The Gospels and Other Fiction, part 1

Posted on by

Christian apologists vigorously deny the idea that the Jesus story is fiction even though all of the evidence, both internal and external, points to the fact that it is. I’m not going to rehearse that evidence in this post (I address it in several earlier posts, including here and here, and there are always primary sources that, God forbid, defenders of the faith could read for themselves.) I’m interested here in looking at Christians’ defence of scripture as truth. What arguments do they have and better still, what evidence, that the gospels are historically accurate depiction of events in 1st century Palestine? Most of these arguments have been offered by our resident apologist, Don Camp, and although I’m fairly sure Don makes things up as he goes along, I’ll not reference other sources except where I’m introducing an argument he hasn’t offered.

‘Church Fathers believed the gospels were accurate, therefore, because they lived closer to the time of the gospels’ composition, they’re more likely to be right.’

Church Fathers, such as the unreliable Eusebius,, Papias, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp were predisposed to believe the gospels were accurate; they had already converted to the faith and had a vested interest in seeing it promulgated and preserved. They were also steeped in the thinking of the age, typified by Paul and other NT writers, that the Earth was at the centre of a cosmic war between God and the forces of Satan. Above all, the Jesus story was theirs, a new revelation from God that didn’t, as far as they were concerned, belong to Jewish tradition or any other. It was new and it belonged to them: they wanted and needed it to be true. Later scholars, from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, did not come with these particular encumbrances and while of course not entirely free of prejudices of their own, considered the texts more dispassionately as history and found them to be wanting.

‘‘Mark’ is an accurate record of the disciple Peter’s time with Jesus.’

There is no evidence at all for this claim. Analysis of Mark (and also Matthew and Luke) demonstrates how the story is constructed around supposed prophecies from Jewish scriptures. Mark also incorporates much of Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, a feature Matthew is at pains to ‘correct’. His Jesus is distinctly Jewish.

‘There was an oral tradition that accurately preserved the stories about Jesus until such time as they could be written down.’

There is no evidence that this tradition, if it existed, was accurate. It is, as Bart Ehrman shows in Jesus Before The Gospels, highly unlikely that it was. We know that stories conveyed orally are altered, embellished and modified with successive retellings.

‘There was an earlier document that preserved sayings of Jesus’ until such times they could be incorporated into the gospels.’

Then it simply vanished so that no fragment of it survived. The Church Fathers don’t appear to know anything about it. Wouldn’t such a priceless document have been preserved somehow, somewhere by someone? Q, as it’s called, is entirely hypothetical. It’s unlikely it existed. Even if it did, it is considered to have been a sayings gospel. It did not preserve details of Jesus’ life, death or resurrection. We’ll get to the so called ‘logia’ in part 3.

‘The gospels were written by eye-witnesses or associates of eye-witnesses.’

We know with certainty that this is not the case. All of them were written in Koine Greek and are carefully constructed literary creations. None was written in Palestine but much further afield and all reflect the concerns of the later cult. Over a hundred years after they were written, Irenaeus ascribed the names by which they are now known without any evidence that the authors were called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Later compilers of the New Testament didn’t even know of ‘Mark’s’ primacy, which is why ‘Matthew’s’ gospel appears first in the New Testament. ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ are heavily dependent on ‘Mark’ (as is ‘John’ for its overall structure), an incongruous and inexplicable approach for Matthew to take, and John too, if they were eye-witnesses themselves. Eye-witnesses do not need to rely on the testimony of people who weren’t.

More next time…

37 thoughts on “The Gospels and Other Fiction, part 1”

  1. Fascinating post, Neil. I won’t address everything as I’ve done that before, but this comment exercises me: “Then it [this prior document] simply vanished so that no fragment of it survived. The Church Fathers don’t appear to know anything about it.

    Actually, the church fathers knew a lot about it. It was the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Every one of the men writing about the Gospels in the first two centuries reference the Hebrew Matthew with no mention of a Greek Matthew.

    You are already acquainted with what Papias said about Matthew and the logia of the Lord he wrote.

    Here is Irenaeus:
    Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. (Against Heresies, 3:1)

    And Origen:
    Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition [read, oral history] that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.

    You will find similar comments in almost every church father.

    Interestingly, all the quotes from Matthew by the church fathers are from the Greek Matthew. That suggests that though they knew of a prior Hebrew Matthew they had in their hands the Greek Matthew. But the fact remains they were convinced that Matthew wrote the logia of the Lord in Hebrew first.

    And they had the remnants of it in their hands. It was the logia of the Lord preserved in all the three synoptic Gospels, which in every case are pieces that existed before the writing of the Gospels and were translated by a capable translator and incorporated into the narratives of the Gospel writers. The unique grammar and style even in translation tells the story.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Don:
      “…which in every case are pieces that existed before the writing of the Gospels and were translated by a capable translator and incorporated into the narratives of the Gospel writers“

      “Which in EVERY case…really?
      “Translated by a CAPABLE translator…really?
      How do you know this?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • We assume that Jesus spoke Aramaic to his Jewish audience. There are portions of Aramaic that are transliterated and then translated. In addition, the Hebrew idioms found in the all the logia reinforce the Aramaic original. You can even see these in English translation if you read them in a version that is fairly literal, such as KJV.

        If you read these logia in Greek, they are quite good Greek (capable translator).

        In every case I am aware of. I am presently working on a comparison of the logia and the core part of it that is close to the same or word for word the same in two or more Gospels. (You know there is a lot of variation in the logia.)

        I know it by my own comparison and knowledge of Greek. If you had read any of my recent comparisons of the Gospels on my blog, you would know that.

        Like

      • So you’re hedging your bets now with ‘You know there is a lot of variation in the logia.’ Compare this with: the logia ‘are the parts of the Gospels that are similar, sometimes verbatim, to one another… Because of the style of the logia and because they are found in more than one Gospel it is a reasonable hypothesis that they existed prior to any of the Gospels.’

        And who was it who wrote, only last week, that the logia are consistent across the synoptic gospels? Why it was you, Mr Camp. From ‘similar, sometimes verbatim’ to ‘a lot of variation’ in one easy disingenuous move.

        So which is it, Don? Are they consistent across the gospels or are they not?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Neil And who was it who wrote, only last week, that the logia are consistent across the synoptic gospels?

        It was not me. Arrest that guy.

        My comparisons of the logia in Greek (though you can do the same in the KJV) is that they are not verbatim except in small pieces of the logia I’ve compared. You would know that and even have seen the similarities and differences if you had just glanced at the blogs I’ve linked. I’ve done parallel comparisons. That whole claim that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark is phony. I am more inclined to say at this point that Mark (actually Peter) and Luke were quoting logia that originated with Matthew but not the logia in the Gospel of Matthew. That is a freshly written piece that of course contains the logia but also probably with variations from the original logia.

        Papias tells us that Matthew wrote “the logia of the Lord” first but in the language of the Jews and had to be translated for those who did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic. But someone did finally translate them. That could have been Matthew himself or someone equally capable and careful.

        Neil Are [the logia] consistent across the gospels or are they not?

        If you mean verbatim, there are not. If you mean similar with variations, they are. That is the puzzle that I have not seen anyone address specifically. My hypothesis is that they began as Matthew’s logia in Hebrew.Aramaic (and they began relatively early) and were translated into Greek and used as the Apostles taught and preached the oral gospel beyond the Aramaic speaking Jewish population adding to Matthew’s logia their own firsthand knowledge of what Jesus said and did. That explains the similarities and the variations. It also fits the history of the expansion of the church into Greek speaking populations some few years after the church’s inception.

        The problem is that most scholars I am acquainted with, such as Mark Strauss and Daniel Wallace, assume that Mark wrote first and others depended on him. There are some good arguments that support that. The problem is that it does not explain the variations. Another hypothesis is needed.

        Like

      • My hypothesis is that Mark wrote his gospel based on the visions of a few, and structured it around ‘prophecies’ from Jewish scriptures. Matthew reworked Mark’s story and took his technique to the extreme. He tells us repeatedly that this is what he is doing; the internal evidence that this is how it was done.

        My hypothesis doesn’t necessitate the involvement of the supernatural, an unreliable oral tradition, ‘Q’ or Matthew knowing Mark and translating the logia for him while they were both in Rome. And it isn’t really my hypothesis. It is one expressed by a growing number of scholars.

        You did say the logia were similar and sometimes verbatim across the synoptics. I quoted you saying it! I trust you’ve now been arrested.

        Like

      • Neul it isn’t really my hypothesis. It is one expressed by various scholars.

        It remains on the periphery of scholarly work. Yes, the old Testament is quoted by both Matthew and Mark and especially by Matthew who was directing his Gospel to a Jewish audience, but the structure is around five sermons. Two you can easily see. 1) The sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) in which there are only a few allusions to the OT. 2) The Olivet discourse (Matt. 24) which has echoes of OT prophecy in Daniel and Isaiah.

        The other three are 3) the calling of the disciples (Matt. 10). Only one passing reference to the OT. 4) Parable of the kingdom (Matt. 13). Two references to the OT, Isaiah 6:9-10 is significant. 5) The teaching on the church (Matt. 18). No direct reference to the OT.

        So the heart of Matthew is really not about the fulfillment of prophecy. If you read them in order there is a progression from the principles of the kingdom of God to the calling of disciples to parables about the kingdom of God to teaching about the principles of the church and finally the end of the age. WITH VERY FEW REFERENCES TO FULFILLED PROPHECY.

        That is so simple, even I can get it.

        Like

      • That’s that sorted then. If you’re not impressed then we can forget about any alternative view, even if the scholarly consensus is that Gospel Jesus is a myth.

        Still, if Shania’s Don’s not impressed…

        Like

      • I have read enough of Carrier and Robert Price et al. to know their scholarship is more driven by their antagonism to Christianity than fact. So, yes, you can forget about THAT alternative view.

        What I am observing, however, is that more atheists are gravitating toward that view. But I am not surprised. Afterall the new atheists have no other haven in the discourse about how to understand Jesus. So, I am not surprised that you are calling the mythical Jesus view the consensus of scholars. But scholars more dedicated to doing actual history, Christian or not, will also find the mythical Jesus tribe more and more on the fringe.

        Like

      • Do you ever read what others write? I didn’t say most scholars had concluded that Jesus was mythical. I said that the Jesus of the gospels is widely recognised as a fiction. You are blinded by a simplistic, naive faith in the Christ, the celestial superbeing invented by Paul, who is most certainly mythical. You’re also fixated on Carrier and project that fixation onto me.

        We atheists don’t need to ‘understand’ your Jesus the Christ fantasy figure. You may as well take your proselytising elsewhere. You’re seriously out of your depth here.

        Liked by 2 people

      • History and the New Testament tell a different story, Neil. But it is true that because of the Gospels’ narrow focus on Jesus the Christ it seems like that the whole story. It is not. He was surrounded by a family and village growing up who likely did not see in him anything more than a devout Jewish kid. (Except his mother) But there were many devout Jewish kids.

        It wasn’t until he began to teach and preach and do amazing things that anyone took notice, and even then, they didn’t know what to do with him. He gathered a few disciples as a rabbi, but they really didn’t know what to do with him either. But gradually it dawned on them that he was the Messiah – whatever that meant to them.

        If he was the Messiah, he was not what they expected yet they could not get away from what he said and did. Until he died. That was a crisis of faith of there ever was one. Then he was back. And that did it for them. It was life changing.

        All this played out in a very real place and among people who were ordinary people. Some believed that he was the Messiah. Others did not. And that is not much different from today.

        But to say that it was all a myth created by someone (maybe Mark) to give basis for a church already in existence for 30 years is mindless. If you isolate as Carrier does the Gospels from history and from the existing church who already believed all that, it might make some sense. But imbedded in history as they are, claiming they are myth is crazy. But maybe more than that, it is demonic.

        Like

      • Still no evidence for your claims, Don. You just point to behavior you don’t like and say, “Must be demons!”

        I look at my missing socks when I take them out of the dryer and declare, “Must be sock stealing gnomes.” And sock stealing gnomes become real.

        A child points to the presents that appear Christmas morning and declares, “Santa IS real!”

        You’re a child, Don. Still believing fairy tales and myths from two thousand years ago.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Don: We’ll see.

        Ahhh. There’s the arrogant, condescending, delusional Don we’ve all come to know and . . . oh, I dunno, let’s go with . . . tolerate.

        Like

      • No, I’d say one copied from the other. I’ve marked enough student essays to know this is how unusual quotes that are yet word for word find their way into two pieces of writing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • And you know this how? They both copied from a hypothetical document. Brilliant.

        Or: Mark invented Jesus’ script (much of it lifted from the OT) and Matthew copied it.

        I guess that don’t impress you much either.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I am inclined to think that it was all oral. But there was a generally preached gospel that was the standard for the Apostles’ teaching. Some of that was written down by Matthew in his logia of the Lord (according to Papias). So, yes, there was a Q, and we can all read it in the words of Peter and Matthew. It is hiding in plain sight.

        Yes, the story of Jesus is forecast and foreshadowed in the OT. I don’t know why that is such a surprise. Everyone Jewish expected it would be. You can read about that expectation in Josephus. You can read about it in the writings of the Essenes. You can read about it in the history of the second Jewish-Roman war and Bar Koba. You can hear from Jews today.

        The fact is the hope of the Messiah was a deep seated religious and cultural conviction. So, would the Messiah appear with no connection to the predictions and expectations of the Jewish people? Be realistic.

        Like

      • We’ve had this discussion, Don. You’ve nothing new to say about the matter.

        The gospels are invented stories designed to give the risen Jesus, whom the first ‘apostles’ witnessed in visions or revelations, a biography. This was based on prophecies from Jewish scripture, many of which weren’t prophecy to begin with.

        End of discussion.

        Like

      • ‘It was a logia that had been in circulation prior to either Mark or Luke’s writing.’ Who says? Where’s your evidence? Did the Holy Spirit tell you in a revelation?

        Like

      • Like I said … it’s an assumption. You want to make it “logical,” but since you and others who “defend their beliefs” weren’t there to witness stuff firsthand, it’s still an assumption.

        Actually, when push comes to shove, assumptions aren’t always a bad thing … so long as we recognize that’s what they are.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly Nan…Don’s scared by the thought of “what if I’m wrong”…he keeps arguing the minutiae of who wrote what, and when, and the realization that there is simply no evidence for god is driving him crazy.
      I like how Ark got him to admit his conversion story is based on emotions and not evidence.
      That’s classic!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

Leave a comment

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