Mark McFall

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>

To: mark mcfall

Sent: 09 January 2000 00:36

Subject: Your question regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your question. I too think it is always a good idea to surf sites

and read material that have different opinions from ones own. I have read a

lot of Christian material in my time, and continue to read Christian sites

and apologetics to see if there is anything I am being unfair about.

Regarding your question, I think it is all interesting stuff and I'll give

you some resources at the end for the other side of the argument. However,

you might be asking the wrong person, as personally I am inclined to believe

that Jesus did exist as a historical figure, which I think is also the

position with many people who are not Christians. Not that I am sure that the

evidence is 100% but on balance it seems likely to me. However for many

reasons I think that the religion that is named after him is something that

evolved largely due to St. Paul and later the Roman empire under Constantine.

The supernatural claims about Jesus are, I think, the crucial ones -

separating the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history - i.e. how did the

Jesus figure (whether he existed or not) become the Christ figure that

Christians make supernatural claims about? You will find a lot of discussion

of this in the URLs below.

Although I largely agree with the non-Christian sites I link to, it is

unlikely that I agree with everything and I might be wrong in some matters -

and I might change my mind later! So don't be too surprised if I disagree on

some matters with some of the material in my links and the URLs given in

this email. Indeed, on the "ex-tian" (i.e. ex-Christian) mailing list there

was a thread some time ago about the existence of a historical Jesus. Those

who thought he was not a historical figure were in a minority amongst us,

and as far as I remember they were slightly won over by the arguments of

those who thought he did exist. I'm not claiming any particular view is

right, just that it is not unusual to find ex-Christians, and other

non-Christians, who do think there probably was a historical figure,

even if we do not believe in the religion that is claimed to be based around

him.

Before I direct you to some URLs I have two comments on what you wrote.

Firstly, alarm bells really should ring when a non-Christian (e.g. Josephus)

writes about Jesus in such glowing terms. If Josephus really wrote that then

he would have been a Christian. This and other passages that you quote are

discussed in detail in the URLs below. Secondly your statement <<These

Gospels are authentic Historical documents that were written by eye-witnesses

with the exception of the historian, Dr. Luke. >> makes me guess that you

have not read much of the literature critical of this claim, or otherwise you

would have tried to back this up. Am I correct? I was particularly surprised

that you wrote this bald statement after having been to Steven Carr's site if

you read his interesting pieces on this at

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm and

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm If you do have good reason to think

that they are eye-witness accounts after reading Steven Carr's pages then you

really ought to discuss that with him as he invites his readers to do. I'm on

his list to be notified when he updates his site, so if you do have something

to pull him up on then I will get to hear about it.

Here are some sites that I found that tackle the question you asked. There is

masses of material here and they go into the subject in more technical detail

than I can ever remember. I've read quite a bit of this lot, but by no means

everything, so again there may be some material I personally don't buy (but I

might be wrong of course!)

Most of these links could eventually be found by surfing from my starting

point at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#n5 Nevertheless,

here are some links that should be of most interest to you and you can find

here the people that you may want to contact when you have read some of

their material.

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html This may answer

most of your points.

PBS frontline - "From Jesus to Christ"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ This site is anchored

by the testimony of New Testament theologians, archaeologists and historians

who serve as both critics and storytellers. They address dozens of key

issues, disagreements and critical problems relating to Jesus' life and the

evolution of Christianity. This site has been acclaimed by Christians and

non-Christians.

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html this also

discusses many of your points.

The Real Jesus http://www.disinfo.com/rev/rev_jesus.html You might find the

links here to be gentler criticism than some of the others.

The Whole Bible - New Testament history

http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm A lot of this may interest you.

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm Again, very relevant to some of your

quotes.

The Jesus Seminar Forum http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/ caused a lot of

fuss! See my quotes page at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html to find out how this

effected one of the members of the ex-tian mailing

list when he was an "all-knowing Christian apologist." (Do a text search on

that page for "I had a rather").

Christianity: Jesus http://atheism.about.com/culture/atheism/msubxjes.htm

Much discussion here on your question and related subjects.

The Jesus puzzle http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm The writer here is

pretty convinced that there was no historical Jesus. You can pick a fight

with him if you wish! He discusses Josephus at great length here

http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/supp10.htm

The Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus' Ant., XVIII, III, 3)

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appe.shtml Loads more on Josephus!

Christian 'bias' in the NT Writers--

Does it render the NT unreliable or inadmissible as evidence?

http://www.webcom.com/ctt/nuhbias.html This is a response by a Christian to

some of the arguments given at the sites above to give you some balance, and

to help you decide who has the better argument (I'm sure you know other sites

like this).

Well, that's a lot of material for you. If you do come to a firm conclusion

I'd be interested to know what you found.

Meanwhile I'm also doing some research, and if you can help me out with my

question at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html from any

of your Christian resources, then I would be very interested.

Thanks again for your interest and I'm sure you'll find the study of this

period of history a fascinating enterprise, whatever conclusions you come to.

Regards,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):

www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

----- Original Message -----

From: mark mcfall

To: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>

Sent: 09 January 2000 03:46

Subject: Re: Your question regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure

Thank you for your kind response Steve. I would like to continue the dialog

just alittle bit further (although I will visit some of reference sites)

because you are on my mind.

Steve wrote:

However,

>you might be asking the wrong person.

Mark reply:

Perhaps, but as you know from being an ex-Christian, perhaps not. (you know

what mean)

Steve wrote:

personally I am inclined to believe

>that Jesus did exist as a historical figure, which I think is also the

>position with many people who are not Christians. Not that I am sure that

the

>evidence is 100% but on balance it seems likely to me. However for many

>reasons I think that the religion that is named after him is something that

>evolved largely due to St. Paul and later the Roman empire under

Constantine.

>The supernatural claims about Jesus are, I think, the crucial ones -

>separating the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history - i.e. how did the

>Jesus figure (whether he existed or not) become the Christ figure that

>Christians make supernatural claims about?

Mark reply:

I to, believe Christianity evolved largely due to St. Paul (and other NT

writers) and Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus,Tertullian, Origen,

Cyprian, Anthony, and then finally as you stated, the conversion of

Constantine in A.D. 312.

The Jesus of faith should not be separated from the Jesus of history, in

fact the Jesus of faith is rooted in the Jesus of history. Howard Clark Kee,

professor emeritus at Boston University, makes the following conclusions

from the sources outside of the New Testament:"The result of the examination

of the sources outside the New Testament that bear directly or indirectly on

our knowledge of Jesus is to confirm his historical existence, his unusual

powers, the devotion of his followers, the continued existence of the

movement after his death at the hands of the Roman governor in Jerusalem,

and the penetration of Christianity into the upper strata of society in Rome

itself by the later first century." ("What Can We Know about Jesus? Kee.

Pg.19) Kee continues"In spite of this range of ways in which the tradition

about Jesus has been transmitted, we have available a clear and remarkably

consistent array of evidence about this figure whose life, teachings, and

death have continued to have such a profound inpact on the subsequent

history of the human race." (Ibid Pg. 114)

Christians were not the only ones who claimed that Jesus did supernatural

works. In the Babylonian Talmud we read: "It has been taught: On the eve of

Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for

forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery

and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor,

let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his

favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a; cf.t. Sanh.

10:11;y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9). Interesting in another version of this

text it reads, "Yeshu the Nazarene." (but thats another subject).

Steve wrote:

>Firstly, alarm bells really should ring when a non-Christian (e.g.

Josephus)

>writes about Jesus in such glowing terms. If Josephus really wrote that

then

>he would have been a Christian.

Mark reply:

Good point, I am aware of this. I have a part 2 to the previous article, I

have pasted it below for you and then I will continue the discussion after

that. (it is shorter than the last article)

Part 2 of "Is There Really Evidence That Jesus Christ Lived"

The Josephus Passage

By Mark McFall

In Part 1 of "Is There Really Evidence That Jesus Christ Lived," I quoted

Josephus who was a

very important Jewish historian of the first century. Critics of the

Christian era are going to

immediately point out a problem with this passage, but before we get into

that I just wanted to

give my readers a little back ground on Josephus.

He was born in A.D. 37, and he wrote most of his four works toward the end

of the first century.

In his autobiography he defended his behavior in the Jewish-Roman War, which

took place from

A.D. 66 to 74. He had surrendered to the Roman general Vespasian during the

siege of Jotapata,

even though many of his colleagues committed suicide rather than give up.

Josephus being the

interesting character that he is, decided to be a defender of the Romans

rather than follow his

former colleagues example. His most ambitious work was called The

Antiquities, which was a

history of the Jewish people from Creation until his time. He probably

completed it in about A.D.

93. It is in this book where there is collaborating evidence of the

historical Jesus. In this book we

read:

"Now at this time, Jesus arose. He was a wise man (if he must actually be

described as a

man), for he was a doer of remarkable deeds, a teacher of people who receive

the truth with

delight. He persuaded both many Jewish people and many of the Greeks as

well. He was the

Messiah. And after Pilate had punished him with a cross at the instigation

of high ranking men

among us, those who loved him at first did not stop because he appeared to

them living again

on the third day - the divine prophets had predicted these and countless

other marvelous

things about him. Even now, the group named after this man, the Christians,

has still not

disappeared".

This is probably the most hotly disputed passage in ancient literature

because on its surface it

appears to provide sweeping corroboration of Jesus' life, miracles, death,

and resurrection. It has

all the essential components of the Biblical accounts. But is it authentic?

When I first heard of this passage I was delighted that this was more

confirmation of the

historical Jesus. But it wasn't until I was reading in the magazine

"Biblical Archaeology Review"

that I noticed that this passage is "spurious" according to the magazines

founder Hershel Shanks.

Then sum months later I was listening to Dr. James Kennedy who is Chancellor

of Coral Ridge

Seminary who "then" re-enforced my view that this passage is authentic by

stating that "there is

no manuscript evidence that demonstrates that this passage is not genuine

and that all

manuscripts contain this entire passage". So the question arises, why do

these two well learned

individuals disagree on the authentic of this passage?

Well, it seems that scholarship has gone through three trends about it (each

trend I went through

to). (1) For obvious reasons, the early Christians thought it was a

wonderful and thoroughly

authentic attestation of Jesus and his resurrection. They loved it and

frequently quoted it.(2)

Then the entire passage was questioned by at least some scholars during the

Enlightenment.(3)

But today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian

scholars that the

passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations

(Christian copyists

inserted some phrases that a Jewish writer like Josephus would not have

written).

The earliest quote out of Josephus is found in Eusebius' Book 1 Chapter 11

written sometime

between A.D. 260-340 where a word for word rendering is written down by the

Christian historian

Eusebius. Eusebius probably had access to documents that were older in

nature, therefor unless

an over jealous Christian copyist inserted any portion of the verse it had

to be very near the

original. In this case Dr. Kennedy is right, there is no manuscript evidence

that this passage is

not authentic.

But let's take a closer look at this passage with the help of a world class

historian Dr. Edwin

Yamauchi PH.D. of Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

Dr.Yamauchi comments: In the first line it is stated, "About this time there

lived Jesus, a wise

man." This phrase is not normally used of Jesus by Christians, so it seems

authentic for

Josephus.

[Dr. Yamauchi] But in the next phrase it is stated, "if indeed one ought to

call him a man." This

implies Jesus was more than human, which appears to be an interpolation.

[Dr. Yamauchi] The passage goes on to say, "For he was one who wrought

surprising feats and

was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many

Jews and many of

the Greeks." This phrase seems to be quite in accord with the vocabulary

Josephus use

elsewhere, and it's generally considered authentic.

[Dr. Yamauchi] But then there's the unambiguous statement, "He was the

Christ. That seems to

be an interpolation because it is unlikely that Josephus would have flatly

said Jesus was the

Messiah here, when elsewhere he merely said he was considered to be the

Messiah by his

followers.

[Dr. Yamauchi] The next part of the passage which talks about Jesus' trial

and crucifixion and the

fact that his followers still loved him, is considered genuine. Then there's

this phrase, "On the

third day he appeared to them restored to life." But this again, is a clear

declaration of belief in

the Resurrection, and thus it's unlikely that Josephus wrote it. So these

three elements seem to

have been interpolation3.

According to Dr. Yamauchi this passage was originally written about Jesus,

although without

those three points. I have put together the parts that are considered to be

genuine by most

scholars:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought

surprising

feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won

over many

Jews and many of the Greeks. And after Pilate had punished him with a cross

at the

instigation of high ranking men among us, those who loved him at first did

not stop".

But even so, with-out those key elements of doctrine, this passage still

stands as a testimony that

Jesus Christ lived and walked in that window of time. My readers may do well

to remember that

Josephus does mention Jesus in book 20 Chapter 9 in "Antiquities of the

Jews" where it is

stated:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinius was but upon the road; so he assembled

the sanhedrim of

judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,

whose

name was James, and some other, and when he had formed an accusation against

them as

breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

It is here in this passage that we are on solid ground. Dr. Yamauchi goes on

to say "that he was a

wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the

fact that he had been

crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders".

According to Dr.

Yamauchi, "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage.

So here you have a

reference to the brother of Jesus who had apparently been converted by the

appearance of the

risen Christ, if you compare John 7:5 and 1 Corithians 15:7 and

corroboration of the fact that

some people considered Jesus to be the Christ, which means "the Anointed one

or Messiah."5

So where are we all at in this, despite the interpolations of Christian

copyist in favor of proving

that Jesus did arise from the dead, the fact remains that Jesus Christ did

live and walk the earth

and a more detailed account can be found in the four biographies of his life

where their are four

independent accounts of his resurrection not to mention Pauls account.

Steve wrote:

Secondly your statement <<These

>Gospels are authentic Historical documents that were written by

eye-witnesses

>with the exception of the historian, Dr. Luke. >> makes me guess that you

>have not read much of the literature critical of this claim, or otherwise

you

>would have tried to back this up. Am I correct? I was particularly

surprised

>that you wrote this bald statement after having been to Steven Carr's site

Marks reply:

I have read critical discussions on this, but I disagree. The writers of the

N.T. wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information. (maybe I will

taylor my article to the last phrase). The books of the N.T. makes such

claims to this in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, Acts 2:22, John

19:35, Luke 3:1, Acts 26:24-26.

F.F. Bruce, the former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis

at the University of Manchester, says, concerning the primary-source value

of the NT records: "The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value

of...first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are

witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And

it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent

words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples

were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. And it was not

only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with;

there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main

facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciple could no afford to

risk inaccuracies (no to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which

would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On

the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching

is the confident appeal to the knoledge of the heares; they not only said,

'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know'

(Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any

material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience

would have served as a further corrective. (Bruce, NTD, 33-46).

Now you might be saying "Come on Mark, that's only what the writers claimed.

A pseudo-author writing a century or more after the fact can claim

anything". Well, the fact is, however, that the books of the NT were not

written down a century or more after the events they described, but during

the lifetimes of those involved in the accounts themselves. Therefore, the

NT must be regarded by scholars today as a competent primary source document

from the first century (History and Christianity by John Montgomery. Pg.

34-35).

William Foxwell Albright, one of the world's foremost Biblical

archaeologists, said "We can already say emphatically that there is no

longer any solid basis for dating any book of the NT after about A.D. 80,

two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more

radical NT critics of Today" (Albright, RDBL, pg 136). I will pick back up

discussion after this list, with one more response.

Conservative and liberal scholars listed below have provided the

following opinions as to when in their view the various New Testament

books were penned.

Matthew

Larry Chouinard, Ph.D. 60s or 70s AD

W.D. Davies, Ph.D. 80 to 100 AD

James M. Efird, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD

Davies Professor of New Testament and Biblical Greek at Duke University

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 50-55 AD

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 75 to 80 AD -

Professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America

Past President of the Society of Biblical Literature Chair of the Synoptic

Studies

Division of SBL. Author of the 2 Volume Commentary on Luke in the Anchor

Bible Series. A well-known and leading Critical Scholar in New Testament

Origins

Donald A. Hagner, Ph.D. pre 70 AD

William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 63-66 AD

Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD

Professor of New Testament at Drew University

Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 80 to 100 AD

Late Professor of New Testament at Marburg, Germany

Bruce Metzger, Ph.D 75 to 85 AD

Professor of New Testament at Princeton University Chair of the Editorial

Board for the

UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Senior Editor for the New

Testament

of the NRSV Translation Team.

(Probably THE Dean of Textual-Critical studies today [since Aland's death])

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD

Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD

Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University

(Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke show ANY sign of knowing of ANY of the

events

following 90 AD, hence they were written before 90.)

Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD

Retired Professor of Greek and New Testament, Cambridge University

Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 80 AD

Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Southern Methodist

University

(Dr. Tyson is one of THE leading scholars in Luke-Acts, and is Chair of the

Luke-Acts

Division of the Society of Biblical Literature)

J. Wenham, Ph.D. 40 A.D.

Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 70 to 80 AD

Professor of New Testament at The Episcopal Theological Seminary

G.A. Wells, sometime after Mark which is dated the MIDDLE of 70 to 135 AD

in Did Jesus Exist?, 1986

G.A. Wells, after 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11

G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend

1996, p. 71.

Mark

Allan Black, Ph.D. early 60's AD

Raymond E. Brown, Ph.D. 60 to 75 AD, most likely between 68 & 73 AD

James M. Efird, Ph.D. 65 to 70 AD

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 66 or 67 AD

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 60 to 70 AD

Robert A. Guelich, Ph.D. 67 to 70 AD

William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 40 to 65 AD, with the earlier date favored.

Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 70 AD

Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 70 AD

William L. Lane, Th.D. 60 to 70 AD

Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 65 to 75 AD

N. Perrin, Ph.D. after 64/65 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD

Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 65 to 70 AD

Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 60 to 70 AD

Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 70 AD

J. Wenham, Ph.D. 45 A.D.

Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 65 to 70 AD

G.A. Wells, the MIDDLE of 70 to 135 AD in Did Jesus Exist?, 1986

G.A. Wells, about 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, pp. 11 &

107

G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend

1996, p. 71.

G.A .Wells, not earlier than 90 AD in The Jesus Myth 1999, p. 17

Luke

Mark C. Black, Ph.D. 65 to 85 AD

Hans Conzelmann, Th.D. 80 - 100 AD for Luke-Acts, with a likely range of

80 - 90 AD

Professor of New Testament at Gottingem, ThD from Tubingen (Yet again, the

recognized HEIGHT of European liberal Bibliccal-Critical Scholarship)

Author of one of THE BEST Critical, Academic Commentaries on Acts.

James M. Efird, Ph.D. 75 to 80 AD

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Before 62 AD, perhaps 58-60 AD

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD

Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. 62 to 64 AD

William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 61-63 AD

John Holland, Ph.D. 68-78 AD

Professor of New Testament at Trinity College, Bristol England

Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. 80 - 85 AD for Luke (perhaps a bit earlier ...

he hedges toward 75 CE at times) - Professor of New Testament at Emory

University, Candler School of Theology

Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 85 AD

Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 70 to 90 AD

Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD

John Nolland, Ph.D. late 60's to late 70's

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD

Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD

Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD

Professor of New Testament at the University of Zurich (Again, about as

Critical and liberal as they come)

Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 75 to 80 AD

Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD

Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 80 to 90 AD

G.A. Wells, after 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11

G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend

1996, p. 71.

John

W.F. Albright, Ph.D. late 70's or early 80's, not after 90 AD

George R. Beasley-Murray, Ph.D. 80 AD

Raymond Brown, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD, re-edited 85 to 95 AD

Beauford H. Bryant, Ph.D. 85 to 95 AD

James M. Efird, Ph.D. 90 to 95 AD

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 90 AD

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 90 AD

William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 80 to 98 AD

B.P.W. Stather Hunt, Ph.D. pre. 70 AD

Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 90 AD

Mark S. Krause, Ph.D. 85-95 AD

Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 90's AD

Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 90 AD

Leon Morris, Ph.D. pre 70's AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 65 AD

Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 95 AD

Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 90 to 95 AD

Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 90 AD

G.A. Wells, after 90 AD in The Historical Evidence for Jesus 1988, p. 11

G.A. Wells, "I date all four Gospels at ca. A.D. 90," in The Jesus Legend

1996, p. 71.

Acts

F.F. Bruce, Ph.D. 66 AD or shortly thereafter appears attractive.

Joseph S. Exell, Ph.D. 63 AD

James M. Efird, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. Between 62 to 64 AD

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Ph.D. 85 AD

Dennis Gaertner, Ph.D. 63 AD

Donald Guthrie, Ph.D. Between 62 to 64 AD

John Holland, Ph.D. 68 to 78 AD

Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. 85 AD

Howard Clark Kee, Ph.D. 85 AD

Simon J. Kistemaker, Ph.D. prior to July 19, 64 AD

Werner Georg Kummel, Ph.D. 80 to 90 AD

William J. Larkin, Jr., Ph.D. early 60's

Bruce Metzger, Ph.D. 85 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Complete by 62 AD

Edward P. Sanders, Ph.D. 75 to 85 AD

Edward J. Tinsley, Ph.D. 95 AD

Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD

Edward Schweizer, Ph.D. 80 to 85 AD

Franklin W. Young, Ph.D. 80 to 90 AD

Romans

Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., early 56, 57, or 58 AD

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 56 AD

William Hendriksen, Ph.D. 57 or 58 AD

1st Corinthians

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 54 AD

Simon J. Kistemaker, Ph.D. 55 AD

2nd Corinthians

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 55 AD

Simon J. Kistemaker, Ph.D. 56 AD

William R. Baker, Ph.D. probably 56 AD

Galatians

Kenneth L. Boles, M.A. 50 AD or later

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 48 AD

J.B. Lightfoot, 56 to 57 AD

Ephesians

Kenneth L. Boles, M.A. 62 AD from Rome, 58 to 60 if written in Caesarea

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD

Philippians

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD

Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ph.D. While Paul was in prision in Caesarea about 59-61

AD.

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD

Colossians

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD

1st Thessalonians

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 50-52 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 50 AD

2nd Thessalonians

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 50-52 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 51 AD

1st Timothy

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 62-65 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Autumn 55 AD

2nd Timothy

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 65 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Autumn 58 AD

Titus

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 62-65 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Spring 57 AD

Philemon

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 61-62 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. early 58 AD

Hebrews

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 64 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 67 AD

James

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 55-56 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 48 AD

1st Peter

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 65 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Spring 65 AD

2nd Peter

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 65 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 61 to 62 AD

1st John

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 100 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Early 60's AD

2nd John

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 100 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Early 60's AD

3rd John

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 100 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Early 60's AD

Jude

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 75 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. 61 to 62 AD

Revelation

David A. Fiensy, Ph.D. 95 AD

J.A.T. Robinson, Ph.D. Late 68 or early 70 AD

Steve wrote:

>The Jesus puzzle http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm The writer here

is

>pretty convinced that there was no historical Jesus. You can pick a fight

>with him if you wish! He discusses Josephus at great length here

Mark reply:

I will visit some of the other website you listed, but this Early Dougherty

charector is quite interesting. I have dialoged with him before. As you

stated their are not to many who hold to his view, and he has admitted to me

that his view is bias for him to come out where he is. Let me quote from

Professor FF. Bruce again for you:

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christian-myth,' but they do not

do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as

axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It

is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."

As I've said on other occasions, "You learn more from somebody who does not

think the way you do, than from somebody who does".

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>

To: mark mcfall

Sent: 09 January 2000 23:41

Subject: Re: Your question regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure

Hi Mark,

You wrote:

<<

Steve wrote:

> However, you might be asking the wrong person.

Mark reply:

Perhaps, but as you know from being an ex-Christian, perhaps not. (you know

what mean)

>>

Actually I'm not too sure what you do mean here, I'm afraid. Maybe it's a bit

late and I'm feeling a bit dim at the moment!

You wrote:

<< The Jesus of faith should not be separated from the Jesus of history, in

fact the Jesus of faith is rooted in the Jesus of history. >>

I think that is begging the question. If you insist that the Jesus of faith

must be the same as the Jesus of history then you will have not be able to

look at the evidence with an open mind and you may end up engaging in

casuistry rather than historical research. If a Muslim claimed that the

historical Mohammed should not be separated from the Mohammed

of faith then you might make a similar objection too. Nevertheless, the

evidence may become so overwhelming that your mind changes anyway.

That has happened to many erudite and previously convinced Christians.

If the Jesus of faith is not the Jesus of history then the separation is

indeed valid. Once I thought that the Jesus of faith was the Jesus of

history but I read and thought enough to change my mind. Also the

historicity of Jesus that was not the only factor in my deconversion. But

of course you can see the summary of my story on my website.

You must understand something else though, at least about me (I don't speak

for all ex-Christians here, but I do speak for some from my conversations on

this). The work on the historical Jesus is long and complicated and although

I have read much more than the average person, I am certainly not enormously

erudite. When I became an ex-Christian it was due largely to being exposed to

enough thought and experience from the other side to be able to really

perceive that it was indeed possible that Christianity was due to the

complexities of history, sociology, psychology etc. When that happened

Christianity became completely untenable for me. I doubt any history scholar

has all the facts that all the others have, and so we can always be asked yet

another question. However to answer every technical question of yours I would

have to delve back through my books and bookmarked websites and pieces

I have stored on disk, go to the library and search the Internet further etc.

Suffice to say that you really have to read some of the material I sent you

before I can put the effort into each technical detail as it is not my forte

and requires a lot of work from me. I have given Christianity a very good

shot and I no longer jump through hoops for it although I do maintain a

steady review of the arguments on both sides. It is for this reason that

there are FAQ's and why I point people to the literature rather than

expecting me to be the expert on everything.

However, since you maintain that the gospels are eyewitness accounts you

really must read and comment on Steven Carr's pages at

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm and

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm

Steven's pieces summarise well some of my reading on this matter and you will

get a much more interesting and timely debate from him than me which I will

watch with interest. If you disagree with what he says then you must explain

why (to him) and not by quoting that a professor somewhere disagrees. The

arguments must be put on the table. I'm afraid I don't see how your current

arguments cope with Steven Carr's points.

<< Howard Clark Kee,

professor emeritus at Boston University, makes the following conclusions

from the sources outside of the New Testament: <snip> >>

Well, many others disagree, as you will see from the links I gave you. Having

seen many arguments I am still won over by the case against the Jesus of

faith.

<< Now you might be saying "Come on Mark, that's only what the writers

claimed. A pseudo-author writing a century or more after the fact can claim

anything". Well, the fact is, however, that the books of the NT were not

written down a century or more after the events they described, but during

the lifetimes of those involved in the accounts themselves. Therefore, the

NT must be regarded by scholars today as a competent primary source document

from the first century (History and Christianity by John Montgomery. Pg.

34-35). >>

The evidence I have read is against this (see URLs already given), at least

ITO information being from participants in the events portrayed (or even

second hand) to lend any credence to the historicity of the supernatural

elements of the Christian faith (and even many mundane elements). Also the

final sentence is a non-sequitur.

<< Conservative and liberal scholars listed below have provided the

following opinions as to when in their view the various New Testament

books were penned. <snip list> >>

Well, there are a lot of pro-Christian scholars. There are also a lot who

have come to a different conclusion regarding the Jesus of history being the

Jesus of faith. It is a shame for Christianity that something which

Christians believe is so important is not evident. Why do you think that

apologists and ministers etc. leave Christianity whereas I am yet to find any

members of atheist/humanist etc. organisations who have subsequently become

Christians? What does this suggest about the nature of the evidence to the

well read people in both camps? It is very common for ex-Christians to have

read much pro-Christian material, whereas it is rare to find a Christian

(even a scholar) who has an equivalent grasp of the sceptical literature.

This goes too for many Christian sponsored bible colleges. However there are

theological colleges I have visited where the students regularly loose their

faith in the process of their studies. If the evidence is as good as you

think it is then this really shouldn't happen. Read this (it's very short)

http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/edelen03.html

<< this Early Dougherty

charector is quite interesting. I have dialoged with him before. As you

stated their are not to many who hold to his view, and he has admitted to me

that his view is bias for him to come out where he is. Let me quote from

Professor FF. Bruce again for you: >>

As I said before, I also think there probably was a historical person, so I

have no quibble with you there.

<< As I've said on other occasions, "You learn more from somebody who does

not think the way you do, than from somebody who does". >>

That's very noble and sometimes true! Maybe you will learn nothing from me

though (or visa-versa) but let's try anyway - but please take technical

questions to the erudite (after reading some of the material I sent) and I'll

spectate and comment later!

BTW you will also see that some of your remarks about Josephus are already

made on some of the links I gave, so I hope you can appreciate that you would

do well to read the stuff first before setting me lengthy homework. Yes, it

seems Josephus wrote something that was later beefed up by some Christians -

I already thought that! It is also entirely congruent with Christianity being

a human invention as it appears to be from everything I have so far come

across.

I hope I haven't been too brusque - I certainly don't mean to be! It's time

for bed for me....

Regards,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):

www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks <Steve Locks>

To: mark mcfall

Sent: 10 January 2000 22:41

Subject: Re: Re:Communication

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your interest and thank you for your calm

approach. It is very easy in religious debates or discussions for tempers to

get raised which makes a mess of NGs like alt.christnet and alt.atheism. I

have seen none of this from you and I commend you for it very much (and I

commend myself too!)

I am very pleased to dialogue with you as far as you want to go if you wish.

I also was in the "Xtianity" mailing list for a while and found it quite a

civilised place. Unfortunately I had to leave as my wife said I was

spending too much time on the computer (I still do!) and we just had a child,

but I think the sort of discussion I can have with you may well like be the

good old days on the Xtianity list that I enjoyed so much.

You wrote:

<< It seems that you have been influenced by the research of the small

group called "Jesus Seminar"(am I correct). >>

No you are quite wrong. I think that if I am to avoid repeating myself you

need to read my website carefully. I am not asking you to follow the external

links and end up reading the whole Internet (!) but you really must read the

stuff I have written if you want to know where I stand and some of why I do.

Then we can take it from there. It is not a lot of material and you can

easily read it all in an evening. My own writings are on these following

links - you don't have to follow any other hyperlinks within them to reach

any of my stuff, it's all here. I recommend reading them in this order too,

as it will build the most coherent picture.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/posts.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html

http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/slocks.htm

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/henry_quon.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/kevnjoy.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/ron_greib.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html

You should be able to gather from the preface to my site that I left

Christianity in the mid 1980's. This was when the Jesus seminar was just

beginning and the Internet was a very small thing. I had no idea of the

existence of the Jesus seminar until a couple of years ago and it played no

part in my deconversion. I have also checked the books I read at the time and

most of them were written before 1985 when the Jesus seminar started and the

later ones others also don't refer to the Jesus Seminar at all in their notes

or references. So it looks like even second hand I was not influenced by

this.

You wrote:

<< As you already probably know they

represent a small radical-fringe of scholars who are on the far, far left

wing of NT thinking. They do not represent mainstream scholarship. I should

probably note that they take their findings to the masses of the public, and

not to other scholars. >>

The radicals are not quite so fringe as you may have been told. If you read

the link I gave you previously

http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/edelen03.html you will see

that radical Christians are common in the USA. In Britain where I live there

are many colleges where scholarship points to Christianity not being

supernatural. One such movement that started over here and is now world wide

is the Sea of Faith http://www.sofn.org.uk/

Also you must remember that I and all the ex-Christians I know of have not

had the anti-supernatural bias you mentioned when we were Christians.

Although I myself was quite liberal, (I certainly didn't believe the bible

was inerrant or in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Balaam's talking ass etc.) I

did believe in the incarnation and resurrection, which made me a believer in

the supernatural. I think that ex-Christians are very honest researchers

because we have come to a conclusion completely at variance with what we once

maintained. Also the scholarship I read and that is linked to in the URLs I

gave in my first reply is quite at variance with the way Christians often

characterise it, as you have done with the Jesus seminar. Not only is the

Jesus seminar much more sophisticated than your characterisation paints it,

but the material I read does not take the starting point you criticise the

Jesus seminar for at all. It is a very different kind of criticism, along the

lines of Steven Carr's summaries at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm

and http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm If you read them you will get a

taste of the sort of difficulties with the claims you made before. This does

not rely on an a priori assumption about the impossibility of miracles at

all. In fact none of the material I read during my deconversion was like your

characterisation of the Jesus seminar.

So, in reply to your question:

<< They rule out the possibility of the supernatural from the

beginning, and then they say, "NOW BRING ON THE EVIDENCE ABOUT JESUS".

Steve have you done this? >>

No I haven't. I believed in the incarnation and resurrection but material

like Steve Carr's, in the books I list on my website and others, provided

part of the case that convinced me I had been wrong about Christianity.

You wrote:

<< I don't know where you stood when you were in your Christian walk, >>

Then you really must read the URLs in this email...

You went on to say:

<< but I could only suggest to you to get back up on the bike and try

again. Your knowledge of being on both sides of the track would be

an asset to the ministry of bringing people back to Christ. (far from

what's on you mind, right) >>

Ha! I'm sorry but that is just too bizarre! I'm sure you were joking or else

the assumption that I should even be able to believe something I don't

believe is just totally odd. Christians often paint belief as a choice. I

fail to see the psychological possibility of this other than wilfully

brainwashing oneself or trying to get hypnotised by Christianity. Surely you

don't see this as a way of finding things out?! Would you respond positively

to a Muslim or a Hare Krishna suggesting you get on their bike to find out

that their beliefs are true? I do not think that willing oneself to believe

things is either virtuous or responsible.

Here are some particular reasons why I think it is reasonable not to

believe in the Christian god (this is far from exhaustive):-

1) I do not think it is either virtuous or responsible to make oneself

purposively believe things. We should have the decency to examine the

arguments and test out our ideas. Our ideas about the world should

only be "working hypotheses" if we are not to be arrogant and claim

more than we really know.

2) My particular moral problems with Christianity include that it is

not easy for a Christian to truly feel brotherly love for a

non-Christian (how can you feel real kinship for someone who "doesn't

know Christ" or is "not saved" or "going to hell" etc.?) Also it is a

very serious moral defect to believe in hell. The fact that Jesus and

the disciples are characterised as believing in it, let alone reported as

having talked about it with such relish, shows them (or those who wrote

the gospels) to have just been men caught up in and part of the religious

ideas of their culture.

3) The fact of the holocaust strips God of any worth, power or

numinousness. The casuistry that Christians invent to let their God off the

hook of the "problem of evil" is reminiscent of an abused wife's love for her

husband or the Stockholm syndrome. I am constantly told how much mentally

healthier people feel after leaving Christianity.

4) A whole list of problems is given at

http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~rainwate/tough_questions.html

You wrote:

<< Lee Stroble has just finished writing a book called the "Case for Christ"

he was a professed Athiest (I have read Jeffery Jay Lowder's critique of

that book). >>

It is one thing to be a professed atheist, and quite another to be well read

before converting to Christianity (or another religion). Was Stroble a member

of an atheist organisation before he became a Christian? If he was then he

was a mirror of the ex-ministers etc. that I have been looking for. If not

then Stroble is just another Christian apologist. Nobody starts out life as a

Christian.

You wrote:

<< Let me tell you through, if somebody is converted from being an

Athiest you are not going to read it in skeptical writings. I'm sure you

would agree. >>

Well, you really are not doing me justice. I did a web search and asked

around when I set up my site for such cases and have linked on my site

to those I found. If you go to my reciprocal links section you will see that

in those sites that disagree with mine I have linked to "Testimonies of

former atheists who became Christians" at

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/atheist.htm and William J. Murray's page

(Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son) at http://www.wjmurray.com/

I have also done considerable work in trying to find examples of ex-atheist

group members who subsequently became Christians, and have asked some very

good Christian sites on this and continue to do so. I still haven't found

any. See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html

You wrote:

<< I also am a subscriby to Xianty-infidels where most of my debates with

Steve Carr take place (very smart man by the way). I also surf the

Ex-Christian webring, and spend time talking to deconverts like your self.

I do spend time reading skeptical literature and I have also talk to people

who have worked on the book "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". I am

well aware of the arguments, and I will continue to study the more difficult

ones, but this I look at as a challenge, not as errors. >>

Good, as I said before, I commend you for that. Many ex-Christians did the

same as you when they were Christians, although I am not insinuating that all

Christians who do such research will deconvert, but many do. As I reported at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html#background

one correspondent on the xtianity mailing list described how during his years

of debating online he had seen many Christians deconvert due to the arguments

used against Christianity (some of the contributors were such people) but had

never seen an atheist debater converted by the arguments of Christians.

I didn't have the Internet in the 1980's but I did the same with books and

friends in real life. Although not unknown, it is unfortunately less common

for Christians in general to do what you are doing as far as I can gather

from talking to them, my experience amongst Christians when I was one,

and from surfing the Internet and reading their apologetics. It is common

for sites critical of Christianity to link to pro-Christian sites. The

opposite seems much rarer. There is even Christian software available

that blocks sites critical of Christianity.

You quoted:

<< "Some consider this a minor issue, but the idea that the Bible contains

errors opens the door to serious spiritual danger. When people decide they

have the authority to label one verse as a mistake, they soon find others

that they consign to the "error" category. I've watched it happen over the

years. Each generation rejects more and more Scripture, as it gets in the way

of their own opinions". (Dr. John Bechtle)

Steve have you done this? >>

No, you really must read my site carefully. As I said above, I had a somewhat

liberal view of the bible and was not perturbed by the odd contradiction that

I knew about as a Christian. The really juicy ones, such as those I list at

http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble I didn't even notice

until a few years ago, which was long after I had already deconverted. Also I

would like to know why you think I am in "spiritual danger?" How do you

measure that your spirituality is somehow greater than mine? Why do I find

life as an atheist far more rewarding on all fronts than life as a Christian,

even though I thought Christianity was very spiritual and loving at the time?

You will see this remark at a number of places on my site. You should also

read my collection of quotes at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html

You wrote:

<< Steve I have quoted Scholars and you have referenced me to other sites, it

seems we have something in common, and that thing in common is "using

somebody else to confirm our ideas". Why don't we drop our sources and just

talk about our (long sometimes scenic) journey with the living Lord of the

Universe. >>

Well, firstly I think it is good "nettiquette" to quote URLs where

information can be found, rather than copying and pasting great chunks into

email. Also there is no point reinventing the wheel if the information is out

there already. So I think it is pertinent to give URLs and to expect each

other to read them, otherwise we are not going to get anywhere in

understanding each others points efficiently. BTW it is also good practise

not to quote the whole of my previous post in your replies. I keep all my

posts, so I will know what you are replying to.

Secondly, let's not beg the question that we were/are "journeying with the

Lord." I have given you plenty of resources on why I left Christianity and

what I think now and I have also replied to your points. When you have read

the material I have referenced and written please do answer my points.

Usually in debates I find Christians drop the points I make and do not take

them as far as we both could. Also if you have a website then please let me

know. Otherwise if you wish to tell me why you became a Christian and what

makes you think that your beliefs are valid then I would be pleased to

discuss that also.

Because this is an interesting discussion it is going up on my website. If

you wish your email address to be removed, just let me know.

Regards,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity (hundreds of deconversion stories):