Carrie

In Earl Doherty's book "The Jesus Puzzle" he says that it is unlikely that the Gospel authors considered the story to be historical, and that they would not have presented it as history.

I don't think any of the Gospel authors were actual eyewitnesses of Jesus (since I don't think Jesus existed), but Luke admits that he was not an eyewitness.

It seems to me that Luke believed the Gospel story to be true, because of what he wrote in the beginning of his Gospel. He said, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled (or surely believed among us) (see footnote a). Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So Luke either believed the Gospel story, or this first part was added on by someone else later.

Also, at the end of John, in 21:24 he says, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

Is John referring to himself as the disciple? It seems so. And it seems that John also believes the Gospel story to be true.

I don't think Mark, who wrote the first Gospel, believed it to be a true story, but what about the others?

Also, if they regarded the Gospel story to be historical, why would they have felt free to make so many changes from the Gospel of Mark? (Assuming they copied from Mark, which I think they did because they often copied from him word for word). It can't possibly be that they were writing about things that really happened because some of the differences between the Gospels that don't match up make it impossible for the story to be history.

What do ya think?

Bernard Muller

According to my studies, "Mark", the first gospeler, might have invented 90% of his gospel, but only kept the backbone (with known anecdotes) of HJ's story, almost always embellished. Also, many times he used HJ to solve issues among his flock at the time. "Mark" had to keep what was remembered by his flock from eyewitnesses, for sake of giving an air of authenticity to his work, but many of these things were against the developing high Christology; and "Mark" had to use all kind of artifices to compensate. So for examples, Jesus asked the parents & disciples to hide the alleged resurrection of Jairus' daughter, as if it was possible. The reason I see is because the attempt of revival failed and the girl stays dead. Same for Peter declaring Jesus is the Christ: same gag order. And there is corroborating evidence those "Nazarenes" never were Christians.
Was "Mark" a believer? Looking at his book of lies, I would say no; but likely, as a presbyter, he was making a living from his flock: that would explain it. Mk13:1-31, more so 21-22 clearly indicate why the gospel was written: after the news of the fall of Jerusalem, his destruction & killing of many of its inhabitants, an upheaval took place among Christians and Jews. Some pretended to be prophets or "chosen one" (for revenge) and were attracting Christians from the flock. That called for a bunch of pious lies to keep his community intact, that and repeated calls the Kingdom will come very soon: now is not the time to leave! That triggered the writing of the gospel.
Frankly, the other gospelers and epistlers (including Paul), as far as I can see, were in the same boat, that is making a living and making sure their followers do not abandon them. Paul's epistles have many items related to money matter.

Carrie:
"Luke" mentioned Theophilus to make believe the gospel was true: you do not write lies to somebody of importance! Theophilus is likely fictional.

Whoever wrote that is not the one who allegedly wrote the gospel. Because when 21:24 was written, the (alleged) disciple was dead. Once dead, then you can say anything about what a particular one might have done and witnessed, more so about things that the alleged disciple was not known to have "covered" (that is he had said he wrote the gospel). So I take 21:24 as wishful thinking and not as positive evidence, on the contrary.

Best regards, Bernard

mrmoderate

How can you have a discussion on something that you don't believe the subject matter ever existed on?

Just curious. What was the purpose for concocting such an unusual tale? It's not like there was a physically happy ending for any of the participants.

spin

When dealing with any ancient belief system you do exactly the same thing. Was there ever a Marduk or a Zuisudra? No, but we can understand the development of ideas and institutions through their traditions.

There was no "physically happy ending" for Gilgamesh either. Lots of ancient traditions don't go for the modern happy ending.


spin

Vinnie

Mark and all the evangelists thought what they wrote was true true in a sense, just not a fact-historical sense. Jesus was reinterpreted and applied to new situations. The post easter faith and things learned in prayer help shape these reinterpretations.

Vinnie

Al Kafirun

My theory that the Jesus story was modelled mainly after the persecution of heretical Jews and Pagans (AKA Christians, namely Paul) pretty much renders the author(s) of the original gospel tales fiction writers. Why and when numb-nuts started thinking they were literal, I have no idea.

Amaleq13

I've always tried to give the benefit of the doubt to our Gospel authors but I think it is important to admit that this is essentially a gift. I think the best we can really say, more or less in line with Vinnie, is that the authors probably considered their stories spiritually true but not necessarily "historically accurate". Bernard's point above, however, can't be ignored and it seems to me to be a very credible possibility.

Carrie

I'm also wondering, IF Luke considered his Gospel to be true, and IF he is the one who wrote the book of Acts, then he must have also believed the book of Acts to be a true story?

Vinnie

Some arereading Luke's intro as if he means to imply, "I am writing a chronologically ordered biography." That is not true. Brown writes (Intro p. 227), "Probobly the author means no more than that he traced things with care and reordered them logically."

Luke thought both his works were true but he proibably would have snubbed his nose at our understanding of "history". He certainly did not engage in such a practive. He engaged in religious-historical-propoganda writing.

Jesus was a "living voice" in the early communiteis. Hence "prayer" and "experiences" resulted in new "true" "histories" of Jesus. Though Mark probably invented the empty tomb narrative, it was true because Jesus did rise from the dead in his eyes. It further pointed out that the glory of Jesus' skandalous death. Mark tries to overshadow the shame of the cross. Hence what he writes is "true" because in Mark's eyes Jesus is Son of God and his death could not have been skandalous. Mark is trying to teach known facts//encourage faith through his narrative (which positsh is beliefs as historical).

A similar practice can be seen in Josephus at least once.

Vinnie