Many points in this article are presented as accepted fact, but are not (even among non-Christian scholars).
Such as:
> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.
The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.
And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.
Scholarly consensus is that the "Gospel of Matthew" was not written by the apostle Matthew and the "Gospel of John" was not written by the apostle John:
For that assertion to hold water, "scholarly consensus" would have to define "scholarly" so narrowly as to exclude the vast majority of scholars (it seems like it should go without saying that most scholars in this area are Christian who maintain apostolic authorship).
Perhaps they are dismissing scholars who identify as Christian? That would be quite the catch-22.
You are overstating the case on authorship (we don't know who wrote Matthew and John) but otherwise you are wholly correct -- the article misrepresents the scholarly consensus. I.e. as you say, Greek was pervasive and Jesus almost certainly spoke it (along with Aramaic) and it is quite possible that gospel accounts are either written by eyewitnesses or contain the direct testimony of those who were. The historical timeline allows for this and we simply lack historical evidence to make a wholly conclusive case either way (though many attempt to do so on each side).
Thanks for confirming the low quality, now I don't have to bother listening, like, the whole area got conquered by the Greeks before the Romans showed up. It's called Hellenization and is a major theme in the Book of Maccabees.
As far as I know the scholarly consensus is that none of the gospels, including Matthew and John, were written by disciples, or anyone who lived within Jesus' lifetime. Obviously Christians believe otherwise.
This is not correct. Secular academics disagree quite a lot about the specifics as we lack sufficient historical data but it is very widely accepted that:
* the gospels were written in the 1st century
It is therefore entirely possible that they were written by eyewitnesses, even though many do not think they were written by some of the 12 disciples. The topic of 'eyewitnesses' is however hotly debated. See e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitne... which is pro this view but also plenty against.
Even John's gospel, which is often thought of as the latest, may well have been written very early; arguments for a late dating are almost wholly made in relation to the text itself (i.e. it has a 'higher' Christology) and not wider historical data.
Source: I am studying theology at Cambridge University in the UK and have heard several professors here debate these topics, plus I am familiar with the literature.
In the mid-2000s, I attended evangelical 'kids night'. Held each Friday at the dead-center of an unincorporated community in rural Colorado.
The "cool" youth pastor who was responsible for these events told us "the Gospel's authors are anonymous, their names are totally traditional". I never had the sense that this view was in any way heretical or contentious, even in a strain of Christianity that strongly emphasized the historicity of the Bible.
This is what we learned in Catholic school. Christians are not delusional about the source of the gospels.
There's been this weird push to view the Bible like the Quran and the two really have nothing in common. The entire view on the book is wholly different.
The authorship of the Bible is actually not really important if you believe the claim of the Catholic/Orthodox church (who make the same claim)
It is not correct to assert this. More precise is to say: it is unlikely that all of the gospels were written by the names we now associate with them -- at least not insofar as these names relate to the 12 disciples.
The truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels. The evidence is that they are quite early (i.e. for Mark, consensus is late 60s so perhaps 30-40 years after Jesus' death). In fact, many scholars think 'Mark' was written by 'Mark Antony' who is mentioned in Acts. And John may have been written by a 'John the Elder' who is mentioned elsewhere. These are educated guesses though -- the evidence is circumstantial.
This is bit besides the point, but I'll stick it here anyway.
When I read <u>A Man Called Ove</u> in English I was impressed over and over again with the writing. It made me wish I could understand Swedish to compare the original prose. I concluded that Henning Koch is an amazingly talented wordsmith. And it made me suspect that Fredrik Backman might also be one. Clearly, Backman is a very good writer. But I wonder if Koch is a better wordsmith. Sadly, I am unable to enjoy Backman in the original language. As it is, I credit Backman with great writing and Koch with great wording (probably inspired by Backman's great wording).
> Pagels’s larger point is that the most improbable Gospel tales serve to patch a fractured narrative—using familiar tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies that believers struggled with from the beginning.
"Familiar tropes and myths" is perhaps something you'd consider as the 20/21 Century literary critic, but I'm not sure a bunch of mostly peasants writing in the 1st Century would be.
And it's not like they had anything to gain by writing and spreading about their beliefs: the early Christians were ostracized from their community(s) and persecuted. For the first ~300 years of the existence of Christianity there was probably little but trouble from believing in it, until roughly the conversion of Constantine (312) and later the Edict of Milan.
> Were first century peasants educated and wealthy enough to write?
"Peasant" would exist on a spectrum: some think Luke was a physician and thus literate. Peter was a fisherman and probably illiterate, but it was certainly possible to dictate someone who could write.
Remember also that oral tradition was a thing as well in many societies:
In Judea? Probably very high, some sources say up to 20% of men. It's was religious duty of every Jew to read the sacred texts and also to be able to write a Torah scroll(but most likely it was not mandatory). Father was to teach his son to write. Actually it was the initial reason for public schools, for orphans to learn read and write.
Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).
> Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 3:2
> The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 20:16
> Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
"which is to say, master" is the part we're talking about here. jesus isnt a modern day rabbi, but was a teacher in the classical sense. makes sense to me. thanks
I think there's a decent case to be made that he was considered a "rabbi", or teacher in the time period prior to the destruction of the second temple, by a group of jewish folks.
As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.
Yeah but as for Jesus, he was rejected by all Jews, Sanhedrin and high priests, also the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, zillions of Hellenics, and a large chunk of the entire world 2000 years hence.
I’d call that a unique achievement in the history of rejections.
Rejected later upon evaluation of his entire life, but that's not to say he wasn't considered a teacher at the time. After all, there's plenty of modern-day preachers who have done some heinous acts, but they don't retroactively lose that title during the time they held it.
It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)
Jesus' teachings fit within the diversity of Jewish sects existing at the time—Sadducees, Pharisees (literally "sectarians," derived from the Greek word Pharisaios, sharing the same root as the word "pariah"), and Essenes (a mystical, monastic sect; some speculate Jesus may have been associated with them).
Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.")
> "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision)
This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.
Because Jesus fits the definition of a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher, regardless of how he later came to be viewed. Just because later rabbinic Judaism rejected the apocalyptic movements and texts doesn't mean it wasn't part of Judaism while Jesus was live.
The most compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus does not come from the gospels, but from Paul's letters. He claims to have met with Peter and James which he calls Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. We can assume that James did exist since Paul writes about disagreements he has with him. Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views. Moreover, if James did exist, it seems far-fetched to believe that he were able to assume the title "brother of Jesus" without actually being the brother of Jesus. People would have known whether his brother had been publicly executed or not.
In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.
> Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views.
Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience. It makes a lot more sense if you consider the writing is intended to outlive the author. You have to present all possible arguments because there's no going back, republishing, or even talking to the audience.
You see strawmen like this a lot in scriptures. It's a pretty obvious tool when you think about it.
But I have no real reason to doubt James existing. The evidence I've seen is convincing enough that I don't doubt that a man named Jesus existed and did historic things. Whether he was a Messiah is a different question.
Always remember that the Bible is a collection of stories. It was intended to be passed down orally and to the illiterate. Oral histories are always dressed up. Either intentionally or mutated through the generations, the stories become more memorable over time, and thus more embellished. It is unwise to treat any religion's scripture as a literal, factual, historical document. They aren't, none of them are. They're all stories meant to teach lessons, and not a technical manual.
> Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience.
It's apparent from Paul's letters that his audience knew who the leaders in Jerusalem were (James, Peter, John), and had contact with them or their followers. He is writing letters responding to some issue(s) a particular group is having. Such as whether Paul was a proper apostle like those who new Jesus when he was alive.
As such, there's no reason to think Paul could get away with creating a fictional leader and family member after Jesus's death. The people he's writing to would know better.
You’re totally right, I mean that Jesus we crucified was probably made out of straw or 3 kids in a really long tunic. And that’s why I still worship scarecrows.
Well, you don't make up straw men that makes you inferior. Paul never met Jesus, James did and also was the leader of the (clearly) very important Jerusalem church. Paul knew and admitted that he lacked authority, hence he had to sell his ideas very hard to the readers of his letters. Nothing suggest that he intended for those letters to outlive him (the vast majority probably didn't) or become the backbone of a new religion. It just so happened.
The Pharisees in the gospels are good examples of straw men, though.
Historians of reddit have to deal with this on a recurring basis. It's hard when textual refs stop in Josephus and the accretion of centuries of editorial over ur-texts.
Often times people seek to argue by comparison: "we have less evidence Darius or Julius Caesar existed" type arguments about the primacy of contemporary eye witness accounts, distinct from eg economic and architectural evidence.
Fugitive Christians didn't have time to collate the "I was there" takes and now it's Analects.
The article is polemical, which I don't mean as a criticism but simply as genre description. There is no attempt to engage with the scholarly consensus (or indeed any of biblical scholarship beyond the named author). The piece wants to explain why religion persists but even on this lens it is heavy on words but lacking in depth. A lot is asserted.
> In various texts, including Apocryphal works that date to around the same time as the Gospels proper, Joseph appears to suspect Mary of infidelity.
This struck me as a strange statement to not explain further. Plenty of Christians interpret Matthew 1:19 to mean Joseph was going to divorce Mary because he believed she was unfaithful.
> The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.
The later is true but it's strange to use Plutarch as an example considering that at best he would have been writing Parallel Lives at the same time the Gospels were being written.
> Those attributed to Jesus—described in language nearly identical to accounts of the Greek mystic and holy man Apollonius of Tyana, say—are neither more nor less convincing than others.
Well "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was written in the early 200ADs, approximately 100 years after the last Gospel was written. Once again, the point may be correct but the example given is confusing cause and effect.
> A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes. The Gospel authors, far from being community leaders preserving oral sayings for largely illiterate followers, were highly literate members of a small, erudite upper crust, distant in experience, attitude, and geography from any Galilean peasant preachers.
That seems like an extraordinary claim to make. The Gospels were drawn from no oral tradition, really? So there was a complete disconnect between the practitioners of early Christianity, who obviously would have their own oral tradition, and the Gospels writers. And the early Christians then accepted the Gospels even though they had no relationship to their existing traditions? Or is the claim the Christianity didn't exist until the Gospels were created, in which case you have to contest with the Apocrypha and historical accounts of Jesus.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the Gospels drew from early Christian oral tradition and now lost writings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels# for an explanation "now lost writings".
Readit News
Such as:
> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.
The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.
And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author_and_d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship
Perhaps they are dismissing scholars who identify as Christian? That would be quite the catch-22.
The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture ( Preview pdf: https://robynfaithwalsh.com/content/files/2023/01/Walsh-OECL...)
She has a ton of content on youtube as well.
Unreal.
* the gospels were written in the 1st century
It is therefore entirely possible that they were written by eyewitnesses, even though many do not think they were written by some of the 12 disciples. The topic of 'eyewitnesses' is however hotly debated. See e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitne... which is pro this view but also plenty against.
Even John's gospel, which is often thought of as the latest, may well have been written very early; arguments for a late dating are almost wholly made in relation to the text itself (i.e. it has a 'higher' Christology) and not wider historical data.
Source: I am studying theology at Cambridge University in the UK and have heard several professors here debate these topics, plus I am familiar with the literature.
Depends on the Christians. My Catholic school teachers in Germany taught us what you write.
The "cool" youth pastor who was responsible for these events told us "the Gospel's authors are anonymous, their names are totally traditional". I never had the sense that this view was in any way heretical or contentious, even in a strain of Christianity that strongly emphasized the historicity of the Bible.
There's been this weird push to view the Bible like the Quran and the two really have nothing in common. The entire view on the book is wholly different.
The authorship of the Bible is actually not really important if you believe the claim of the Catholic/Orthodox church (who make the same claim)
The truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels. The evidence is that they are quite early (i.e. for Mark, consensus is late 60s so perhaps 30-40 years after Jesus' death). In fact, many scholars think 'Mark' was written by 'Mark Antony' who is mentioned in Acts. And John may have been written by a 'John the Elder' who is mentioned elsewhere. These are educated guesses though -- the evidence is circumstantial.
When I read <u>A Man Called Ove</u> in English I was impressed over and over again with the writing. It made me wish I could understand Swedish to compare the original prose. I concluded that Henning Koch is an amazingly talented wordsmith. And it made me suspect that Fredrik Backman might also be one. Clearly, Backman is a very good writer. But I wonder if Koch is a better wordsmith. Sadly, I am unable to enjoy Backman in the original language. As it is, I credit Backman with great writing and Koch with great wording (probably inspired by Backman's great wording).
"Familiar tropes and myths" is perhaps something you'd consider as the 20/21 Century literary critic, but I'm not sure a bunch of mostly peasants writing in the 1st Century would be.
And it's not like they had anything to gain by writing and spreading about their beliefs: the early Christians were ostracized from their community(s) and persecuted. For the first ~300 years of the existence of Christianity there was probably little but trouble from believing in it, until roughly the conversion of Constantine (312) and later the Edict of Milan.
"Peasant" would exist on a spectrum: some think Luke was a physician and thus literate. Peter was a fisherman and probably illiterate, but it was certainly possible to dictate someone who could write.
Remember also that oral tradition was a thing as well in many societies:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40859393
Deleted Comment
I don't know why they put rabbi there. Jesus is later rejected by Jewish teachings and is probably considered heretical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_Jesus
Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).
John 1:38
> Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 3:2
> The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 20:16
> Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.
Judaism wasn't a monolith then and isn't now.
I’d call that a unique achievement in the history of rejections.
It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)
Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.")
> "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision)
This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.
Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience. It makes a lot more sense if you consider the writing is intended to outlive the author. You have to present all possible arguments because there's no going back, republishing, or even talking to the audience.
You see strawmen like this a lot in scriptures. It's a pretty obvious tool when you think about it.
But I have no real reason to doubt James existing. The evidence I've seen is convincing enough that I don't doubt that a man named Jesus existed and did historic things. Whether he was a Messiah is a different question.
Always remember that the Bible is a collection of stories. It was intended to be passed down orally and to the illiterate. Oral histories are always dressed up. Either intentionally or mutated through the generations, the stories become more memorable over time, and thus more embellished. It is unwise to treat any religion's scripture as a literal, factual, historical document. They aren't, none of them are. They're all stories meant to teach lessons, and not a technical manual.
It's apparent from Paul's letters that his audience knew who the leaders in Jerusalem were (James, Peter, John), and had contact with them or their followers. He is writing letters responding to some issue(s) a particular group is having. Such as whether Paul was a proper apostle like those who new Jesus when he was alive.
As such, there's no reason to think Paul could get away with creating a fictional leader and family member after Jesus's death. The people he's writing to would know better.
The Pharisees in the gospels are good examples of straw men, though.
Often times people seek to argue by comparison: "we have less evidence Darius or Julius Caesar existed" type arguments about the primacy of contemporary eye witness accounts, distinct from eg economic and architectural evidence.
Fugitive Christians didn't have time to collate the "I was there" takes and now it's Analects.
Dead Comment
This struck me as a strange statement to not explain further. Plenty of Christians interpret Matthew 1:19 to mean Joseph was going to divorce Mary because he believed she was unfaithful.
> The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.
The later is true but it's strange to use Plutarch as an example considering that at best he would have been writing Parallel Lives at the same time the Gospels were being written.
> Those attributed to Jesus—described in language nearly identical to accounts of the Greek mystic and holy man Apollonius of Tyana, say—are neither more nor less convincing than others.
Well "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was written in the early 200ADs, approximately 100 years after the last Gospel was written. Once again, the point may be correct but the example given is confusing cause and effect.
> A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes. The Gospel authors, far from being community leaders preserving oral sayings for largely illiterate followers, were highly literate members of a small, erudite upper crust, distant in experience, attitude, and geography from any Galilean peasant preachers.
That seems like an extraordinary claim to make. The Gospels were drawn from no oral tradition, really? So there was a complete disconnect between the practitioners of early Christianity, who obviously would have their own oral tradition, and the Gospels writers. And the early Christians then accepted the Gospels even though they had no relationship to their existing traditions? Or is the claim the Christianity didn't exist until the Gospels were created, in which case you have to contest with the Apocrypha and historical accounts of Jesus.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the Gospels drew from early Christian oral tradition and now lost writings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels# for an explanation "now lost writings".