The real question is whether there is any reason to believe that the gospels are anything other than fan fiction.

Well firstly, I am a writing major specializing in fiction writing (with plans to get my PhD in fiction writing later on), and I can say right now that the Gospels do not qualify as any kind of “fiction.” That people have levied this nonsense is rather insane. Early Christians clearly believed these legends as true, and we have no access to the psychological state of the authors of those gospels. As such, we have literally no basis in which we could claim that the Gospels were written as “fan fiction.” Fan fiction is also specifically problematic in this case because Fan Fiction is a genre of fiction which takes place within and based on other fictional writings. I must ask, what fictional writings did the Gospel of Mark get based on? There is not a single reason to believe that Paul was writing fiction, everything we have of his psychological state in his writings indicates he truly believed what he wrote. Therefore, not fiction, which requires a psychological state of deliberately attempting to alter fact and history into states of unreality and creativity (hence why no mythology is fiction anywhere; anyone who categorizes mythology or mythical writings as fiction is someone who is just an edgelord who neither understands mythology or fiction). 

Now, we have reason to believe, in my opinion, that at least some things in the Gospels are historical. Paul mentions he knew Jesus’ brother (Gal. 1:18-19) and names James. The Gospel of Mark, and other works, list a few of his other brothers (and Paul lists that Jesus had other brothers too 1 Cor. 9:5). Therefore, we have at least one historical tidbit in the Gospels, in my opinion. I would list the following parts of Paul as being historical bits about Jesus’ life, and that these were then used by the Gospels who seem to have had access to additional clarifying information:

Jesus was born of a woman and had a brother named James, along with other brothers (1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:18–19 and 4:4)

He was Jewish (Rom. 9:3–5; Gal. 3:24, 4:4) and said to be of the lines of the Patriarchs, David, and Jesse (Rom. 1:3, 9:3–5, 15:9–12; Gal. 3:16)

He may have had a tempered and non-boastful personality (Rom. 15:3, 15:5–6; 2 Cor. 11:17)

He may have given several teachings in his lifetime (1 Cor. 7:10–11, 9:14, 11:23–26; 2 Cor. 5:19–21, 13:4; Gal. 2:21, 6:2; 1 Thess. 4:15)

He was killed via crucifixion (Rom. 3:24–25; 1 Cor. 2:6–8 Gal. 1:1; Philip. 2:5–8; 1Thess. 2:14–16)

Finally, he was killed likely in Judea (1 Thess. 2:14–16) by the Jewish and possibly Roman authorities (1 Cor. 2:6–8; 1 Thess. 2:14–16)** you do not have permission to see this link **

It should be noted lastly that almost every notable scholar now thinks that 1 Thess. 2:14-16 was authentic, save a few exceptions (and mythicists who have an agenda). Now while I will argue that the vast majority of the Gospel material is not historical, this does not make it fiction. This makes it legendarism or mythologization, but neither of those processes is synonymous with fictionalization.

Steefen said

Debra Carey said

Let’s say I wanted to start a religion in the US in 2021.  I want my religion to have some oomph so I decide that my deity is Gandhi.  Most Americans have heard of India.  On a good day they’ve heard of Gandhi.  But being rather clueless, most Americans couldn’t tell you who Gandhi was or when he lived or what he did or why he matters.  They just know he is famous and rather special.  India is pretty far away, after all.  After my Gandhi Religion takes off, some of my followers, who still know zip about the actual Gandhi, create some fan fiction where they tell about Gandhi’s words and deeds, according to what they think a deity named Gandhi from someplace like India should say and do.  But it is all fiction.  

Centuries from now, people will come along and say they can prove my religion is 100% true because a person named Gandhi really existed.  

Now think about Paul.  He lived in a time when mystery religions were a thing.  He lived at a time when people might have heard about Jewish apocalyptic preachers but not know many details.  So Paul decided to create a mystery religion for fun and profit.  To make his mystery religion seem exotic, Paul decided to form his new mystery religion around the name of a semi-famous wandering preacher from Palestine.  Paul doesn’t quote Jesus.  Paul doesn’t talk about what Jesus did.  Paul says more than once that his knowledge comes from the “spirit” and he tosses in some wisdom from ancient Jewish texts. 

Paul mentions in his letter to the Galatians that some actual followers of a person named Jesus weren’t too happy with Paul’s religion.  But by this time Paul’s version of Jesus had long overtaken any real wandering preacher by that name.

The gospels were written by fans of Paul living in Asia Minor decades after any real Jesus would have died.  The writers spoke educated Greek, not Aramaic, and generally had poor knowledge of Palestinian life, people or geography.   There is no reason to think they had ever met Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus.

If this is plausible, then the question of whether a wandering preacher with a name something like “Jesus” lived in Palestine circa 33CE is simply not relevant.

The real question is whether there is any reason to believe that the gospels are anything other than fan fiction. Is there one thing in the gospels that could be considered reliable?  The gospel writers created stories to fit Jesus into Jewish messianic prophecy.  Note the two mutually exclusive “How a preacher from Galilee managed to be born in Bethlehem” stories.  The gospel writers pulled stories from urban legends and shared stories.   Healing blind men.  Walking on water.  Turning water into wine.  Feeding multitudes with a few fish.  Standing on a hill telling stories and spouting deepities.  They said things they wanted their deity to say, even though those things were often mutually exclusive.   Jewish law is no longer valid, except it is. Jesus wants everyone to have salvation but only a few will be chosen.  12 or more people supposedly spent 3 years learning at the feet of god itself, and not once are they consulted on matters of theology.

My opinion is that there is no reason to think that one thing written in the gospels has anything to do with the semi-famous wandering preacher named Jesus.  Quoting the gospels and saying “Jesus said this” or “Jesus did that” is silly, because it is all made up by followers of Paul, who may not have even expected their stories to be taken as “gospel.”

  

My response to your first paragraph.

Oscars:

Best Actor

Best Picture

Best Costume Design

Best Director

Best Production Design

Best Cinematography

Best Film Editing

Best Original Screenplay

BAFTA:

Best Actor

Best Direction

Best Film

Most Outstanding Newcomer to Leading Film Roles

Best Supporting Actress

  

My response is: you really need to learn to respond with relevant information some time.

Steefen said
Debra

Now think about Paul. He lived in a time when mystery religions were a thing. He lived at a time when people might have heard about Jewish apocalyptic preachers but not know many details. So Paul decided to create a mystery religion for fun and profit. To make his mystery religion seem exotic, Paul decided to form his new mystery religion around the name of a semi-famous wandering preacher from Palestine. Paul doesn’t quote Jesus. Paul doesn’t talk about what Jesus did. Paul says more than once that his knowledge comes from the “spirit” and he tosses in some wisdom from ancient Jewish texts.

Paul mentions in his letter to the Galatians that some actual followers of a person named Jesus weren’t too happy with Paul’s religion. But by this time Paul’s version of Jesus had long overtaken any real wandering preacher by that name.

The gospels were written by fans of Paul living in Asia Minor decades after any real Jesus would have died. The writers spoke educated Greek, not Aramaic, and generally had poor knowledge of Palestinian life, people or geography. There is no reason to think they had ever met Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus.

If this is plausible, then the question of whether a wandering preacher with a name something like “Jesus” lived in Palestine circa 33CE is simply not relevant.

The real question is whether there is any reason to believe that the gospels are anything other than fan fiction.

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy

It is something other than fan fiction. It is post-War literature. It is post-Temple Judaism literature. You are in error, Debra.

Debra

Is there one thing in the gospels that could be considered reliable? The gospel writers created stories to fit Jesus into Jewish messianic prophecy.

Note the two mutually exclusive “How a preacher from Galilee managed to be born in Bethlehem” stories. The gospel writers pulled stories from urban legends and shared stories. Healing blind men. Walking on water. Turning water into wine. Feeding multitudes with a few fish. Standing on a hill telling stories and spouting deepities. They said things they wanted their deity to say, even though those things were often mutually exclusive. Jewish law is no longer valid, except it is. Jesus wants everyone to have salvation but only a few will be chosen. 12 or more people supposedly spent 3 years learning at the feet of god itself, and not once are they consulted on matters of theology.

My opinion is that there is no reason to think that one thing written in the gospels has anything to do with the semi-famous wandering preacher named Jesus. Quoting the gospels and saying “Jesus said this” or “Jesus did that” is silly, because it is all made up by followers of Paul, who may not have even expected their stories to be taken as “gospel.”

  

Stop peddling your self-published, non peer reviewed, completely inept book. It isn’t impressive. Literally anyone can be just as much an author as you.

Personally, I don’t think Mark is post-Second Temple either. I think it is late 60’s (probably a year or two prior to the Temple destruction).

Debra Carey said

vergari said

Imagine trying to write a fictionalized account of Mahatma Gandhi without any text books, let alone films or archival footage, and having to get these types of things accurate:

– the common names for people in the regions where Gandhi lived

– the names of towns and villages and a workable knowledge of the geography and botanical features of where Gandhi dwelled, but without maps

– an accurate description of customs and practices of Gandhi’s region

– the names of high political and religious officers, and their designations

I could go on and on.

Both Mark and Matthew display a very intimate knowledge of Galilee and Judea; the names are right; the general geography and plant life is right; the political and religious climate is right; etc., etc., etc.

To give you just a small insight into just how absurd and preposterous your hypothesis is, try to do this yourself.  Just from living in the modern world, with films and universal access to the Internet, you already know far, far, far more about Mahatma Gandhi than an average person living in antiquity would know about any person (with the possible exception of the Emperor) living thousands of miles away.  Nonetheless, give it a shot.

Try to compose a narrative around Gandhi without re-watching the Ben Kingsley movie or using the Internet as a resource.

Indeed, try posting your narrative here.  If you truly don’t cheat, this will be a fascinating test.  Let’s see how you do with the names of the people, the names of the town, the titles of the political and religious officials, the indigenous plant life, and the general culture of the area.

  

Have you ever read historical fiction?  More to the point, have you ever read bad historical fiction?  People create fictionalized accounts of real people all the time.  Some authors do a very good job and do their research, other authors string together one anachronism after another and simply don’t care.

The author of Mark has the equivalent of Jesus traveling from Philadelphia to New York, passing through Richmond on the way.  Matthew fixes this error and places the towns in a logical sequence.  This is exactly what happens when an author who doesn’t live in a place creates a story around people he never met.  

All the actions and thoughts attributed to Pilate are ludicrous. Recent scholarship indicates that the Pharisees were nothing like they are portrayed in the gospels. How is it possible that Jesus crucified on Passover (M, M and L)  and on the day before Passover (J)?

I think it is likely the educated Greeks living in Asia Minor who wrote the gospels had never met Jesus, had never conversed with his Aramaic speaking followers and had never been to Palestine.

Paul himself reports that followers of Jesus living in Palestine did not like Paul’s version of christianity.  

Some stories, including the woman taken in adultery, were added centuries later. 

I think it is reasonably certain there was a person named Jesus.  He died.  The followers of this person included a brother.  And these followers didn’t much like Paul.  Beyond that, is there any reason to conclude any word or action attributed to Jesus actually happened?

Compare this to King Arthur and Robin Hood.  A warlord with a name something like Arthur lived in 5th century Britain.  Sherwood Forest exists.  Poachers living in forests existed. One of those poachers could easily have been named Robert/Robin.  The existence of a real person way back when does not make Lancelot, Guinevere, Friar Tuck, Little John real, nor does it mean any of the stories happened. 

  

In all of ancient history, there is only one singular piece of “historical fiction”, as is properly defined.

Also, scholars are pretty split on whether King Arthur existed or not. However, I could point to a pretty great example of outright mythology and legend that is still rooted historically in most of its major players.

The Nibelungenlied and the Saga of the Volsungs are legends which concern the Burgundian court of the early Germany and also the later Merovingians. Gunther was a historical king. Siegfried likely stems from Sigebert I. Brynhild comes from the Merovingian ruler Brunhild from Spain. Furthermore, Giselher, Gernot, Etzel, Gibich, and more were also all historical figures. Witege is likely based on the Gothic figure Vidigoia.

In this case, there are solid historical traditions behind these figures.

Also, glad to see you just ignored my entire comment about how we have no evidence whatsoever that the Gospels qualify as fiction because we cannot confirm the psychological state or necessary development elements needed to make that claim. But whatever, just keep calling them fiction and making yourself look like a fool.

Robert said

“making yourself look like a fool.”

“So, you are kinda just talking out of your butt.”

There’s a range of familiarity with scholarship on this forum. Please keep the discussion civil and respectful. 

  

Will do.

Debra Carey said

vergari said

You completely side-stepped my challenge and ignored the points I raised, instead shifting the argument from your original post — which contended that the gospel accounts are no more accurate than what a modern American could write about Gandhi — to the far more modest claim that the author of Mark got some geography wrong and early Christians didn’t like Paul. To call this a retreat is beyond charitable, as you obviously realized your original analogy about a fictionalized history of Gadhi was preposterous.

Now that you are raising eminently more modest arguments about the accuracy of the NT — ones that have been discussed ad nauseam on this forum of years — responses will require far more analysis and nuance.

But let’s start with your new analogy to King Arthur. An easy way for historians to know that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, our oldest surviving written account of King Arthur, is pseudohistorical is that it reflects virtually zero knowledge of the culture, people and geography of the period during which King Arthur was supposed to have lived. The names are all wrong. The customs, codes of conduct and religious practices are dead wrong. The names of the cities and villages are all wrong. The military uniforms and tactics are all wrong. Indeed, there is virtually nothing in Historia regum Britanniae evidencing a familiarity with the times and places it speaks to.

The very same problems arise with the legend of Robin Hood.

In short, it’s the very opposite of Mark and Matthew and Luke and John, which demonstrate a VERY deep knowledge of the pre-destruction Second Temple Period of the First Century in Judea and Galilee. And, lest we forget, whatever your beliefs are about the dating of Mark (or a proto-Mark), Jerusalem was cultural center for Jews was done by AD 70. So any attempting late dating for Mark and, frankly, for the Matthew, Luke and John (which include their own unique material about Jerusalem and Second Temple practices) have to account for Jerusalem’s non-existence post- AD 70.

  

My argument is unchanged.  The fact that the main character of a story is a real person does not provide a basis for concluding whether the words and actions attributed to that person actually happened.  A modern American who did extensive research could write an accurate book about Gandhi.  A modern American who did a fair bit of research could make up a number of believable stories about Gandhi.  A modern American with or without research could write a ludicrous story about Gandhi.  My point is that the existence of a real person named Gandhi tells me nothing about the accuracy of stories written about Gandhi by authors who lived decades later on a different continent.   The stories could be true.  They could be false.  The existence of a real Gandhi in the mid 20th century does nothing to indicate that a story written by an American named Joe Whatever in 2021 is accurate.  

Likewise, the existence of a real Jesus in Palestine circa 33 CE does nothing to indicate whether a story written / written down by anonymous authors  decades later is accurate.  Especially since those authors did not write in the language spoken by the main character and his followers.  Also, while they may have visited the region, their level of education indicates they did not live there. 

  

I mean, actually his existence does tell you something: that they are basing their accounts on the existence and person of a real human, which automatically lends a degree of credence to historicity of the narratives, though they should still be treated with caution. Also, I have no idea how you manage to deduce what the “level of education” of the Gospel writers was. If they are anonymous, you really have no case. I’d add that the Gospel of Matthew is very familiar with Jewish custom, law, geography, and more, which definitely makes it more likely he at least did his research before hand. Also, Greek was most certainly spoken in ancient Palestine… we have Dead Sea Scrolls written in Greek. Depending on the area, many authors could be bilingual (Josephus comes to mind; along with every other chronicler like Nicolaus of Damascus).

Really, when it comes to education, the only one you can make an argument about is the Gospel of Mark, and even then he still has several historical details about Jesus in there. The twelve apostles are attested by Paul, Jesus’ relatives, the crucifixion (and its location in Judea), etc.

Also, your comparison is not apt. Modern writers do not write the same way ancient writers did. If I wrote a biography of Gandhi, I would not have at my disposal a bunch of oral traditions, for instance, nor would I have the writings of various missionaries, fragments, and other bits and pieces to collect. I’d have an internet with basically most of his life already laid out for me right there. Even if I wrote a “ludicrous” (I have no idea how you are defining “ludicrous” here, but I am hedging my bets that this is just an anti-religious polemic judging by the rest of your rhetoric) story about Gandhi, I’d more than probably be forced to end up with a roughly historical outline of his life, lest my work get torn to shreds by people familiar (which given that Mark is only separated from Jesus by 40 years, there would definitely have been a good chunk of people who would know better; there would plausibly even be contemporaries still alive).

However, we have no evidence that Mark was writing a “ludicrous” story, nor fiction, nor anything of similar. Your argument amounts mostly to baseless speculations and false analogies. Modern writers =/= ancient writers, and as I pointed out, in ancient Greco-Roman history, I only know of a single piece of actually genre specific historical fiction (Chaereas and Callirhoe by Chariton). So, there is little to no reason to think at all that Mark is writing anything which amounts to fiction or similar, especially since we have no access to Mark’s psychological state.

Your analogy is simply a failure because… ancient Greco-Roman and Palestinian authors… are not remotely of the same mindset, time, locale, or have the same thoughts and conceptions of writing history or biographies (fictional or otherwise) as a modern American. It is simply a false analogy on every level.

Debra Carey said

vergari said

 

So much misinformation and garbage here.

Despite Paul’s letters being occasional and focused to the contemporary problems and issues of the addressed congregation, Paul’s letters nonetheless include quite a bit of information about Jesus. For example, Paul implies that Jesus was a missionary and tells us his brothers and their wives became missionaries after his death. 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that the leaders of Jesus’s movement following his death were his brother James and Peter, both of whom then resided in Jerusalem. Paul also knows that Jesus had twelve disciples. 1 Corinthians 15:5. Paul knows that Jesus was a teacher, and quotes from his teachings. Paul knows that Jesus had a Last Supper with his disciples in which he predicted his approaching death, the very night he was handed over to the authorities. 1 Corinthians 11:22-24. Paul obviously knows that Jesus was crucified and was buried following crucifixion. 1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:3-4. He blames Jesus death on the “instigation of the Jews.” 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.

And, yes, Paul did quote directly from Jesus; for example, during the Last Supper: “This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” More: “this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:22-24). Paul also quotes Jesus’s teachings on divorce: “a woman is not to be separated from her husband … and a man should not divorce his wife.” 1 Corinthians 7:11. Paul likewise quotes from Jesus’s teaching on missionary compensation: “For thus the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the Gospel should get their living from the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 9:14.

Your claim that the authors of the gospels “generally had poor knowledge of Palestinian life, people or geography” is equally as bunk as your claims about what Paul knew about Jesus.

Just total and complete ahistorical garbage.

  

 

Thanks.  You quote Paul saying exactly the things I agree are known about Jesus.  Jesus existed.  Jesus had followers, that might have included at least one brother.  Jesus died.  The followers didn’t agree with Paul.  

Regarding the last supper, we have a chicken and the egg situation.  Did this happen and Paul heard about it even though he never met Jesus and didn’t care much for his followers?   Or is this one of the things Paul learned from one of his visions and the gospel writers fleshed it out in the stories they wrote later?  Paul says pretty much everything he knows about Jesus came from a vision.  In other words, Paul made it up.  He says so. 

I think the quote about Jesus’ teaching on compensation for missionaries is quite convenient, seeing as how Paul is a direct beneficiary of that teaching.  And since according to the gospels Jesus was expecting the kingdom of heaven immediately and was fine keeping his message as close as possible (see Mark 4), it seems pretty odd that Jesus would care whether missionaries got paid.  

So I am back to my point.  All the deepities attributed to Jesus.  All the miracles.  The parables he told to make sure very few people could understand.  Yet he claims that he wants all to understand. His total contradictions – Not one bit of the law shall pass away, but the law is no longer applicable.  All who come to me will be saved, except not every who says “Lord Lord” will be saved.  etc. etc.  It is very plausible that Jesus never said or did most or all of what is reported in the gospels.  Paul told of a spiritual Jesus.  Paul’s followers wanted to know more.  So they created stories.  These may have started out knowingly as myth, but later generations took them as “gospel.”  And eventually some anonymous people, whose background and agenda are not known, wrote them down. 

Just like with Paul’s oh so convenient “Jesus said for you to give me money,” followers as always created their god in accordance to what they wanted their god to be.  2,000 years later, self-appointed deity spokesmen are still telling us God wants us to give them money.  He said so.  Promise.

  

Paul never says that everything he knows about Jesus came from visions. He says that his gospel was revealed to him but Gospel is not synonymous with either biography or teachings, and the language used in 1 Cor. 11 indicates a passed down tradition, using very common language for traditions passed on by humans in Jewish literature as James D. G. Dunn and others pointed out.

Also, it seems like your entire motivation in this post is just to denigrate religion. I am seriously having trouble figuring out if you actually want to know about the history, or just want to confirm the Bible is wrong to support your clearly anti-Christian biases.