Board index ‹ Bible

[Fred the Credible]

Did Jesus actually say all the things attributed to him in the Bible? My contention is "no," as this dialogue was written decades after his death. Therefore, they qualify as stories rather than correct accounts of what happened. However, for those who disagree, what is your reasoning? If you think that much, but not all, is completely correct, then how do we know where the errors are?

[jimwalton]

I believe that Jesus actually said what is attributed to him in the Bible, but that has to be said with some conditions.

1. Jesus' native tongue was most likely Aramaic, and the NT is written in Greek, so in that sense he didn't SAY *any* of it. The words in the NT, therefore, are not his actual words, though it is what he said.

2. In a rhetorical oral culture of the first century, as Palestine was, a certain amount of flexibility was allowed in the telling of stories as long as the core was sustained. So slight variations were not only permissible, but meaningless as far as preserving the "words" of Jesus.

3. It's very possible Jesus taught some of these stories and teachings more than once, so even his wording may have varied from time to time.

4. Each Gospel writer writes from a particular perspective, with an agenda to bring out specific emphases, and therefore arranges and uses the material to suit his thesis. Again, this was very much a part of the culture and a totally acceptable way to do things. The Gospels are not so much biographies of Jesus as they are theographies, so again, a certain amount of freedom was granted.

5. Granted they were written decades after his death.

I don't understand your distinction between "stories" and "correct accounts." If my wife told me she was going to pick up some groceries, and I told my neighbor that my wife was going out, and next month when I told the story in a group of friends and said, "OK, so my wife went to the store..." All three *stories* use different terms (groceries, out, store), but they are telling the same *correct account*, with allowable variation, of course. In one I may tell about the stuff she bought, and in other I may tell about the people she met, and in the 3rd I may relate how much money she spent. They may sound different, or even contradictory, but they all tell the same story using different terms, telling from different perspectives with different aims because it's a different conversation, but they can all be completely correct.

This is what happened in the Gospels. They are both stories and correct accounts, with reasonable variation depending on the teller and his purposes, as well as the audience. So they're "completely correct." These parables, aphorisms, teachings, and sayings are things Jesus actually said, translated to a different language, couched in diverse terms, but all relating what he "actually said." Let's talk more.

[Fred the Credible]

But what makes you think that the dialogue is correct? How on earth would they know that kind of detail?

[jimwalton]

What in the world would make you think the dialogue is incorrect?

1. The Gospels were written within the lifetimes of many eyewitnesses to Jesus and "earwitnesses" to the things he said.

2. It was an era of oral tradition when people specifically put to memory historical events that were important to the community. They were tuned, unlike us moderns, to remember important things that were said.

3. The Gospels writers carefully researched and recorded the events and words of Jesus (Lk. 2.1-4).

4. Several decades is not an amount of time causing concern between the events themselves and these records of them. It's like us bringing to mind events from the mid 80s: Madonna, Mt. St. Helens, the assassination of John Lennon, Michael Jackson's "Thriller", and Ronald Reagan. This is easy.

5. They were working off of earlier and still available sources, like us looking at newspapers from the 80, as well as interviewing people who were there. This is easily done.

What on earth would make you think the dialogue isn't correct?

[Fred the Credible]

> What on earth would make you think the dialogue isn't correct?

That's a perfectly good question and has a perfectly good answer! From reading a book from the church library the gospel stories were written as propaganda in the sense that their purpose was to convince an audience. So, we have propaganda pieces written in ancient times that differ somewhat from each other and have been edited (e.g. the ending added to Mark) complete with characters, dialogue, and fantastical events that, interestingly follow a predicable pattern of other hero/myth archetypes and you ask the question above? Is the answer not obvious? Or, put another way, would you actually buy this story, hook, line, and sinker, if it weren't the religion that you are personally vested in?

[jimwalton]

Writing with an agenda—a point and purpose—is completely different than writing propaganda, which we generally define in our culture as spreading false information with intent to harm or defame.

As to writing with an agenda, of course they have an agenda. Their purpose is definitely to convince, but that doesn't mean the information is incorrect. A scientist publishes to convince, also. The Apostle John is explicit about his agenda. Every historian writes because they are interested in the subject. But "intent to convince an audience" doesn’t mean the information is wrong. If it were, then we can’t believe any Jewish historian who writes on the Holocaust, or any African-American writing about antebellum slavery. Too many elements of the gospels don’t come across as having been invented for the sake of bias (the disciples’ lack of faith, the testimony of women on resurrection, Jesus’ claiming his father had forsaken him, etc.). But elements in the gospels also show they are trying to report accurate history. Richard Dawkins has an objective, an agenda. Atheist Gerd Ludemann has an agenda. We don’t reject writings because the authors have an agenda, but because the arguments are insufficient. Even we as readers are biased.

> differ somewhat from each other and have been edited

Of course they differ from each other. Have you ever interviewed eyewitnesses to an automobile accident? They all have different perspectives, and that gives the report strength. A detective once told me, "Eye-witnesses, put together unmonitored, are going to work out their stories. But a detective doesn’t want that; he wants different perspectives. There are different accounts based on life experiences, what draws your eye because of your interests, what you know about. Discrepancies can be very valuable. Otherwise there would be accusations of collusion. Witnesses never agree about reports in every detail."

> fantastical events

These are only a problem if you have a priori ruled out their possibility, which shows some bias on your part, and not objective reasoning at all.

> Is the answer not obvious?

It is to me. The writing is credible.

> would you actually buy this story, hook, line, and sinker, if it weren't the religion that you are personally vested in?

Oddly, I vested in the religion because the evidence was convincing, not vice versa.

[The Prophet]

> In a rhetorical oral culture of the first century, as Palestine was, a certain amount of flexibility was allowed in the telling of stories as long as the core was sustained.

But the Gospels aren't part of that culture. They're literary constructions. So even if this is true (and I'm not sure it is), it's not incredibly relevant. What is relevant is other first-century literature, and even outside of faith literature, the standards for what people recorded were not what we'd like them to be. Even documents presented as objective, neutral historical accounts were not consistently honest or reliable; telling a compelling story often trumped interest in what actually happened. Even ancient historians knew this, and complained about the fabricatory tendencies of their contemporaries constantly, sometimes despite the fact that they were doing the same thing themselves. Speeches and sayings were invented for historical (and nonhistorical) figures frequently, reasoning it's what they 'must have said', or at least what the author wanted them to have said. It's a general rule in historiography that any time you see a speech in the work of an ancient historian, it's probably fabricated.

> Each Gospel writer writes from a particular perspective, with an agenda to bring out specific emphases, and therefore arranges and uses the material to suit his thesis.

This admission is a problem, because if they had a motive based on their own theological agenda to emphasize a correctly preserved teaching, that same motive is also motive to place words on the lips of Jesus supporting that agenda even if he didn't say them. So what is the purpose of the Gospels? Are they attempts to faithfully record history, or attempts to persuade readers of theological points?

[jimwalton]

> But the Gospels aren't part of that culture.

The Gospel writers couldn't help but write from the perspective of their culture, as we can't help but write from the vantage point of ours. We are enculturated creatures. Critical analysis has shown that the Gospels are written from the same linguistic and cultural perspective as their contemporaries.

> the standards for what people recorded were not what we'd like them to be.

Historiography was regarded differently in the 1st century than it is now, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it was unreliable or untrue. Tacitus is generally regarded as the greatest historian of the Roman Empire. He is known to have used his sources responsibly. R.E. Van Voorst says his "basic accuracy has never been seriously impeached." Suetonius, another Roman historian of the era is praised for "his relatively high degree of objectivity." Your general rule of "*probably* fabricated" is not a general rule, but a selective one. By what measure are you concluding that the Gospels are unreliable?

> same motive is also motive to place words on the lips of Jesus supporting that agenda even if he didn't say them.

Again, what evidence do you have that they are putting words in Jesus' mouth? Several of the Gospel writers specifically say that objectivity and accuracy are their agenda, so you need to support your claim.

> So what is the purpose of the Gospels?

Matthew's purpose is not explicit, but it appears to be to show that Jesus is the Messianic king, the successor to David in fulfillment of prophecy.

Mark is explicit: to show that Jesus is the Son of God, the prophesied Messiah.

Luke is explicit: to write a carefully investigated, orderly account to show that Jesus is the historical fulfillment of the OT prophecies.

John is explicit: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may life in his name."

Their intent is faithfully record history, since the history itself persuades readers of Jesus' deity. Christianity, unlike the other major religions, is historically based.

[The Prophet]

> The Gospels were written within the lifetimes of many eyewitnesses to Jesus and "earwitnesses" to the things he said.

This isn't necessarily the case, considering the shorter lifespans of the time, particularly for the lower classes (where Christianity arose), particularly in times of war, and particularly in times of famine. And there's reason to believe that a lot of early Christian tradition was lost shortly after the founding of the church.

We have no credible record of what happened to the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE, possibly as late as 110 CE. Given that Acts is not particularly trustworthy, there's doubt that we have anything prior to 64, either, and the evidence for the next several decades after 95 is not particularly robust; it's basically 1 Clement, for which 95 is just the traditional date. But even if we entirely trust Acts, and entirely accept the traditional date of 1 Clement, 64-95 is entirely silent. Any documents related to Christianity that may have been written in that time period (such as the Gospels) don't record events happening then.

The inconsistent lists of apostles that are in the Gospels tell a rather scary story, though, because it means that the names of at least some of the founding members of the church had already been forgotten. The best explanation for that is that the central leadership of the church no longer existed and had left no identifiable heirs, and nobody could remember exactly who they all were or what happened to them.

Acts, as I noted, is rather unreliable, but even if we decide to trust it, there's a lot that it leaves out; what was going on in North African Christianity, or Christianity east of the Empire, or Christianity in Italy and points west, and what about rival factions like those of Apollos? If we don't trust Acts, all we have is Paul, and all of his letters were written near the end of that period. And then we have nothing like a history of the church written for another two centuries.

The next thing we hear after the events of Acts is the Neronian persecution in 64, and we know about that through Tacitus. No Christian ever recorded that this event happened, and nobody mentioned the reference in Tacitus at all until the 4th century, which means either it didn't happen, or it was superbly effective at wiping out all Christian witnesses in Rome, which also wouldn't bode well for maintaining a hierarchy. And then the Jewish War between 66 and 70 wiped out Christianity at Jerusalem. Also, we can't forget that there was a famine in the Middle East sometime around 47, which would have cut life expectancy, especially for the elderly, which leadership tended to be. So from 60 to at least 95, all (authentic) letter writing apparently ceases, and nobody writing afterward indicates that any leaders of the church survived that period.

> The Gospels writers carefully researched and recorded the events and words of Jesus (Lk. 2.1-4).

You can't generalize from what Luke says to the authors of the other Gospels. (I presume you mean Luke 1, not Luke 2, since the prologue is what would be relevant here.) And the only method Luke says he uses is not "careful research"; he says that he is going to set down an account just as it was handed down to him. That's not a critical evaluation, that's slavish copying. And he's lying about this. We can see precisely where Luke copied from Mark and Matthew, and we can see how he changed what was written in Mark and Matthew.

> They were working off of earlier and still available sources

We do not know this. The Gospels name none of their sources, cite no sources, and do not compare one source's account to another. Arrian is our best historian of Alexander, even though he wrote five hundred years later. Why? Because unlike us, he had the stories of eyewitnesses. Three of them, in fact, two of whom were actual generals serving with Alexander. Arrian names these sources and identifies when he's using each, explains his methodology for using them in conjunction to create a more reliable account of what happened, and discusses their relative merits and flaws. The Gospels do nothing like that. We know that Matthew, Luke, and John used Mark as a source, and that Luke probably used Matthew, and that John used at least Luke, but that just means none of them are independent of Mark. And we know this not because any of them tell us, but only because we have all four.

There are hypothesized sources for the Gospels: oral tradition, a proto-Mark, Q, M, L, etc. But we don't have any of those, so we don't know that they actually existed, or what they said if they did.

> What on earth would make you think the dialogue isn't correct?

The fact that the Gospels are clearly the products of narrative construction. Also, the fact that none of the Epistles, most of which are earlier documents than the Gospels, show any sign of knowing any of the supposed traditions on which the Gospels are based. Paul's letters show a disinterest in things Jesus said and did during his Galilean ministry that scholars have struggled to explain for a very long time. You can't claim that early Christians were highly motivated to retain accurate memories of Jesus' life, and simultaneously completely uninterested in Jesus' life.

[jimwalton]

There are many valid reasons to consider that all of the Gospels, and perhaps even the entire New Testament, was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Acts, which, by the way, has never been shown to be historically unreliable, mentions nothing of the destruction of the temple, or of the Roman siege. At the end of the book Paul is still alive, and Peter’s death is not mentioned. James, who was martyred in AD 61, leads the council in Acts 15. Luke readily talks about Stephen’s death, and he talks about James of Zebedee’s death. Why doesn’t he mention the other deaths, except that maybe they haven’t happened? We can reasonably date the book of Acts at AD 60 at the latest. That puts at least the Synoptics Gospels, and possibly even John, prior to 60.

> considering the shorter lifespans of the time

Often the shorter lifespans are due to infant mortality than to young adult demise.

> And there's reason to believe that a lot of early Christian tradition was lost shortly after the founding of the church.

There is no basis for this claim. There is a solid chain of custody from the Apostles through Ignatius, Papias, Palycarp. Irenaeus, etc. There is a chain from Peter to Mark to the first five African bishops, all the way to Eusebius of Caesarea.

> We have no credible record of what happened to the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE, possibly as late as 110 CE.

Of course there is, though it's limited. We have Josephus (whose credibility is spotty, but some references to Christianity are widely considered valid), Thallus, Ignatius, and Pliny the Younger.

> Given that Acts is not particularly trustworthy

What brings you to this conclusion?

> The inconsistent lists of apostles that are in the Gospels tell a rather scary story,

Not at all. It was common in those days for people to have more than one name. Peter, as we know, was known by Simon and Peter. "Levi" may have been an indicator of Matthew's tribal affiliation, descended from the third son of Jacob, while Matthew was his common name. Mark tells us he was the son of Alphaeus. Thaddaeus is also known as Judas (Jn. 14.22), the brother of James (also the son of James [Lk. 6.16]). Thaddaeus is also another name for Lebbaeus. Thomas, by the way, was also known as Didymus. This was common, and is not a contradiction.

> there's a lot that it leaves out; what was going on in North African Christianity, or Christianity east of the Empire, or Christianity in Italy and points west, and what about rival factions like those of Apollos?

That's because Acts was probably written before AD 60.

> No Christian ever recorded that this event happened

That's because possibly the NT was already written by this point, but the Roman historians write it for us.

> And the only method Luke says he uses is not "careful research"; he says that he is going to set down an account just as it was handed down to him.

Luke uses the term παρηκολουθηκότι, meaning "to trace carefully; careful investigation." The point is that Luke claims abundant knowledge of the subject as he writes. The term is plentiful in contemporary Greek. Galen used it for the investigation of symptoms.

> And he's lying about this. We can see precisely where Luke copied from Mark and Matthew, and we can see how he changed what was written in Mark and Matthew.

Not necessarily so. Possibly Luke was working off a common source also available to Mark and Matthew.

> the Gospels are clearly the products of narrative construction. It may not be as clear as you imply.

The Synoptics may be, though it is debatable. John, probably not.

> none of the Epistles, most of which are earlier documents than the Gospels, show any sign of knowing any of the supposed traditions on which the Gospels are based

This is patently untrue. 1 Cor. 15.3-7 is a clear example.

> Paul's letters show a disinterest in things Jesus said and did during his Galilean ministry that scholars have struggled to explain for a very long time. You can't claim that early Christians were highly motivated to retain accurate memories of Jesus' life, and simultaneously completely uninterested in Jesus' life.

Paul's letters are primarily to Gentiles. Paul's thrust is not the words and life of Jesus, but his death and resurrection, which is the point of contact for Gentiles. Paul's writings are flooded with the cross and the resurrection. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, wanted to record theographies of Jesus, so their purpose was different from Paul's. M, M, L, & J were distinctly motivated to retain accurate memories of Jesus' life, while Paul's purpose was more theological in addressing the import and implications of Jesus' death and resurrection for the world at large. Different purposes, different agendas, different content. No problem here.