timothy]. Obviously, if it can be shown that Polycarp quotes from 1 & 2 Timothy, then they would be “evidently known� to him.

However, Polycarp does not quote from 1 & 2 Timothy.

To be recognised as quotations, Polycarp would have to acknowledge the source of these sayings and alert his readers to their significance as apostolic in origin. But he doesn’t. He never writes “Paul says�, or “the apostle writes� or for that matter a simple comment, “it is written� in relation to his alleged “quotations� from 1 and 2 Timothy.

Secondly, a comparison of the Greek texts, of the relevant passages, shows that while there are certain similarities the respective texts are not exact copies, one of the other.

Your reference website uses English translations which conceal these differences. For example, your source presents Polycarp, at Philippians 4:1, writing “but the love of money is the beginning of all evils� as compared with 1 Timothy 6:10 “For the love of money is the root of all evil�.
On the face of it this looks very impressive, both sayings appearing to be very similar in that both attribute “all evil� to “the love of money�.

However, when we compare the Greek we see that this is a very contrived attempt at congruence:
Philippians 4.1 a. Ἀ�χὴ δὲ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλα�γυ�ία.
archē de pant�n chalep�n philarguria
“But beginning of all difficulties love-of-money�.

1 Ti 6:10 ῥίζα γὰ� πάντων τῶν κακῶν �στιν ἡ φιλα�γυ�ία
riza gar pant�n t�n kak�n estin hē philarguria
“For root of all of the evils is the love-of-money�

Both phrases are similar in that both refer to the consequences of φιλα�γυ�ία “love of money�, but whereas 1 Timothy refers to it being “the root of all the evils� Polycarp uses the much milder “beginning of all difficulties�.

Based upon this evidence the very most that can be claimed is that it is possible that Polycarp was alluding to 1 Timothy, however even that is predicated upon the unsubstantiated presupposition that the Pastorals existed prior to Polycarp’s letter and that they had gained a sufficiently wide circulation for Polycarp’s readers to recognise the allusion.

Alternatively, in the absence of any evidence of a first century provenance for the Pastorals, it is not un-reasonable to conclude that: “the linguistic agreements between the Pastorals and Polycarp prove no more than they both stood in the same ecclesiastical and cultural tradition�[Kummel; Introduction to the New Testament; p.261].

In other words both Polycarp and the author of 1 Timothy may have been drawing upon common Christian themes and sayings of that time.

However, we cannot be certain exactly when “that time� was. We have no indication of the date of Polycarp’s letter except what can be inferred from its contents; and here we meet with a dilemma. “On the one hand, the allusion in chapter 9 to Ignatius and his follow-martyrs as having ‘run their course’ and being ‘in their well earned place at the Lord’s side’ implies that the fact of their death was already known to Polycarp. Later on, however, his request in chapter 13 for the latest news of them suggests that they were still on their way from Philippi to Rome. This apparent contradiction prompted P.N. Harrison in 1936 to put forward the attractive theory that our present text is in reality a combination of two quite different letters. In this assumption chapter 13 is the earlier of these, being no more than a brief covering note to enclose the documents requested by the Philippians, and written before Ignatius and his party had time to reach Rome. The preceding 12 chapters would then represent a very much later letter, written some twenty five years afterwards on the occasion of a crisis in the Philippian church. (Maxwell Staniforth; Early Christian Writings; pp. 142 -142)

If this hypothesis is correct, then even if there are allusions to the Pastorals in Polycarp’s letter, there is no indication that they were available to him [Polycarp] at the time of Ignatius’ martyrdom i.e. c.107CE, but perhaps very much later, according to Staniforth, c. 132CE, some 25 years later.

You go on to refer to “a shaky inference from their exclusion from Marcion's canon�. That the Pastorals were not listed in Marcion’s canon c.140CE is not in any doubt. However there is absolutely no evidence that Marcion ever knew of the Pastorals, or if they even existed at that date. Marcion makes absolutely no reference to the Pastoral epistles what-so-ever, therefore to say he “excluded� them is highly pejorative, transforming conjecture into fact. It is the fallacy of begging the question.

Regarding your, or rather R. E. Brown’s comment that “the majority of scholars who accept a post-Pauline date of composition for the Pastorals favour the period 80-100�. In the absence of any specific evidence to substantiate the claim, such as the names of those who comprise this “majority�, or how they arrived at their conclusions, this reference is just an appeal to authority and as such is worthless in-so-far as providing any evidence for a first century provenance for the Pastorals.

F.F.Bruce (The Canon of Scripture, p. 130) notes that “The earliest surviving copy of the Pauline corpus is the Chester Beatty manuscript P.46, written about AD200. Of this codex 86 folios are extant out of an original 104. It evidently did not include the three Pastoral Epistes.�
Bruce concludes that “The most natural inference from such evidence as we have [Marcion, P46] suggests that the original edition of the Pauline corpus contained ten letters only.� [ibid p.131]

This has lead to the suggestion that the Pastorals may have been written, in the second century CE, as polemics against Marcion’s work, “Antithesis�. For example it is intriguing to find in 1 Tim. 6:20:

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas [ἀντιθέσεις(acc pl), ἀντιθέσις, antithesis] of what is falsely called knowledge[γνώσεως(gen sg), γνώσις, gnosis]

Finally you say that you are “not sure how strongly even Irenaeus endorsed them� [the Pastorals]. For you to make such a comment suggests to me that you cannot have read Adversus Haereses. Had you done so you would have found, in the opening line of the preface to Book 1, a quotation from 1 Timothy 1:4, ascribed by Irenaeus to ‘the apostle’. Elsewhere in the same book we find [16. 3] "But as many as fall away from" (αφιστανται, 1Ti 4:10) "the Church and give heed to these old wives’ fables" (γ�αωδεσι μυθοις, 1Ti 4:7), "are truly self-condemned" (αυτοκατακ�ιτοι, Tit 3:1), all ascribed by Irenaeus to Paul (“whom Paul charges us after a first and second admonition to refuse").

Evidently Irenaeus considered the Pastorals to carry apostolic authority. It should be obvious that he would have found it difficult to refute Gnostic ideas using works that he did not consider authoritative.

Returning to the gospel of John, we do know from Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.11.9) that it was not universally accepted as authoritative. Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3.1-6. c. comments on a group [c.170CE in Asia Minor] later ascribed Alogi (Αλογοι) who rejected both the apocalypse and the gospel of John, attributing both to Cerinthus. Conversely Irenaeus considered John to have been written to counter Cerinthus.
Whether written by Cerinthus or as a counter to Cerinthus, both propositions necessitate a second century provenance for g.John.

Furthermore, while Tatian might have considered the gospel of John ‘authoritative’, in so far as he used John in his Diattessaron [c.170CE], it appears that the contents of his version of John differed from that employed by Irenaeus and that subsequently found the later canonical text.

Consequently it would appear that the textual content of g.John was in a state of flux throughout the late second century and that the version of John that eventually became part of the canon was not universally accepted until the third century CE. While Church tradition attributed the gospel of John to John, the beloved disciple, the son of Zebedee, it is by no means certain which version of John, if any, can trace its origins back to a Galilean fisherman.

[Ooberman]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

I think they shouldn't call it the Jesus Myth Theory, since those who believe in Jesus as God/Son of God are the ones who believe in the Myth.

It's like the term "magic". "Real magic" is actually false, whereas magic from a magician is real magic but called "fake magic".

[Student]

We're both just expressing opinions here. But let's remember that the Johannine literature claims to be the work of a witness of Jesus' ministry (1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 19:35) and that claim is confirmed by the appendix (21:24), so if anything it is your opinion that the gospel was written in the mid 2nd century which carries the greater burden of proof, particularly since I gather that's very much a minority view in contemporary scholarship. If you want to rule out all "arguments by assertion," the eyewitness claim stands regardless of whether or not early/mid 2nd century authors quoted the gospel.

Simply because an opinion is held by “a majority� does not of necessity make it true or reduce the burden of proof on that opinion. To claim that your position is correct simply on the basis that it is shared by a so called majority is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

And just who are they, this ubiquitous group, the “majority of scholars�? Who selects them; when and where do they meet; what are their qualifications and how many are required to form a quorum?

How many might be conservative/evangelical Christians with degrees in divinity or theology awarded by theological/religious institutions; how do these qualifications equip them to comment dispassionately on matters regarding the historicity of Jesus or the early development of Christian texts, when they are first and foremost men of faith?

How many earnestly desire an early date for g.John, so as to justify the claim [and to underpin their faith] that John might provide an independent eye-witness account of Jesus, his ministry and his disciples.

Take the late Raymond E. Brown [whom you quote] for example; erudite and scholarly, with numerous earned academic qualifications no doubt, but as an ordained Roman Catholic Priest can he be said to be an entirely objective, disinterested commentator when it comes g.John?

And if we discount committed Christians from our constituency might we not find that the idea, that the author of g. John is John the disciple, also to be “a minority view in contemporary scholarship�. So, by your own standards, the burden of proof is equally yours.

And your assertion that the claim to be an eye-witness account stands simply because that is what the document claims for itself is absurd. Did it never occur to you that that is exactly what a pseudonymous writer might do to convince his readers of the ‘authenticity’ of the document! No doubt there are those who still accept that the “Hitler Diaries� as being authentic because the ‘author’ claims to be one A. Hitler.

John 21:23 does, very clearly, downplay the earlier expectation found in Mark etc. that a disciple would live to see Christ's return:
Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?�
No-one downplays an expectation that does not exist. And that expectation could not exist in the mid 2nd century. It's quite a simple, logical argument, and I'm not seeing you dispute any of those points.

I can see why we cannot agree. You either do not understand your source material, or you choose to misinterpret it.

As any decent commentary on John will explain, John 21:23 does not refer to, or downplay “the earlier expectation found in Mark�. It refers instead to the saying in John 21:22 "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? [The οὗτος [houtos; this]as in οὗτος � λόγος in 21:23 refers to the saying near at hand i.e. 21:22]

John 21:23 is therefore a parenthetic aside removing any misapprehension that Jesus words in verse 22 were indicative of the beloved disciple remaining alive until the Parousia.

The need for Jesus to utter the words in verse 23 would only be necessary if John were written in the second century when it was evident to all and sundry that John had not survived until the still awaited Parousia.

Unfortunately I don't have the advantage of being able to quote scholars' opinions in addition to my own opinion, but it seems obvious that this downplayed expectation (along with the re-affirmation of Petrine leadership) perfectly match a follow-up to the alleged disciple's death, and match the mid 2nd century very imperfectly if at all.

While it may be ‘obvious’ to you, did it never occur to you that the evident lack of scholarly support might indicate a lack of evidence, from your “majority of scholars�, supporting your views?

[Student]

I apologize. That wasn't intended to be an offensive comment. I meant specifically that the comment "it would be more remarkable for a 2nd century author not to know something of the details" seemed rather far-fetched.

You apologise in one breath and insult me in another. And you have the audacity to claim my argument is far fetched! The very idea that the author of John was an eye witness, one of the 12 disciples, is the opinion that is far fetched. If the author of John is an eyewitness then it is as a witness to a different Jesus, in a different time and place to that portrayed in the Synoptics.

I've lived the almost 29 years of my life in Australia - never even left the country. The first seven years I lived in an outback town, and visited family there several times since, and the last 19 I've lived in Brisbane. The greatest artificial landmark of my hometown is the mine - it's the reason there's a town there at all - and especially its smelteries' 'big stack' and 'little stack.' In Brisbane the most distinctive landmarks would probably be the 'batman building' which characterizes our skyline (black with twin spires atop) and perhaps the Treasury casino or Storey bridge. Australia's most distinctive artificial landmark would obviously be the Sydney Opera House. Yet for none of these still-standing landmarks could I give you the year or even decade in which their construction began!

Which is a sad indictment of your ignorance of Australian culture. (As I wrote the last phrase I recognised it to be an oxymoron and found it hard to keep a straight face)

Using the conditions and circumstances of a 21st century Australian to justify your conclusions regarding the situation in the middle east in the first couple of centuries is of course a nonsense. The prevailing social, cultural conditions and religious mores then are completely different to those in modern western society.

Now obviously, as you note, prior to 70CE the Jewish temple was far more culturally important to Jews than any of those are to Brisbanites or Australians. Having been among those who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss, Josephus might even have known the year in which Herod began the temple upgrades simply from memory. But to suggest that this would still be common knowledge (even amongst Christians!) two generations after the temple's destruction... I'm sorry, but that is a very big assumption.

It is no greater an assumption than that the author of John had ever seen the Temple – he certainly seemed to think builders rubble would still have been strewn around the inner courts some 30 plus years after their construction was completed!

Like I say, a mid 2nd century Christian might possibly have read Josephus or some other information about the temple, and calculated when Jesus would have visited it. I don't deny that. But that knowledge is much more likely of someone who'd had the chance to actually marvel at its beauty and mourn its loss.

Jospehus certainly provides evidence that knowledge of the reconstruction of the Temple was available in the second century; so it would not be necessary to have viewed the Temple to be in possession of such knowledge. As usual, all you provide are your opinions – what is your evidence that it is “much more likely� that the author must have seen the Temple? Given the turmoil in the region how likely is it that someone, supposedly an adult in Jesus time, would still be alive and sufficiently lucid to write John by the turn of the century?

If the author were not even a Jewish Christian, then general knowledge concerning the temple would be correspondingly less likely.

Why would that be so. Were the members of the Jewish Diaspora entirely reticent about the details of the reconstruction of the Temple? Would this intelligence not have been shared with the God-fearers who attended the synagogues of the Diaspora? Do you propose that it would have been impossible for gentiles to converse with their Jewish neighbours?

If memory serves you yourself in one thread quoted a scholar suggesting that John (along with Revelation and Mark) was among the most linguistically "vulgar/Semitic" of the NT documents, and I've read elsewhere (a 1970s Time magazine article from memory, citing William Albright) that there are striking similarities in terminology between John and some of the manuscripts from Qumran.

Metzger does categorise the gospel of John as being vulgar/Semitic. But “Semitic� does not, of necessity mean written by a Jew. It simply means that it contains syntax similar to Aramaic, and Aramaic was spoken from Asia Minor to the Euphrates to Egypt. The author of John could quite easily have been a Syrian or an Egyptian. Alternatively he may have consciously been trying to imitate the style contained in the Septuagint.

Other commentators do not consider John’s Greek to be particularly ‘Semetic’ in nature e.g. Colwell “The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Its Aramaisms in the Light of Hellenistic Greek� shows that the majority of the supposed Aramaisms are present in the secular papyri i.e. they are colloquial Koinē.

(Also the idea, that the author of John was influenced by the thought world of Qumran, although popular in the 60s, has been thoroughly discredited. (See Kümmel; pp.157-158))

But more the point, the author's obvious preoccupation with Jewish Christians being put out of the synagogues is the big clue here, which I have been 'substantiating' at length.

No, you have not been “substantiating� i.e. proving the truth of; you have simply been repeating your opinions.

The gospel (like the synoptics) makes it abundantly clear that Jesus and his followers were Jews, observing the Jewish festivals and disdaining Samaritans.

I’m not sure that I would concur with the term ‘abundantly’. I rather prefer the expression ‘reluctantly’ given that Jesus is identified as being Jewish on only three occasions.

Elsewhere Jesus refers to “the Jews� on no less than 61 times, generally in disparaging terms. He refers to "your Law", not “our Law�(John 7:19, 8:17, 10:34), "your circumcision", not “our circumcision� (John 7:22) and Abraham is "your father", not “our Father�. (John 8:56).

Consequently, the gospel of John appears to be by far the most anti-Jewish of all the canonical gospels; how rapidly the beloved disciple appears to have rejected his Jewish roots.

[Nickman]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

Was there a Jesus? Probably but most likely not the way as described in the gospels. There were many people named Yehoshua at the time.

There are some references of Jesus in antiquity but they are not first hand. They are second hand at best. Second hand can be valuable but only if confirmed by first hand knowledge.

Can the gospels e considered reliable on the subject? No. They are also second hand at best.

Did someone make up a story from scratch? Possibly but doubtful. It appears there was an embellishment from a more simple story. This can be seen in the gospels.

[Mithrae]

I’m sorry for the delay in posting a reply. Broken fingers play havoc with touch typing.

In my opinion, research should not consist of simply trawling th‘interweb and cherry picking those bits that suit our needs. There are practically no restrictions on what may or may not be published on a website and as a consequence wild and unsubstantiated opinions are often presented as fact. Even where more moderate views are expressed they are frequently lacking proper attribution or substantiation, and as a consequence represent a covert expression of the bias of their publishers. [Even you note apparent bias on Wikipedia] Accepting indiscriminately and uncritically the contents of these websites will almost inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions.

Howdy again Student, and thankyou for the detailed reply - sorry to hear about your fingers.

Our discussion has grown very broad, ranging from the tangential question of the Pastorals' date of composition, to the likelihood of 2nd century Gentile knowledge about the temple's construction vs. 1st century Jewish knowledge of it, to interpretation of the themes found both in the gospel of John and in its appendix. You believe that I have been insulting to you - I can see how you got that impression, and you have returned the favour so fair enough, no lasting harm done. You obviously have much more extensive knowledge of scholarly sources on these matters, so you are quoting scholars' opinions and pointing out the fact that I am not... again, fair enough. But put in those terms, the discussion becomes a little too deep for the likes of me.

So if we could keep it simple, may I ask what evidence you have that the gospel of John was written in the mid 2nd century? We discussed that somewhat in a previous thread and I attempted to briefly summarize that discussion in post 107:

• There are counter-arguments of course: That John calls Ananus the high priest during Caiaphas' term of office (though Josephus does the same); that John mentions 'Lake Tiberias,' and the great city Tiberius (founded in the early 1st century) must only have started to lend its name to the Sea of Galilee after the second revolt, not the first; BigRed's comments on the pool of Bethesda (though the verses he relies on are considered later additions, and the pool was perhaps a shrine to Asclepius even in the 1st century BCE)...

I've probably missed some points which you have raised in both the past and present, but obviously I do not find those arguments (or claims of antisemitism in the gospel) convincing. I'm sure we could go on indefinitely with me trying to further explain and search out scholarly endorsements of my reasons for supposing it was likely written by a late 1st century Jew, and you pointing out potential shortcomings of those arguments. But by the same token, I have not yet seen any good reason to accept your position either. So I'd be happy to agree to disagree, or I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have to support your views.

[Student]

I’m sorry for the delay in posting a reply. Broken fingers play havoc with touch typing.

In my opinion, research should not consist of simply trawling th‘interweb and cherry picking those bits that suit our needs. There are practically no restrictions on what may or may not be published on a website and as a consequence wild and unsubstantiated opinions are often presented as fact. Even where more moderate views are expressed they are frequently lacking proper attribution or substantiation, and as a consequence represent a covert expression of the bias of their publishers. [Even you note apparent bias on Wikipedia] Accepting indiscriminately and uncritically the contents of these websites will almost inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions.

Howdy again Student, and thankyou for the detailed reply - sorry to hear about your fingers.

Our discussion has grown very broad, ranging from the tangential question of the Pastorals' date of composition, to the likelihood of 2nd century Gentile knowledge about the temple's construction vs. 1st century Jewish knowledge of it, to interpretation of the themes found both in the gospel of John and in its appendix. You believe that I have been insulting to you - I can see how you got that impression, and you have returned the favour so fair enough, no lasting harm done. You obviously have much more extensive knowledge of scholarly sources on these matters, so you are quoting scholars' opinions and pointing out the fact that I am not... again, fair enough. But put in those terms, the discussion becomes a little too deep for the likes of me.

So if we could keep it simple, may I ask what evidence you have that the gospel of John was written in the mid 2nd century? We discussed that somewhat in a previous thread and I attempted to briefly summarize that discussion in post 107:

• There are counter-arguments of course: That John calls Ananus the high priest during Caiaphas' term of office (though Josephus does the same); that John mentions 'Lake Tiberias,' and the great city Tiberius (founded in the early 1st century) must only have started to lend its name to the Sea of Galilee after the second revolt, not the first; BigRed's comments on the pool of Bethesda (though the verses he relies on are considered later additions, and the pool was perhaps a shrine to Asclepius even in the 1st century BCE)...

I've probably missed some points which you have raised in both the past and present, but obviously I do not find those arguments (or claims of antisemitism in the gospel) convincing. I'm sure we could go on indefinitely with me trying to further explain and search out scholarly endorsements of my reasons for supposing it was likely written by a late 1st century Jew, and you pointing out potential shortcomings of those arguments. But by the same token, I have not yet seen any good reason to accept your position either. So I'd be happy to agree to disagree, or I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have to support your views.

Hello Mithrae

The fingers are still tightly bound together making touch typing nigh impossible and I find one-finger prodding much too slow – I tend to lose the thread by the time I’ve typed it.

I think that we have taken the discussion as far as we dare go on this thread – we are in danger of completely de-railing its theme (for which I accept full responsibility) as we have not once touched upon theories of Jesus as myth.

So, if it’s ok with you, may I suggest we decamp and discuss the dating of the gospel of John on another thread, though preferably when dexterity is fully restored and I’ve made inroads into a substantial backlog of work.

Tom.