The Gospels: Fact or Fiction?

[dduringer]

I saw The Last Days of Jesus program also. Was interesting, but for their theory to be true would mean the gospel writers would each have to erroneously record the events of Holy Week. Whether it was a week or six months between the triumphal entry to Jerusalem and Easter is something of importance, and would have been remembered decades later when the Gospels were written. An error like that seems so unlikely. And others living at the time would know too. Maybe they’re postulating a collusion among the evangelists to present the history differently. The program alluded somewhat to this.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I will reread that part of each Gospel tonight.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It was not a careful read but I did not see any time length indication between triumphant entry and Passover.

 

[dduringer]

Michael, I read through much of the Passion Week material and did find examples of time markers, such as the next day, or in two days, and on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as well as others. They may not have exactly defined a week, but there is a sense of a flow of time. And how could these events happen if Jesus was in jail for six months prior to his crucifixion? The effect of this PBS program might be to present the Gospel Evangelists as fact manipulators, colluding to present an altered history, and thus incite doubt in them and the church. I’m fine with honest biblical studies, but we already know there’s fraud in academics. Maybe in this case. God have mercy on us all.

 

[Contarini]

I’m am watching that new show “Finding Jesus” and I have watched two episodes. Much like other shows about Christianity and Catholicism I watch them and put little stock in the anti-Catholic claims they make.

So in this particular show, about Pilate, which was very well done, I am happy with most everything until they start talking about how the Gospels account of the trial of Jesus are a fictional court account made up by the apostles and the Church because they didn’t want to make the Romans who were converting to Christianity feel bad about Pilate crucifying Jesus, the apostles wanted all the blame to go onto the Jews.

Okay a bunch of non-sense, but what really got me is there is a priest, Father James Martin, a Jesuit, who agrees! He goes along with the others and basically states that it was all because the apostles didn’t want to upset the Roman converts.

Do I believe this, ABSOLUTELY NOT! However, I am struck by the fact that so many people, both Protestant and Catholic, are willing to claim that this part of the Gospels is “made up.”

I really can’t even express my frustration and disbelief right now, because then they go on to say that Pilate’s obvious reluctance to crucify Jesus was not only nothing and fictional, but that Pilate mocked Jesus with the sign “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” which according to what I have always believed and been taught, it was not Pilate mocking Jesus, it was Pilate making an underhanded cut to the Sanhedrin for forcing him to crucify this man he thought to be innocent.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating for the innocence of Pilate, but the above statements really do need an answer. If we can so easily say that one part of the Gospels is falsified, then what else can we say is a fake? What’s next?

So to get to the point, here is the question, did the apostles make up this part of the Gospels, and did the Holy Spirit allow it to be included into the Holy Bible even though it was not accurate?

First of all, did Fr. Martin really say that the story was fictional as a whole, or simply that it had been told in such a way as to emphasize the role of the Jewish leaders?

In other words, your question poses a false dichotomy. I don’t think there are good historical reasons to think that the Gospels are fictional as a whole, and Church teaching certainly excludes such a possibility even if it were historically plausible. However, there are excellent reasons to think that the Gospels may contain unhistorical, legendary elements.

The question “What’s next?” is one that non-historians often ask. To someone trained to think critically about historical documents, it’s a very strange question. You ask critical questions about the documents and you face the consequences. You don’t have to take the same attitude to every part of a document. In fact, it would be strange to do so in the case of long, complex texts like the Gospel narratives.

Edwin

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Michael, I read through much of the Passion Week material and did find examples of time markers, such as the next day, or in two days, and on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as well as others. They may not have exactly defined a week, but there is a sense of a flow of time. And how could these events happen if Jesus was in jail for six months prior to his crucifixion? The effect of this PBS program might be to present the Gospel Evangelists as fact manipulators, colluding to present an altered history, and thus incite doubt in them and the church. I’m fine with honest biblical studies, but we already know there’s fraud in academics. Maybe in this case. God have mercy on us all.

I am not sure that was the film makers intent, though the one guy with white hair spoke of Jesus as merely a man caught up in his own expectations. The intention of the Gospels was to recruit and inspire. Factual data decades after was probably not a great concern. I thought the Sejanus part was new and explained a few things. But were people THAT fickle? Hosanna Sunday, crucify him Friday? It doesn’t make sense.