The puzzle is an enduring one because no explanation seems to tidy away all the loose ends
If Jesus was a figment of James’ imagination, what are we to make of Paul’s (who was definitely real) association with Peter (by Paul’s own writing)? and his separate association with Luke (by Luke’s own writing)? As late as Acts 1:14 Luke is saying Peter is hanging out with Mary mother of Jesus.
Explaining that away as a result of the actions of a third unknown party, James, seems far more convoluted than “a man Jesus basically existed, preached a spiritual interpretation of the Torah, was baptised, crucified and had a mother Mary”.
Which was essentially the position of the secular Jesus seminar.
Paul meets the ministry in an area full of weird cults. That’s all we have…A small claim that Peter or James could have just come up on their own.
Far too simplistic. Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death? (Acts 12) Or if you think the writer of Acts faked James’ death what would be the point of that when he was a prominent leader of the Jerusalem church? Same goes for the early church tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The details of course may be embellished, but it’s substantially more reliable to conclude that both James and Peter were at least killed early.
Paul writes about learning from the community at Jerusalem that its leaders were “Peter, James and John” (Gal 2). Were all three in on the forgery?
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
“He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence.” B. Ehrman, 2011
Removed by mod
Great questions
The puzzle is an enduring one because no explanation seems to tidy away all the loose ends
If Jesus was a figment of James’ imagination, what are we to make of Paul’s (who was definitely real) association with Peter (by Paul’s own writing)? and his separate association with Luke (by Luke’s own writing)? As late as Acts 1:14 Luke is saying Peter is hanging out with Mary mother of Jesus.
Explaining that away as a result of the actions of a third unknown party, James, seems far more convoluted than “a man Jesus basically existed, preached a spiritual interpretation of the Torah, was baptised, crucified and had a mother Mary”.
Which was essentially the position of the secular Jesus seminar.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Luke wasn’t an apostle
Far too simplistic. Why would either set about a forgery that results in their untimely death? (Acts 12) Or if you think the writer of Acts faked James’ death what would be the point of that when he was a prominent leader of the Jerusalem church? Same goes for the early church tradition of Peter’s martyrdom. The details of course may be embellished, but it’s substantially more reliable to conclude that both James and Peter were at least killed early.
Paul writes about learning from the community at Jerusalem that its leaders were “Peter, James and John” (Gal 2). Were all three in on the forgery?
Paul also writes of the terrible living conditions all apostles lived under (1 Cor 4:9-13). If we take Paul as at least genuine in his delusion, we have to also explain why he reports the Jerusalem church leaders enduring similar suffering.
The simplest explaination is that they were at least personally convinced of the truth of what they were doing. Convinced and wrong. But them being forgerers themselves makes no sense and has even less evidence that that various other scenarios.
Removed by mod
it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
Removed by mod
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
Removed by mod