"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"Historical Documents"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 They think they're reading "historical documents", biographies written by "reliable eye witness accounts" and even refer to them as such with a straight face.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 Just like the Thermians, Christians think they're reading "historical documents".





To analyze the "historical documents" (and also prepare for the promised remake of this video series with Cinjin's special effects prowess), I'm going to fully review the problems with assembling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]

[SteveII]

No one suggested an eyewitness wrote the gospels. That does not prove they did not get the accounts from eyewitnesses and those that might have written things down in the meantime.

My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when. If they had taken notes while following around a revolutionary teacher (which would be more probably than not), these stories would be even more accurate. I can write better and type faster than either can and would produce a better finished product about their memories than they would. We can even discuss the final product around the dinner table a few nights to see if I wrote everything down correctly. Your conclusion that since 40 years past and and the writer was not the eyewitness and therefore there is something inherently wrong with the account is faulty logic.


Your Characterization of 3 versus in Matthew as "whoppers" seems overstating your "proof" of utter nonsense. Read some commentaries and not a list off of your favorite atheist blog who couldn't possibly be biased.

Isaiah 7:14 - how can you say that that verse does not talk about the Messiah? Immanuel means "God with us"?

Regarding Egypt, he was writing to a Jewish audience with which coming out of Egypt was a big event and double meanings and symbolism was big. Again, read a commentary for different views. Hardly a "gotcha" verse.

The slaughter for babies in Bethlehem would not make the news for Herod. There were only a couple of hundred residents and how many babies could there be under 2--a handful? Regarding Jer 31, it is a chapter encouraging the captives, assuring them God would restore them someday and eventually send the Messiah. The tribe of Benjamin (and therefore Bethlehem) was a decent of Rachel. You really need to research before you cut and past.

Regarding Matthew 27 and the saints, that was what the author wrote down. There have been discussions on this for almost 2000 years. I will not solve the mystery for you here.

You mentioned 3 instances where Matthew says that prophesy was fulfilled. You didn't want to mention the other 20+. Your "questionable" prophesies to non-questionable prophesies ratio is telling.

Your "blasting" away at John was not awe-inspiring and certainly not rising to the level that I should reconsider my stance on the Gospels.

[Jenny A]

No one suggested an eyewitness wrote the gospels. That does not prove they did not get the accounts from eyewitnesses and those that might have written things down in the meantime.

Whoa! You mean that unless it can be shown that the writer of an ancient document did not talk to eyewitnesses, we should assume he did talk to eyewitnesses? I don't think so. Maybe we should assume that Homer talked to Odysseus. You see there are good reasons that that's not the we evaluate other documents for historical purposes. When deciding if an account is true the very first thing to do is tho figure out how the writer got his information.

However, in this case Luke tells us that he collected stories said to be eyewitness accounts "handed down to us." What you have here at best is hearsay reported by the writers of the gospels.

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when.

Then your parents are amazing people--godlike in fact. Mine can't tell a story between them without interrupting each other with corrections. If fact I don't know anyone who talks accurately about things that happened forty years ago. I've read enough eye witness accounts of auto accidents to know that people don't remember accurately thirty minutes later. And the things we get most wrong are the things we are most sure of. That's because we tend to make coherent stories out of our past when the past is really rather chaotic---stuff just happens mostly.

Forty, fifty, sixty years later is a long, long time to wait to write out an account of anything, especially during a period when the average life span was around forty years. What we have at very best in the gospels is oral tradition passed down and embellished by many people.

If they had taken notes while following around a revolutionary teacher (which would be more probably than not), these stories would be even more accurate. I can write better and type faster than either can and would produce a better finished product about their memories than they would. We can even discuss the final product around the dinner table a few nights to see if I wrote everything down correctly. Your conclusion that since 40 years past and and the writer was not the eyewitness and therefore there is something inherently wrong with the account is faulty logic.

There is no evidence that the disciples or anyone else did anything like taking notes. For one thing, they were probably illiterate. For another, if they had written things down they'd have published just a hair earlier don't you think? Paul's letters circulated much earlier than the gospels.

Isaiah 7:14 - how can you say that that verse does not talk about the Messiah? Immanuel means "God with us"?

Have you read Isaiah 7? If not take a minute and read the whole chapter--it's not long. It is a prediction of what will happen before a child is grown. The prediction is made to King Ahaz about the kings coming to war against him currently. Things were rather immediate and dire for Ahaz at the time. The things Isaiah predicted happened long before Jesus was born.

Immanuel does mean God-is-with-us, but many Hebrew names had similar literal meanings about god and Isaiah said that the mother would call him Immanuel. But Mary doesn't call her child Immanuel, she calls him Jesus. Mathew changes "she" to "they" to make the prophecy fit except that he never really gets around to telling us about how people actually did call Jesus Immanuel. He just say Joseph heard it in a dream. Mathew is the only place Jesus is ever called Immanuel in the gospels and then, only in that one verse about a dream.

[JesusHChrist]

The whole Christian reliance on "eye witnesses" is pathetic.

Psychologists have questioned the reliability of eyewitness testimony since the beginning of the 20th century.[1] However, many early studies on the matter were regarded[by whom?] as insufficient.

This questioning of the credibility of eywitness testimony began with Hugo Münsterberg, who first developed the field of forensic psychology. He specifically doubted the reliability of perception and memory in his book "On the Witness Stand" (1908). Interrogation was mentioned as an issue because of its intimidating methods. Through this[which?] he developed an early version of the lie detector. There was a torn[clarification needed] reaction to his ideas; while the legal arena was in stern disagreement, they became popular among the public.[2] It was not until forensic DNA testing began exonerating innocent people in the 1990s that the relationship between wrongful convictions and eyewitness testimony was confirmed. Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that 52 of the first 62 DNA-based exoneration cases involved eyewitness testimony.[3] The Innocence Project reports eyewitness misidentification occurred in 75% of a category of overturned convictions in the United States of America.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

In Ye Olden Dayes, before the advent of fancy sciency-stuff such as DNA testing, eyewitnesses were all they had.

Unfortunately, it turns out, eyewitness testimony is close to worthless.

See:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/

and more:

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20O...versky.htm

and more:

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

Hard evidence trumps hearsay and so-call "eyewitness" testimony.

Got any hard evidence for Jeebs and his Merry Band of Men?

Didn't think so.

[SteveII]

The whole Christian reliance on "eye witnesses" is pathetic.

Psychologists have questioned the reliability of eyewitness testimony since the beginning of the 20th century.[1] However, many early studies on the matter were regarded[by whom?] as insufficient.

This questioning of the credibility of eywitness testimony began with Hugo Münsterberg, who first developed the field of forensic psychology. He specifically doubted the reliability of perception and memory in his book "On the Witness Stand" (1908). Interrogation was mentioned as an issue because of its intimidating methods. Through this[which?] he developed an early version of the lie detector. There was a torn[clarification needed] reaction to his ideas; while the legal arena was in stern disagreement, they became popular among the public.[2] It was not until forensic DNA testing began exonerating innocent people in the 1990s that the relationship between wrongful convictions and eyewitness testimony was confirmed. Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that 52 of the first 62 DNA-based exoneration cases involved eyewitness testimony.[3] The Innocence Project reports eyewitness misidentification occurred in 75% of a category of overturned convictions in the United States of America.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

In Ye Olden Dayes, before the advent of fancy sciency-stuff such as DNA testing, eyewitnesses were all they had.

Unfortunately, it turns out, eyewitness testimony is close to worthless.

See:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-have-it/

and more:

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20O...versky.htm

and more:

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

Hard evidence trumps hearsay and so-call "eyewitness" testimony.

Got any hard evidence for Jeebs and his Merry Band of Men?

Didn't think so.

Ugh, are you beating the dead horse of Jesus Myth again? Get your head out of the sand.

Regarding eyewitness accounts...good thing there are four gospels to compare and contrast instead of one.

[JesusHChrist]

Ugh, are you beating the dead horse of Jesus Myth again? Get your head out of the sand.

Nope. Where did I mention the "Jesus Myth"? I think the evidence of Jesus very existence is paltry and a case can be made Jesus was a myth, but that wasn't the point of my post.

Regarding eyewitness accounts...good thing there are four gospels to compare and contrast instead of one.

You do realize Mark is the source for a large portion of the other synoptic gospels? Matthew and Luke "borrowed" something like 40-50% *directly* from Mark. John is a different case all together and much later - no possibility of there being anything other than a retelling of decades-old legends and tales.

Multiple shitty eyewitness accounts, don't make the case any stronger. They are all hearsay at best and based on weak, practically worthless eyewitness "testimony". And eyewitness testimony, as a class of evidence, we know today, with cold, scientific precision, isn't worth much of anything. Read those links. Human memory is not just a little fallible and faulty. It's MOSTLY faulty and fallible. The faintest ink is worth more than the best human memory.

Also notice, ZERO eyewitness testimony is available. Not one word from anyone alive at the time. Quite odd considering Jesus was a such a great, famous rabble-rouser. Pissing off the Romans and the Jews. Preaching to thousands! Healing the sick! Driving those nasty money-changers from the temple!

And yet, no one thought about writing one word down.

The Christian case for bullshit, I mean Jesus, is beyond weak. It's virtually non-existent. Like your god.

[John V]

Have you read Isaiah 7? If not take a minute and read the whole chapter--it's not long. It is a prediction of what will happen before a child is grown. The prediction is made to King Ahaz about the kings coming to war against him currently. Things were rather immediate and dire for Ahaz at the time. The things Isaiah predicted happened long before Jesus was born.

Try taking two minutes and reading it more carefully. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, and so the sign is given to the house of David.

[SteveII]

You do realize Mark is the source for a large portion of the other synoptic gospels? Matthew and Luke "borrowed" something like 40-50% *directly* from Mark. John is a different case all together and much later - no possibility of there being anything other than a retelling of decades-old legends and tales.

Multiple shitty eyewitness accounts, don't make the case any stronger. They are all hearsay at best and based on weak, practically worthless eyewitness "testimony". And eyewitness testimony, as a class of evidence, we know today, with cold, scientific precision, isn't worth much of anything. Read those links. Human memory is not just a little fallible and faulty. It's MOSTLY faulty and fallible. The faintest ink is worth more than the best human memory.

Also notice, ZERO eyewitness testimony is available. Not one word from anyone alive at the time. Quite odd considering Jesus was a such a great, famous rabble-rouser. Pissing off the Romans and the Jews. Preaching to thousands! Healing the sick! Driving those nasty money-changers from the temple!

And yet, no one thought about writing one word down.

The Christian case for bullshit, I mean Jesus, is beyond weak. It's virtually non-existent. Like your god.

Where is your proof that no one wrote anything down? Guess what, most paper documents don't survive. The original gospels and Pauline letters have not survived and they would have been particularly prized. Jerusalem was sacked and burned--reducing further the likelihood of written Jewish records surviving. The Romans were not interested in Jesus until there was a large following to take note of decades if not a century later.

You also cannot make the claim that the writers of the Gospels were not working off of notes and written accounts of others. Clearly the goal was to tell a complete history so posterity could read and understand the context and content and not a court transcript with footnotes. There is no way for you to know the method by which this information was conveyed.

We know that Jesus existed and was almost certainly crucified. We know that a new religion sprang up around these events. We know that the very first adherents believed these events happened. These events were written down and distributed only 30-60 years from the death of Jesus--still plenty of time for the older group to object to inaccuracies. Add to this the content of this new religious was not something that was likely made up--in both the complexity of the theology, the strong break from Judaism, and the circumstance surrounding Jesus. This all adds up to the only two logical conclusion available: that some or all of the things written in the Gospels happened. Of course it seems you have chosen the illogical conclusion and decided to stick you head in the sand. I have chose the other end of the spectrum and believe what is claims to be.

[Minimalist]

No one suggested an eyewitness wrote the gospels.

You don't know much about your fellow jesus freaks, do you?

http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-r...s-accounts

Dr Peter Williams presents new and old evidence that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, concentrating on details that would be practically impossible to get right otherwise.

Keep hammering, D-P.

Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, and so the sign is given to the house of David.

The "House of David" if such ever existed....was exterminated by the Babylonians...who did exist.

[JesusHChrist]

Where is your proof that no one wrote anything down? Guess what, most paper documents don't survive. The original gospels and Pauline letters have not survived and they would have been particularly prized. Jerusalem was sacked and burned--reducing further the likelihood of written Jewish records surviving. The Romans were not interested in Jesus until there was a large following to take note of decades if not a century later.

None of which helps your case. Where is the evidence anyone contemporaneous wrote anything down? To claim they did is idle speculation. Whereas, we do have the complete works of Philo. Lived in the area. Knew some of the players, was deeply interested in the topic. And yet, not a peep. Not a word. And we have many works of other historians/philosophers from the area and time period. Not a peep.

You also cannot make the claim that the writers of the Gospels were not working off of notes and written accounts of others. Clearly the goal was to tell a complete history so posterity could read and understand the context and content and not a court transcript with footnotes. There is no way for you to know the method by which this information was conveyed.

No,clearly the goal was propaganda and proselytizing with a heavy dose of fiction thrown in. Who was writing things down when Jesus had his thoughts in the Garden? All the apostles were asleep. Who was documenting Jesus' conversation with the Devil on the highest mountain? Jesus? Did he come back down and tell of his travels to some scribe who diligently wrote it down for the boss? And this story was faithfully preserved for 50-100 years? Again, idle speculation.

We know that Jesus existed and was almost certainly crucified.

We know no such thing. All you have is ephemera and gossamer. And then, only copies of copies of copies of ephemera many, many decades later. Hardly convincing or compelling.

We know that a new religion sprang up around these events.

Big deal. Religions are a dime a dozen. Islam sprang up around the alleged events in the 600s AD. Mormonism sprung up around the alleged events in the 1800s. Worthless to help your case.

We know that the very first adherents believed these events happened.

Muslims believe their foundation myths too. Humanity is never short on gullible idiots. Big deal.

These events were written down and distributed only 30-60 years from the death of Jesus--still plenty of time for the older group to object to inaccuracies.

Anyone who was hypothetically alive during the alleged events would have been very, very old. Doubtful many would live that long; given life expectancy of 40-50s.. And even then, you are implying there was some sort of process to correct any inaccuracies. You overreach quite readily.

Add to this the content of this new religious was not something that was likely made up--in both the complexity of the theology, the strong break from Judaism, and the circumstance surrounding Jesus. This all adds up to the only two logical conclusion available: that some or all of the things written in the Gospels happened. Of course it seems you have chosen the illogical conclusion and decided to stick you head in the sand. I have chose the other end of the spectrum and believe what is claims to be.

Again, quite an overreach. Same argument could be made for Islam, Mormonism or any other bit of human-created bullshit.

The key word is "claims" to be. Now, to believe such claims, you have to accept those vaunted eyewitnesses have credibility, but we now know, without any doubt, eyewitness testimony is close to worthless. Newsflash - humans make shit up. They not only like to make shit up, they LOVE it. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE!!! it.

The only logical conclusion is that the story is a myth, no doubt with elements of reality thrown in. No different than the works of Homer, tales of pagan gods, Mohamed's exploits and the lies of Joseph Smith. All cut from the same, fallible, all-too-human propensity to tell tall tales.

At least Homer makes for entertaining reading.