Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 03-06-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Why does Paul have so much authority in the Christian tradition if he wasn't even a disciple?

Paul had even more authority for Gnostic Christians, who claimed a line of transmission from him that was much shorter and more direct than anything claimed by Eusebius via Papias.

PhilosopherJay · 03-06-2005, 11:16 PM

Hi S.C.,

It sounds right that Eusebius's two-John hypothesis was meant to attack the authority of the Revelation text.

My problem is how Irenaeus could have read "Presbyter John" in Papias and gotten the impression that Papias was talking about the Apostle John, while Eusebius distinguishes between them.

Here, I suppose is the relevant quote:

Quote:

3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith,and springing from the truth itself.

Quote:

4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

Papias seems to say clearly that he is getting his information first from elders and second from any one who came who had been "a follower of the elders" He does not tell us who these elders are. However the phrase "words of the elders seems to be put in apposition to "what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the Presbyter John the disciples of the Lord say"

It seems that we should identify "the elders" with the "apostles" He seems to be putting Aristion and the Presbyter John in the category of "Elders" and/or "Apostles"

If we assume Papias is the author of this text, then perhaps we should put him in the first century. On the other hand, anybody to the time of Irenaeus, or the author of "Against Heresies" himself (200 C.E.) could have made up the name Papias and used it as the perported author of the text. The author is claiming authority for his text by saying that he is reporting what came directly from the apostles.

It is curious that he does not declare James and John brothers. This would tend to indicate that he is pre-canonical gospels or at least the sections that declared these men brothers.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The reason I think that Eusebius promotes the Two-John hypothesis is that he wanted to disparage the apostolic credentials of the Revelation to John.

As for ambiguity of reference, the surviving bits of Papias indicate that he referred to his John as the "presbyter" and as a "disciple of the Lord." Neither of these references unambiguously identifies Papias's John as John of Zebedee or even, one of the twelve apostles.

S.C.Carlson · 03-07-2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

My problem is how Irenaeus could have read "Presbyter John" in Papias and gotten the impression that Papias was talking about the Apostle John, while Eusebius distinguishes between them.

Actually, I believe that Irenaeus did not equate John "the disciple of the Lord" with either John of Zebedee or one of the twelve apostles.

Quote:

It seems that we should identify "the elders" with the "apostles" He seems to be putting Aristion and the Presbyter John in the category of "Elders" and/or "Apostles"

We have to be very careful here. The word "apostle" as best I can determine does not appear in the surviving relics of Papias, so it is unclear what, if anything, the category of "Apostles" would have meant to Papias.

Quote:

If we assume Papias is the author of this text, then perhaps we should put him in the first century. On the other hand, anybody to the time of Irenaeus, or the author of "Against Heresies" himself (200 C.E.) could have made up the name Papias and used it as the perported author of the text. The author is claiming authority for his text by saying that he is reporting what came directly from the apostles.

I can't see what could be gained from making up and using the name Papias as a pseudonym, particularly since the apostolic connection in what survives of Papias is not very strong.

Quote:

It is curious that he does not declare James and John brothers. This would tend to indicate that he is pre-canonical gospels or at least the sections that declared these men brothers.

Papias does not declare James and John brothers in the few parts that Eusebius quoted. Whether Papias did or did not do so in the part that Eusebius did not quote is quite uncertain.

Stephen

Sparrow · 03-07-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The author is claiming authority for his text by saying that he is reporting what came directly from the apostles.

I might have missed something, but I read this more as the author is claiming authority for his text by saying that he is reporting what came directly from followers of the elders, which we are assuming to be apostles. He assumes the followers information is accurate. We assume his recording of the information is accurate. I don't see any direct information from the elders, the apostles or Jesus.

PhilosopherJay · 03-07-2005, 06:49 AM

Hi Stephen,

The writer of against Heresies uses the term "John, the Disciple of the Lord" fourteen times ((Heresies 1:8.5, 2:2.5, 2:22.5, 2:23.3, 3.1.1., 3.3.4, 3.11.1, 3:16.5, 3:22.2, 4.20.11, 4:30.4, 5:18.2, 5:33.3). He does not use the term Prestyter John and gives no indication of being aware of anyone by that name. On this basis alone we may assume that Eusebius has made up the character in order to discredit the authority of Revelations.

Ireneaus cannot understand that Papias is referring to the apostles as "elders," so he mistakingly believes Irenaeus is referring to elders and apostles.

Papias refers to John as John the disciple of the Lord, and the Valentinians according to Irenaeus also refered to John, as "John the disciple of the Lord" (Heresies 1:8.5). we may suppose that Papias is an invention by Valentinians, or that the Valentians are being influenced by Papias who is claiming that he got his information directly from "John the disciple of the Lord." This John apparently had a higher authority than the "best ones" and was the chief disciple of the lord.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Actually, I believe that Irenaeus did not equate John "the disciple of the Lord" with either John of Zebedee or one of the twelve apostles.

We have to be very careful here. The word "apostle" as best I can determine does not appear in the surviving relics of Papias, so it is unclear what, if anything, the category of "Apostles" would have meant to Papias.

I can't see what could be gained from making up and using the name Papias as a pseudonym, particularly since the apostolic connection in what survives of Papias is not very strong.

Papias does not declare James and John brothers in the few parts that Eusebius quoted. Whether Papias did or did not do so in the part that Eusebius did not quote is quite uncertain.

Stephen

Magdlyn · 03-07-2005, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

(Sorry this is so late. I've been battling the flu for a couple of days and dealing with a sick child as well. My time to work has been spotty but here it is anyway)

Well, you did a good job for being sick with a sick kid. Hope you both are feeling better!

Quote:

The astrologers go to Bethlehem and then follow the star until it stops over a house (not a stable) with Jesus in it. The astrologers give mad props to Baby Jesus and give him gold and frankincense and myrhh. Then an angel comes to them in a dream and warns them not to go back to Herod so they secretly split back to their own countries instead.

Then an angel comes to Joseph in a dream (in Matthew's Nativity it seems like everybody is constantly getting hounded by angels in their dreams) and tells him to haul ass to Egypt and bring Jesus with him. Joseph packs up his family and blows.

When Herod gets stood up by the astrologers he loses his shit and orders all male children under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be killed.

To add to the confusion, the text does not call Jesus a baby when the Magi visit him, but a toddler. This is again evidenced by Herod's killing of kids 2 yrs old and younger. Not newborns.

Quote:

Synopsis of Luke's Nativity

There is a long, boring story about the conception of John the Baptist.

Wonder why the evangelist bothers with the "long boring" story of JtheBap's birth? Wonder why the prologue to GJn also make a big point of saying John was not the Logos of God, but Jesus was?

As Robt Price points out in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, these stories point to a rather covered up problem of the time, wherein the cults of John the Baptist and Jesus were in competition and finally harmonized to make Jesus come out on top. John is made to be Jesus' cousin and only the herald of Jesus.

I make this point which is a bit of a tangent to point out the patched together quality of the canon, as opposed to the idea popularly believed, that they document actual history.

PhilosopherJay · 03-07-2005, 08:39 AM

Hi Sparrow,

That is certainly how the author of "Against Heresies," which Eusebius claims is the Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, reads it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I might have missed something, but I read this more as the author is claiming authority for his text by saying that he is reporting what came directly from followers of the elders, which we are assuming to be apostles. He assumes the followers information is accurate. We assume his recording of the information is accurate. I don't see any direct information from the elders, the apostles or Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-08-2005, 04:15 PM

Sorry this is late. I am still working on this stuff, I swear,

3. The Gospels contain factual errors

It's hard to know where to start with this one or how to categorize the errors so I guess I'll just take the gospels one at a time starting with Mark.

Errors in Mark

Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography.

Geographical errors in Mark:

The Gerasene Demoniac:

In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.

If you look at the map below you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.

Matthew reconized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.

Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:

In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."

There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Looking at the next map below we can see Tyre and Sidon on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.

There also wasn't any road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.

The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake. The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee. It is represented in the next map below.

Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson twn oriwn dekapolewV (...ana meson ton horion decapoleos); literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis."

Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition ana denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction ana meson which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means. There seems to still be an inplication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing.

Crossing the Jordan into Judea

Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea. Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided. Customarily, travellers from Galilee to Judea crossed the river north of Samaria, went south along the river in the Transjordan and then crossed back over to Judea. Mark seems to know that crossing the Jordan was part of the journey but doesn't seem to quite grasp the mechanics of the trip.

Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route.

Bethsaida and Gennesaret

In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story:

(Mk. 6:45-53)
Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.�? 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

53When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there.

Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd (usually this is accomplished by getting Elvis out of the building, not leaving him behind to clear the venue himself, but whatever) and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them (somehow from the shore in the middle of the night) straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on.

Bethpage and Bethany

(Ok, this one's kind of minor but what the hey)

In Mark 11, Jesus and his posse are walking from Jericho to Jerusalem. Mark decribes their route as going through Bethpage the Bethany but they would have passed those towns in the opposite order coming from Jericho.

There are some other nitpicky things as well. Mark calls Bethsaida a "village" when it was actially a good sized city. He also names some towns that are unknown from any other literature from the time (Dalmanutha, Arimathea, even Nazareth) and may have been Mark's own inventions (I think at least Aramathea probably was).

Legal and cultural errors in Mark

Mark doesn't know Jewish divorce law.

In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce:
11He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not.

Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws.

Mark says this in 7:3-4:

3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

The trial before the Sanhedrin

Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law.

Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.
Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest. The Sanhedrin was permitted to hold trials only in the Gazith Hall at the Temple.
Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.
Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?�?

62“I am,�? said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�?

63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?�? he asked. 64“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?�?

They all condemned him as worthy of death
(Mk 14:61-64)

Claiming to be the Messiah was in no way blasphemous nor any violation of Jewish law. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) not God. There is no way that a person claiming to be the Messiah could have been convicted of blasphemy.

The death of John the Baptist

Arguably, Mark also makes one very notable historical error in that he places the execution of John the Baptist within the life of Jesus. According to Josephus, however, JBap was arrested and executed about 36 CE, several years after the crucifixion.

To be fair, there is no corroboration for Josephus' date, so this may be better characterized as a conflict with Josephus than a proveable error but there is no corroboration for Mark's dating either. Between Mark and Josephus, at least one of them is wrong and possibly both. I think It is also fair to say that Mark is more likely to be wrong than Josephus.

Errors in Matthew

A lot of Matthew's innacuracies are just repetitions of Mark so I won't mention them again. Most of Matthew's personal inaccuracies (Independent of Mark) are in blatant misconstruals of passages from the Hebrew Bible as being Messianic prophecies. Here are a few of them.

Probably the most infamous one is in 1:23 where Matthew misquotes Isaiah 7:14. This is one I'm pretty sure that most anyone who frequents this board already knows about so I won't belabor it. Suffice it to say that the Isaiah quotation does not say "virgin" and is not a Messianic prophecy.
In 2:15, (after Jesus' fictional sojourn in Egypt is over) Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 ("...out of Egypt I have called my son") but Matthew deceptively leaves out the first part of the verse which identifies "my son" as Israel. The verse, in it's entirety, says:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

This is not a prophecy of any sort but a reference to the Exodus.
In 2:17-18, Matthew tries to claim Herod's slaughter of the innocents (a Matthean fiction which will be dealt with in the appropriate section) is a "fulfillment" of Jeremiah 31:15, which reads as follows:

This is what the LORD says:

"A voice is heard in Ramah,

mourning and great weeping,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because her children are no more."

This is not a prophecy and has nothing to do with Herod. In context it is about the baylonian captivity.
Matthew claims another fulfilled prophesy in 26:56:

55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.�? Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

But he doesn't say what prophecy he's referring to and nothing similar exists in the Hebew Bible.
27:9 contains an out and out screw up. Matthew claims a fulfilled prophesy from Jeremiah but the passage he quotes (or paraphrases) is actually from Zechariah (11:12-13). It's also not a Messianic prophecy.

Matthew also contains some of the gaudiest and most demonstable fictions but we'll get to those later.

Errors in Luke-Acts

I will combine Luke-Acts since it is (presumably) the same author.

As with Matthew, a lot of Luke's errors are imported from Mark but he has a few of his own.

(Lk 3:1-2)
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was Procurator [Gr. Hegemon] of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene– 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas...

The first two verses of Luke 3 contain three factual errors.
1. Pilate was a Prefect, not a procurator.
2. Lysanias of Abilene died in 36 BCE
3. Caiaphas was the only high priest at this time. Annas had been deposed years before. There was no tradition of dual high priests in any case. Annas and Caiaphas were never "co" high priests.

Luke's description of the census of Quirinius, aside from contradictimg Matthew as to dating, is also flawed or at least highly implausible in its assertion that people were requred to return to their ancestral homes to register. No such condition existed and it would have been a logistical nightmare anyway.

Also, Quirinius' census only applied to Judea, not Galilee, so Joseph (if he was a resident of Nazareth as Luke avers) would not have been bound by it.

In Acts 5:36-37, Luke has a character named Gamaliel talking about a revolt by Theudas which had not happened yet relative to the alleged setting of the story. "Gamaliel" is supposedly talking in the 30's CE but the revolt he speaks of happened in the mid 40's. Moreover, he claims the revolt of Judas the Galilean happened after the revolt of Theudas but it actually happened 40 years before.

In Acts 21:38, Luke has Roman commander ask him if he was the "Egyptian" who led a band of sicarii into the desert. Although Josephus does mention a "false prophet" called "the Egyptian" he does not associate him with the sicarii, who were assassins, not followers of prophets. In Jewish Wars, Josephus talks about the sicarii directly prior to talking about the "Egyptian" leading some followers to the Mount of Olives and Luke (who used Josephus as a source) probably conflated them.

Errors in John

Just a couple because this post is getting long and is much delayed already.

In 1:28, John says that John the Baptist was baptizing in "Bethany on the far side of the Jordan." Bethany was on the western side of the Jordan in Judea and there is no known place which was called Bethany in the Transjordan.

The major error in John is the anachronistic placing of the expulsion of Christians from Jewish synagogues within the lifetime of Jesus. This is a howling mistake in john.

The above not a complete list of errors in the gospels but it's a nice little sampler of some of the better ones.

Next up: demonstrable fictions in the gospels.

Vorkosigan · 03-08-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

Crossley argues that Mark actually does know a very arcane bit of Jewish lore. This is because in some manuscripts Mark says that dining couches are immersed. In fact, as Crossley points out, that was actually done. Perhaps this is a scribal correction, not Mark's.

Good Catch on the Bethsaida thing, landing on the same side of the lake they left. I'll have to add that one later!

typo: You got "Garada" instead of "Gadara" above. And you might add, for emphasis, that the pigs have to cross three rivers to get to the SoG. LOL!

Quote:

(As to my own guess as to what Papias meant, I think that Papias was aware of a/ something very like our Greek Gospel of Matthew b/ a 'Hebrew' (ie probably Aramaic) paraphrase/translation/version of the Greek Gospel,

I just offered a new solution to this problem in a recent post with Papias in the title.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-08-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Crossley argues that Mark actually does know a very arcane bit of Jewish lore. This is because in some manuscripts Mark says that dining couches are immersed. In fact, as Crossley points out, that was actually done. Perhaps this is a scribal correction, not Mark's.

Yeah, I read that someplace when I was researching this post for likely defenses. I think that Mark probably heard a tidbit of authentic Jewish purity tradition somewhere but generalized it to all Jews. It actually sounds like the kind of thing that could get passed around in Roman cities as an interesting factoid but lose any distinction as to who does it ("Did you know the Jews wash everything before they eat? their hands, the cups, the plates, even the couches...") But that's just rank speculation on my part, of course.

Quote:

typo: You got "Garada" instead of "Gadara" above. And you might add, for emphasis, that the pigs have to cross three rivers to get to the SoG. LOL!

Thanks for the catch. I'll fix it.

03-08-2005, 04:15 PM	#68
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Sorry this is late. I am still working on this stuff, I swear, 3. The Gospels contain factual errors It's hard to know where to start with this one or how to categorize the errors so I guess I'll just take the gospels one at a time starting with Mark. Errors in Mark Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography. Geographical errors in Mark: The Gerasene Demoniac: In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake. If you look at the map below you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake. Matthew reconized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either. Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon: In 7:31, Mark says the following: "And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Looking at the next map below we can see Tyre and Sidon on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre. There also wasn't any road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point. The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake. The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee. It is represented in the next map below. Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson twn oriwn dekapolewV (...ana meson ton horion decapoleos); literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis." Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition ana denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction ana meson which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means. There seems to still be an inplication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing. Crossing the Jordan into Judea Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea. Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided. Customarily, travellers from Galilee to Judea crossed the river north of Samaria, went south along the river in the Transjordan and then crossed back over to Judea. Mark seems to know that crossing the Jordan was part of the journey but doesn't seem to quite grasp the mechanics of the trip. Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route. Bethsaida and Gennesaret In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story: (Mk. 6:45-53) Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray. 47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.�? 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened. 53When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there. Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd (usually this is accomplished by getting Elvis out of the building, not leaving him behind to clear the venue himself, but whatever) and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them (somehow from the shore in the middle of the night) straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on. Bethpage and Bethany (Ok, this one's kind of minor but what the hey) In Mark 11, Jesus and his posse are walking from Jericho to Jerusalem. Mark decribes their route as going through Bethpage the Bethany but they would have passed those towns in the opposite order coming from Jericho. There are some other nitpicky things as well. Mark calls Bethsaida a "village" when it was actially a good sized city. He also names some towns that are unknown from any other literature from the time (Dalmanutha, Arimathea, even Nazareth) and may have been Mark's own inventions (I think at least Aramathea probably was). Legal and cultural errors in Mark Mark doesn't know Jewish divorce law. In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus forbids divorce: 11He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Verse 12 implies that Mark believed women had a right of divorce in Jewish law. They did not. Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws. Mark says this in 7:3-4: 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews." The trial before the Sanhedrin Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law. Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night. Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest. The Sanhedrin was permitted to hold trials only in the Gazith Hall at the Temple. Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath. Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial. Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah: Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?�? 62“I am,�? said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�? 63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?�? he asked. 64“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?�? They all condemned him as worthy of death (Mk 14:61-64) Claiming to be the Messiah was in no way blasphemous nor any violation of Jewish law. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) not God. There is no way that a person claiming to be the Messiah could have been convicted of blasphemy. The death of John the Baptist Arguably, Mark also makes one very notable historical error in that he places the execution of John the Baptist within the life of Jesus. According to Josephus, however, JBap was arrested and executed about 36 CE, several years after the crucifixion. To be fair, there is no corroboration for Josephus' date, so this may be better characterized as a conflict with Josephus than a proveable error but there is no corroboration for Mark's dating either. Between Mark and Josephus, at least one of them is wrong and possibly both. I think It is also fair to say that Mark is more likely to be wrong than Josephus. Errors in Matthew A lot of Matthew's innacuracies are just repetitions of Mark so I won't mention them again. Most of Matthew's personal inaccuracies (Independent of Mark) are in blatant misconstruals of passages from the Hebrew Bible as being Messianic prophecies. Here are a few of them. Probably the most infamous one is in 1:23 where Matthew misquotes Isaiah 7:14. This is one I'm pretty sure that most anyone who frequents this board already knows about so I won't belabor it. Suffice it to say that the Isaiah quotation does not say "virgin" and is not a Messianic prophecy. In 2:15, (after Jesus' fictional sojourn in Egypt is over) Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 ("...out of Egypt I have called my son") but Matthew deceptively leaves out the first part of the verse which identifies "my son" as Israel. The verse, in it's entirety, says: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. This is not a prophecy of any sort but a reference to the Exodus. In 2:17-18, Matthew tries to claim Herod's slaughter of the innocents (a Matthean fiction which will be dealt with in the appropriate section) is a "fulfillment" of Jeremiah 31:15, which reads as follows: This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." This is not a prophecy and has nothing to do with Herod. In context it is about the baylonian captivity. Matthew claims another fulfilled prophesy in 26:56: 55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.�? Then all the disciples deserted him and fled. But he doesn't say what prophecy he's referring to and nothing similar exists in the Hebew Bible. 27:9 contains an out and out screw up. Matthew claims a fulfilled prophesy from Jeremiah but the passage he quotes (or paraphrases) is actually from Zechariah (11:12-13). It's also not a Messianic prophecy. Matthew also contains some of the gaudiest and most demonstable fictions but we'll get to those later. Errors in Luke-Acts I will combine Luke-Acts since it is (presumably) the same author. As with Matthew, a lot of Luke's errors are imported from Mark but he has a few of his own. (Lk 3:1-2) In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was Procurator [Gr. Hegemon] of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene– 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas... The first two verses of Luke 3 contain three factual errors. 1. Pilate was a Prefect, not a procurator. 2. Lysanias of Abilene died in 36 BCE 3. Caiaphas was the only high priest at this time. Annas had been deposed years before. There was no tradition of dual high priests in any case. Annas and Caiaphas were never "co" high priests. Luke's description of the census of Quirinius, aside from contradictimg Matthew as to dating, is also flawed or at least highly implausible in its assertion that people were requred to return to their ancestral homes to register. No such condition existed and it would have been a logistical nightmare anyway. Also, Quirinius' census only applied to Judea, not Galilee, so Joseph (if he was a resident of Nazareth as Luke avers) would not have been bound by it. In Acts 5:36-37, Luke has a character named Gamaliel talking about a revolt by Theudas which had not happened yet relative to the alleged setting of the story. "Gamaliel" is supposedly talking in the 30's CE but the revolt he speaks of happened in the mid 40's. Moreover, he claims the revolt of Judas the Galilean happened after the revolt of Theudas but it actually happened 40 years before. In Acts 21:38, Luke has Roman commander ask him if he was the "Egyptian" who led a band of sicarii into the desert. Although Josephus does mention a "false prophet" called "the Egyptian" he does not associate him with the sicarii, who were assassins, not followers of prophets. In Jewish Wars, Josephus talks about the sicarii directly prior to talking about the "Egyptian" leading some followers to the Mount of Olives and Luke (who used Josephus as a source) probably conflated them. Errors in John Just a couple because this post is getting long and is much delayed already. In 1:28, John says that John the Baptist was baptizing in "Bethany on the far side of the Jordan." Bethany was on the western side of the Jordan in Judea and there is no known place which was called Bethany in the Transjordan. The major error in John is the anachronistic placing of the expulsion of Christians from Jewish synagogues within the lifetime of Jesus. This is a howling mistake in john. The above not a complete list of errors in the gospels but it's a nice little sampler of some of the better ones. Next up: demonstrable fictions in the gospels.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.