120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Jobar]

Here's the first of a long series of good YouTube videos- "Excavating the Empty Tomb."

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E[/YOUTUBE]

It takes several hours to watch them all, but I think it's time well spent.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

I think 95% of my mouse wheel usage occurs while perusing this thread.

 

[Learner]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo[/YOUTUBE]


Can't match Lumpy as I'd probably run out of useful vocabulary in just two or three paragraphs.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo[/YOUTUBE]


Can't match Lumpy as I'd probably run out of useful vocabulary in just two or three paragraphs.

There are two good reasons for dismissing your argument by youtube here.

First of all, there's the obvious poisoning of the well of the title of your video: "biased atheist dogma" in the video title is a clear sign that the video you present is not going to be a balanced, impartial presentation of the evidence.

Secondly, and more importantly, Craig talking about people rejecting arguments a priori is laughably hypocritical from a man who is on record as saying that if he heard a convincing argument that contradicted Christianity, he would have to reject it because of the "self-authenticating witness of the holy spirit in (his) heart". Anybody who rejects evidence in favour of what happens "in his heart" is an unreliable witness, and his testimony can be rejected as anecdotal. Craig rejects anything that goes against his warm fuzzies, he is not interested in any evidence against his predetermined feelings and, as such, can be rejected as any kind of reliable witness.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do the Gospels belong in a "GENRE" of literature which makes them necessarily FICTION?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.

Once again there are NO "works from antiquity . . . considered fictional" named in this link and having something "in common" with the Gospels.

There is a premise here that anything in the "fictional" category has to be fiction because it is in that category or "genre" of literature, as though something becomes fiction by being designated to a fiction "genre" and then concluding that it must be fiction because of its assignment to that "genre" vs. some other category.

And the assignment to the "fictional" category here is based on the presence of miracle stories in the Gospels, which automatically puts them in this category. Which is circular reasoning: it is "fictional" because it's in this category, and we put it in this category because it contains miracle stories and anything having miracle stories must ipso facto be fiction, even if there's evidence that the reported miracle events did happen.

There are no other "works from antiquity" named here which contain miracle claims comparable to that of the Gospel accounts and having something "in common" with them. And, there is virtually nothing in the ancient literature, concurrent with the Gospel accounts or earlier, which presents miracle events so prominently or conspicuously as in these 4 documents.

However, soon AFTER the 4 Gospels, beginning with the Book of Acts, we see miracle stories popping up more and more, in lots of literature going forward into the following centuries. So if there really are "works from antiquity" similar to the Gospels, for comparison, they have to be from about 100 AD and later, not before. In the earlier literature the closest would be the stories of Elijah and Elisha in I-II Kings, but this writing is 600-700 years earlier than the Gospels appeared, and the miracle stories there are about events of 200-300 years earlier still, so these also are not "in common" with the Gospels which report events only 40-70 years earlier.

If the Gospels are to be placed into a "genre" or category of ancient literature, for comparison, one requirement of this category is that the literature is about events said to have happened in recent history, not from several centuries earlier:


What "GENRE" of ancient literature do the Gospels really belong to?

• A document of this "genre" presents events, reported as factual, which are placed into a historical setting, into the events of that time and location, despite whether intermixed with fictional or religious or propaganda elements.

• The document was written near to the time of the historical events, not several centuries later.

• The document is short, by comparison to mainline historical writings, and focused on one particular event as special, rather than the broad historical overview.

There might be some literature, other than the Gospels, which comes close to being in this category, but rather than making any such appropriate comparison, Ferguson here just simplistically assigns the Gospels to some "fictional" category, without any explanation why, other than apparently a premise or doctrine that all miracle stories must be fiction, regardless if there is evidence that they are true, and we're all expected to submit to this doctrine, as though it's a basic principle of science or logic, which it is not.

Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος
The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod and the Gospels: Some Comparanda | Κέλσος
Lawrence Wills: “The Life of Aesop and the Hero Cult Paradigm in the Gospel Tradition” | Κέλσος
Are the Gospels Ancient Biographies?: The Spectrum of Ancient Βίοι | Κέλσος
Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel | Κέλσος
Patterns of Myth-Making Between the Lives of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ | Κέλσος
 Ancient Greek novel

There's no evidence in these links that the Jesus miracle stories are fictional. Rather, it's just a premise that any source containing miracles has to be "fiction" and goes into the "fictional" category, and then the fact that it's in this category is the proof that the accounts are fiction.

So this is #9 of Ferguson's 10 criteria or "relevant areas of distinction" between "historical" writings and the Gospels (from the first link above). He's right that the Gospels show an unusual display of miracle stories, compared to not only the "historical" writings but to virtually all the ancient literature. Note that the reason miracle stories are rejected as "fiction" is not a consideration of any evidence in particular cases, but simply the basic doctrine that all miracle stories must be fiction, no matter what, even when there's evidence that the reported events did happen.

So what are these criteria? The ways in which the Gospels diverge from and fall short of the historical writing of their time are perhaps too numerous to exhaustively treat here, but I will discuss ten relevant areas of distinction that are helpful for understanding how historical writing is different. . . .

9. Miracles at the Fringe versus the Core of the Narrative

Simply because ancient historical authors conducted more rigorous research does not entail that they were skeptical of the supernatural. Unbelievable stories still crop up in the writings of Greek and Latin historians, ranging from Herodotus (8.36-39) claiming that, when the Persians attacked the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, its armaments came alive of their own accord and defended the temple, with lightning bolts suddenly raining down upon the Persian army, to Josephus (BJ 6.5.3) claiming that a cow gave birth to a lamb as an impending sign of Jerusalem’s destruction, to Suetonius claiming (Gal. 1.1) that, prior to Nero’s death, lightning struck the Temple of the Caesars and simultaneously decapitated all of the emperors’ statues, even dashing the scepter from the hand of Augustus’ statue (quite a remarkable feat for lightning alone). Of course, I do not believe such stories and their placement in these narratives does make me less trustful of their authors. But fortunately, for ancient historical authors, these ridiculous tall tales are usually at the fringe rather than the core of the narrative.

The Gospels, in contrast, simply narrate unbelievable claim after unbelievable claim about a man who can feed whole crowds with one tuna sandwich, cause dead saints to rise from their graves, himself resurrect from the dead, and then fly into space in broad daylight. These unbelievable tall tales make up the bulk of the narrative. As philosopher Stephen Law points out, following the principle of contamination, the frequency of these unbelievable stories casts doubt on even the mundane details in the narrative.

Only if you start with the premise that all miracle claims must be false, no matter what. If one doesn't start with that premise but leaves open the possibility of some miracle events having happened, then there is no such contamination. Rather, the judgment that something is fiction must be based on reasons other than the simple ideological premise that ALL miracle stories have to be fiction despite any evidence.

To the contrary, the credibility is INcreased by the excess number of miracle stories in this case plus the extra sources -- 4 instead of only 1 -- and that they mostly agree or confirm each other, reporting so many miracle acts by this one person, i.e., reporting some of the same events. This increases the likelihood that at least some of these events really did happen, even though it becomes difficult to believe that they ALL happened, or that all the details are accurate. Rather, the indication, or best explanation, is that most of these reported miracle events really did happen, which are the core of the whole story, while possibly fiction stories got added as well to the original stories, as a result of mythologizing, or legend-building.

The only reason to disallow this explanation is the simplistic doctrine that no miracle claims can ever be true no matter what. But setting aside that ideological doctrine and leaving open the possibility of some miracle events, the best explanation for the unique display of miracles in the Gospel accounts is that at least some of the Jesus miracle acts really did happen.

That best explains what we have with these Gospel documents. Because if ALL the stories are fiction only, then there's no explanation how this unusual mythologizing got started in the first place. If it was so easy for an ordinary person with no unique power to be made into such a miracle-worker, then why is there ONLY ONE case of this in all the historical record? We should have dozens other examples of it, as the same miracle legend phenomenon should have occurred many other times as well, with different miracle-worker characters from different times and places and cultures.


If such miracle stories were the norm, where are other examples of it?

The pop-culture debunker gurus like Carrier and Price and others like to keep repeating that there were other miracle legends, and that they are a dime-a-dozen, etc., and yet any example they give is so ludicrous by comparison, as has been pointed out many times. They name Apollonius of Tyana, e.g., for whom there is ONLY ONE SOURCE, and this source is 150 years later than when this hero lived. And their other parallel examples are equally preposterous.

In the Jesus case the original miracle events must have been very important and had a huge impact on people to then inspire so much later mythologizing. What is another example of this in the ancient literature?

There is no other explanation for this unique barrage of miracle stories all attached to one singular reported miracle-worker. If it's normal how this happened, or in keeping with a routine pattern of miracle claims of antiquity, then why is there no other example of a miracle legend hero in all the literature that comes anywhere close by comparison? Whatever caused this one to appear in the first century AD should have caused dozens of others also to appear, concurrently as well as before and after. And yet there is not one other case.

There ARE other cases? Who? Name them. When anyone tries to name other cases, the examples are pathetic and ludicrous by comparison. One could die laughing at how silly they sound, as if, e.g., the story of a horse giving birth to a rabbit offers any comparison to the accounts of Jesus curing the lepers and raising the dead. (And Herodotus is the ONLY ONE source for that particular idiotic example, offered by Richard Carrier in his desperate attempt to find a parallel, which virtually proves there are no parallels.)

It is not as if their genre is relatively historical, but merely peppered with a few miracles here and there. Rather, the Gospels are entirely fantastical and legendary. The Gospels are so contaminated by unbelievable claims that they should be treated as generally untrustworthy until there is good reason for believing specific details.

But there IS good reason, just like for other reported events, all known to us only through written documents which survived and which report the ancient events, and in this case we do have extra reports, or extra sources, which is necessary in the case of miracle claims, or anything dubious.

That they "are so contaminated by unbelievable claims" shows that this one case stands out from any other miracle legends or miracle claims in the ancient literature. Why? Why is this case so different and so conspicuous compared to any other source containing a miracle claim?

What "good reason" ever is there to believe an ancient event happened? only that some written source from the time says it happened. The only "reason for believing specific details" in any historical account is that those details are reported in documents (written near to the time) which say those details/events did happen. Outside this there is virtually no "good reason" to believe any historical facts. How else can we know whether something happened 1000 or 2000 years ago except that it's reported in documents from the time saying that it happened? What other "good reason" can there be to believe ANY fact of history except that documents from the time report that it happened?

There's nothing that smells "fictional" here. All that's different here is that in this one case we have EXTRA SOURCES instead of only one, and these are near to the events rather than 100+ years (or centuries) later, and there is a barrage of reported miracle acts by this one person. So the only thing fishy about these miracle claims is that ideological doctrine saying there can't be any miracle events. Except for that ideology, the evidence we have says these events did happen.

Another thing that should be noted is that, while ancient historians occasionally report miracles, they often use specific grammatical constructions that distance themselves from affirming the stories and make clear that they are only reporting claims. The historian Titus Livy, for example, in reporting some of the miracle stories of regal Rome, frequently uses terms like ut dicitur (“as it is said”) or ferunt (“they claim”) to specify that he is not endorsing these claims, but only recording that they were made. One such example is when Livy (1.39) discusses the tale of how the king Servius Tullius’ head, when he was a child, caught on fire while he was sleeping, but did not harm him, as it was a sign that he would be a future king. Livy’s careful use of the verb ferunt (“they claim”) indicates that he is distancing himself from gullibly believing in this fable. The Gospels, in contrast, just throw out miracle after miracle, asking us to believe every single one of them, in a manner that presumes far less critical thinking on the part of the reader.

But that's because the Gospel writers really believed the event happened, whereas Livy did NOT believe the claim he reported. Had Livy believed the claim was true, he would have just wrote that it happened, like the Gospel writers did. So this example does not prove there's any difference between Livy and the Gospel writers. Or, the only difference is that Livy knew of no real miracle events which actually happened, whereas the Gospel writers did know, or thought they knew, of real cases.

Probably the Gospel writers would not have written their accounts if they did not believe these miracle claims. If they had been skeptical of them, and yet wanted to write these accounts, then they too would have used language to distance themselves from the claims, saying only that these events were reported, or that people said this happened. But no -- they were sure, or had some strong indication that it was true, unlike Livy, and so they became believers and wrote the accounts from a partisan standpoint rather than taking a neutral or skeptical approach.

And we cannot presume that the Gospel writers were therefore wrong. We don't know whether these events happened. We only know that in this singular case educated writers were sure it had happened.

THE proof that Jesus did no miracles:
The Doctrine that miracle events cannot ever happen
​

Of course you can just impose the doctrine that no miracle event can ever happen regardless of any evidence. But that's a doctrine that a reasonable person is not required to adopt. It's OK to approach the claims with an open mind and just say we don't know whether the miracles happened or not. And then consider the evidence rather than dogmatically ruling out any possibility of a miracle event.

Throughout these links, and this entire topic from the beginning, all the arguments against the Jesus miracle stories in the Gospels are really based on one argument only, or only one real piece of "evidence" against the Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels, and that is the general doctrinal premise that miracle events can never happen.

The only real case against the Jesus miracles, relying on evidence, is the scoffing at the virgin birth and related miracles -- the Star, prophecy fulfillment, etc., which can be discounted as something unobservable or unverified. But these claims or symbols are not the miracle acts of Jesus, and it's the miracle acts like the healings and other acts of power, and especially his resurrection, which set him apart and for which we have evidence in the form of multiple written reports from the time, telling of the recent events. For these miracle acts, which are the real basis for belief in Christ's power, there is no refutation but one, which is the doctrine that there can never be any miracle events.

It's not unreasonable to believe miracle claims in those rare cases where there is evidence and the only argument against them is the ideology that no miracle events can ever happen. I.e., it's reasonable to believe it in cases where we have the same kind of evidence as for the normal events of history, i.e., ordinary historical events which we do believe if there is one source only and there is no counter-evidence to contradict it -- with the qualifier that for miracle events we need more than only one source, and these sources need to be relatively close to when the events reportedly happened.

That symbolic or miracle fictions became added to the Gospel accounts can easily be explained as a product of the NON-fictional part, i.e., the miracle events which really did happen and then led to mythologizing or legend-building, which can be expected to emerge in cases of any highly unusual hero figure who became famous performing acts of distinction and attaining celebrity status.

So some extra legend-building or mythologizing can be acknowledged as also being part of the written record in the Gospel accounts, but there is no way to explain this mythologizing without the real miracle acts he did as being the original cause of it. There has to be a cause or explanation for the mythologizing, in all the cases of it.

In the case of Hercules and Perseus and other pagan heroes the explanation for the mythologizing is the many centuries of storytelling in which the myths had time to evolve (whether or not there was originally a real historical celebrity figure from whom the legend evolved). But in the case of Jesus, who cannot be explained that way, the only explanation is that he did actually perform the basic miracle acts reported in the Gospels, and this brought him the immediate attention and mythologizing added to the original reports about his unusual acts.

So just pointing out some mythical or fiction elements in the Gospels, like miracle births, does not debunk the Jesus miracle acts as fiction. Rather, you have to explain what prompted the mythic elements. Ordinarily they can be explained as a product of normal mythologizing, e.g., the pagan heroes. But in the case of Jesus the only explanation is the miracle acts as real events in history, reported in documents near to the time, within a few decades, rather than centuries later after sufficient time for miracle legends to evolve and become recorded by writers.

(Again, the qualifiers here: Alexander the Great became mythologized early, perhaps, but his only "miracle" was his "divine birth" which is not an act of power by him and is ludicrous to offer as a comparison to the Jesus miracle acts. And admittedly the Vespasian miracle healing story meets the requirement of having 2 sources rather than only 1, and these sources are only about 40-50 years after the event, making it closer than normal. So this case comes closer, but this is the ONLY such claim about Vespasian, and it is easily explained as a result of mythologizing due to his vast widespread reputation and celebrity status during his career as an elitist power-wielder.)


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[James Brown]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo[/YOUTUBE]


Can't match Lumpy as I'd probably run out of useful vocabulary in just two or three paragraphs.

One thing comes to mind...

The moderator asks, "What evidence could be obtained in first-century Palestine?" The atheist botched the answer, which allowed Craig to stab and twist with his "a priori" accusation.

A better answer is that it is extremely difficult to collect evidence to dispute a supernatural claim, no matter what the century.

However, it would be a mistake to then conclude, "Well, if you can't disprove my supernatural claim, then you have to accept it as true," which is what Craig would want a "biased atheist" to admit. After all, what evidence could we gather in the first-century to disprove that Thor causes lightning and thunder? If Craig can't disprove that claim using first-century technology, must he then accept it as true? Of course, he never would.

 

[sharon45]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo[/YOUTUBE]


Can't match Lumpy as I'd probably run out of useful vocabulary in just two or three paragraphs.

One thing comes to mind...

The moderator asks, "What evidence could be obtained in first-century Palestine?" The atheist botched the answer, which allowed Craig to stab and twist with his "a priori" accusation.

A better answer is that it is extremely difficult to collect evidence to dispute a supernatural claim, no matter what the century.

However, it would be a mistake to then conclude, "Well, if you can't disprove my supernatural claim, then you have to accept it as true," which is what Craig would want a "biased atheist" to admit. After all, what evidence could we gather in the first-century to disprove that Thor causes lightning and thunder? If Craig can't disprove that claim using first-century technology, must he then accept it as true? Of course, he never would.

Hey, what if we also throw in a set of Laguiole steak knives to sweeten the deal?

 

[Keith&Co.]

• A document of this "genre" presents events, reported as factual, which are placed into a historical setting, into the events of that time and location, despite whether intermixed with fictional or religious or propaganda elements.

Are you really sure the events are "reported as factual," though?
Well, I mean, YOU'RE sure, but you were sure about things at the start of this thread that you didn't know actually existed. So the question is, then, considering that you cannot positively identify WHO wrote the gospels, not with any objective evidence, what evidence can you provide to show the intentions of the mystery writers?

I mean, if you'll accept that some parts of it are propaganda, what would be your rubric to identify the factual, historical parts, both by the author's intent, and by objective evaluation?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do the Gospels belong in a "GENRE" of literature which makes them necessarily FICTION?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.

Again, no "works from antiquity considered fictional" are offered here as being "in common" with the Gospel accounts. Ferguson here cites a few cases where the Gospels don't rigidly follow the standards of the mainline "historical" writings category, but this does not make them "fiction" as the only alternative. Most ancient writings do not conform to the "historical" writing standards, even respected writers like Cicero and Pliny the Younger and others. Many shortcomings might be found in the non-"historical" writings, i.e., in the majority of the ancient writings, but this doesn't make them fiction or non-credible as sources for history.

There is a premise here that anything in the category has to be fiction because it is in that category or "genre" of literature, which is false. We do not determine if something is fiction by designating a "genre" it belongs to and then concluding that it must be fiction because of its assignment to that "genre" vs. some other category. Or in this case, by simplistically dividing all ancient writings into the "historical" vs. "fiction" categories, and putting 90% of them in the latter category because they fall short of the standards for Thucydides and other professional historians.

The Gospel accounts are not in the mainline "historical" category of literature, but this does not mean they are fictional. Rather, it means the rigid standards for historical correctness are not followed as strictly as in the "historical" writings. But our known history is not limited to that of the mainline professional historians. We can determine the historical events from other sources also, such as the Gospel writings, which overall are credible for the events.

Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος
The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod and the Gospels: Some Comparanda | Κέλσος
Lawrence Wills: “The Life of Aesop and the Hero Cult Paradigm in the Gospel Tradition” | Κέλσος
Are the Gospels Ancient Biographies?: The Spectrum of Ancient Βίοι | Κέλσος
Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel | Κέλσος
Patterns of Myth-Making Between the Lives of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ | Κέλσος
 Ancient Greek novel

There's no evidence in these links that the Jesus miracle stories are fictional. Rather, the methodology is to assign the Gospel accounts to a "genre" labeled as "fiction" (or "novelistic") and then keep repeating the words "fiction" and "novelistic" and "novella" over and over again, and fixating on certain points of writing style, but ignoring the straightforward content in the Gospels which identifies what type of literature they really are, which is a type focusing on one specific historical event and narrating this as the writers believed it happened, but also with their interpretation included, and the likelihood of a fictional element also being present, which does not distract from the historical part.


What "GENRE" of ancient literature do the Gospels really belong to?

• A document of this "genre" presents events, reported as factual, which are placed into a historical setting, into the events of that time and location, despite whether intermixed with fictional or religious or propaganda elements.

• The document was written near to the time of the historical events, not several centuries later.

• The document is short, by comparison to mainline historical writings, and focused on one particular event as special, rather than a broad historical view.

The above literature type, which the Gospel writings belong to, is ignored by Matthew Ferguson, throughout these links, while he instead places the Gospels simplistically into a "fiction" category because they are not in strict adherence to the rigid standards followed by most of the professional historians. As if all the ancient writings belong in one or the other of these two categories.

But most of the ancient writings are not in accord with those rigid "historical" standards, and yet many are reliable for historical events and are not "fiction" as the only alternative to the strict "historical" category. Not being in the official "historical" category does not preclude them from being reliable for the particular historical events they report.

So what are these criteria? The ways in which the Gospels diverge from and fall short of the historical writing of their time are perhaps too numerous to exhaustively treat here, but I will discuss ten relevant areas of distinction that are helpful for understanding how historical writing is different. . . .

10. Important Characters and Events Do Not Disappear from the Narrative

Prior to entry in my Classics M.A. program, I wrote as a writing sample a paper about the Roman prefect Sejanus and his alleged conspiracy against the emperor Tiberius in 31 CE. Both Tacitus and Dio invest extensive portions of their narratives introducing Sejanus and explaining the steps he took in gaining power under Tiberius. Whatever Sejanus was planning, it did not come to fruition, as he was executed by Tiberius in 31 CE. Part of the accusations levied against Sejanus was that he had many allies in the Roman Senate who were helping him in the conspiracy.

Now, imagine if, after Sejanus’ death, there was no aftermath or follow-up and the narrative merely moved on to another subject. This sequence of events would not at all be logical and would leave many questions unanswered. Instead, both Tacitus (book 6) and Dio (book 58) spend a considerable amount of narrative space discussing the senators who were accused and condemned for being co-conspirators with Sejanus. This makes logical sense, as the event and its instigator were both of a very important nature and we would not expect that they would suddenly disappear from a narrative in which they played crucial roles.

And yet in the Gospels, earth-shaking events take place that then receive no follow-up and strangely disappear once they have played their symbolic role in the narrative.

But such events are not typical of the Gospels. The very few examples of them are far outnumbered by more normal events, or rather, unusual events which do receive normal follow-up. The healing miracles are the most common, and then the end chapters on the trial and death and resurrection. Obviously these unusual events are the focus of the Gospel narrative, along with the oral teaching matter.

But if there's also a few oddball scenes which appear out of place, they do not undermine the primary subject matter -- they can be set aside as questionable and in need of further explanation. It's not necessary for a document to be totally pure of every flaw in order to have credibility for its general content.

Take the Gospel of Matthew, for example. While Jesus is being crucified, the sky grows dark for three hours at midday (27:45). Next, Jesus’ death (27:51-53) causes an earthquake that rips the curtain in the Jewish Temple in twain. The earthquake likewise opens the tombs of the saints, from which dead people resurrect and then appear throughout Jerusalem. This is an extraordinary event, indeed, and yet there is no follow-up in the Gospels or Acts of how the city was affected by this.

This event is reported only in one source (Matthew) and is out of place overall relative to the other Gospel accounts and the coming Resurrection event. What we need to focus on instead is the subject matter common to all four Gospels, meaning the same or similar events reported in all four, or at least being very consistent with the other three in a case where the particular event is unique to only one of the 4 accounts.

This rising corpses event, which is jarring and inconsistent with the other 3 accounts, can be set aside without distracting from the overall content, which is generally credible. Belief in Christ is not dependent on this odd event.

Then, the Jewish authorities are so worried that Jesus’ tomb will be found empty, lest people believe that a miracle has occurred (as if the midday darkness and the ripping of the Temple curtain weren’t already convincing enough), that they convince Pilate to station guards at the tomb. When the guards are foiled, however, and Jesus’ body is found missing, the Jewish authorities claim (28:11-15) that the disciples stole the body. Grave robbery was a capital offense in ancient Judea, and yet there is no follow-up prosecution of the disciples for this charge, . . .

Again it's only in Matthew where this is reported -- one source only, so less credible. Maybe it didn't really happen, or maybe there was something like this but not as significant as it seems from the Matthew account. Maybe the accusation was made but they had no suspect to prosecute. Nothing about this makes the general narrative of the miracle events and the final death and resurrection less credible. This "conspiracy" story is a very minor part of the accounts, which could easily be removed without changing anything essential.

. . . even when they are brought to court on other issues.

Probably meaning Acts 4:1-22 and 5:27-42. There's no reason to assume the grave-robbing charge was not also brought up at these sessions, and other related questions not reported here in Acts. It's not necessary to take these reported encounters between the disciples and the Sanhedrin as comprehensive accounts of all that happened at the proceedings.

Also there might have been additional such encounters of this kind which are not reported, with these two in Acts serving to represent some on-going friction between the disciples and the authorities. And there could be a fictional element as well, as the author 60 years later is narrating the events partly as literal history and partly to serve a teaching purpose. Obviously the dialogues and speeches contain teaching matter intended for the reading audiences a half century later.

Furthermore, what happened to Joseph of Arimathea? His tomb was the one that was supposed to remain occupied, and yet, when it is found empty, he is not even questioned on the matter.

Maybe he was questioned. But there's no reason to assume a record of that interrogation should survive. Maybe a professional historian would have pursued this, at some point before 50 or 60 AD, if there was some way to find the information. But neither the Gospel writers nor any earlier writers on this were professional historians.

We'd like to know more -- about many events, not just this one. In fact, 99% of what we'd like to know about any ancient historical event is not known because it was not written down or because nothing written survived.

The Jewish authorities had gone to great lengths to ensure that Jesus’ body did not go missing, . . .

Yes, according to Mt 27:62-66 they did, but maybe this text is incorrect or is an exaggeration. It contains the prediction "after three days I will be raised up," which might be a tradition from many years later. The "third day" theme is a symbol which might not have been part of the original events.

. . . and yet, when Jesus is claimed to have risen, they do not even undergo an investigation into the circumstances.

That the Gospel accounts omit mention of any such investigation does not mean there was none. Such an investigation might be done quietly, with no fanfare. The later Christian writers may have known nothing about the investigation, or if they did they probably had no reason to include it in their accounts.

That something was not mentioned in an account is usually not a good reason to say the account is inaccurate.

This sequence of events does not logically make sense, if the Gospels were narrating actual historical events.

What "does not logically make sense"? Just that there are some unanswered questions? or that maybe some false claims are mixed in with the true facts of what happened? You mean there can be no authentic events in history where there are any unanswered questions? or any conflicting claims? How much of our historical events have to be tossed out of the record because there are some unanswered questions about them left over, or some conflicting claims?

The Gospels narrate actual historical events, but the narration could also include events that didn't really happen, or rather, some reported events are more doubtful than others. If it's in one account only, it's less likely, or at least it's less likely if it conflicts with the events reported in the other accounts. It's better to set aside the odd events which don't fit the overall narrative of all 4 accounts -- they might be incorrect or contain errors. But that doesn't mean the overall sequence of events is not historical.

Instead, the Gospels are reporting fantastical legends, . . .

The miracle events might be "fantastical," but that does not exclude them as possible historical events. Unless your premise is that such events cannot ever happen despite any evidence that they did happen. We do not have to accept that premise. Science and logic do not require us to begin with the premise that no miracle event can ever happen. Rather, if there is evidence that such an event did happen, i.e., documents reporting it as fact, it's reasonable to leave it open as a possibility, depending on the evidence.

So it's possible for the reported events to be both historical and "fantastical" at the same time -- some "fantastical" events have happened. These are not mutually exclusive, even though we might conclude from evidence generally that such events are very rare, or that in many reported cases they did not really happen. Even so, there is evidence that they did happen in some cases (maybe only 1% of all reported cases).

. . . where people act in bizarrely symbolic ways and do not rationally respond to what has taken place.

But most of it is NOT irrational. Much of it focuses on the miracle events, which admittedly are "bizarre" but still fit into a general rational pattern to which people respond rationally. But then also there are the irrational elements, or at least elements which seem out of place or artificial and so are lower on the credibility scale, and are a small minority of the total content.

You can dogmatically put all miracle claims into the "irrational" category no matter what, based on the premise that such events can never happen regardless of any evidence, but logic and science do not require us to categorize them that way.

For this reason, as I explain in my essay “Let’s Presuppose That Miracles Happen: The Gospel Resurrection Stories Are Still Unworthy Of Belief,” the Gospels are not believable accounts, even in a universe where miracles actually happen.

No, they are worthy of belief, as possible events which really happened, because of the multiple sources. But you can point to some parts of the accounts which are more difficult to believe, as in the above examples, so that it's difficult to claim the entire accounts are infallibly true in every reported detail. Some of the details of the accounts do not fit well and are less credible, or at least require more explanation in order to be believed. And it does not matter if those, or some of them, are false.

It's quite normal for there to be a true reported event which is also accompanied by erroneous or fictional details which became added as legend to the original reports. Even some original versions of the story could be mistaken, as different witnesses misunderstood what happened, or an early report got distorted.

So it's reasonable to believe the basic miracle events happened but then became mixed in with legendary fictional elements. And the accounts must be analyzed piece by piece to separate the fact from fiction, rather than simplistically lumping all the parts together indiscriminately and brand the whole account as totally fact or totally fiction.

Actual historical writing is not so abrupt, and reasonable consequences occur after events that are important to the sequence of the narrative.

And for most of the Gospel events reasonable consequences do occur. That in addition to this the accounts might be tainted with some parts that are out of place or don't harmonize with the rest only shows that there was some confusion, or some erroneous content, and these writers were not professional historians who researched the difficult parts to distinguish fact from fiction.

Maybe professional historical writers would have written it more carefully. But most of the ancient documents are not in the "historical" category, which does not undermine their credibility. Rather, we must carefully study them to separate the fact from the fiction. Much of the known history is based on evidence not from the professional historians.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[funinspace]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo[/YOUTUBE]


Can't match Lumpy as I'd probably run out of useful vocabulary in just two or three paragraphs.

One thing comes to mind...

The moderator asks, "What evidence could be obtained in first-century Palestine?" The atheist botched the answer, which allowed Craig to stab and twist with his "a priori" accusation.

I always find it odd how they make their god so weak, as if it has no ability or desire to make sure a few bread crumbs pass thru the ravages of time upon history. Sure Palestine was a backwater, but isn't this an uber powerful god that wants his petri dish experiment to have lots of souls saved? As this god is supposed to be omnipresent, it would know that this weak message would never break thru in most of Eastern Asia. But somehow there is nothing wrong with billions upon billions of souls headed straight for this god's eternal Auschwitz. Craig and company have no issue worshiping such an evil (human) construct...

A better answer is that it is extremely difficult to collect evidence to dispute a supernatural claim, no matter what the century.

However, it would be a mistake to then conclude, "Well, if you can't disprove my supernatural claim, then you have to accept it as true," which is what Craig would want a "biased atheist" to admit. After all, what evidence could we gather in the first-century to disprove that Thor causes lightning and thunder? If Craig can't disprove that claim using first-century technology, must he then accept it as true? Of course, he never would.

Yup.

 

[James Brown]

I always find it odd how they make their god so weak, as if it has no ability or desire to make sure a few bread crumbs pass thru the ravages of time upon history. Sure Palestine was a backwater, but isn't this an uber powerful god that wants his petri dish experiment to have lots of souls saved? As this god is supposed to be omnipresent, it would know that this weak message would never break thru in most of Eastern Asia. But somehow there is nothing wrong with billions upon billions of souls headed straight for this god's eternal Auschwitz. Craig and company have no issue worshiping such an evil (human) construct...

Apologists hide behind the "God has revealed himself in nature; that's all the evidence anyone needs" argument.

I had a Sunday School teacher argue that, sure, lots of people will live and die without having ever heard the words "Jesus Christ." But as long as you gave believing in the One True God a solid effort, you'll get into Heaven. You might have a lot more catching up to do about the reality of things compared to the True Believers who have lived their lives reading The King James Bible, but you'll have all eternity to get the facts squared away.

That's the sort of argument a compassionate Christian would make. "Give them an 'A for Effort' award, because the alternative is too horrible to think about." Too bad it can't be supported biblically--Paul wrote that anyone who has lived in the world is "without excuse."

Of course, it's also a great argument against evangelism. The more they spread the Gospel, the more people hear it. The more who hear it, the more people are compelled to decide what they're going to truly believe. The more who make a decision, the more will inevitably make the wrong decision and go to Hell. They would have been better off being left alone and worshiping a tree--misguided, perhaps, but better off in the long run.

 

[funinspace]

I always find it odd how they make their god so weak, as if it has no ability or desire to make sure a few bread crumbs pass thru the ravages of time upon history. Sure Palestine was a backwater, but isn't this an uber powerful god that wants his petri dish experiment to have lots of souls saved? As this god is supposed to be omnipresent, it would know that this weak message would never break thru in most of Eastern Asia. But somehow there is nothing wrong with billions upon billions of souls headed straight for this god's eternal Auschwitz. Craig and company have no issue worshiping such an evil (human) construct...

Apologists hide behind the "God has revealed himself in nature; that's all the evidence anyone needs" argument.

Yet the many billions that have certainly heard the core 'Jesus is the way' message, and yet found it not compelling, makes that argument so stupid that those apologists are just talking to their own choir...

 

[James Brown]

I always find it odd how they make their god so weak, as if it has no ability or desire to make sure a few bread crumbs pass thru the ravages of time upon history. Sure Palestine was a backwater, but isn't this an uber powerful god that wants his petri dish experiment to have lots of souls saved? As this god is supposed to be omnipresent, it would know that this weak message would never break thru in most of Eastern Asia. But somehow there is nothing wrong with billions upon billions of souls headed straight for this god's eternal Auschwitz. Craig and company have no issue worshiping such an evil (human) construct...

Apologists hide behind the "God has revealed himself in nature; that's all the evidence anyone needs" argument.

Yet the many billions that have certainly heard the core 'Jesus is the way' message, and yet found it not compelling, makes that argument so stupid that those apologists are just talking to their own choir...

Ah, but we don't have to feel sorry for those people. Those people have rejected the incredible free offer from a loving God, so they deserve to burn in Hell, because Jesus suffered so much and they don't even have the courtesy to be grateful.

 

[funinspace]

Yet the many billions that have certainly heard the core 'Jesus is the way' message, and yet found it not compelling, makes that argument so stupid that those apologists are just talking to their own choir...

Ah, but we don't have to feel sorry for those people. Those people have rejected the incredible free offer from a loving God, so they deserve to burn in Hell, because Jesus suffered so much and they don't even have the courtesy to be grateful.

Sure they can say such (and do so). However, this circles back around to: "What evidence could be obtained in first-century Palestine?" verses a omnipresent god that clearly had little interest in leaving any significant bread crumbs around to be found thru history, providing real evidence to help bolster the Biblical claims to those billions of souls it supposedly cares about so much...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do the Gospels belong in a "GENRE" of literature which makes them necessarily FICTION?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.

Once again there are no "works from antiquity" cited in the link which show anything "in common" with the Gospels.

There is a premise here that anything in the category has to be fiction because it is in that category or "genre" of literature, which is incorrect. We do not determine if something is fiction by designating a "genre" it belongs to and then concluding that it must be fiction because of its assignment to that "genre" vs. some other category.

Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος
The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod and the Gospels: Some Comparanda | Κέλσος
Lawrence Wills: “The Life of Aesop and the Hero Cult Paradigm in the Gospel Tradition” | Κέλσος
Are the Gospels Ancient Biographies?: The Spectrum of Ancient Βίοι | Κέλσος
Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel | Κέλσος
Patterns of Myth-Making Between the Lives of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ | Κέλσος
 Ancient Greek novel

There's no evidence in these links that the Jesus miracle stories are fictional. Rather, the methodology is to assign the Gospel accounts to a "genre" labeled as "fiction" (or "novelistic") and then keep repeating the words "fiction" and "novelistic" and "novella" over and over again, and fixating on certain points of writing style, but ignoring the straightforward content in the Gospels which identifies what type of literature they really are.


What "GENRE" of ancient literature do the Gospels really belong to?

• A document of this "genre" presents events, reported as factual, which are placed into a historical setting, into the events of that time and location, despite whether intermixed with fictional or religious or propaganda elements.

• The document was written near to the time of the historical events, not several centuries later.

• The document is short, by comparison to mainline historical writings, and focused on one particular event as special, rather than a broad view of the history.

The above literature type, which the Gospel writings belong to, is ignored by Matthew Ferguson, throughout these links, while he instead places the Gospels artificially into some kind of "fiction" category by fixating on supposed similarities between them and the literature in that category; and then, because of this categorization we're supposed to accept Ferguson's designation of them as "fiction" based on his authority as a literature classifier-scholar.

Ferguson's main flaw in the following is his refusal to recognize the miracle stories in the Gospels as a singular extreme case of miracle claims in all the ancient literature. There's no other literature comparable to these as conspicuously presenting a rash of such claims which are put into history as actual events which are relatively recent to the date of the writings. The debunker has to struggle to find an explanation for such documents, which he clearly cannot fit into any "genre" or pattern of literature from the ancient world. The explanation that the reported events actually did happen solves the whole problem, but Ferguson desperately wants a different explanation, and so he falls on his face repeatedly as he tries to find one.

So what are these criteria? The ways in which the Gospels diverge from and fall short of the historical writing of their time are perhaps too numerous to exhaustively treat here, but I will discuss ten [eleven?] relevant areas of distinction that are helpful for understanding how historical writing is different. . . .

11. Even Good Historical Texts Should Not Always Be Trusted

An additional final point, which is not so much a criterion of distinction, but rather a reason why even the lack of these differences would still not save the Gospels, is that not even the real historical works that we have from antiquity should be taken at face value. Their authors still have their biases, they still speculate over past events, they sometimes make errors about dates and places, they had limited evidence afforded to them, and they still report a number of unbelievable claims.

I certainly do not trust miracle claims, simply because a historical text records them. Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels.

Not one ancient historian does. Ferguson pretends now to give an example of a "better attested" miracle, but he has to know this is not really a "miracle" at all, and surely he labored through many sources in search of a real miracle story and came up with nothing, but rather than honestly admitting that none exists, he offers the following:

The historians Tacitus (Ann. 6.20), Suetonius (Gal. 4), and Cassius Dio (64.1) all independently corroborate that the emperor Tiberius used his knowledge of astrology to predict the future emperor Galba’s reign.

What?

That's supposed to be a "miracle"? Ferguson cannot be this stupid. He has to know better than this.

A prediction that came true? Many predictions come true, partly from coincidence, and partly from the predicter having some legitimate foresight and knowledge to make a prediction. Both probably came into play with this prediction. Caesar Augustus also made this prediction. Galba was a favorite of both Tiberius and Augustus, and there were many early signs of his eventual rise to the highest office. So the odds against this prediction were not so great, meaning it's no miracle.

Is Ferguson such an imbecile as to believe that every prediction which comes true is a "MIRACLE"? Really? Very few prophecies that came true could be called miracles, as they were easily just normal predictions which came true, while others did not.

In addition to scoring 4½ Pinochios for this, Matthew Ferguson shows how he has to greatly downgrade the word "miracle" in order to find an example of anything to offer:

Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels. The historians Tacitus (Ann. 6.20), Suetonius (Gal. 4), and Cassius Dio (64.1) all independently corroborate that the emperor Tiberius used his knowledge of astrology to predict the future emperor Galba’s reign.

So, "Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better . . ." etc. "Many"?

OK, let's have an example. I.e., A GOOD EXAMPLE. There are many examples -- right? And yet what does he give us? A prophecy, a prediction that came true, like guessing correctly the winning horse, or predicting the Super Bowl winner, or the election outcome? That's the best example of a "MIRACLE"?

He couldn't come up with anything better than this? A prediction which came true is a "miracle" on a par with healing a leper or raising a dead person back to life?

The fact that this debunker, starving for a documented miracle to compare to those of Jesus in the Gospel accounts, can come up with nothing better than this -- an almost-normal prediction which came true, and that's it! nothing more -- is itself further evidence for the Jesus miracle acts. There is nothing from the first century or earlier, in all the recorded history, which compares to the Jesus miracle acts -- nothing coming close -- in terms of a clear-cut claim of a super-human act, and one which is documented by evidence, i.e., by attestation in documents written near to the time of the reported event. This Jesus-debunker-scholar proves it right here.

If there were any such reported miracle to offer for comparison, who is more likely to know it and provide it to us than this distinguished scholar-expert, who knows all the examples, right here, in this treatise devoted to proving that Jesus did no miracles?

This itself is virtual proof-positive! How could he not possibly give us a better example than this, if any exists? There must not be any!

So I cite scholar Matthew Ferguson here, in this scholarly treatise, as my expert-authority that we have more evidence for the miracles of Jesus than for any other reported miracle legend in all the ancient historical record. In fact, this professional Jesus-debunker attests right here that there's no other miracle claim that comes even close, because no miracles for comparison can be found other than an ordinary prediction/prophecy which came true.

These same historians likewise independently corroborate that Vespasian could miraculously cure the blind and crippled (Tacitus, Ann. 4.81; Suetonius, Vesp. 7.2; Dio 65.8).

There's really ONLY TWO serious sources for this (not 3), as Dio is 150 years later and so is not a source near to the time of the reported miracle event, unlike the Gospel accounts which are near to the time of the Jesus events. Admittedly, with two serious independent sources for it, we have to give the Vespasian story more credibility. And yet, since Tacitus and Suetonius are 2nd-century sources, this story fits into a recognizable pattern.

Moving into the 2nd century and beyond there is an explosion of miracle stories, unlike anything earlier throughout the historical record.

What caused this sudden explosion of miracle claims after 100 AD? All of a sudden new miracle-workers of a kind virtually unknown earlier pop up everywhere, and also the Jesus miracle stories expand and explode going into these centuries, with new "epistles" and "Gospel" accounts appearing and other new Christ-belief literature. But earlier? the first century and before Jesus? Nothing. Zilch. Other than ancient worshiping practices at shrines to the ancient pagan deities. Which were declining up until 100 AD, after which they experienced a sudden revival in healing claims at the temples.

As I explained above, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio are not simply copying each other, whereas . . .

Yes, you can make the case for that one Vespasian story, but in the literature it doesn't appear until after 100 AD -- it follows very suspiciously the pattern of the explosion of miracle stories from the end of the 1st century.

Let's get serious! Vespasian was a FAMOUS POWERFUL celebrity military hero already worshiped as a god, and being emperor who was legally pronounced as divine, and receiving mandatory worship from his subjects. Is it so surprising that there might be some early rumors like this about him? possibly even some kind of rumor going back to when he was still alive? Some of the miracle claims appearing in the literature probably trace back to popular rumors from decades earlier. Of course we have to give some credibility to Tacitus and Suetonius on this.

So there's some credibility to the Vespasian legend. Two sources (not 3) near to the alleged event, but still they are a part of the explosion of miracle stories after 100 AD. A rare case where a popular rumor got taken seriously enough to get into the written record. Usually such rumors were rejected even by ordinary people and not taken seriously. Except that this changed, for some reason, around 80 or 90 or 100 AD, when such stories began to be taken seriously, and then we see the sudden increase of this in the literature. So the Vespasian legend is perhaps the beginning of this new popular mindset about miracle claims.

But the huge exception to it all, and disruption of the pattern, is that of the Jesus miracles in the Gospel accounts, which defy any possible explanation and go against every pattern we can see up to this period.

. . . whereas the Gospels are heavily dependent upon each other for information.

OK, there are 2 sources for the reported Vespasian miracle, giving reason to believe that Suetonius and Tacitus didn't invent the story. It was an earlier rumor. It's helpful that they are not dependent on each other. But again, neither are the Gospels totally dependent on Mark for miracle claims, but give independent content also. There's much more in the other 3 Gospels not based on Mark.

And we must keep in mind that the resurrection is also attested to in Paul, 15-20 years EARLIER than Mark.

But also, it adds credibility to Mark that the 2 later writers quoted from him. We must stop repeating this goofiness which says somehow a report is undermined because later writers quoted from it. NO! This ADDS TO the credibility of it. We do have FOUR sources for these miracle acts of Jesus, because we have FOUR sources claiming he did those acts, regardless that 2 of them quoted from the earlier one. Four sources saying it happened makes a stronger case than only 1 or 2, regardless that there are quotes from the earlier source.

This does not entail that the Pagan miracles are true, but it does show that they were not invented by these historians and most likely derive from an earlier common source . . .

Watch out -- this is not about "the Pagan miracles" but only about ONE miracle story, reported after 100 AD. Ferguson falsely implies that he's talking about "the Pagan miracles" generally, which he is not. He's describing one case only for which we have 2 independent sources.

So yes, this one Vespasian story fits that description. But this is probably the ONLY such miracle story reported in 2 sources. ALL the other ancient Greek-Roman miracle stories appear in ONE SOURCE ONLY, and virtually all sources are from centuries later than the claimed miracle event reportedly happened. I.e., the source is not from near the time of the reported events.

(I think that most of these stories go back to roughly contemporary claims about miracles when Galba and Vespasian became emperors, which I elaborate on further in my paper “The Propaganda of Accession of the Roman Emperor Galba”).

The Roman emperor was a god, by law, and had to be worshiped. No doubt there were some popular stories of some "miracles" around him here and there, just as with popular gurus and saints and other celebrities. All of them were celebrities during their long life and long public career, which easily explains how some stories or rumors or gossip about them got started. No such explanation of the miracle claims applies in the case of Jesus, who had a short public career and no widespread celebrity status during his life.

What is unexplainable is why we have a written record of this one person's miracle acts but none for anyone else, including the emperors (with the one Vespasian story being a slight exception). So, why was an unknown non-celebrity made into a miracle-worker reported in 4 (5) sources, and yet no others were? And then, after the reports of him in written accounts had circulated, why do we see a sudden unprecedented outburst of miracle stories, from 100 AD onward, leading to a widespread practice of inventing miracle legends for centuries, into the Middle Ages and beyond? and yet we see no such miracle story pattern PRIOR to 100 AD? virtually nothing for several centuries, and only a small trace of such stories from about 600 BC and earlier?

Why this uncharacteristic outburst of miracle stories some time after 30 AD, in the Gospel accounts only, and then an explosion of them in other literature from about 100 AD and later? but virtually nothing earlier, about Roman emperors or others doing any miracle acts?

Matthew Ferguson, starved to find such miracle claims, could find nothing other than one prophecy-fulfillment, or prediction which came true, as the closest there is to any reports about any miracle-worker legends. And so this is all he can offer to justify his phony pronouncement "Many ancient historians report miracles that are far better attested and independently corroborated than those in the Gospels." This is a whopper as bad as Donald Trump's lie about the size of the crowd turnout to his inauguration.

In contrast, since the Gospels copy from each other, . . .

No, not "from each other" -- rather, Matthew and Luke both copy parts of Mark. That's all.

. . . many of their miracles can very easily have no earlier source, . . .

We have good evidence that some of them DO come from earlier sources. Because there is detail which the later Gospel writers/editors would not have invented and so must have been accepted by them from something earlier.

The most likely earlier source is the actual events of about 30 AD, but there's no way to determine for sure when they originated. It's extremely probable that Jesus was a reputed miracle-worker from the beginning, in about 30 AD. The "Rejection at Nazareth" story attests to this, because this story makes no sense as something invented by later Christian writers -- it says Jesus did miracles, though also saying he could not perform a miracle at Nazareth.

And there's the Paul Epistles as an earlier source for the Resurrection event, not dependent on Mark. Of course some of the reported miracles begin from the Mark account, but others do not. Just because many/most of the healing stories rely on Mark does not mean all the Gospel miracle acts fit that pattern.

And again, there is nothing about using an earlier account which undermines the credibility. Ferguson argues as though having extra accounts copying an earlier account makes the earlier miracle claim less credible. How does that work? You mean if someone repeats your report in their own report, that undermines your credibility? Your report is downgraded to a lower credibility status because someone later quotes from it? Why? The opposite is the case -- it makes the earlier report MORE credible, not less, that someone respected it enough to quote from it.

A source is not downgraded to a lower credibility status because someone quotes from it. The opposite is the case -- it is UPgraded by this.

. . . and when one earlier gospel author invented a miracle, a later gospel could merely pass it along in a game of telephone.

By this argument you can toss out easily half our historical knowledge, eliminating anything coming from one source only. All those facts come only indirectly, after the copying of many manuscripts, and also earlier, before they were written by the original historian who relied on some report(s) which obviously came to him indirectly, and so was passed along through earlier sources, such as oral reports (i.e., "the game of telephone"), thus casting doubt on probably half of all the established historical record.

So if this is a reason for disbelieving the Gospel miracle stories which relied on Mark, then you must also eliminate millions (billions) of our historical facts which we have from one source only. So, as is so often the case, in order to eliminate the Jesus miracle stories from history you also end up tossing out half our known ancient history.

Likewise, an additional point is that virtually no serious Classical scholar that I am aware of argues that historians can use Pagan texts to prove miracles.

But why not? You mean there is a rule that all pagan texts are VERBOTEN as evidence for anything? Why would that be? Can you show an official historical source saying that all pagan texts must be eliminated as evidence for anything?

Only for miracles? OK, even for miracles -- is there an official source binding on all historians saying that no pagan text can ever be used as evidence for any miracle claim?

Suppose 3 or 4 new manuscripts are discovered, from around 1500 BC, saying that Hercules pulled a struggling elephant out of quicksand to save it, and that this happened in 1550 BC, and the manuscripts are carbon-dated, with high probability, to about 1500 BC. And they say that witnesses saw it and reported it, and people came from nearby villages to watch Hercules perform some other such deeds. And maybe he got into trouble with some local authorities who thought he was stirring up trouble.

That would be decent evidence that Hercules had superhuman power, and claims that it's all fiction would have to be modified and allowance made for the possibility that the legend is partly true.


Why do scholars reject the pagan miracle stories?

Not because all pagan evidence is automatically rejected by scholars, being prejudiced against anything "pagan" -- no, the scholars are not such bone-headed bigots, as Ferguson implies. There's a REAL reason why they reject the pagan miracle stories, and it's that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for those stories, Dumb-dumb. What is the evidence for them?

Just because they're "pagan" stories does not automatically falsify them. You can't just fall back on the tradition that we don't believe the pagan miracle stories, like some kind of PREMISE, or a rule or custom or social convention. It is not. Rather, there is NO EVIDENCE for the pagan miracle stories, and therefore we don't believe them. I.e., there's a REASON why we don't believe them -- it's not a dogmatic requirement that we have to reject the pagan stories. If any evidence for those stories should turn up, then we'd have to change our belief and allow the possibility of them as real events, or at least say we don't know, so they go into the doubtful rather than fiction category.

For the pagan miracles there are NO sources from the time of the event saying it happened. It's not because any such evidence would have to be rejected even if it existed, but simply because no such evidence exists. If the evidence did exist, then why wouldn't the scholars have to admit it? and leave open the possibility? and recognize that a particular legend might be true after all?

There isn't any dogma agreed to by all scholars that the pagan stories have to be fiction only even if there's evidence for them.

As I explain in my essay, “History and the Paranormal,” professional historians normally bracket such claims as philosophical and theological questions that extend beyond the scope of ordinary historical inquiry.

No, nothing is censored from being inquired into. It is not heresy, or banned by "historians" to inquire into anything put forth in the documents. All claims may be inquired into, and it's fine to say we just don't know because of too little evidence. Or to say it's probably fiction because there's no evidence. But no claims in the documents reporting recent events are banned from "historical inquiry" by any genuine historians.

There is nothing about historical science requiring that all such claims be pronounced as fiction, even when there is evidence. The historian has no business dictating any category of claims to all be fiction. The judgment that it's fiction is appropriate when there's no evidence -- i.e., no documents from the time reporting that it happened. If there are no such documents but only recent stories about ancient fantasy heroes, then it goes into the likely fiction category. But the Gospels are different -- because these are documents from the time of the events. Like Tacitus and Suetonius are close enough to Vespasian to serve as evidence for his alleged miracle rather than reporting it centuries later.

Historians are not agreed that the Vespasian story has to be fiction. Since the written evidence is only 50 years later, rather than 500 years, it's just left open, in the doubtful category, as to what really happened. It's judged by the same standard as the pagan stories, based on how close the written evidence is to the alleged event. So the Vespasian story has more credibility than the ancient pagan stories.

It should also be noted that Classics and New Testament Studies deal with the same historical period, working with the same languages, and using the same historical methodology. If Classicists are not in the business of seeking to prove miracles using ancient texts, then this provides a good outside model for the limitations of New Testament Studies.

But they are also not in the business of DEBUNKING all miracle claims per se as a verboten category, or declaring them all fiction. Official "Classicists" (if it's agreed what that means) are not authorized to dictate that a whole category of claims (called "miracle" or "paranormal" etc.) is fiction.

Rather, the genuine scholars refrain from pronouncing judgment on miracle claims reported in sources near to the time of the alleged event, and instead leave such doubtful claims up to individual judgment or interpretation, without needing to pretend, as Ferguson falsely implies, that historical research has the definitive answers to everything and can dictate to us in all cases what the real truth is when odd events are reported or the evidence is ambiguous.

Of course a scholar might give his opinion on it, but most of them are honest enough to admit that it's only their opinion and not the absolute Truth dictated by the evidence or science or logic.

As such, I think it is completely fair to bracket the supernatural claims in the Gospels as matters that extend beyond the scope of history.

No, it is "fair" to set them aside into the not-known or doubtful category, without pronouncing them either as fact or fiction. It is not the role of "historians" to make pronouncements that certain categories of claims are necessarily non-historical or fiction regardless whether there's evidence.

They cannot exclude them from being historical fact, but must place them in the not-known or doubtful category, admitting that they do not know and are not qualified to dictate that these reported events are either fact or fiction, or that they did or did not really happen.


In his massive footnotes (in https://celsus.blog/2013/08/18/anci...compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/ ), comprising a Wall of Text several times longer than the above, it's possible Ferguson rebuts some of the above points. You who are Ferguson devotees can search through them. A future Wall of Text here will deal with some of the notes.

One point he seems to reinforce is his categorizing obsession with words like "novel" or "the ancient novel" and "novelistic" and other such language with which he presumes to prove that the Gospels must be fiction because of their being in this category. Yet all he does is give long lists of authors and works claiming to have analyzed the "ancient novel" and proved some connection to the Gospel accounts.

But there comes a point where a crusader for a cause must give the actual evidence or the facts rather than just continue running off more names of authorities who supposedly make the case. In this huge Wall of Text he is obligated to name some of these "novels" and explain what the connection is between them and the Gospel accounts. But instead he only cites dozens of modern authors as expert scholars to whose authority we must submit and agree that the Gospels must be "fiction" because they say so.

Another point in his footnotes is the repetition of historians who give sources for their facts, in comparison to the Gospel accounts. Maybe it's true that in some cases a "historical" writer gives even a hundred or more sources, but even if they give 1000 or 10,000, that doesn't make this a requirement for any author to be reliable as a source for historical events. There are plenty of credible authors who give historical facts and yet do not provide any sources. Cicero usually does not, and yet he is reliable.

It's not true that we are dependent solely on the mainline historians who typically gave sources. They were limited to reporting on the rich and powerful only, and yet there were other events they ignored, and we're entitled to use whatever other sources there are for the events ignored by the established "historical" writers. Those other writers are not defective and unqualified to serve as credible sources for the events. That they neglected to follow some of the standard procedures for the established "historians" and wrote much shorter accounts does not disqualify them from serving as credible sources -- even if it's true that some historians give hundreds of sources in their voluminous works.

It is ludicrous to suggest that this is a requirement for any legitimate source for historical events.


(temporary stopping point for this Wall-of-Text series on the first Ferguson link, with anticipation of future Walls of Text in response to the remaining Ferguson Walls of Text, of which the above is only a small fraction)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The only serious argument against the Miracles of Jesus as historical fact.

Let's first dispense with 2 non-serious arguments which are often offered:

1. The Apostle Paul never mentions the miracles of Jesus, so therefore they must not have happened.

Obviously this sets aside the Resurrection event, which is actually the most important of all the Jesus miracle acts. And Paul mentions this miracle repeatedly.

But why does he omit all the other miracles of Jesus? I.e., the healing miracles especially. There is a simple answer to this which really makes this a non-serious argument: Paul mentions NOTHING about Jesus prior to the night of his arrest. So it's not just those miracle healing events which he omits, but EVERYTHING about Jesus, everything he did or said, prior to that night at the end when Paul says he was "handed over" to the authorities.

Paul had some reason for disregarding everything about Jesus prior to that night. It's not because those earlier events did not happen, or that Paul didn't know about them. Whatever he knew of it, he had nothing to say about it.

But there's another important point about Paul's omission of the earlier Jesus miracles: Virtually all the Christian theologians, of whom Paul was the first, neglect the Jesus healing miracles as being unimportant. There is a major de-emphasis on the healing miracles of Jesus, as historical events, in virtually all the theologians, for many centuries, and even up to modern times. You have to search hard to find mention of them in the church writings.

But there is a huge emphasis on the Resurrection, and also on the virgin birth, also on the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy by Jesus. There is even greater emphasis on the miracles of St. Peter and St. Paul in the Book of Acts than on the miracle acts of Jesus, in the church writings.

For some reason, the church writers have always de-emphasized the miracle acts of Jesus in the Gospels (except the Resurrection), in favor of the miracles recorded in the Book of Acts, and in favor of the virgin birth, and in favor of the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy by Jesus. The theologians have always wanted to downplay the healing acts of Jesus, and to promote other miracle traditions instead, even though we have little or no evidence for some of the latter, while there is much evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus reported in the Gospel accounts.


2. Science and Logic: The Jesus miracles must not have happened, because miracles in general cannot happen, as we're taught by philosophy and science, and so the Jesus miracles are just one more example of miracle claims which must be rejected.

This argument is OK if you assume that no amount of evidence can ever be enough, in order to make a miracle claim credible.

But one does not have to assume this. Science and logic do not disprove the possibility of miracle events in all cases, regardless of the evidence. What they prove is the unlikelihood of miracle claims unless there is good evidence in a particular case. But where there is evidence, science and logic can only say we don't know.

Logic and science tell us to reject miracle claims unless there is evidence, and the evidence required is more than the usual amount we need in order to believe a claimed event.

In the case of the reported Jesus miracle acts, there is more evidence than the usual amount required in order to believe that the alleged event did happen. Historically, there are many events we believe based on less evidence than we have for the Jesus miracle acts. History books are filled with minor events based on ONE SOURCE ONLY, in the record (the documents which survived), and yet we believe these events happened, based on that limited evidence.


The one SERIOUS argument against the Jesus miracle acts

There is one reported Jesus miracle act which can be doubted based on real evidence, which is serious evidence casting doubt on the origin of the miracle story. This is the reported event of multiplying the fish and loaves, to feed a large multitude.

In this one case it can be argued that the story is a copycat version of an earlier miracle story -- i.e., the story of the prophet Elisha performing a similar act in II Kings 4:42-44:

42 A man came from Ba'al-shal'ishah, bringing the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain in his sack. And Eli'sha said, "Give to the men, that they may eat." 43 But his servant said, "How am I to set this before a hundred men?" So he repeated, "Give them to the men, that they may eat, for thus says the LORD, 'They shall eat and have some left.'" 44 So he set it before them. And they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the LORD.

In this case the later story (Mark 6:34-44 or 8:1-9) has a resemblance to the earlier Elisha story, such that it seems the similarities are more than just a coincidence. If it's not a coincidence, but there has to be a connection, then what is the connection? One explanation would be that the later Mark writer took the earlier story and used it to create his fictional Jesus story. This doesn't have to be the explanation, but at least it has to be taken as a serious possibility.

There are better examples of copycat stories than this. This one is really a weak example.

For comparison, let's take a strong example, where the similarities are unmistakable and there has to be something fictional about the later story (the copycat version).

Note that in the following story, Peter is depicted as virtually a successor to Jesus, like another Messiah, with unique healing power, such that he has to be sent for from far away to perform a healing which no one else could do.

Book of Acts 9:36 -43

36 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. 37 In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. 38 Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, "Please come to us without delay." 39 So Peter rose and went with them. And when he had come, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing tunics and other garments which Dorcas made while she was with them. 40 But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. 41 And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive. 42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.

Compare the above to the earlier story of Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus:

Luke 8:51-56

51 And when he came to the house, he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 52 And all were weeping and bewailing her; but he said, "Do not weep; for she is not dead but sleeping." 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, "Child, arise." 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once; and he directed that something should be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were amazed; but he charged them to tell no one what had happened.

There are several similarities between the two stories, such that the later version appears to have borrowed major elements from the earlier Jesus story. There is good reason to doubt the Acts story as factual, because it's so easy to explain it as a copycat version of the earlier story. I.e., it's so easy to explain it without it needing to have really happened. But the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained in this way. I.e., they did not originate as copycat stories based on something earlier, like this Peter story in Acts originated. So then how did the Jesus miracle stories originate?

But the fish-and-loaves story (Mark 6:34-44 or 8:1-9) might be explained as a copycat story taken from the earlier Elisha story. There is enough similarity to allow that conjecture.

The best explanation would be that there was a real Jesus event, of feeding a large crowd, and then the additional elements were added which made it similar to the Elisha story.

But whatever the explanation, there is some similarity, making this story more doubtful, or giving reason to doubt it. What's important is that there is no other Jesus miracle story having any such resemblance to an earlier miracle story. So if this is a copycat story, it's the only one in the Gospel accounts.

In this one case only, there is a basis for claiming a connection of a Jesus miracle to some earlier story which was similar. Other than this, there is no Jesus miracle act in the Gospels having any resemblance to any earlier miracle story in all the literature. This includes not only the earlier Hebrew miracle stories but also any Greek and Roman legends. None of them has any resemblance to the Jesus miracle stories which shows the latter to be based on anything earlier.

In I-II Kings there are three miracle healing events reported, performed by Elijah/Elisha. But there is no resemblance of these to the Jesus miracle healings. The only connection one can claim is simply that a miracle healing took place. Except for this, there is no similarity.

Also, Elijah and Elisha were virtual unknowns in the 1st century AD, until after the Jesus stories had circulated. Only then did Elijah become an important figure. Prior to that, he is a virtual unknown figure in the Jewish literature. So it's difficult to imagine these virtually unrecognized prophets being used as a source for inventing a miracle-worker in the 1st century AD.

So in summary: ALL the evidence shows that the miracle acts of Jesus are real events which happened in history, except for one case only, where we have evidence of a possible copycat story, which connects the later Jesus miracle act to that of Elisha in II Kings. So possibly in this one case there is a fictional element in the Gospel story of this event.

Except for this one case, there is no evidence that the reported Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels are fiction stories. Rather, every indication is that these stories emerged in the 1st century AD without any explanation as to where they originated in earlier traditions. When there is no earlier tradition it could be based upon, you have to consider that maybe the reported events actually did happen.

Unlike almost all other miracle legends, in religion or mythology, which can easily be traced to earlier traditions, and also for which there is little or no evidence in any documents from the time, like we have for the Jesus miracle acts of the 1st century AD.

In the Matthew Ferguson Walls of Text I've been quoting, and to which I will return in future Walls of Text, his main point is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus, especially the miracle acts, are based on something earlier, or are similar to something earlier, thus making them fiction, because they can be explained in the same way earlier miracle traditions and legends can be explained.

However, he gives no examples of this. Except that he does mention the Elijah/Elisha parallels, and this one story, about the fish and loaves, does have a resemblance to the earlier Elisha story. So in this one case only, he offers something of substance, showing a connection to earlier literature, and casting doubt on the credibility of one Gospel miracle story.

But other than this one example, he offers nothing to show any earlier explanation for the Jesus miracle stories in the Gospel accounts. He repeats over and over a supposed similarity to Alexander the Great and to Hesiod and Homer and Aesop, about which more is to be said later, but there's nothing other than the one comparison to the Elisha story which has any merit or substance to it.

Otherwise he offers no parallel or similarity or anything in common with earlier literature or legends which can explain how these reported miracle events show up in the Gospel literature in the 1st century. All he can do is fall back on his categorizing obsession, trying to pound the Gospel literature into a "genre" which supposedly makes them to be fiction, but all his examples of anything similar are pathetic as comparisons to the Gospel accounts, which are in a totally different category than anything he offers for comparison.

Of course he repeatedly falls back on the virgin birth, as his only hope, but miracle birth stories are much different than the reported miracle acts of Jesus, which we see in the miracle healing stories in the 4 Gospels. This inability to find anything comparable, but only to keep falling back on the virgin birth, itself is a strong indicator of the extreme uniqueness of the Jesus miracle stories, the healing acts and the Resurrection, for which there is no explanation or precedent in all the earlier traditions or legends or literature.

 

[Keith&Co.]

2. Science and Logic: The Jesus miracles must not have happened, because miracles in general cannot happen, as we're taught by philosophy and science, and so the Jesus miracles are just one more example of miracle claims which must be rejected.

Except that's not the commonly used argument, Lumpy, despite your desperate efforts at strawmanning.

The argument is far more often that the miracles that are claimed to have happened would be a violation of science as we currently understand it, therefore we need far better evidence for them than 'this guy wrote a story about it.'

We don't reject the miracles exactly because they're scientifically impossible. We reject them UNTIL sufficient evidence is supplied to make them an observation that cannot be ignored.

But, hey, you'll continue to claim that we just classify them as impossible SO THAT we can claim they're impossible. Be sure your little argument doesn't get too close to open flame, Lumpy.

 

[funinspace]

<Title>The only serious argument against the Miracles of Jesus as historical fact.</Title>

The only fact in your bloviating, is that you clearly do not comprehend the meaning of the word 'fact', along with quite a few other common words like 'forgery' and 'clearly'.

Not that it was needed, but thanks for further evidence that you fail to grasp the meaning of the word 'fact'...


PS: Too bad Lumpy couldn't put a few words into fleshing out how Jebus could also be the Son of Quetzalcoatl...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do the Gospels belong in a "GENRE" of literature which makes them necessarily "FICTION"?

(continued from previous Walls of Text)

I'm not impressed by Lumpenproletariat's spews. I haven't seen in them anything close to a discussion of modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels.

How close is "close"?

Discussing such a large volume of literature as "modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels" would require extensive Walls of Text beyond these, but the following and earlier spews on the lpetrich links will hopefully get it closer to such a discussion.

Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.

No such works "considered fictional" are described in these links, because the description given in them fits 90% (95%) of the ancient writers, and it's not true that so many of the ancient writings are "fictional."

There's nothing about the Gospels which puts them into a special "fictional" category or makes them less credible as sources than most other ancient writings. All the ancient writings, including the most "historical" ones, contain both fact and fiction, and so it's always appropriate to read them with skepticism, even the ones we rely on most for our known historical facts. The Gospels are reliable as sources for the events just as most of the ancient writings are, with none of them being totally reliable.

And the "various works from antiquity" cited here as being "in common" with the Gospels all lack a very basic feature the Gospels have and thus disqualify them to be compared to the Gospels: they were all written centuries after the historical events which are their subject matter, making them far less reliable as sources for historical events, whereas the Gospels were written 40-70 years later than the reported events, which is a normal time space between the date of the events and the date of the written record we rely on for historical events 1000-2000 years ago.

These "works from antiquity" have "in common" only this one feature: they are not Thucydides and 1 or 2 other "historians" like him who followed strict critical standards not followed by 99% of the ancient writers.

Even most recognized "historians" (Josephus, Herodotus, and others) belong more correctly in Ferguson's "fictional" category based on his descriptions here, because they mostly do not follow his prescribed strict standards for "historical" works. It's not true that they are "considered fictional" because they are not Thucydides, as lpetrich implies using Ferguson as his authority. An ancient writing does not have to follow the same strict standards of Thucydides or mainline "historians" in order to be credible as a source for historical events.

It is simplistic to say that all the ancient writings are either Thucydides (and a couple other "historians" like him) or they are fiction, as falsely implied here by Ferguson/lpetrich.

There are far more categories of ancient literature than only "historical" and "biographical" and "fiction" -- the Gospels and most other ancient literature do not fit neatly into any of these 3 categories, and any scheme to relegate all writings to only these three categories, as Ferguson/lpetrich pretend to do here, is pseudo-scholarly, by putting 90% of the ancient writings into the "fictional" category, which they are not.

Almost all the ancient writings are non-"historical" in the strict sense, but many contain both history as well as fiction and are reliable sources for historical events they cover even though not being in the strict "historical" category. Whether a document is in the "historical" category of literature does not tell us if something in it is fact or fiction. The notion that it can somehow be categorized into this or that "genre" and thus pronounced as "fiction" is simplistic dogmatism based on ideology rather than scholarship. Genuine scholarship considers each part of the document, or the claims in it, and tries to judge the credibility of each, and admits that in the doubtful cases we just don't know. The doubt is not resolved by simplistically assigning the document to the "fictional" or "historical" category, as Ferguson would have it.

Though you might reasonably judge this or that document to be more "historical" or "fictional" or "biographical" than another, you can't conclude this by simplistically categorizing it into this "genre" or that, and then judging its content to be fact or fiction based on this categorization, as Ferguson pretends to do. Virtually all the ancient writings contained both fact and fiction and so cannot be neatly classified or this or that part judged as fact or fiction based simplistically on how the document is categorized.

Here are some links on . . .
Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος
The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod and the Gospels: Some Comparanda | Κέλσος
Lawrence Wills: “The Life of Aesop and the Hero Cult Paradigm in the Gospel Tradition” | Κέλσος
Are the Gospels Ancient Biographies?: The Spectrum of Ancient Βίοι | Κέλσος
Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel | Κέλσος
Patterns of Myth-Making Between the Lives of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ | Κέλσος
 Ancient Greek novel

There is no ancient literature in these links showing any similarity of the Gospels to fictional writings, other than similarities to Cicero and Pliny the Younger and most other ancient authors who are credible sources even though they are not in the "historical" category.

the bottom line: The Gospel accounts are evidence (not proof) that the miracle acts of Jesus were real historical events, meaning that it's reasonable to believe these particular miracle claims, or that these were real events, even though there is doubt. Doubt does not cancel belief. The evidence for them is the same kind of evidence we rely on for normal historical events, most of which also involves doubt, and the evidence is not negated by placing these writings into some category or "genre" arbitrarily labeled as "fiction" or dismissed as a non-"historical" category .

The degree of evidence varies for different events, so there is more evidence for some events than for others. Most historical "facts" are not established fact proved with certainty (supported by overwhelming evidence) but still are probably true because of adequate evidence -- i.e., it's reasonable to believe them, though there is doubt. There's plenty of doubt about many normal accepted historical facts -- classifying a document into a "historical" or "fiction" or other category does not address these doubts about the claims made in the document, or negate the evidence in it.

This includes the reported miracle acts of Jesus in the Gospels, which are within the category of reported events for which there is evidence, though not proof, like many historical events which are believed because of some evidence. It's reasonable to believe it based on such evidence, though there is still doubt.

It's incorrect to say there is no evidence for the Jesus miracle acts (though it is correct for other miracle claims of antiquity). As with reported normal facts (non-miracle claims), there are varying degrees of evidence, so, when there's more evidence, as in the case of the Jesus miracle acts, the likelihood of it being true is greater.

The above Ferguson links pretend that there are other works of ancient literature, known to be fiction, which are similar to the Gospel accounts, and that the Jesus miracle acts reported in the Gospels are in the same category as these works, thus making them fiction. However, the examples he offers are not really in the same category as the Gospel accounts because they are dissimilar.

lpetrich's summary points of the above links are refuted in

discussion of modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels.

The main points in the first link/Wall-of-Text above (minus the notes) are refuted in these earlier Walls-of-Text:

ten relevant areas of distinction that are helpful for understanding how historical writing is different. . . . 1. Discussion of Methodology and Sources

ten relevant areas . . . 2. Internally Addressed and Analyzed Contradictions among Traditions

ten relevant areas . . . 3. Authorial Presence in the Narrative

ten relevant areas . . . 4. Education Level of the Audience

ten relevant areas . . . 5. Hagiography versus Biography

ten relevant areas . . . 6. Signposts about Authorial Speculation

ten relevant areas . . . 7. A Greater Degree of Authorial License

ten relevant areas . . . 8. Independence versus Interdependence

ten relevant areas . . . 9. Miracles at the Fringe versus the Core of the Narrative

ten relevant areas . . . 10. Important Characters and Events Do Not Disappear from the Narrative

11. Even Good Historical Texts Should Not Always Be Trusted

The above posts cover the first link except the notes. The following Text Walls address the important points in the notes. These are 80% repetitions of Ferguson's classifying obsession ("historical" and "biographical" and "novelistic" and "fictional" and other "genre" jingoism) and his repeated comparison of the Gospels to the Alexander and Aesop romance literature, which constitutes most of what lpetrich calls "modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels."

[1] For the purposes of this article, the term “historical writing” can refer to both ancient historiography and historical biography. To be sure, historiography and biography were not the same genre in antiquity, as the former was based on the history of a broader period or event, while the latter was based on the life of an individual. Nevertheless, the two can both be sufficiently described as “historical writing,” especially since many of the narrative conventions between the two are similar. Plutarch in his Parallel Lives, for example, compares his source material and makes historical judgements in a manner very similar to Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his Roman Antiquities, even if Plutarch wrote historical biographies while Dionysius wrote a Roman history.

The Gospel writings, along with 90% of the ancient literature, are in neither the "historical" or the "biographical" category. But it's not therefore "fictional" -- as though only these 3 categories exist, as Ferguson implies. There are probably several dozen distinct categories, and it is pseudo-scholarly to put the Gospels into a "fiction" category simply because they do not fit the above Plutarch-Dionysius categories.

The Gospel accounts cannot be compared to the above, as if somehow they are not credible unless they follow the same standards as these. The Gospels are much shorter and never claimed to be "historical" writings. They can be credible, just like Cicero and Pliny the Younger and many others are credible, even though they are not in the strict "historical" category (which is also tainted with some fiction) and contain fiction along with fact and do not follow the strict standards of the mainline historians.


Are the Gospels in the "BIOGRAPHICAL" category?

The best answer to this is NO.

But rather than insist on this and condemn every effort to attach the "biographical" label to the Gospels, the right approach is to

Get beyond the categorizing or classifying or "genre" obsession, and instead identify certain specific works of ancient literature which are similar to the Gospels and legitimate as comparisons to them. Name the particular literary work and let's compare them. This is what Ferguson has NOT done. He has NOT given examples which are comparable to the Gospels. Rather, his examples are significantly different and cannot be used as some kind of standard for judging the credibility of the Gospel accounts. He appears unable to offer a genuine example for comparison, offering instead only the Alexander Romance and the Life of Aesop, but these are significantly different than the Gospels and thus not in the same category.

It should be noted, however, that not all Greco-Roman biographies in antiquity were historical biographies–of the sort of Plutarch and Suetonius–since there were also many less critical biographical texts–such as the Alexander Romance and the Life of Aesop–which would include far more novelistic and mythical elements.

Constantly hammering home buzz-words like "novelistic" and "mythical" means nothing if the literature in question is not in the same category as the Gospels, as these are not.

It's not the "biographical" element which is significant, but the dating or chronology of the literature relative to the events reported in them. To compare any ancient literature to the Gospels, as a "genre" or category, that literature must meet the following criteria:

What "GENRE" of ancient literature do the Gospels really belong to?

1) A document of this "genre" presents events, reported as factual (whether they really are fact or not) or narrated likewise as events which really happened, and which are placed into a historical setting, into the events of that time and location, despite whether intermixed with fictional or religious or propaganda elements.

2) The document was written near to the time of the historical events in question, not several centuries later.

3) The document is short, by comparison to mainline historical writings, and focused on one particular event as special, rather than a broad view of the history.

The Alexander Romance and the Life of Aesop don't fit the above 2) and 3) descriptions and so are not in this category, because these were not written near to the historical time of the reported events which are their subject matter, and they are not focused on one particular event but on the broad history of the period.

The Gospels are about a particular historical event happening 40-70 years before the date these were written. Whereas the Alexander Romance and Life of Aesop (or Aesop Romance) writings, which are biographical, date from several centuries later than the time of the reported historical persons.

Also, the Gospels are different because they focus on one very limited event only, covering 3 years at the most, and possibly less than one year of the life of Jesus. Thus they are not biographical like the Alexander and Aesop romances.

Alternatively, you might claim there's a "biographical" category which concentrates on a short time period, like the Gospels. But then for the comparison you must find a similar ancient biographical writing which focuses on a short time in the historical person's life, unlike the Alexander and Aesop romances.

A typical "biography" which covers the entirety of the character's life is not in the same category as the Gospels, even if the latter are categorized as "biographical," because these cover only a short space of the life of Jesus, not his entire life. The birth stories are missing from John and Mark and are not basically part of these writings. And, even if these are jammed in as part of this "biographical" writing, they add only a short space of time to it, while the entire "biography" still omits more than 90% of his life. So these are not in the same category as a "biography" which relates the whole life of the historical character.


Are the Gospels in the "Biography" category, like the Alexander Romance? Are these in the same "genre"?

Here is an online text of the Alexander Romance: http://www.attalus.org/info/alexander.html

Ferguson cites this repeatedly as some kind of parallel or same "genre" along with the Gospel accounts. The truth is that this "biography" is mostly factual, while containing some fiction, so it hardly proves anything to cite it as a "fiction" example. Virtually every ancient writing was a mixture of fact and fiction.

There is really nothing in it analogous to the miracle acts of Jesus in the Gospels. Possibly some of the spectacular battle victories might be described as superhuman feats by Alexander, and yet there are surely other battle scenes in the literature where one army seems to have the gods on their side and destroys a larger enemy force and maybe is favored by weather conditions or by a lightning bolt from Zeus or Whatever to strike down the enemy.

Are the Gospel writings in this same category with the battlefield miracles and omens and portents? We see a bit of this in Josephus and Herodotus, where battles are reported. The most bizarre scenes in the Alexander stories have some weird freakish creatures popping up, some human, having no heads or other parts, or having extra parts, extra legs, etc. This is comparable to something in the Gospels? One has to be pretty sick to think this kind of mindset is the same as that which drove the Gospel writers in their description of Jesus performing the miracle acts.

There's nothing in this "novel" or "biography" a sane person could say provides any resemblance to the Jesus miracle-worker described in the Gospel accounts. That someone would be so desperate to find a Jesus counterpart in the literature as to drag up something like this really tells us more about the mindset of the debunker than about the origin of the Gospel accounts and Jesus miracle claims.

It's mostly the late date of these accounts which forces us to place them in the likely-fiction category. Except for that, there's no reason to reject them as fiction, other than to discount the bizarre elements and exaggerations. So even if these romance writings were in the same category as the Gospel accounts, it still doesn't tell us that the Gospel accounts are fiction. We can set aside some dubious parts in the Gospels without thereby consigning them to the "fiction" category in general. And since the miracle stories are attested to in all four accounts, they have the extra weight of evidence, with multiple sources instead of only one.

On this point, see my essay “Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel,” in addition to my essay “Are the Gospels Ancient Biographies?: The Spectrum of . . .

It's pointless to get bogged down on whether they are "biographies" -- even if you insist on calling them "biographical" in some sense, they are a totally different kind of "biography" than these examples Ferguson compares them to. Much more pertinent to the question of the credibility is the proximity of the writings to the historical period written about.

Ferguson's point is his obsession with categorizing the Gospels as something pretending to be "historical" or "biographical" but not in line with Thucydides or Suetonius/Plutarch and then concluding from this that they must be "fiction" and thus unreliable as sources for the reported events. But that they are not properly "historical" or "biographical" does not put them into a "fiction" or non-credible category anymore than it puts Cicero and Pliny the Younger into such a category.

We must get beyond this obsession with simplistically categorizing the document and pretending that your categorizing it then determines its credibility as a source for historical events. There are many writings not in the "historical" or "biographical" categories (actually the vast majority are not in either category), and yet they are generally reliable sources for the historical events and cannot be discarded into a convenient "fictional" category.

Ferguson's ideological impulse to put the Gospel writings into this forbidden taboo category is not sufficient reason to discard them as unreliable sources for the historical facts. We need more than just an impulse or dogmatic obsession to condemn them out of a hatred for their content in order to judge that the reported events have to be fiction.

What would we say of a scholar who hates Cicero and so condemns everything in Cicero as "fiction" because Cicero is not classified as a "historical" writer? Would this scholar's hate for Cicero require us to reject everything in Cicero as "fiction" because he proves that Cicero was not a strict "historian" like Thucydides? or "biographer" like Suetonius?

Such a mindless crusade of hate against certain writings is not a legitimate reason to reject them as "fictional" and unreliable as sources for the events they report.

Of course writings are criticized for real mistakes or discrepancies or flaws in them, but you cannot judge the fact vs. fiction based on simplistic CATEGORIZING, imposing a scheme of "historical" and "biographical" and "fictional" as the only "genres" of literature, and then trashing the Gospels (and 90% of all the ancient literature) into the "novelistic" or "fiction" category and pretending that such categorizing is "modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels." It's no such thing.

This categorizing impulse is not a legitimate critique for condemning the Gospels or any other writings as "fictional" or deficient as a source for historical events 2000 years ago.

It's one thing to praise Thucydides and some others for their extra zeal to investigate and be more critical, but it's moronic to imply that others not following the same strict rules have no credibility and that all our history must be based on only a tiny elitist class of historical writings like those of Thucydides.

[3] The comparison of the Gospels and Acts (along with other early Christian and Jewish literature) to the ancient novel has been made by . . .

But this is false comparison, because the Acts and the Gospels and other Christian and Jewish literature cannot all be pounded into the same category like this. These are different categories, not all the same.

The Acts is more properly in a different category than the Gospels, because it covers a much wider time span than the Gospels which are limited to a space of 3 years or less.

You cannot lump all the New Testament books together into the same literature type simply because they were combined into this collection, or canon, by the Church, or simply because they're all "Christian" in belief. E.g., the Apocalypse of St. John is a different type and the epistles are a different type than the Gospels.

And the term "the ancient novel" is sloppy language presuming to include a wide variety of works which are not done justice by this categorizing. Comparing anything to "the ancient novel" -- especially all the "early Christian and Jewish literature" -- and other such language is pretense, not scholarship. These Ferguson Walls-of-Text links are filled with this kind of phony non-specific jingoism, to give the false impression of something scientific or scholarly taking place. There is no agreed meaning of "the ancient novel" established by scholars and denoting a list of works agreed by all and agreeing which ones are excluded from the list.

The comparison of the Gospels and Acts (along with other early Christian and Jewish literature) to the ancient novel has been made by several NT scholars, including Ronald Hock (ed.) in Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative, Jo-Ann Brant (ed.) in Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, Marília Pinheiro (ed.) in The Ancient Novel and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: Fictional Intersections, and Richard Pervo in Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles.

This false comparison, and the phony categorizing and jargon ("the ancient novel" etc.), is not made legitimate by running out a long list of titles and authors, which is 90% of Ferguson's presentation, without giving any example of an ancient document in the "fiction" category and similar to the Gospels.

Ferguson cannot be taken seriously until he gets beyond this artificial categorizing and jingoism and instead names particular examples of the literature which are the same category as the Gospels, or gets beyond the 2 or 3 examples he falsely names as being in this category.

Michael Vines has also compared the Gospel of Mark specifically with the genre of the Jewish novel in The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel.

The term "the genre of the Jewish novel" is more phony jargon. Is the Book of Genesis in this category? The Book of Ruth? I and II Chronicles? I Maccabees? stories in the Talmud, like Honi the Circle-Drawer and others? The Wisdom of Sirach? Philo's In Flaccum? Daniel? David & Goliath? There is no general agreement which are in "the Jewish novel" category and which are not. And much of the Jewish literature is history, not fiction, despite the dishonest term "novel" and other jargon used to disparage the writings into a fictional category and thus to be dismissed as of no historical credibility.

There is a premise here that you can prove your point by running out the longest list of titles, especially containing buzz-words like "novel" and "fictional" and so on. Also the word "genre" sounds very high-class and impressive, but it's pretense, not fact or objective analysis of the literature. For a real analysis you need more than just the jingo and a long fancy list of names and titles and credentials of supposed expert-authority figures.

Instead of the jingoism, what Ferguson needs to offer us is an example of an ancient writing which is similar to the Gospels. He has no point if he can't give us one legitimate example. His only examples so far are not acceptable because they were written several centuries later than the time of the events in question.

Nevermind abstractions like "the ancient novel" or "the Jewish novel" etc. -- rather, name an ancient novel to be compared to the Gospels. Give us a concrete example for comparison, and let's do the comparison and judge whether certain stories in it are fact or fiction, and likewise the reported events in the Gospel accounts.

But Ferguson's repeated categorizing and jingoism and long lists of titles and names of expert scholar-authority figures is a smokescreen to hide this important reality: in the case of the Jesus miracle acts we have real evidence, from historical documents of the time, which we do not have with other miracle claims from antiquity. This evidence is not refuted by the pretentious categorizing jingo and long lists of names and titles, phony terms like "the ancient novel" or "the Jewish novel" etc., or by comparison to ancient writings that are dissimilar to the Gospels.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do the Gospels belong in a "GENRE" of literature which makes them necessarily "FICTION"?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

I'm not impressed by Lumpenproletariat's spews. I haven't seen in them anything close to a discussion of modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels.

How close is "close"?

Discussing such a large volume of literature as "modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels" would require extensive Walls of Text beyond these, but the following and earlier spews on the lpetrich links will hopefully get it closer to such a discussion.

Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.

Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος . . .

Resuming the notes to this link:

The comparison of the Gospels to the ancient novel is often contrasted with the comparison to Greco-Roman biographies. The Gospels have been compared to Greco-Roman biographies by Richard Burridge in What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography and Dirk Frickenschmidt in Evangelium als Biographie: die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst.

This is all the Ferguson links are -- nothing but jingo and titles of works containing the same jingo, but no concrete examples of ancient literature similar to the Gospels, and no arguments why the miracle stories must be fiction.

Again and again Ferguson is caught up in the categorizing. He pretends to prove the Gospels are "fiction" by proving that they are pseudo-biographies (not Real-McCoy "biographies") -- when this actually does not matter if he can't offer us one ancient example of another pseudo-biography or "fiction" writing comparable to the Gospel accounts. There are other categories of literature than these three he's obsessed with.

The Gospels are about a very specific event, which happened at around 30 AD, over a period of 3 years maximum (probably less), so they are not "historical" and probably not "biographical" either. So find something they really are comparable to. Find something about a limited event, covering a short time span rather than that of a person's entire life, and something written less than 100 years from the time of that event.

There are such examples.

It should be noted, however, that there was a great diversity of biographical literature in antiquity, which means that not all Greco-Roman biographies are similar in terms of their style and methodology. As Tomas Hägg (The Art of Biography in Antiquity, pg. 155) argues, regarding Burridge’s study (which compares the Gospels to a canon of ten ancient biographical texts) . . .

No one can seriously compare the Gospel accounts to these "biographical" writings of Xenophon or Plato (on Socrates) or Sophocles or Isocrates and others referred to here. No one seriously suggests that the Gospels are "biographical" in the same sense as these authors who wrote about famous celebrities who had long careers and wide influence and status during their lives.

Even if we suppose that Socrates was similar to Jesus in some sense, as if such a comparison is plausible, an obvious major difference here which makes the comparison impossible is that Plato and Xenophon never depict Socrates as a miracle-worker or a "messiah" or "Son of God" or "the Logos" and other such titles.

Why is Socrates never portrayed as doing miracles? Maybe it's because he didn't do any such acts -- whereas Jesus is described as doing such acts because he actually did them. So there's the main difference.

You can't summarily rule out that possibility and call yourself a true skeptic.

Or, if you prefer, there were claims that Jesus did such acts, and the writers believed it, whereas there were no such claims about Socrates. Even if the two great Teachers are similar in many ways, one of them did something the other did not, and so the reports about them are different on this major point.

So, even if Socrates in Plato and Xenophon is similar to Jesus in the Gospels (which he's really not, for various reasons), the "ten" texts referred to are of a totally different category than the Gospels belong to and can have no relevance to anything about the credibility of the Gospel accounts.

. . . Burridge’s study (which compares the Gospels to a canon of ten ancient biographical texts):

There is a great diversity within each of the two groups, the four gospels and the ten ancient biographies; and it is this very diversity, we should note, that makes it possible always to find a parallel in one or several of the ten Lives for each feature occurring in one or more of the gospels. What is proven is that the investigated features of the gospels are not unique in ancient biographical literature;

So there's other "biographical" literature having the same features as the gospels? OK then, lets have it. Name an example. It has to

1--describe its historical character as a miracle-worker who

2--lived less than 100 (200) years earlier than the biographer/writer and who

3--had no wide fame or celebrity status during his lifetime. So give us an example of such a "biography" for comparison to the gospel accounts. And it also should be one which

4--focuses on a short period of the historical character's life rather than his whole life.

Even a "biography" having 2 of the above 4 features might be close to a legitimate comparison. And yet Ferguson's examples have none of the above features to make them comparable to the Gospel accounts. The above 4 features are important characteristics of the Gospels as literature -- to present us with something lacking all 4 and pretending they are analogous or comparable to the Gospels is irresponsible and pseudo-scholarly.

Ferguson's only examples are NOT similar to the Gospels. He persistently gives no serious examples, but just keeps repeating the jingo over and over, and keeps repeating the dissimilar examples of the Alexander and Aesop romances, apparently because he can find no others.

but no control group is established to show which features may be regarded as significantly typical of this literature.

This article does not dispute the comparison of the Gospels to Greco-Roman biographies, due to the fact that there were many novelistic biographies in antiquity–such as the Alexander Romance and the Life of Aesop—which overlapped with both the ancient novel and the Greco-Roman bios. Because of this, the Gospels can still be categorized as novelistic writing while still having biographical elements.

The categorizing is phony unless an example of another such writing in the same category is offered for comparison. Ferguson offers none -- The Alexander and Aesop romances are a separate category, i.e., works written centuries later than the historical period of the reported events (whether these are fact or fiction).

Is it true that "there were many novelistic biographies" in antiquity? Then stop the phony repetition over and over of only the Alexander and Aesop romances. These are dissimilar to the Gospels -- give us an example of a "novelistic biography" which is truly in the same category as the Gospel writings, if there are "many" such examples.

Note the constant "novelistic" and "biographical" jingo, and no example of any document similar to the Gospels for comparison -- only the same repetition of the Alexander and Aesop romances, because he can't name any others.

The Burridge study may be an honest attempt to classify the Gospels into the "biographical" category, but it's a needless exercise, which can easily be avoided by recognizing separate "biographical" categories, and then using for comparison a "biography" of the same category as the Gospels, which Ferguson fails to do with his Alexander Romance and Life of Aesop examples, which are false comparisons to the Gospels, as has been shown.

Until a true comparison to the Gospels is offered, all comparisons are false and explain nothing about whether the miracle stories in the Gospels are fact or fiction. We can look at the individual reported events in the Gospels and conclude that there are elements of both fact and fiction, and we can try to separate these. And when we do this, no reason is found for judging the Jesus miracle acts as fiction or putting the Gospels into this or that abstract category. If they really have to go into some such "fictional" category, then give us a real example of something in that category which is similar to the Gospels.

Failing to do this, Ferguson is really offering no scholarship on the fact vs. fiction, but is only falling back on the worn-out ideological doctrine that ALL miracle claims have to be fiction, which is not scholarship or science or logic or history, but just ideology. Ferguson offers nothing from the evidence to move beyond just that ideological premise or fallback dogma of denying any possibility of miracle events, which of course any fanatic debunker crusader can offer without all the pretense that it's based on "scholarship" or the latest findings on "the origins of the gospels."

In fact, the genre of the Gospels has been compared to the novelistic Life of Aesop by Lawrence Wills in “The Life of Aesop and the Hero Cult Paradigm in the Gospel Tradition” . . . as well as Whitney Shiner in “Creating Plot in Episodic Narratives: The Life of Aesop and the Gospel of Mark” . . .

Still no substance, but only pretense and laundry lists of titles and authors offering nothing but the same jargon. The Aesop romance is not in the same category as the Gospels but was written several centuries later than the historical period of the reported events. It's very important how much separation there is between the event reported and the date of the writing which reports it.

That Ferguson can do nothing but just keep repeating the Alexander and Aesop examples indicates that there are no ancient fictional works comparable to the Gospels, meaning these must be in a unique one-of-a-kind category -- or, there are works comparable to them which are NON-fiction, which Ferguson cannot admit without choking on his ideological premise that the miracle stories must be fiction.

I have also made a similar comparison to another ancient novelistic biography–The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod–in my essay “The Certamen of Homer and Hesiod and the Gospels: Some Comparanda.”

Same thing, same fallacy. Again, this is written much later than the alleged event, at least 400 years. The reported event is an encounter between Homer and Hesiod and so would have happened around 700 BC (though this obviously was not intended by the author as a real event).

The known Certamen documents are 2nd century AD, about 800 years later ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_of_Homer_and_Hesiod ) but with a few earlier fragments showing some of the story dating to around 200 BC, or about 500 years after Homer and Hesiod.

In any case, we have written reports of the Jesus miracles in documents 40-70 years from the reported events, and for the Jesus resurrection as early as 25 years later (I Corinthians 15), so these reported events are not in the same category as the Homer-Hesiod Certamen, just as they are not in the same category as the Alexander and Aesop romances.

Why can't Ferguson find one example of such literature written near to the time of the reported events? Why do his examples always have to be something written several centuries later?

He says above that "there were many novelistic biographies in antiquity" -- OK fine, so there must be far more examples than the Alexander and Aesop romances which he keeps mentioning over and over again. So what's the problem with giving us an example which is in the same category as the Gospels? i.e., an example of a "romance" or "novella" or "biography" written near to the historical period of the reported events or reported historical character?

In the above notes and the remaining links he keeps repeating these two examples over and over, and also the Homer-Hesiod Certamen. Why is this? Why does he keep repeating and repeating endlessly, in Walls of Text 10 times longer than any of my posts, these same titles, when there are so many other examples, he claims, and yet the only ones he cites are NOT in the same category as the Gospel accounts?

Even if you mistakenly think a document written 500 years later than the reported events is the same type as one written only 50 years after the events, still you have to wonder why he can give NO EXAMPLE of another "fictional" or "novelistic" or "biographical"-type document written less than 100 years after the period of the reported event (or even 200, or 300 years after).

For the purposes of this article, therefore, I classify the Gospels as novelistic biographies distinct from historical biographies, . . .

"classify" -- "genre" -- "novelistic" -- "biographies" -- "historical" etc. -- more and more "genre" jingo. Again the obsession with categorizing and jingoism. Regardless whether they are biographies or "novelistic" or "historical" biographies, etc. etc., the Gospels are not in any category of writing about earlier events unless those writings are dated close to the time of the earlier reported events. Either find a category they really belong to, or put them in a unique one-of-a-kind category, and stop pretending you prove something by putting them into some category they don't belong to.

There is nothing wrong with a one-of-a-kind category. There are probably dozens of such categories. Not all literature has to go into a "genre" having many other examples of the same type. Why can't some of them be in a singular unique category with no other examples of the same kind? What do you prove by force-jamming them into a "fictional" category they don't belong to, other than to get an orgasm at being able to put that "fiction" label on them to score some debunking points and win disciples to your crusade? This is not "scholarship" and proves nothing about whether the reported Jesus miracle acts are fact or fiction.

It matters what the date of the document is.

2000 years ago it was normal for historical events to be reported in documents 50-100 years later than the event happened. That is reasonably close as a credible source for the reported event. But 400 or 500 years is too long, and hardly any of our reliable historical facts are from a source that far removed. As an example for comparison, we're entitled to something written less than 100 years after the reported event. Or certainly less than 200 years, to be generous.

There is something very suspicious about a scholar continuing to give us examples for comparison where the source always has to be 400 years or more removed from the events reported. Isn't it strange that he cannot supply us with at least ONE example of a source closer to the reported event than this? The Gospels are an example. Is there any other example or not? Why is there nothing closer than 100 or 200 years?

. . . which allows for the Gospels to make use of many biographical conventions, while still lacking critical and historical inquiry.

Of course, like 98% of all the ancient documents are lacking critical and historical inquiry. I.e., they are not Thucydides and Suetonius and Plutarch. But they are Cicero and Pliny the Younger and Philo the Alexandrian and many other non-"historians" who are reliable sources for the historical events.

Ferguson seemingly cannot perform the legitimate task of coming up with one example of any ancient literature comparable to the Gospel accounts. So instead of this, and instead of concluding that these must be in a NON-fiction category, or in a unique one-of-kind category, he illegitimately obsesses on their not being the "critical and historical" type of Thucydides etc., and so thrusts them into the "fictional" category, which makes no sense because 98% of all the ancient literature would also have to go into this category, which is nonsense.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)