These are my own general thoughts on the movie, which I saw last night:
I know the gospel accounts fairly well, so the movie didn't add much to my knowledge except for a more realistic image of just how much Christ suffered during the last hours of his life, but nevertheless it was a good movie overall -- fluffed up a bit out of necessity to break up the tempo and establish a little bit of context, but faithful to the gospels for the most part, though a little bit more Catholic than Protestant in tone where Jesus' mother is concerned, which only makes sense since Mr. Gibson is himself Catholic. There are a few really good scenes, and the movie does rivet one's attention throughout.
As for the controversy surrounding the movie, given what I saw, all the cries of anti-Semitism must have been a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. If a friend of mine is right, the JADL was primarily concerned with the Jewish mob's shouting at one point, "His blood be on us and our children!" which is a direct quote from the Gospel of Matthew. Gibson supposedly made a concession and didn't subtitle that line in the film, so the line is still there in Aramaic, but the audience won't catch it because it isn't subtitled. I think this was a wise move. Minus that line, the film didn't appear anti-Semitic to me at all.
My only complaints are that (1) because most of the movie consists of Jesus' being tortured one way or another, the focus keeps drifting off Jesus himself and onto the people around Jesus, and (2) the ending (which I'm tempted to reveal but won't) is pretty abbreviated, and I think it would leave a person unfamiliar with the gospels with more questions than answers, but I also think that's perhaps a good thing. If even one unbeliever leaves the theater thinking, "Why did Jesus go through all that? What happens next? What does it all mean?" I would consider Mr. Gibson's film to have made a noteworthy contribution.
Finally, I'm not sure whether Mr. Gibson's dialoguing the film in the original languages was a plus or a minus for the film. It was difficult for me to connect up the emotionally charged original language with the staccato English subtitles. I think it would be very interesting to see how the movie plays without the subtitles, but I suppose we'll have to wait for the DVD to see that. (Maybe it'll even have an English-dubbed version as an extra feature.)
...Mel himself led people to believe that his movie should be described as "attacked".
I think that the media created a situation where any writer could take any angle they wanted on this "controversial" film and have themselves an article.
It would be almost impossible to make a movie that was faithful to the Gospels -- as Gibson claims this is -- without it being anti-Semitic. By the time the Gospels were written, much effort was being devoted to downplaying the antagonism and animosity that had existed between Rome and the burgeoning Christian faith. The emphasis on the Jews as the Bad Guys* started at this time, and has continued ever since.
*the Bad Guys who were fulfilling God's Will, this would be. . . .
Speaking of which, you once said: The writers of the New Testement, lacking any facts or eyewitness reports -- working 50, 60 and 100 years or more after the events....
Actually, the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written around 60 A.D., which puts them only 30 years after the events recorded in them. Since you yourself seem to have a clear enough recollection of things that happened to you at Marvel 30 years ago, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the memories of any eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry and sufferings were equally reliable after that same period of time.
The last gospel (John) was written around 90 A.D. by the apostle John (who was right there with Jesus throughout all of Jesus' sufferings, as the movie reflects), which dates this eyewitness account at only 60 years after the actual events. So, all the gospel accounts were written from eyewitness testimony about 30-60 years after the actual events.
One more brief note on the gospels:
Luke even has a whole different set of folk -- the soldiers of Herod, not the Romans -- doing the abusing.
Actually, in Luke the soldiers of Herod only mocked Jesus. It isn't recorded that Herod's soldiers scourged him.
"Passion" fails completely. Religious talk/belief aside, the thing has no unifying character or story arc to hang onto or follow. There's some nice imagery and some powerful moments, but as a story, it just isn't one.
I'd equate it to a movie about my dad eating breakfast. I might love it and find it really important, but anyone who doesn't know my dad is going to wonder what the point is.
Now, from what I can gather, Gibson wasn't in this for the cash - he wanted to make a movie about his dad eating breakfast. Speaking as an objective filmgoer who doesn't know his dad, I was uninterested.
Since I don't even believe in Gibson's Dad, I'm not going to see it*.
*I do believe in Gibson's ACTUAL father, Hutton, who apparently appeared as a contestant on a game show here back a billion years before I was born, it's the allegory I was commenting on....
____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.
The movie as a stand alone film, assuming you have no knowledge of teh source material has a huge flaw in that it makes no sense. If you dont know all the characters before coming into the film you would be completely lost.
Now if you have the character backgrounds in your head already its a pretty good movie. I find it to be Mel's directorial weakest, but that still makes it very good in my book.
The movie as a stand alone film, assuming you have no knowledge of teh source material has a huge flaw in that it makes no sense. If you dont know all the characters before coming into the film you would be completely lost.
Yeah, Mel Gibson shouldn't have picked such obscure subject matter.
Obviously, “The Passion” has to be considered both as a movie and as a religious statement. As a movie it’s so-so. Not great. Not dreadful. But one which pales in comparison to Scorsese’s masterpiece, “Last Temptation.” As a religious statement, it actually had far less Jew-bashing than people commenting on the movie without ever having seen it would have you believe. In fact, I’m almost disappointed, because now I have nothing to rail against! I’ve heard Mel cut some of the more blatantly anti-Semitic scenes at the last minute. Perhaps he’ll add them back to the DVD and they’ll use that as a selling point: “Now, with 30% more Jew hating!”
One interesting aside. In the theater where I saw the flick, they showed no trailers prior to the movie, presumably thinking it was “inappropriate” to juxtapose Jesus with Starsky & Hutch. However, that still didn’t stop them from showing those annoying, bread-deadening ads that they force us to sit through prior to the trailers. So, apparently, associating Christ with fandago.com is just fine...
Jim, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't tell if you have a valid argument about the direction of The Passion or not, but I think it's fairly clear to anyone that of all the people in the history of history, Jesus is probably the most widely known. At this point, I doubt that you could find a single adult person on this planet that doesn't know who Jesus is, and a little about his biography. Sorry if you feel "attacked", but I think Brendan was right.
Your point is true about Jesus. But what about Peter, Judas, both Marys, Ponchus etc etc etc. You average non christian does not know about them. Also you must consider that most adult Buddhists do NOT know or care about Jesus story. So if they were watchign the film it would be impossibly confusing.
"Also you must consider that most adult Buddhists do NOT know or care about Jesus story. So if they were watchign the film it would be impossibly confusing."
If they don't care about Jesus' story why would they be going to see the movie in the first place. It's not like it's being advertised as movie about a basketball team.
I dont care about jesus in anyway! I went to see the movie!
I have seen hundreds of movies that I dont care about what they are about. "besketball diaries" "the Doors" etc etc all about people i care nothign about and know very very little. But i went to the see the movie because i wanted to see a good film.
Thousands went to see the X-men and even Lord of the rings without knowing anything about the characters.
You are all acting like it is a HBO special documentary and not a feature film Directed by Mel Gibson. I would personally see any movie he directed regardless of the subject matter.
Actually, the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written around 60 A.D., which puts them only 30 years after the events recorded in them.
******
"Actually" we don't know that. We don't know when (or if) Jesus was born, and we don't know when (or if) he was crucified. Dates are extremely sketchy, and can be worked out at best based on other dates and events, which is rarely, if ever, the best way to determine when something happened. Pontius Pilate, for instance -- who made no reference to this troublesome Jew in his own journals or diaries or official writings -- was procurator from 26 to 36 AD (an unusually long time), and the Bible gives no indication of just when in this time the crucifiction was supposed to have taken place. If it was toward the end of Pilate's rule, then 30 years might be accurate. If it was toward the beginning, it could be closer to 40.
The very fact that there is no true historical record of these events makes any such debate meaningless.
Your point is true about Jesus. But what about Peter, Judas, both Marys, Ponchus etc etc etc. You average non christian does not know about them. Also you must consider that most adult Buddhists do NOT know or care about Jesus story. So if they were watchign the film it would be impossibly confusing.
************************
Again, I have to see the film first before being too specific, but I said that people know who Jesus is, and some of his story. I think that would include the biggest news of his story, i.e. that he was crucified. Come on dude, aren't you reaching a bit here? Call me if you meet anyone who saw this movie,and didn't know the basics of the backstory first.
As for Buhhdists, I'm not sure why you chose them to illustrate your point, but again, I submit that with the missionary work that's gone on worldwide for centuries now, I seriously doubt that you can find any adult in the world who hasn't heard the story of Jesus. I'm willing to bet good money that there are obscure tribes of people on remote islands, and in dense jungles, that have heard about Jesus.
Gibson apparently made this film with the assumption that the audience knew something about Jesus, and I think that's a pretty good assumption. The movie's about the last 12 hours of his life, right? It's not about the whole story of Jesus, just the ending. What's the problem?
For a member of another religion to not know the story of Jesus he or she would have had to have spent much of their life under a rock. Just as a civilian who has never read a SUPERMAN comic can rattle off most of the litany, Clark Kent, Metropolis, Daily Planet, Lois Lane, Krypton, krypronite, maybe even Perry White, Jimmy Olsen and Lex Luthor, most people in the civilized world have heard at some point the story of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, the Nativity, the Three Wise Men, the Star of Bethlehem, the Disciples, the Crucifiction and all sorts of other details in various combinations.
There is scant evidence that the Gospels were written by the witnesses of the same name, and much stylistic evidence that they were not. If I were to say I had a book by Mark, your first question would be "Mark who?" Moreover, is the "Gospel of Mark" Mark's work or Mark's story, passed down verbally over decades, believers assume the Gospels are written by eye witnesses because they NEED them to be written by eye witnesses. Believers are believers because they believe.
Stephen: There is scant evidence that the Gospels were written by the witnesses of the same name
...............
OK, here's the thing: There is "scant evidence" for nearly any and all ancient historical people and happenings. Much of it is just piecing together clues from here, there and yonder. That being said, there is as much evidence to prove the veracity of the Bible as there is any other document from that time period. And in truth, there is much, much more evidence.
I'm getting ready to go to work now and really I've been too busy to fully rebut much of what's been said here or offer much in the way of evidence for the thing I'm saying. Hopefully later tonight (if the thread isn't locked) I'll be able to site some extrabiblical sources and other evidences which will show you the Bible can be trusted.
If not, shoot me an email sometime and I'll try to send some info your way privately.
"There is scant evidence that the Gospels were written by the witnesses of the same name, and much stylistic evidence that they were not. If I were to say I had a book by Mark, your first question would be "Mark who?" Moreover, is the "Gospel of Mark" Mark's work or Mark's story, passed down verbally over decades, believers assume the Gospels are written by eye witnesses because they NEED them to be written by eye witnesses. Believers are believers because they believe."
**********
I'm not sure what you mean by "stylistic" evidence, Stephen. Only two of the gospels are purported to have been written by eyewitnesses to most of the events therein. These two are Matthew and John, both of whom were members of Jesus' inner circle. Matthew didn't write any other books to compare his work to, and the poetic style of John is very similar to the letters that are also attributed to him. Mark likewise has no other works credited to him to compare the book to, and there is very little doubt that Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, primarily because the styles are the same.
See the movie and you should understand.
If you dont know a decent amount of backstory about Peter, Judas, Ponchus, and Mary Magdelaine those characters wont really even make sense.
I dont see why anyone cares. My point is 100% valid. I thought it was a great movie. I just said that as a movie by itself it is missing details that you need before seeing it.
without knowing those details it has much less of an impact and you wont even know who certain characters are.
OK, here's the thing: There is "scant evidence" for nearly any and all ancient historical people and happenings. Much of it is just piecing together clues from here, there and yonder. That being said, there is as much evidence to prove the veracity of the Bible as there is any other document from that time period. And in truth, there is much, much more evidence.
******
Sorry, but that is simply not true. There is much solid evidence, in the form of journals, diaries, reports, histories and all manner of contemporary documents -- including cross referencing in other sources not immediately concerned with the matter at hand -- that prove the existance of countless figures who would have been contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth. We know the life storiy of the Emperor Tiberius, for instance (he who was the Caesar unto whom Jesus said Caesar's things should be rendered) in great detail, as we know the stories of his wives, children and other assorted folk both near to him and far.
This is the central problem with the story of Jesus, when looked upon as a historical narrative: there are absolutely no contemporaneous references. None. Not a word. Not so much as a whisper in all the writings that survive from that time -- especially those kept by the Romans, who were fond of dotting every I and crossing every T. We find nothing at all that speaks of Jesus as a living man . All the references we have are in the past tense -- and even on the shortest imaginable timeline, still the very past tense, at a time when an average lifespan was unlikely to exceed 35 years. Far too much time elapsed between the events of Jesus' life and the writing down of his story. No "history" that existed only as spoken word for so long can be taken at face value. Ever play "telephone"? Now, imagine playing it for 40 or 50 years -- and playing it with people who had a specific agenda to project and protect!
As I noted elsewhere, this is why there was such a commotion over the "discovery" of the James ossuary -- if it had turned out to be real it would have been literally the first contemporary reference to Jesus of Nazareth, tho even there a past tense reference, since James outlived his brother by several years.
"There is scant evidence that the Gospels were written by the witnesses of the same name, and much stylistic evidence that they were not. If I were to say I had a book by Mark, your first question would be "Mark who?" Moreover, is the "Gospel of Mark" Mark's work or Mark's story, passed down verbally over decades, believers assume the Gospels are written by eye witnesses because they NEED them to be written by eye witnesses. Believers are believers because they believe."
**********
I'm not sure what you mean by "stylistic" evidence, Stephen. Only two of the gospels are purported to have been written by eyewitnesses to most of the events therein. These two are Matthew and John, both of whom were members of Jesus' inner circle. Matthew didn't write any other books to compare his work to, and the poetic style of John is very similar to the letters that are also attributed to him. Mark likewise has no other works credited to him to compare the book to, and there is very little doubt that Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, primarily because the styles are the same.
******
Again, not true. The "stylistic differences" are not found by comparing one work by an alledged author to another work by the same alledged author -- not as if we were comparing "Hamlet" and "King Lear" -- but internal differences, discovered by studying the repeated (or none repreated) use of phrases, words and other such details. The books of the Bible, studied in this manner, reveal the presence of many, many hands. Add to this that it is only tradition which holds particular individuals to be the authors, and any assertion that "John" was written by John falls apart like ancient papyrus.
"Most children and adults easily recognize the name of Jesus Christ."
***********
Not often you see an essay fall on its face in the very first sentence!
"Jesus Christ" is not a "name", it is a title , properly rendered Jesus, the Christ. He was not the son of Mary and Joseph Christ, and his brother was not James Christ. ("Hi! Jim Christ here, for Jim Christ Rodeo Motors. . . ")
His name (without bothering with translational problems) would have been Jesus bar Joseph or Jesus ben Joseph (I admit I have never quite figured out the distinction).
(As a kid, I was always bothered that the Angel of the Lord appeared unto Mary, told her that she would have a child whom she would name Emmanuel -- and then she named him Jesus.)
I remember, years ago, noticing the billboard over a movie theatre near Lincoln Center touting the critical approval of the movie they were showing. The only problem was that they misspelled the name of critic Judith Crist. So the sign read: " 'One of the best movies of the year' --J. Christ"
This message has been edited by MarkLerer on Mar 2, 2004 2:02 PM
>>Only two of the gospels are purported to have been written by eyewitnesses to most of the events therein. These two are Matthew and John, both of whom were members of Jesus' inner circle.<<
Actually (!!), the running theory is that Mark and an unknown gospel (called "Q") were written first, 30 years after the crucifixtion, with Matthew and Luke being written years later, based on those two. John was then written much later, about 100 years after the crucifixtion, based on the three other gospels and numerous other writings from the time and John's own desire to transform the newly forming church (The Gospel of John is the only place you'll find Jesus saying that you must believe in Him in order to get into heaven, for instance).
Related: there's a book about the Gospel of Q written by an author named Marcus Borg -- Q? Borg? Hmmm...
"His name (without bothering with translational problems) would have been Jesus bar Joseph or Jesus ben Joseph (I admit I have never quite figured out the distinction)."
Ben is the hebrew word for son, and bar is the aramaic word for son. Bar is the term used in the Talmud, whcih is written in Aramaic, and ben is the term used in the Bible.
. . . the running theory is that Mark and an unknown gospel (called "Q") were written first. . .
*******
It has long been held as fairly logical that Mark came first and was embroidered upon by the writers of Matthew, rather than the writers of Mark leaving out a lot of important stuff. Mark is often called the "un-miraculous" Gospel, it is so lean on the flashy miracles, especially compared to Matthew. Mark even skips the whole "origin" of Jesus and introduces him as an adult, being baptized by John the Baptist.
The following direct quote from Jesus is from the new issue of The Onion. It seems to pretty much put this thread's ongoing debate about the accuracy of the gospels into perspective:
"Remember, at the time the Good Book was written, I was running around saving souls like a madman," Christ said. "I couldn't focus on a writing project, too. I basically gave My team of writers the broad strokes and hoped inspiration would fill in the cracks. Now, I'm not saying the New Testament isn't good—it is. It's great! But by the time I got around to reading the galleys, the monks had already finished the first printing."
"Remember, at the time the Good Book was written, I was running around saving souls like a madman,"
*******
I used to think THE ONION was staggeringly, blood vessel burstingly funny. Then they wrote up one of their "real world" pieces on something that I not only knew about, but that actually involved a friend of mine. They got just about everything wrong. And this was not one of their fake stories, like the above or their "interview" with one of the Sept.11 hijackers in Hell. This was a real world story on which they attempted to put their humorous spin -- and all the details, all the "facts" were wrong. Actions were misrepresented. People were misrepresented. I was stunned. Suddenly I found myself wondering how many of the "real world" articles they had done, which I had found so funny and so very knowing, were as full of (deliberate?) error as this.
THE ONION does not pretend to be a real newspaper, but it does offer commentary on things that are actually happening in the world. Seems to me that commentary should be on, well things that are actually happening in the world.
JB: “I was stunned. Suddenly I found myself wondering how many of the ‘real world’ articles they had done, which I had found so funny and so very knowing, were as full of (deliberate?) error as this.”
******************************
It’s very timely (no comic book company pun intended) you should raise those points right now, JB, since a poll just released yesterday stated that more 18-24 year olds get their news from “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” than from any of the (not so) big-three networks. As a former journalist who became more and more disenchanted with the profession as time went by, I now find myself getting as much news from Howard Stern, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Conan O’Brien, The Onion, et. al. as I do from “legitimate” news sources. I think the key thing to remember is that if we want “the facts” we still need to turn to CNN, Dan Rather, The L.A. Times, or something along those lines. But if we’re after the underlying “truth,” then all of those aforementioned satirical news sources are really the place to go. It’s not unlike the way that “Huckleberry Finn” gives us a more comprehensive look at its particular time period than reading a year’s worth of newspapers from that same era is likely to do. Of course, that brings us back to the main topic of this thread and the eternal question of “What is truth?”, but I’ll leave that one for noted theologians such as Mel Gibson to beat to death (so to speak).
As Indiana Jones put it (paraphrasing): Archeology is about facts. If you're looking for truth, the philosophy department is down the hall.
However, in this case, "truth" should be. . . true. What I found offensive about THE ONION's article mentioned above is that there were no facts in it. It launched at assault against a major corporation and did so without any consideration of what was actually happening in the situation being "reported".
The other night I caught an episode of "Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t!" in which they held to the fire a load of tree-huggers who were deliberately misrepresenting such things as genetically engineered food ("Do you know they put fish genes in your tomatoes??!!"*) in order to raise "public awareness" -- and cash. I was immediately reminded of this ONION piece. It's all well and good to point the finger at the Big Bad Corporate Villain -- but first the Corporation should actually be, you know, villainous !
*Yes, "they" do put fish genes in tomatoes. "They" -- meaning researchers -- do a lot of strange things, in the lab. And in the lab is where those strange things stay. The rules and regulations governing these things, the hoops thru which corporations have to jump before such product gets released into public consumption, means the likelihood of fish-gene-tomatoes being on the shelves of your local supermarket any time soon (say, within your lifetime) is very remote.
I know you're kidding, but this is exactly what Joe Citizen thinks when he hears about this kind of stuff. This is the whole point (as much as there is one) behind the brouhaha over human cloning. Civilians don't understand what goes on in the Lab, so rather than trying to learn a little, they fear it.
Then we get numbskulls like Bill Clinton in the White House, legislating against human cloning on "moral and ethical" grounds -- Bill Clinton being just the guy I want dictating to the Nation about morals and ethics -- and you get Christopher Reeve stuck in that goddamn chair forever because idiots think evil scientists are going to clone Hitler.
FEH!!!
*The real idea behind fish genes in tomatoes is that some fish thrive in freezing waters, and a selective addition of some of their genes might produce tomatoe crops reistent to frost.
There is much solid evidence, in the form of journals, diaries, reports, histories and all manner of contemporary documents -- including cross referencing in other sources not immediately concerned with the matter at hand -- that prove the existance of countless figures who would have been contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth. We know the life storiy of the Emperor Tiberius, for instance (he who was the Caesar unto whom Jesus said Caesar's things should be rendered) in great detail, as we know the stories of his wives, children and other assorted folk both near to him and far.
Have you considered that perhaps the reason we know the life story of Emperor Tiberius is because he was an emperor? (As opposed to, say, a carpenter from Galilee?) Pretend you're a Roman historian. Given those two options, who would you pick for your subject matter?
Not so much as a whisper in all the writings that survive from that time....
But just how "vast" is that collection, really? One historian I've seen cited said the amount of extant writings we have from the first century would, if collected, fit between bookends a foot apart.
Far too much time elapsed between the events of Jesus' life and the writing down of his story.
You seem to be pretty capable of recounting what happened to you 35 years ago.
As a kid, I was always bothered that the Angel of the Lord appeared unto Mary, told her that she would have a child whom she would name Emmanuel -- and then she named him Jesus.
You needn't have been so troubled. In Matt 1:21 the angel tells Joseph, "You shall call his name Jesus," and in Luke 1:31 the angel tells Mary the same thing.
There is much solid evidence, in the form of journals, diaries, reports, histories and all manner of contemporary documents -- including cross referencing in other sources not immediately concerned with the matter at hand -- that prove the existance of countless figures who would have been contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth. We know the life storiy of the Emperor Tiberius, for instance (he who was the Caesar unto whom Jesus said Caesar's things should be rendered) in great detail, as we know the stories of his wives, children and other assorted folk both near to him and far.
Have you considered that perhaps the reason we know the life story of Emperor Tiberius is because he was an emperor? (As opposed to, say, a carpenter from Galilee?) Pretend you're a Roman historian. Given those two options, who would you pick for your subject matter?
*******
We're not talking about Roman historians . We're talking about bookkeepers, accountants, all the scribblers who make up a working, thriving government. An occupation force, no less, which had to keep a particularly watchful eye on the people whose lands they were invading.
The Romans, who were fastidious record keepers, present us with no contemporary references to Jesus of Nazareth. Neither do the Jews of the time. No one does. Nowhere, anywhere, is there so much as a single scrap of parchment that makes a reference to Jesus as a living man. No record of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. No record of his crucifixion. No record of a "tradition" of releasing a prisoner at Passover. It is not simply Jesus the man who does not exist historically, it is virtually the whole framework upon which his story is told that does not exist. And those elements that we know to be real -- such as Pontius Pilate -- are not presented in a manner that jibes with other, more reliable sources.
At best, the story of Jesus presented by the New Testament reads like a historical novel -- and one in which history is bent and twisted in order to fit the story being told.
I'm surprised to hear there are no contemporary records that Jesus existed. But I'm quite content to accept JB at his word that this is so.
But is the idea that Jesus never existed supportable? It seems that a "Dianetics-like" hoax (Hey, let's invent a religion. How hard can it be?) would have a hard time flying in a time of oral testimonies. It would take a very dedicated conspiracy, I should think, to invent Jesus out of thin air... no?
But is the idea that Jesus never existed supportable? It seems that a "Dianetics-like" hoax (Hey, let's invent a religion. How hard can it be?) would have a hard time flying in a time of oral testimonies. It would take a very dedicated conspiracy, I should think, to invent Jesus out of thin air... no?
******
Not if, as I have mentioned, Jesus was like Robin Hood, and actually "built" out of stories about many different men. It is important to remember that oral tradition makes it easier for myth to propogate, not harder. (Invoking the game of "Telephone" again).
Heck, look at the myths and legends surrounding men like Davy Crockett, Wild Bill Hickock, Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earrp, Elliot Ness, Al Capone and, yes, JFK! And these were men who lived long after we started setting down the lives of famous men in writing while they were alive , (Often, as with Wyatt Earrp and Elliot Ness, with embellishments coming from the "source" himself!)
I you want a fairly easy-to-read look at many of the problems that beset the New Testament, from a historical life story perspective, I suggest this site:
I found this site to be pretty interesting. It not only addresses the issue of apparent contradictions in the Gospel accounts, but it also creates a pretty detailed example using the same methods as Biblical skeptics to compare four accounts of the life of Abraham Lincoln and conclude that a lot of what we know of Lincoln's life is wrong, if he even existed at all.
Maybe Jesus was a Robin Hood type of construction. There still seems to be wrinkles that suggest he was historical, like the following quote from the Contradictions website JB linked to:
Speaking of John the Baptist and Jesus: "The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus."
These kinds of "embarrassments" that are hedged at by the Gospel writers and sore-spots for Catholic apologists indicate that even in the game of telephone going to pass down the myth of Jesus, there were some "facts" that just couldn't be ignored. Whereas if there was no Jesus, then no facts.
Was there a "Robin Hood" at the heart of all the stories built around him? There was a Wyatt Earp, of course. So even if there is little truth to the Biblical accounts of Jesus -- it seems at the very least that there was a guy named Jesus about whom a certain number of people could talk and deify.
The evidence is circumstantial, but compelling (to some degree, at least).
