How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

Rather than starting with the crucifixion (which is the purpose the creeds were manufactured) I'd like to go through the various parts of the gospel which are obvious artificial contrivances. The obvious starting point is ANY discussion of the Pentateuch which obviously puts Jesus as the spokesperson for the mind of the author of the gospel (= Paul, Mark, take your pick of names):
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”


Any variant of this discussion is unhistorical. It is merely the author using Jesus (= God) to confirm an idea that came into the evangelist's head. There would be no reason to have a human being utter these words or debate in this manner. Jesus's sole authority is that he is God. The Pharisees are not aware of that fact. But the bottom line is - none of this ever happened.

The normal way to debate (= Jewish, Islamic) is to cite legal precedent. Jesus's argument doesn't come out this way because the author is imagining that God held conversation with the Pharisees. Jesus's POV isn't realistic for a human being. From the Jewish perspective Moses, the elders, the fathers held on to a tradition that was passed on from generation to generation to the present day. There were certainly more than one 'tradition' but the point is that no one could just walk off the street and expound scripture - only God, the original person who wrote the commandments.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

And let me preempt John outhouse. You're an American. What you know doesn't matter. The ancient world and the pre-modern world wasn't at all 'American.' The reason people believed the gospel was true AND historical was that they also believed that Jesus was Man and God. Folks didn't just walk up and debate the religious authorities in antiquities with 'ideas' or insights that just 'popped up' in their head. Even Bar Kochba needed Akiva. Hence the gospel's core is merely a clever literary device on the part of its author using Jesus as a spokesman ... exactly in the manner that Ezra used Moses.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by toejam »

I don't see that such conversations are necessarily unhistorical, in the sense that the authors misrepresent the kind of dialogues and teachings the historical Jesus was involved in. You say that the scene is just something that just popped into the evangelist's head. Maybe. Or maybe he is basing his re-telling off what had popped into the historical Jesus' head?

I'm a fan of Dale Allison's approach: No credible historian will say that such scenes are pure, unvarnished "history". But there's every chance they represent the kind of thing Jesus was known for teaching, even if they have been blurred and stretched by the later evangelists.
Last edited by toejam on Fri Oct 09, 2015 5:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

No. You are citing typical scholarly bullshit. The basic problem is that in Judaism and Samaritanism this never happened in antiquity. Laypeople didn't just get into textual debates with authorities. It is best explained as an artificial literary device to drive home a point from the author's own imagination (who himself must have been of clerical status). The Pharisees and Sadducees and Samaritans fought only among themselves.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by TedM »

Hi Stephen. Your topic cuts to the chase--could even the most basic portrayal of Jesus be true? You write:
The basic problem is that in Judaism and Samaritanism this never happened in antiquity. Laypeople didn't just get into textual debates with authorities.
Do you have any evidence for this rather blatant and rigid claim? And, why do you think Jesus maybe was viewed only as a 'lay' person? Could he not have been viewed as a 'teacher with authority' as the gospels repeatedly say he was, thus - even if you are generally right - qualifying as an exception to the rule?

You did say this, as apparent support :
Even Bar Kochba needed Akiva.
but, you didn't explain it.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

Well let's start with the literacy rate of Jews in antiquity. It is widely accepted that lay people couldn't read. P. F. Craffert and P. J. J. Botha, “Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He Could Not Read and Write,” Neot 39 (2005): 5-35. Also idiotai in Acts 4:13 and idiotes in 1 Cor 14:16 - 24 among the first Christians.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

Bar Kochba needed Akiva.
I thought it was self-explanatory but forgot I was dealing with white people. Even messianic candidates leaned on the support of the authorities. This is true in every, every age. The reason Jesus doesn't in the Bible is because he is THE authority = God. Why don't white people study Jewish messianic traditions before tackling Christianity. Either Jesus was an antinomian anarchist (= traditional view of Marcionism) or Jesus was God. The shunning of authority is not messianic because - no BECAUSE - it is universally established that 'tradition' is needed to expound scripture especially when determining the one who is to come. Read the rabbinic literature and you will see it laid out. It is always X is true because of 'so and so' and by implication or explicitly 'so and so' means 'such and such' tradition. No one, not even authorities who have studied the text of the Pentateuch for generations get up and say 'fuck, I just had an idea.' This never, never happens. It never happens today. It never happened in antiquity. Of course - if we are to critical - there must have been 'invented' positions especially after the destruction of the temple (because there never before had been a period where the Jews had Torah but no temple). But even here - and this is critical - tradition HAD TO BE INVENTED i.e. a chain of witnesses. It is there for instance at the beginning of the 'tradition of the fathers' in the Mishnah. All of this shows - as every Jew knows - no lay person could have (a) stood up before the authorities rejected ALL TRADITION (Pharisees, Sadducees etc) (b) declared himself and gained a wide following or any following among the Jews. This is a literary device. It never happens, ever, ever, ever.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote:Well let's start with the literacy rate of Jews in antiquity. It is widely accepted that lay people couldn't read. P. F. Craffert and P. J. J. Botha, “Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He Could Not Read and Write,” Neot 39 (2005): 5-35. Also idiotai in Acts 4:13 and idiotes in 1 Cor 14:16 - 24 among the first Christians.
First, Who says Jesus had to be literate in order to ask them if they have read a particular passage, and then quote it. Some people are gifted with terrific memories. In any case, you are implying that 100% of lay people couldn't read. I think that is not true. Prove me otherwise.

As for your quotes, the first pertains to Peter and John, and so again is circumstantial. The 2nd has nothing to do with the topic, from my interpretation of it.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by TedM »

Secret Alias wrote:
Bar Kochba needed Akiva.
I thought it was self-explanatory but forgot I was dealing with white people. Even messianic candidates leaned on the support of the authorities. This is true in every, every age. The reason Jesus doesn't in the Bible is because he is THE authority = God. Why don't white people study Jewish messianic traditions before tackling Christianity. Either Jesus was an antinomian anarchist (= traditional view of Marcionism) or Jesus was God. The shunning of authority is not messianic because - no BECAUSE - it is universally established that 'tradition' is needed to expound scripture especially when determining the one who is to come. Read the rabbinic literature and you will see it laid out. It is always X is true because of 'so and so' and by implication or explicitly 'so and so' means 'such and such' tradition. No one, not even authorities who have studied the text of the Pentateuch for generations get up and say 'fuck, I just had an idea.' This never, never happens. It never happens today. It never happened in antiquity. Of course - if we are to critical - there must have been 'invented' positions especially after the destruction of the temple (because there never before had been a period where the Jews had Torah but no temple). But even here - and this is critical - tradition HAD TO BE INVENTED i.e. a chain of witnesses. It is there for instance at the beginning of the 'tradition of the fathers' in the Mishnah. All of this shows - as every Jew knows - no lay person could have (a) stood up before the authorities rejected ALL TRADITION (Pharisees, Sadducees etc) (b) declared himself and gained a wide following or any following among the Jews. This is a literary device. It never happens, ever, ever, ever.
Why are you so close-minded on the subject, appealing to white people's ignorance instead of common sense? What if Jesus was believed to have healed people? Wouldn't that have changed the 'norms'?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

But this is what you are missing entirely. He's not just 'asking' but laying down authoritative interpretations of material and authority today and yesterday is attached to being learned. No one cares what most of the people (including myself) says about any given Biblical topic because we aren't learned, we haven't proven an ability to read and interpret the texts we are interpreting. This was even stronger in antiquity where in fact learned and being an idiot (literally = ἰδιώτης) was defined by one's ability to read.

It really is astounding the way people who claim Acts is history and should be used to identify the origins of Christianity walk away from it whenever it shows a difficulty. If Jesus, Peter and the rest were idiots there is no way they could have developed authoritative interpretations of scripture. The becomes even more problematic when it is clear that Jesus doesn't cite 'tradition' anywhere in his debate. But I am not like those atheists who use this to argue that 'all of Christianity' is a lie or a myth.

The point is clearly that either (a) you were a Christian who believed that Eesu was a god who flew down from heaven or (b) who became incarnate through the virgin birth. But either of these myths are necessary to establish the ridiculousness of an apparent 'idiot' debating with the learned authorities who does not rely on tradition. This simply couldn't have happened in history. This wouldn't have been believed without the a priori believe in (a) or (b).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply