Gooch's dad

I've seen this claim by a few Christians at II and elsewhere, most recently by malookiemaloo in this thread

It seems fairly obvious to me that the gospel writers fabricated a great deal. The nativity accounts in Luke vs. Matthew differ greatly, most importantly in the inferred date. They must be 10 years or more apart as Richard Carrier's article quite clearly shows. One, or likely both writers, are making up the entire nativity account.

Then there is my favorite 'smoking gun', that of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem as described in 21:2-7:

The writer of GoM blew it here. He completely misunderstood the Isaiah prophecy and thought it meant two animals. He has Jesus riding on both a donkey and a foal of a donkey at the same time.

It appears that the writers didn't see anything wrong with embroidering the story they were passing on. I'm no expert on 1st century writings, but the bit I've read by authors such as Spong. Crossan, Armstrong, and others, indicates that this type of writing, as well as pseudepigraphical writing, was quite common.

Comments?

-Kelly

David Bowden

I agree with the above statements, but I'd point out (if it wasn't noted by someone in the original thread) that malookiemaloo's comment implies something that probably wasn't the case. The originators of the resurrection tales almost certainly weren't in any immediate danger for having made their claims.

Being a self-professed Christian might eventually have led to martyrdom, but people made up stuff like this quite frequently without such serious repercussions (eg, those who wrote about Apollonius or Buddha; we don't even have to go outside Xtianity to find non-canonical tales about Jesus and his disciples that even apologists admit are invented history, and nobody as far as I know mentions that the writers of those stories got persecuted). I think the persecutions came more as the result of early Christians isolating themselves from a contemporary pagan culture that misunderstood them, than from the specific tales they told of supernatural events concerning Jesus.

Why people might be motivated to create fantastic stories and to get others (and themselves) to believe in them is a good question, and a Christian only has to seriously ask that question of religions he considers false, in order to realize that Christianity might also have gotten its stories under similar circumstances. Just one instance of make-believe developing into a successful religion proves that such invention is possible. Since Christianity doesn't deny that other people fabricate their religions, it needs to demonstrate that the record of its own founding events much more reliable than fiction dropped into a known historical setting. So far, Christian apologetics hasn't cleared that hurdle.

Even if nobody could pinpoint the specific motivation for Christians to create their stories, I don't see why we can't fairly attribute to early Christians the same motivations that result in supernatural stories in general.

The thread title asks whether the gospels were created whole; I doubt that the entire thing was created all at once. Various writers, including some listed in Don Morgan's Bibliography on this page, have explored how Jewish and pagan sources seem to have been incorporated into the Jesus story.

-David

Gregg

"Fabricated out of whole cloth" isn't quite correct. I don't doubt that a few incidents they did invent from their imaginations, but most everything else was drawn from the scriptures. The trial, beating, and crucifixion can be reconstructed almost in its entirety from scriptural passages. The flight to Egypt parallels the story of Joseph; Herod's slaughter of the innocents parallels Pharoah's slaughter of the Jewish male firstborn; Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness parallels the Israelite's 40 years in the desert; etc. There's lots of reasons they might have used scripture to construct their allegorical tale, not the least of which was to demonstrate how the Law, in their view, is fulfilled in Christ. You take the Jewish law and you introduce a new element--the Son, the Christ, the "mystery hidden for ages and generations...Christ in you, the hope of glory"--and you show how this changes (or resolves) the equation.

Gregg

lpetrich

The early Xians had gotten in trouble for refusing to worship the official gods of the Empire, and not for their other beliefs. Dying and rising deities were a common object of worship back then, as were heroes who visited the realm of the dead.

anime

Most "Harmonies" assume that because each Gospel records an entry of the Lord into Jerusalem the four accounts must be identical because they are similar: and therefore conclude that because they differ in certain particulars there are "discrepancies".

Whereas, if we treat them in their chronological sequences, and have regard to the antecedent and consequent circumstances, the supposed discrepancies will disappear, and the similar, but diverse, expressions will be seen to be necessary to the different events.

In this present case, one entry (Matthew 21:1-9) takes place before the other, which is recorded in (Mark 11:1-10, Luke 19:30-34, and John 12:12-15).

1. In Matthew the Lord had actually arrived at Bethphage. In Luke He "he was come nigh" (engisen); in Mark "they were approaching" (engizousin).

2. In Matthew the village lay just off the road ([/b][/i]apenanti[/b][/i]); in Luke and Mark it was below them, and opposite (Katenati).

3. In the former, two animals were sent for and used; in the latter, only one.

4. In the former, the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9, which required the two animals, is said to have been fulfilled; in latter, the prophecy was not said to be fulfilled, and only so much of it is quoted (John 12:15) as agrees with it.

5. The former seems to have been unexpected, for "all the city was moved, saying, 'What is this?' " (Matthew 21:10,11), while, if there was only one entry, the two accounts are inexplicable, seeing that the later and subsequent entry was prepared for : much people in the city "heard that He was coming", and "went forth to meet Him" (John 12:12,13).

The latter, therefore, was the great formal entry of the Lord, called "the Truimphal Entry", which took place on what is called "Palm Sunday".

The first had special reference to the whole work of His mission. He came on the ass with its unbroken colt, the clothes being put some on one and some on the other, and the Lord sitting on "them" - the clothes (not on both beasts). He came to cleanse the Temple, and make His final presentation of the King and the Kingdom.

But when He came on the one-an ass's colt-it was in judgement, to pronounce the doom on the city; and on the nation.

When He appears again it will be to a nation which will then say (as the result Zechariah 12:10): "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matthew 23:39).

For the events of the "six days before the Passover", see Appendix 156 ; and the note on the various passages.

malookiemaloo

malookiemaloo

Just because there were stories of people/deities rising from the dead is not proof that the Christian claim that Jesus rose is false.


Alistair

malookiemaloo

Just because there are tales of dying/rising deities is not proof that the Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead is false.


Alistair

Vinnie

That is true so far as it goes but not all the details have been demonstrated to be "created". There "could" have been a few earlier traditions that both authors had to work with. For instance, its a pretty solid fact, evident in the synoptics, that Jesus' grew up in Nazareth. Both of them had to have Jesus end up in Nazareth because of this tradition and thats what we see (yet they get him there through different means)
http://www.acfaith.com/infancyerror.html

Now there was a belief that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem but some scholars will tell you that we do not know if this belief was dominant enough or strong enough to cause such fabrication. Brown argues that it was not a universally held viewpoint and Christians could have posited other means.

That the messiah should have been born in Bethlehem could have been a reason though it is impossible to [i]conclusively[/] say. Many scholars will probably then take this stance, in real history Jesus was from Nazareth, but in salvation history some thought it was better if he was born in Bethlehem. But then Brown might argue that this Bethlehem birth is found in a late stratum of NT material. If the evidence was strong enough to cause this fabrication why does it occur fifty years after he's been preached as the Messiah? This could be making too much of the silence but I don't think it is. Though I tend to favor the former interpretation but the silence certainly does caution one from going on wild flights of fancy here.

Its not conclusive here but a bethlehem birth, historically, is pretty weak. HJ scholars favor Nazareth.

I think a lot of stuff was created in the infancy narratives but that there were some solid historical traditions that guided the creativity and there were other traditions, not as historically solid, which guided it as well.