Trace for the 'historical' Jesus Christ.

[Kingpoleon]

Here in Germany/Austria I have nearly never seen anyone even try to claim John date before the first decade of the 2nd century (putting John mostly in the 110-130 range)...

The German branch of Biblical studies, with the notable exception of Martin Hengel and Helmut Koester, is rather infamously fringe when compared to Anglo-American scholarship.

[Kingpoleon]

Arguing against the historicity of Jesus is Alex Jones or QAnon level fringe lunacy. Just give it up. And forget for a second that we do have pretty decent evidence that he existed outside the Gospels in the form of writings by Josephus and Tacitus. Just use some common sense and ask yourself which is more likely: That there was some guy named Jesus/Yeshua who preached around Israel in ancient times, was executed by the Romans for causing trouble at the temple, and developed a cult following that intensified after his death, or that his whole life was some bizarrely specific, elaborate fabrication by unknown people who decided to make up a fake martyr in a conspiracy to form a religion that at first nobody had any particular reason to believe would be successful?

And which religion is more likely to be successful, one made up completely out of thin air or one built by the disciples of a real martyr that the first believers had actually encountered? Who are people more likely to risk persecution including death to follow, a real man (mythologized in death though he might have been) or some figment of the imagination no one had heard of before he was pulled completely out of thin air?

There is as much evidence that he was real as there is of, say, Socrates. If you doubt it and the historical consensus, there is honestly very little of ancient history that you shouldn’t be skeptical of. Sources from that era are patchy and far from perfect across the board. Even the Gospels and Paul’s writings (which predate them, suggesting that he expected his audience to already know about and believe in the historicity of Jesus, BEFORE it was deemed necessary to write accounts of his life) can’t be totally written off as historical documents; there are others we depend on that come from biased, unreliable sources and which contain legends, myths, and implausible tales mixed in with more credible historical accounts.

None of this is to imply that the tales of miracles or resurrection in the Gospels are true, or even that the teachings ascribed to Jesus all necessarily came directly from him, or that all the details of his life that happen to fit understandings of Jewish messianic prophecies of the time are true. That’s a matter of faith and spirituality. But credible historians all believe he existed in some form for good reasons.

Some recommended readings:
Christobiography by Craig Keener
Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? by Michael Licona
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd edition by Richard Bauckham
Jesus of Nazareth by Maurice Casey
The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders
The Historical Jesus by John D. Crossan

Casey and Crossan present a more minimalist view, while Keener presents the definitive maximalist text and Sanders a centrist view. Bauckham and Licona engage more in source analysis than the other four do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I strongly doubt that Q was a singular source text. Rather, Q represents the sayings attributed to Jesus that circulated orally through the early church. The idea that an authoritative and consistent tradition requires written sources, especially early in the church, when there would've been little chance for divergence, is unlikely.

Q is a written source as Luke and Matthew manage to copy it verbatim throughout. It would be impossible for their wording to be so exact if they were working from merely similar oral sources. Furthermore the relative sequence of the sayings is often in agreement, which is again impossible to explain if Matthew and Luke were writing down similar oral traditions.  

Also, if one thinks the Q sayings are early, then Matthew and Luke have used the exact same translation into Greek from Aramaic. Not that I think Q has many Aramaisms, but as an aside.

Even if one assumes Q was written, that doesn't imply that it was a singular text. Moreover, it's entirely possible for an oral tradition to remain consistent. The translation argument is slightly more persuasive, but not conclusive, since it would be unlikely for someone aware of one translation to retranslate it, even if one knew both languages.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Even if one assumes Q was written, that doesn't imply that it was a singular text.

I suppose? Q is assumed to be a single text because it's parsimonious, it's more likely Matthew and Luke were working from one sayings text in common rather than three or four. Assuming Q is multiple texts isn't necessary to explain anything about it, as it seems to have a coherent literary character - Mark is a single text that if we didn't have we could reconstruct most of from the other synoptics.

Moreover, it's entirely possible for an oral tradition to remain consistent.

I don't think you understand. It's not simply that Matthew and Luke are so consistent in their wording as to sometimes be virtually identical (e.g. Matthew 11:20-23 and Luke 10:13–15), but that almost half of the stories from Q are presented in the same relative order in Matthew and Luke:



This agreement can only be explained if Matthew and Luke were copying from an ordered text, not unordered circulating oral sayings, in which case there would be very little sequential agreement.

[John Dule]

Arguing against the historicity of Jesus is Alex Jones or QAnon level fringe lunacy. Just give it up. And forget for a second that we do have pretty decent evidence that he existed outside the Gospels in the form of writings by Josephus and Tacitus. Just use some common sense and ask yourself which is more likely: That there was some guy named Jesus/Yeshua who preached around Israel in ancient times, was executed by the Romans for causing trouble at the temple, and developed a cult following that intensified after his death, or that his whole life was some bizarrely specific, elaborate fabrication by unknown people who decided to make up a fake martyr in a conspiracy to form a religion that at first nobody had any particular reason to believe would be successful?

And which religion is more likely to be successful, one made up completely out of thin air or one built by the disciples of a real martyr that the first believers had actually encountered? Who are people more likely to risk persecution including death to follow, a real man (mythologized in death though he might have been) or some figment of the imagination no one had heard of before he was pulled completely out of thin air?

There is as much evidence that he was real as there is of, say, Socrates. If you doubt it and the historical consensus, there is honestly very little of ancient history that you shouldn’t be skeptical of. Sources from that era are patchy and far from perfect across the board. Even the Gospels and Paul’s writings (which predate them, suggesting that he expected his audience to already know about and believe in the historicity of Jesus, BEFORE it was deemed necessary to write accounts of his life) can’t be totally written off as historical documents; there are others we depend on that come from biased, unreliable sources and which contain legends, myths, and implausible tales mixed in with more credible historical accounts.

None of this is to imply that the tales of miracles or resurrection in the Gospels are true, or even that the teachings ascribed to Jesus all necessarily came directly from him, or that all the details of his life that happen to fit understandings of Jewish messianic prophecies of the time are true. That’s a matter of faith and spirituality. But credible historians all believe he existed in some form for good reasons.

Some recommended readings:
Christobiography by Craig Keener
Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? by Michael Licona
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd edition by Richard Bauckham
Jesus of Nazareth by Maurice Casey
The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders
The Historical Jesus by John D. Crossan

Casey and Crossan present a more minimalist view, while Keener presents the definitive maximalist text and Sanders a centrist view. Bauckham and Licona engage more in source analysis than the other four do.

Either synthesize their writings into your own words or don't bring it up at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think you understand. It's not simply that Matthew and Luke are so consistent in their wording as to sometimes be virtually identical (e.g. Matthew 11:20-23 and Luke 10:13–15), but that almost half of the stories from Q are presented in the same relative order in Matthew and Luke:



This agreement can only be explained if Matthew and Luke were copying from an ordered text, not unordered circulating oral sayings, in which case there would be very little sequential agreement.

Not really. The synoptics all use the same basic ordering of the events of the ministry of Jesus and as a general rule the sayings fit best with certain events. If you want to show how the sequence of Q sayings demonstrates that Q was a singular source, it would be necessary to show, if possible, how Matthew and Luke use a similar order that differs from Mark.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Not really. The synoptics all use the same basic ordering of the events of the ministry of Jesus and as a general rule the sayings fit best with certain events.

Very often Matthew and Luke will move Q material around in different places to each other to fit events in the ministry of Jesus that the synoptics have in common, yes. The clue is that they keep a large chunk of the non-narrative Q material in the exact same relative sequence, which is impossible to explain if the authors were remembering unordered oral sayings. There is no narrative reason why the sign of Jonah saying should be put after the saying praising John the Baptist, for example, but they're in the same relative order in both Matthew and Luke. The amount of coincidences in the order like this can't be explained if both authors were simply writing down oral sayings as they came to them, only if they had been ordered by a text.

 

If you want to show how the sequence of Q sayings demonstrates that Q was a singular source, it would be necessary to show, if possible, how Matthew and Luke use a similar order that differs from Mark.

Mark is irrelevant. Q is the material Matthew and Luke share that isn't in Mark, so by definition Mark doesn't have a similar or different order to the material.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you can't see why a reference to Jonah has relevance to baptism, I don't think I have the skill to help you realize that.

Mark provides the narrative framework for all the synoptics, so if Matthew and Luke had the exact same departure that would be strong evidence of a common singular source.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If you can't see why a reference to Jonah has relevance to baptism, I don't think I have the skill to help you realize that.

But the two pericopes are in separate chapters in both Matthew and Luke, separated by other maaterial including the Beelzebub accusation and the woes to the cities from Q. The point is the relative sequence over long stretches, indicating that the authors were copying a text that had already been ordered, not unordered oral sayings that they happened to put in the same order despite little relation over several stretches of non-narrative material.

[Figueira]

Which is more likely: a bunch of people decided to make up a fictional character to base a fringe religion around, and both believers and non-believers of that religion began writing about him as if he was real, or a religion developed around an influential person who actually existed?

[Torie]

Now that I "know" that Jesus actually existed, here is my low effort contribution this thread. What did he look like? Personally, I do prefer the "traditional," "hippie" look, but that is just me.


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you can't see why a reference to Jonah has relevance to baptism, I don't think I have the skill to help you realize that.

But the two pericopes are in separate chapters in both Matthew and Luke, separated by other material including the Beelzebub accusation and the woes to the cities from Q. The point is the relative sequence over long stretches, indicating that the authors were copying a text that had already been ordered, not unordered oral sayings that they happened to put in the same order despite little relation over several stretches of non-narrative material.

The chapter and versification of the Bible is an editorial addition to make referencing easier, not anything to do with authorial intent.

Not really. The synoptics all use the same basic ordering of the events of the ministry of Jesus and as a general rule the sayings fit best with certain events.

Very often Matthew and Luke will move Q material around in different places to each other to fit events in the ministry of Jesus that the synoptics have in common, yes. The clue is that they keep a large chunk of the non-narrative Q material in the exact same relative sequence, which is impossible to explain if the authors were remembering unordered oral sayings. There is no narrative reason why the sign of Jonah saying should be put after the saying praising John the Baptist, for example, but they're in the same relative order in both Matthew and Luke. The amount of coincidences in the order like this can't be explained if both authors were simply writing down oral sayings as they came to them, only if they had been ordered by a text.

 

If you want to show how the sequence of Q sayings demonstrates that Q was a singular source, it would be necessary to show, if possible, how Matthew and Luke use a similar order that differs from Mark.

Mark is irrelevant. Q is the material Matthew and Luke share that isn't in Mark, so by definition Mark doesn't have a similar or different order to the material.

The non-narrative parts of Q are still thematically tied to particular points of the ministry of Jesus, hence my assertion that any gospel using the Markan framework for Jesus's ministry will include Q material in roughly the same spots.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The chapter and versification of the Bible is an editorial addition to make referencing easier, not anything to do with authorial intent.

Chapter and versification is not the issue. The issue is if the identical relative sequence of 40% of the Q material in Matthew and Luke is to be explained by that order making perfect narrative sense, then what is that sense? In the previous example of the praising of John the Baptist being placed before the sign of Jonah in both Matthew and Luke, that the two may be theologically linked by baptism doesn't explain anything about their relative order being separated by reams of Q and non-Q material, or their place in the narrative in either gospel (e.g. the saying about the sign of Jonah is before the Transfiguration in Matthew and after it in Luke), or why John the Baptist had to be praised before Jesus could mention the sign of Jonah and not after, etc. etc..

And this is just two Q sayings taken at random. There's so much that has to be explained for it to be the case that all 35 Q sayings in the same relative order could only have been ordered by an author in that sequence that it would take immense effort. But if Matthew and Luke were just copying the order of a Q text independently, then it makes perfect sense.    

The non-narrative parts of Q are still thematically tied to particular points of the ministry of Jesus

No, they are not. Because....

hence my assertion that any gospel using the Markan framework for Jesus's ministry will include Q material in roughly the same spots.

Matthew and Luke use a majority (60%) of the Q material in different sequence. An example is Luke 6:29, a saying which Luke inserts into his Sermon on the Plain and Matthew omits from his Sermon on the Mount and puts in a completely different context (Matthew 15:14). If the Markan framework is sufficient to explain the material that is in the same relative sequence, then why is the majority not?

If Matthew and Luke are not copying from an ordered text (or each other), then one has to explain why 60% of the material it was acceptable for the two authors to independently order differently, while it also made perfect sense for the two authors to independently order 40% of the material identically. The only way to do this is with ad hoc reasoning.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Matthew and Luke use a majority (60%) of the Q material in different sequence.

Which to me sounds like a good argument against Q being a singular text, and all I'm arguing is the weaker proposition that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Q must necessarily have been a singular text.

An example is Luke 6:29, a saying which Luke inserts into his Sermon on the Plain and Matthew omits from his Sermon on the Mount and puts in a completely different context (Matthew 15:14). If the Markan framework is sufficient to explain the material that is in the same relative sequence, then why is the majority not?

Because some sayings fit multiple similar themes such as using the injunction to turn the other cheek to both present it as an alternative to "an eye for an eye" in one gospel and to illustrate the command to love thine enemies in the other.

If Matthew and Luke are not copying from an ordered text (or each other), then one has to explain why 60% of the material it was acceptable for the two authors to independently order differently, while it also made perfect sense for the two authors to independently order 40% of the material identically. The only way to do this is with ad hoc reasoning.

Latinisms will get you nowhere, because they are primarily obfuscatory rather than necessary. It is reasonable to presume that some sayings have only a single best fit within the Markan narrative, but others do not. This presumption is refutable, but would take far more analysis than I care to engage in for what is ultimately a trivial point. (Said analysis might make for a good doctoral thesis for a theologian.) For ultimately, I see no particular philosophical, theological, or historical implications arising from whether Q was a singular text or not.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Which to me sounds like a good argument against Q being a singular text, and all I'm arguing is the weaker proposition that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Q must necessarily have been a singular text.

Well no, because it's entirely explicable that when copying from Q Matthew and Luke would have reordered sayings, just as they reordered material from Mark differently.  

I don't think it's totally provable that Q was a text, only that it's the most likely and the most parsimonious explanation for the double tradition material. Obviously since we don't have Q nothing about it will be proven beyond doubt, just to be favoured on the balance of probabilities.

It is reasonable to presume that some sayings have only a single best fit within the Markan narrative, but others do not.

The point is that a major chunk of Q sayings stay in the same order even as the Markan narrative has been reordered by Matthew and Luke, e.g. as I mentioned with the Transfiguration above (and not even mentioning how the narrative is changed by material unique to Matthew and Luke). So the sayings naturally fitting in the same place in a Markan framework can't explain the identical relative sequencing.

This presumption is refutable, but would take far more analysis than I care to engage in for what is ultimately a trivial point. (Said analysis might make for a good doctoral thesis for a theologian.) For ultimately, I see no particular philosophical, theological, or historical implications arising from whether Q was a singular text or not.

Okay.

[Kingpoleon]

Either synthesize their writings into your own words or don't bring it up at all.

I will always recommend books to Jesus mythicists because most of them got hooked up by Carrier’s book - probably the only book I’ve ever read which I thought deserved to be banned, and I once read half a book by Judith Butler.

[John Dule]

Either synthesize their writings into your own words or don't bring it up at all.

I will always recommend books to Jesus mythicists because most of them got hooked up by Carrier’s book - probably the only book I’ve ever read which I thought deserved to be banned, and I once read half a book by Judith Butler.

This isn't a classroom, and you're not in any position to assign homework.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

You can believe in Ossurary BB oxes because Jesus Tomb has been found with James son of Joseph, Jesus himself and Mary Magdalene, or you can believe he Resurrected, but all Religions believe in the Astral plane and one day there will be Judgement, or Reincarnation, religion teachers you how to live your life