The Pulling the Thread Podcast

My View of the Gospels are as follows, the Gospels propose to be first hand witness accounts yet they include what Bart Erhman and other historical critical scholars refer to a large portion of them include plagiarism and forgeries. At the heart of the discussion lies the issue of authorship and authenticity. Traditional attributions assign the Gospels to specific disciples, yet critical scholarship paints a different picture. They are written not by the people that their titles claim they are written by, this is why they are considered forgeries that include elements of plagarism. It’s true that scholarship offers various perspectives on their historical accuracy.

Textual analysis suggests they were likely compiled decades after Jesus’ death, drawing on various sources and evolving through oral traditions before being committed to writing. This raises questions about their accuracy as firsthand accounts and highlights the influence of later theological interpretations. The Gospels, purporting to be firsthand accounts, are scrutinized through the prism of textual criticism. A closer look reveals plagiarism, misattribution of authorship, and the inclusion of forgeries. This challenges their legitimacy as a basis for historical discussions, positioning them as documents supporting a revisionist, ahistorical theological narrative.

While traditionally perceived as firsthand accounts, textual criticism reveals a more complex reality. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death, likely by individuals removed from his immediate circle. This introduces questions about their accuracy and objectivity. Were they truly eyewitness testimonies, or “accounts we heard” shaped by theological agendas and evolving traditions? When you understand the implications ofTextual Criticism then you know the gospels to be essentially accounts “we heard” or “accounts we made up” to bolster theological viewpoints than authentic historical records.

Further scrutiny reveals inconsistencies and discrepancies between the Gospels, raising doubts about their literal historicity. The inclusion of miracles and supernatural elements, absent from the earliest manuscripts, suggests embellishment for theological purposes. This raises crucial questions about the historical veracity of these accounts and their suitability as definitive sources for Jesus’ life and teachings.

The gospels and epistles are not original or authentic and include forgeries and theological revision and thus aren’t the legitimate basis for a conversation about historical fact. They are documents to support a revisionist theological thesis that is ahistorical. This reflects the reality of oral traditions and the natural evolution of stories through retelling. It’s important to remember that the Gospels were shaped not just by historical events but also by the communities that sought to preserve and interpret them.

Papias may have played a key role in the development of the “Saying of Jesus,” a disciple of John, in shaping the Gospels. Irenaeus indeed quotes the book of Papias for an otherwise-unknown saying of Jesus. Further Marcion who create his own gospel and redacted the letters of Paul, he claims to have found played key roles in the early textual tradition that eventual became the New Testament. The concept of “Markan Primacy,” where Mark serves as the base text for Matthew and Luke, further underscores the process of transmission and potential alteration. Additionally, the Q source, a hypothetical document containing sayings ascribed to Jesus, adds another layer of complexity to the picture.

My view based on the scholarship is as follows. Jesus was Jewish and remained so and so did his immediate followers and never saw themselves as anything else and had no plans to move away from Judaism. According to our earliest textual traditioin, there was no virgin birth, many miracles and parables were made up later to prove a theological point, there was no resurrection, this is simply based in Textual Criticism of the earliest Greek manuscripts that we have because these were missing from the earliest manuscripts.

This critical lens also sheds light on the Jewish context of Jesus and his followers. Scholarship suggests they likely remained within the Jewish tradition, actively engaging with its practices and teachings. The notion of a separate Christian identity distinct from Judaism appears to have emerged later, through a gradual process of theological divergence and interpretation.

Contrary to traditional narratives, a scholarly perspective emerges, portraying Jesus as a devout Jew whose followers remained within Judaism. Rejecting claims of a virgin birth and resurrection, this view relies on textual criticism of early Greek manuscripts. The historical Jesus, a Jewish rabbi, is contextualized within the broader Jewish tradition, sharing similarities with other Talmudic rabbis.

This context is crucial for understanding the potential discrepancies between the Gospels and other historical sources, including Jewish texts like the Talmud. Historical Jesus within Judaism didn’t say anything different or radical compared to other rabbis in the Talmud and thus a footnote outside of the main Jewish history. It also brings into focus the notion of a “historical Jesus” distinct from the theological figure portrayed in the Gospels.

Jesus might have remained within the bounds of Judaism, with his teachings aligning with other rabbinic figures. his view, supported by scholarship on Ante-Nicene texts like the Epistle of Peter to James, challenges traditional assumptions about Jesus’ separation from Judaism and his alleged break with Jewish law.

The historical Jesus, then, emerges not as a radical figure breaking away from Judaism, but rather as a Jewish rabbi within the broader tapestry of Second Temple Judaism. His teachings and practices likely resonated with contemporary trends within Jewish thought, making him a figure of interest within his own religious community, albeit not necessarily unique or revolutionary.

Jesus family and followers who walked with him while he lived remained Jewish and advocated others do so and even continue to convert Gentiles to Judaism after a 6-year period of studying Torahs scrolls. There is evidence for this within the Ante-Nicene Fathers namely the Epistle of Peter to James and its reception, among other documents

This perspective complicates the traditional Christian narrative, challenging the notion of Jesus as the founder of a distinct religion. It also offers Jewish communities a space to reclaim and re-interpret Jesus within the context of their own history and traditions, acknowledging his Jewishness while critically grappling with the Christian interpretations that have overshadowed him for centuries.

However, incorporating Jesus into Jewish studies or history remains a complex endeavor. While acknowledging his Jewish roots and influence is crucial, it’s important to avoid romanticizing or appropriating his figure. The historical Jesus, as understood through critical scholarship, is distinct from the Christian messiah or the idealized figures of Jewish apologetics.

“The Jewish Jesus is a challenge to both Christians and Jews. For Christians, it means re-evaluating their understanding of Jesus’ relationship to Judaism. For Jews, it means acknowledging that Jesus was a Jew and that his teachings are part of the Jewish tradition.” – Amy-Jill Levine

Amy-Jill Levine’s perspective emphasizes the challenge for both Christians and Jews in reevaluating their understanding of Jesus’ relationship to Judaism. By acknowledging the historical fact of Jesus as a figure whose messianic claims were not accepted by mainstream Judaism. The portrayal of Jesus as a failed Messiah within Judaism challenges the invention of Christianity to accommodate those seeking a messianic figure.

Of course, any such reconstruction of the historical Jesus faces inherent challenges due to the limited and indirect nature of the evidence. Ultimately, rethinking the Gospels and reevaluating Jesus through the lens of historical and textual criticism offers a more nuanced understanding of his life and legacy. It challenges both Christian and Jewish perspectives.