Gospel Story Plagiarized from Scripture

by JosephAlward 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  In this post I present evidence that Mark’s story about Jesus' feeding of loaves and fishes to the five thousand followers on the shore of the Sea of Galilee is a fictional story constructed from various passages in the Old Testament..

  The Lord’s people are sheep and the Lord is their shepherd beside the water, and he makes them lie down on the green grass.
  
  

  I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. (Ezekiel 34:23)

  May the LORD…appoint a man…so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd. (Numbers 27:16-17)

  The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters (Psalm 23:1-2)

  Mark wants his readers to see Jesus can give spiritual guidance to lost men as well as the Lord, so he creates a scene in which Jesus meets men who are like sheep without a shepherd, and then Mark has Jesus make them lie down on green grass beside the waters, just as the Lord is said to have done:

  When Jesus landed (on the shore of the Sea of Galilee) and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd... Jesus directed them to have all the people sit (literally, recline; Greek: anaklino) down in groups on the green grass (Mark 6:34, 39)

  A man of God asks his servant, who complains of there being too little food, to feed a great many men, but the feeding is miraculously achieved, with food left over.

  In the first example from Scripture below, the man of God is Elisha; in the second, it’s Moses. Later, I’ll show that Mark has Jesus do the exact same thing, evidently to convince his readers that Jesus is the messiah Scripture prophesied. First, here are the Elisha and Moses stories:
  
  

  A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain.

  "Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said.

  "How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked.

  But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: `They will eat and have some left over.'" Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over. (2 Kings 4:43-44)

  [Moses asks the Lord,] "Where can I get meat for all these people?", and the Lord responded by covering the land three feet deep in quail. (Numbers 11:13-21)

  With Jesus the shepherd tending his people the sheep, who are lying down on green grass by the still water, Mark next has Jesus’ disciples complain about the lack of food for the men--just as the servant did to Elisha, and Moses to the Lord, but Jesus miraculously produces food for the men, with food left over, just as Elisha and the Lord did:

  [Jesus said, Give] them something to eat."

  They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"

  "How many loaves do you have?" he asked. "Go and see."

  When they found out, they said, "Five--and two fish."

  Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand. (Mark 6:37-44)

  This is just one of many examples of gospel stories that were manufactured by the gospel writers. Interested readers will find a fuller exposition of this parallel at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Loaves_and_Fishes.htm; other examples of parallels are found at links on my web page.

  
  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  RWC

  Joseph,

  You have made this argument before and it still has the same problem with it. You pick random passages from the Old Testament and without any support or evidence jump to the conclusion that the Gospel writers picked these passages to fabricage the story of Jesus. That is an unsupported and illogical leap to make.

  First, your various quotes about a sheperd are just a few that make mention of a sheperd in the Bible. This was a common analogy to make, particularly in a culture where people raised sheep and goats. God is referred to as a sheperd by David in his Psalms. The leaders of Isreal are referred to sheperds throughout the Bible. Jesus refers to himself as a sheperd in the quotes that are ascribed to him. The point is that the mere fact that the role of a sheperd in this culture being used as an anaolgy for guidance from God and leaders does not mean that the Gospels are fake or that Mark pulled these analogies to invent Jesus. You can say the same thing about everytime the Temple, the sea, sandels, tunics or other items are mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. It is not a logical connection and certainly not any evidence of plagerism.
• 

  JosephAlward

  RWC,

  You dismiss the shepherd parallel as a coincidence, but you have nothing to say about the other ones. Do you think it is a coincidence that Jesus servants complain about feeding many on so little food, just as did Elisha's servant, and a coincidence that Jesus then orders the the men be fed anyway, just as Elisha did, and by a seeming miracle the many men are fed on so little food, just as in the case of Elisha, and that there is food left over, just as in the case of Elisha, and that Jesus had the men lie down on green pastures by the still water, just as in the 23rd Psalm? All of these parallels, in addition to the one about the shepherding of the lost sheep, are found in the single short story about the fish and loaves, and you think that this is just a coincidence?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  RWC

  Joseph, the question is not whether there are similar facts in each story, but whether there is any evidence to support your conclusion that Mark made up the feeding story based upon copying these events for the purpose of fictionalizing Jesus' activities. Simply because there are similarities doesn't make this conclusion supportable.

  The fact is that God supplied the food to Elisha and Moses and Jesus as God supplied the food to the people on the hill. Miracles all of them.

  As for the Pslam reference, that is a real stretch. Where does Mark say that the waters are calm. When David wrote the Pslam he was referring to God's providence for all of his needs and his protection in times of trouble. He was not referring to a physical location that would need to be copied by Mark.
• 

  JosephAlward

  RWC, do you think it is a coincidence that the 23rd Psalm has the Lord leading his people beside the waters and making them lie down in green pastures, and Mark has Jesus lead his people beside the waters of Galilee and make them lie down on the green grass?

  Do you think it is a coincidence that in Scripture the servant of the man of God complains about not having enough food, but is ordered to feed them anyway, and it is miraculously accomplished, with food left over, and then Mark tells us the exact same thing happened with Jesus, that his disciples complained about not having enough food to feed the people, but were ordered to do it anyway, and it was miraculously accomplished, with food left over?

  You have to honestly ask yourself this question, RWC, and then please give us your answer: Which do you really think is more likely the explanation for the loaves and fishes story?

  1. It happened pretty much as Mark said it did.

  2. Mark story was not literally true, but was instead a beautiful parable about Jesus' love, showing that the lost people of Israel, who were like sheep, could count on Jesus to give them the spiritual nourishment they needed to know God.

  If you choose Number 1, RWC, can you assure us that it is not because you've already made a prior commitment to believe every story in the Bible is literally true, but because you've analyzed the story and it seems more likely to be literally true than just a parable?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  RWC

  Joseph, I have no reason not to believe that Mark was reporting what actually happened. Mark's writing style does not lend itself to the poetic language that David uses in the Psalm. The language David used about still waters and green pastures is meant to invoke peace and protection. As I said before it is not a physical location. Jesus did not lead the people to the sea of Galilee, nor did he have the people lay down in the grass in a means to protect them. That was simply where they were when the event took place.

  Mark clearly was writing what happened. Whenever he told a parable, he indicated that the parable was being told by Jesus. If this was a "parable" that was made up he could have easily had Jesus tell a parable about a few people being fed on a little food instead of reporting it as an actual event. The message he was conveying would have been the same.

  To hold to your logic you will have to claim that all of the miracles explained by Mark are made up or copied from Old Testament. There is no basis to make this claim.

  You are saying that Mark had no basis to truly know the events in Jesus' life but that he made up this person and all that he did from his imagination and Old testament scriptures.How would you explain all of the other aspects of Jesus' life explained by Mark- his travels, who he talked to, what he told the disciples, the trial by Pilate, the death, etc... Where would Mark's basis be to copy these events if your theory is to hold true? If it is his imagination don't forget that he would have to be smart enough to know all of the Messianic prophecies, he would not be able to contradict any of them with Jesus' life if he was to be believed to be the Messiah. You will have to invent a motive for this to be made up with the idea that Mark had something to gain. You will have to explain where he came up with the ideas that turned Jewish social structures on their head and explain why at the same time he was copying the old testament he was changing what the Jewish people had believed for centuries through this new made up Messiah. And you will have to explain why Mark would invent the exact opposite Messiah the the people were looking for, one that would be killed by Rome instead of overthrowing them. Then explain why the other disciples, Gospel writers and Paul would continue to make up stories about this made up Messiah and why they went to their deaths for Mark's fairy tale.

  It is illogical and makes no sense.
• 

  JosephAlward

  RWC,

  You have written much that deserves a response, but I don't have time to do it all tonight. For now, I will just rebut one of the points you made; I will try to get to the others later.

  Mark clearly was writing what happened.

  How is it possible for Mark to have been writing about what had happened? Mark wasn’t a disciple, and there’s no evidence he was at the alleged feeding of the loaves and fishes, so he either heard the story second-hand from someone else, or else the story really is just a teaching parable about Jesus.

  The notion that the gospel writers would write parables about Jesus is not that far-fetched, is it? When they have Jesus tell a parable, it's not always clear that the events described in the parable didn't actually happened, or won't actually happen. Given the presence of so many parables out of the mouth of Jesus, it is not surprising that the gospel writer might wish to use the same teaching technique that Jesus used, is it? Thus, the gospel writer seems to have told parables about Jesus, and the evidence for this in the fishes and loaves story is found in the great many parallels to Scriptures, the Elisha multiplication of the loaves, the 23rd Psalm....you know the list, it's quite long.

  You still think there's no way the loaves story is a parable?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  JosephAlward

  You are saying that Mark had no basis to truly know the events in Jesus' life but that he made up this person and all that he did from his imagination and Old testament scriptures.How would you explain all of the other aspects of Jesus' life explained by Mark- his travels, who he talked to, what he told the disciples, the trial by Pilate, the death, etc...

  I just took a second look at your last post, RWC, because I wondered why you had not responded to my last post. I realize from the statement above that you really did think that Mark was a disciple, isn't that right?

  If so, now that you know better, does this change your perspective? Perhaps now you can see that Mark's information either came to him second-hand, or else he just invented a nice little story about Jesus which would show his readers that Jesus was just like the Lord, he could be a shepherd to his lost sheep, make them lie down in green pastures, and miraculously feed them, just as did Elisha and Moses.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  RWC

  Sorry for the delay Joseph, I was out of town. No I do not think that Mark was a disciple. As I have stated before, he was a disciple who was taught by Peter. He followed Paul and Barnabas on missionary trips. When I say he was writing what had happened, I mean that he intended for this event to be taken as a real event and not as a parable.
• 

  JosephAlward

  I mean that he intended for this event to be taken as a real event and not as a parable.

  What evidence can you present which shows that the feeding of the five thousand actually occurred? No writer besides the writers who were promoting Jesus as the Son of God "knew" about it, and not a single one of the five thousand recorded in their family histories a single mention of the event. Furthermore, Mark's story parallels almost exactly the story of Elisha's miraculous multiplication of the bread, complete with the complaining servant and the leftovers. Throw in the obvious allusions to the 23rd Psalm--the Lord is my shepherd, he leadeth me beside waters, he maketh me lie down on green grass--ALL of these things were in Mark's story, but you STILL insist that the story HAD to have been true?

  What you have failed to do throughout this discussion, RWC, is address ALL of the parallels at once; you've looked at one here, and then another one later, but you don't seem to have allowed yourself to be confronted by all of them at the same time. Would you do that now? I've listed most of the parallels that connect Mark's story to Scripture. Would you look at them all, in total, and explain why you don't think it's an extraordinary coincidence that so many elements from Scripture could appear in one story about Jesus?

  Given that Mark never had Jesus tell his listeners that the parables he was telling were not literally true, and given that Mark had Jesus use so many of these parables as a teaching tool, do you really still think that it is unthinkable that Mark may have wished to emulate the "Jesus" he was writing about, and do the same as Jesus did--use parables to teach about his subject? Thus, Mark created parables about Jesus, and just like Jesus, didn't tell his audience that the stories weren't literally true.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html