The Bible is one of the most revered books in the world, with many believers taking it to be an accurate factual account of history, whether it be the creation of the world about 6,000 years ago, the destruction of most human and animal life in a worldwide flood about 4,000 years ago, or Jesus performing astounding miracles before being raised from the dead about 2,000 years ago. After all, it is a religious text written by people claiming to speak on behalf of God and with God’s help; surely they would only speak the truth and never fudge anything lest they incur God’s wrath!
I would argue there is clear evidence that the early Christians did invent stories about Jesus in pursuit of their mission to teach the world about Him. Although many church-goers are ignorant of this there are many stories of Jesus and his disciples that were not included in the canon of the New Testament. Why were they not included? Because early church leaders did not regard them as factual or authentic. Although some of these writings bore the names of Jesus’ disciples (Thomas, Peter, James, etc.) it was thought that they appeared too late to be authentic. Some may have contained material that was not orthodox or that contradicted the accepted texts; that can’t be right! Some had stories that simply stretched one’s credulity (as if all the miracle stories in the Bible do not?). Someone invented these stories, not to attack the Christian mission, but clearly to support it and win converts. These stories glorify Jesus and His disciples; they are positive propaganda. They were invented by believers on behalf of the “truth” ironically enough. (See the home page for links to two sites offering early Christian writings from outside the Bible.)
The Four Evangelists (c. 1614) by Peter Paul Rubens.
Did they really get angelic help, or just wing it?
The Gospel of Thomas is a list of sayings of Jesus purportedly recorded by his disciple Thomas. For example, “”Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man” (#7). Or: Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her [Mary] in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (#114). Did Jesus really say such things? If not, where did such sayings come from? Somebody had to invent them. (Of course one possibility is that Jesus really did say such things, but the Gospel authors edited them out, as they sounded too strange and obscure.)
The Acts of John includes a funny story about how the apostle John stops at an inn and commands the bedbugs to leave his room and then lets them back in the next morning. The Acts of Paul and Thecla contain a number of great stories about Thecla being miraculously saved from execution, like when lightning strikes the bloodthirsty seals about to attack her. In The Acts of Peter the apostle restores a smoked tuna to life and confronts a magician who is able to fly. These stories all testify to the miraculous abilities of those appointed by Jesus, but does anyone today believe they are factual? Someone had to invent these stories.
The Proto-gospel (or Infancy Gospel) of James contains stories of Jesus’ birth not found in the Bible. Mary the mother of Jesus has a miraculous birth and is raised in the temple, fed by angels. Jesus ends up being born in a cave. Time temporarily stands still when he is born. Joseph fetches a midwife who doubts that Mary is a virgin and when she uses her hand to check this out her arm painfully withers until she touches the baby Jesus. Fun stuff, but factual? If not factual then someone made it up.
Returning to Thomas, he was also said to have written The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It contains some entertaining stories about Jesus as a boy. One time Jesus made some clay sparrows on a Sabbath, and when called to account for violating the Sabbath he makes the sparrows fly away with a clap of His hands. Worse yet, He kills a child for bumping into Him, and then blinds those in the village that dare to accuse Him. Whoa! Do you think Jesus really did such things? If not, then someone had to create these stories, and it appears to be Christians that did so. The book was not written to criticize Jesus: as the story progresses Jesus learns to use his power for good, and it culminates in young Jesus discussing the Scriptures in the temple with the elders there, as also cited in Luke 2:41-52. Did the Infancy Gospel borrow the story of Jesus in the temple from Luke, or vice versa, or perhaps they both got it from an earlier source? And is the story factual, in contrast to the other stories in the Infancy Gospel? Or is this evidence that invented stories also made it into the New Testament?
Let me pause and make this point: if you do not accept these non-canonical stories as factual, then you clearly believe that early Christians invented stories in support of their cause. But did church leaders effectively weed out the false stories and retain only true stories?
I would argue that there are stories in the canonical Gospels that show evidence of creative writing, starting with the birth of Jesus. We know Christians invented stories about Jesus’ birth; it should not be a surprise to find some in the Gospels. Consider Matthew’s version. A magical star appears in the sky, causing some eastern astrologers to seek the newborn king of the Jews. Really? Were they in the habit of always visiting the new king of the Jews, and if so, why? If the star could lead them right to the very house where Jesus lived (Matthew 2:9) then why did they have to stop in Jerusalem to ask directions? Why would God save his own son from Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents but leave the other families to mourn their murdered children? Not very considerate of Him who is said to be the epitome of love. The whole story reads very much like those in the non-canonical gospels: interesting but hard to accept as factual. Luke’s version is not much more convincing, as he also has John the Baptizer born miraculously as a cousin of Jesus, who recognizes Jesus even in utero yet somehow forgets who he is later in life (Luke 1:41, 7:19). Luke also puts Jesus in Jerusalem where his birth is no secret (e.g., Luke 2:38), right under the nose of Herod who is supposedly out to kill him. At least Luke doesn’t accuse God of abandoning the children of Bethlehem to Herod’s slaughter like Matthew does.
More problematic than the birth stories are those associated with his resurrection. Paul rightly argues that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the crucial point of Christianity (1st Corinthians 15:12-19). Yet the stories of this resurrection are contradictory and not compatible (at least, without doing extreme mental contortions); see post #41, the Easter Quiz. Did the women flee in fear and not tell the disciples about the resurrection? (Mark) Or did they actually tell the disciples, who then met up with Jesus in Galilee, as per the instructions? (Matthew) Or did the disciples first see Jesus in Jerusalem and stay there? (Luke) Or, you can have it both ways as in John: Jesus first shows Himself to the disciples in Jerusalem before meeting them again in Galilee. I know people try, but you really can’t have it four different ways. Actually five ways, since Paul’s list of resurrection appearances doesn’t match any of the gospels (1st Corinthians 15: 3-8). Someone is being creative with these stories. Remember, the Gospels are written to proclaim the “Good News” of Jesus; they do not claim to be blow-by-blow historical accounts of Jesus’ teachings and ministry.
However, Luke comes close to claiming this in his opening verses:
Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
So it sounds like Luke is making the effort to keep his account accurate, but he admits he has to use other sources to compose his account. (Note: I’m using the traditional names assigned to the Gospel authors, even though they were written anonymously.) This leads to an interesting situation: Luke clearly seems to use the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources: He quotes it verbatim in certain places. Yet in other places he changes Mark’s wording or the order of events. Why did he sometimes change the material from Mark? It seems obvious that Luke did not think Mark always got the story right, and so he had to correct him. Similarly, Luke and Matthew share material not found in Mark; many scholars think they had a common source for this material, called “Q” from the German word for “source”. There are competing theories about this, but yet again, Luke’s version is often somewhat different from Matthew’s. Clearly he disagreed with the way things were worded in Matthew (or in their common source) or he would have kept the same wording. So, we have a Gospel author who appears to disagree with what the other Gospel authors were saying, at least in minor ways, perhaps in some cases in more significant ways, but that discussion goes beyond the scope of this article.
The claim that the Gospels are infallible and entirely accurate came from later Christians; much later. It really has only been in the past two centuries that this idea has become so important to some Christians (not all). The early story tellers did not seem to have any qualms about creating stories to express what they believed about Jesus and His apostles. Most Christians acknowledge this with the non-canonical stories. I think the Gospels also are better understood and appreciated that way.
What do these invented stories tell us? That religious zealots, rather than being devoted to the historical truth, are actually devoted to an ideal which justifies creating stories in support of that ideal. Israel is a nation chosen by and blessed by Yahweh – so the stories reflect that. Jesus was a miracle-working Son of God, superior to the human-like pagan gods – so the stories express that. Pagans needed to be convinced of Jesus’ power so Christians told entertaining stories of him and his disciples performing astounding acts. If the stories reflect truth, what does it matter if they are literally true or not, right?
Let me also throw this out there: Jesus, revered as the Son of God by Christians, often taught through parables. A parable is a story meant to represent some underlying truth. It is not meant to be taken literally or as fact. If the Son of God taught through parables, might also his Father? Where did the Son get this technique from? Does the Garden of Eden story, with its magic trees and talking snake, have to be taken literally, or can it be viewed as a parable meant to prompt us to ponder and discuss why we humans make the decisions we do? Does the story of Noah’s ark have to be taken as history, or is it a parable? I can think of contrasting ways to interpret the story. Maybe it is a tale of how depraved we humans can become. Maybe, quite differently, the point is that God recognizes the futility of trying to kill off all the evildoers so that we shouldn’t try that, either. Is the Akedah, the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, meant to teach extreme obedience, or to prompt us to stop and ask, Would God really want us to kill in His name? (Many terrorists seem to think so.) Would I be willing to kill my child even if I thought God was asking me to? Should I be? I think the stories of the Bible make more sense as fodder for discussion rather than trying to frame them as history and science lessons which create obvious problems for people that actually study history and science. Instead of these stories saying this is the right thing to do maybe their purpose is for us to ask, What is the right thing to do? I am reminded of this quote by well-known scholar John Dominic Crossan: “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”[1] Amen, brother!
An invented story told as a parable, meant to be interpreted as a parable, can still represent truth. On the other hand, an invented story presented as truth is a lie. With the creative stories of the Christian religion, whether in the Bible or not, we cannot know the intention of the authors, but we can decide for ourselves how we interpret those stories.
I don’t care if you think Jesus and His disciples performed amazing miracles. I don’t care if you think the Buddha mastered levitation. I don’t care if you believe that Muhammed flew on a winged horse from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night. I don’t care if you think Joseph Smith translated some golden plates with the help of an angel. The problem becomes when you insist that everyone else accept those stories as factual and accept their conclusions, or worse, your conclusions of what those stories mean. Even to the point of altering the content of public education or creating political policies in line with your personal religious views. Perhaps Winston Churchill was right in saying “in wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” But I don’t think that applies to religion and the foundational truths of life. We have a duty to discern the difference between fact and fancy. Otherwise the fanciful can become “fact”, and any dissent is viewed as heresy or blasphemy in the eyes of religion and those devoted to protecting her, with dire consequences for the questioners.
Thinking exercises:
1. Is there a story in the Bible you find difficult to believe? Why do you think it was included in the Bible?
2. Jesus taught in parables. Do you think some of the stories of the Bible were intended as parables but later were understood as factual history?
3. Why do people believe fantastic stories that originate in their own religion while dismissing those told in other religions?
[1] John Dominic Crossan with Richard G. Watts in Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions About the Historical Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press (1999).
2 responses to “49: Did Early Christians Just Make Stuff Up?”
Even though I want it to be true, the story in the Bible that includes a talking donkey is hard to believe.
I think the reason I want it to be true is because I’ve seen too many episodes of Mr Ed. “Wilbrrrr!”
I wonder if such stories might reflect their experience with drugs, which were commonly used in ancient religions (see post #16). Since you mention this, I should write an article about Balaam (and his talking donkey). He is reviled in later scriptures, but as I read the story he did what God told him at every turn. It’s a curious story.