The Plot Theory

By:  Erick Nelson
Last Updated:  October 31, 2000

Question

"Ok, let's assume you've proved that the disciples did teach that Jesus was God in the flesh and rose from the dead - and furthermore, that their message was essentially as the NT presents it.  Based on this, there are indeed two alternatives:

What's wrong with the Plot Theory position?"

Background

Background

Looking at the "Plot Theory" comes at the point of investigation where certain important things have been established:

This is a lot to assume!  Fortunately, it's not necessary to just assume that these points are true - we can look at the evidence.  This is a big topic.  There's no reason to even look at the Plot Theory unless these points have been satisfied.

The rest of this discussion presumes that, at least for the sake of argument, these background points have been satisfactorily established.


Definition

According to the Plot Theory, Jesus' own disciples - for whatever reason - decided to create a convincing lie about him in order to establish a new religion.  Jesus was really not God in the flesh, or anything more than human.  He did not rise from the dead.  But they claimed these things.

In this view, the disciples wrote the New Testament as a propaganda piece.  You can't trust anything it says as an account of "what really happened."  Thus, there's no problem with the empty tomb, the guards at the tomb, the resurrection appearances, the miracles of Jesus, etc., because they are all stories invented to support the Plot.

Difficulties - 1

Jewishness

Jesus' immediate disciples were all religious Jews.  Literate (e.g. Matthew the tax collector), not so literate (Peter, James, and John - fishermen) - but all steeped in the Jewish declaration that there is One God.  The Jews (just like later Islam) were especially adamant, sometimes even fanatically so, about the existence One God in the face of the polytheism practiced by their contemporaries.  The reaction of the Jewish leaders at Jesus' trial (whether the account is true or not) is particularly characteristic of this mindset.  When Jesus admitted to being the Son of the Blessed, they cried "Blasphemy!  You have heard it yourself from his lips." 

It was one thing to claim that your Master is a prophet or teacher.  It is entirely another to claim that he is the One God in the flesh.  As J.W. Montgomery in History and Christianity observes, the "psychological pressure" must have been intense against this view.


 Set Up For Failure

The most reasonable presumption is that the Plot was invented with the desire for success - that is, for actually establishing a religion, a cult, a group, something.  If they had invented a religion centered around a Teaching (non-violence, love of your neighbor, reverence for new writings) or a Prophet (announcing the last days, preferably), they would have had a decent chance for success.  Especially if they soft-pedaled any variances with existing cultures - if they were eclectic and "accepting" enough to embrace Greek idols along with the Jewish Torah.

However, to claim that Jesus was the One God in the flesh was to guarantee open ridicule at the best, and hostile, violent backlash at the worst.

1.  Greeks.  The resurrection of the body was indeed foolishness to the Greeks.  The Platonic view was that of a world of purely spiritual Forms or essences - with a strict separation of the soul and body.  In one of Plato's dialogues, Socrates says that philosophy is the pursuit of "death", that is, the "separation" of the soul and body through daily denial.  The teaching of Jesus' resurrection was considered a simpleton's philosophy.  

Second, to preach the deity of Christ would naturally lead to the overturn of the leading local deities (such as Diana of the Ephesians) and, since much of the business depended upon these cults, the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ would inevitably run afoul of the powerful (as in the book of Acts).  

2.  Jews.  If there ever was a doctrine calculated to incur the wrath of the Jews, it was the claim that some particular man was God.  Not only was there great "psychological pressure" against it, the immediate reaction would be to stone the offender.  In fact, this came to pass in the earliest Jerusalem days of Christianity.  Stephen and James (the brother of John) were executed, at least in part for this outrageous claim. 

3.  Romans.  The Romans cared nothing about blasphemy, but they did take treason very personally.  To claim that Jesus was God was both to claim that he was superior to the Roman government, and also to challenge the cult of emperor-worship.  Specifically because of the stubborn proclamation of early Christians, several of the Roman emperors, including Nero and Domitian, tried to systematically wipe out the entire lot.

My argument is not only that this message would eventually prove to have tragic consequences, but that the original disciples couldn't help knowing that this would inevitably be the case.  They knew the attitudes of the Jews and the Romans for sure, and most probably could figure out that there would be problems with the Greeks.  Since the Jews and Romans were the ruling forces to be reckoned with, the conclusion would have to be that the disciples made up this plot knowing full well that they and their followers would be violently opposed at every turn.

If ever a plot was set up for failure, this was it.


The Disciples Died for the Plot

I once heard someone say that the disciples invented this story so they could make a killing with a new religious enterprise, sort of like televangelists.  The problem with this, of course, is that instead of making a killing, they were killed.  As mentioned before, they must have seen this as a direct, inescapable consequence of their message. 

Best evidence says that all the disciples, except possibly John, died violent deaths as a result of their preaching.  Most famous are Peter (died upside-down on a cross), James the brother of John (sword), James the brother of Jesus (thrown from the temple and clubbed).  Methods of execution included beheading, stoning, crucifixion.  What did they stand to gain from such a plot?

Second, there is no evidence that any of the disciples recanted - that is, admitted that this was all a plot - even under extreme torture.  Contrast this, for instance, with the twelve men who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  As I recall, Martin Harris and a couple of others later left the Mormon church and renounced their earlier witness.  


It Wasn't a Nice Plot

One person made the point to me, "You Christians say that you're better off because of your faith.  Well, maybe the disciples figured that would be true, and invented a religion to give people hope and faith, and were even willing to die for it."

But Paul himself says that if the Christian message isn't true, then they are of all people the most to be pitied, and that Paul is a deceiver (I Cur 15).  

According to this proponent of the "Nice Plot" theory, the disciples are telling their friends (for their own benefit) to give up every aspiration and dream that they have, to renounce their livelihoods if necessary and follow Jesus - to refuse to worship the empower and invite death in the arena, to claim that Jesus is God and invite stoning by the Jewish rulers, at the very least to lose their jobs, their position in the community, and often their families.  Where's the good here?  Wouldn't a vague, idealistic "faith" be a little more productive?

No, this couldn't have been a beneficent plot.  If it was a plot, it was a grossly immoral deception.


Conversion of Paul and James

Paul was a persecutor of the Christians.  James was Jesus' brother, who as far as we can tell wasn't a Christian until the resurrection (I Cur 15).  How did they get pulled into the Plot?

Difficulties - 2

NT Internal Evidence

Under the Plot Theory, the NT was essentially written as a propaganda piece.  But when I actually look at how it is written, I am struck by how unlike a propaganda piece it is.  First, the gospel of Luke has both large and small factual details that all could have been checked by the readers.  It would have been much easier to keep these vague.  

Several commentators have remarked on the lack of sensationalism found in the narratives.  

Also, the disciples are sometimes shown in a bad light.  This would be abnormal if they were cooking up a plot; it would have been much more effective to enhance their own stature.


 NT Doesn't Show Collusion

This, to me, is an insurmountable obstacle to the Plot Theory.  Tens of thousands of pages have been devoted to "Bible Contradictions", especially to the variations in accounts between the gospels.  The list of apparent discrepancies goes on and on.

At the same time, there have been books such as Alleged Bible Discrepancies by Haley that provide thoughtful, conscientious treatments of these variations and give plausible harmonizations.

Certain legal experts and writers, such as Simon Greenleaf in the 1800's, and Norman Anderson and John Warwick Montgomery more recently, have looked at this kind of evidence and have concluded that they are actually indications of eyewitness reportage.  To explain:  

  1. If two accounts are exactly identical, we suspect collusion or dependence.  
  2. If they are really inconsistent, then at least one must be inaccurate.
  3. If, however, they contain variations which can be harmonized at a deeper level, they are independent accounts of the same events.

They say that we see #3 in the gospel accounts - variations which can be harmonized at a deeper level.  They look much more like independent accounts than like inconsistent accounts.

But we know for sure that they are not #1, identical accounts.  When they are independent compatible accounts or contradictory accounts, they do not show signs of collusion.  Surely if the New Testament was a propaganda device, the authors would have at least tried to get their stories straight.  

And think about this:  Why write four accounts if you're inventing a story?  Why not just one official account?

Difficulties - 3


No Scholar Holds This Theory

As far as I know, no scholar of this century has put forth the theory that the disciples made up a plot to fool the world.  I would be glad to know of any, and see what responses might be made to these points.

Hugh Schonfield wrote a best-seller called The Passover Plot, which even became a movie.  Even in this treatment, the plot is not by the disciples, but rather by Jesus himself and a few peripheral characters.  In that book, Schonfield says:  "Christians are surely right in protesting that the Church could not have been established on the basis of a deliberate falsehood on the part of the apostles ..." (p 164)

Jesus was a Bad Moral Teacher (a Dupe)

It seems as if countless people have said, "I don't buy the idea that Jesus was God, but I do respect him as a great man and great moral teacher."  This middle ground, however, is not possible when dealing with the Plot Theory.

If you believe that Jesus' disciples made up such a Plot (that is, they told people that Jesus was God in the flesh and that they should give their very lives to (and for) him), and if you realize that this plot was "not a nice plot" (see above), then they were deceivers pure and simple.

But what does this say about Jesus as a great moral teacher?  He was, in this view, a dupe - used by his supposed followers to prop up a religious scheme.  He was not only a pathetic figure, he was a complete failure as a moral teacher.  His pupils, those whom he taught directly, turned around and concocted an immoral plot.  One that cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the first two centuries of Christianity.  One that continues to cost lives today.

Conclusion

If I had to be in a debate, and the choice was between (a) the Plot Theory and (b) the disciples honestly believed that Jesus was God in the flesh and rose from the dead, I'd take the later in a heart-beat.  I think the Plot Theory is completely indefensible.  Whatever the truth is, it must lie elsewhere.