How The Trick Was Done

Mark 15 tells the story of the trial, crucifixion and burial of Jesus. Here’s how it was constructed from parts of the Old Testament:

Isaiah 53:7 is rewritten in Mark 15: 60-62 as the trial before Pilate

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth.

So Pilate questioned him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” You have said so,” Jesus replied. And the chief priests began to accuse him of many things. Then Pilate questioned him again, “Have you no answer? Look how many charges they are bringing against you!” But to Pilate’s amazement, Jesus made no further reply.

(Oops! Looks like we are expected to overlook the fact that Jesus does speak! Mark obviously had trouble shoe-horning this one in!)


Isaiah 53.5 becomes Mark 15:15:

He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.

Pilate had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified.


Isaiah 50:6 and 53:16-20 are rewritten as Mark 15:16-20:

He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Then the soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called the whole company together. They dressed him in a purple robe, twisted together a crown of thorns, and set it on his head. And they began to salute Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” They kept striking his head with a staff and spitting on him. And they knelt down and bowed before him. After they had mocked him, they removed the purple robe and put his own clothes back on Him. Then they led Him out to crucify Him.


Psalm 22:18 becomes Mark 15:24

They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.


Isaiah 53:12 is used for Mark 15:27:

He poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.

Along with Jesus, they crucified two robbers, one on His right and one on His left.


Psalm 22:7-8 becomes, verbatim in places, Mark 15:29:

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults shaking their heads: He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!”


Psalm 22:1 ‘My God, my God why have you forsaken me?is lifted straight into Mark 15:34.


Isaiah 53:5 becomes the underpinning of the whole of this chapter and Mark 15:6-15 in particular: the story of Barabbas.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him  punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his stripes/wounds we are healed.

The verses are not alluded to directly, but Jesus is made to stand in for Barabbas (literally, ‘son of the father’) who has deservedly been sentenced to death, or so Mark would have us believe. The story is patently invented to make this point. No such tradition existed and Pilate would never have been so placatory. The other made up story in Mark 15, the tearing of the temple veil, symbolises that the old way of accessing God, though the temple system, had now been superseded by… who else? Jesus. Ironic really when Mark plunders that old system’s scriptures for his purposes.


Isaiah 53:9 is written up as Mark 15.43-46

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body... Pilate gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock.


Mark 15: all of it constructed from the OT or just plain made up. You could, like gullible Christians, insist that Mark didn’t invent his story using fragments of scripture. You could say instead that these fragments were really prophecies of incidents that were to happen in the life of an itinerant preacher many years in the future. You could argue that the probably non-existent creator of the universe was all the time controlling events, dropping into ancient scriptures veiled references to tenuously connected incidents centuries later. But then you’d have to concede that not one of them is precise enough to name Jesus or indicate he’d die by crucifixion or would return from the dead after a day and a half.

Which seems to you more likely? That imprecise ‘prophecies’, which really weren’t prophecies in the first place, came true in Jesus’ life; or that Mark lifted scriptures which suited his purpose and crafted his Jesus story around them?

For me, it’s always a case of ‘seek ye first the human contrivance’, by far the most plausible and persuasive explanation of scenarios such as this.


37 thoughts on “How The Trick Was Done

  1. It is a known fact that not only did Christians shoehorn the text of the Hebrew scripture to make it fit their mythology, they actually altered it as well. Considering that all this happened 40, 50, 60 years and more AFTER the supposed “facts” of his life, there is very little “prophecy” left to hang their hats on. All mythology, all the time, written after the fact, similar to Daniel prophesying events that happened 300 & 400 years earlier.

    Conclusion: It’s all just a bunch of mythology created to get people enrolled. No magic, no miracles, no substance. We call it “religion”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Do you mean his prophecy of the Messiah (anointed One) who would be cut off 483 years after the order to rebuild Jerusalem? That order was given by Persian Artaxerxes I in 457 BC. That would mean that in 27 AD the Messiah would appear.

      Do you mean that prophecy? (Daniel 9:25,26)

      By my calculation that is virtually exactly when Jesus appeared in Galilee preaching the good news. And by even the most liberal calculations that was written 200 years before the fact.

      Do you mean that prophecy?


      • Yes, that one. Pretty neat, isn’t it. Except the gospel writers missed the mark with it. Despite their best efforts and your oxymoron, Jesus’ ministry didn’t ‘virtually exactly’ get underway in AD27. So in what way was this apparently precise prophecy fulfilled? It’s a contrived random year that may or may not coincide with an equally contrived and random year in Jesus’ lifetime.


      • Luke gives us the rough beginning point of Jesus’ teaching and preaching; it followed from the work of John the Baptist, which Luke (chapter 3) dates to the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. Since according to Wiki Tiberius’ reign began in September AD 14, that would place John’s baptizing at AD 28-29. Luke further focuses down on the date by placing it within the time Pontius Pilate was governor. That would have been between AD 27 and 37.

        That is plenty close enough to qualify, given the difficulty of precision when we count elapse time between BC and AD dates, as a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.

        Remember the giving of the decree to restore Jerusalem was in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, which was between the 457th year and the 456th year BC. (The two different dating schemes, reginal dates and calendar dates, go in reverse direction from one another.) Count forward 483 and we have approx. AD 27 or 28. (In our measuring of elapse time between BC dates and AD dates we need to add one or two years. Why? Because there is no 0 date, yet at least one year passed. So, what we have, measuring from 457 BC, is AD 27-28.)

        458, 457, 456…..,1,0
        Birth of Jesus 0

        The fifteen year of Tiberius Caesar, dating from his approval by the Roman Senate, as between AD 28 and 29.

        Since we have the date for John and not for Jesus, a date for Jesus’ and the beginning of his teaching is reasonably between AD 28-29.

        That would place Jesus’ death in AD 30. (We do not know the exact length of Jesus’ ministry.) We do know that his death was on the eve of Pentecost which preceded a Sabbath, determined by the phases of the moon, allows for only AD 30 or 33.

        So, despite some imprecision, those dates are pretty certain AND Daniel’s prophecy is quite accurate.


      • See Kos’ reply for what really happened, Don.

        In your previous comment you claimed that Daniel’s supposed prophecy points to Jesus hitting the scene in AD27. Now you’re saying that the gospels indicate it was between AD 28 or 29. So which is it? Was Daniel right or the gospel writers? Neither?

        It’s a puzzle too why we don’t know the exact date of Jesus’ death. It was the year when, over one weekend, there was:
        – A total eclipse of the sun that, for over three hours, plunged the whole land (some translations have ‘earth’) into darkness;
        – An earthquake that caused appreciable damage;
        – The tearing from top to bottom of the four inch thick, 82 feet high curtain in the temple;
        – A mass resurrection when zombies made themselves known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (including, presumably, the extensive Roman presence.)
        A year – even the day – in which such incredible events coincided shouldn’t be difficult to pin down, given that the Roman and Jewish authorities could not have failed to note them. No? Gee, it looks like more fabrication by the ever reliable gospel authors.


      • 27 or 28? In my reply I did say that because of the difficulty in establishing dates a range of dates between 27 and 29 are possible.

        “Total eclipse” is your interpretation. The Bibler simply says the sun was darkened. A total eclipse cannot happen at Passover. Such an event would have certainly been noticed by sky watchers. But the Bible only says the darkness was over the country, ge.

        Earthquakes are a regular happening in the area. Unless there is serious damage, which isn’t indicated in the Bible, no one notes it.

        Tearing of the temple curtain isn’t something that the Romans would have noted. The Jews may have suppressed the report since it would have pointed to Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, the very thing they were trying to suppress.

        The resurrection of holy people. How many was many? Would the Romans even be aware? I don’t see why they would. How could they even tell? These were not zombies as the movies picture zombies. They would have simply been people indistinguishable from anyone else. They would have been recognized only by those who had known them in life.

        You exaggerate. Nice strategy, however, when there is no evidence that contradicts the Bible’s account. There is only an absence of evidence, but there is no reason why many of these events would have been mentioned. And there was adequate reason for some of it to be suppressed. Jesus as the Messiah was not a popular guy among the elite who controlled the media.

        So, who were the reporters on site who could not have failed to note? As far as we know there were none. The events of those years were recorded by Josephus some sixty years later. Most had to do with social or political issues that caused turmoil. Josephus says little if anything about religious issues or events that did not affect the progress of the story he was telling. His report is not a firsthand report since he was not living at the time. His history is also specifically crafted to avoid the controversy of Christians or their association with the Jews. Josephus was intent on rebuilding his own reputation and the reputation of the Jews with Domitian, not with bringing up controversy. Domitian for whom he wrote was not inclined to favor a history that might elevate the Christians who were becoming a burr under his saddle, and Josephus who was trying to reinvent himself as a loyal Jew would certainly not have done anything to undermine that objective.

        The dating of the crucifixion is established by the conjunction of Passover, an easily identified date, and a Sabbat that followed immediately after Passover. In the range other evidence implies, that leaves AD 30 or 33 as possible dates. Those have been dates Bible scholars have pointed to for centuries. I am surprised you don’t know their reasoning.

        Those dates coincide with the dates computed from Daniel’s prophecy closely enough to be much more than coincidence or the contrivance of Gospel authors.


      • It continues to amaze me how believers render the words of the bible to suit their particular perspective (or their church’s).

        In actuality, Don, you said it yourself: There is only an absence of evidence. But of course, to accept this declaration is unacceptable to believers so they must do all they can to “find the evidence.” 🤔🔨🪓

        Liked by 1 person

      • Looks like no-one is very impressed by your math, Don. Not to mention your special pleading. You eschew all logic, reason and evidence in defence of your magic book.

        You sent three other ‘comments’ today that are verbose or, like this one, overlong. If others want me to post them, I will. Perhaps they can let me know.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Personally, I think Don should be encouraged to edit his ramblings. Refusing his longer rambling posts might be one path of encouragement.


      • Don:
        The dating of the crucifixion is established by the conjunction of Passover, an easily identified date, and a Sabbat that followed immediately after Passover. In the range other evidence implies, that leaves AD 30 or 33 as possible dates. Those have been dates Bible scholars have pointed to for centuries. I am surprised you don’t know their reasoning.

        Didja ever wonder, Don, why Passover, Western Easter and Eastern Easter don’t line up on the calendar? In fact, they can be separated by over a month. How can that be if Easter is based on Passover and Passover has an easily identified date

        Well, Don, it’s because Passover does not have an easily identified date. At least not before the 4th century CE when the date started to be calculated.

        The Hebrew calendar is lunisolar. It’s a lunar year of 354 days. Over a period of 19 years, a leap month is added a total of 7 times to bring the calendar in line with the sun. So, a leap month is added every 2 OR 3 years. Since the 4th century a regular formula is used to determine which years have leap months. But prior to then, the leap month was based on observation of spring in Jerusalem.

        To ensure that Passover did not start before spring, the tradition in ancient Israel held that the lunar new year, the first day of Nisan, would not start until the barley was ripe, being the test for the onset of spring.[40] If the barley was not ripe, or various other phenomena[41] indicated that spring was not yet imminent, an intercalary month (Adar II) would be added.

        Whether a leap month was added before Nissan, and therefore Passover, depended on springlike conditions in Jerusalem. This was purely observation based and odd weather could put add or delay a leap month in any given year. A leap month was 29 days. So a leap month will ALWAYS change the day of the week Passover will start and end on.

        To complicate matters, no records were kept on which years were leap years.

        Basically, imposing a calendar on years before the standard calculated calendar started in the 4th century CE is guesswork. Yes, the created past calendar will be correct ON AVERAGE. But may be off by a month on any given year.

        Those you called “Biblical scholars” were actually Christian scholars who had a vested interest in placing Jesus death in 30 CE to fulfill Daniel’s prophecy. And so made assumptions when backdating Passover that would ensure their dates.

        Sorry, Don. The date of Passover is NOT easily identified. In fact, cannot be identified with any confidence at all prior to the calculated calendar.


      • I appreciate your posing all the possible problems.

        Passover was calculated by the phase of the moon and the spring equinox. Those are easily and accurately calculated. There may have been unusual circumstances that delayed Nisan by a month as per Spier. But they were unusual.

        There is no reason to think that anything like that happened in the years AD 30 or 33. The Gospels agree that the Passover that occurred at the time of the crucifixion was just before the Sabbath. There is not reason to think otherwise. But there is more. A range of years can be calculated by the years Pilate was governor. That was between AD 26 and 36. If he had anything to do with Jesus, it had to be between those dates.

        Jesus’ life can also be calculated by the date Tiberius was emperor. Luke says that John began baptizing in the fifteen year of Tiberius. That would have been AD 27 or 28.

        But there is more. Paul’s description of the events of his life require that Paul be i Jerusalem right around AD 33 or 34. Paul did not meet Jesus, so Jesus’ life had to have ended before AD 33 or 34.

        So, the range of years in which we find Jesus falls between 27 and 34. You might note that 30 and 33 for the Passover when Jesus was crucified fall in that range. No back dating required.

        You are hanging your hat on a loose peg and making rare events that have no evidence of having anything to do with these years your deciding argument. That is typical of the Critical scholars.

        Now if you have some evidence that Passover did not precede Sabbath on those years, I pay attention.


      • You are hanging your hat on a loose peg — oh this is priceless! Isn’t it interesting how we so often describe others by what we see in ourselves?


      • So, I’m still having problems posting images. Another go:



      • Oh, Don. No amount of math is going to get you out of the fact that no one outside your book of fairy stories ever met or mentioned Jesus or his apostles.

        No one mentions the zombie invasion. No one mentions they caught Jesus’ magic act on their business trip to Capernaum. Nothing in the New Testament can be corroborated. Nothing.

        Which leaves you claiming that stories in your story book prove that other stories in your story book are True™. It’s a non-argument. It’s vapid.

        Also, Josephus puts John the Baptizer’s death in 36 CE. Which would mean that, if the fairy story is True™, Jesus would have died in 36 CE or later.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Don:
        By my calculation that is virtually exactly when Jesus appeared in Galilee . . .

        The problem, Don, is that neither Jesus nor his followers appear in contemporary history. Paul either doesn’t know about or isn’t interested in Jesus’ life and teachings.

        Our first purported record of his life and times is written after the destruction of Jerusalem. It would be a trivial matter for such an author, knowing the Danial prophecy to fit the timeline of his story into his interpretation of the prophecy – placing Jesus’s death 40 (a magic number) years before the destruction of the temple and his birth 30 (another magic number) before that to make 70 (another magic number) years total.

        Such a retrofitting of Jesus’ life by the authors of the gospels would also explain the 10 year difference between the birth of Jesus in Matthew and the birth of Jesus in Luke – they were trying to make the timeline fit but had differing historical markers they were working from, not an actual date.

        So, no. The “miraculous” foretelling of Jesus’ timeline isn’t. It much more easily explained the same way the virgin birth, trip to Egypt, or Jesus’ many last words are. The stories were written after the fact to fulfill prophecy, not from actual events.


      • Did Paul appear in contemporary history? He certainly made a bigger splash on the world scene than Jesus.

        I know of no scholar who denies that Paul not only existed but was instrumental in spreading Christianity across the Roman world. If I’ve read you right, you also credit (or accuse) Paul with that feat. Why didn’t he get at least one front page mention in the <Roman Times? Answer that and you may have the answer to your question.


      • It’s not clear what point you’re making here, Don. However, Paul didn’t merit a mention in The Roman Times because he was inconsequential. Nobody of any note was interested in him, or his cult, which was one of many. He was a big fish in a very small pond. The ‘history’ of the early church related in Acts is widely recognised as greatly exaggerated if not totally fabricated.


      • Good answer. I agree. But Jesus was the same. Never mind that both changed history. As far as the public was concerned, he was an itinerant preacher who reportedly healed some people. He was accused of treason and executed. That placed him in a sizable group of people, none of whom merited much note outside their local area. And you expect something more?

        The phenomena you mentioned was the same. Significant for those who connected them with the crucifixion but hardly noticeable beyond the local area. And you expected something more?


      • It’s not unreasonable to expect mention of three hour eclipses, significant earthquakes, the living dead roaming Jerusalem and the temple curtain being rent in two. The Romans kept detailed records of the first two phenomena, including a short eclipse just prior to the lengthy one Matthew mentions… but not his. Why not? Because it was made up.

        And surely a man returning spectacularly from the dead and flying into the sky would merit some mention somewhere. And what about the official Roman record of the unrest in Jerusalem that particular Passover, Pilate’s discussion with Jesus and the subsequent freeing of Barrabas? Nowhere to be found, despite a significant amount of material from Pilate’s term as prefect surviving. Why? Because all that’s made up too.


      • Don:
        I know of no scholar who denies that Paul not only existed but . . .

        For frack’s sake, Don, follow the fecking conversation.

        1 – You made the claim that Jesus fulfills Daniel’s timeline like a Swiss railway schedule.
        2 – We point out that dates from Jesus’ nor Paul’s life can be confirmed from sources external to the Bible.

        The point, dear expert in English, is that the claims of the Bible concerning dating cannot be confirmed. The existence of Paul or Jesus is a topic for another discussion. This one is about dating the execution of the criminal Jesus of Nazareth and whether it fulfills Daniel.

        And you still haven’t addressed the fact that John the Baptizer died in 36 CE. If Jesus died after him, as the gospels say, he couldn’t have died in either 30 or 33 CE. The church’s tradition is wrong.


      • Don, we know that Daniel was written AFTER the “facts” that believers think he “predicted.” 300-400 years AFTER they took place. Please Don, we’re begging you. Read SOMETHING/ANYTHING about the Bible that WASN’T written by the hypnotized faithful!

        Liked by 2 people

      • The part that was predicted to happen 483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes in his 7th reginal year was written 300-400 years after they occurred? You’re kidding, of course, or sidestepping the point I was making. Manuscripts of Daniel were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to at least 200 BC. That was approx. 200 years before the advent of Jesus.

        The prophecy you are referring to is a different matter.

        I don’t have to read anyone, hypnotized or not. I simply need to know how to count. Have you tried it?


      • “By your calculations….” Really, Don? Now you’re a biblical scholar with a calculator? Is 27 CE when the Messiah “showed up” or did he “show up” when he was born (6-4 BCE) or when he first taught in the Temple (cir 6-8 CE). Did Jesus even really believe he was the Messiah? This too is very unclear depending on which book you are reading and how later Christians edited or interpolated the texts, as we KNOW they did.

        I’ll go back to my original request; that you try reading something about the bible that was written by a true Biblical scholar NOT one of the mesmerized masses.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. They were not all technically speaking prophecies. Some were as in the case of Psalm 22, if we consider it the experience of the Psalmist, types. But Isaiah 53 which is the prophecy about the Messiah servant is a prophecy in strict sense of then word. It predicts and describes the servant. BTW the Messiah servant prophecy begins in 49:4 and goes through 53:12.

    The Messiah servant would bring Jacob again to Him. (49:5)
    He will be given as a light to the Gentiles (49:6)
    The nation will abhor him (49:7)
    God gave him a tongue to speak as one who is learned (50:4,5)
    The servant will give his back to the smiters (50:6)
    God put his words in the servant’s mouth (51:16)
    The servant will act wisely . . H will be despised. . . He will become the sacrifice for the sins of Israel. . . He will see those who become his children. (52:13 – 53:12)

    Taken all together it is a complete picture of the Messiah servant. It is so detailed that it is pretty hard to see the human contrivance in it.

    The life of Jesus fit the prophecy from beginning to end. It is not human contrivance. That would seem beyond the capacity of the Gospel writers – all of them write a narrative that perfectly fits the Isaiah prophecy – unless they all were geniuses.


    • It’s a contrivance because the gospel writers took these disparate elements and created a story from them! That is how the trick was done. Your finding it ‘pretty hard’ to see is because you choose to be fooled by the illusion.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Don’t we wish, Nan! Although it is my opinion – humble as it may be of course – that there will ALWAYS be the DonCamps of the world ready to chow down on the most specious bullsh-t one can serve up! It’s always going to be that way….

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Neil:
    For me, it’s always a case of ‘seek ye first the human contrivance’, by far the most plausible and persuasive explanation of scenarios such as this.

    Someone mentioned Q in a recent comment here on a recent article. Q is the perfect example of such ‘human contrivance’ in modern times. It was invented by biblical scholars to save the gospels from their obvious human origins.

    Either Matthew follows Luke or Luke follows Matthew. Probably the latter. Luke copies much of Mark and Matthew. But Luke changes many of the stories added by Matthew (to Mark) but keeps the sayings of Jesus also added by Matthew word for word.

    Apologists, acting as scholars, asked how that could be. Surely none of the evangelists would edit another. Therefore, the apologist declare, Luke DIDN’T have Matthew, but both Matthew and Luke had a sayings gospel they used.

    While that saves the apologists the embarrassment of one gospel writer editing another, it leaves them with two gospel writers inventing stories to go with the sayings from Q.

    The creation of Q from whole cloth has also inspired the creation of other new ‘sources.’ I’ve seen proto-Mark, proto-Matthew, and proto-Luke all offered as ‘proof’ the authors got their stories from earlier sources.

    Modern professional apologists are quite happy to invent scriptures to bolster their message. Surely 1st century apologists would do the same.


    • Neil: The creation of Q from whole cloth has also inspired the creation of other new ‘sources.’

      Use your head. There is every reason to believe there were at least stories about Jesus circulating before the Gospel writers wrote. It would be inconceivable that there were not. The plethora of other documents not in the canon certainly is evidence of more information than any of the Gospels or all together contain. Q is just a guess at what might have been the form of those earlier stories.

      That no Q or fragment of Q has been found suggests that there was no single written source. But that hardly rules out some pieces of written memories or jotted down saying of Jesus. But all this is beside the point. It would be impossible for there not to have been stories told about this person who in his life was so amazing to many. This was an oral culture; they had the ability to remember in detail, and by the time the Gospel writers began to write many who had heard Jesus were still living. The stories lived with them. Certainly, most of the disciples were still living. It would be extraordinary if they did not remember.

      I can remember 9/11 twenty years after the event and will remember for far longer. I even remember Queen Elizabeth’s coronation which I saw as a kid on an early TV. Isn’t that seventy years? Why do you think people could not remember Jesus?


      • Searching in vain for a post or comment that suggests there were no stories about Jesus before the gospels…

        Nope. No-one has proposed that.

        These stories, however, did not prevent the gospel writers from making up even more – as they evidently did. Use you head, Don.


      • Where did the Gospel writers get the words of Jesus?

        You know something about literature, Neil, and you know about voice. The voice of Jesus in every one of the Gospels is different from the voice of the writer. In Mark is not the same voice of either Mark the writer or Peter the orator of the gospel that Mark transcribed. It is smoother and better Greek than Peter’s voice. It has more of a Hebrew flavor than Mark’s voice. (Hebraisms) Conclusion: it came from neither Mark nor Peter.

        On top of that, it is the same voice we find in the other Gospels and different from the voice of the authors, even in pericopes that are not the same as in the other Gospels. (If you do not read Greek, you’ll have to take my word for it or do the research on other sites.)

        That all points to an earlier written source that was a translation of Jesus’ words. IMHO

        What do you think?


      • There’s a whole post coming up on where Jesus’ words came from, Don, so you’ll just have to be patient.

        One small point though: a well written fictional character also has a ‘voice’ that is individual and distinct. It doesn’t mean the character is in any sense real. While I’m not arguing that there wasn’t an historical Jesus, the versions of him in the gospels are all literary creations. They have very different voices, not to mention different things to say, in each of the gospels. The differences are most marked between Mark’s and John’s versions.

        I’m sure you’ll have some convoluted and implausible explanation why this should be…

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.