Rewriting the bible

[Aractus]

---

Min, I have to say I find your narrative a good deal less credible than Ehrman's and in violation of Ockham's Razor. (Historical note: What we call Ockham's Razor was well-known to the scientists and philosophers of ancient times. Richard Carrier cites two places where the astronomer Ptolemy invoked it.)

If I understand your position (not just from the above post) you think that Christianity was "invented" in the 2nd century CE. I see some problems with that view.

1. Why would these unknown conspirators set their mythical hero at least 150 years earlier and then put into his mouth prophecies of the end which obviously did not come true?
   
2. Why would the forged pastoral epistles show a much more developed church government (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) than the wild and wooly situation depicted in Corinthians and other epistles thought to be genuine writings of Paul?
   
3. Why would these people have written four wildly divergent accounts of the life of their central figure?
   

Ehrman's explanation is much simpler. We know that 1st century Palestine was filled with apocalyptic preaching. One of those preachers made more of an impression than the others. My own explanation is that Jesus was the most eloquent, see for instance, the Sermon on the Mount and the parables. He was crucified by the Romans, and his followers dealt with the cognitive dissonance by believing that he had been resurrected. We have plentiful examples down through the ages of cults refusing to accpt the facts when their expectations were dashed. The little sect grew mainly because of the conversion of Paul, who was a talented and indefatigable worker. As the church in different regions met different situations, they fabricated sayings of Jesus and miracle stories to back up their position, and so we have 4 gospels which contradict each other on many points. I guess it could have been 6 or 7 gospels, but sentiment favored these four.

---

That's a good post, but I'd just point out that the gospels do not really contradict each other that much. Certainly no more so than would be expected from different authors writing about a number of real events (i.e. sermons, etc). Certainly they're not 100% accurate, but do describe for the most part (ignoring the nativity) a historical narrative.