Gospel Examination

[Travis Clementsmith]

I’m going to begin my own discussion on the New Testament Gospels. As many of you are aware, I am a mythicist, which means I don’t think the Jesus story is historical, neither by the Gospel account, nor by historical evidence. Many, however, do consider it as such in one form or another. Some consider it inerrant, while others think there may be some mythical embellishments heaped upon some obscured or lost core. So, I will mean this examination to take in all such accounts. If I attempt to discredit something from a literalist viewpoint, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I assume everyone who believes in Christianity takes a literalist view. But, in keeping with such an overarching measure, those who take a somewhat historical view of these works might find some difficult things to explain as well.

This difficulty is not meant to discourage attempts to do so. In fact, I hope many try to. One cannot possibly hear all alternate points of view or explanations, and I consider it educational to push for such insights. So, I hope some of you will indulge me!

I will proceed with the books in order as they appear to try and maintain some sort of standard. So, we will start with an overview of Matthew. I will give an outline of that book, some things unique about it, and then move to Mark to begin to note important discrepancies.

Outline of Matthew:

The Nativity of Jesus Christ
The Baptism and Temptation
The Calling of the Disciples
The Sermon on the Mount
The Lord’s Prayer
Healing of the Sick and Casting Out Demons
The Mission of the Twelve
Working on the Sabbath
John the Baptist Beheaded
Walking on Water
The Canaanite Woman
Peter the “Rock”
The Transfiguration
Becoming Like Children
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven
The Rich Young Man
Entry into Jerusalem
Driving out the Moneychangers
Cursing the Fig Tree
Signs of the Times/Second Coming
Jesus Anointment with Oil
The Last Supper
The Garden of Gethsemane
The Betrayal by Judas
Christ’s Trial
The Passion and Crucifixion
The Resurrection of the Dead
The Empty Tomb

Obvious Pericope Missing From Matthew: Christ’s Ascension Into Heaven

Unique Pericopes Found Only In Matthew:

1. Joseph’s vision (Mt. 1:20-24)
2. The visit of the wise men (Mt. 2:1-12)
3. The flight of Joseph, Mary and the babe into Egypt (Mt. 2:13-15)
4. Herod’s massacre of the infants (Mt. 2:16)
5. Judas’ death (Mt. 27:13)
6. The saints rising out of their graves at the crucifixion (Mt. 27:52)
7. The “baptismal commission” (Mt. 28:19-20)

The first three Gospels are known as Synoptic (to see together), because they have similar outlines. Matthew is a supposed eyewitness. Mark is supposedly transcribing from Peter while Luke is a companion of Paul, so neither is an eyewitness. John, not one of the Synoptic Gospels, is also alleged to have been an eyewitness.

Questions:

How significant is Matthew’s omission of the ascension into Heaven of Jesus Christ since he is the only eyewitness of the Synoptic versions?

Of the unique pericopes listed, do you regard all of them as true? Which ones do you think may not have been true? Of the ones you believe to be true, how significant is it that none of the other Gospels mention them?

-TC

[metis]

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

How significant is Matthew’s omission of the ascension into Heaven of Jesus Christ since he is the only eyewitness of the Synoptic versions?... Of the unique pericopes listed, do you regard all of them as true? Which ones do you think may not have been true? Of the ones you believe to be true, how significant is it that none of the other Gospels mention them?

Good questions, but they're really hard to answer without getting into mere speculation. We have to remember that these writings are highly subjective by all indications,

Why did Matthew miss the ascension? Maybe it didn't happen but was a midrash in order to indicate how special Jesus was in the eyes of God? I honestly don't know.

[Travis Clementsmith]

How about the "slaughter of the innocents" which no historian (by the way, Livy would have been alive at such a time if it had happened) records? Do you think that's historical?

Of course, the most obvious one is the saints rising out of their graves and going into the city where they were seen by many. I mean, except for the most ardent believer, don't we have to consider this one a stretch?

-TC

[vivamis123]

I would love to debate the gospel, but I just don't have any knowledge other than what I read. My reading has always been focused on Jesus' techings more than what was going on around. Everything I contribute to this thread is solely based on my intuition.

I do believe it is possible that the "slaughter of the innocents" happened. Hiltler did it and it has been repeated through out history..even now. Why question the possibility 2000 years ago?

"Saints rising" I don't believe. I think this is meant metaphorical.

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

I do believe it is possible that the "slaughter of the innocents" happened. Hiltler did it and it has been repeated through out history..even now. Why question the possibility 2000 years ago?

Yes, but we have documentation of what Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot did. We see the slaughter of the innocents as a recurring mythical motif (Moses, Krishna, Sargon, Nimrod, Jason, and Mordred), yet nobody recalls this event by Herod in the historical record. Josephus hated Herod and he doesn't record it. One would think this is a very significant event, yet Luke ignores it. I cannot be for sure, but wasn't Jesus' "cousin", John the Baptist in the same area? How come he escaped the slaughter. What about Peter, Andrew, James or John? Why is no one mad at Jesus when he returns from his flight, the supposed cause to all the young mothers losing their young? Doesn't it seem a little odd?

-TC

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

"Saints rising" I don't believe. I think this is meant metaphorical.

Well, this brings up a good point. How are we supposed to know when something is metaphorical or allegorical and when it is not? When it is supposed to be literal and historical? A few times, Paul actually says "now this is allegory", but he's referring to an episode in the Old Testament. So, without clear direction from the text, how do we know.

For the literalists out there, does this weaken the claim the Bible is inerrant and God inspired. Why would God not tell us when He is using allegory and metaphors and when he is not?

-TC

[vivamis123]

I don't need documents that testify to the slaughter in order for me to believe in the possiblity, since I can relate it to facts in the present and through out history.

We can not know for sure anything. To me it has to make sense, which means I have to either have experienced it myself and/or seen/heard from a believe worthy source, such as common knowledge.

If Paul stated that he was using allegory when referring to the O.T, why would he not point out that he was using allegory when quoting Jesus, if that is what he did?

Why would God not tell us when He is using allegory and metaphors and when he is not?

You are not seriously asking this question, are you?

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

I don't need documents that testify to the slaughter in order for me to believe in the possiblity, since I can relate it to facts in the present and through out history.

But, how possible is the possibility if none of the other Gospels to whom Jesus' life is supposedly documented by concur with the claim of Matthew? I mean, we could certainly write off outside historians, but how do we account for the silence of the others?

Originally Posted by vivamis123

We can not know for sure anything. To me it has to make sense, which means I have to either have experienced it myself and/or seen/heard from a believe worthy source, such as common knowledge.

But, common knowledge isn't always our best indicator of truth. If we are playing fast and loose with the term "histories" or "biographies", then perhaps it doesn't matter, we can just call it belief, which is fine. But, if we are to suppose it is something more than just mere belief, it has to meet certain criteria, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by vivamis123

If Paul stated that he was using allegory when referring to the O.T, why would he not point out that he was using allegory when quoting Jesus, if that is what he did?

I don't know, in fact, in the epistles most deem as authentic to Paul, he doesn't quote Jesus all that much. But that's not my point, my point is how are we to know from the Gospels what is meant to be allegory and what is not. If we regard these accounts as mostly fiction, it doesn't matter a great deal. But, if we are to regard them as biographies, in some cases, eyewitness accounts, don't we have to regard them as literal as opposed to allegorical unless it specifically notes it somehow?

Originally Posted by vivamis123

Why would God not tell us when He is using allegory and metaphors and when he is not?

You are not seriously asking this question, are you?

Well, if you notice, I prefaced that question for Bible literalists. Most Bible literalists regard the Bible as inerrant and as divinely inspired by God through its authors, in other words, God is the author, the human were simply the means He wrote these accounts through. If you do not believe this, then that question was not for you. Sorry for the confusion.

-TC

[vivamis123]

You have a point in all you say and question T.C.

I personally had no opinion on whether to believe the gospel or not until I experienced white light flowing from my stomach. I seeked answers, but no where could I find them. 20 years after this happened I was lead to read the N.T. and in John 7:38 I read: He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

That was the closest I had ever come hearing about something flowing from the stomach. He that believeth on me....I asked myself what do I believe? As the scripture said...what does the scripture say? I found that my interpretation of what Jesus taught, was also my understanding of God and man's relationship to God.

I know that much has been altered, changed, added and subtracted. Maybe a historical Jesus did not even exist, but that does not change what I experienced.

If...and I say if, what is written in John is true, how much more could be true?

[Travis Clementsmith]

Well, let me go over the other special mentions by Matthew:

1. Joseph’s vision (Mt. 1:20-24)

Here Joseph is visited by an angel who tells him to take Mary as his wife but not to have sex with her for she carries the holy child which is meant to fulfill prophecy, specifically Isa. 7:14. This formula of fulfilling prophecy is spoken of 14 times in Matthew. What type of confidence is placed in this pericope not repeated by any of the others?

2. The visit of the wise men (Mt. 2:1-12)

One of the enduring symbols of the nativity, the wise men are not recorded by Luke or any other Gospel. Tradition holds that the number of the wise men are three, yet the Gospel doesn't specify. Why do you think the number is three? In my study Bible, wise men are noted as, "court priests (perhaps from Parthia) who practiced astrology and magic". Why do you think it was important that Jesus' birth be connected with astrological forecasting? Also, it is noted as fulfilling prophecy that the child is born in Bethlahem. (Mic. 5:2 and 2 Sam. 5:2)

3. The flight of Joseph, Mary and the babe into Egypt (Mt. 2:13-15)

Here another angel aids the holy family, urging them to flee to Egypt until Herod dies. This is said to be done so that again, Jesus can fulfill prophecy (Hos. 11:1, Ex. 4:22-23, and Deut. 1:31) by "coming out of Egypt". So far we have angelic aid and astrological forecasting in these unique pericopes.

4. Herod’s massacre of the infants (Mt. 2:16)

Although we have discussed it a bit, it is also worth noting that the slaughter of the innocents was also necessary to "fulfill prophecy". (Jer. 31:15)


5. Judas’ death (Mt. 27:3-10)

The suicide of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver are only detailed by Matthew. Also present is the tale of the potter's field, also included to fulfill prophecy. (Jer. 32:6-15, 18:1-3 and 19: 1-13)

6. The saints rising out of their graves at the crucifixion (Mt. 27:52)

Supernatural event already discussed.

7. The “baptismal commission” (Mt. 28:19-20)

It has been suggested that this closing paragraph is a late interpretation meant to establish authority in the Catholic Church as the phrase "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is a later creation as well as the new charge to go to all nations and not just the lost sheep of Israel.

So, in the first four, we have pericopes meant to fulfill prophecy, then we have a supernatural event, then we have a commission that seems out of place in the development of Christianity. Which of these do you think are "historical" despite their mention in the other Gospels? Does your opinion that these events were historical depend upon something more than belief or bias?

-TC