Much is debated about the authenticity and authorship of the Gospels. For the sake of this argument, let's assume some accuracy in their telling of Jesus's adult ministry. We do not have to argue about miracles, resurrections, or ascensions. Let's argue about the life of Jesus before the age of twelve. How did the writers gather this "historical" data?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
“Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal” by Christopher Moore explains it all. :-)
@ CyberLN
Gotta read that!
@ Chimp
Well the obvious answer is they didn't.
As the child of relatively well off parents, Yeshua ( if he existed) would as from age 5 or so been in Yeshiva or schul most mornings learning hebrew and learning to discuss the texts of the Talmud.
Then, the rest of the day, he would have been working in the wood yard cleaning up and learning the precious imported woods and their properties.
There is a reference to a school mate Jesus killed " with a look or a curse" in the writings of Thomas.
That's about it until we get the gospel reference to him 'arguing' in the temple. All Jewish boys of about 13 are 'examined' by Rabbis as to the extent of their hebrew and and talmudic knowledge, They are also expected to read in the Synagogue as they become men for the first time.
So the story of Jesus arguing in the temple could just have been a small exaggeration of the rites every Jewish boy went through.
No big mystery as nearly every boy child of jewish descent would have had exactly the same history. Easy for any later historian to what we would cal a "copy and paste" with a couple of minor embellishments.
It would have been a very exotic history for later non Jewish listeners, as today we think that Carpenters as ordinary tradies, not as they were in 1st century Judea/Galilee, merchants of some note and prosperity.
Romans would have also been astounded at a the legend of a young boy arguing with say a Mithraic priest or a Priestess of Isis or even more unthinkably, with the clergy in charge of the worshipping of the current God Emperor.
The story of Jesus' early origins in large part comes from what properties the early Christians believed the Messiah needed to have. Those parts which could not be fabricated due to being falsifiable were reiterated as prophecies yet to come, or were outright ignored.
Right from the beginning the story gets crazy. Daddy-o was such a deadbeat he found himself and his wife in the position where he had to beg to sleep in a barn for his expecting wife. What a complete jerk. Maybe he was an alcoholic or had some mental disability.
And yes, being a carpenter was a high status position, usually handed down from father to son. IMO Daddy-o was a crappy carpenter, probably a big disappointment to GrandDaddy-o. And since jesus did not follow in his father's profession, this is a description of a crappy and failed family. Trailer Park boys go bogan.
And the overall story of jesus is one of a malcontent itinerant who never enjoyed a healthy social life, had no girlfriend, and spent most of his time hanging around with other dudes.
This paints a picture of a pretty messed up kid, and no one documents the early life of a trailer park reject.
how about his lost years??? isn't that questionable???
if jesus is very important why can't they put it in the bible???
why theologian fabricate stories??is it true?or its just for the sake of filling up the story that the author of bible miss to wrote??
or the bible is just bullshit...
I am looking for years 0-12. The missing years have been described by the great historian John Prine:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ1LC7AotNE
yeah actually i have that song on my playlist...
The mysterious stranger by Mark Twain
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-mysterious-stranger-summary-analysi...
In the Bible carpenters are identified as people who made wooden idols. Therefore Yeshua came from a family that made wooden idols. And as we all know, he ended up on a wooden cross and even in 2018 people still worship him on a wooden cross as an idol. In other words, the story was always meant to be a prank on gullible people but once the crowds started to soak it up people forgot about the symbolic meaning of the story.
There are of course two "Infancy Gospels" both purporting to relate tales of Jesus' childhood...
Infancy Gospel of James
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html
Although scholarly opinion seems to point to these as later (much later) additions to the "Apocrypha" ... and also as being Gnostic in the nature of their teachings.
@ Watchman
and both rejected by the church on pain of heresy and excommunication.
The massacre of thousands of Thomasian Christians and the destruction of much of the Coptic Church's manuscripts coupled with the violent destruction and murder of gnostic priests and followers in the 4th century did much to ensure people 'found the true' way.
The gospels would have been written after Jesus' death. In John's account we see that Mary, his mother, was still alive. Quite possible she would've been available for interview by the early Christians especially John.
Was she? Please provide proof of your claim. Jesus was executed for being at odds with those in power. If true, jesus grew up in Nazareth, and logically his mother also lived there. John was spreading the word of jesus, and it doesn't take the CIA to figure out he was not welcome in Nazareth, a crossroads for Roman garrisons. If those in power were willing to execute jesus, then it is reasonable to assume that John had a bounty on his head. But he took some time off his busy schedule of traveling around to interview the mother of jesus?
Or are you just grasping at straws?
@ JoC, you really are a mumpsimus .
There is ample proof for my assertions below:
The gospels were not 'written' until at least one hundred years after the supposed events of the mid 1st century CE
The "gospels" all four of them were not written by the people that you believe they were. That is a narrative invented by the church to bolster its illusion of historicity.
The gospels are anonymous and the synoptic gospels based on the 'Mark' collection of stories.
Gospel of John. *"The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years"
"Paul" doesn't mention any of the miraculous happenings in the 'gospels'. **
and lastly:
Jesus didn't die. He was mildly inconvenienced for 3 days. To say jesus died is to deny your own Nicene creed. Blasphemy!
*John Shelby Spong
** There is NO external evidence for the existence of Paul outside the new testament.
I would think that to bolster the claims in the stories, the people who fabricated the gospel stories would’ve been attributed to the 12 apostles. And not just the 12. The inner circle - John, James and Peter.
Only the gospel of John meets this criteria. And only Matthew is another of the 12. I mean, who is this Mark and Luke? They don’t even figure in the narratives. If all of this was made up, why choose these obscure names?
If would be like me attributing a scandalous quote to Pope Francis and to Luciano Santos.
Attributing a fake quote to a prominent person allows it to make more rounds. Attributing it to someone as obscure as the name I mentioned means no one will bat an eye to his sayings/writings.
@ JoC
"I would think that to bolster the claims in the stories,the people who fabricated the gospel stories would’ve been attributed to the 12 apostles."
I am glad you see the gospel stories were fabricated.
And as explained "john" does not meet any criteria as to genuineness or indeed to be written by any single individual. Far less the son of zebedee.
It is nice for you to conjecture and fantasise about the motives for the 3rd century authors, but without any evidence what do you think any reasonable person would say?
And as has been stated so many times. You. Have. No. Evidence. Conjecture is wonderful, but I am sure you would object if you were convicted or lost a court case on that basis.
Lets have a look at how we actually research historical claims like yours:
Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something, we make sure we are being told the facts by checking;
who is telling us this?
how do I know if we can trust them?
can their claims be confirmed somehow?
how do I know if this document is genuine?
As you can see by a minimum amount of research your constant claims and conjecture about the gospels cannot pass the historicity test.
Your argument today is just a pale version of the 'ad populum' fallacy. And your error is one of mumpismus.
(Edit; spelling)
Well, you seem to hold on to that theory so tightly I’d just have to agree to disagree with you. The OP asked a simple question, I gave a simple theory.
I would appreciate the chance to talk to you more face to face but I realize it’s a stretch. I rarely leave the country.
JoC: Your simple theory was a simplistic guess. A simple "I don't know" would suffice.
@ JoC
What "theory"?
I hold any theory( which I have not advanced) subject to provable and contemporary evidence.
i.e. for historical authenticity;
who is telling us this?
how do I know if I can trust them?
can their claims be confirmed somehow?
how do I know if this document is genuine?
That is not a theory , that is a process.
Your claims about all four gospels and a historical basis for the Jesus myth fail that test at each question.
JoC you have great difficulty in separating "want to believe" and "have irrefutable evidence for".
When claiming such extraordinary happenings as in "John" or the other synoptic gospels you must have extraordinary evidence, and yet, there is none.
All you and other theists can produce is conjecture and an argument either ad populum or ad ignorantiam.
An absence of evidence is indeed, not evidence of absence , however, it is not a reasonable basis for belief. You claim only revolves around your childhood and adolescent conditioning.
I, fortunately did not have that indoctrination ( even though some tried) and, instead developed my critical faculties and have a great time exploring history without any prejudice or foregone outcomes anticipated. I am never ever disappointed.
I would be ecstatic if someone produced irrefutable evidence of Jesus the Nazarene's existence as a human. Then we could get on with the whole question of the claims in the gospels. That would be so much fun.
And I don't leave Australia nowadays after extensive travel in my musician days. Happy to FB messenger or Skype, but I don't think it will make any difference to your position. Reality just isn't your thing.
okay then
The reason why there were 12 apostles...and later 70 or 72 disciples (manuscripts vary) is likely because they were considered holy numbers of significance. If there had been 69 disciples, Christians would say it is because god has a sense of humor.
Of course, this form of reasoning is the same as those Christians who think for example that there is a special significance to there being 66 books in the bible (or at least, their version of the bible).
12 did have a significance especially in Jewish culture as there were 12 tribes of Israel.
And a dozen donuts is what I used to bring to work for my co-workers. So what?
David Killens,
"And a dozen donuts is what I used to bring to work for my co-workers. So what?"
You can get people to do anything if you give them the right incentive. In this instance the Yeshua character promised the 12 Apostles that they would get thrones and govern one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. They would also get a big bonus of 100 times what they had given up to follow him on his crusade.
Now imagine instead of bringing fat pills to your co-workers if you had promised them stuff that would have appealed to their vanity and greed if they followed your commands. You could be successful in doing that if you had carefully recruited your followers beforehand. A group of random people might tell you to jump off a bridge. That's why cult and mob leaders and dictators are generally successful. They surround themselves with people who are willing to do as told for certain rewards that appeal to them. The Apostles were such a group.
Sapporo,
"The reason why there were 12 apostles...and later 70 or 72 disciples (manuscripts vary) is likely because they were considered holy numbers of significance."
The reason why there were twelve Apostles was because there was supposed to be one for each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
As it says in Matthew 19:28 (CEB) = "Jesus said to them, “I assure you who have followed me that, when everything is made new, when the Human One sits on his magnificent throne, you also will sit on twelve thrones overseeing the twelve tribes of Israel."
I fully agree. Just like I started each day with my co-workers looking at me in a positive light, I was able to "motivate" them towards my way of doing things.
The disciples were fed a whole pile of crap by jesus, promising them fame and fortune, and eternal life. I have stated that if the stories are remotely true, jesus was a con man. He had the lifestyle and behaviors of one.
David Killens,
"I have stated that if the stories are remotely true, jesus was a con man. He had the lifestyle and behaviors of one."
Even the Bible says that people shouldn't trust someone who had Yeshua's habits.
Sirach 36:31 (CEB) = "31 Who will trust a well-equipped robber who travels from city to city? Likewise, who will trust a man who does not have a nest and who lodges wherever night falls?"
Matthew 8:20 (NKJV) = And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”
The long biblical books were written by committees. Individuals may have written the shorter stories, such as "Bel and the Dragon".
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=belandthedragon&version=CEB
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1879/05/18/80753578.pdf
This is too funny = https://imgur.com/r/imgoingtohellforthis/iCh5JOn