h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Re: Josephus.

Well, we've got someone who was a Jew and a Pharasee(sp?).
And his exact words include :-
"he was the Christ".

Now, given that the guy was born a jew, and died a jew, and the only reference to Jesus is that single paragraph, what are the chances of him saying that? Zero.

Okay, I'll have a look for the Pilate text. Just found a reference to them in Justin Martyr which indicates they were indeed official letters from the Governor to the Emperor.

Both the references you quote fit in with the idea of an editor (or more than one) dealing with an existing text - esp. the 'it is he who wrote them down'. If 'disciple whom' refers to the author at any given moment, why is Mary M. named a few lines earlier? A sudden switch of authors? If so, impossible to suggest who wrote the bit in question, since it'd be too short a passage.

Christianity was increasingly powerful towards the end of the 1st AD but not so much in the decades following Jesus' death. So relative silence about them from that time is not too surprising.

Plus texts that were written mid 1st will be by people who were alive when the events were happening. The gospels were written by contemporaries but not at the time. The Talmud was compiled in the mid 1st but the texts were written earlier. This is the reason why historians consider them valid and consider Jesus to have at least existed.

I'm arguing the point of Jesus having never existed mostly to be a devil's advocate... I'm not a fervent believer in that theory, but I agree that they have a point.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse about that Mary Magdalene thing. First he names the people present at the cross, then follows it with that "seeing the disciple whom he loved" thing. First he names her. Then he shows that the disciple is there. The second statement makes the assumption that the disciple has already been named, which means that name is given in the first statement. The "disciple whom he loved" may change persons throughout, but the narrator does not... the narrator is the editor who brought cohesion to the collection of seperate works.

As an aside, slightly, (I can't remember whether this has been mentioned) was there not an expectation that "the end of the world" was imminent. So there would not have been a lot of point in recording for posterity. Proselytising, yes, but the need for a written history would only become apparent as the expected second coming did not occur within the lifetime of the witnesses.
"If I want him to live until I come, what is that to you?"

Okay, let's leave the 'did he exist' bit. There are reasonable enough arguments on both sides (as for pretty much everything! )

If I am being obtuse, I can assure you it's not deliberate! Granted, the 'seeing the disciple' would point to said person being already named.

But if there is one guiding hand behind the texts - either one person writing them with several editors or one person handing the tradition to several writers under one editor - then it makes sense that the 'disciple whom' is the same person throughout, and that it's John since he isn't literally named anywhere (though there's references to the sons of Zebedee which someone claimed showed it couldn't be John but has since backtracked for obvious reasons), and so it also makes sense that if he's deliberately not naming himself, he wouldn't include himself in the line-up at the foot of the Cross.

And if the guiding hand is only a single editor...then it still doesn't follow that it's Mary M. If it has to be one of those present, why not his mother's sister or Mary the wife of Clopas (who of course may be the same person)? Why Mary M? Because it fits in with some Gnostic texts? Okay, fair enough.

*But*. The text still has the 'woman, this is your *son*' and 'took her into *his* home.' Which suggest a man. Now we've been through this, and you've said the editor could have rewritten it. Feasible. But why? What reason do we have to think this editor wanted to change such a relatively minor point? Surely only to hide the alleged Mary M./Jesus relationship, yes?

We have no evidence (and it'll be hard to get any) that it has been fiddled with. Most scholars agree there is at least a common tradition - that someone...some *man* (due to various points)...was at least the source of the information in the assembled texts, even if not actually the literal author of any of it.

Even if there was some relationship between Mary & Jesus, there's no reason to suggest this passage was altered unless you're looking for bits to support that specific theory. If you're just looking for bits that may have been altered, for the sake of looking, not for the sake of some theory, then you're not going to choose this bit over any other particularly. Saying 'well if this had actually been different it supports my theory' isn't a strong enough argument, surely?

"The disciple whom he loved" is a literary device designed to provide cohesion. The fact that this disciple is never named is important... otherwise, he could not change identities so well. John's editor brought together several texts with similar messages. This we have established. These several texts came from more than one writer. This we have established. If each writer is the "disciple whom he loved" at the point where that person's narrative was incorporated, then the mysterious disciple could have many faces.

So, why change the pronouns in the scene that I belive Mary M is the mysterious disciple? Because of cohesion. First of all, the church rejected the fact that Mary could be an apostle. In fact, they did everything possible to trivialize her, turning her into the harlot the faithful know her as. However, when references to her are read carefully, we see that she was a wealthy woman who helped provide "sustenance" for Jesus and his disciples. Furthermore, she must be an important character to Jesus, because of all the disagreements of the events at the tomb, the only thing they can agree on is that Mary figured prominently. Then along come the Gnostic Gospels, and we know her not only as a disciple, but the favored disciple. And to allay the incipient question before it comes forth, we know this more from Philip's gospel than from Mary's.

We also know that the early church was VERY misogynistic, and that continues even today. The idea of a powerful woman would have been unpalatable at best to those people. In light of this, it would be reasonable to say that, if Mary M were the "disciple whom he loved" throughout the gospel attributed to John, then the mystery behind the missing name would also be understandable.

But, if Mary is only "the disciple" in that one episode, the pronoun change makes even more sense. In a text with various beloved disciples, she would have been the one female among a plurality of males. In order to maintain cohesion, she would have suffered the sex change, rather than perform it on the several males.

Good arguments, as always. Problem: how does this device provide cohesion? Does the editor want us to believe it's John (if not, he's done so without realizing)? If so, why not write the name 'John'? If the editor doesn't want to make it seem John, it makes the whole thing very confusing - who is this disciple he keeps mentioning? If he wanted to be helpful, he'd have taken out the first person bits.

Unless he wanted the whole to have the first-hand, apostolic flavour it does have. So who is this apostle? Well it is a little suspicious the only one not named is John. And in that case why not just say 'John'? There doesn't seem to be a reasonable enough explanation. What does seem reasonable is if the author(s) are writing down what happened to John, but are using his technique of not naming himself.

Firsthand apostolic authority is exactly what the editor was after. The only one not named is John? The same could be argued about Mary... not named as an apostle, that is. I'll do some digging and see exactly how many apostles are named... I'm betting that more than just John is not named.

A comprehensive listing of all the people named as diciples in the Gospel according to John:

1) SImon Peter
2) Philip
3) Nathanael
4) Andrew
5) Judas Iscariot
6) SImon Iscariot
7) Thomas
8) Judas (not Judas Iscariot)
9) Joseph of Arimathea

This leaves us with, of a minimum possible disciple count of 12 (I've read arguments for 13 or 14), three names missing. Here's an oddity... which names are conspicuously absent? How about the alleged authors of the Four Gospels... Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

So not nec. John. But certainly meant to be a man, and therefore one of what I shall refer to for arguments' sake as the 'official' Twelve Apostles. We're agreed it's got to be one of those, surely, if it's to be an 'apostolic' account rather than the disciple accounts of Mark and Luke (Making the distinction between the twelve 'apostles' and all of Jesus' 'disciples'.). Since Matthew already had his own gospel, which may well be the first one written by many accounts, we can discard him since the editor of John would have been aware of it.

I hope we'd agree that the most conspicuously absent of the Twelve are James and John. I say 'Twelve' since that's the number given in this gospel. And still, this one person is not named. Which is best explained by the explanation a lot of people give, and I have given at least once above.

But there still remains the point: if you look at the crucifixion bit in John, there is no reason to suggest tampering of the nature you advocate unless you're looking to use it for your own theories - whether for or against Christianity (organised or otherwise).

"there is no reason to suggest tampering of the nature you advocate" - Yes, there is. There is the irrefutable proof of tampering with the gospels provided by Clement of Alexandria's letter. There is the clash of facts and styles in the Gospel of John itself. The tampering suggests itself. For me to use it to support my own claim of the mysterious disciple's identity is just a building on the information that already exists. The tampering is a stated fact. The Catholics agree that it has been tampered with, and they're the ones who did the tampering.

James is a very clear omission. In fact, if he were present at the scene in question, the words Jesus says of "there is your mother" and "there is your son" would, at the same time, make more sense, and be utter nonsense... obviously Mary is his mother, since James and Jesus were brothers. Making mention of it would be rediculous.

I'm curious to know why you place so much importance on this unnamed John... is he mentioned in any of the other three Gospels? If so, how is he so important?

I meant in this bit in isolation. And Clement's letter is not 'proof' because you can't cite one (very old) text as proof. Evidence, yes. Proof, no.

But proof of what? There is a difference between an editor collating and organising texts and tampering. Tampering is a negative word, suggesting hiding something. Of course that is what you are arguing, but there is no evidence for it in this specific section, which is the one I'm referring to because in your article you mentioned it.

I meant James the brother of John. And by the way, James is only the so-called 'brother' of Jesus...I think I wrote earlier that the same word is used for 'brother' as for 'cousin'.

John is the brother of James. They are referred to in Matt, Mark, Luke and John as the Sons of Zebedee; in the Synoptics they are, with Peter and Andrew, the first disciples (well, John mentions the sons of Z. but doesn't name them, which people say is because of that whole not naming himself thing that the 'disciple whom' is part of). He is generally considered because of this and due to his role in Acts to be to be second after Peter.

Evidence IS proof. I don't know what you're getting at here.

Editing is the same as tampering. I've had several articles that have been edited to the point that my message is no longer carried in them... my article on Atheism foremost among them. When you edit, you change. When you tamper, you change. And what do you think is the point behind "the disciple whom he loved" if not to hide something? Why not just give us his identity, if it's so simple?

There is a James the younger brother of Jesus, who is probably different from the James, son of Zebedee. Jesus had many such siblings.

James and John are mentioned in the Synoptics as the sons of Zebedee... they are not named in John, but there is a reference to the sons of Zebedee, so it is not unreasonable to assume that they are the same. This brings us to a disciple count in John of 11. And John, son of Zebedee, is already named, in that "sons of Zebedee" mention. So who is the unnamed 11th apostle? Good question. Mark, the first gospel writer, has only 11 names in his listing of the twelve in verse 3:13. Luke notices the omission, and gives us a twelfth, one Judas, son of James. Matthew also notices the deficiency, but he names James, son of Alphaeus. John comes along later, and gives us some discuples that are on the Synoptic lists, and some that are not. We can combine several of them... for instance, Simon the Zealot is quite easily reconciled with Simon Iscariot of John, since Iscariot means "of the Sicarii," which is another name for the Zealots. Judas, son of James can be reconciled with John's Judas (not Judas Iscariot). However, John also names Nathanael and Joseph of Arimathea, two that cannot be reconciled with any of the ones listed by the Synoptics. When taken altogether and whittled down by reason, we still end up with a disciple list 15 names long:

- Simon Peter (all 4 Gospels)
- Philip (4)
- Andrew (4)
- James, son of Zebedee (3+)
- John, son of Zebedee (3+)
- Thomas (4)
- Judas Iscariot (4)
- Simon Iscariot (4)
- Bartholomew (3, the Synoptics)
- Thaddaeus (3, S)
- Matthew (3, S)
- Judas, son of James (2, Luke & John)
- James, son of Alphaeus (Matthew... cannot be reconciled with James son of Zebedee, for he mentions them both)
- Nathanael (John)
- Joseph of Arimathea (John... mentioned in every gospel, but only named a disciple in John)

And we still have the mystery of a missing disciple in both the first gospel to be written, and the last. Luke and Matthew fill in the gap, but they totally disagree on the identity... are they lying? If so, who are they covering up for? Why does John, whose gospel was put together without any influence from the previous two, have completely different people?

Typo... the rhetorical question about John should be "Who is the unnamed 12th disciple?"

Sorry about the delayed response. Dead VDU.

Evidence supports a theory. Proof confirms it. There is a difference. One thing is rarely if ever proof on its own (which was what you seemed to be claiming for the Clement letter), especially in historical texts.

Tampering implies a malicious intent. It is a negative word, 'editing' isn't hinged either way. I've given you my reason for the 'disciple whom' bit several times. Because the author didn't deem his name worthy of inclusion in the same text as mentioning Jesus. A being-humble thing.

I've now said twice that 'brother' and 'cousin' are the same word in the original, so this James isn't necessarily Jesus' brother. Don't make me keep repeating this! Anyway, it's not essential to our discussion.

I agree with you re. the sons of Zebedee. But though we therefore have eleven named disciples, the gospel mentions there being a specific group of twelve disciples, at more than one point. If you don't know the references, I can give them to you. There is a difference made between disciples and 'the twelve'. I would personally consider Mary M. a disciple - and let me state I'm a Catholic - but not one of 'the twelve'. Since the sons of Z. are not individually named, and they were two of the most prominent in other gospels and the Acts, it was thought one of them was the author (not naming them tying in with the 'disciple whom' being the humble author not naming himself). And since James died very early - beheaded - that leaves John. Not a conclusive argument by any means, but it does add to the finger being pointed.

P. S. Just seen a terrible X-Files episode which simplifies and dismisses both the Gnostic/Apocrypha arguments and the Catholic response.

P. P. S. Thank goodness for the h2g2 update. So much quicker to sort through forums now!

I would hardly call X-files a reliable resource.

I will use your definitions for evidence and proof in the following, however, "editing" refers to just changing a bit here or there to clarify or correct, whereas "tampering" means to deliberately change, for whatever motivation.

There is ample evidence of the tampering with the gospels within the gospels themselves. For instance, note the fact that Mark specifically mentions that there are 12 apostles, but just after it, names only 11. Can he not count? I take this as evidence for tampering. Another example is the gospel of John, where he has two distinct endings for the laast supper. Obviously, these came from two different sources. There are numerous other evidences throughout the gospels. Clement's letter provides the proof. He directly tells us what we already knew about the bible, that church fathers were directly altering the texts to protect the purity of their faith.

I don't understand this sudden shift... who are these disciples? I was lead to believe that the Apostles were the twelve who went out preaching Jesus after his death. These twelve were the same as the twelve who dined with Jesus as his disciples the night he was taken, minus Judas Iscariot, who was replaced in Acts by another James. Who are his disciples, then, if not the apostles? Mind you, if you start making claims that they are other than the Twelve, I am going to have to insist that you provide references which support your position.

But the Clement letter can't be proof - because it might be a forgery or have been edited/tampered with itself. You see? I'm not saying this is the case - I've no evidence that it is - but because it might be, it can't be a clincher. Just pretty damning - which is still a lot.

Suggest you look at Mark 3:13 again - I see Simon (Simon Peter), James & John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholemew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas. Twelve. If you can see eleven, which one of the above is missing?

I've lost track of what the disciples we're talking about are supposed to be doing. Clearly there are more than the twelve named in this bit of Mark. Yes? Or at least, other sources name others. But there would also seem to be a group called 'the twelve', who do specific stuff and seem to be the major players. The 12 are sometimes called 'The Apostles'. Anyone not in the 12 is not called an apostle. But they can be a disciple - a disciple is the generic term for someone who followed Jesus and believed in him while he was alive. For example Joseph of Arimathaea, not named in Mark 3:13 but still in Mark 15:43.

Er...what were we disagreeing about regarding these disciples and have we now resolved it?

Clement's letter is proof. It has been closely scrutinized by philologists, and it contains all of his known idiosyncrasies. It is neither forgery nor is it edited, but copied as faithfully as can be. We know Clement's voice and style very well, because we have a wealth of his written words. It would be the same as if you read an article alleged to have been written by DNA; you would know instantly if he had written it or not.

It seems I missed James the second time. So that gives us that other James in Matt and Mark, and still 15 names on our list that cannot be explained.

Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned in all four gospels... however, only John names him a disciple. That passage of Mark names him a member of the Sanhedrin, but not a member of Jesus' disciples.

I told you I was going to have to insist on seeing references that the diciples and apostles were different grous, but you have failed to post any. I will now point out references that they are one and the same:

Mark 6:30 - The header for this verse in my bible reads "Return of the disciples." The verse then begins: "The apostles returned to Jesus..." The Catholics here are saying that the words "disciple" and "apostle" are synonyms used to describe the same people, just as I have used them. You'll never find a sentence that refers to seperate groups of apostles and disciples... for instance, as if he took both groups with them. The two terms are used interchangeably to prevent redundancy in the language, nothing more. There are 12 apostles. There are 12 disciples. They are one and the same, but they have 15 identities... and John's gospel still left one out.

Back on the historicity of Jesus, I recently obtained a tome that spells out the entire argument:

Josephus: regarded as a reliable source, since he is not Christian. He is born in 37 AD, so he is not a contemporary, but most people consider him close enough to provide reliable second-hand testimony. Jesus is mentioned in only one paragraph of Antiquities, and it goes like this:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ,; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Problems: this paragraph is obviously written by a believer. Josephus was a messianic Jew, but not a Christian. Also, it doesn't make sense where it is. The very next line begins: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews..." Was Christianity that terrible misfortune? No. He is referring back to the paragraph above the Jesus one... The text flows so much better without that paragraph. Not only that, but it exists in no early copies of Antiquities, nor is it quoted by any church fathers (Origen quoted Josephus heavily, so his ommission of this paramount paragraph is highly suspicious) until Bishop Eusebius in the fourth century... right about the time the gospels are being edited. Coincidence? Josephus also has a lot to say about other prophets, including John the Baptist, but this is basically all he has to say about Jesus... other than another line in which he contradicts known history about Jesus' brother James, which is known to be an addition as well. Josephus' remarks about Jesus are forged, and the rest is silence. Either he did not exist, or Josephus had some rude things to say about Jesus that the church fathers couldn't countenance. I support the former conclusion.

As for everyone else, they came too late, and the myth of Jesus was already alive. Tacitus' reports in 117 AD are no different than if someone reported the beliefs of the Santana cult today... they had their beliefs, but that doesn't make them true.

Your letter from Pilate is a forgery, with flowery King James era prose that makes it obvious. It was written in the 1800's by a traveling salesman who said he copied it from documents in the Vatican's basement... documents which, of course, have never been found.

The Jewish Talmud was put together from the second to fifth century... too late to bear witness yet again.