Bauer was the ideological founder of the Dutch Radical School. Yet Bauer was worth more than them all and did more than all of them regarding a question which interests us Socialists: the historical origin of Christianity… It is clear that if spontaneously arising religions… come into being without deception playing any part, deception by the priests soon becomes inevitable in their further development.
But, in spite of all sincere fanaticism, artificial religions cannot, even at their foundation, do without deception and falsification of history. Christianity, too, has pretty achievements of which to boast in this respect from the very beginning, as Bauer shows in his criticism of the New Testament… And, if almost nothing from the whole content of the Gospels turns out to be historically provable—so that even the historical existence of a Jesus Christ can be questioned—Bauer has, thereby, only cleared the ground for the solution of the question… Bauer also gives very valuable data on the causes which helped Christianity triumph and attain world domination.
Loman finds no evidence of the Paulinae before Marcion and considers the epistles to be Gnostic treatises. The Jesus of Christianity is an ideal symbol, a non-historical construction. Steck was a Swiss scholar and ally of the Dutch School. He branded all the Pauline epistles as fakes and supported Pierson and Naber. Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer, was accused of high treason on the basis of documents forged by the military. His multi-volume Paulus was published The first volume dates the Acts of the Apostles to CE and argues that it was dependent on several writings including those of Josephus.
The other two volumes were about Romans and 1st—2nd Corinthians. Draws extensive parallels between Christ and Krishna. Harnack insisted on absolute freedom in the study of church history and the New Testament and that there be no taboo areas of research. He rejected the historicity of the Fourth Gospel in favor of the synoptic accounts. While Harnack denied the possibility of miracles, he argued that Jesus may well have performed acts of healing that seemed miraculous.
Harnack sought to show that Christianity, properly understood, is the religion which Jesus taught and practiced. All the rest is addition to, or unnecessary complication of, the essential thing. Loisy and other modernists objected that Christian teaching was never simple, and that from the beginning Christianity saw the presence of God in Jesus. The Messianic Secret German edition. Was wissen wir von Jesus? Also: Die Entstehung des Christentums transl. Kalthoff saw Christianity as a social psychosis.
He criticized the romanticist and sentimental image of Jesus as a Great Personality of history, one developed by German liberal theologians including Schweitzer. The early Jesus movement combined the Jewish apocalyptic belief in a Messiah with the socialist hope for reform and a better world. Salm PDF. Shows the unsuspected gnostic background of Iron Age religion which informed both early Judaism and then Christianity. With this change, control of the Sorbonne Univ. Of Paris and many other institutions of learning passed out of the hands of conservative interests.
Albert Schweitzer. De Evangelische Jozua. Dutch version. English summary. This was accomplished by Alexandrian Jews after 70 CE. As a result, up to the year of his death the elderly Loisy could not even get a haircut in his home village Loisy , p. Loisy had been ordained a priest in but, due to his modernist views he published under a series of pseudonyms. He never doubted the existence of Jesus and, in the late s, engaged in an acrid exchange with Couchoud regarding this question. This German historian and philosopher demonstrated that no independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus has ever been found outside the New Testament writings.
Drews was a German teacher of philosophy at a Technische Hochschule. He never secured a position as university professor due to his controversial views. For him, Jesus Christ never existed and Christianity was the syncretism of sundry mythologies. Robertson, T. Whittaker and America W. Smith , and in turn Drews influenced P-L. Couchoud, G. Wells, and others. He elicited strident mainline opposition in the West e.
Times , while his ideas were sympathetically promulgated in the Soviet Union via Marx and Lenin. Van Eysinga concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the Pauline writings before Marcion contra Harnack. Unlike his teacher van Manen, van Eysinga rejected the historicity of Jesus. Reinach pointed to the poverty of documentary evidence regarding Jesus, particularly in the gospels.
He endorsed the docetist view of Jesus, basing himself on the Pauline epistles some of which he accepted as authentic. Arthur Drews. Drews, The Christ Myth. This book sparked violently negative and critical reactions worldwide. Main entry for Drews above, year Main entry for Smith above, year German translation. It is characteristic that for almost a century the first edition appeared in numerous English printings, while the more complete second edition with the important chapters 22 and 23 on Jesus mythicism was universally overlooked, until it finally became available to the English reader from Fortress Press , ed.
In any event, Schweitzer hardly offers an impartial assessment of the mythicist thesis but launches into extended philosophical digressions and consistently sides with the tradition while, at the same time, admitting that the tradition has nothing firm upon which to stand. Robertson, Dr. Drews, and Prof. Conybeare was an Orientalist and Professor of Theology at Oxford. For him, the texts show a gradual deification of an existing human source. GMk is a poetic retelling of the astral mythical journey of the sun god dressed in Tanakh robes… The order of the tales strictly follows the astral-mythical cycle.
The Enigma of Jesus intro. Couchoud received degrees both in medicine and in philosophy. Between and he was the de facto leader of the French rationalist school as regards the history of religion. For Drews, Gnosticism is undeniably pre-Christian and has both Jewish and gentile roots. The Wisdom of Solomon already contained Gnostic elements and prototypes for the Jesus of the Gospels: God is no longer the Lord of righteous deeds but becomes the Good One. A clear pre-Christian Gnosticism can be distilled from the epistles of Paul, who is recklessly misunderstood by those who try to read into it any elements of a historical Jesus.
The conversion of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles is a pure forgery inspired by various Tanakh passages. The pauline epistles are from the pens of Christian mystics dating to the middle of the second century. Paul is thus the strongest witness against the Historical Jesus hypothesis. Main Drews entry above, year Explore Now. Buy As Gift. Overview One of the most fundamental axioms of Christianity is the faith in the historical existence of Jesus, in his miracles, his martyrdom on the cross and his resurrection as described in the New Testament.
Product Details. Average Review. Write a Review. Related Searches. An Introduction to God. Speaking to non-believers and believers alike, Fr. Andrew Damick attempts to create a sacred space Andrew Damick attempts to create a sacred space in which we can encounter God. In this compact volume, he distills the essence of the traditional Christian faith, addressing the fundamental mysteries of where View Product.
An Introduction to Zen Thought. A thorough academic survey of Zen by a practitioner later to be a master. Puts Zen into its historical contexts evolving from Buddhism and influenced by Yoga, Taoism, Confucianism, technology, modernity, and into the future. Explores Zen schools, humor in Christianity and World Religions: An Introduction to the.
He engages these worldviews from a Christian perspective, first by showing how the biblical authors engaged other religions and then by surveying the Regarding Fitzgerald, I also left the following comment on his blog years and years ago, which he never responded to in any meaningful way. It touches on some of the areas you covered. But there are other problems that arise in your discussion that I think deserve an airing. The text is heavily, heavily, fragmented you can see the 14 remnants in F.
All we know is that he critized several foreign cults and the Jews- which was a common practice in Roman intellectual circles to pick a few groups and -rhetorically- spear them. Presenting Seneca as offering an extensive indeed you claim every known! Christians should have loved a text that attacked Jews and pagans…It is also the only Senecan text we would expect to mention Christianity, the disappearance of this particular book out of well over a hundred surviving writings of Seneca seems suspiciously like the work of snubbed Christian monks.
You even mention a fact that should have precluded you from assuming that Monks destroyed it. Indeed, your argument seems to hang on assuming the medieval process of producing books. I mean there is even a book by Dionigi Vottero that collects the fragments from lost books from Seneca! We can also have a discussion about your obvious lack of knowledge about Arrian, Sextus Empiricus etc. I recall your exchange with Fitzgerald at the time. It was remarkable that most of your points seemed to bounce straight off him. Like many Mythicists, his self esteem and high regard for his own knowledge far outruns his actual capacity for anything resembling scholarship.
I want to do myself a favor and study the problem of contemporary references in further depth. Would you be willing to recommend some excellent sources? You recommended the late Raymond Brown. I appreciate the recommendation. I also say this to encourage you: your work on this page is definitely having in impact! Unlike some Christian scholars e. Wright , he goes where the evidence leads rather than starting with a faith position and trying to find ways to make the evidence fit it.
Thanks for writing this, but you covered that ground already. Also mysticism is something of a dead horse by now. I think I asked you to review it already. I see this argument from silence every single time I see Jesus mentioned as a historical figure. Every single time. I see what you mean. But I apparently fell prey to typical mind fallacy to think what is obvious to me now is obvious to everyone. I am reviewing his work, either in a scholarly journal, or if I make a more extended review somewhere online. His work on ancient science is not terrible, but it is extremely slanted, and surprisingly he is not really that well acquainted with a lot of scholarship in this area.
To give you two examples he repeatedly insists Christians were to blame for the lack of preservation of ancient philosophical texts from the Stoa, Peripatetic etc schools. That is nonsense. Any reasonable scholarly work will tell you it was the dominance of Platonism in the third-fourth centuries that meant the writings from others schools were abandoned. For example read Michael Frede, or Richard Goulet.
Carrier though never mentions that. The ideology that seeks to erase him from history however is still a problem. Like the anti-evolution shit. Yes the case against Jesus existing is dead. The ideology that ultimately seeks to erase him from existence was created by the Christian religious right. You cannot be surprised if people lash out against against that hateful ideology.
I agree with Tim. A Christian apologist would have a field day with the claim he should have wrote about the alleged Massacre of the Innocents by Herod. Why should he mention something unflattering about his friend Herod. He was also friends with Herod Archelaus, why would he mention something unflattering about his father? Lastly almost all of his works have been lost?
There goes the rest of my Saturday morning…. I similarly doubt that rapper DMX ever actually communicated with God like he claimed on those Prayer tracks-X is similarly a figment of my imagination. In Weezy we trust. Carrier is a known liar, or a delusional fool. Probably just a liar. He lies about what the text says. Just using the language of Carrier.
It really destroys his theory whether he likes it or not if his interpretation is wrong. Without it, he is left with a bunch of bizarre conspiracies about how the evil Christians wiped out any trace of the original church. Not only does it not say what Carrier says it does, but actually confirms otherwise. GDon did an excellent review on the AoI, but definitely looking forward to your take on it.
Carrier recently called NT scholar N. I would love to see him say that in front of scholars like Dom Crossan or the late Marcus Borg. Another way of Carrier showing himself to be a complete fool. His poor scholarship aside, he is a very odd and deeply unpleasant little man. I applaud your patience in dealing with his rants. History is important, and mythicism is a growing problem on the internet. Why in the world should anyone trust his interpretations on complicated Greek texts? And then there is his strange staccato syntax, whereby he chops up his sentences.
Like this. All the time. Like, for emphasis. Or something. He still has his wide-eyed fan club, but his name get as many boos and as cheers these days. They remind me of Ken Ham followers. There is a divergence between the Ethiopic and the Slavonic versions of the Ascension of Isaiah at the point where the descent of Jesus brings him to earth.
But that would be pure speculation. And it would be complete lunacy to base a theory of Christian origins on these speculations. Furthermore, The Ascension of Isaiah is not a document which tells us how Christianity began. It does not claim to tell us this. There is nothing in it about events that were happening around AD But what was the context? In what circumstances did people begin to receive revelations?
The answer is in Acts, which tells us that the revelations began after the death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no such historical source. This is the approach of a complete crank. Firstly, the implication of the text is that someone could experience a vision of the heavenly Christ and yet the vision remains a secret for centuries. The vision on its own is not enough to launch a Jesus movement. A second point is apparent in this extract from chapter three of the text:.
Notice that this starts in a way that might seem congenial to mythicists. It talks about the Beloved descending from the seventh heaven and then taking on human likeness. But then come the allusions to historical facts, such as the twelve disciples and the crucifixion before the Sabbath. So there is an important lesson here. When someone speaks in a way which might imply that Jesus is a celestial being, we cannot assume that this person would not have known about the historical Jesus.
Incidentally, that excerpt is not from chapter eleven, where there is the textual problem. So no one could say that one person wrote the first half of the paragraph and another person wrote the second. We know that from the beginning that there was considerable hostility between orthodox Jews and the new Christian sect.
However, we find no Jewish sources in those early centuries that deny the existence of the person proposed by the Christians as the son of God. If Jesus had not existed, there would have been plenty of Jewish sources pointing this out if it were true. And the aforementioned execution of James the just actually occurred during the early adulthood of Flavius Josephus. Actually, even with those things, they have no force at all.
One can search standard modern histories in vain for reports of even the most charismatic, popular preachers about whom signs are reported — say, Mark Driscoll, or some folks I have met personally. Since the feast of Shavuot Pentecost was the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, the incident must have taken place at about this time. Why would this incident have had to have happened at Pentecost? In the Middle East barley ripens before wheat and is ripe as early as the beginning of April.
No, your argument lacks logic. Yes, you can. Barley requires somewhat more threshing and winnowing than wheat, but if you claim they physically could not have done with ripe barley what the gLuke account says I can only suggest you find a field of ripe barley and try it. You can. But your arguments are not really very compelling. A lot of mythers are former Christian fundamentalists. They went from the absolute conviction Jesus rose from the dead to the absolute conviction Jesus never existed.
Basically these guys cannot handle nuance. I know the mythers would never admit it but part of me thinks the reason they go the myther path is they are deep down afraid that fundamentalist Christianity is true; so they take the biggest whip to it.
Oh no, there's been an error
As long as Jesus lived it is possible the views they now loathe are true; so from a psychological perspective Jesus must go. Fundamentalist Christianity is psychologically abusive I still got nightmares from it so perhaps mytherism is simply a psychological defensive measure. Financial gain in the case of Carrier is also a factor.
If he is, he needs to get a new scam. He can barely sustain his current below-the-poverty-line existence via his paltry Patreon income. What other reason could there be? Idk, with the poor saps who keep giving him money and all. He gets validation for his unique genius by couch surfing around the country preaching his thesis to his fanboys. When you add audiences of convinced believers to that mix, it makes for a heady cocktail, especially for a narcissist like Carrier.
Hmm I dunno. His entire blog is covered in advertisements for his overpriced self-published books. They see everything in black-and-white. I used to be a fundamentalist too but, in my early 20s, I started evolving into a more mainstream Evangelical. These apostates have never left the stadium in search of greener grass; they have merely switched teams. They now bat for the team that they formerly opposed.
They may be atheists but the fundamentalist mentality remains. He is also a preterist. Him calling someone else a fundamentalist is like the pot calling the kettle black. We have talked before online around You used to be a fan of James Patrick Holding he apparently got his name legally changed so it is his name now and William Lane Craig. You stopped being a fan of Holding when you saw him get skinned alive by Farrell Till.
I was raised a religious fundamentalist and became a skeptic around the age of It was pretty easily till I was The love bug bit me big time; unfortunately it was with a Christian fundamentalist. We both admitted we would have gotten married had things been different. I am a bookish person by nature so I went through a period of basically trying to convince myself skepticism was wrong by studying apologist like Holding, Craig and NT Wright.
Jesus Christ never existed. It was a rough time in my past, and I really blamed myself for while however in the end I realized things really were not my fault. I grew up. I reexamined everything I thought I knew. What more could I do? I certainly did not like Christianity for awhile but more and more I put that aside as I realized Christianity is far far bigger than the fundamentalism I grew up with. I still consider myself a skeptic but I learned atheists are often times no more open minded then the fundamentalists and it is just not the religious who have caused human misery.
I kept on growing up. I stand up to bigots of all stripes now,not just the religious ones. I do agree with you some simply are black and white thinkers. Others are simply twits. Ones such as Carrier are self deluding frauds. I guess I was being kind by saying Holding got skinned alive. I would more say he was crucified, skinned alive and set on fire by Farrell Till. Then dissolved in acid. Then diluted in water. The water then was split into hydrogen and oxygen. So Holding make fun of anyone for being a fundamentalist is rich indeed.
Hey Tim, what do you normally say to those who claim that eye witnesses are not evidence, because humans are fallible, they are prone to many fallacies, and they can wholehearted believe in what they say as they spread a lie. That the amount of eyewitness to the Loch Ness monster or Big foot is not evidence for either, only for the incredulity of the witnesses.
This is even more relevant when we are talking about supposed eye witness accounts of things which are extremely improbable, such as the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. There are usually much better explanations for what they think they saw. Do you think it would be rational to expect a contemporary source for the resurrecting, miracle working Jesus.
Just curious. Philo I suppose. Paterculus maybe. The more spectacular ones — calming the storm, the Transfiguration etc. So what would a Roman or Greek historian somewhere else in the Mediterranean hear? That some peasant was faith healing and performing exorcisms in a backwater region of an eastern province and there was talk he had raised a couple of people from the dead?
Maybe that there was a rumour that he had risen from the dead and flown off into the sky? Or do you have sort of a mixed view on it? I see it the same way as I see all kinds of other ancient texts — indications of what people centuries ago believed. Some of it is very beautiful, some of it contains genuine wisdom, some of it is rather alien and some of it is repugnant. I could say the same about the corpus of Old Norse texts as well.
Or texts from Sumeria. A rationalist can mentally separate the ancient texts from the way they have been interpreted and look at them for what they are. I agree with you but at the same time see this as somewhat apples versus oranges. Nobody to the best of my knowledge is using the Gilgamesh, Beowulf or the writings of Homer to justify oppressing people.
We have it used as a weapon to attack science. If Wiccans gained such power in the US and tried to use their um sacred scripture to abuse people people such as me would hit their sacred texts just as hard. On a related note, would you say the JEDP theory has any merit at all or is it just another conspiracy theory like mythicism that many New Atheists jump onto because they think it disproves Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?
Jesus mythicism vs. Jesus historicity: an argument in favour of the latter
OT studies is not my area, but as far as I can tell the composition theory you mention is fairly old fashioned, though modern scholarship still accepts multiple authorship of and several layers in the first five books of the Bible. Only Protestant conservatives of the fundamentalist type resist this perfectly sensible idea. And no, since it is off-topic here, I am not interested in further discussion. If their atheism leads them to be intrinsically hostile to religious belief, sure. Even if we accept the maximal portrayal of Jesus in the gospels, letters, etc, he was still, as you say, a man who never moved more than a few days journey from his hometown, and whose fame during his lifetime extended maybe a few dozen kilometers beyond that.
Given the general contempt among Romans for Jews, to expect the average educated Roman to be particularly interested in the life and death of a Jewish preacher is roughly equivalent to expecting a British Colonial Governor to care about an African witchdoctor from Outer Wogistan. Jesus was important to his family, friends, and followers, a fairly small group of people. Even then, for a long time, it was just regarded as another Jewish sect. Tolerated, but generally disdained. All good points. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful.
No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Maybe Einstein only considered Jesus as a much greater human than this characterization with no supernatural aspects as he did not believe in a Christian God.
I pay attention to Einstein on physics. On the historicity of Jesus he was about as informed any average, well-read person in the early twentieth century, and his opinion carries little weight as a result. As such, we would still expect there to be scant evidence or interest for a Jewish peasant preacher performing miracles on the periphery of the Roman world. The next two sentences from Einstein in that interview would seem to confirm that Einstein did not consider Jesus to have supernatural characteristics, but did believe he was an historical figure with wise moral teachings:.
Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus. Even if some of them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he. If mythicists have conceded, as most of them do, that a Jesus movement started at just the time that you would expect if Jesus really existed, then the argument from silence has already failed. The question then is not why there is silence, but whether the Jesus who is being talked about is the same Jesus as the one we think it is.
There are a variety of Mythicist positions on many things, but most have to concede that we have no evidence of any Jesus sect prior to the second half of the first century AD — i. Can you? If Jesus actually performed real exorcisms and Einstein must have read of this, it surely would have raised questions in his mind he probably would not want to openly discuss.
The End is Nigh – for Jesus, that is
Who would? The issue is really not whether Jesus the person existe, but rather the mythology that grew from the stories of his alleged deeds.
- Jesus Mythicism: An Introduction.
- Dynamics of Dissipation.
- Dyes and Pigments;
- Miscegenation: Making Race in America.
- Laser Raman Gas Diagnostics;
- Jesus Mythicism: An Introduction by Minas Papageorgiou | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble®.
- Grossdeutschland. Guderian’s Eastern Front Elite.
His divinity is the mythology. Those who are spending time establishing the probability of his existence are ignoring all the real work before them in favor of the low fruit. Just a note: Tacitus does appear to refer to the burial of towns around Vesuvius in the prologue to his Histories 1. Of course, this still would not be a contemporary reference, since Tacitus was writing decades later. Just a small point. The main point though is that we have no references to the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum at all, contemporary or otherwise. Tim, You say we have no contemporary references concerning the destruction of Pompeii.
Have I failed in understanding the context of what you wrote concerning the destruction or is Pliney the Youngers eyewitness account of Vesuvius not considered contemporary? Sorry, am I missing something? Thank you, Jarrod. I read it several times. So what am I missing? While most of the mainstream Mythicist have been mentioned and deservedly bashed upon the rocks of rationalism, no one has seen fit to introduce the Lord Mythicist Supreme, Robert Price Almighty, into the conversation.
IMO, if there is anyone out there dancing for dollars, it is the esteemed Dr. It appears to me that Price persued Bart Ehrman for months before their debate finally took place. Then enter the Mythicist Milawaukee group , who also saw dollar signs, and the fiasco finally took place. I have never seen or heard the entire debate as for several months, the only way to do so was to line the coffers of Mythicist Milwaukee. We all have an opinion that can not at this time be proven.
They most likely would not have given any notice to some mendicant street hawker that knew enough slight of hand tricks to woo a crowd. Now if there had been actual miracles, as in people being healed, raised from the dead, or had there been an earthquake with Zombies roaming the streets, you can bet your sweet buttocks, that would have been noticed and recorded.
You claim something is a moot point, only to remain unmoot about the particular point. I just find it ironic that you spend a considerable effort in an area that you have declared supposedly moot. Why waste your time on the flying spaghetti monster? Jarrod, my not so moot point was that those claiming to know have little evidence one way or another. However if there had been some great miracle worker, there would have been some mention of him within the time frame of Jesus alleged existence. As to the flying spaghetti monster, I never mentioned that icon that some atheist adopt.
That makes about as much sense to me as wearing a replica of a medieval torture device. Come again? Or another? Not believing in Jesus as the son of God and a miracle worker is one thing. However, Jesus of Nazareth existence is a very well settled fact of history. Its vague. Very original Cate, very original. You forgot the pink unicorn and the Martian teapot. We have as much evidence as we would expect for a Galilean preacher in 1st century Judea, Messiah or no Messiah. The evidence Mythicists demand is more than that of any other so no amount would satisfy you.
Hello, sorry for my English. I have a question. What are the most accepted date of the composition of each gospel. Thank you. Casey made plenty of other arguments which would not be acceptable to a Christian apologist, including his wholesale — and surely correct — rejection of the historicity of John. But not that. The references to the destruction of the Temple in gMark are not explicit precisely because the writer is trying to make the reference without making it explicit.
And the Caligula idea is pretty strained as well, since the threat to the Temple there seems to have been fairly brief and involved its desecration, but not its physical destruction. It simply means the author got it wrong. Fair enough. Implying of course that they were both translating from an Aramaic text. It seems to me that that would also explain why no trace of the Q-text survives. I gather he makes a persuasive case. To be clear, I am the same David as above — I have expanded my username to differentiate myself from the other David who posted below.
Sorry for the digression. However, there is no mention of the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in any of the gospels. This is for me a piece of evidence that says that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were originally composed prior to 70 ad. Jesus makes prophetic comments concerning the destruction of the temple circa 27 to 30 ad, and if the gospels were composed after 70, it is probable that at least one of them would have said so. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by Titus in 70 ad, was no small matter. They tend to be anchored on the Two Source Hypothesis and the cryptic but very likely references to the Jewish War in Mark Since the Rylands Fragment of gJohn is dated to the early second century AD, that forms a terminus ante quem for gJohn, though exactly what that is depends on whose dating of the Rylands papyrus you accept.
Most works put it at c. Yes, there is. You say…. Meaning that it had not happened yet. It is mention being destroyed prophetically in Mark But not in the sense that it had been actualized. You cite, Mark Are you saying you think Mark 13 is written after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad? The passage as read is clearly prophetic. And Jesus answering said unto him Seest thou these great buildings?
And the Mark 13 passage clearly states that they had just exited the temple.
Its destruction is mentioned only prophetically. Jarrod: Do you really think that John is dated earlier than 70 AD? That strikes me as a very radical view given its developed theology and highly legendary nature. Yes, I know. You asked about the consensus dates for the gospels and I gave you a summary of the reasons for them. As I said, the terminus post quem for gJohn is 90 AD and the temrinus ante quem is whenever we date the Rylands fragment to.
That is often given as AD, but that is the earliest possible date and, as I said, there are good arguments for it being later. And I noted that there is such a mention, by way of prophetic references by Jesus. Jesus is depicted as speaking these words then. Whether he actually said anything like them is another question. To be clear, Jarrod did not ask the question about Casey — I did. Thank you for the Kirby link below. I should just clarify that this David is a different David from me. Perhaps I should have chosen a more distinctive username! Yes and that is why I said it was my opinion that it was written pre 70 ad.
And I disagree with you, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the gospels were written pre 70 AD by omission of the destruction of temple. And, you take a stance, that you almost know for sure that Mark was originally composed after 70 ad, based on what? Arguments of authority? And the omission of the temple destruction is perfectly reasonable deduction to earlier date the gospels. The reason why it was left out, I opine, is because Mark and Matthew were already in circulation, in the early churches of Turkey, Syria, Greece, Rome, etc before the temple destruction.
Paul was instructed to go take the gospel to the gentiles, pre 70 AD actually circa 33 ad, and no one has any proof to the contrary. The reason being that somehow the author was worried about reprisal from the roman Government? That does not follow, nor can you really infer cryptic intent of the author in this case, except to take the quotes at face value. That in fact, Jesus was warning his Jewish temple goers about a sign of tribulation that was to come, similar to the abomination of desolation spoke by Daniel the Prophet that had already come to pass. That this type of thing was going to happen again.
The Jews knew their own history regarding the temple. Jesus was explicitly warning them, it happened once, and it is going to happen again. That statement concerning the temple makes no sense to you or I, unless a student of historical prophecy, and it certainly would not have had any meaning to the new, non Jewish Christians in Turkey, Greece, Rome, and Asia post 70 ad.
Christians do not and never have sacrificed. It was a prophetic warning to those whom it mattered the most. Telling Christians about temples and abominations that make desolate means nothing, especially if the temple was destroyed many years previously. The phrases are not covert, rather a reaffirmation of what was written by Daniel years previously. Also not true. It could be that Jesus made an accurate prediction of the coming destruction of the Temple without this being anything mystical. Some such predictions happen to turn out to be true, after all, even if only by luck or coincidence.
So it is possible that the gospel was reflecting this and was written pre AD. You need to pay much more careful attention to what I actually say. Just arguments that make sense. The fact that they are accepted by the majority of scholars is beside the point, but should indicate something about what arguments are most persuasive to the widest range of scholars. This is a clear reference to Daniel , which in turn refers to a very specific form of desecration of the Temple — the worship of pagan images within the Temple compound.
And we know this happened in August 70 AD, when the Romans deliberately set up their standards in the ruins of the Temple and sacrificed to them to profane the site for the Jews, before demolishing the building. And, again, the oblique reference to it makes most sense in a post AD context. Your argument depends on Jesus actually having supernatural access to knowledge of future events.
Jesus Mythicism: An Introduction
I am still open to the possibility that Jesus made some kind of prediction about a coming destruction of or retributuion upon the Temple and so I am even open to the idea that gMark pre-dates 70 AD. With regard to the dating of Mark there seem to be good arguments on both sides, as discussed above.
Do you know of any scholars who do so? It claims to have been written during the exile, but almost all scholars date it to the Maccabean period, mid second century BC. JAT Robinson — Hardly an evangelical and definitely a scholar argued for the primacy of John and placed it before 70, thus pulling the rest of the NT into the first century. Just look at the reaction Bauckham got for his Jesus and the eyewitnesses in which he dared to pull at the tablecloth of form and redaction criticism that underlies most NT scholarship including that of the Jesus Project which applies ludicrous levels of scepticism about the sources that would never be applied to other ancient texts by reputable historians.
People may indeed build on existing ideas rather than reworking everything from scratch, but if there was a really solid case for the primacy of gJohn, there would be many people who would just love to embrace that idea, for theological reasons if nothing else. So JAT first of all has to demonstrate that his method is more reliable than the common one regarding the Gospel of Johannes.
Unfortunately many sensationalists regarding history do not specify, let alone test their method but instead want others to accept their own assumptions at face value. Yes, I meant to type , I did not query…… Should be a good mini lesson for us in textual criticism! Just curious about your response to his technical criticisms i. Yes, I will be responding, though largely because the few points he manages to fit in among all the weird hysteria are so remarkably weak. I do hate internet psycho-drama, so I will not bother much with the hysterical parts, other than to note how bad it makes him and his creaking thesis look.
I do have a couple of other, much more interesting articles in draft though, so I think I will publish at least one of them first while it is still relatively topical. Yes — you are wise in the ways of the net. It is unfortunately now normal for online debates, and it is arguably sadder than any of the other unfortunate aspects of this scene.
At best it is an argument from silence, which is unconvincing unless there is reason to believe that the 3 synoptic gospels would have mentioned every single religious pilgrimage Jesus took.