Was the story Of Jesus exaggerated during it's time during oral tradition

[Trebor135]

Looking at it rationally, it’s more likely that the story of Jesus was downplayed in subsequent years. So opposite to exaggeration.

Why do you say this?

 

[WesleyF]

No one is claiming the apostles were motivated by greed. They could have been true believers in their new philosophies and believed their exaggerations were justified in order to spread their message more effectively.

Yet the very act of exaggerating destroys their “new philosophy”, which teaches that Jesus Christ is the truth and that we should love the truth and stand and fight for the truth. It’s a logical contradiction and therefore cannot be held.

There are numerous examples of cults that arise without any apparent benefit to the members or the leaders, such as the “Restoration of the 10 Commandments” movement. The apostles might have known that their martyrdom would only draw more people to their beliefs, and therefore accepted it.

In the case of this “restoration” movement, I wouldn’t say that there was no apparent benefit to the leaders who started the cult. If the wikipedia report is to be believed, “with the year 2000 approaching sect members sold their property and turned the profits over to group leadership.” So I definitely see a great benefit starting such a cult. You can make great money. Credonia Mwerinde, the high priestess of the cult is still absconding and didn’t suffer “martyrdom” (rather mass murder) as the group members did.

I would like to see some other examples.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yet the very act of exaggerating destroys their “new philosophy”, which teaches that Jesus Christ is the truth and that we should love the truth and stand and fight for the truth. It’s a logical contradiction and therefore cannot be held.

Their new philosophies were not about standing and fighting for truth, the commandments against lies had been around since Moses. What was new about their teachings was a kinder and gentler God who had prepared a reward for us all, a fairly significant departure from the “fear and trembling” of their time. They stood against excessive religious law and social stratification. They advocated for more compassion for fellow man (even of traditional enemies) and wanted people to become principally concerned with the afterlife rather than rewards in this life.
In fact, I can’t recall a single parable of Jesus’ which is explicitly concerned with lying. The only thing I can think of is when Jesus tells the rich young man to follow 6 of the 10 commandments then tells him to sell what he has and give to the poor.

Therefore, I would say that if they were true believers in Jesus, they might consider embellishing stories (or not contradicting embellished stories) concerning his power.

 

[Tenofovir]

Why do you say this?

It’s plausible. Look people are often not credulous. They expect the other guy to exaggerate, especially in oral traditions where hyperbole is often used. We say one thing but we know something else. They often also don’t want to appear too easy to sway. It’s very possible that the stories of Jesus miracles were downplayed. Everyone wants to appear cautious and not too gullible. Also people are often not gullible by nature. Even now we have people downplaying Jesus miracles.

If we can posit that Jesus miracles were exaggerated, we can just as reasonably posit the opposite, especially in a mixed milieu.

For example:
Person 1: You know Jesus resurrected Lazarus.
Person 2: You know Jesus cured a man who was close to death.
Person 3: You know Jesus is said to have been able to cure ill people successfully.
Person 4: You know Jesus was a wise man with a reputation of a healer.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It’s plausible. Look people are often not credulous. They expect the other guy to exaggerate, especially in oral traditions where hyperbole is often used. We say one thing but we know something else. They often also don’t want to appear too easy to sway. It’s very possible that the stories of Jesus miracles were downplayed. Everyone wants to appear cautious and not too gullible. Also people are often not gullible by nature. Even now we have people downplaying Jesus miracles.

If we can posit that Jesus miracles were exaggerated, we can just as reasonably posit the opposite, especially in a mixed milieu.

For example:
Person 1: You know Jesus resurrected Lazarus.
Person 2: You know Jesus cured a man who was close to death.
Person 3: You know Jesus is said to have been able to cure ill people successfully.
Person 4: You know Jesus was a wise man with a reputation of a healer.

But consider the contemporary religions. Roman gods, paganism, and a bureaucratic mess of Judaism. Those are not religions that carry much weight in terms of believability. People in that day were likely skeptical, but ill equipped to recognize what claims required skepticism. The apostles were not asking people to give them all their money; they were mostly just telling people to be nicer to each other and that the current (and likely unpopular) religious leadership was invalid. In other words, their teachings would be mostly popular, so their audiences would be less likely to have a skeptical reflex.

 

[WesleyF]

Their new philosophies were not about standing and fighting for truth, the commandments against lies had been around since Moses.

The central claim about their new philosophy is that Jesus is the TRUTH himself (John 14:6). And I would definitely say that their new philosophy includes standing and fighting for the truth because it is a moral requirement of the Old Testament (Sirach 4:28). They upheld the moral requirements of the Old Testament as binding. What they said had been replaced by Christ were the ceremonial observances and regulations of the Old Testament.

They stood against excessive religious law and social stratification. They advocated for more compassion for fellow man (even of traditional enemies) and wanted people to become principally concerned with the afterlife rather than rewards in this life.

While they stood against were the ceremonial observances of the Old Testament, they made the moral requirements of the New Testament even more strict. For instance, mere lustful looking is now considered to be adultery and a sin punishable by damnation in hell.

What was their evidence for the afterlife? Did they believe in God or not? The core of their message was the proclamation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God more than anything else. If they didn’t believe this were true, it’s hard to see how they could be true to their consciences and ready to give up their lives for such a fake cause.

In fact, I can’t recall a single parable of Jesus’ which is explicitly concerned with lying. The only thing I can think of is when Jesus tells the rich young man to follow 6 of the 10 commandments then tells him to sell what he has and give to the poor.

Yes, Jesus did speak against bearing false witness. Also, the teachings of the apostles themselves are clear on the issue of lying.

“Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” (Col 3:9)

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)

Therefore, I would say that if they were true believers in Jesus, they might consider embellishing stories (or not contradicting embellished stories) concerning his power.

Do you consider how many people would have heard and seen Jesus? If these claims were fabricated, nobody would have believed them, because everybody had seen Jesus and knew what he did and didn’t do. Moreover, the miracles of Jesus are described in significant detail - the time, the place, the people, etc. It’s easy to say, “Well, he went to one village somewhere and raised a dead guy”, than to describe in detail the story of Jesus raising “Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha”. The former claim is difficult to verify but the latter is much easier to verify. The people just have to go to Bethany and inquire about it.

There is much background information for most of his miracles. Such background information would have made it difficult for them to perpetrate a hoax because that could easily be verified.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

“Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” (Col 3:9)

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)

But neither of those quotes are attributed to Jesus. I was not saying that the apostles thought lying was acceptable, only that their exaggerations were justified.

Do you consider how many people would have heard and seen Jesus? If these claims were fabricated, nobody would have believed them, because everybody had seen Jesus and knew what he did and didn’t do. Moreover, the miracles of Jesus are described in significant detail - the time, the place, the people, etc. It’s easy to say, “Well, he went to one village somewhere and raised a dead guy”, than to describe in detail the story of Jesus raising “Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha”. The former claim is difficult to verify but the latter is much easier to verify. The people just have to go to Bethany and inquire about it.

There is much background information for most of his miracles. Such background information would have made it difficult for them to perpetrate a hoax because that could easily be verified.

Note that most of the apostles leave the area where Jesus was to do missionary work after he died. It is not like people could just hop in a car and go to Jerusalem from Egypt, Greece, or Ethiopia in those days. This does not mean they spread out in order to deliberately make it difficult for people to validate their claims, but it does mean the people they converted would have done so without having any validation of the apostles’ claims.

If I were going to spread stories that someone could work miracles, I would write up a few miracles and specify a location for each. Then, as I went to each location, I would tell the people there all the stories from each place but their own. I would also bring along a few people who would pretend to be possessed or sick and have them “cured.” If anyone wanted to travel to verify my stories, they would simply encounter my other followers who would tell them that I had cured people in that area, but they couldn’t recall the inquisitor’s specific story.

 

[Contarini]

Their new philosophies were not about standing and fighting for truth, the commandments against lies had been around since Moses. What was new about their teachings was a kinder and gentler God

When people say things like this, I have to wonder if they are reading the same NT I am:shrug:.

who had prepared a reward for us all

No, only the righteous. And a face-value reading of the NT would lead us to expect that the righteous will be fairly few. This is particularly the case in the Gospels. If you want to argue for a “kinder, gentler God,” Paul would be the place to start–maybe Luke to some degree as well. But Matthew, John, James, Hebrews, and Revelation–just to name the most obvious examples–have as much “fear and trembling” as one could reasonably ask for!

a fairly significant departure from the “fear and trembling” of their time.

They stood against excessive religious law and social stratification.

Fair enough, although don’t take this out of its apocalyptic context.

They advocated for more compassion for fellow man (even of traditional enemies) and wanted people to become principally concerned with the afterlife rather than rewards in this life.
In fact, I can’t recall a single parable of Jesus’ which is explicitly concerned with lying.

Not a parable. But the Sermon on the Mount is very clear about this.

Therefore, I would say that if they were true believers in Jesus, they might consider embellishing stories (or not contradicting embellished stories) concerning his power.

Bunk. As you said, the commandments against falsehood had been around for a while.

Edwin

 

[Tenofovir]

But consider the contemporary religions. Roman gods, paganism, and a bureaucratic mess of Judaism. Those are not religions that carry much weight in terms of believability. People in that day were likely skeptical, but ill equipped to recognize what claims required skepticism. The apostles were not asking people to give them all their money; they were mostly just telling people to be nicer to each other and that the current (and likely unpopular) religious leadership was invalid. In other words, their teachings would be mostly popular, so their audiences would be less likely to have a skeptical reflex.

Less likely, I doubt it. People are people. They know the other guy is out to convince you, they’ll say “sure, you say this man could bring back the dead? He was probably a good healer/doctor. But you guys are so nice, you even martyr yourselves for others sometimes.”

The behaviour and message of the apostles/followers was attractive enough. A Risen Messiah would probably be enough - if the Messiah was also able to raise other people from death or heal blindness that wouldn’t really matter much to many. They’d probably forget about it. If God brought this man back from the dead, and His followers were amazing, that would be good enough for most.

If the stories of Jesus were exaggerated, it’s just as possible they could have been downplayed and minimized.

The Biblical accounts of the ministry of Jesus should span 3 years but they’re pretty dull on detail much of the time. It’s hard to imagine that the apostles followed Jesus for 3 years and only had this much to write down (even 30 yrs later). It’s true that Jesus did not ask people to tell others of His works and that sometimes, as someone suggested, it would be dangerous to popularise the names of those Jesus brought back from the dead or healed of Leprosy/Blindness/Stroke as they’d make targets for the Jews. Still many more people must have been healed than is recorded in the Scriptures - all of that is now lost and lost in oral tradition too. Traditions of extra-Biblical accounts don’t seem to exist, perhaps they were simply lost or people thought them not important to remember. There was such an overload of amazing things. People often grown complacent and used to amazing miracles, you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

 

[Contarini]

But consider the contemporary religions. Roman gods, paganism, and a bureaucratic mess of Judaism.

Be careful about caricaturing Second Temple Judaism. Certainly neither Christians nor Pharisees spoke well of the Sadducees who largely ran the Temple, and the Sadducees haven’t left us any writings that speak for themselves. And perhaps its significant that rabbinic sources tend to jump from Hillel to Johanan ben Zakkai in terms of important rabbinic teachers, speaking highly of Gamaliel but not reporting a lot of teachings from him, and claiming that after his death (around A.D. 50) piety departed. So you may have a point. But I’m always suspicious of polemical claims about corruption, etc.

Those are not religions that carry much weight in terms of believability.

They are not live options today for most folks–well, except for Pharisaic Judaism as reorganized by the rabbis after the fall of the Temple. But I would be slow to pass judgment on how “believable” a first-century person might find the ideas of their time. I myself don’t find fundamentalist Protestantism or Mormonism or Wahhabi/Salafi Islam at all believable, but clearly many of my contemporaries disagree with me.

People in that day were likely skeptical, but ill equipped to recognize what claims required skepticism. The apostles were not asking people to give them all their money; they were mostly just telling people to be nicer to each other

Again, that is not my reading of the NT.

and that the current (and likely unpopular) religious leadership was invalid. In other words, their teachings would be mostly popular, so their audiences would be less likely to have a skeptical reflex.

Certainly people who were disposed to believe them would be ill-inclined to be skeptical. But we have abundant reason to believe that many people did not believe them. Of course, those people’s thoughts are only recorded in the NT in a highly loaded way (the story that the Jewish leaders supposedly pressured the guards into spreading about Jesus’ resurrection, for instance).

I’m just not sure where you are going with this.

There is an abundance of scholarly literature dedicated to critical analysis of the NT. E. P. Sanders and John Meier are two scholars who are respected across the spectrum. They certainly are not infallible, and would both admit that a good deal remains open to speculation, but I think they do provide some good starting points for a responsible, critical view.

Edwin

 

[donsnow]

Counting women?
What’s that?

Good evening, DaddyGirl,

That’s, to my understanding, when the Bible gives a number of civilians gathered, it’s the men only, not counting their women and children. That’s just the way things were, then.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Julia_Mae]

So Paul has the oldest document from the new testament. This dated from around 50 to 60 AD. So this would mean that about twenty odd years after the death of Jesus. .

Well, not exactly. Let’s say you were at Valley Forge and saw George Washington do something. You write home about it. Your mom takes your letter and copies it, or parts of it in a letter to your sister who lives someplace else. Then someone finds your mother’s letter to your sister. Now, the information was written down at the same time as the action, or within a few days let’s say, of what Washington did. But the person who finds your mother’s letter doesn’t find it until much later, uses it in a reconstruction of what George Washington did at Valley Forge along with some other things like that, and the originals are lost. The book about George Washington is retained because many copies are made.

So, there are scholars I have read who believe parts of Mark’s Gospel are contemporaneous with Jesus’ Incarnation. That much of it came from letters of a disciple who was following Him around Palestine. It was not all oral history and stories.

Look, try and remember one thing: atheists don’t care about the Truth, they all say they do but they only care about being right. Being smarter than Christians. They all say they don’t want to be judged, but they all judge theists. Okay, maybe not all, but very commonly. They love to diss others, make fun of them, and act like they are the smartest people in the room.

God isn’t in a book, even a very Good Book. Jesus is alive and well and loves you. We don’t believe because of anything it says in a Book. We know God, and that relationship is something you have to do, yourself, with His help.

Don’t cast pearls before swine, they don’t even recognize they have value and trample them in the mud. God bless you abundantly, turn your heart over to Him.

 

[Frankenfurter]

…could the story have been not entirely fabricated, but just exaggerated in some spots. There is also the chance of an unknown earlier written source telling the same stories.

Everything in the bible is written as a ‘story’ to be told since that is how spiritual messages were (and are) integrated into our own spirits. It would be impossible I think to separate the precise words/message/deeds of Christ from the understanding and words of those who eventually wrote things down.

I take comfort in knowing that this is precisely how Jesus wanted it to be. Jesus never wrote down a word.

This is also why many Catholics disagree with the protestant focus on scripture alone as the source of the spiritual message of Christ.

The spiritual message of Christ is contained within you since he created you as a Father. The scriptures are just one way to hear his voice. The others are meditation and prayer on creation itself, and meditation and prayer on the life of Christ.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The spiritual message of Christ is contained within you since he created you as a Father. The scriptures are just one way to hear his voice. The others are meditation and prayer on creation itself, and meditation and prayer on the life of Christ.

And I would add, if you don’t mind, reception of the Sacraments, most especially the Eucharist.

 

[TOME]

“Help me please”, I hope you have been following all the post replying to your question. If you have then I am sure you have come to the conclusion that there really isn’t an easy or simple answer.A big part of the reason for this is based on two fundamental starting points.

One is based on a the concept of the Nature of Revelation. For example, one person might tell you that Holy Scripture is the “Word of God” therefore every word written in the Bible is God’s revelation. Another person, however, might hold that Scripture is God’s revelation, however, God works through human instruments thus not everything you read is necessarily God’s revelation or scientificly or historically true. And, there are several schools of thought that fall in between these two.

The second starting point is based on the concept of the Nature of Interpretation. As you might imagine, this second principle is closely related to the first but then goes beyond just the question of how to interpret the scriptures but who has the right, duty and authority to do so.

In my opinion, I think if you are going to seriously study the gospels, first realize that these are faith documents that are coming out of particular faith communities or areas. Each gospel seems to be written for a particular faith community’s understanding of who Jesus was and is for them.

Perhaps to help me best illustrate my point, try the following. Do not look on the gospels as exact historical narritives (as we understand history today) nor as four photographs of Jesus. Study each gospel as you would study four portraits of the same person painted by four different artist.

But don’t forget, it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding each artist (faith community) in their work

 

[WesleyF]

But neither of those quotes are attributed to Jesus. I was not saying that the apostles thought lying was acceptable, only that their exaggerations were justified.

Exaggerating is lying!

Note that most of the apostles leave the area where Jesus was to do missionary work after he died. It is not like people could just hop in a car and go to Jerusalem from Egypt, Greece, or Ethiopia in those days. This does not mean they spread out in order to deliberately make it difficult for people to validate their claims, but it does mean the people they converted would have done so without having any validation of the apostles’ claims.

This cannot be held. Because although most of the apostles left Israel after a while, the apostles spend a significant time preaching first to the Jews in Israel. Peter in fact was entrusted with the ministry to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles and many years went before Paul converted to Christianity.

Moreover, the book of Acts says that the first Jews to convert observed the miraculous sign performed by the apostles as they heard them speak in different languages. Would you hold that the apostles also lied about the signs that they themselves performed? Moreover, would the people also perpetrate that lie that they converted because they saw signs (I say this because the book of Acts was one of the books read in the liturgy)? What about the different signs of healing mentioned about the apostles themselves?

If I were going to spread stories that someone could work miracles, I would write up a few miracles and specify a location for each. Then, as I went to each location, I would tell the people there all the stories from each place but their own. I would also bring along a few people who would pretend to be possessed or sick and have them “cured.” If anyone wanted to travel to verify my stories, they would simply encounter my other followers who would tell them that I had cured people in that area, but they couldn’t recall the inquisitor’s specific story.

The difference between your scenario and that of the apostles weren’t merely about stories but about power. They went about healing people to whom they preached. This is evident all over the book of Acts. It is evident in the writings of Paul to the churches whom he had preached the gospel to. He says in one letter - “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” (2 Cor 12:12)