3 ms·

Unlike the Hebrew Bible, which came centuries after Enuma Elish and other inherited traditions (that are universally acknowledged by biblical and historical cri

Unlike the Hebrew Bible, which came centuries after Enuma Elish and other inherited traditions (that are universally acknowledged by biblical and historical critics!), the Gospels were written merely 30 years after Jesus preached. This means that the traditions in the narratives of Jesus's life are the same traditions that Jesus himself was part of. Your criteria is thus completely backwards. That Jesus is attributed with apocalyptic sayings can only serve to prove his historical existence by the historical critical criteria of "social coherence," because Jesus lived in a time where the apocalyptic tradition was at its peak.

kstenerud 5y ago
The Gospel of Mark was written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus (during the time of the second Jewish war and the destruction of the second temple). The others were written 60-80 years afterwards. The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written), intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative. Most of the narrative linkages are understood by scholars to be pure invention to give continuity (or glue, if you will) for the far more important morals and teachings. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew most of their narrative portions from Mark (no need to reinvent the wheel, especially for something so unimportant next to the moral teachings and prophecy). The apocalyptic writing is understandable given the social and political circumstances it was written under (their utter defeat, the destruction of their temple, and the fact that their messiah still hadn't returned as promised to bring them the ultimate victory).
- interpenetrate 5y ago
  > ... intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, they did have to square reality with theology, so that their theology is at times threatened by reality. This threat means nothing personal to the historian qua historian (giving them the benefit that they can dispose of their religious or anti-religious inclinations), but it does reveal some important possibilities worth pursuing for history's sake. For example, Jesus is baptized by John in all four Gospels. But the baptism narrative contradicts a question that any first-time reader will naturally imagine: of what sins does Jesus need to be cleansed? Unsurprisingly, all four Gospels make an earnest attempt to undermine John the Baptist's authority. So why include the narrative? Maybe because it actually happened. We can say the same about Jesus being portrayed as violently confronting the money changers, or something like Matthew 19:17, or even the prevalence of women in Jesus's cohort, all which contradict various theological values of the Gospel writers that are discernible through textual criticism. This is just yet another criteria in the method of historical Jesus research, albeit one of the more artistic ones. > The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written) ... Many sources indeed... All lying about the existence of a man who was allegedly widely known by both rural and urban Jews and crucified by edict of the state? The hoops you have to jump through to hold fast to the claim that Jesus was not a real person... It's a conspiracy theory whose inverse is "ancient aliens." Isn't it much more reasonable to say that the petroglyphs in Utah were made by humans, and that there is a distinct human basis for Jesus? Sorry if this doesn't describe you, but: It's clear that most people have an interest in disproving Jesus's existence because of their atheism. I just don't get it. What's so threatening about the historical Jesus? Jesus wasn't the first prophet and he wasn't the last; we see crazy people amass religious followings frequently to this day. That's what I meant by short-circuiting the discussion at "miracles don't happen."
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    Uhh... I think you may be misunderstanding me? I'm not saying that a messianic revolutionary by the name of Jesus never existed. I'm saying that the writings about him were not written with historical accuracy in mind (that was not their purpose). There will be bits of historical accuracy contained within due to proximity to the actual events, but largely the real person Jesus has been lost to the fictional person Jesus (but oh how cool it would have been to interview him right before his execution!) Since most of the original sources used to build the gospels are gone, it's difficult to say what is what, or what the motivations of the original sources were. But one cannot take the corroboration of texts written 30-40 years apart as an indication of accuracy. When similar liberties are taken about the JFK assassination, we certainly cry foul!
    - interpenetrate 5y ago
      Still we don't say JFK is a "fictional character" and that any actual JFK-as-person has been "lost to the sands of time." This is all very tedious but at least we got to talk about historical method which is never a bad thing.

kstenerud 5y ago

The Gospel of Mark was written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus (during the time of the second Jewish war and the destruction of the second temple). The others were written 60-80 years afterwards. The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written), intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative. Most of the narrative linkages are understood by scholars to be pure invention to give continuity (or glue, if you will) for the far more important morals and teachings. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew most of their narrative portions from Mark (no need to reinvent the wheel, especially for something so unimportant next to the moral teachings and prophecy). The apocalyptic writing is understandable given the social and political circumstances it was written under (their utter defeat, the destruction of their temple, and the fact that their messiah still hadn't returned as promised to bring them the ultimate victory).

interpenetrate 5y ago
> ... intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, they did have to square reality with theology, so that their theology is at times threatened by reality. This threat means nothing personal to the historian qua historian (giving them the benefit that they can dispose of their religious or anti-religious inclinations), but it does reveal some important possibilities worth pursuing for history's sake. For example, Jesus is baptized by John in all four Gospels. But the baptism narrative contradicts a question that any first-time reader will naturally imagine: of what sins does Jesus need to be cleansed? Unsurprisingly, all four Gospels make an earnest attempt to undermine John the Baptist's authority. So why include the narrative? Maybe because it actually happened. We can say the same about Jesus being portrayed as violently confronting the money changers, or something like Matthew 19:17, or even the prevalence of women in Jesus's cohort, all which contradict various theological values of the Gospel writers that are discernible through textual criticism. This is just yet another criteria in the method of historical Jesus research, albeit one of the more artistic ones. > The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written) ... Many sources indeed... All lying about the existence of a man who was allegedly widely known by both rural and urban Jews and crucified by edict of the state? The hoops you have to jump through to hold fast to the claim that Jesus was not a real person... It's a conspiracy theory whose inverse is "ancient aliens." Isn't it much more reasonable to say that the petroglyphs in Utah were made by humans, and that there is a distinct human basis for Jesus? Sorry if this doesn't describe you, but: It's clear that most people have an interest in disproving Jesus's existence because of their atheism. I just don't get it. What's so threatening about the historical Jesus? Jesus wasn't the first prophet and he wasn't the last; we see crazy people amass religious followings frequently to this day. That's what I meant by short-circuiting the discussion at "miracles don't happen."
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Uhh... I think you may be misunderstanding me? I'm not saying that a messianic revolutionary by the name of Jesus never existed. I'm saying that the writings about him were not written with historical accuracy in mind (that was not their purpose). There will be bits of historical accuracy contained within due to proximity to the actual events, but largely the real person Jesus has been lost to the fictional person Jesus (but oh how cool it would have been to interview him right before his execution!) Since most of the original sources used to build the gospels are gone, it's difficult to say what is what, or what the motivations of the original sources were. But one cannot take the corroboration of texts written 30-40 years apart as an indication of accuracy. When similar liberties are taken about the JFK assassination, we certainly cry foul!
  - interpenetrate 5y ago
    Still we don't say JFK is a "fictional character" and that any actual JFK-as-person has been "lost to the sands of time." This is all very tedious but at least we got to talk about historical method which is never a bad thing.