We're Still Not Done with Jesus

Historicity and Sources

• Several comments stress how thin and late the textual record is, noting gaps after Josephus and the role of centuries of editing and oral transmission.
• Some highlight Paul’s letters as strong evidence for a historical Jesus (especially references to James, “brother of Jesus,” and disagreements with him), arguing Paul had no incentive to invent such a figure.
• Others respond that scriptural “opponents” can function as literary strawmen, though they still accept that a historical Jesus and James likely existed.
• There’s emphasis on early Christian persecution and lack of worldly incentives as an argument against pure fabrication, though this is not deeply developed.

Jesus as “Jewish Rabbi”

• Debate centers on calling Jesus a “first‑century Jewish rabbi.”
• One side: his followers were Jews who called him “rabbi/teacher”; Judaism was diverse (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes); later rejection by rabbinic Judaism doesn’t erase that status.
• Other side: both “Jewish” and “rabbi” are anachronistic if understood in modern, post‑Temple rabbinic terms; 1st‑century Judaism was temple‑sacrifice–centered, not like later synagogue‑rabbinic religion.

Language, Authorship, and Scholarly Consensus

• The article’s claim that Jesus and disciples “would not have known” Greek is challenged as historically implausible; commenters note Greek was widely used in the region.
• There is sharp disagreement over Gospel authorship:
  • Many assert the scholarly consensus that none of the four canonical Gospels were written by the named apostles, and that they were composed decades after Jesus.
  • Others say the evidence only supports “we don’t know,” with plausible 1st‑century dates that allow eyewitness or near‑eyewitness input.
  • Some Christians (including some Catholics and evangelicals) accept anonymous or non‑apostolic authorship; others view this as undermining orthodoxy.
• Disputes arise about what counts as “scholarly consensus” and whether surveys underrepresent believing scholars.

Miracles, Myth, and Literary Construction

• The piece’s reliance on mythicist Richard Carrier is seen as odd or fringe by some.
• A major point of contention is a cited “paradigm” that treats the Gospels as purely literary constructions by an educated elite, with no underlying oral tradition.
  • Critics call this an extraordinary, under‑argued claim: it would require a complete disconnect between existing Christian practice and the emerging texts, despite other early writings and apocrypha.
  • A more modest explanation—Gospels drawing on oral traditions and now‑lost written sources—is seen as simpler.

Symbolic vs Historical Readings

• One contribution argues that historicity is secondary: the Jesus story functions as a universal symbol of inner spiritual transformation, paralleling patterns in many religions.
• Others remain focused on concrete historical questions (baptism by John, embarrassing details, comparisons with hero legends).

Assessment of the New Yorker Article

• Some readers find the article polemical and shallow: strong claims, little engagement with broader biblical scholarship, and factual overstatements (e.g., on language, authorship, and literary tropes).
• Others use its missteps (especially on Greek usage and oral tradition) as reasons to discount its reliability, while still engaging the broader topic of why Jesus and Christianity continue to fascinate.