I’m curious what others think about this. If many of the stories about Jesus were not based on true events, why did the author(s) include seemingly insignificant details like specific names of individuals, etc…? I’ve heard pastors use this as evidence for the truth of the Gospels. Why would they have added these tiny details that could have been verified by people way back when it was first written?
andybruner said
I’m curious what others think about this. If many of the stories about Jesus were not based on true events, why did the author(s) include seemingly insignificant details like specific names of individuals, etc…? I’ve heard pastors use this as evidence for the truth of the Gospels. Why would they have added these tiny details that could have been verified by people way back when it was first written?
There are lots of legends including details. The inclusion of details is no guaranty for historicity.
You should try to read the resurrection stories at the end of Luke and Matthew , both having quite a few details, but being completely at odds with each other.
The stories included are believed to be the written versions of oral histories. Contrary to simplistic belief, oral histories are very powerful and very efficient. You cannot re-tell a story you cannot remember. You cannot remember a story that has no meaning to you. Instead of stories being garbled as they passed from one person to another, oral histories are refined and defined to include the most important elements and most interesting details. They are vetted through thousands of tellings before live audiences. Stories that are unimportant are omitted. If an error occurs, it is quickly corrected. The information included in the gospels are the most important elements. There’s also another factor that people today forget and it’s a big one. When the gospels were first penned, it took an enormous amount of resources (time, skill, effort) to copy them. They didn’t include anything that did not have to be included. This extreme economic barrier to producing written text continued even past the invention of the Gutenberg press in the 1400’s.
When the Gospel writers never met Jesus, but their stories are so polished, it is as if they had a tape recorder going or a short-hand transcriber. Needless to say, the conversations are inauthentic. The word “impropriety” is constantly nagging at me while reading. How can there be so much dialogue and description of what he did and and where he went, and with whom. Not believable. The early church fathers are responsible for making a lot of this story up.
The early church fathers are responsible for making a lot of this story up.
Which parts are faked?
The New Testament was written about 2000 years ago. It contains the stories of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, arguably the most important philosopher in the history of world and God to a few billion Christians. It’s estimated there are 5 billion copies of the New Testament in print today, on a planet with 7 billion people. Which words do you want to change?
The book of Joshua contains tons of details. We know that it is basically just propaganda with very little history.
Lord of the Rings has more details than the entirety of the New Testament. It is not historical.
Detailed stories are not necessarily true.
Oral stories are passed onto individuals, and are notoriously bad for maintaining accuracy. We’ve done long term studies of the conveyance and altering of oral traditions, and they are altered consistently with every single retelling.
I’d add that the Gospels are amalgams of contradictory and different oral stories that are consistently altered.
Matt2239, I know many people are very enamored with Jesus. Does the name of who this person was, really matter? I think the story is loosely based on some of John the Baptist’s experiences. In discarding the exaggerations, the not so little white lies, the story will be even better than it is now. If I really wanted to, I could spend hours defending myself, answering your question: “Which words do you want to change?” and look for instances where [I think] the information was incorrect. But that is a waste of time.
Here’s only one example: The story of the blind man. Jesus spits into mud and smears it into the eyes of a blind man, and because people read with “church eyes” they accept that as how Jesus healed blindness. Of course, he could do that because he was the son of God, even God, right? I question that method, as being damaging and unsanitary. It is creative, poetic license, I’ll say that. But I don’t think that is what happened.
There are hints in the Gospel of Thomas about his method of healing. I believe the Gospel of Thomas is a healing and divination text. Have you read it? Billions of people have prayed to God for healing since the first century. I don’t see the shining track record to prove that God heals, or even that praying to Jesus, Mary, or the Saints heals. I do think that something happened in the first century. Right now I’m claiming that a method had to be used that is now lost. I look forward to more truth coming out. It will be even better than the made up parts. Not saying everything is wrong, but some things are definitely wrong. I’m happy that many years of research by people who have made it their life’s work will eventually pay off.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that dirt mixed with the spit of God could heal blindness. Who would dispute that? If Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed, then why wouldn’t it? Of course, that method is no longer available to people.
As for the billions who have prayed for healing, there are millions upon millions who have thanked God for healing them. Hence, there is strong anecdotal evidence through the centuries that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Isaac heals people. We have almost no evidence to suggest that these people were mistaken or lying.
We have different ideas. You think that the mud and spit was the method. What if you rubbed mud and spit in your eyes, what do you think would happen? It is not plausible for me. I think that the early church fathers didn’t know his method and so made up dirt and spit when they wrote the story about healing the blind man. IMO. I’m not trying to change you. We are only having a discussion. You already know that you accept what is in your heart to accept. I won’t argue it with you.
Paul directs believers on how to pray according to instructions he says he received from Jesus. The faithful do not receive healings when following those instructions of believing and praying. I don’t go to church because of that. It’s too depressing.
Matt2239 said
It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that dirt mixed with the spit of God could heal blindness. Who would dispute that? If Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed, then why wouldn’t it? Of course, that method is no longer available to people.As for the billions who have prayed for healing, there are millions upon millions who have thanked God for healing them. Hence, there is strong anecdotal evidence through the centuries that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Isaac heals people. We have almost no evidence to suggest that these people were mistaken or lying.
We also have millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and more who claim the exact same things.
Seems more likely that people attribute natural healing to supernatural entities, without any evidence. Anecdotal evidence, is not evidence. There are millions who claim to have been abducted by aliens, several who have gone under lie detectors and been found truthful. Does that means they were abducted by aliens? No. It means that they have a sincere belief, and personal biases.
At one time millions believed the world was flat, and claimed to have revelation from god regarding this cosmology (see ancient Israelite and Judaic cosmology).
Your stance hinges on Argument ad Populum fallacy. The number of people believing something, doesn’t make it true. Throughout history there have been numerous healers, numerous magic men, and numerous deified humans. Jesus wasn’t special, Jesus wasn’t original, and he wasn’t the last of them.
There is no reason to think Jesus was any more of a god or healer than any other person.
And the number of detailed stories doesn’t make this point at all valid. I could give you a detailed account of Frodo’s journey to throw the ring into Mount Doom. Doesn’t mean that Frodo’s adventures actually happened.
Bartleby said
We have different ideas. You think that the mud and spit was the method. What if you rubbed mud and spit in your eyes, what do you think would happen?
It would probably sting, but I am not the Son of God. Since it made a blind man see, doesn’t that indicate that Jesus was in fact the Son of God?
Damn near everyone seems to have a concept of their god that more closely resembles Santa Claus. They believe because they want something and when they don’t get it, they stop believing.
Chris_Hansen said
We also have millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and more who claim the exact same things.
Seems more likely that people attribute natural healing to supernatural entities, without any evidence. Anecdotal evidence, is not evidence. There are millions who claim to have been abducted by aliens, several who have gone under lie detectors and been found truthful. Does that means they were abducted by aliens? No. It means that they have a sincere belief, and personal biases.
At one time millions believed the world was flat, and claimed to have revelation from god regarding this cosmology (see ancient Israelite and Judaic cosmology).
Your stance hinges on Argument ad Populum fallacy. The number of people believing something, doesn’t make it true. Throughout history there have been numerous healers, numerous magic men, and numerous deified humans. Jesus wasn’t special, Jesus wasn’t original, and he wasn’t the last of them.
There is no reason to think Jesus was any more of a god or healer than any other person.
And the number of detailed stories doesn’t make this point at all valid. I could give you a detailed account of Frodo’s journey to throw the ring into Mount Doom. Doesn’t mean that Frodo’s adventures actually happened.
Mostly agree! You say “Jesus wasn’t original”, and that is clearly debatable, I think. Was he only the grain of sand that became a pearl in later traditions with all sorts of nice ideas attributed to him, or was he already a half-grown pearl ?
gavriel said
Mostly agree! You say “Jesus wasn’t original”, and that is clearly debatable, I think. Was he only the grain of sand that became a pearl in later traditions with all sorts of nice ideas attributed to him, or was he already a half-grown pearl ?
I mean original in the “miracle working apocalypticist” sense. His crucifixion and resurrection stories are more or less original, no other Jewish messiah and apocalyptic thinker had this. But his message and doings? Not really. Not particularly original at all. Miracle workers and apocalypticists were a dime a dozen.
gavriel said
Mostly agree! You say “Jesus wasn’t original”, and that is clearly debatable, I think. Was he only the grain of sand that became a pearl in later traditions with all sorts of nice ideas attributed to him, or was he already a half-grown pearl ?
The process that transforms a grain of sand into a pearl is understood, while the way that Jesus’ teaching and the story of his life have persisted through time and dominated world history is a mystery. Some might call it miraculous. Others might say that it is self-proving divinity. The debate will likely continue. What no one can dispute is that 2000 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and death, the book about him is still in print, and numbers about 5 billion on a planet with 7 billion people total.
Matt2239 said
The process that transforms a grain of sand into a pearl is understood, while the way that Jesus’ teaching and the story of his life have persisted through time and dominated world history is a mystery. Some might call it miraculous. Others might say that it is self-proving divinity. The debate will likely continue. What no one can dispute is that 2000 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and death, the book about him is still in print, and numbers about 5 billion on a planet with 7 billion people total.
One can say something similar about Islam, using the same way of reasoning. I also think that historians and sociologists can propose scientific explanations for the emergence and growth of religions in general.
Matt2239 said
The process that transforms a grain of sand into a pearl is understood, while the way that Jesus’ teaching and the story of his life have persisted through time and dominated world history is a mystery. Some might call it miraculous. Others might say that it is self-proving divinity. The debate will likely continue. What no one can dispute is that 2000 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and death, the book about him is still in print, and numbers about 5 billion on a planet with 7 billion people total.
Actually they aren’t a mystery at all. Bart wrote a whole book on why they persisted and continued the way they did. It isn’t miraculous, isn’t very divine, not one bit.
And what no one can debate is that while there may be 5 billion Bibles, there are only 2.5 billion Christians, out of a 7.5 billion world population. Meaning that most of the world isn’t Christian.
Matt2239 said
The process that transforms a grain of sand into a pearl is understood, while the way that Jesus’ teaching and the story of his life have persisted through time and dominated world history is a mystery. Some might call it miraculous. Others might say that it is self-proving divinity. The debate will likely continue. What no one can dispute is that 2000 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and death, the book about him is still in print, and numbers about 5 billion on a planet with 7 billion people total.
That says something for the people of this planet. (mostly weaklings here) The majority can’t save themselves no matter what. Does the historical record prove that out? It seems to, because there have always been dominator people who have control of others. Like, for instance, there could be 20 dominator people in a town of 38,000, and the dominator people will win slam dunk, even though the majority doesn’t want them. What’s their secret? I’d like to know. The problem has never been fixed. Therefore, a savior figure must come to add supernatural weight. If there is such a thing. No, really, what can account for the bad guys winning up until this very day? Is this hell? and we can’t get out? and there is no escape? Unless a supernatural god intervenes? I guess so! But sounds like a comic book script to me! Next chapter please. Next!
Chris_Hansen said
Actually they aren’t a mystery at all. Bart wrote a whole book on why they persisted and continued the way they did. It isn’t miraculous, isn’t very divine, not one bit.
And what no one can debate is that while there may be 5 billion Bibles, there are only 2.5 billion Christians, out of a 7.5 billion world population. Meaning that most of the world isn’t Christian.
Bart wrote a whole damn book about why he believes they persisted. Ultimately, these things are a matter of belief.
It’s true most of the world isn’t Christian, but it’s not for a lack of Bibles.
Bartleby said
That says something for the people of this planet. (mostly weaklings here) The majority can’t save themselves no matter what. Does the historical record prove that out? It seems to, because there have always been dominator people who have control of others. Like, for instance, there could be 20 dominator people in a town of 38,000, and the dominator people will win slam dunk, even though the majority doesn’t want them. What’s their secret? I’d like to know. The problem has never been fixed. Therefore, a savior figure must come to add supernatural weight. If there is such a thing. No, really, what can account for the bad guys winning up until this very day? Is this hell? and we can’t get out? and there is no escape? Unless a supernatural god intervenes? I guess so! But sounds like a comic book script to me! Next chapter please. Next!
That’s an interesting viewpoint. It seems your concept of a good religion is one that allows you to escape reality.
Matt2239 said
Bart wrote a whole damn book about why he believes they persisted. Ultimately, these things are a matter of belief.
It’s true most of the world isn’t Christian, but it’s not for a lack of Bibles.
No, simply because Christianity is currently being surpassed in growth rates by Islam. Seems like that religion isn’t divine or miraculous. It survived because conditions worked for it. End of story. There is no reason to assume anything miraculous, and the number of Bibles printed has no bearing on this topic.
The Gospels aren’t accurate. They are flawed, and the vast number of details in them doesn’t lend them any credence. Herodotus was also highly detailed, but I don’t think that Zeus or Hercules played a part of history. Nor do I believe Plutarch’s numerous ideas about Alexander the Great, or that Romulus even existed.
Details don’t make something accurate. Accuracy makes something accurate.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)