Is the New or Old Testament more believable?

[SezMe]

--realising they are the only accounts available of said events--

That's not true. The four gospels that made it into the bible are not the only accounts. The gospels of Peter, Mary and others are no less important just because they didn't make it to the big leagues.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Uh, my current understanding is that we have no idea who the authors of the Gospels are. Cite for this claim?

Sorry, alleged authors. The Gospels were still passed down via Jewish oral tradition before they were written down, so it's pretty much the same deal. They wouldn't have wanted to anger the Roman authorities by blaming them for killing Jesus.

 

[fuelair]

I might hate one more than the other, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't completely absolve the guy who consciously took the contract and actually pulled the trigger.

I MIGHT forgive and all, if they were under duress, like if someone held a gun to their daughter's head until they killed my relative, but that doesn't seem to be what Mark's story tells us, innit?

And yes, actually one of my relatives was probably murdered, though it was never solved. So it does hit close to home, and not just as a theoretical exercise. If I were to learn that someone paid a hit on my relative (though realistically it seems improbable), I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think that, hey, the actual murderer was just doing it for the money, he totally isn't to blame. If he chose to take an innocent life for money, then yes, that is blame enough for me. I would NOT think that that absolves him of all guilt, and I'd be actually pretty unrepentant about not absolving him.

ETA: And I have no problem with applying that to Pilate's guards too. Although they didn't get such a choice about whether Jesus should die or not. But one of the things that was explicitly established at Nuremberg was that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. If you choose to obey murderous orders, you do share in the responsibility. But again, that wouldn't apply to Pilate anyway. The Jewish religious leadership was in no position to give him orders, and obeying orders from them was just not in his job description. Period. Regardless of what you think of the Nuremberg ruling, Pilate wouldn't even get to apply for that denied exemption in the first place.

The rule is everyone who was knowingly involved is now just a target.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sorry, alleged authors. The Gospels were still passed down via Jewish oral tradition before they were written down, so it's pretty much the same deal. They wouldn't have wanted to anger the Roman authorities by blaming them for killing Jesus.

Well, after Nero's purge, you can't blame them.

Though I'm not even sure it's that complicated. All four gospel authors appear to be highly educated Greek speakers, with enough time on their hands. They seem to have even had access to books, which were expensive. E.g., Luke uses Josephus and seems to copy from SOME other unknown source in places in Acts, because it doesn't match his style in the rest of the book. E.g., John seems to take inspiration from Philo, when it comes to the Logos. Whoever they were, they probably didn't have it too bad under the Romans.

Also, none of them seem to be Jewish. Mark in particular, who started the whole gospel thing, seems to be utterly and completely oblivious of the geography, customs or even language of the place.

Additionally Mark is generally considered to have been written in Rome.

So they may genuinely not have any inclination to take the side of the Jews against the Romans.

My take is that Mark simply had the constraints set by Paul, just because he was writing it for one of the churches founded by Paul, or possibly an offshoot of one. If Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8 says Jesus was crucified by "the rulers of the age", Mark had to work with that. It couldn't be the Jews that nail Jesus. But he doesn't have to go overboard with blaming the Romans.

 

[rwerdja]

Harry Potter is educated in Scotland and left for school from the train station at Kings Cross in London ... so using real places in a story does not make it less fictional than making up names of places. It's clear that the OT and NT are both fictional, so neither is believable. Which is more believable, the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny? What's the point?

 

[pakeha]

If we take the Gospels at face value--realising they are the only accounts available of said events--then the Jewish influence was, as I said, the one ordering the hit. Without the Jewish "trouble" for Jesus to "make" there would have been no impetus for Pilate to execute him. If you wish to disregard the Gospels, fine, but then there's no reason to bother taking any part of them as true.

Cpl Ferro

Cpl Ferro, when an account doesn't make sense, I think it's reasonable to question it, don't you?
Rather than disregard the gospels, I'd prefer to put them into context, given what we know.
Have you read Philo's Embassy to Gaius, which includes Agrippa's account of Pontius Pilate's actions as Prefect?

I find it heavy going myself, but you can read it here:

XXXVIII. (299) "Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book40.html

I wonder if the gospel account of the trial and execution isn't modelled after this account and adapted to Jesus' hagiography.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ah yes, the shields incident. Personally I don't see a direct parallel between it and Jesus's trial, other than, I guess, the screaming mob. But it was as common back then as it is now to use SOME historical documents when writing a historical novel, so it's possible that the author of Mark used Philo for some inspiration.

But IMHO, if anything, Philo's account gives us a completely different and incompatible view of Pilate's character. The Pilate from Philo's account doesn't give a crap about the mob's hissy fits, and doesn't back down until the emperor personally orders him to. The one from the gospels is a wuss who backs down immediately, and gives them whatever they want.

More realistically, as Craig already saud, if Pilate crucified anyone on that day, it was probably to make a point and it would be his own decision. And he wouldn't give a rodent's rear about whether the Jews like it or not.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, the shields incident.
Keep in mind, of course, the account is written by Agrippa, not Pilate's fan by any means.
While the Agrippa account has Pilate gnashing his teeth, he (Pilate) does give in to popular demand.

Yes, it's speculation, but given Mark's known exaggerations and deviations from the facts as we know them, isn't it plausible the author of gMark tailored written accounts of other happenings he'd read to suit/embellish the dramatic impact his narrative?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No. Read it again please. He 'gives in' to a direct written order by the Emperor, not to the mob. Which, really, was in his job description, so it's less 'giving in' and more like obeying orders from his superiors, like a good Roman. Sure, the mob's will is done in the end, but only when they go through the Emperor. And in any case, that would mean weeks later, not just folding in 5 minutes flat like the Pilate from the gospels.

As for using other accounts, sure, it would be nothing out of the ordinary if he used more than one source. Using some sources to set up a believable historical fiction was something normal, so, yes, it would be rather expected for Mark to use any sources he can lay his hands on for that. And drawing upon existing stories and myths was common too, as was adding an own twist to them. Essentially I can agree very easily that nothing you wrote there would be implausible.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

In fact, to give a better source than myself, here's Carrier about how historical fiction worked in the ancient world.



Although it's about Acts, so it's somewhat less relevant than his talks about the gospels themselves, it is nevertheless IMHO more directly about specifically how historical novels worked. The part about how historical novels work, starts about 12 minutes in, if you don't have the time to sit and watch it all.

Probably the most important being that actually it was usually nothing like modern historical novels, and more like writing religious myth. I mean, if you were to write a novel about King Arthur nowadays, you'd try to frame it as a secular plausible thing about a normal human and events that have no real supernatural elements. If they were to write it in the 1st century CE (and yes, I know there wasn't a King Arthur yet), it would include all sorts of miracles and divine intervention.

But you'll probably recognize that a lot of those markers of historical fiction are easily recognizable in the gospels too.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the Carrier link! It's one I hadn't watched before. I like your phrase 'writing religious myth'.

No. Read it again please. He 'gives in' to a direct written order by the Emperor, not to the mob. [ . . . ]

Of course you're right. I was being very shallow, just picking out elements a writer might use to construct a hagiography.
Is this the place to wonder why Agrippa uses an example where Pilate does what he should (obey his emperor) and not the Jesus trial, where he allows himself to be maneuvered into a no-win situation?

 

[Giordano]

I realize that we are discussing more the choices of how individuals chose to tell a fictional story, rather than real history. I presume that the tellers of the NT wished to discredit both the existing monotheistic (Jewish) and existing polytheistic (Roman) religions to encourage belief in the new, Christian religion.

As I already stated, I think I would have told the story in yet a different way: that Christ was so well treated by people that God "forgave" them for that nasty business with the apple. I also liked Vonnegut Jr's idea that it would have been better if God just adopted Christ, an average, mortal down-and-outer- on the cross, rather than Christ already being God's son. The way it is told in the NT, the lesson is that it is important to have connections; Vonnegut Jr's story would be a warning not to mess with people because you can never tell who might go to bat for them.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Is this the place to wonder why Agrippa uses an example where Pilate does what he should (obey his emperor) and not the Jesus trial, where he allows himself to be maneuvered into a no-win situation?

Well, to be fair, I doubt Philo would have listed one unjust execution by name, when he lumps everything else under just "his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned". Jesus was not important enough to warrant a mention by name. (Assuming, of course, none of the miracles, or his being acclaimed by whole Jerusalem as the new king, etc, actually happened. Anyone who actually thinks all the miracles actually happened, yet nobody showed any interest, well, they have some rationalizing to do.) But there are many other things in that trial description that Pilate's enemies wouldn't have hesitated to use against him, or that should have been interesting enough for Josephus to write about.

So, as I was saying, I do not think there is much actual history to be found in that allegoric trial.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As I already stated, I think I would have told the story in yet a different way: that Christ was so well treated by people that God "forgave" them for that nasty business with the apple. I also liked Vonnegut Jr's idea that it would have been better if God just adopted Christ, an average, mortal down-and-outer- on the cross, rather than Christ already being God's son. The way it is told in the NT, the lesson is that it is important to have connections; Vonnegut Jr's story would be a warning not to mess with people because you can never tell who might go to bat for them.

You would have told the story differently, if you were free of the constraints of the existing religion and the whole body of interpretations there.

Plus, it worked, didn't it? I think most arguments along the lines of "they could have told a better story" (often used in the form of "therefore it must be true"; not by you, but it is a persistent argument for the historicity of Jesus) seem to not notice that it was the story that worked the best. There were stories where the hero triumphs, e.g., Mythras. But the Xian hero sacrifice story outcompeted those, didn't it?

And the element of you owing something to Jesus because he sacrificed himself for you, seems to have worked pretty damn well for the church.

So, you know, as a tool towards a purpose, it seems to have been the best tool at the time.

 

[deaman]

Or, you could be like Joseph Smith and just re-write the whole damn thing any way you want to, because humans will believe just about any swill that accounts for them being better, smarter, more blessed, and enables them to have "eternal life".

Human: Yeah! I win!

 

[Giordano]

You would have told the story differently, if you were free of the constraints of the existing religion and the whole body of interpretations there.

Plus, it worked, didn't it? I think most arguments along the lines of "they could have told a better story" (often used in the form of "therefore it must be true"; not by you, but it is a persistent argument for the historicity of Jesus) seem to not notice that it was the story that worked the best. There were stories where the hero triumphs, e.g., Mythras. But the Xian hero sacrifice story outcompeted those, didn't it?

And the element of you owing something to Jesus because he sacrificed himself for you, seems to have worked pretty damn well for the church.

So, you know, as a tool towards a purpose, it seems to have been the best tool at the time.

No doubt it worked. And yes, the OT also has many elements that are very poor story telling (although some translations of Genesis, for e.g. are fairly powerful). But I am still left with the problem that I never felt the need to be forgiven for what Adam and Eve theoretically did, and I never asked Jesus to sacrifice himself for me (I am ignoring all the flaws in logic in the story because we are only discussing emotional impact). So people were able to be made to feel vaguely guilty, and then felt relieved that someone else "took the built for them?" Interesting phycology there.

 

[tsig]

No doubt it worked. And yes, the OT also has many elements that are very poor story telling (although some translations of Genesis, for e.g. are fairly powerful). But I am still left with the problem that I never felt the need to be forgiven for what Adam and Eve theoretically did, and I never asked Jesus to sacrifice himself for me (I am ignoring all the flaws in logic in the story because we are only discussing emotional impact). So people were able to be made to feel vaguely guilty, and then felt relieved that someone else "took the built for them?" Interesting phycology there.

I wonder if I went over some Sunday morning and mowed a Christians lawn for him if he'd pay me for it.

 

[pakeha]

In fact, to give a better source than myself, here's Carrier about how historical fiction worked in the ancient world.



Although it's about Acts, so it's somewhat less relevant than his talks about the gospels themselves, it is nevertheless IMHO more directly about specifically how historical novels worked. [ . . . ]

I finished watching the lecture and other than Carrier's disagreeable timbre of voice, it was well worth the time spent on it. At around 32 he discusses the idea of cribbing just a single line from another author and building a story around it, so I'm left thinking Mark stitched together the trial from oddments and remnents of other events isn't the worst explanation.
Anyway. Thanks again for the recommendation.

Well, to be fair, I doubt Philo would have listed one unjust execution by name, when he lumps everything else under just "his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned". Jesus was not important enough to warrant a mention by name. (Assuming, of course, none of the miracles, or his being acclaimed by whole Jerusalem as the new king, etc, actually happened. Anyone who actually thinks all the miracles actually happened, yet nobody showed any interest, well, they have some rationalizing to do.) But there are many other things in that trial description that Pilate's enemies wouldn't have hesitated to use against him, or that should have been interesting enough for Josephus to write about.

So, as I was saying, I do not think there is much actual history to be found in that allegoric trial.

Philo might not have done but Agrippa might have just to show Pilate's ineffectiveness in the face of the Sanhedrin's machinations.
Meh. Out of curiosity, aren't the Josephus accounts of the years spanning Jesus life missing?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Not that I know. He just apparently has other stuff to say about those years. (The Testimonium Flavianum forgery notwithstanding.)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I finished watching the lecture and other than Carrier's disagreeable timbre of voice, it was well worth the time spent on it. At around 32 he discusses the idea of cribbing just a single line from another author and building a story around it, so I'm left thinking Mark stitched together the trial from oddments and remnents of other events isn't the worst explanation.
Anyway. Thanks again for the recommendation.

Well, sometimes it was one line, sometimes it was a whole episode. A large motivation in writing new myths seems to be correcting the message of old myths. Like, you'd be a Roman who didn't quite like the message on a particular of Homer, and you'd basically write your own story that's nearly identical except for your own twist.

Basically it's like if today I was deciding that, you know what? I don't like Little Red Riding Hood portraying girls as helpless and needing to be rescued. I don't like giving kids that message. So I'd write my own highly similar story, except the girl brains the wolf with an axe herself. (And yeah, I know that it's been done before. It's just an example.) And then someone else would come and think, "hey, isn't that now kinda teaching children that it's safe to go with strangers?" So now they'd put their own twist on it. And so on.

They did that lots with myths back then.

And not just back then. A lot of the later stories we have are essentially processed like that.

And that is pretty much my problem with people just pulling out of the ass which parts of some ancient myth they want to believe is true. Actually you don't know what other story it may be based on, about what other character, which parts have been changed like that, nor even if that other story even pretended to be history or was just written as fiction.