Were the Gospel accounts a mythology of Jesus?

[St. SteVen]

Discussion on another thread about the potential mythology of the Old Testament
raised questions for me about the Gospel accounts. Were they mythology as well?

Consider this:
- Questionable authorship.
- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???
- Written decades after the events.
- Based on an oral tradition. (like Genesis)

Seems to be a case for the idea.

--- ADDENDUM ---

I should clarify that I am not questioning whether the people in the Gospel accounts were real people.
History shows that they were. The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took
to record the events. We read the words of the recorded oral tradition as if they are fresh eye-witness accounts.
That's not what happened. Check the estimated writing dates of the Gospels. 40 AD as the earliest date. (70 to 140 as latest)

[

 

[Stumpmaster]

Discussion on another thread about the potential mythology of the Old Testament
raised questions for me about the Gospel accounts. Were they mythology as well?

Consider this:
- Questionable authorship.
- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???
- Written decades after the events.
- Based on an oral tradition. (like Genesis)

Seems to be a case for the idea.

[

Religious academics love this stuff. Some by their own confession never read the Bible for personal guidance and edification, and reject its claim to be the inspired Word of God. Their religion is the worship of the human intellect, especially their own.

My unbelieving younger sister was a University Religious Studies tutor and sometimes lecturer. She told me that Christians doing her course to get required credits often failed assignments with the comment that they were not asked to share their Christian faith but to provide evidence of knowledge retention solely from the course material that classed Christianity as one of many religions based on myth, fable, and collected wisdom born of philosophy and the human desire to worship someone or something.

Fortunately in the body of Christ we have intelligent Christians whose works are available for anyone wishing to refute humanist arguments against the authenticity of the Bible.

Quote:
Lower Criticism and Higher Criticism are two branches of biblical criticism, each with distinct focuses and methodologies.

Lower Criticism​

Also known as Textual Criticism, Lower Criticism aims to establish the original text of the Bible. This involves examining various manuscripts, codices, and ancient versions to identify and correct errors or variations that may have crept into the text over time. Scholars in this field work meticulously to reconstruct the most accurate version of the biblical text as it was originally written12.

Higher Criticism​

Higher Criticism, on the other hand, deals with the historical context, authorship, and composition of the biblical texts. This branch of criticism seeks to understand the origins, dates, and purposes of the different books of the Bible. It involves analyzing the literary structure, sources, and historical background to gain insights into how and why these texts were written13.

Key Differences​

• Focus: Lower Criticism focuses on the text itself, while Higher Criticism looks at the context and origins.
• Methods: Lower Criticism uses manuscript comparison and textual analysis, whereas Higher Criticism employs historical and literary analysis.

Both forms of criticism are essential for a comprehensive understanding of the Bible, helping scholars and theologians interpret the scriptures more accurately and meaningfully. [Copilot]

 

[St. SteVen]

Fortunately in the body of Christ we have intelligent Christians whose works are available for anyone wishing to refute humanist arguments against the authenticity of the Bible.

Great post, thanks.
Note: I added an ADDENDUM to the OP after reading your post.
Not as a response to your post, but as clarification that I wanted to add this morning.

[

 

[Jericho]

- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???

Wouldn't we expect this to be the case if the accounts were true? It would be more suspect if the accounts didn't match up.

Written decades after the events.

In truth, we don't know for certain when the gospels were written, and these sorts of things are always open to debate. Most liberal scholars don't believe in the Bible anyway, and they certainly don't believe in prophecy, so it skews their estimates. Those same scholars also place the book of Daniel around 170 BC because it so accurately predicts future events, and yet, there's reasons to believe it's older. The gospels allude to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, so, of course, the scholars assume it had to have been written after that. Not all scholars agree, however. More conservative scholars will place the gospels within the apostiles' lifetime.

Based on an oral tradition. (like Genesis)

I've always liked this quote by professor James H. Charlesworth: “Oral tradition is not always unreliable; in fact, sometimes it is more reliable than the written word.” -Jesus Within Judaism.

On a side note, if we believe that God talked to Moses, God could have relayed the events of Genesis to him. Moses then could have recorded it using an early form of Hebrew called proto-Sinaitic.

The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took to record the events.

Let's assume it was written at a slightly later date. It's still possible it could have been written within the apostle's lifetime. It was said John lived the longest, 90 to 100 years. At the very least, it would have come from second-hand accounts. That certaintly doesn't seem like enough time for a story to turn into a myth. All the sources written about Alexander the Great were written centuries after he lived. And yet, no one questions if Alexander and the events surrounding him were mythological. That sort of questioning only seems to revolve around biblical events.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???

Wouldn't we expect this to be the case if the accounts were true? It would be more suspect if the accounts didn't match up.

It is more than just matching accounts. The synoptic gospels are word-for-word copies in many passages.
Not sure how that happened. The accounts that don't match have caused serious questions about what actually happened.

St. SteVen said:
- Written decades after the events.

... Not all scholars agree, however. More conservative scholars will place the gospels within the apostiles' lifetime.

40 to 70 AD are very conservative dates, as I understand it. So yes, written decades after the events.

St. SteVen said:
The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took to record the events.

Let's assume it was written at a slightly later date. It's still possible it could have been written within the apostle's lifetime. It was said John lived the longest, 90 to 100 years. At the very least, it would have come from second-hand accounts. That certaintly doesn't seem like enough time for a story to turn into a myth. ...

I don't think it takes much time at all for a story to "turn" into myth. We embellish our own stories early in the telling.

Imagine if the events of 9/11 in NYC were not written down until 40 years after the fact. (in 2040 = 16 years from now)
How might that change the story?

[

 

[Wick Stick]

Discussion on another thread about the potential mythology of the Old Testament
raised questions for me about the Gospel accounts. Were they mythology as well?

Consider this:
- Questionable authorship.
- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???
- Written decades after the events.
- Based on an oral tradition. (like Genesis)

Seems to be a case for the idea.

--- ADDENDUM ---

I should clarify that I am not questioning whether the people in the Gospel accounts were real people.
History shows that they were. The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took
to record the events. We read the words of the recorded oral tradition as if they are fresh eye-witness accounts.
That's not what happened. Check the estimated writing dates of the Gospels. 40 AD as the earliest date. (70 to 140 as latest)

There are certainly scholars who have proposed it.

But if there are stories about Jesus that are fabrications... and there certainly are... why would that call into question the existence of such a historical person?

Consider the case of King Arthur. Virtually everyone agrees that he was a real historical king, even though the story that has come down to us (Morte d'Arthur) is either a very fanciful embellishment on history or an outright fiction.

The same applies to Jesus. Even the redoubtable stories (e.g. the infancy gospel) wouldn't exist if Jesus wasn't a real person.

 

[St. SteVen]

There are certainly scholars who have proposed it.

But if there are stories about Jesus that are fabrications... and there certainly are... why would that call into question the existence of such a historical person?

Consider the case of King Arthur. Virtually everyone agrees that he was a real historical king, even though the story that has come down to us (Morte d'Arthur) is either a very fanciful embellishment on history or an outright fiction.

The same applies to Jesus. Even the redoubtable stories (e.g. the infancy gospel) wouldn't exist if Jesus wasn't a real person.

My addendum covered that. Pasted below.
I do wonder about embellishment though.

We pour over every word of the quotes. How accurate are they really?
The inspiration and infallibility claims seem a bit much.

--- ADDENDUM ---

I should clarify that I am not questioning whether the people in the Gospel accounts were real people.
History shows that they were. The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took
to record the events. We read the words of the recorded oral tradition as if they are fresh eye-witness accounts.
That's not what happened. Check the estimated writing dates of the Gospels. 40 AD as the earliest date. (70 to 140 as latest)

[

 

[St. SteVen]

This is a famous account that raises questions. When did the fig tree wither?

Matthew 21:19-21 NIV
Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves.
Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.
21 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt,
not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain,
‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.

Mark 11:19-20 NIV
When evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.
21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

[

 

[Wick Stick]

I do wonder about embellishment though.

We pour over every word of the quotes. How accurate are they really?
The inspiration and infallibility claims seem a bit much.

--- ADDENDUM ---

I should clarify that I am not questioning whether the people in the Gospel accounts were real people.
History shows that they were. The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took
to record the events. We read the words of the recorded oral tradition as if they are fresh eye-witness accounts.
That's not what happened. Check the estimated writing dates of the Gospels. 40 AD as the earliest date. (70 to 140 as latest)

[

I don't think anyone can completely answer the question, but...

We CAN compare the gospels to the other books written in the same period, and that come out of the same culture. Do that, and you'll find that those other writings are fantastic by comparison.

Jubilees, for example, re-tells Old Testament stories but with great embellishment - there the 12 patriarchs are possessed of superhuman powers. Enoch contains a race of giants. Despite being (deutero)canon, Tobit contains a genie. The infancy gospel has Jesus crafting birds out of clay and bringing them to life. The gospels we have are pretty plausible in comparison.

 

[Jericho]

40 to 70 AD are very conservative dates, as I understand it. So yes, written decades after the events.

It would still be within the apostle's lifetime. I imagine the apostles wouldn't have recorded it right away, as they didn't recognize the need for it. But as Christianity grew and they got older and faced their own mortality, it would have seemed prudent to write it down.

I don't think it takes much time at all for a story to "turn" into myth. We embellish our own stories early in the telling.

It's ultimately conjucture.

 

[marks]

It's ultimately conjucture.

And it's calling the veracity of Scripture into doubt.

Much love!

 

[Jericho]

This is a famous account that raises questions. When did the fig tree wither?

Matthew 21:19-21 NIV
Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves.
Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.
21 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt,
not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain,
‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.

Mark 11:19-20 NIV
When evening came, Jesus and his disciples[a] went out of the city.
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.
21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

[

It's a little confusing, but I think I have the solution. It takes a careful reading of the sequence of events. Mark 11 seems to be the more complete version, so I'll start with that. Note that Jesus and the apostles visit Jerusalem on three consecutive days:

Visit 1 (Mark 11:1–11)
Jesus and the disciples come to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, on the way to Jerusalem.
Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey.
In the evening, they return to Bethany for the night.

Visit 2 (Mark 11:12–19)
They leave Bethany in the morning.
They comes upon Fig tree and Jesus curses it.
They return to Jerusalem and Jesus cleanses temple.
In the evening, they leave the Jerusalem.

Visit 3 (Mark 11:20–33)
In the morning, they head back to Jerusalem and pass withered fig tree.
Peter remembers Jesus cursing the fig tree.
Jesus returns to temple in Jerusalem and is challenged the priests and elders.

Now, onto the Matthew account and you should spot the differences:

Visit 1 (Matt 21 1:1–17)
Jesus and the disciples come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, on the way to Jerusalem.
Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey and clears the temple.
They leave Jerusalem and head to Bethany for the night.

Visit 2 (Mat 21:18–46)
The next morning, returning to Jerusalem, Jesus curses fig tree amazing the disciples amazed how quickly it withered.
Jesus returns to the temple in Jerusalem and is challenged by the priests and elders.

Notice that the Matthew account is missing some important details. It explicitly mentions two separate visits to Jerusalem but doesn't mention the third. Instead, it merges the events of the three visits over the two mentioned visits to Jerusalem. The Mark account gives a more clear description of events. Jesus curses the fig tree on one day, and Peter (and the apostles) remark on it the next day.

Whether the fig tree withered immediatey or overnight seems to depend on which underlying text is used. Different translations use different underlying text. I found two seperate Greek words used: mēketi and parachrēma. Parachrēma implies "immediately" or "at once" while mēketi means "no longer" or "not anymore." I'm thinking it was likely the latter.

 

[St. SteVen]

My unbelieving younger sister was a University Religious Studies tutor and sometimes lecturer. She told me that Christians doing her course to get required credits often failed assignments with the comment that they were not asked to share their Christian faith but to provide evidence of knowledge retention solely from the course material that classed Christianity as one of many religions based on myth, fable, and collected wisdom born of philosophy and the human desire to worship someone or something.

I find it interesting that Christians are happy to agree that all the other world religions are based on mythologies, but claim Christianity isn't.

[

 

[Stumpmaster]

I find it interesting that Christians are happy to agree that all the other world religions are based on mythologies, but claim Christianity isn't.

You seem skeptical.

For me, having immersed myself in the study of worldviews, it comes down to what I want to believe, and that would be taking the Bible as true.

Here's the promise that persuades me to follow Christ, and be yoked to Him

Mat 11:28-30 Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. (30) For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
I find it interesting that Christians are happy to agree that all the other world religions are based on mythologies, but claim Christianity isn't.

You seem skeptical.

For me, having immersed myself in the study of worldviews, it comes down to what I want to believe, and that would be taking the Bible as true.

True or false is the wrong way to look at it. Mythologies are like parables. They hold a greater truth. An attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Here's the promise that persuades me to follow Christ, and be yoked to Him

Mat 11:28-30 Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. (30) For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

That's good.
But does it matter whether all religions are based on mythologies or not?

[

 

[Lambano]

Check the estimated writing dates of the Gospels. 40 AD as the earliest date. (70 to 140 as latest)

Maybe I can use some of the Apologetic stuff I learned...

The Gospel of Mark, which is one of the sources for Matthew and Luke (or is derived from one of the same sources) is dated between 65 and 80 AD. Early dates for Matthew and Luke are about 80 AD. 35-50 years after the events described. The 40 - 70 AD estimates are even better. These dates are within the possible lifetime of a first-hand source and certainly within the lifetime of a second-hand source. There may (or may not) have been some oral tradition that got passed on, but that's a different process than the process that produces what we call "myth". If you're not hung up on the "inerrancy" trip, this is pretty damn good for some of the knowledge we have about 2000 year old events.

Hey, at least Luke admits he researched it and cribbed stuff from various sources.

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

 

[Chains Broken]

Maybe I can use some of the Apologetic stuff I learned...

The Gospel of Mark, which is one of the sources for Matthew and Luke (or is derived from one of the same sources) is dated between 65 and 80 AD. Early dates for Matthew and Luke are about 80 AD. 35-50 years after the events described. The 40 - 70 AD estimates are even better. These dates are within the possible lifetime of a first-hand source and certainly within the lifetime of a second-hand source. There may (or may not) have been some oral tradition that got passed on, but that's a different process than the process that produces what we call "myth". If you're not hung up on the "inerrancy" trip, this is pretty damn good for some of the knowledge we have about 2000 year old events.

Hey, at least Luke admits he researched it and cribbed stuff from various sources.

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

To me 65 to 80 AD could be late for Mark, as Mark was written before Luke, which was written before Acts, which was likely written before Paul was martyred in the mid 60's.

It's also worth mentioning that Matthew and Luke most likely had other sources such as eyewitnesses, possibly Q and other Gospels which were later destroyed.

There is mythology about Jesus, but it appears in later Gospels that are unreliable at best due to being written in the second and third centuries, and are much different than the 4 in the New Testament written by eyewitnesses or historians with accounts from eyewitnesses.

 

[Stumpmaster]

But does it matter whether all religions are based on mythologies or not?

The Bible warns me against myths, so I exclude them in my worldview.

"The Bible contains several exhortations against myths and fables, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the truth of God’s word. Here are a few key passages:

1. 2 Peter 1:16: "For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty"1. This verse highlights the apostles’ commitment to sharing their direct experiences with Jesus, rather than relying on fabricated stories.
2. 1 Timothy 1:4: "Nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith"2. Paul advises Timothy to avoid engaging in myths and genealogies that lead to fruitless discussions and distract from the work of faith.
3. Titus 1:14: “And will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.” This verse warns against being swayed by myths and human traditions that deviate from the truth of the gospel.

These passages collectively underscore the importance of focusing on the truth and avoiding distractions that can lead believers away from their faith. They encourage a commitment to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, which are based on eyewitness accounts and divine revelation." [Copilot]

 

[Windmill Charge]

We read the words of the recorded oral tradition as if they are fresh eye-witness accounts

Yet historians, professionals working with historical accounts accept many of the gospels and epistle s as being historically accurate, that is written by eye witnesses.

See Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

For a creed dated to within 6 years of the crucifixion.

 

[St. SteVen]

Hey, at least Luke admits he researched it and cribbed stuff from various sources.

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

Very good.
He compiled an account gathered from various sources.
"... just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word," - vs 2b

[