Jesus' Historicity: the data is prejudiced!!!

[liamconnor]

Question: Did later powers manipulate the data so that what we have regarding Christianity is biased, and by no means historically representative of the earliest movement beginning shortly after Jesus' death?

This is a common attack on the N.T.; these books were 'chosen' from a huge collection of books which tell a different story. I.E. ALL BOOKS ABOUT JESUS HAVE THE SAME HISTORICAL VALUE..............whether some are dated to within 50 years of Jesus, or some are dated to within 150 years of Jesus.

The gospel of Mark (that is, the earliest manuscripts of Mark) have no HISTORICAL priority over the gospel, of, say Peter.

As Bart Erhman would say, the gospels are the most reliable documents for Jesus history; not, of course, because they are special, but only because they are early.

Comment?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I am surprised at your candor liam.
There is one fact that makes the reasonable person come to that very conclusion.

The Counsel of Nicea created a baseline of what we know of the Bible today.
But in so doing they destroyed all prior copies and letters. Why?

They claimed to destroy the most important documents in history.
Unlikely.

So no matter what the original dates were claimed to be, we can never know the veracity of the reproductions.

Sad, but true.

[Divine Insight]

Comment?

Personally I see huge problems with the historical account of the Gospels.

Just look at the timeline:



After Jesus had died clearly "Christianity" began as a religion. Yet it could not have had any official documentation at that time because nothing had yet been written. So at that point in time it could only have been word-of-mouth rumors.

The writings of Paul came first. And before Paul became Paul he was Saul. And during that period of his life he was persecuting "Christians". Also much of Paul's writings were supposedly written to Christian Churches. These Churches could not possibly have been based on the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John, because those Gospels hadn't even been written yet.

So then AFTER all this we finally have Mark writing down what Jesus supposedly said 50 years earlier. So Mark's Gospel is a recall of oral rumors that had been circulating for half a century. Yet Mark writes as though he's right there recording every detail like an extremely alert reporter. Sometimes being a "fly on the wall" recording conversations that are extremely unlikely that he would have been witness to.

Then about 10 years later we have Matthew clearly expanding on the work of Mark and adding additional new things. Matthew also makes various claims that are specific only to Matthew and not found anywhere else.

Then another 10 years pass and Luke retells Mark's original story and tells it even differently yet.

Finally, after yet another decade, John finally steps in and decides to write a radically different story entirely.

And notice also that Jesus increasingly becomes more and more divine as the decades pass. Precisely what would be expected if these tales were being continually elaborated upon.

So to be perfectly honest with you this appears to me to be precisely how I would expect superstitions to evolve. And not at all how I would expect an omnipotent God to convey his message to humanity.

In fact the question that begs answering: Why didn't Jesus write down his own message himself?

If God's message to mankind is so important that our eternal fate depends on us getting it right, why leave it up to mortal men to write it over decades so that it appears to be exactly how superstitious rumors evolve?

How could this God blame anyone for rejecting convoluted and disagreeing hearsay rumors from authors who can't even be verified?

We're supposed to believe this stuff lest we'll be cast into hell?

Sorry, but this screams of being a man made scam.

So much so, that I can't even understand how anyone can fall for it to be perfectly honest with you.

[rikuoamero]

Deleted

[marco]

Question: Did later powers manipulate the data so that what we have regarding Christianity is biased, and by no means historically representative of the earliest movement beginning shortly after Jesus' death?

Biased, certainly. What emerged was a distillation of the ideas in the gospels and an interpretation that suited a purpose, as seen in the Nicene Creed. Did Jesus say he was consubstantial with the Father or restrict heaven's divinities to three-in-one? I recently dipped into "Not Paul, but Jesus", by the social reformer Jeremy Bentham. He points out that Jesus had nothing to say about condemning gayness and he was remarkably tolerant towards the adulteress, in contrast to the attitude that emerged in Christianity and its confused offshoot, Islam. Paul's teaching, rather than Christ's, prevailed. Jerome and Aquinas echoed Paul. The Inquisition did not come from any advice Christ offered but from distortions of his message.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Did later powers manipulate the data so that what we have regarding Christianity is biased, and by no means historically representative of the earliest movement beginning shortly after Jesus' death?

According to professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University Hector Avalos, the New Testament we have today is essentially the creation of the Christian church. We need to keep in mind that over most of the history of Christianity the church had exclusive access to the books of the New Testament and was free to change those books as it saw fit. We have evidence that the canonical books of the New Testament are only a very small portion of the Christian writings that existed in the early stages of Christianity. So the New Testament we have today represents what survived from the church's many battles over orthodoxy. So yes, the "data" has been altered to fit the beliefs of those Christians who in one way or another defeated their doctrinal foes.

This is a common attack on the N.T.; these books were 'chosen' from a huge collection of books which tell a different story. I.E. ALL BOOKS ABOUT JESUS HAVE THE SAME HISTORICAL VALUE..............whether some are dated to within 50 years of Jesus, or some are dated to within 150 years of Jesus.

Some scholars have dated the composition of the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas to as early as 40 CE. If that date is correct, it would have been written earlier than any of the canonical gospels. If you wish to argue that earlier writings are more likely to be authentic than later texts, than this noncanonical gospel would be more likely to be authentic than the canonical gospels.

As Bart Erhman would say, the gospels are the most reliable documents for Jesus history; not, of course, because they are special, but only because they are early.

If the gospels are the most credible texts for the history of Jesus, then that's not saying much. The epistles, which were probably written earlier than the gospels, portray an unearthly Jesus who is "known" not through any eyewitness accounts but through scripture and revelation. It is only later that Jesus is brought down to earth by the gospels. We then see an evolution of Jesus from a purely heavenly being to a man who presumably lived on the earth.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Great post!

And notice also that Jesus increasingly becomes more and more divine as the decades pass. Precisely what would be expected if these tales were being continually elaborated upon.

On this point I must respectfully disagree. As you say the gospels were written after the epistles. In the epistles Jesus is a divine or quasi-divine being who lives and acts beyond the earth. The gospels later bring Jesus down to earth as a man albeit a divine man. So a Jesus as a man who walks the earth comes after he is portrayed as a god. Jesus was in effect euhemerized or placed into history by the gospel writers.

In fact the question that begs answering: Why didn't Jesus write down his own message himself?

Of course, there are many possibilities. One possibility is that he never existed to write anything.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Question: Did later powers manipulate the data so that what we have regarding Christianity is biased, and by no means historically representative of the earliest movement beginning shortly after Jesus' death?

The same question can be asked of them that declare he did exist, only don't it beat all, they can't show he did.

This is a common attack on the N.T.; these books were 'chosen' from a huge collection of books which tell a different story. I.E. ALL BOOKS ABOUT JESUS HAVE THE SAME HISTORICAL VALUE..............whether some are dated to within 50 years of Jesus, or some are dated to within 150 years of Jesus.

ALL claims regarding Jesus suffer from the inability to show he existed.

The gospel of Mark (that is, the earliest manuscripts of Mark) have no HISTORICAL priority over the gospel, of, say Peter.

For not the one of 'em can show he actually existed.

As Bart Erhman would say, the gospels are the most reliable documents for Jesus history; not, of course, because they are special, but only because they are early.

There's claims of dragons and vampires and all sorts of beings that came along long 'fore it is I did. That fact don't mean they're truthful, accurate, or any such as that.

Comment?

A claim showin' up early don't mean it's true. That's the logical fallacy called argumentum ad it showed it up earlium.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

The question is not about the intrinsic value of the gospels for historical research, but about its relative value: are the gnostic gospels equally valuable?

It is, granted, a rather academic question and may not interest everyone.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

Biased, certainly. What emerged was a distillation of the ideas in the gospels and an interpretation that suited a purpose, as seen in the Nicene Creed.

So you disagree with Ehrman that "earlier" = 'better for historical inquiry'? You would view the gnostic gospels (written late) as being 'just as good'?

The rest of your points are interesting but not pertinent.