Is the characterization that John was inaccurate due to discrepancies with the synoptic gospels?
In what way is John less accurate, if all four are historical fiction? The rhetorical trick of having Jesus say explicitly what John, it would seem, thought he was intending to convey and having the antagonists react to what he said rather than to what they were thinking he was implying is surely not more or less accurate than the synoptic Gospel approach, if they are all different varieties of historical fiction.
This is akin to saying that the historical fiction series based on the life of Catherine de Medici in which she and (on occasion) other characters address the camera directly are less “accurate” than The Tudors, where they do not break the fourth wall, because in Medieval times, there were no video cameras to address directly.
I’ve deconstructed Early Christianity as far as I can.
If you desire to deconstruct it further, consult other authors of books.
Besides, I’ve shown Jesus was a False Prophet. The Son of Man did NOT save Temple Judaism nor did it save the Temple during the Jewish Revolt Against Rome and during the Jewish Civil War that began after Legio XII Fulminata was ambushed.
There was supposed to be Tribulation then Judgment then Kingdom of Jewish God/Righteousness/Heaven.
That prophecy did not happen; hence, False Prophet, False Gospels, False Holy Scripture.
And the Book of Revelation just makes the situation worse.
= = = =
Question:
In what way is John less accurate, if all four are historical fiction?
Answer:
Historical Fiction can be 51% History and 49% Fiction.
Historical Fiction can be 30% History and 70% Fiction.
That is how a work of historical fiction can be less accurate.
That is how a work of historical fiction can be less accurate.
I can see that. However, your claim was that the Gospel of John was historically inaccurate not that it was less accurate.
Aren’t all the Gospels historically inaccurate? Thus, Robert’s question:
But the central idea that a Jesus of Nazareth was active in the late 20s, early 30s and was crucified by Pontius Pilate is fictional according to you. Thus a lot of the synoptic gospels, at least the basic story line, is fictional according to you. Right?
Your position now, if I understand correctly, is that the Gospel of John is less historically accurate than say the Synoptic Gospels. In order to evaluate this claim, it would be helpful if you told us what actual history you think can be found in the Gospels.
That is outside of the scope of my project.
I do not allow scope-creep.
= = =
I believed in Jesus Christ: Tribulation > Judgement > Kingdom of God/Righteousness/Heaven Prepare for the Son of Man, the Judge.
That was false prophecy. Let alone finding history was historical FICTION.
Why accept scope-creep of beating a DEAD horse, BJH?
That is outside of the scope of my project.
I’m afraid I don’t understand this.
What project are you talking about?
Isn’t the Readers Forum supposed to be an exchange of ideas among members?
I do not allow scope-creep.
First off, thank you for introducing me to new vocabulary.
Of course, not knowing what your project is presents difficulties in knowing how to respond. Is it not related to the topic of the thread – the Gospel of John, an inaccurate gospel?
How are we to judge your claim that it is less accurate if you’re not willing to tell us what you think is historical in the Gospels?
The 17-year+ project of examining my religious beliefs about the Bible partially culminating in the writing of the book, Historical Accuracy.
I completed my scope of examining my religious beliefs.
I completed my scope of writing the book Historical Accuracy.
BJH:
How are we to judge your claim that it is less accurate if you’re not willing to tell us what you think is historical in the Gospels?
Steefen:
What is inaccurate about the Gospels?
Answer: the imminent messianic Kingdom of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus.
What is less accurate?
Answer: the imminent messianic Kingdom of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus AND the resurrection of Lazarus in the Gospel of John.
Steefen, I have lots of questions.
When I asked you what you thought was historical in the Gospels you replied:
That is outside the scope of my project.
Doesn’t your book deal with the New Testament and whether the Gospels contain history?
What does your project have to do with the Readers Forum? Do you view it as a place to test out your ideas with other members?
Steefen:
What is inaccurate about the Gospels?Answer: the imminent messianic Kingdom of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus.
What is less accurate?
Answer: the imminent messianic Kingdom of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus AND the resurrection of Lazarus.
From the answers to the questions you asked yourself, you mention what you think is inaccurate about the Gospels and what you think is less accurate. I’m afraid I don’t follow this. Can you help me to understand what you mean?
Obviously, from what you’ve written you don’t accept what MacDonald says in Post 11. What do you think is historical in the Gospels?
In an earlier post (24), you talk about historical fiction being a mix of history and fiction. What would be your rough estimate of the percent of history that can be found in the Synoptic Gospels? The Gospel of John?
My book covers more than the gospels.
The project of my book, Historical Accuracy, prompted me to go to a lecture by Ehrman at SMU. That’s how I found about the ehrman blog which later added a forum.
Before the SMU lecture I had two books by Ehrman. My book did NOT start with Ehrman. It started with my faith. Then the quote, the unexamined life is not worth living. I did not mind taking a deep dive into my religion. I accumulated knowledge and was glad to have interactions with others learning about the Bible’s content.
BJH
From the answers to the questions you asked yourself, you mention what you think is inaccurate about the Gospels and what you think is less accurate. I’m afraid I don’t follow this. Can you help me to understand what you mean?
Steefen
That was about answering YOUR question:
Your position now, if I understand correctly, is that the Gospel of John is less historically accurate than say the Synoptic Gospels. In order to evaluate this claim, it would be helpful if you told us what actual history you think can be found in the Gospels.
I explained how Gos of John was less historically accurate by its addition of the Lazarus account.
The historian Josephus said there was a Woe-saying Jesus. I see that as possibly historically accurate.
The historian Josephus said there was a Jesus who led his followers onto the Sea of Galilee to fight the Romans and they lost. I see the Galileans losing a battle against Rome during the Jewish Revolt as historically accurate.
I see Judea being under Roman Rule in the 20s and 30s CE as historical.
I see the existence of Herod the Great as historical.
No, that is not fair. “The only real thing I views as historical in the gospels is the setting” is not my position. I am not going outside my scope no matter how you try to twist and turn” You want to know what in the gospels can be categorized as historical. I know the subject matter and it is not that simple.
For example, in the first century, was there a John and a Simon?
Yes, but these two historical figures appear in the Jewish Revolt, In the historical fiction of the gospels these two men meet their ends, as “prophesied” by Jesus, thematically, the same way as John and Simon of the Jewish revolt meet their ends
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)