I’ve collected a short list of places in the Gospel that are clearly not historical. I thought it would be good to start a thread on some of the stories in the gospels that obviously didn’t occur as narrated.
Here’s a good example: In John 3, Jesus meets with Nicodemus at night. From John 3:3-10, Jesus lectures Nicodemus about the necessity of being born ἄνωθεν (a Greek word meaning both ‘from above’ and ‘again.’) Nicodemus assumes that Jesus wants him to crawl back into his mother’s uterus and be born again (3:4), but it is clear that Jesus means ‘from above’ (cf. vs. 5-7). This is a kind of ‘** you do not have permission to see this link **‘ in Koine Greek.
So this passage consists of Jesus, a Galilean rural itinerant preacher, and Pharisee in Jerusalem having an conversing in Greek. If this had actually happened, it would have been in Aramaic, and this can’t just be a translation because the whole narrative centers on the use of a Greek pun. Although it is likely that some Greek was spoken in Palestine, it was likely used primarily for businesses transactions around Greek centers (cf. Meier’s A Marginal Jew, Vol 1.). Josephus, a well-educated first century Palestinian, states “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods” (Antiquities 20.11.2)
It seems far more probable to me that John (who wrote in Greek) made this entire episode up to showcase his theology than that Jesus (who likely didn’t speak more than a few words of Greek) had this conversation with Nicodemus (who also likely didn’t speak more than a few words of Greek) based around a Greek pun, instead of in their common native language Aramaic.
Ironically many US Christians repeat the mistake of Nicodemus by being “born again” instead of “from above.” 
The woman who was about to be stoned to death for adultery where Jesus said, “let him who is without sin, cast the first stone”
Bart would confirm this was not in the earliest manuscripts but in later ones. So was clearly added. Was this because someone remembered it was in an earlier one and so when they got to see the later ones, it was amended? When I read this pretty wonderful story whether it was true or not seems to fit what Jesus ‘could’ have said and its a lesson for all of mankind really.
My question would be that the woman was adjudged by the Sandhedrin or other Jewish Court to be killed by stoning. That means that they did have the power to execute people of their own race/culture and the Roman Authorities allowed it. Indeed they killed Stephen and James in the same way. Nobody there to say what Jesus said. I did read just now that Bart thought the Romans had the sole authority to kill people. Maybe I misunderstood his comments?
But the important aspect of that was that Jesus apparenty stopped it happening and so what was the reaction of the court representative when that happened? To immediately report what Jesus had done to his bosses? One would think so and maybe that was another reason why they hated Jesus. The other probably more significant thing was that Jesus believed 100% in the Torah and the 613 commandments given by God and that included stoning adulterers to death. So was he about to overturn the other 612 commandments as well?
I have watched Rabbi Tovey I think his name is who debates a lot with Christians and he always claims that we don’t listen to eqach other but to read what God says in the OT scripture as that is all that matters and cannot be over turned etc.
I emailed him and asked him IF he really believed in that statement and by implication all the 613 Jewish Laws/Commandments. They should still be enforced today in all Jewish Societies. Which of course includes stoning to death Gay people and children for swearing. I didn’t get a reply. Not sure if he is a naturalised US citizen or not but he debates regularly in the USA. Just let him try that out on the audience and see how far he gets? He wouldn’t dare say such things. I wish the Christian Apologist had asked him the same question.
Jesus’ triumphal ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys. Everything about this story is great. First Jesus tells two disciples to steal two donkeys. If anyone asks why they’re taking them, the disciples are supposed to say “The Lord needs them”. Matthew doesn’t say, but this would be another miracle tallied for Jesus if anyone actually accepted that answer.
The donkeys are brought to Jesus, and the disciples bind them together with their coats. Jesus then mounts them both and makes his triumphal entry to Jerusalem with crowds parading him through the streets. I can only imagine the slack jawed reaction of the Jews in the city…
Obviously none of this is historical. Matthew, unfamiliar with poetic parallelism, made it up to show that Jesus fulfilled the (misinterpreted) prophecy of Zechariah. All the same, I think Matthew might have struggled with this passage. He seems to be just as much attempting to convince himself as well as the reader that these events happened when he explains that “This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet”.
Another good example is the census reported in Luke 2. In this narrative, Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth. Caesar Augustus sends out an edict that all the Roman world should be registered (presumably for taxation purposes.) This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria (v 2). Because Joseph is of house and family of David (διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ), Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem to register there. Because there are no lodging places available to them (διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι), Jesus is placed in a feeding trough (φάτνῃ). Jesus’ being born in Bethlehem is used as evidence that he is indeed the Messiah, the descendant of David (2:10ff).
There are several problems here. The classic issue is chronology. Matthew dates Jesus’ birth at the end of the tenure of Herod the Great, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, where an unnamed person rules “the provinces of Asia” (Asiam provinciam) and “for another time ruled Syria and Phonecia” (iterum Syriam et Ph[oenicen]) refers to Quirinius, and thus Quirinius ruled Syria twice (which seems to directly contradict the titulus, which refers to only ruling Syria and Phonecia once). I’m not an expert in this field, but L. Calpurnius Piso or C. Sentius Saturninus seem like better candidates.
In addition, Luke’s explanation for the return doesn’t make sense. He says that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem because Joseph was “of the house and family of David.” But David lived 1000 years before Joseph. It’s entirely unfeasable to order everyone to return to their 1000 year old ancestor’s hometown. It also doesn’t give you any useful census data (who cares where their 1000 year old ancestor lived, I want to know where they live today!)
But this isn’t even the biggest problem. Luke’s just-so story doesn’t even do what he wants it to do.
We have other references to roman censuses where people are required to return to their homes. For example ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is an oath by someone that “those living with me” have been returned home for a census.
But Mary and Joseph aren’t returning home. They have no property in Bethlehem. This is clear because there’s no room in the inn, and they have to lay Jesus in an animal trough. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite of the law in the case of a census. They should be where they have property, so that their property can be evaluated and they can be taxed. Instead they leave their home and travel to somewhere where they have no property.
Luke, like Matthew, made up this story, most likely in order to get Jesus born in Bethlehem so that he could fulfill the prophecy that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Mic 5:2 – when you read the full prophecy, it refers to someone who rescues Israel from the Assyrians [5:6], clearly not Jesus). The fact that the Matthean and Lukan versions of the birth narrative are so divergent except for the prophetic aspects (Jesus born of a virgin [Is 7:14], in Bethlehem [Mic 5:2]) suggests to me that the only data that these authors had was the prophecies themselves, and they both “filled in the details,” resulting in very different narratives. It also suggests to me that both Matthew and Luke had a similar problem: A messiah named “Jesus of Nazareth,” when the messiah wasn’t supposed to come from Nazareth.
I’ve always admired artistic representations of the Transfiguration. The Orthodox churches seized on this episode especially in their iconography and there are several striking depictions available across artistic styles.
Here’s an example. I have a nice print of this one in my office. I prefer the Cretan style in particular.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is the so-called ‘three peaks” style. Christ always in the center of course, on Mt Tabor. Elijah to the left on Mt Carmel and Moses to the right on Mt Sinai. Icons depict a mystical timeless alltime where the disciples, Peter, James and John are led up the mountain by Christ, are overcome by the vision of Christ transfigured, and are herded down the mountain all in the same depiction.
On a literary level I really love the original ending of Mark. (Actually Mark is my favorite gospel anyway.) It’s perfect – and disturbing. Unfortunately believers don’t seem to do disturbing very well especially with what is considered the holiest story in their holy book. I’ve always hoped someone would make a movie based exclusively on the gospel of Mark. If you filmed it just as written it would instantly become the most controversial Jesus movie ever. Which would illustrate Prof Ehrman’s point that most people smash all the gospels into one big imaginary gospel without considering the individual points of view of each which are not the same. I encourage everybody to read Mark in a clear English translation and try to imagine a world where it was the only gospel. What a weird brilliant striking little book!
Here’s another. In Luke 4:14-22 Jesus returns from being tempted in the wilderness with the “power of the spirit” and preaches in Galilee, becoming famous. Jesus teaches in synagogues there, eventually returning to Nazareth. In Nazareth, he enters the synagogue on the Sabbath and stands up to read. The section of the scriptures containing Isaiah is handed to him, and he proceeds to read from Isaiah 61:1, saying “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” He rolls up the scroll and sits down. As everyone stares at him, he says “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” They are amazed, speak favorably of them, and then there’s an awkward transition between vs. 22-23 where things get combative (Jesus: no miracles for you). Then there’s some more arguing, the Jews try to kill Jesus, but he walks through their midst unharmed.
There are a couple of problems here.
First, the quote Jesus gives is a bit of a mishmash. It’s a quote with intermingled content from Isaiah 61:1-2 (leaving out ‘to heal those who are downcast in their hearts’) and Isaiah 58:6. It doesn’t make sense for Jesus to read from a scroll and skip around like this. It makes more sense to me that this was the result of a later redactor.
Second, the literacy of Jesus from a historical perspective is still under dispute. As Catherine Hezser notes in her seminal study Jewish Literature in Roman Palestine: “only a small proportion of people had the spare time necessary to study the Torah, and only a few parents will have been able to do without the work and salary of their children while they went to school.” (p. 45) The only mention of a standardized Jewish literary education system at the time of Jesus come from the Babylonian Talmud, written centuries after Jesus. There are no other examples in the gospels of Jesus’ literacy (except the interpolated pericope adulterae in John 7:53-8:11). To me this reduces the prior probability of Jesus being literate, and thus this story being true. But it certainly doesn’t make it impossible. But, of course, if Jesus was God and omniscient, I suppose there’s no real problem here.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that Luke has Jesus reading the Septuagint, not the targum or Hebrew bible. The idea of a preacher in a rural Galilean synagogue being passed a scroll for reading that contained the Septuagint is absolutely ridiculous. It reflects the diaspora, not Palestine. Here’s the table from Timothy Michael Law’s excellent book When God Spoke Greek, comparing Luke, the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text:
| Luke 4:17-18 | Isaiah 61:1ff (Septuatint) | Isaiah 61:1ff (Masoretic Text) |
| And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: | ||
| The spirit of the Lord is upon me, | The spirit of the Lord is upon me, | The spirit of the Lord is upon me, |
| because he has anointed me | because he has anointed me | because the Lord has anointed me |
| he has sent me | he has sent me | |
| to bring good news to the poor, | to bring good news to the poor, | to bring good news to the oppressed, |
| he has sent me | ||
| to heal the broken hearted | to bind up the broken-hearted | |
| to proclaim release to the captives | to proclaim release to the captives | to proclaim liberty to the captives |
| and recovery of sight to the blind | and recovery of sight to the blind | and release to the prisoners |
| to let the oppressed go free [from Septuagint of Isaiah 58:6] |
So how did this text get to be this way? Luke loves the Septuagint and is full of septuagintisms. As Timothy Michael Law notes, there’s no evidence that Luke knew Hebrew. Most likely he is putting words in the mouth of Jesus, as was fairly common practice in ancient writing (e.g. Thucydides The Peloponnesian War 1.22). But I think it’s very unlikely that it occurred as written.
Issues with Q 7:1-9 (Luke 7:1-10 // Matthew 7:28a, 8:5-13)
Q 7:1-9 “[And it came to pass when] he … ended these sayings, he entered Capernaum. There came to him a centurion exhorting him [and saying: My] boy [is doing badly. And he said to him: Am I] , by coming, to heal him? And in reply the centurion said: Master, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof; but say a word, and [let] my boy [be] healed. For I too am a person under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one: Go, and he goes, and to another: Come, and he comes, and to my slave: Do this, and he does it. But Jesus, on hearing, was amazed, and said to those who followed: I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” [1]
This centurion was not a Jew – Jews were exempted from service in the Legion on religious grounds. Life in the Roman Legion required auspicia, signa and auguria (ceremonials, sacrifices, oaths, and the imperial cult), which were generally incompatible with Jewish religion. Centurions lived where they were stationed with their legionnaires. So what is the likelihood of an active centurion (“I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me”) with legionnaires living in Capernaum in Israel in the early first century?
Jonathan Reed thinks not likely:
“In fact, it is historically implausible to suggest that a Roman Centurion and upwards of 100 Roman Legionnaires were stationed at Capernaum [cites Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 137; Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 119-20.] Roman troops only periodically passed through Galilee, such as to quell the revolt at Sepphoris upon Herod’s death, but no troopers were stationed in Herod’s kingdom or his son Antipas’s tetrarchy. This is clear when, after King Aretas IV’s Arab troops defeated Antipas’s army in Perea because he divorced the king’s daughter, hostilities ceased as soon as Vitellius, the Roman governor or Syria, retrieved his Legions form a Parthian campaign and began to march on Aretas, who immediately fled in fear of a direct conflict with Rome. Furthermore, Josephus expressly says that the Roman Legion at Antipas’s request circumvented travel through the Jewish territories because the Legion’s standards offended their sensibilities (Ant 18.121-22). In the first century, the Legio X Fretensis was stationed in nearby Syria and protected the Decapolis, but it was not until the second century C.E. that Legions were permanently stationed near Galilee at Legio. … Antipas was on good terms with his neighbor and brother Philip, the Decapolis region was protected by the Legions stationed in Syria, and any hostilities with Aretas were limited to Perea, so that there was little need to have Galilee fortified and defended with gentile mercenaries, of whom the archaeology of the border site Capernaum shows no trace.” [2]
And Mark Chancey agrees:
“No Roman troops are reported to have accompanied the introduction of direct Roman rule, and it is extremely unlikely any were left over from the period of Herodian rule. Stationing units in the territory of a friendly client king such as Antipas would have been very unusual, and we have no solid evidence to suggest Roman policy in Galilee differed from the norm.” [3]
Just a reminder that Q is not composed of infallible eyewitness testimony.
—
[1] Robinson, J., Hoffmann, P. & Kloppenborg, J. The critical edition of Q. Fortress Press: 2000.
[2] Reed, J. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, T&T Clark: 2002, p. 162.
[3] Chancey, M. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge University Press: 2002
achase79 said
Issues with Q 7:1-9 (Luke 7:1-10 // Matthew 7:28a, 8:5-13)Q 7:1-9 “[And it came to pass when] he … ended these sayings, he entered Capernaum. There came to him a centurion exhorting him [and saying: My] boy [is doing badly. And he said to him: Am I] , by coming, to heal him? And in reply the centurion said: Master, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof; but say a word, and [let] my boy [be] healed. For I too am a person under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one: Go, and he goes, and to another: Come, and he comes, and to my slave: Do this, and he does it. But Jesus, on hearing, was amazed, and said to those who followed: I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” [1]
This centurion was not a Jew – Jews were exempted from service in the Legion on religious grounds. Life in the Roman Legion required auspicia, signa and auguria (ceremonials, sacrifices, oaths, and the imperial cult), which were generally incompatible with Jewish religion. Centurions lived where they were stationed with their legionnaires. So what is the likelihood of an active centurion (“I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me”) with legionnaires living in Capernaum in Israel in the early first century?
Jonathan Reed thinks not likely:
“In fact, it is historically implausible to suggest that a Roman Centurion and upwards of 100 Roman Legionnaires were stationed at Capernaum [cites Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 137; Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 119-20.] Roman troops only periodically passed through Galilee, such as to quell the revolt at Sepphoris upon Herod’s death, but no troopers were stationed in Herod’s kingdom or his son Antipas’s tetrarchy. This is clear when, after King Aretas IV’s Arab troops defeated Antipas’s army in Perea because he divorced the king’s daughter, hostilities ceased as soon as Vitellius, the Roman governor or Syria, retrieved his Legions form a Parthian campaign and began to march on Aretas, who immediately fled in fear of a direct conflict with Rome. Furthermore, Josephus expressly says that the Roman Legion at Antipas’s request circumvented travel through the Jewish territories because the Legion’s standards offended their sensibilities (Ant 18.121-22). In the first century, the Legio X Fretensis was stationed in nearby Syria and protected the Decapolis, but it was not until the second century C.E. that Legions were permanently stationed near Galilee at Legio. … Antipas was on good terms with his neighbor and brother Philip, the Decapolis region was protected by the Legions stationed in Syria, and any hostilities with Aretas were limited to Perea, so that there was little need to have Galilee fortified and defended with gentile mercenaries, of whom the archaeology of the border site Capernaum shows no trace.” [2]
And Mark Chancey agrees:
“No Roman troops are reported to have accompanied the introduction of direct Roman rule, and it is extremely unlikely any were left over from the period of Herodian rule. Stationing units in the territory of a friendly client king such as Antipas would have been very unusual, and we have no solid evidence to suggest Roman policy in Galilee differed from the norm.” [3]
Just a reminder that Q is not composed of infallible eyewitness testimony.
—
[1] Robinson, J., Hoffmann, P. & Kloppenborg, J. The critical edition of Q. Fortress Press: 2000.
[2] Reed, J. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, T&T Clark: 2002, p. 162.
[3] Chancey, M. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge University Press: 2002
In the Composite Jesus approach to the Historical Jesus, some of the Jesuses lived during the time when Nero appointed Vespasian as governor of Judea. Place the Roman centurion at the time and maybe some of your issues go away.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)