posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:25 AM
What becomes very obvious when the parts of the book are rearranged into the order in which they were written is that the story grew with the telling.
For example, if you look at the central mystery of Christianity, the ‘Resurrection’, we find that in Mark’s gospel (the earliest) the visitors
to the tomb find a sitting figure, ‘a young man in a white robe’ (Mark 16.5). He could have been anybody. Thirty years later the story is rather
different: you can choose between the sudden appearance of ‘two men’, standing in ‘shining garments’ (Luke 24.4); or ‘a great earthquake:
for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven … His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (Matthew 28.2,3).
Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the
phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:
"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take
up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)
Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.
What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the
Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom,
upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and
unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. So, pick what story you like best and it must be true!
Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?
"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his
disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets
full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."
"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples
to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before
them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four
thousand: and he sent them away."
The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!
Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:
"And immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the
wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)
Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go
forth into Galilee, and find Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)
Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:
"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be
given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)
Or was John nearer the truth when he says:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)
By a convoluted process of interpolation, accretion and redaction, the whole compendium of fables and fancy was brought into being. The four Gospels
had a precedent in the ‘sayings of Jesus,’ epithets of wisdom attached to a shadowy Christ figure. Progressively anthropomorphized into a human
figure, a series of anecdotes, ‘reminiscences’ and stories were attached to his name.
What follows is a retracing of this great work of fiction, this history of a fake history; not the legend of a birth but the birth of a legend.
My point, Believe what story you read/make up, in/about, the christian bible. And it will be the right fable.