Loading...I’m discussing how in both the ancient and modern worlds people have constructed “false memories” of who Jesus really was. In this post I give a brief explanation of how scholars became increasingly aware of the problem and, for a time, thought they had found a solution: Mark’s Gospel is the unembellished version and so we need to stick mainly with that! How’d they come up with *that* one? And is it true?
This is taken from my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).
******************************
Throughout the history of scholarship, especially since the nineteenth century, scholars have realized that Christians in the early years after Jesus’ death were not only altering traditions about Jesus’ life and teaching that they inherited, they were also inventing them. We do not need to wait for non-canonical Gospels such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Nicodemus for “distorted” memories of Jesus to surface among authors and their readers. (Recall: by “distorted memory” I simply mean any recollection of the past that is not accurate with respect to what really happened.)
The evidence that distorted memories were beginning to emerge soon after Jesus’ life – or even during his life – can be found in the written accounts that began to appear forty years or so later, that is, in our canonical Gospels. Often these accounts cannot be reconciled with one another. But any time you have two or more irreconcilable accounts, they cannot all be historically accurate. Someone, then, is changing or inventing the stories.[1]
But who was doing so? A major breakthrough in our understanding of the Gospels occurred about a century ago. Some scholars in Germany came to realize that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Great question Prof Ehrman,
While it makes sense to me that Mark is the earliest, we can’t automatically assume that it’s the most historically accurate in every respect.
Is there any evidence that the fourth one written incorporates independent information that is actually more true to what happened?
I’ve read it appears to “correct” some geographical details (and maybe aspects of Jewish life) that Mark got wrong (not necessarily because the writer had read Mark)
I find John fascinating, especially where it differs on some key things, like the temple cleansing incident. I’m wondering if the actual guy it’s attributed, John bar Zebedee left an oral account that was loosely recalled, and eventually made it into the fourth gospel (agreed that it doesn’t make much sense to have been written in eloquent Greek by someone who in all likelihood was an illiterate Aramaic speaking fisherman). It does seem like he would have had a loud voice/forceful personality, if his nickname is any clue, and more likely to have been one of the disciples whose words left a lasting impression in the early church.
Yes, it’s absolutely possible that John has independent and reliable information, and a number of scholars think it’s true. Each data needs, of course, to be evaluated on its own merits. But I’d say there’s nothing in the text itself to suggest it goes back to John the son of Zebedee.
” was Luke recalling this event because that’s how he remembered it based on stories he had heard? Or is he making it up? ”
even if Luke was a follower of Jesus- was he a disciple or follower that walked & lived as Jesus & entourage did.
That’s why I have such problems with St Paul. he has his credentials but he was the smartest & most competent of the post Ascension Jesus followers