Rosekeister said
Q and the Gospel of Thomas are sayings gospels which have no real narratives in them. Paul has very little, so little that you wonder what he and Peter and James were talking about when they met. Then in the mid-70s Mark appears with a narrative of Jesus’ last year and the Passion. Q and the Gospel of Thomas have neither the narrative or the Passion story.

Matthew follows in the 80s and then Luke even later. What is interesting is that they have to follow Mark’s narrative frame. Apparently there is no other in their communities which could indicate proximity. Matthew and Luke then add stories from another source which is now called Q which is a sayings gospel. Matthew and Luke have taken a non-narrative source and added the sayings into a narrative provided by Mark. John appears, perhaps in the 90s and some would argue earlier, with somewhat similar stories but not apparently using Mark for his narrative and the sayings have become long flowing declarations of divinity.

I think an earlier idea of critical scholarship that scholars seem to be moving away from somewhat is correct. This is that sayings without narratives are what survived in the oral tradition. The narratives that have survived in the gospels are secondary additions of the communities filling the needs of the communities. The sayings after 40 years no longer reflect the historical Jesus. Multiple attestation is no longer taking you back to a historical Jesus but to the earliest communities and the sayings that could be accepted by the most communities with their diverse interpretations of Jesus.

I don’t think my opinion is a majority opinion (even the Jesus Seminar believes they have found Jesus’ voiceprint) so I’m interested in what everyone else thinks. Is there history in the gospels?

I think that it is not just sayings that has survived, but also reminiscences of his activities as a healer and exorcist. The stories about popular reaction in Galilee probably contains some truth and the passion narrative has definitely a historical core. It is however difficult to establish the length of his ministry and various traveling routes. Many of the sayings are garbled versions of what he said, or they are what peace&justice-minded followers wanted him to have said.

regards

g.

JBSeth1 said
Along this line, I’ve always wondered which, if any, of the stories in the Gospels, should be taken as actual historical events and which, if any, should not.

A few I have some questions about include:

 

Did Jesus really spend 40 days in the wilderness and if so, was he really tempted by Satan?

Did the transfiguration event, as described in the Gospels, really occur as recorded?

Was Jesus really crucified, or was there some other reason why this story was told?

For example, perhaps the story was told that he was crucified so that they could tell the story of his resurrection?

If he was crucified, did he really say, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”, as written in both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew? Furthermore, is it just a coincidence that these are the exact same words found at the beginning of Psalm 22?

Was Jesus really buried? I believe that all 4 Gospels indicate that he was, but in his latest book, “How Jesus became God”, Professor Ehrman, presents a good case as to why he may not have been buried at all?

Does this indicate that perhaps we should even question, those stories and events attested to in all 4 of the gospels?

Was Jesus really resurrected, or was this story told for some other reason. For example, was a resurrection story included in the gospels because the Jewish people believed that when the Messiah came at the end times, a resurrection of the dead was to occur?

If Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, then wouldn’t there be a need for a resurrection story. Did this resurrection story come about similar to why Matthew tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin, in Bethlehem; because Matthew believed that Jesus was the Messiah and furthermore, Matthew also believed that the prophesies said the Messiah would be born of a virgin, in Bethlehem.

 

There are many of similar stories in the Gospels, and these are just some of the ones that I have come to believe may not have been actual historical events.  Does anyone else have any thoughts about this that they would like to share?

1. The 40 days in the wilderness may be a reminiscence from the short period in which he was in touch with John. John was an ascetic, but to judge from the Gospels, Jesus enjoyed banquettes with eating and  drinking, using them as metaphors of the Kingdom come. The ascetic life did not appeal to him.

2. The ” transfiguration event” is an allegory that is meant to set Jesus on the level of Moses and the prophets.

3. It would have been too difficult to preach a crucified Jesus in Jerusalem, if the event never took place.

4 “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me”. This is most likely scripturized history. I think Jesus howled in pain and cried for God’s intervention all along the route to the execution place. The Gospel author dignified it.

5. “really buried”. I think he was taken down in the evening for some reason and done away with. That is the solution that explains most of the legendary growth.

6. Resurrection. After a while, nobody in the community deared to say that they still hadn’t had a vision. A vivid dream would do. The community (and Jesus, while alive) expected the Kingdom to arrive through hardship, oppression and birth pangs. They just did not foresee this particular way. They quickly realized that it was  so and accepted it, so there must have been a strong continuity between pre- and post-execution times. The resurrection claims, in my view, was then rather a psychological “smoothing” operation.