"Gospel Quest" (or The Jesus Timeline)

[DeistPaladin]

I've been challenged by a Christian on another thread to explain why the Gospel accounts are a hopeless mess, contradicting themselves, one another and what we know of history. To answer this challenge and do this broad topic any justice, it is necessary to start an entire thread devoted to it. Sorry if this first post is a bit long but I'll try to break it up with headings to make it easier to read.

"Historical Documents"
I'll never forget the first time a Christian told me what the Gospels represent to them. I said it was strange that there was no historical account of the life of Jesus. He replied that in fact there were four of them that we call "The Gospels".

I laughed.

It was a good-natured laugh. He was my friend and I wasn't trying to be cruel. I thought he was just joking.

My laughter trailed off when I realized he was actually serious. As incredible as it may sound, he was like many Christians who peruse the Gospels and don't think they're reading legends to be taken on faith. They think they're reading "historical documents", biographies written by "reliable eye witness accounts" and even refer to them as such with a straight face.

The title of this thread comes from a movie where an alien race sees an earth TV show and thinks they're watching a historical documentary. Just like the Thermians, Christians think they're reading "historical documents".





To analyze the "historical documents" (and also prepare for the promised remake of this video series with Cinjin's special effects prowess), I'm going to fully review the problems with assembling a timeline as the Gospels are written. Don't worry, Christians, I'll be reviewing the apologetic explanations after I'm done.

Who Were These "Reliable Eye-Witnesses"?
The first place to begin is with a bit of background on who these "eye-witnesses" are that allegedly wrote these Gospel tales.

Mark


Mark was the earliest of the four Gospels, which most scholars agree was penned around the year 70 CE due to the dates established by the "little apocalypse" in chapter 13, referring to the destruction of the Jewish temple. Some fringe apologists will attempt to push the dates to as early as around 50 CE but I have yet to find one willing to cite any sources when asked. Until they do, we can continue to use the 70 CE date, indicating they were written some 40 years after the alleged events.

According to the Oxford Annotated Bible, the book is anonymously written but is ascribed "by tradition" to John Mark, a companion of Paul. Since Paul only met Jesus in a vision, this means that Mark would not have been a witness to the events. According to the same Oxford publication, tradition holds that it was written according to a summary of Peter's preachings, which would make it hearsay.

Peter was not a witness to all the events in Mark's Gospel. For example, after Jesus' arrest, Peter followed to the courtyard and was with the guards and servants while Jesus was brought before the high priest (Mark 14:54-72). Since Peter did not witness the exchange between Jesus and the high priest, this account must have been filled in by another unknown source. This would be anonymous hearsay on top of hearsay.

Mark's original Gospel ended at 16:8. This ending was later changed to be more satisfying.

So to review:
Mark is...

1. A dubious source
   
2. written four dacades after the events
   
3. which offers us a hearsay account
   
4. and compounds the hearsay with more anonymous hearsay
   
5. and contains at least one significant alteration to the original account.
   

This is their "star witness", the one who offers the account on which the later ones will be based. We're not off to a good start.

Matthew


Matthew wrote the most Jewish of the Gospels, featuring a Jesus that promised not to abolish the laws of Moses (Matt 5:17) and that our position in Heaven will depend on how well we kept these commandments (Matt 5:19). Apparently feeling the need to reconcile Jesus with Jewish concepts of a Messiah, Matthew fabricated many "prophecies" that Jesus was said to have fulfilled.

Matthew lied his ass off to create these events where Jesus "fulfilled" various prophecies.



Sorry, was "lie" too strong a word?

How about "pious fraud"?

Some of these lies included but were not limited to...

• Matt 1:22, he asserts that Jesus being born of a virgin fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7. However, even setting aside the "bethula" vs. "almah" debate, the events in Isiah chapter 7 are neither prophetic nor to they refer to the future messiah. They refer to the events of Isaiah's time, centuries prior.
  
• Matt 2:15 he asserts that Jesus exiting Egypt fulfilled a prophecy in Hosea but this passage refers to the Exodus, not to a future messiah.
  
• Matt 2:17 he asserts that the slaughter of all the babies around Jerusalem, an event recorded nowhere else either by any other Gospel or any historian, fulfilled a prophecy by Jeremiah. However, if you read the passage of Jeremiah, he is referring to the Babylonain Captivity, centuries earlier, not to a future messiah.
  

These are three whoppers and we're only two chapters into Matt's Gospel. By the end of the Gospel, we have the most ridiculous of the lies, the Attack of the Zombie Saints (Matt 27:52-53).



The dishonesty of this claim is apparent by the flippant manner in which it is introduced and then dropped in two sentences. The dead "saints" coming back to life and "appearing to many" is a significant event. Who were these saints? Who saw them? Were they hostile? Did they harm anyone? Did they instead speak to anyone and testify what they knew of the afterlife?

Thomas Paine said it so well when he wrote (paraphrased as I don't have his book, "The Age of Reason" handy), "had these saints really appeared and testified, there would be left not one unconverted soul in all of Jerusalem."

If Matthew were really an eye-witness and offered such testimony in court, we can expect he'd not only be discredited as a witness but arrested for perjury.

Luke


Luke was another companion of Paul. The Oxford Annotated Bible acknowledges that little is known about him but apologists assure us that he is a great historian. He is not an eye-witness and admits so in his introduction to his Gospel. He has compiled "an orderly account" of "those who ...were eyewitnesses". (Luke 1:1-4)

In other words, a compilation of anonymous hearsay.

John


John's Gospel sits oddly alongside the others, a point tacitly admitted by Christian theologians themselves. The other Gospels are grouped as "the Synoptic Gospels" (synoptic meaning "similar") which seems to admit that John's is very different than the others.





The "advanced" nature of this Gospel suggests a much later date than any of the others. Consider:

• John's Gospel repeatedly refers to "The Jews" (not the pharasies or scribes) as a hostile group separate from the followers of Jesus. This kind of language only makes sense if the author considered the followers of Jesus to be fully separate as a sect from Judaism.
  
• The Synoptic Gospels depicted a Jesus that was clearly seaprate from and subordinate to his father but John's Gospel is more consistent with later Trinitarian ideas, depicting a Jesus that is one with his father.
  
• The Synoptic Gospels needed John the Baptist to be out of the way before Jesus could begin his ministry. John's Jesus is already preaching well before John was put into prison. He even opens a rival baptizing franchise and baptizes more people than John, beating him at his own game. What a guy!
  

It seems clear that John's Gospel depicts a very different Jesus, tailored for a different crowd of Christians but that's a topic that I'll cover when I get to the contradictions between the Gospels...

Thus ends part 1, where we introduce and discredit our "witnesses". Tune in next time when we try to assemble their accounts into a single timeline.

[To be continued]