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.
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 approach 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 notes from this link)
The closest that any of the Gospels comes to identifying a contradiction between its sources is in Matthew (28:11-15), when the chief priests tell the guards previously stationed at Jesus’ tomb to report that his body was stolen by the disciples during the night. This report obviously contradicts Matthew’s own account, which has Jesus rise from the dead. There are a number of reasons, however, for why this report was probably invented.
Perhaps. But what's unlikely is that the stolen body rumor was invented. This rumor did exist from early, and then possibly
Matthew (or source used by Mt) invented this story of the soldiers being bribed, in order to discredit the already-existing rumor. Nothing about this casts doubt on the Resurrection and other reported miracles in the Gospels.
To begin with, the very stationing of the guards at the tomb presumes that Jesus had predicted his resurrection to the Jewish authorities (Mt. 27:62-66), which caused them to ask Pilate to guard the tomb. Many historical Jesus scholars, however, doubt that Jesus predicted his resurrection before his death. Furthermore, if the Jewish authorities had actually reported that the disciples stole Jesus’ body, it is extremely bizarre that none of them are later charged with this accusation in the Book of Acts, . . .
Perhaps some of them were charged. If so, there's no reason why the
Book of Acts should include it. Maybe the
Acts writer 70 years later did not know of it. And it might not have been a major event, or, there was no proof of the body being stolen and the matter was dropped. They had no proof and no suspects to charge.
It's only in
Matthew that there's any mention of this report, which doesn't fit well with the other 3 accounts and so might be false, or more likely a distortion of some minor rumor ignored by the other Gospel writers, or unknown to them.
. . . especially since the disciples have several confrontations with the Jewish authorities.
Those confrontations might have included accusations that they stole the body. The missing details of those confrontations extend beyond the details we have, e.g., in
Acts.
Finally, there is an obvious motive for Matthew to invent this story, in order to create an apologetic for Jesus’ resurrection, by making it clear that Jesus’ body was not stolen.
Perhaps, but if so, it means probably someone was making this accusation. Why make it clear that the body was not stolen if no one was claiming such a thing? And if someone was claiming it, where did this claim originate, if not from someone who believed the empty tomb report?
If the author of Matthew did not invent the report, and actually heard it from the Jews of his day (the author does state, “this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day," Mt. 28:15), then it was probably first circulated by Jews long after Jesus’ death . . .
No, that Mt statement implies that the story had started circulating much earlier. If you assume the Mt author did not invent the stolen-body story but heard it from others in his day, then part of the story is that it had also circulated much earlier, probably from the earliest time.
Here's the whole Matthew text of this:
11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.
The "this story" here refers to the stolen body story, which already existed, PRIOR to
Matthew.
If the Mt author really believed the story had circulated earlier and did not invent it himself, he probably also did not invent the part which implies that the story went way back to the beginning. If he thought the story was a recent invention, he would have said so to strengthen his case. He would have said, "But this stolen body story is surely false, because we know it's really just a recent fabrication by Jews, and is obviously a lie" etc.
So the Mt author himself really believed the stolen-body story originated far back, even from the original event around 30 AD -- i.e., assuming "Matthew did not invent the report, and actually heard it from the Jews of his day" rather than making it up himself. The two stories must be distinguished: the bribery story which he might have made up, and the earlier stolen-body story which could not have been made up by Mt or other Gospel writer.
. . . (Matthew wrote his gospel c. 80-90 CE), in response to Christian claims about the resurrection, rather than shortly after the event.
That's when Mt wrote this. But this doesn't tell us when the stolen body story originated. Mt is giving a story which could have originated many decades earlier. He was probably responding to current claims he heard from Jews about the body being stolen, but those claims originated much earlier and not at the time he heard it. His statement implies that the claims had circulated long before he heard them.
This author was likely motivated to answer objections he heard during his time, i.e., the stolen body story, but that doesn't mean the story originated from his time. He's saying the story originated shortly after the event near 30 AD and that it continued on down to his time.
Some version of the Resurrection event definitely was circulating in the 50s at the latest, because of mentions in Paul (I Cor. 15), who puts this event earlier, in recounting the appearances to Peter and others. He says Jesus was "buried" and was "raised up" -- so ideas about this event were known in the 50s, so that the stolen body story in
Matthew could easily have been a result of objections during that time (or earlier) rather than 80-90 AD when the Mt writer heard it.
It's plausible that Mt 28:11-15 (the soldiers bribed) is an invention by the Mt writer as a retort to those accusing the disciples of stealing the body. But it's implausible for the Mt writer to have invented the stolen body story he's retorting to. There's no need to retort to a story which didn't exist. Much more realistic is that this stolen body accusation already existed, from early origin, circulating forward to the time of Mt, and then the Mt bribe story was invented by the writer to refute this earlier stolen body story. So the stolen body story is early, not a later invention, while the bribery part could be a later invention.
For this reason, the report almost certainly does not go back to the time of Pilate.
The bribery part of the report -- that the soldiers were paid -- yes, that could be later, but the stolen body claim has to predate the
Matthew writer, who believed it went far back.
For further discussion of why Pilate stationing guards at Jesus’ tomb is probably a Christian invention, see Richard Carrier’s “Plausibility of Theft FAQ.”
It doesn't matter even if this is a Christian invention. Questions like these don't shed any light on whether the Resurrection and other Jesus miracle acts really happened. The story of the guards being posted suggests that there was an earlier claim that the body was stolen, putting the empty tomb story back earlier. It's likely that fictional claims would also get added to the original story. But these are best explained as a response to the original empty tomb story which was not fictional. Otherwise, there's no explanation how the whole story, in its final version, got started in the first place. What is the origin? The best answer to that is the basic Resurrection event, in about 30 AD, to which some fictional elements may have been added later.
[11] The author of Luke-Acts only uses the first person singular in the prologues of his two works (Lk. 1:3; Acts 1:1), without describing any biographical details about himself, and it is doubtful that . . .
Etc. etc.
. . . The authors of Matthew and Mark do not even use the first person singular, spoken by the narrator, within their gospels, making these texts even further anonymous.
No one has ever shown that "anonymous" writings are less credible as sources for the historical events. These have to be analyzed critically to separate the fact from fiction, just as with all the other writings. Having a name attached to the document is no guarantee that it's more credible.
This anonymous style of narration, in which the author reveals few or no clues about his personal relation to events, stands in stark contrast with the authorial interjections seen in historical biographies.
And yet most of the ancient writers do not give these interjections, and the "historians" do it only rarely, not as the norm. The norm is to avoid this and just say the events happened, or that the speaker said thus, without qualifying it with an explanation how it's known what happened or what was said.
It's only some "historians" with hundreds of extra pages available who sometimes do diversions into explaining how the event is known, or if it's only opinion or an interpretation of what happened, or a paraphrase of what was said, or if there's a discrepancy or conflicting version. Such critique is not the norm, but the exception, in the ancient writings generally, and there's no reason why the Gospel writings should depart from the norm and include such unnecessary critique and thereby diminish their whole purpose by distracting from the "good news" they are reporting to their readers.
That the Gospel writers followed the norm in this regard, rather than following the conventions of the more elitist historians, is no reason to discard the Gospels as "fiction" or not credible sources. Even the historians disregarded these conventions in most cases and followed them only selectively.
As I discuss in my essay “Eyewitness Recollections in Greco-Roman Biography versus the Anonymity of the Gospels,” every single author who wrote a historical biography during the early Roman Empire, dealing with subjects dating to within a generation or two of his own lifetime–Cornelius Nepos, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Lucian–uses the first person singular to discuss his own personal relation to both his sources and the biographical subject.
That might be appropriate for a "historical biography" writer, but not the Gospel writers, who focused on a limited special event rather than the whole life of the historical character, and whose account had nothing to do with themselves personally.
There was no reason for the Gospel writers to include any such discussion of their own personal relation to anything, as they were reporting a very specific important event, not on the general history of the period. They had urgent news to report about a unique event with great consequences and having nothing to do with themselves personally. They had no need to discuss anything about sources or about their personal background.
They were totally focused on presenting the Jesus person and trying to interpret the meaning of this person or the unique event happening in that short space of 1-3 years which these writers thought was a world-changing event. Wasting space on extraneous discussion of their sources, or on presenting their personal background, would have distracted from their important "good news" message.
Why should they disrupt their message and defeat their purpose by including extraneous text which would draw the readers' attention away from what was important?
These authors [the mainline "historians"] also include discussion of events that they had personally witnessed.
But usually they did not do this.
The vast majority of their information is from much earlier than their time, even 100 years or more. Almost all our ancient history is from sources other than eyewitnesses or contemporaries to the events. In the exceptional case where an "historical" writer is very close to the actual events, he is usually involved with disputes and conflicting accounts and is personally involved at some points, having a relation to the historical characters, having known some of them directly, or having been impacted himself and so not just reporting it indifferently. So he ends up putting himself into the story, as a player in the drama.
That's fine for events where the writer is really that close. But this is a tiny minority of our known historical events from antiquity. Almost all our ancient history is from sources 50-100 years later, not eyewitnesses or contemporaries. And even so, the accounts are reliable for the general facts.
This kind of information greatly enhances the historical reliability of these texts, since we know that their authors either personally witnessed much of what they relate, . . .
No, the vast majority of what they relate was not witnessed by them, nor was it contemporary to them.
. . . or had access to eyewitnesses.
No, for most of it they had no eyewitnesses. Neither the mainline "historians" nor the non-"historical" writers we get our ancient history from had access to eyewitnesses, as the norm. The few who did were the exception, and their accounts are a small fraction of all our historical record for that time.
Most of our historical sources from the time are NOT close to the events and so do NOT have that same degree of historical reliability. And yet they are still reliable. We do believe the accounts of Tacitus and Plutarch and others who wrote of events 100 or more years earlier, and we accept them despite that long time span separation from the actual events. They had little or no direct experience of the events, nor eyewitnesses or contemporaries from the time to rely on. The few cases where there was a close contact to the events are the exception, not the norm for the ancient history record.
Most of our ancient history record is not based on personal experiences of the author and is further removed from the actual events than the Gospel writers were removed from the time of Jesus. Yet we believe that ancient history record, mostly, while maintaining some doubt or skepticism as appropriate. And similarly, we can rely on the Gospel accounts in general while exercising the same skepticism.
In contrast, none of the Gospels include discussion of eyewitness material in this way, . . .
But neither does 99% of our ancient history. Virtually all the sources we rely on are far removed and not from eyewitnesses. Most of Tacitus and Suetonius etc. relates events 50-100 years earlier than when these historians wrote it. Very little of it contains eyewitness accounts or anything contemporary to the events or any discussion of such sources. Again,
Thucydides is not the norm, but the rare exception!
We have to rely on the actual documents which exist, even though something contemporary might be preferable, and have higher credibility. It's only a very small part of the historical record which is closer than 50 years after the events, for ancient history. The Gospels overall are MORE reliable than average in terms of their proximity to the events reported in them.
. . . making their authors’ relation to the events depicted far more ambiguous, and thus the texts themselves less historically reliable.
"less reliable" than what? They are MORE reliable than most of Tacitus and Suetonius and Polybius and Plutarch, in terms of the proximity to the events. For these historians it's only a small minority of their writings which are dated within 10-30 years of the events; and only a tiny fraction which is contemporary.
Contemporary historians like Thucydides and Xenophon are the rare exception. You can't condemn all the other histories as unreliable because they are not contemporary to the events. This would require tossing out almost all our ancient historical record.
Again, repeatedly, these reasons offered why we should disregard the Gospels are also reasons to scrap MOST of our ancient history record.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
