Were the Gospel accounts a mythology of Jesus?

[St. SteVen]

The Bible warns me against myths, so I exclude them in my worldview.

"The Bible contains several exhortations against myths and fables, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the truth of God’s word. Here are a few key passages:

1. 2 Peter 1:16: "For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty"1. This verse highlights the apostles’ commitment to sharing their direct experiences with Jesus, rather than relying on fabricated stories.
2. 1 Timothy 1:4: "Nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith"2. Paul advises Timothy to avoid engaging in myths and genealogies that lead to fruitless discussions and distract from the work of faith.
3. Titus 1:14: “And will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.” This verse warns against being swayed by myths and human traditions that deviate from the truth of the gospel.

These passages collectively underscore the importance of focusing on the truth and avoiding distractions that can lead believers away from their faith. They encourage a commitment to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, which are based on eyewitness accounts and divine revelation." [Copilot]

It seems that you (and the majority of the church) are making general statements about what was intended as specific statements.

2 Peter 1:16: "For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty"1. This verse highlights the apostles’ commitment to sharing their direct experiences with Jesus, rather than relying on fabricated stories.

Here, Jesus is not a mythical character, but real flesh and blood. The stories about a real person can be embellished. We do it all the time.
"Just the facts, Mame."

1 Timothy 1:4: "Nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith"2. Paul advises Timothy to avoid engaging in myths and genealogies that lead to fruitless discussions and distract from the work of faith.

Not engaging, but devoting.

Titus 1:14: “And will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.” This verse warns against being swayed by myths and human traditions that deviate from the truth of the gospel.

Jewish myths specifically.
Paul used Jewish myth in his writing. See below.

This is a Jewish myth used to make a point.
Does the biblical account say that the rock from which
water came forth at the beginning of the wilderness wanderings
followed them for 40 years? Or is it myth?

1 Corinthians 10:3-5 NIV
They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them,
and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them;
their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.


[

 

[Lambano]

In any case, if you allow for supernatural inspiration, Bookie takes all bets off the table.

 

[St. SteVen]

There is mythology about Jesus, but it appears in later Gospels that are unreliable at best due to being written in the second and third centuries, and are much different than the 4 in the New Testament written by eyewitnesses or historians with accounts from eyewitnesses.

The question is whether the gospel accounts were embellished. That would enter the realm of mythology.
Mythology isn't about whether something is true or false. This is hard to understand in our day and age.

[

 

[Stumpmaster]

It seems that you (and the majority of the church) are making general statements about what was intended as specific statements.


Here, Jesus is not a mythical character, but real flesh and blood. The stories about a real person can be embellished. We do it all the time.
"Just the facts, Mame."


Not engaging, but devoting.


Jewish myths specifically.
Paul used Jewish myth in his writing. See below.

This is a Jewish myth used to make a point.
Does the biblical account say that the rock from which
water came forth at the beginning of the wilderness wanderings
followed them for 40 years? Or is it myth?

1 Corinthians 10:3-5 NIV
They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them,
and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them;
their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

In my worldview nothing in the Bible is a myth, so specific examples all present as per 2 Timothy 3:16-17

2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

 

[St. SteVen]

In my worldview nothing in the Bible is a myth, so specific examples all present as per 2 Timothy 3:16-17

2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

What do you do if the biblical accounts are in conflict?

Compare the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 with those in Deuteronomy 5.
Especially the Sabbath Commandment. Why the change? Which one is correct?

Furthermore, in Mark 2:26 Jesus says that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. Which one is correct?

[ cc: @RedFan

 

[Stumpmaster]

Compare the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 with those in Deuteronomy 5.
Especially the Sabbath Commandment. Why the change? Which one is correct?

Given the context, Deuteronomy literally being a second account of the Law, there is no conflict but rather a more informed rendering.

Quote:

Explore

The Ten Commandments are presented in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, with some variations. Let’s compare the Sabbath Commandment in particular:

Exodus 20:8-11​

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Deuteronomy 5:12-15​

Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your ox, or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

Key Differences​

1. Wording: Exodus uses “Remember” while Deuteronomy uses “Observe.”
2. Reason for Observance:
   • Exodus: Tied to the creation narrative, emphasizing God’s rest after creating the world.
   • Deuteronomy: Tied to the Israelites’ liberation from slavery in Egypt, emphasizing gratitude for their deliverance.

Why the Change?​

The differences reflect the distinct contexts and purposes of each book:

• Exodus: Focuses on the creation and God’s sovereignty over the universe.
• Deuteronomy: Emphasizes the covenant relationship between God and Israel, highlighting their history and God’s deliverance.

Which One is Correct?​

Both versions are considered correct within their respective contexts. They complement each other by providing a fuller understanding of the Sabbath’s significance:

• Exodus: Highlights the universal aspect of rest and creation.
• Deuteronomy: Emphasizes the historical and covenantal relationship between God and Israel.

These variations enrich the theological and moral teachings of the Sabbath, offering multiple layers of meaning for reflection and observance12. " [Copilot]

 

[Stumpmaster]

, in Mark 2:26 Jesus says that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. Which one is correct?

Textual variations like this exist for various reasons, most commonly due to scribal elements.

Quote:
This is an interesting textual issue that has been discussed by scholars and theologians. In Mark 2:26, Jesus refers to David eating the consecrated bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” However, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 clearly states that Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, was the high priest at that time.

Possible Explanations​

1. Textual Tradition: Some scholars suggest that the reference to Abiathar might be a shorthand for the period during which Abiathar was a prominent figure. Abiathar later became a well-known high priest during David’s reign, and his name might have been more recognizable to the audience.
2. Copyist Error: Another possibility is that a copyist error occurred in the transmission of the text. Early manuscripts might have had variations, leading to the discrepancy.
3. Literary Device: Jesus might have been using a literary device, referring to a well-known figure (Abiathar) to make a broader point. This approach would be similar to how people might refer to a well-known era by a prominent figure associated with it, even if that figure wasn’t in the exact position at the specific time mentioned.
4. Harmonization: Some propose that Ahimelech and Abiathar might have served together or that there was a transition period between their priesthoods. This explanation, however, is less commonly accepted due to the clear distinction in 1 Samuel.

Which One is Correct?​

From a historical and textual perspective, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech was the high priest when David ate the consecrated bread. The reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 can be understood in light of the explanations above, particularly the idea of using a well-known figure to represent a period or due to textual transmission issues.
This discrepancy doesn’t undermine the overall message of the passage, which focuses on the principle of mercy and the purpose of the Sabbath. It also highlights the importance of understanding the context and transmission of biblical texts.[Copilot]

Happy hunting:
Textual Variants In The Hebrew Bible
Textual Variants In The New Testament

 

[RedFan]

Textual variations like this exist for various reasons, most commonly due to scribal elements.

Quote:
This is an interesting textual issue that has been discussed by scholars and theologians. In Mark 2:26, Jesus refers to David eating the consecrated bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” However, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 clearly states that Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, was the high priest at that time.

Possible Explanations​

1. Textual Tradition: Some scholars suggest that the reference to Abiathar might be a shorthand for the period during which Abiathar was a prominent figure. Abiathar later became a well-known high priest during David’s reign, and his name might have been more recognizable to the audience.
2. Copyist Error: Another possibility is that a copyist error occurred in the transmission of the text. Early manuscripts might have had variations, leading to the discrepancy.
3. Literary Device: Jesus might have been using a literary device, referring to a well-known figure (Abiathar) to make a broader point. This approach would be similar to how people might refer to a well-known era by a prominent figure associated with it, even if that figure wasn’t in the exact position at the specific time mentioned.
4. Harmonization: Some propose that Ahimelech and Abiathar might have served together or that there was a transition period between their priesthoods. This explanation, however, is less commonly accepted due to the clear distinction in 1 Samuel.

Which One is Correct?​

From a historical and textual perspective, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech was the high priest when David ate the consecrated bread. The reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 can be understood in light of the explanations above, particularly the idea of using a well-known figure to represent a period or due to textual transmission issues.
This discrepancy doesn’t undermine the overall message of the passage, which focuses on the principle of mercy and the purpose of the Sabbath. It also highlights the importance of understanding the context and transmission of biblical texts.[Copilot]

Happy hunting:
Textual Variants In The Hebrew Bible
Textual Variants In The New Testament

Why hypothesize on possible, but unlikely, explanations for Scriptural discrepancies (of which there are many)? Why not just take both texts at face value? Are you so desperate to protect your BIG hypothesis of Scriptural inerrancy that you will indulge the improbable, even the fantastical?

I've seen this before. In attempting a harmonization of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Vern S. Poythress states “We have the accounts in Mathew and Luke, which are inspired by God. They are what God says and are therefore trustworthy. That is the conviction we have and the basis on which we work.” Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization (Crossway 2012) at 21.

And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom by which to assess the evidence.

 

[St. SteVen]

Given the context, Deuteronomy literally being a second account of the Law, there is no conflict but rather a more informed rendering.

Quote:

Explore

The Ten Commandments are presented in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, with some variations. Let’s compare the Sabbath Commandment in particular:

Good post, thanks.
The narrative tells us that Moses destroyed the first set and had to write the second set himself.
Perhaps what was written/engraved in stone was different than what was written in the scrolls?



[

 

[St. SteVen]

Quote:
This is an interesting textual issue that has been discussed by scholars and theologians. In Mark 2:26, Jesus refers to David eating the consecrated bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” However, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 clearly states that Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, was the high priest at that time.

Possible Explanations​

1. Textual Tradition: Some scholars suggest that the reference to Abiathar might be a shorthand for the period during which Abiathar was a prominent figure. Abiathar later became a well-known high priest during David’s reign, and his name might have been more recognizable to the audience.
2. Copyist Error: Another possibility is that a copyist error occurred in the transmission of the text. Early manuscripts might have had variations, leading to the discrepancy.
3. Literary Device: Jesus might have been using a literary device, referring to a well-known figure (Abiathar) to make a broader point. This approach would be similar to how people might refer to a well-known era by a prominent figure associated with it, even if that figure wasn’t in the exact position at the specific time mentioned.
4. Harmonization: Some propose that Ahimelech and Abiathar might have served together or that there was a transition period between their priesthoods. This explanation, however, is less commonly accepted due to the clear distinction in 1 Samuel.

Another good post, thanks.
Either way, we are left with a misquote somewhere.
Points #1 and #3 would support a mythological presentation.

[

 

[Lambano]

MYTH: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Let's be a little tighter about what "myth" is and what it isn't.

 

[marks]

The Bible warns me against myths, so I exclude them in my worldview.

Religions based on myths, or a relationship with our Creator God . . . can anyone besides me spot the difference?

Haven't we had enough of those who continually impugn God's Word?

Much love!

 

[marks]

You seem skeptical.

That sounds like an understatement!

Much love!

 

[Stumpmaster]

Why hypothesize on possible, but unlikely, explanations for Scriptural discrepancies (of which there are many)? Why not just take both texts at face value? Are you so desperate to protect your BIG hypothesis of Scriptural inerrancy that you will indulge the improbable, even the fantastical?

I've seen this before. In attempting a harmonization of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Vern S. Poythress states “We have the accounts in Mathew and Luke, which are inspired by God. They are what God says and are therefore trustworthy. That is the conviction we have and the basis on which we work.” Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization (Crossway 2012) at 21.

And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom by which to assess the evidence.

Human error doesn't equal Divine error, which is an oxymoron.

 

[St. SteVen]

And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom by which to assess the evidence.

Exactly. Well said.

Human error doesn't equal Divine error, which is an oxymoron.

Was this scripture divinely inspired and inerrant?
Is this human error doesn't equal Divine error?
"... I regret that I have made them." - vs 7

Since the God is omniscient, why would they be surprised at how,
"... great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every
inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time"? - vs 5

Is this history, or mythology?

Genesis 6:5-7 NIV
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth,
and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth,
and his heart was deeply troubled.
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—
and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—
for I regret that I have made them.”

[ cc: @One 2 question

 

[Stumpmaster]

"... I regret that I have made them." - vs 7

Sigh, yes, all part of the plan. It was inevitable, foreknown, predestined, just like this conversation.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
"... I regret that I have made them." - vs 7

Sigh, yes, all part of the plan. It was inevitable, foreknown, predestined, just like this conversation.

Sorry. Your post gave me a chuckle. (I'm not laughing AT you) "... just like this conversation." - LOL (sigh)

I agree that if taken as history, it appears to have been part of the plan, although a very questionable part, as plans go.
I think the God is better than that. Especially when you weigh the cost.

- As history it means: a botched plan with planetary genocide as the solution/cover-up. ???
- As mythology it means: A dramatic story with a spiritual lesson. ???

Interesting that the church/Bible has tried to take the edge off this story by tacking a rainbow at the end. Happy, happy...

[ cc: @RedFan

 

[Rockerduck]

Another good post, thanks.
Either way, we are left with a misquote somewhere.
Points #1 and #3 would support a mythological presentation.

[

The High Priest always retained the title of High Priest after he was too old or removed. Remember Annas and Caiaphas. Annas(old) was High Priest and so was Caiaphas. Ahimelech was High Priest(old) and so was Abiathar. Usually past down Father to son.

 

[RedFan]

Human error doesn't equal Divine error, which is an oxymoron.

I agree. But that doesn't exclude human error from the Bible. Your particular human error is equating "inspired" with "inerrant."

 

[St. SteVen]

The High Priest always retained the title of High Priest after he was too old or removed. Remember Annas and Caiaphas. Annas(old) was High Priest and so was Caiaphas. Ahimelech was High Priest(old) and so was Abiathar. Usually past down Father to son.

That's a good workaround, but what do the passages in question indicate?
What authority did a retired priest have in the matter of eating the consecrated bread?
Did Abiathar make the decision to allow the eating the consecrated bread? See below.

Mark 2:25-26 NIV
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread,
which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

--- COMPARE ---

1 Samuel 21:1-5 NIV
David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked,
“Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
2 David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me,
‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’
As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place.
3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”
4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however,
there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”
5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever[b] I set out.
The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!”

[