Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: There is evidence of the existence of Jesus in Tacitus' annals and Josephus small TF (James, the brother of Jesus called Christ). Even if Mythicists have been trying very hard to bring doubts about their authenticity, I see no reason to cancel them.
Tacitus and Josephus' writings and do not mention Jesus of Nazareth anywhere.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Bernard Muller wrote: There is evidence of the existence of Jesus in Tacitus' annals and Josephus small TF (James, the brother of Jesus called Christ). Even if Mythicists have been trying very hard to bring doubts about their authenticity, I see no reason to cancel them.
Tacitus and Josephus' writings and do not mention Jesus of Nazareth anywhere.
Tacitus gave characteristics to his Christus which identify him as Jesus of Nazareth: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, ..."
The same for Josephus (who named the so-called christ): "... the brother of Jesus, who was called christ, whose name was James ...". See Galatians 1:19

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tacitus gave characteristics to his Christus which identify him as Jesus of Nazareth: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, ..."
The same for Josephus (who named the so-called christ): "... the brother of Jesus, who was called christ, whose name was James ...". See Galatians 1:19

Cordially, Bernard
You make assumptions but Jesus of Nazareth is not named anywhere in all extant writings of Tacitus.

Even the NT itself claimed many persons will be called Christ and deceive many so it is rather useless believing that any where Christ is mentioned that it must refer to Jesus of Nazareth.

Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
In addition, in the same NT it is claimed there was another Christ in the time of Pilate.

Mark 9:38
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
It is also known that the Tacitus' Annals passage is a forgery because Tacitus in Histories stated that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic rulers sometime around c 66-70 CE not in the time of Pilate.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Even the NT itself claimed many persons will be called Christ and deceive many so it is rather useless believing that any where Christ is mentioned that it must refer to Jesus of Nazareth.
But these "Christ" are not said to have a brother called James or executed by Pilate & starting a "supertition?
These "Christs" (Mark 13:21-22) were supposed to appear after the fall of Jerusalem, not during Pilate's rule.
In addition, in the same NT it is claimed there was another Christ in the time of Pilate.

Mark 9:38
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
This one is not called "Christ". And "casting out devils in thy name" is practiced by exorcists, who certainly do not call themselves "Christ".
It is also known that the Tacitus' Annals passage is a forgery because Tacitus in Histories stated that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic rulers sometime around c 66-70 CE not in the time of Pilate.
Tacitus never called that expected ruler by Jews "Christ".
And there is no conflict about some Jews calling Jesus "Christ", decades before, among a new generation of Jews, there were expectation about a Jewish ruler to come.

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Thomas started it all, creating "Jesus" as a parody on Dionysus

Post by mlinssen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:39 pm
mlinssen wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 2:33 pmHelping? To flesh out my view?
Yes, that is correct.
You were trying hard to debate my view....
Yes, that is correct. This, for me, is an important part of what helping someone to flesh out their view means. If there is a better way than submitting it to critical testing and alternate perspectives, I do not know what it is.
...and after you failed to find leaven in the dictionaries for this word you went on a search for butter and cream - anything, as long as it wasn't colostrum
What good would it do you to simply agree that it has to be colostrum, especially if I am not convinced that it must be so (and am/was, rather, agnostic on the matter)? You would think to yourself, "That Ben, smart fellow, agreeing with me as he does," and then you would go your way having received no help from me whatsoever.
You didn't decide on ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ not meaning leaven, no indeed.
Correct again. Because of the following:
And when asked you would state that your knowledge of Coptic is not sufficient to be able to make that decision....
Exactly.
- while in the meantime you would continue to go on to try and find alternatives for my decision on this Coptic word, because?
Because that is what I do. I test and sift and question everything, especially my own viewpoints (which have changed many, many times over the years), but also those of others (precisely because I want to determine whether to make them my own or not!).

If you have no interest in my way of helping out, I can cease, no problem. Would not be the first time.
Thanks for ceasing, Ben! Ceasing to contest the content of the Coptic Dictionary while simultaneously claiming that your knowledge of Coptic is not sufficient to agree with what it says...

Seneca, Oedipus 401 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
On its rich stream has Lydian Pactolus borne thee, leading along its burning banks the golden waters; the Massgetan who mingles blood with milk in his goblets has unstrung his vanquished bow and given up his Getan arrows; the realms of axe-wielding Lycurgus have felt the dominion of Bacchus
(...)
Naxos, girt by the Aegean sea, gave him in marriage a deserted maiden [Ariadne], compensating her loss with a better husband. Out of the dry rock there gushed Nyctelian liquor [wine]; babbling rivulets divided the grassy meadows; deep the earth drank in the sweet juices, white fountains of snowy milk and Lesbian wine mingled with fragrant thyme

Euripides, Bacchae 135 ff :
"In the mountains . . . the leader of the dance is Bromios, euhoi! The plain flows with milk, it flows with wine, it flows with the nectar of bees


Dionysus, God of wine - and milk, and honey

96. said IS : the(F) reign-of(F) king of the father she is-comparable to a(n) woman
did she take [dop] a little [al] first-milk
did she hide he in a dough
did she make-be he of some(PL) great [al] loaf
he-who there-be ear within he let! he hear

The Coptic Dictionary says it all: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3685

And the MSS says it too: ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, 4th line from the top, right before the lacuna

https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/18.jpg

Thomas started it all, created it all. Creating IS, "Jesus", as a parody on Dionysus

HYES (Huês), the moist or fertilising god, occurs like Hyetius, as a surname of Zeus, as the sender of rain. (Hesych. s. v. huês.) . . . Hyes was also a surname of Dionysus, or rather of the Phrygian Sabazius, who was identified sometimes with Dionysus, and sometimes with Zeus. (Hesych. l.c.; Strab. p. 471.)

Granted, one of many dozens of Epithets for Dionysus, and there is no rain whatsoever in either text(s)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The Apocalypse of Moses - MSS and dates (zizanion)

Post by mlinssen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:26 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:17 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:02 pm Borrowing a word into Greek from a Semitic language is not quite the same as coining a word from scratch. It may have been done independently of Matthew or Thomas in a Greek text which is generally thought to have derived from a Semitic original:

Apocalypse of Moses 16.1-5 (English translation slightly modified from that of Gary A. Anderson and Michael E. Stone, pericope 18): 1 And the Devil spoke to the serpent saying, “Rise up, come to me and I will tell you a word whereby you may have profit.” And he arose and came to him. 2 And the Devil said to him, “I hear that you are wiser than all the beasts; I have come to observe you. I have found you greater than all the animals, and I have come to converse with you. 3 Why do you eat of the tares of Adam and of wife [διὰ τί ἐσθίεις ἐκ τῶν ζιζανίων τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ] and not of the garden? Rise up and we will cause him to be cast out of the garden, even as we were cast out through him.” 4 The serpent said to him, “I fear lest the Lord be wroth with me.” 5 The Devil said to him, “Fear not, only be my vessel and I will speak through your mouth words to deceive them.”

(That said, I agree that there is a textual connection of some kind between Matthew and Thomas, and therefore that it is much more likely that one of them lifted this rare word from the other than that Matthew and Thomas both borrowed the same word independently for their parables, even if the use of the same term in the Apocalypse of Moses may be independent.)
Yup. Much, much more likely indeed than Jesus or Matthew quoting from this text.
I have a few simple mechanisms to make a binary choice about alleged dependencies, and its main one is purpose

I fail to see that in either of the three copying from this text because it doesn't have any context there, it isn't used, exploited, it has no function there.
So I decide and then move on to the next step, which doesn't mean I'm right or wrong of course, but I am in a hurry to get through this amazon forest of a billion square miles and that simply is impossible if you allow yourself to be tied to and dwell upon uncertainties that go back in your journey

"Generally thought" - uhuh. I am very allergic to general thinking, especially when and where it is about something entirely unconvincing as right here with a definition of "weed" being implied by a loanword zizanion allegedly derived from a word zinzan that has yet another form which means "it becomes dry" - oh and isn't used anywhere

Going by relations like that, you and I could be brothers Ben. Humbug :P
If the alternative is that either Matthew or Thomas made up the word from thin air, like baby talk, then I demure. It obviously came from somewhere.
Obviously! As long as that isn't Thomas, of course - nothing can come from Thomas, isn't it?

This one was put on my backlog, in order to demonstrate how helpful this advice was. There are no dates mentioned, and nothing else: it is always far more telling what is not told than what does get told, certainly from this corner of the forum

The starting point for retrieving the information about this occurrence of Zizanion - the third one ever so far - is a paper by F Conybeare:

Fred. C. Conybeare. “On the Apocalypse of Moses.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 1895, pp. 216–235. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1450231

Observe page 219 where the story starts:

From the MS. No. 1,631 (198a-212 a) of the library of Etschmiadzin, written A.D. 1539

On page 223 we DON'T find the zizanion - but there's a footnote to it:

And she began to say as follows: "God, who loveth man and is merciful, fashioned me and your father Adam; and placed us in the garden of deliqht, to govern and rule over all things which grew therein. But from one tree he commanded us to abstain, friom the same; the which Satan beheld, (to wit) our glory and honour ; and havmng Jfound the serpent the wisest animal of all which are on the whole earth, (Ch. xvi.) he approached him and said to him5': 'I behold thee wiser than all animals, and I desire(6) to reveal unto thee the thought which is in my heart and to unite (with) thee. Thou seest how much worth God has bestowed on the man. But we have been dishonoured; so hearken unto me and come, let us go and drive him out of thearden, out of which we have been driven because of him

(6) The Greek Text of Ceriani (D) has "And I associate with thee. Why dost thou eat of the tares of Adam and not of the garden ? Arise, and we will cause him to be expelled from the garden, as we also were expelled through him. The serpent said." etc

Now that is very informative, isn't it? But how many MSS are there then?
A paper by S Lachs sheds light on the nature of the underlying MSS:

LACHS, S. T. “SOME TEXTUAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE APOCALYPSIS MOSIS AND THE VITA ADAE ET EVAE.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, vol. 13, no. 1/2, 1982, pp. 172–176. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24658016

Observe the first page there, page 172:

The Apocalypsis Mosis and the Vita Adae et Evae are two works of a larger cycle of Adam legends. These two texts have survived in
Greek, Latin, Slavonic and Armenian, but each is flawed by lacunae and textual obscurities 1).

1) For a description of the MSS see L. S. A. WELLS in R. H. CHARLES, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Vol. II (Oxford, 1913), pp. 123 ff. The Greek citations in this study are from C. TISCHENDORF'S text, Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866) based on ABC, Beg. and end of D, and A. CERIANI, Monumenta Sacra et Profana, Vol. I (Milan, 1868), pp. 21 ff. containing the text of D. For the Armenian citations--F. CONYBEARE, "On the Apocalypse of Moses," JQR VII (1895), pp. 216-235 (English translation).


Well, off to Charles then: https://ia800502.us.archive.org/28/item ... 02char.pdf

Page 124:

$3 The MSS.

Six MSS are at present known of the Apoc. Mosis:

A Venice. Thirteenth century. Tischendorf
B Vienna. Twelfth to fourteenth centuries. Tischendorf
C Vienna. Twelfth to fourteenth centuries. Tischendorf
D Milan. Eleventh century. Ceriani.
E1 Paris. Fifteenth century. Fuchs
E2 Montpellier. Fuchs

The names are those of Ceriani, Tischendorf, and Fuchs. I owe my knowledge of the different readings of E1 and E2 to the great kindness of Dr. Fuchs, who placed all his notes at my disposal. The knowledge of the other MSS. is derived from Tischendorf, Apoc. Apocryphae, 1866, and Ceriani, Momunenta, v. i.
It will be observed that all these MSS, are more or less fragmentary with the exception of C. This, however, is often obscure. A, though nearly complete till xxxvi, is rightly regarded by Fuchs as very untrustworthy, and is much spoilt by glosses, Apoc. Mos. xvi. 2, xiv. 2, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 3, xxxii. 4, even while it preserves some good readings, especially xxii. 2 ('judgement'), and retains Apocalypse in xiii, which I believe to be original, and elsewhere lost through influence of Latin version.
D, where it is to be had (i-xvi,xxxvi-xliv) seems the safest to follow; but it appears, especially at the end, to aim too much at clearness and classical Greek, and I have often found myself suspecting that the less easy and more clumsy sentences of C had a closer affinity with the original text ; even though conscious that in so doing I have been compelled to depart from the precedent set by Dr. Fuchs, whose work marks an epoch in the study of this literature, and to whom I owe much.
Besides D, like B, though to a less extent, is not above filling up the gaps from the Scriptures (cf. Apoc. Mos. IX. 2, &c.), and altering phrase or word to correspond with a biblical text (Apoc Mos. viii. 1-2, &c.).
E, like B, is often redundant and diffuse. Its chief interest lies in its very near relationship to the Armenian Version, with which it often agrees against all the others; if not the source of that translation, it is very closely related to it. In the following translation, I have taken D and C as the chief guides, but, where they are unsatisfactory, have often thought it wiser to follow one of the others. Cf. xxvi. 4 (AB), xxix. 5 (E)
I agree with Fuchs that the construction of the true text is 'schwierig ' and largely guesswork, but have adopted no reading without comparing all MSS.

Well then, there we have it. A very fragmented set of MSS, the construction of which is "largely guesswork", and only one MS has the Zizanion - and it dates to the 11th CE. Their languages are Armenian, Slavonic, Greek, Latin, but these apply to the books of Adam and Eve, of which this text is only a part

§ 5. Date of Original Text.
Terminus ad quem.
Frequently the principal means of ascertaining the date of ancient books is the nature of the ideas which appear in their pages. In the case of the Books of Adam as in the ' Odes ' of Solomon historical allusions are conspicuously absent. The chief, if not the only criterion of date, is the relation of religious notions to those of other works. Still we are in a position at once to place the composition both of the Apoc. Mos. and the Vita Adae before the appearance of the Ethiopic Adambuch (dated to seventh century by Dillmann and Malan ; fifth century by Charles, 2 En., Intro. § 5, p. xviii) which borrows largely from both ; and also before the Armenian version which dates, perhaps, from a period before 360 (Preuschen). The mention of the Acherusian lake (Apoc. Mos. xxxvii. 3) is perhaps the original of the Apoc. Pauli xxii which was ' revealed ' in A.D. 380 (Tisch.). Charles (Encycl. Brit., ii. 175) dates it A.D. 388 from internal evidence.
Meyer thinks the Vita Adae xlii (= Ev. Nicodemi xix of A. D. 405-50) was a later interpolation into the text of Vita which existed before. Bousset thinks that the interpolation in Vita xxix, ' maior quam prius,' is part of a Jewish Apocalypse to which a Christian has added a long piece (like a gloss). If so, he thinks it refers to Herod's temple, which was built in the author's lifetime. For another view of this, see my note iji loc. Only general considerations remain to fix the date more exactly, but they are the most important. We have ample evidence to prove (i) that the contents are Jewish;' (2) that the tone and temper is earlier than the Golden Age of the Rabbis, e.g. it has no polemic against the Christians ; (3) that the Theology and Eschatology are that of the later Judaism and akin to that of the 2 Enoch.
There is little doubt that the author of the Apoc. Mos. is indebted to the latter book, or the school where it originated, for some of his most characteristic traits, e. g. its conception of the Tree of Life and of the sacred oil (cf. 2 Enoch viii. 3), the sin of Eve, and the lake of purification, the ' seven Heavens ', &c. His relation to the older books of Enoch is more remote and his angelology is more developed than even that in the 'Parables' (i Enoch xxxvii-lxxi). The Demonology outside the Vita xiii-xvii is of a pre-Christian type, and Kabisch may be right in claiming that 2 Cor. xi. 14 is quoted from our text or more likely from the source of our text. Of the angelology and the eschatology, especially the doctrine of the Heavens, the same is true. See §§ 7-9.
It is equally certain that the Book (apart from brief interpolations and possibly Vita xxv-xxix) is of purely Jewish origin. As Ginzberg, Kabisch, and P^uchs unanimously declare, there is absolutely nothing specifically Christian in the contents. Many of the cited Christian phrases, e. g. ' son of wrath ' (Apoc. Mos. iii. 2), are Hebraisms and in accordance with Rabbinic usage. (Cf. Hort's list with Ginzberg's article, ' Book of Adam,' in Jciv. Encyc.) The complete absence of references, direct or indirect, to Christian notions of Incarnation, Redemption, even of Christian higher moral teaching, would make it impossible to assign to most of the work a Christian origin. The startling abruptness of Christian interpolations serves, as in the case of Test. Twelve Patriarchs passim, to clinch the argument from silence ; which is the stronger, since the doctrine of a future judgement and future resurrection is clearly taught (Apoc. Mos. x, xii, xiii, xxviii, xxxvii, xli, xliii, Vita xxxix, xlvii, li) ; even though the Messiah plays no part and no judge other than God is mentioned. The Resurrection, is rather connected in both the Vita and the Apoc. Mos. with the weekly rest of the Sabbath. Cf. Apoc. Mos. xliii. Vita li with Jub. iii. 17. Nor can Preuschen's theory of a Gnostic (Sethite) origin for these pieces be accepted, even in the case of the Armenian version (though we have sought to show in the notes how this version has been subsequently modified in a Sethfte direction on the lines of ' the Gospel of Seth ' and other Adam legends preserved only in Armenian, which have so largely modified Preuschen's conclusion) ; see his Adam Books, ii-vii. See § 9.
Terminus a quo.
Hort was ready to admit a date anywhere in the first three centuries for the Apoc. Mos. It seems certain that the whole material contained in our Adam Books belongs to a period not earlier than the first century A. D. or later than the fourth century ; but the uniform absence of polemic against the Christians, the wide and tolerant view of the future of the Gentiles, the conception of Adam's or rather Eve's sin (so nearly akin to that in Paul and 4 Ezra), the old simple hopes of the future Resurrection, the glaring dissimilarity of the Christian interpolated passages (Vita xlii, xxix ; Apoc. Mos. xliii-end, xxxvi-end, A only) render the earlier date far the more probable for the bulk of the work. The absence of any Messiah in the future prospects (see § 9) is yet another link with the 2 Enoch, and points not obscurely to an author of ' the Dispersion ', perhaps in Alexandria. Since it is certain that both the Latin, the Slavonic, and the Armenian, are from a Greek original, though ultimately parts of the book may be based on Hebrew documents (see § 5''^), seeing that the text is strongly coloured by Hebrew words and phrases, a further proof is forthcoming that the author or authors were Jewish Hellenists. For the date of the several parts, or books, included in this material, and especially for the relation of the Greek Apoc. Mos. to the Latin Vita, see § 6.

It is funny how the parts in bold never seem to apply to Thomas, but to all other texts, isn't it?

Long story short: regardless of the guesstimated "original dates" of 1st to 4th CE, the extant documents that we have are from the 11th onwards, and the whole Zizanion phrase exists in only one of the six MSS and it is the one that dates to the 11th CE - admittedly "(seemingly) the safest to follow" but "the construction of the true text is 'schwierig ' and largely guesswork"

Well, that is the story about the Apocalypse of Moses. A rather complete story, and a true story. I hope it helped - for real
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by Charles Wilson »

Kwik Kwote (Due to time...), On going from Greek to Hebrew or Hebrew to Greek:

Rev. Glenn David Bauscher, The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, Lulu Publishing ISBN 978-14357-4484-4, c 2007, p. 290:

“R “Tshifhta d'Kaypha” & “Gpiptha” are in Northern (Galilean) and Southern (Judean) dialects of Palestinian Aramaic. Both names mean “The Pavement.” The Greek has “Gabbatha”...another obvious transliteration of the Aramaic “Gpiptha”...in which the letter “Pe”...was mistaken for a “Beth”, easily done with square Aramaic Script. This does not work in a Greek to Aramaic translation scenario. “Gabbatha”...would not be mistaken for (“Gpiptha”)...”
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by rakovsky »

Suppose that the 12 or 70 apostles and Paul in 35 to 49 AD were going around Judea and the Mideast proclaiming Jesus. It would be much harder for them if there were no real Jesus person at all. People in Nazareth would say that they never heard of Jesus, Mary, etc. and dismiss it as a myth immediately.

It seems more realistic for the Disciples to be going around preaching their rabbi as Messiah if their rabbi was a real person, even if they made up miracle stories about him, than for them to make him up wholly. Jesus is the central unifying person for the apostles.

Rom 10:15 says,
And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

The term apostles means those who were sent. The idea is that they were sent by Jesus.


A counter theory in Jesus-Mythicism is that even the apostles were made up and Christianity didn't start until the second century. But in that case, it would be even harder to get people to believe in apostles, a Church, and a Jesus that no one in those famous places of churches and martyrs from Rome to Edessa had ever heard of.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by neilgodfrey »

rakovsky wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:10 am A counter theory in Jesus-Mythicism is that even the apostles were made up and Christianity didn't start until the second century. But in that case, it would be even harder to get people to believe in apostles, a Church, and a Jesus that no one in those famous places of churches and martyrs from Rome to Edessa had ever heard of.
Following this train of thought would we not have to accept that Ned Ludd and William Tell were historical?

History tells us that people don't check stories that sound plausible. Belief comes easily when a story is told well enough.
Lucifer Satanel
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:13 pm

Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

Post by Lucifer Satanel »

There really is none. the historical evidence for a real Jesus is very strong. The gospels and Acts are not evidence. They were fictional works by people who knew they were writing fiction and for an audience that knew they were fiction so they can't be used as evidence of anything about the real Jesus or apostles. The fact that they're fiction is meaningless. The Song of Roland was fiction known to be fiction both by the author and his audience that was later seen as fact. The Song of Roland being myth does not in anyway prove that Charlemagne is a myth.

The evidence for Jesus being historical is

1) None of the Roman critics of Christianity claimed Jesus was a myth, this includes Tacitus who was very careful about is info and tells us when it is uncertain.

2) Josephus mentions both Jesus and his brother James the just and Saul too. They're very different though than their portrayals in the gospels and Acts.

3) The group that both Jesus and James the just came out of existed and was attacked by Paul and his followers who mainly are the source of the gospels and Acts. The Ebionites or community of Poor Priests dedicated to virtue and not greed like the rich priests who were Herodians and Saul preyed upon them and hated them. Paul's written attacks and mocking of the real apostles in his genuine writings are also proof of the real Jesus.

The Ebionites knew Jesus was a real man born both of two real people, so no virgin birth and only an adoptive "sonship".

4) Jesus' family, the desposyni, and the Ebionites continued to exist long after his death and are historical.
Post Reply