The Fallacy that Jesus said what is written in the gospels

[SeekingAllTruth]

It was supposed to be the start of a conversation but the Christian never responded.

I wonder why.

Here's the gist of what I said:

The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels. Here's a statistic:

The Synoptic Gospels , once you exclude the duplications of Jesus' speeches in the four gospels, the total number of words spoken by Jesus is 31,426.

How on earth did those scholars, writing 40-100 years after Jesus died, know the 31,426 precise words Jesus was speaking in the gospels?

Even making the astounding assumption John was the writer of the gospel that bears his name (he wasn't the writer according to historians--all the gospels are anonymous) trying to believe John could remember just the 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus in chapters 14-17 after 60 years when John would have been close to 100 years old is impossible to believe when you look at it from a logical point of view. Could any of us remember word-perfect a debate we watched a month ago and then write it down? And what makes it even more unbelievable you are reading Jesus' words is the fact the writers were not even there when Jesus spoke. It's completely unrealistic to believe the words you are reading are Jesus' when the writers weren't even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said in his last 3 years.

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no gospel according to Jesus so every word claimed to be his is third person. As you say written long after his time. So what you say here makes sense to me.

I would add the possibilities that wording of those Greek author's was edited during the compilation of the bible to make the context fit the religion they were developing.

It is my belief that the Jesus of the bible is actually an amalgamation of different characters of the period and that the real jesus was far from being the man described.

 

[exchemist]

It was supposed to be the start of a conversation but the Christian never responded.

I wonder why.

Here's the gist of what I said:

The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels. Here's a statistic:

The Synoptic Gospels , once you exclude the duplications of Jesus' speeches in the four gospels, the total number of words spoken by Jesus is 31,426.

How on earth did those scholars, writing 40-100 years after Jesus died, know the 31,426 precise words Jesus was speaking in the gospels?

Even making the astounding assumption John was the writer of the gospel that bears his name (he wasn't the writer according to historians--all the gospels are anonymous) trying to believe John could remember just the 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus in chapters 14-17 after 60 years when John would have been close to 100 years old is impossible to believe when you look at it from a logical point of view. Could any of us remember word-perfect a debate we watched a month ago and then write it down? And what makes it even more unbelievable you are reading Jesus' words is the fact the writers were not even there when Jesus spoke. It's completely unrealistic to believe the words you are reading are Jesus' when the writers weren't even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said in his last 3 years.

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

You pose something of a false antithesis, I think. There is something in between taking notes at the time so as to reproduce what was said verbatim, and "fabrication". Any historian recognises this.

Biblical scholars have been quite aware, for centuries, that the gospels were written long after the events they describe. The synoptic gospels seem to be generally treated as accounts drawn from the memory of some of those present. St John's gospel seems to be a different kettle of fish, including as it does more symbolism and the glimmerings of a conscious and cerebral theology.

As for the words of Jesus, it is commonplace to be able to recall, decades later, memorable things that were said in one's presence. Sometimes one recalls the exact words - or thinks one does - and sometimes it is just the gist of what was said. Writing this down is not "fabrication".

Of course it could be that all four gospels were just made up: one first and then the others drawing on the first, but adding variations, to give a degree of consistency between them all. I don't suppose we will ever know for sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You pose something of a false antithesis, I think. There is something in between taking notes at the time so as to reproduce what was said verbatim, and "fabrication". Any historian recognises this.

Biblical scholars have been quite aware, for centuries, that the gospels were written long after the events they describe. The synoptic gospels seem to be generally treated as accounts drawn from the memory of some of those present. St John's gospel seems to be a different kettle of fish, including as it does more symbolism and the glimmerings of a conscious and cerebral theology.

As for the words of Jesus, it is commonplace to be able to recall, decades later, memorable things that were said in one's presence. Sometimes one recalls the exact words - or thinks one does - and sometimes it is just the gist of what was said. Writing this down is not "fabrication".

Of course it could be that all four gospels were just made up: one first and then the others drawing on the first, but adding variations, to give a degree of consistency between them all. I don't suppose we will ever know for sure.

I think that the OP was referring to the Christians that believe that the Gospels literally record what Jesus said. The fundamentalists appear to do that quite often.

 

[Fool]

It was supposed to be the start of a conversation but the Christian never responded.

I wonder why.

Here's the gist of what I said:

The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels. Here's a statistic:

The Synoptic Gospels , once you exclude the duplications of Jesus' speeches in the four gospels, the total number of words spoken by Jesus is 31,426.

How on earth did those scholars, writing 40-100 years after Jesus died, know the 31,426 precise words Jesus was speaking in the gospels?

Even making the astounding assumption John was the writer of the gospel that bears his name (he wasn't the writer according to historians--all the gospels are anonymous) trying to believe John could remember just the 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus in chapters 14-17 after 60 years when John would have been close to 100 years old is impossible to believe when you look at it from a logical point of view. Could any of us remember word-perfect a debate we watched a month ago and then write it down? And what makes it even more unbelievable you are reading Jesus' words is the fact the writers were not even there when Jesus spoke. It's completely unrealistic to believe the words you are reading are Jesus' when the writers weren't even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said in his last 3 years.

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

most great teachers didn't write anything down. case in point pythagoras, buddha, socrates, et al.


to much is left to bias outside the immediate circle of disciples. the individual's mind will sometimes over write what is being relayed with assumption. thus the teacher can immediately correct.


don't believe me? 40,000+ denominations of christianity and counting.

 

[pearl]

The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels. Here's a statistic:

That's correct if you consider eye witness sources. But there did exist an oral tradition, the preaching of the Apostles and the hypothetical "Q". There already existed the community of Jesus' followers who formed church and liturgy through which the 'memoirs' of the Apostles were preached and handed on.

Even making the astounding assumption John was the writer of the gospel that bears his name (he wasn't the writer according to historians--all the gospels are anonymous) trying to believe John could remember just the 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus in chapters 14-17 after 60 years when John would have been close to 100 years old is impossible to believe when you look at it from a logical point of view.

Looked at from the scholarly view the final composition of the gospel the product of a Johannine school. It remains possible the gospel includes 'eye' witness testimony. The question is, who is the John referred to, John the apostle, presbyter John etc., in any event the author of John states his purpose, not to record an accurate historical record, nor a biographical record, but 'that you may have faith'.
Only a literalist reading would insist that the precise words of Jesus are repeated in the same situation as originally spoken by Jesus. Its important to consider that not all Christians follow the simplistic reading of the Gospels that you present.

 

[Windwalker]

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

That is not the only conclusion to make, either verbatim or fabrication. What the gospels are really is like a recording studio recording a performance of singers of songs at live performances. This is the nature of oral traditions and scribal traditions.

Oral traditions are dynamic and fluid performances, not verbatim recitations. They are creative performances, tailored to the moment in time, to the audience, to the mood, etc. They are about the gist of the song, improvising around central themes and teachings, like following the rules of a raga in Indian classical music.

Each performer plays it a little differently, and the same performer plays it differently from performance to performance, but they follow certain key phrases that have to be included for it to be considered that particular raga. It can't just go off somewhere entirely different without touching on those touchstone phrases or scales.

The scribal tradition is like a recording engineer who skillfully captures the performance. It's capturing various performances in order to attempt to represent as best as can the power of that particular song. But by no means should that be understood as the definitive, settles all disputes and throw out all the other performances as unworthy recording. Yet, that is what the fundamentalist imagines.

Rather than understanding them as just one recording of a dynamic expression, they take it as the one and only true, definitive, and static performance of the song, and all other songs should be destroy and burned at the stake. Clearly, there is something wrong with them!

But it's not fair or accurate to say they are "fabrications". They were never intended to be static or verbatims rote performances. That's what a young student musician may do in order to learn how to play a song, but that's not singing a song. That's dry and static and lifeless. And that is the fundamentalist's gospel.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is unlikely that any of the reported sayings by anyone in the Bible are verbatim or very close to the actual words used at all.
The best we can hope for is a fairly representative gist.

While the gist of the teachings of Jesus , at least the ones that follow his general line of approach, have a good chance of being reasonably accurate. probably more were never said by him, but were attributed to him, as they confirm the principal of his teachings in general.

Unfortunately we have no records from the days of his teachings at all. We have nothing to distinguish them from myths.

what we have is all we have, but it has been enough for the foundation of a religion.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There is no gospel according to Jesus so every word claimed to be his is third person. As you say written long after his time. So what you say here makes sense to me.

I would add the possibilities that wording of those Greek author's was edited during the compilation of the bible to make the context fit the religion they were developing.

It is my belief that the Jesus of the bible is actually an amalgamation of different characters of the period and that the real jesus was far from being the man described.

Everything you say is spot on, Christine, but especially The bold above. Scriptures are written and revised and redacted based not on the truth or the veracity of the original person's words, but on the devious intents of the person re-writing the scriptures and the religious agenda they are trying to put in place that will benefit them and their institution i.e. the RCC for example.

 

[ChristineM]

Everything you say is spot on, Christine, but especially The bold above. Scriptures are written and revised and redacted based not on the truth or the veracity of the original person's words, but on the devious intents of the person re-writing the scriptures and the religious agenda they are trying to put in place that will benefit them and their institution i.e. the RCC for example.

Consider also there is no complete original bible in existence, of the copies of copies there are several hundred versions each subtly (or not so subtly in some cases) different thanks the others. Which, if any is an accurate clone of that original compilation? And how accurate was that original bible to those original documents penned a couple of hundred years earlier?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You pose something of a false antithesis, I think. There is something in between taking notes at the time so as to reproduce what was said verbatim, and "fabrication". Any historian recognises this.

Biblical scholars have been quite aware, for centuries, that the gospels were written long after the events they describe. The synoptic gospels seem to be generally treated as accounts drawn from the memory of some of those present. St John's gospel seems to be a different kettle of fish, including as it does more symbolism and the glimmerings of a conscious and cerebral theology.

As for the words of Jesus, it is commonplace to be able to recall, decades later, memorable things that were said in one's presence. Sometimes one recalls the exact words - or thinks one does - and sometimes it is just the gist of what was said. Writing this down is not "fabrication".

Of course it could be that all four gospels were just made up: one first and then the others drawing on the first, but adding variations, to give a degree of consistency between them all. I don't suppose we will ever know for sure.

I think you're posing a red herring here. We have no evidence whatsoever anybody took notes while Jesus was talking to preserve what he said. The people including the apostles following Jesus were peasants who were illiterate. The only people who could write back then were the educated elite and they didn't follow Jesus or care what he said. The overwhelming evidence would suggest Jesus' words were for the most part made up. Even the Jesus Seminar composed of about 50 biblical scholars concluded Jesus never said 80% of the stuff attributed to him.

"Seminar Rules Out 80% of Words Attributed to Jesus"

Seminar Rules Out 80% of Words Attributed to Jesus : Religion: Provocative meeting of biblical scholars ends six years of voting on authenticity in the Gospels.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That's correct if you consider eye witness sources. But there did exist an oral tradition, the preaching of the Apostles and the hypothetical "Q". There already existed the community of Jesus' followers who formed church and liturgy through which the 'memoirs' of the Apostles were preached and handed on.



Looked at from the scholarly view the final composition of the gospel the product of a Johannine school. It remains possible the gospel includes 'eye' witness testimony. The question is, who is the John referred to, John the apostle, presbyter John etc., in any event the author of John states his purpose, not to record an accurate historical record, nor a biographical record, but 'that you may have faith'.
Only a literalist reading would insist that the precise words of Jesus are repeated in the same situation as originally spoken by Jesus. Its important to consider that not all Christians follow the simplistic reading of the Gospels that you present.

How many literalists do we have just on this board? All the Christians I come in contact with believe every word was spoken by Jesus exactly as written.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That is not the only conclusion to make, either verbatim or fabrication. What the gospels are really is like a recording studio recording a performance of singers of songs at live performances. This is the nature of oral traditions and scribal traditions.

Oral traditions are dynamic and fluid performances, not verbatim recitations. They are creative performances, tailored to the moment in time, to the audience, to the mood, etc. They are about the gist of the song, improvising around central themes and teachings, like following the rules of a raga in Indian classical music.

Each performer plays it a little differently, and the same performer plays it differently from performance to performance, but they follow certain key phrases that have to be included for it to be considered that particular raga. It can't just go off somewhere entirely different without touching on those touchstone phrases or scales.

The scribal tradition is like a recording engineer who skillfully captures the performance. It's capturing various performances in order to attempt to represent as best as can the power of that particular song. But by no means should that be understood as the definitive, settles all disputes and throw out all the other performances as unworthy recording. Yet, that is what the fundamentalist imagines.

Rather than understanding them as just one recording of a dynamic expression, they take it as the one and only true, definitive, and static performance of the song, and all other songs should be destroy and burned at the stake. Clearly, there is something wrong with them!

But it's not fair or accurate to say they are "fabrications". They were never intended to be static or verbatims rote performances. That's what a young student musician may do in order to learn how to play a song, but that's not singing a song. That's dry and static and lifeless. And that is the fundamentalist's gospel.

The best that can be said for oral tradition is that possibly the gist of what was said was remembered, like, "Love you neighbor as yourself". Nobody remembered orally the entire sermon on the mount. That's crazy.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

It is unlikely that any of the reported sayings by anyone in the Bible are verbatim or very close to the actual words used at all.
The best we can hope for is a fairly representative gist.

While the gist of the teachings of Jesus , at least the ones that follow his general line of approach, have a good chance of being reasonably accurate. probably more were never said by him, but were attributed to him, as they confirm the principal of his teachings in general.

Unfortunately we have no records from the days of his teachings at all. We have nothing to distinguish them from myths.

what we have is all we have, but it has been enough for the foundation of a religion.

Yes, realizing that the people writing the gospels were more intent on building that foundation using whatever doctrine was necessary to achieve their purposes, even to the point of inventing doctrine to suit the growth of the religion and then inserting that doctrine into the text. The Trinity is a perfect example. The RCC wanted the Trinity in their religion so they got it in via clever re-writings of scriptures.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Consider also there is no complete original bible in existence, of the copies of copies there are several hundred versions each subtly (or not so subtly in some cases) different thanks the others. Which, if any is an accurate clone of that original compilation? And how accurate was that original bible to those original documents penned a couple of hundred years earlier?

We don't have any of the first generation of copies. The vast majority of these 5,000 copies date from the Medieval period. None from the 2nd century.

 

[Windwalker]

The best that can be said for oral tradition is that possibly the gist of what was said was remembered, like, "Love you neighbor as yourself". Nobody remembered orally the entire sermon on the mount. That's crazy.

But that was the point of them. The modern idea of "verbatim" would be a foreign concept to them. I recently read the work of a modern scholar citing studies of one of the few remaining cultures of oral traditions, where one of the most renowned 'singers' was exposed to another storyteller's story he had never heard before, and upon one hearing of it said he could tell the exact same story himself now, attesting to his skill. Asked if he could tell it "word for word", or verbatim, he said with great confidence that he could. He could tell it exactly as the other storyteller told his.

The researcher had a recording of the first storyteller, and then the second storyteller repeating "word for word" what he had just heard from the first. The recording of the first had some figure like 15,000 words, and the 2nd teller's was around 8,000. Yet in his mind, that most revered of all the storyteller's mind, it was the exact same story, even though names were different, parts were added, sections excluded, and so forth.

The point being "verbatim" is a criteria of the modern mind, whereas "the same story" is what is "word for word" in the mind of the oral trationist. The idea of verbatim to the modern mind, is a foreign concept to the mind of a culture of oral tradition. "Verbatim" is part of a scribal tradition, copying "word for word" texts from one page to another with great care and precision.

Even if they add stuff that was never there in the first, words that were never said, if the meaning is communicated, then they did tell the story correctly. We modernists trying to impose modern ideas upon ancient cultures and judge them by that, are the ones who are "crazy". The fundamentalist, literalist mind, is the craziest of all in doing that.

 

[pearl]

Scriptures are written and revised and redacted based not on the truth or the veracity of the original person's words, but on the devious intents of the person re-writing the scriptures and the religious agenda they are trying to put in place that will benefit them and their institution i.e. the RCC for example.

To begin with there was no 're-writing' of Scripture sense at this time there only Hebrew Scripture and the authors used poetic license. As far as the RCC is concerned ;
The Apostles, bearing testimony to Jesus proclaimed first and foremost the death and resurrection of the Lord, faithfully recounting His life and words and, as regards the manner of their preaching, taking into account the circumstances of their hearers.
so now they (apostles) in their turn interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their hearers. "Devoting (themselves) to the ministry of the word," they made use, as they preached, of such various forms of speech as were adapted to their own purposes and to the mentality of their hearers; for it was "to Greek and barbarian, to learned and simple," that they had a duty to discharge. Keep in mind the writing of the Gospels was before the centralizing of the churches.
excerpts from 'The Historical Truth of the Gospels.'

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Ethiopian, Coptic, Orthodox and Catholic versions of the Bible have different selections of Books, but the similarities in the texts are greater than the differences. It is pretty clear that what ever the source documents might have been used. They were common to all the Christian churches. Both those in the Romon "catholic" fold and those outside it. Of course none of them include the Divinity of Jesus or the Trinity. both were to be established as we know them rather later. Other early churches like the Syrian and the Celtic have very distinct histories and practices.

The early church described and taught in the Didache seems to have vanished.

 

[pearl]

How many literalists do we have just on this board? All the Christians I come in contact with believe every word was spoken by Jesus exactly as written.

I have no idea, but would be willing to bet the majority are not Catholic since the Church does not interpret Scripture from a literalist mindset.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The Ethiopian, Coptic, Orthodox and Catholic versions of the Bible have different selections of Books, but the similarities in the texts are greater than the differences. It is pretty clear that what ever the source documents might have been used. They were common to all the Christian churches. Both those in the Romon "catholic" fold and those outside it. Of course none of them include the Divinity of Jesus or the Trinity. both were to be established as we know them rather later. Other early churches like the Syrian and the Celtic have very distinct histories and practices.

The early church described and taught in the Didache seems to have vanished.

Yes, there's probably nothing of whatever Jesus originally taught still in existence. I believe he was more a revolutionary against Rome than a holy man. As a holy man he is more an avatar/mascot/figurehead for Christianity. Only the things wrongly ascribed to him have any relevance to anyone today. I think Christian zealots rely more on what is being said than the whether or not they came from Jesus. I couldn't follow teachings I knew to be attributed to someone claiming to be the son of God but actually written by a total stranger.