I must address the "Chinese Whispers" chronology put out by "Mike S".

Mike S wrote:First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57)

Which version of 1 Thessalonians in which manuscript is dated ca. 50 AD

Which version of Galatians in which manuscript is dated ca. 50 AD?

Which version of 1 Corinthians in which manuscript is dated ca. 53-54 AD?

Which version of Philippians in which manuscript is dated ca. 55 AD?

Which version of Philemon in which manuscript is dated ca. 55 AD?

Which version of second Corinthians in which manuscript is dated ca. 55-56 AD?

Which version of Romans in which manuscript is dated ca. 50 AD?


Christian writings of antiquity have CONTRADICTED "Mike S".

Examine the Muratorian Canon.

....the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans.

The Muratorian Canon contradicts Mike S.

We have no actual manuscripts that can corroborate his "Chinese Whispers" chronology .

proudfootz wrote:You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Yes, it's like a bad job. You can punch out but you can never leave. I seldom post on this thread any more but I occasionally lurk.

angelo wrote:Bates Motel!

It's a horror movie all right. Every time you think you've found the door out, it just goes back into the lobby.

Mike S wrote:
All writings about Jesus originated after 70 AD?

The Early Christian Writings Site readily shows that isn’t true. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is dated 50 to 140, whereas Paul’s epistles are said to hail from 50 to 65, and of course there are many more writings with starting dates before 70.

Writings of this nature, subject as they are to a process of constant revision/recension, also aren’t usually contrived from scratch. Amusing how most scholars pick 50 AD as the earliest date, apparently on some unquestioning assumption that the canonical gospels similarly came into being around then: mustn’t contradict or interfere with that!

Mike, just to focus on a part of your post, I would say that the four gospels that found their way into the New Testament definitely date from after 70 AD as they involve the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. Of course, the gospels put the prediction of the fall into the mouth of the mythical Jesus. As you said, Paul's epistles, the seemingly authentic ones, seem to be dated circa the 50's AD. As you said, these documents were rewritten and rewritten and rewritten almost ad infinitum. So there will always be evidence of things inserted later that would not be there in the 50's AD.

While it is possible that Christianity came into existence much later, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is quite possible for a religion to come into existence, develop rapidly and become quite complex within a short period to the point that, within a few years, the mythology has obscured any clear trail to it's roots. But, in this case, there do seem to be clear references at too early a date to dismiss a 1st century beginning and at least mid 1st century.

Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

We all agree the final product we see in the Gospels is a fantasy.

Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?

Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale. I'm not asking anybody to prove their opinion is true. I'm just asking where people think they fall on the scale.

Moonwatcher wrote:

Mike, just to focus on a part of your post, I would say that the four gospels that found their way into the New Testament definitely date from after 70 AD as they involve the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. Of course, the gospels put the prediction of the fall into the mouth of the mythical Jesus. As you said, Paul's epistles, the seemingly authentic ones, seem to be dated circa the 50's AD. As you said, these documents were rewritten and rewritten and rewritten almost ad infinitum. So there will always be evidence of things inserted later that would not be there in the 50's AD.

It is already known that your statement about the Pauline Corpus is propaganda and Chinese Whispers.

Which Pauline letter in which manuscript was written in the 50's??

There is NONE.

Every factor to show that the Pauline Corpus was early is MISSING.


It would be expected that the Pauline Corpus would have the most variants per page if it was the earliest but it is gMark that shows the most variants per page.

In fact, the Entire Pauline Corpus shows the very least evidence of being manipulated.

It is claimed that Marcion corrupted or manipulated the Pauline Corpus yet NOT A SINGLE Corrupted/manipulated version of the Pauline Corpus by Marcion has EVER BEEN found.

Moonwathcher wrote:While it is possible that Christianity came into existence much later, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is quite possible for a religion to come into existence, develop rapidly and become quite complex within a short period to the point that, within a few years, the mythology has obscured any clear trail to it's roots. But, in this case, there do seem to be clear references at too early a date to dismiss a 1st century beginning and at least mid 1st century.

Again, you present zero corroborative historical evidence that Christianity came into existence early.

You are just posting the same propaganda over and over.

We have writings attributed to 1st century Jews [ Philo and Josephus] we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is NOTHING at all about Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, Peter and the Apostles or Jewish Christians.


We have writings attributed to Pliny the elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger and still we have NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth who should have been DOCUMENTED in the Gospels and Pauline letters.

There is no argument against Christianity, no arguments against the Blasphemy that a Jew is believed to be the God and Savior of all mankind and the Laws of the Jews were made obsolete by Jesus Christ.

NOTHING--ZERO.

In the writings of Josephus [ 75-94 CE] it was Jesus the son of Ananus who predicted the calamities of Jerusalem NOT Jesus of Nazareth of whom there should have been MULTIPLE BIOGRAPHIES called Gospels where Jesus PREDICTED the Fall of the Temple since 30-33CE.

By the end of the 1st century, there should have been more written about Jesus of Nazareth and Paul than the Emperors of Rome yet NOTHING is documented.

1. In Wars of the Jews, Jesus the son of Ananus predicted the calamities of the Jews--Not Jesus of Nazareth.

2. In Wars of the Jews, the PROPHESIED Jewish Christ had NOT yet come up to the time of Nero.

3. In Antiquities of the Jews, Jesus the son of Sapphias was the leader of a group of mariners---Not Jesus of Nazareth.

4. In Antiquities of the Jews, Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus was the Anointed [Christ]--NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

5. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is NO evidence of the arrival of the Jewish Prophesied Christ.

6.In Tacitus' Histories, the Jewish Prophesied Christ had not yet arrived up to the time of Nero.

7. In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian, the Jewish Prophesied Christ had not yet come up to c 69 CE.

8. The NT Gospels are forgeries or false attribution .

9. The Pauline Corpus is a product of MULTIPLE personS posing as Paul.

10. Christian writers argued that THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator and the Lord from heaven.

11. Letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul in the 1st century have been deemed to be forgeries.

12. Even Christian writings did not acknowledge any Jewish Christian except those in the myth/fiction fables called the NT.

13. The NTJesus story is BLASPHEMY to Jews.

14. Christian writers knew NOTHING of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

There is simply no historical evidence to support any early Jesus cult Christians before the Fall of the Temple.

Moonwatcher wrote:Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

After years of posting you are still asking "what precisely constitutes an Historical Jesus?"

It is already known that people who argue for an historical Jesus use the myth/fiction fables called the Christian Bible.

In other words, the historical Jesus is precisely constituted of no known history.

dejuror wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:
You are just posting the same propaganda over and over.

Coming from you, that is the ultimate irony.

We have writings attributed to 1st century Jews [ Philo and Josephus] we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is NOTHING at all about Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, Peter and the Apostles or Jewish Christians.

We have writings attributed to Pliny the elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger and still we have NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth who should have been DOCUMENTED in the Gospels and Pauline letters.

You list people some of whom specifically make references to Christianity existing circa the very early second century at the latest though you reject the authenticity.

So your answer, as if I didn't know, is, no historicity whatsoever. Thank you.

dejuror wrote:
You are just posting the same propaganda over and over.

Moonwatcher wrote:Coming from you, that is the ultimate irony.

Which manuscript with Pauline letters are dated c 50-60 CE??

It is most fascinating that you have already forgotten that you admitted the evidence for HJ is weak.

Your known weak HJ argument has zero effect on the argument that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character.

dejuror wrote:We have writings attributed to 1st century Jews [ Philo and Josephus] we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is NOTHING at all about Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, Peter and the Apostles or Jewish Christians.

We have writings attributed to Pliny the elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger and still we have NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth who should have been DOCUMENTED in the Gospels and Pauline letters.

Moonwatcher wrote:You list people some of whom specifically make references to Christianity existing circa the very early second century at the latest though you reject the authenticity.

So your answer, as if I didn't know, is, no historicity whatsoever. Thank you.

Your statement is strange. If Jesus cult Christianity did start in the 2nd century then making references to 2nd century writings have ZERO negative effect on my argument.

You have already admitted the HJ argument is weak so will not be able to present any historical evidence at all for an HJ in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

You very well know that you could not have presented a shred of evidence that there were early Pauline writings since the time of Nero.

The earliest manuscript with Pauline letters is Papyri 46 dated to the late 2nd-3rd century.

Messed up post.

Moonwatcher wrote:Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

We all agree the final product we see in the Gospels is a fantasy.

Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?

Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale. I'm not asking anybody to prove their opinion is true. I'm just asking where people think they fall on the scale.

My opinion is:
The best (and therefore most likely) of the various possible explanations for the origin of Christianity is it began with one man gathering a group of followers who, after he died, morphed into various groupings that had various beliefs and 'memories'* about the guy it all began with, and some of those beliefs and 'memories' can be found in the ancient writings that still exist. A small portion of the beliefs and 'memories' are reasonably likely to have their origins in things he said and did. The majority though are better explained by what happened later.

*the scare quotes are there for a reason!

dejuror wrote:

dejuror wrote:
You are just posting the same propaganda over and over.

Moonwatcher wrote:Coming from you, that is the ultimate irony.

Which manuscript with Pauline letters are dated c 50-60 CE??

It is most fascinating that you have already forgotten that you admitted the evidence for HJ is weak.

Your known weak HJ argument has zero effect on the argument that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character.

dejuror wrote:We have writings attributed to 1st century Jews [ Philo and Josephus] we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is NOTHING at all about Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, Peter and the Apostles or Jewish Christians.

We have writings attributed to Pliny the elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger and still we have NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth who should have been DOCUMENTED in the Gospels and Pauline letters.

Moonwatcher wrote:You list people some of whom specifically make references to Christianity existing circa the very early second century at the latest though you reject the authenticity.

So your answer, as if I didn't know, is, no historicity whatsoever. Thank you.

Your statement is strange. If Jesus cult Christianity did start in the 2nd century then making references to 2nd century writings have ZERO negative effect on my argument.

You have already admitted the HJ argument is weak so will not be able to present any historical evidence at all for an HJ in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

You very well know that you could not have presented a shred of evidence that there were early Pauline writings since the time of Nero.

The earliest manuscript with Pauline letters is Papyri 46 dated to the late 2nd-3rd century.

My admission that the evidence is flimsy, which you repeatedly bring up, is an acknowledgement that everything on any side of this discussion, is flimsy. I acknowledge that because I'm open to argument and discussion from both or many sides of the issue.

You state that Papyri 46 is from the late second/ early third century. True. But are you saying it is the original version, that there is no indication that it is copied from earlier manuscripts?

MS2 wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

We all agree the final product we see in the Gospels is a fantasy.

Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?

Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale. I'm not asking anybody to prove their opinion is true. I'm just asking where people think they fall on the scale.

My opinion is:
The best (and therefore most likely) of the various possible explanations for the origin of Christianity is it began with one man gathering a group of followers who, after he died, morphed into various groupings that had various beliefs and 'memories'* about the guy it all began with, and some of those beliefs and 'memories' can be found in the ancient writings that still exist. A small portion of the beliefs and 'memories' are reasonably likely to have their origins in things he said and did. The majority though are better explained by what happened later.

*the scare quotes are there for a reason!

Thanks for answering.

Do you have any thoughts about what this person, IF he existed (and I do mean IF) gathered followers to do?

Moonwatcher wrote:

Mike, just to focus on a part of your post, I would say that the four gospels that found their way into the New Testament definitely date from after 70 AD as they involve the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. Of course, the gospels put the prediction of the fall into the mouth of the mythical Jesus. As you said, Paul's epistles, the seemingly authentic ones, seem to be dated circa the 50's AD. As you said, these documents were rewritten and rewritten and rewritten almost ad infinitum. So there will always be evidence of things inserted later that would not be there in the 50's AD.

While it is possible that Christianity came into existence much later, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is quite possible for a religion to come into existence, develop rapidly and become quite complex within a short period to the point that, within a few years, the mythology has obscured any clear trail to it's roots. But, in this case, there do seem to be clear references at too early a date to dismiss a 1st century beginning and at least mid 1st century.

Wonderful, a coherent post!

The evidence suggests that the canonical gospels only came into being during the last quarter of the second century, and only in the wake of a plethora of preceding gospels, Acts, Epistles, and what have you. Substantiation thereof runs broader than mere omission by Hegesippus and Justin Martyr, yet neither of them had any knowledge of the four gospels, both relying on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as other early gospels/material. In fact there’s no mention of them at all prior 175 AD or so.

But, why three and not simply one synoptic gospel? I can’t substantiate this but I think it had very much to do with political compromise, a means of bringing together three doctrinally different Christian groups situated in three different locations under one umbrella, the Roman Church. There’s no evidence, for instance, that Paul’s particular movement (favoring various notions at odds with the Synoptics, and within which Christ is mainly a spiritual being communicating through the Holy Spirit), while striving to unify/reconcile Jewish scripture with eastern/Greek mysticism, knew anything at all of the canonical gospels,

It’s clear that all three gospels, as for a number of other writings of course, including the Gospel of Thomas, drew in part on an early common document, a collection of sayings attributed to a teacher named Jesus (however otherwise short on biographical detail). I think it’s fair to assume that different versions thereof circulated widely around the Mediterranean’s eastern rim. Papias is alleged to have written five books of Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, one of a multitude of lost early writings.

Mike S wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:

Mike, just to focus on a part of your post, I would say that the four gospels that found their way into the New Testament definitely date from after 70 AD as they involve the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. Of course, the gospels put the prediction of the fall into the mouth of the mythical Jesus. As you said, Paul's epistles, the seemingly authentic ones, seem to be dated circa the 50's AD. As you said, these documents were rewritten and rewritten and rewritten almost ad infinitum. So there will always be evidence of things inserted later that would not be there in the 50's AD.

While it is possible that Christianity came into existence much later, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is quite possible for a religion to come into existence, develop rapidly and become quite complex within a short period to the point that, within a few years, the mythology has obscured any clear trail to it's roots. But, in this case, there do seem to be clear references at too early a date to dismiss a 1st century beginning and at least mid 1st century.

Wonderful, a coherent post!

The evidence suggests that the canonical gospels only came into being during the last quarter of the second century, and only in the wake of a plethora of preceding gospels, Acts, Epistles, and what have you. Substantiation thereof runs broader than mere omission by Hegesippus and Justin Martyr, yet neither of them had any knowledge of the four gospels, both relying on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as other early gospels/material. In fact there’s no mention of them at all prior 175 AD or so.

But, why three and not simply one synoptic gospel? I can’t substantiate this but I think it had very much to do with political compromise, a means of bringing together three doctrinally different Christian groups situated in three different locations under one umbrella, the Roman Church. There’s no evidence, for instance, that Paul’s particular movement (favoring various notions at odds with the Synoptics, and within which Christ is mainly a spiritual being communicating through the Holy Spirit), while striving to unify/reconcile Jewish scripture with eastern/Greek mysticism, knew anything at all of the canonical gospels,

It’s clear that all three gospels, as for a number of other writings of course, including the Gospel of Thomas, drew in part on an early common document, a collection of sayings attributed to a teacher named Jesus (however otherwise short on biographical detail). I think it’s fair to assume that different versions thereof circulated widely around the Mediterranean’s eastern rim. Papias is alleged to have written five books of Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, one of a multitude of lost early writings.

Interesting. I did a check on Wikipedia of the various dates attributed by scholars to the four gospels and the range was as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Obviously, the earliest dates are literalist believer dates. For instance, anything dated before AD 70 is preposterous.

That there are no mentions of these gospels prior to 175 is a significant piece of evidence and, in your case, I have a suspicion the opinion comes from someone not driven by agenda.

What are your thoughts as to why so many scholars, secular included, accept the earlier dates? Tradition? Linguistic evidence in choice of words, etc., matching earlier times?

The explanation for the various gospels and the inclusion of Paul who presents a different take on Jesus may well be explained by placating hugely different views of what the religion was.

MS2 wrote:
My opinion is:
The best (and therefore most likely) of the various possible explanations for the origin of Christianity is it began with one man gathering a group of followers who, after he died, morphed into various groupings that had various beliefs and 'memories'* about the guy it all began with, and some of those beliefs and 'memories' can be found in the ancient writings that still exist. A small portion of the beliefs and 'memories' are reasonably likely to have their origins in things he said and did. The majority though are better explained by what happened later.

I’ve always been more interested in how Christianity was (haphazardly?) created than in its central figure Jesus, but, here’s a thought, MS2 – what if Christianity didn’t start in one location with one man labeled Jesus at all?

What if we’re looking at different groups in different places, mainly in the east (with mystery religions galore), movements which to varying degrees espoused different teachings and traditions, but which all eventually contributed to, and formed part of early Christianity. It would certainly go a long way toward explaining the well nigh irreconcilably conflicting nature of much of the early writings.

Moonwatcher wrote:
... I would say that the four gospels that found their way into the New Testament definitely date from after 70 AD as they involve the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in AD 70. Of course, the gospels put the prediction of the fall into the mouth of the mythical Jesus. As you said, Paul's epistles, the seemingly authentic ones, seem to be dated circa the 50's AD. As you said, these documents were rewritten and rewritten and rewritten almost ad infinitum. So there will always be evidence of things inserted later that would not be there in the 50's AD.

While it is possible that Christianity came into existence much later, it doesn't seem to be the case. It is quite possible for a religion to come into existence, develop rapidly and become quite complex within a short period to the point that, within a few years, the mythology has obscured any clear trail to it's roots. But, in this case, there do seem to be clear references at too early a date to dismiss a 1st century beginning and at least mid 1st century.

Mike S wrote:
The evidence suggests that the canonical gospels only came into being during the last quarter of the second century, and only in the wake of a plethora of preceding gospels, Acts, Epistles, and what have you. Substantiation thereof runs broader than mere omission by Hegesippus and Justin Martyr, yet neither of them had any knowledge of the four gospels, both relying on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as other early gospels/material. In fact there’s no mention of them at all prior 175 AD or so.

But, why three and not simply one synoptic gospel? ... I think it had very much to do with political compromise, a means of bringing together three doctrinally different Christian groups situated in three different locations under one umbrella, the Roman Church. There’s no evidence, for instance, that Paul’s particular movement (favoring various notions at odds with the Synoptics, and within which Christ is mainly a spiritual being communicating through the Holy Spirit), while striving to unify/reconcile Jewish scripture with eastern/Greek mysticism, knew anything at all of the canonical gospels,

It’s clear that all three gospels, as for a number of other writings of course, including the Gospel of Thomas, drew in part on an early common document, a collection of sayings attributed to a teacher named Jesus (however otherwise short on biographical detail). I think it’s fair to assume that different versions thereof circulated widely around the Mediterranean’s eastern rim. Papias is alleged to have written five books of Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, one of a multitude of lost early writings.

Moonwatcher wrote:
Interesting. I did a check on Wikipedia of the various dates attributed by scholars to the four gospels and the range was as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Obviously, the earliest dates are literalist believer dates. For instance, anything dated before AD 70 is preposterous.

That there are no mentions of these gospels prior to 175 is a significant piece of evidence and, in your case, I have a suspicion the opinion comes from someone not driven by agenda.

What are your thoughts as to why so many scholars, secular included, accept the earlier dates? Tradition? Linguistic evidence in choice of words, etc., matching earlier times?

I understand that someone like Harnack asserted the earlier dates, so the early dates have become dogma ever since.

There are now various arguments that some, if not all, of the main NT gospels and epistles arose out of Marcionism in the mid 2nd century

Moonwatcher wrote:The explanation for the various gospels and the inclusion of Paul who presents a different take on Jesus may well be explained by placating hugely different views of what the religion was.

MS2 wrote:
My opinion is:
The best (and therefore most likely) of the various possible explanations for the origin of Christianity is it began with one man gathering a group of followers who, after he died, morphed into various groupings that had various beliefs and 'memories'* about the guy it all began with, and some of those beliefs and 'memories' can be found in the ancient writings that still exist. A small portion of the beliefs and 'memories' are reasonably likely to have their origins in things he said and did. The majority though are better explained by what happened later.

*the scare quotes are there for a reason!

That is the very worst explanation.

You have put forward the openly absurd notion that the Jesus story was a KNOWN lie and that the very people who knew the story was fiction still worshiped a known dead man as a God.

The claim that a known man was believed to be God would be open blasphemy.

It makes no sense at all that the Jesus cult was initiated by known blasphemy which was punishable by death.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html

Minucius Felix

......in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

There is simply no evidence at all that anyone in antiquity knew of Jesus of Nazareth.

All the Jesus stories are from the 2nd century or later and people of the Roman Empire merely BELIEVED they were true.

People in the Roman Empire BELIEVED Ghosts did exist and that they could IMPREGNATE Virgins.

Plutarch's Romulus

For to Tarchetius, they say, king of Alba, who was a most wicked and cruel man, there appeared in his own house a strange vision, a male figure that rose out of a hearth, and stayed there for many days. There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body.

Tarchetius told the prophecy to one of his own daughters, and commanded her to do this thing.....

People in the Roman Empire BELIEVED Romulus, the founder of Rome, was born AFTER a Virgin was IMPREGNATED by a Phantom.

The evidence is clear.

The Jesus story is no different to the myth/fiction character called Romulus.

When Romulus died---his body vanished and day was turned into night.

Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen.......... the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night,

Jesus of Nazareth is a 2nd century myth/fiction character derived from Jewish/Roman/Greek mythology.

Mike S wrote:

The evidence suggests that the canonical gospels only came into being during the last quarter of the second century, and only in the wake of a plethora of preceding gospels, Acts, Epistles, and what have you. Substantiation thereof runs broader than mere omission by Hegesippus and Justin Martyr, yet neither of them had any knowledge of the four gospels, both relying on the Gospel of the Hebrews as well as other early gospels/material. In fact there’s no mention of them at all prior 175 AD or so.

It is simply fallacious that Justin used the Gospel of the Hebrews---No such Gospel of Hebrews is acknowledged in writings attributed to Justin.

In the writings attributed to Justin it is claimed he used the MEMOIRS of the Apostles--NOT the Gospel of the Hebrews.

First Apology

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospelshave thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them...

By the way, Justin wrote nothing about Hegesippus.

Moonwatcher wrote:

What are your thoughts as to why so many scholars, secular included, accept the earlier dates? Tradition? Linguistic evidence in choice of words, etc., matching earlier times?

You missed the most obvious answer--Faith.

Most Scholars who accept early dates are Christians and Fundamentalists.

Christians and Fundamentalists Scholars must claim WITHOUT evidence [by FAITH] that the NT is historical.

Moonwathcher wrote:The explanation for the various gospels and the inclusion of Paul who presents a different take on Jesus may well be explained by placating hugely different views of what the religion was.

The Pauline Corpus is compatible with the teachings of the Church that Jesus was God Incarnate.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, [u]God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law