The Gospels and the war in Ukraine.

[Jehanne]

The amount of false videos and information coming out of Ukraine is astonishing:

Fact-Checking the War in Ukraine: We Analyzed These Videos and Images

Make no mistake about it, the war was an absolutely unnecessary tragedy and Putin is morally responsible for all of the carnage.  But, that's not my point here.  Rather, given all of the misinformation and disinformation coming out of Ukraine in the past several weeks, can the Gospels, written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' execution have any historical credibility to them?  After all, if individuals can promulgate disinformation in our Day even with the myriad of fact checkers (who often go disbelieved anyways), could a tiny handful of individuals have created the stories, myths and legends surrounding Jesus that would go on to evolve and morph into a major world religion?

[Foxaèr]

Well, obviously.

[Rev. Rye]

In fairness, the Gospel of Matthew at the very least was written as propaganda. Admittedly, not by the ruling regime, but more for them. A lot of details were added to appease the Romans and absolve them of any wrongdoing in this case, and the long-standing political tensions between the people of Judea and the Romans are barely touched upon beyond the reference to how much the Jews hated the taxes and how they supposedly hated Jesus.

From the fact that they had Joseph and Mary travel to his hometown [read: that of a distant ancestor from a millennium prior] for a census [one that apparently happened… when Jesus would have been a teenager] showed them to be good Roman citizens, and the way they place blame on the Crucifixion squarely on the Jews (even though anyone who knows anything about how the Jews approached capital punishment in this age should be able to see why it doesn’t make any sense to do so) and portrays Pilate, who IRL was notorious enough for his cruelty that the Emperor Tiberius had to recall him back to Rome for being too harsh as a thoughtful man, reluctant to kill Jesus and literally washing his hands of any responsibility for doing so.

[Jehanne]

Well, obviously.

Scholars up until the 19th-century viewed the Gospels as being supernatural histories.

[vulcanlogician]

In fairness, the Gospel of Matthew at the very least was written as propaganda. Admittedly, not by the ruling regime, but more for them. A lot of details were added to appease the Romans and absolve them of any wrongdoing in this case, and the long-standing political tensions between the people of Judea and the Romans are barely touched upon beyond the reference to how much the Jews hated the taxes and how they supposedly hated Jesus.

From the fact that they had Joseph and Mary travel to his hometown [read: that of a distant ancestor from a millennium prior] for a census [one that apparently happened… when Jesus would have been a teenager] showed them to be good Roman citizens, and the way they place blame on the Crucifixion squarely on the Jews (even though anyone who knows anything about how the Jews approached capital punishment in this age should be able to see why it doesn’t make any sense to do so) and portrays Pilate, who IRL was notorious enough for his cruelty that the Emperor Tiberius had to recall him back to Rome for being too harsh as a thoughtful man, reluctant to kill Jesus and literally washing his hands of any responsibility for doing so.

I've always heard that Luke was the "Roman" gospel and Matthew was the more Jewish document (ie. more siding with the Jews and condemning the Romans than trying to blame the scribes and Pharisees for Jesus' death).

[Jehanne]

I have heard some scholars claim that it was likely that Jesus and Pontius Pilate never met each other face-to-face. It could have been that one of Pilate's lieutenants interviewed Jesus and Pilate saw no reason necessary except to give the order.

[Rev. Rye]

In fairness, the Gospel of Matthew at the very least was written as propaganda. Admittedly, not by the ruling regime, but more for them. A lot of details were added to appease the Romans and absolve them of any wrongdoing in this case, and the long-standing political tensions between the people of Judea and the Romans are barely touched upon beyond the reference to how much the Jews hated the taxes and how they supposedly hated Jesus.

From the fact that they had Joseph and Mary travel to his hometown [read: that of a distant ancestor from a millennium prior] for a census [one that apparently happened… when Jesus would have been a teenager] showed them to be good Roman citizens, and the way they place blame on the Crucifixion squarely on the Jews (even though anyone who knows anything about how the Jews approached capital punishment in this age should be able to see why it doesn’t make any sense to do so) and portrays Pilate, who IRL was notorious enough for his cruelty that the Emperor Tiberius had to recall him back to Rome for being too harsh as a thoughtful man, reluctant to kill Jesus and literally washing his hands of any responsibility for doing so.

I've always heard that Luke was the "Roman" gospel and Matthew was the more Jewish document (ie. more siding with the Jews and condemning the Romans than trying to blame the scribes and Pharisees for Jesus' death).

… And looking a bit further into it, I think we might actually both be off base. Apparently, it was more the Gospel of Mark which was written for the Romans. And given how two of the other three Gospels were obviously based on that one, it creates some obvious issues. That said, the part about the census was from Luke (whose intended audience was apparently the Greeks). This is probably what happens when you type the post on the toilet.

[Jehanne]

I've always heard that Luke was the "Roman" gospel and Matthew was the more Jewish document (ie. more siding with the Jews and condemning the Romans than trying to blame the scribes and Pharisees for Jesus' death).

… And looking a bit further into it, I think we might actually both be off base. Apparently, it was more the Gospel of Mark which was written for the Romans. And given how two of the other three Gospels were obviously based on that one, it creates some obvious issues. That said, the part about the census was from Luke (whose intended audience was apparently the Greeks). This is probably what happens when you type the post on the toilet.

Matthew's Gospel was Jewish, yet, it blamed the Jews for Jesus' death ("his blood be on us and our children"), laying the foundation for the "crime" of deicide.

[Rev. Rye]

… And looking a bit further into it, I think we might actually both be off base. Apparently, it was more the Gospel of Mark which was written for the Romans. And given how two of the other three Gospels were obviously based on that one, it creates some obvious issues. That said, the part about the census was from Luke (whose intended audience was apparently the Greeks). This is probably what happens when you type the post on the toilet.

Matthew's Gospel was Jewish, yet, it blamed the Jews for Jesus' death ("his blood be on us and our children"), laying the foundation for the "crime" of deicide.

And took as its source something meant for Romans that helps absolve them of any guilt.

[Fake Messiah]

can the Gospels, written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' execution have any historical credibility to them? After all, if individuals can promulgate disinformation in our Day even with the myriad of fact checkers (who often go disbelieved anyways), could a tiny handful of individuals have created the stories, myths and legends surrounding Jesus that would go on to evolve and morph into a major world religion?

*DUH* And it is also misleading to say that Gospels were written 35 to 65 (or later) because while scholars estimate that those were the years when they were created, those Gospels that we have now are not the ones written between 70 CE and 120 CE. The oldest gospel preserved is "Codex Vaticanus" whose creation dates in the 4th century and even Bart Ehrman says that we cannot know which sayings, parables, and events were in the original gospel, and which were invented and added over the centuries - he explains that in his book "Whose Word is It?: The Story Behind Who Changed The New Testament and Why", as well as in the video below (between 37:23 to 39:20)

https://youtu.be/WRHjZCKRIu4?t=2243

And even that manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, contains a rather interesting marginal note probably from a furious medieval scribe: “Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!”