If the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, we should see the use of the first person singular or plural: ‘I saw this happen’, ‘we heard him say that’ and so on. This would not necessarily mean that the author was present, just as he isn’t in the ‘we’ passages in Acts, but it is what we should reasonably expect if the authors were involved in at least some of the events. There are no such instances in any of the gospels.
We would see gospel authors identifying themselves, at the start of their accounts, for example. We don’t.
We would not see an eye-witness lifting significant amounts of material from someone who wasn’t an eye-witness. Yet Matthew plagiarises Mark, ‘improves’ it and passes it off as his own. This isn’t eye-witness behaviour and it is not how eye-witness testimony works.
We would see the gospel writers cite their sources: Mark would tell us he’s recording Peter’s recollections and that he witnessed Jesus’ trial personally (there’s no evidence he did either, speculation from centuries later notwithstanding.) Luke would tell us which accounts he’s referring to in Luke 1:1-2. While we now know he too plagiarises Mark and quite probably Matthew, he doesn’t admit it. We would know the source of events that took place behind closed doors such as Jesus’ interview with Pilate.
We could expect contemporaneous accounts independent of the gospels, recording the miraculous events they claim occurred; the wandering star, the earthquakes, the hours long eclipse, the healings and controlling of nature, the resurrected zombies, the ripping of the 35 foot temple curtain, the resurrection of an executed criminal. Instead there’s nothing, not even in later works such as those of Josephus (because all of these events are metaphorical).
We should expect Cephas (known as Simon Peter in the later gospels) to have recorded his experiences with Jesus. Yet, when he gets his chance, in the letters he supposedly wrote (1 and 2 Peter), he makes no mention of them at all.
We should expect the Christians prior to Paul to have recorded some of these episodes. Some argue that they did, in a document now called Q, but this precious document was, unbelievably, soon lost or abandoned. Alternatively, they may not have seen the need to write anything down because they believed the world was about to end very soon. Either way – no accounts from them about ‘the history of Jesus’.
We should expect Paul to mention aspects of the Jesus story in his letters. After all, he claims to have persecuted Christians for some time before his conversion and to have met and conversed with Cephas for 15 days. Yet he conveys no details at all. Instead, he claims all he knows of Jesus derives from visions and ‘revelations’ in his head. His account of the bread and wine ritual informs Mark’s story of the Last Supper, not the other way round; it is – Paul says clearly – another ‘revelation’ in his head.
We should expect there to be details about Jesus’ earthly life in other books of the NT. Instead we find only a celestial high priest in Hebrews and a warrior Christ in the supposed visions of Revelation. Nothing historical here.
We should, if the gospels are history, expect them to read like history. History, including that written at a similar time does not include angels, devils and apparitions, magic stars, virgin births, miracles and supernatural healings. Where it does, as in Constantine’s vision of the cross, such elements are seen for what they are: myth, not history.
We would not expect the central figure of the gospels to be constructed almost entirely from parts of older religious writing. This is not a technique used in genuine historical records.
We would not expect to find the level of metaphor and mythic tropes – magic, supernatural characters, returns from the dead – in what is ostensibly an informational text. History does not rely heavily on metaphor and symbolic tropes the way the gospels do. There is no ‘logic of history’ in the Jesus story.
We would expect to see geographical and political details relayed reasonably accurately. Instead, Jesus’ trial arrangements are highly improbable; they do not conform with what is known about Roman trials – and we know a lot, because of the records they kept. Jesus would not have had a personal interview with an indecisive Pilate, who would not have consulted the mob, would not have sent Jesus to the Jewish authorities or Herod and would not have offered to exchange Jesus for Barabbas (there was no ‘tradition’ of exchanging one criminal for another) and so on. From what we know of him, Pilate would have authorised the execution without a qualm, as he did for many other would-be messiahs. The rest – the gospel details – are drama, Jewish scripture brought to life with added metaphor. Fiction, in other words.
rejectingjesus, 
To paraphrase from the Life of Brian:
” They’re( He’s) making it up as they go along.”
LikeLike
Wow! Nice job at laying down all your misgivings about the historicity of the Gospels. I will not comment here; you would not like that but may as time allows on my own blog. But one thought: Are the Gospels history, at least in the usual sense? I think not.
[ This is a question about genre which in this case is important. ]
I think the Gospels are not history in the usual sense even that applied to ancient history. They are not biography in the usual sense. They are what they call themselves, good news. They are proclamation, in one case proclamation with a polemic tone and in another proclamation with the purpose to persuade.
That change in how the Gospels are understood actually answers almost every complaint you present. Think about it, and I’ll get back to you.
LikeLike
So now the gospels aren’t history, they’re just like history. But not history.
And they’re not metaphor, they just include metaphor. Loads of it. Unless I’m the one pointing it out.
Now they’re Good News. At last you’ve got it right! They’re propaganda. Well done, Don.
Do you ever wonder why no-one takes you seriously?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, they are all of the above. But judging them on the basis of the genre of history misses the point and actually is a category error, since all the Gospel writer indicate they are announcing good news.
The “Charge of the Light Brigade” is a poem. Reading it as informational o r history writing is a category error which you would probably not make because it misses the pathos and message of the poem, and it ends with pretty limited though accurate history. In the same way, making that category error regarding the Gospels misses the message being announced and judges the admittedly limited history as if history was the main thing.
BTW since we are in the advent season you might ponder the announcements in Luke’s account of the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus. I think especially of the announcement of the angels: “Peace on earth and good will toward men.”
Looking through both Matthew and Luke, there are numerous announcements of good news. I find it puzzling that even usually reliable Bible scholars miss that – as you have.
LikeLike
I’ve conceded that on this point you are right – the gospels are propaganda. Let’s not forget though, it was you who wanted them regarded as history, because Herod and Pilate appear in them. You were also the one who said we should be conscious of their use of metaphor. Yet when we did so, you changed tack, as you’ve done again, to argue we should regard them as yet something else: propaganda this time.
‘Peace and goodwill to all men (offer excludes women and gays)’ How’s that worked out over the past 2000 years? And angels? Really?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You still confuse the categories of history and historical writing. Think about that.
And btw propaganda doesn’t exclude historical. We read or view propaganda or opinion pieces online all the time that are about real people and real places. Editorials, for example, refer to real people and real situations and real history to make the author’s point. Even some advertisements that build their appeal on real data obtained by scientific methods are both historical and propaganda. Confusing?
Each genre has its own peculiar conventions or identifying marks of that genre, but genres can be mixed, hence poetic prose and history based (historical) propaganda.
Oh my goodness! What happened to Kos’s logic of identity?
But seriously, what the Gospels are are announcements, just as they claim to be, based on something that happened in real time and space to real people.
“For unto you is born this day a Savior who is Christ the Lord.” Real time and place and people are involved. That is history, But the message is not just “it happened.” It is an announcement about who this child is – Christ the Lord.
So, the genre is announcement.
Does that make any sense to you at all?
And btw “men” excludes women and gays. What? Please, Neil, read English. For how many centuries has “men” in English in certain contexts meant all people? There are contexts of course, when “men” means the male of the species. But context determines. Here in Luke the context indicates all human beings. No exclusions.
It is only in certain contexts that “men” excludes gays, but you can tell by the derogatory tone.
None of that here. You do have a hair trigger, don’t you?
LikeLike
Yawn. “The gospels are not history, they are historical writing.’ Haven’t we been saying that? They’re historical fiction.
Cue Don: ‘they’re not fiction they’re historically accurate. They’ve got real people in ’em, plus angels, demons and magic. Just like real history.’ You must be dizzy going round in circles the way you do. Ultimately, I don’t care. The Jesus stories aren’t true, either historically, or metaphorically. They’re mere cult propaganda.
I’m sure the women out there are convinced by your argument about ‘men’. They’ve suffered millennia being subsumed under the term. But never mind, they can be assured that you think it’s okay.
As for we poor old gays, Christians have always demonstrated such gracious goodwill towards us.
https://www.joemygod.com/2023/12/mike-johnson-send-money-because-god-is-about-to-smite-our-country-for-having-so-many-lgbtq-youth/
https://www.joemygod.com/2023/12/prominent-evangelical-you-tell-sodomites-by-the-look-on-their-faces-and-they-all-face-certain-death/
Hair trigger? I don’t think so. Calling out hypocrisy? Definitely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you have been saying that. But “historical” does not necessarily mean historical fiction. It means according to Merriam-Webster “relating to history.”
It may well be used for informal history that does not include all the conventions followed by professional historians. It may be simply my telling about my life in India. It is a true account of my experience and observations, but it does not qualify as Professional history because it is primarily anecdotal.
It may be the story of my great grandfather’s pioneering in the Pacific Northwest which I derived from his words and reports of him in books written by others and, most valuable, the recollections of his grandson and granddaughter who grew up on his ranch.
Following conventional standards of History is more evident in Luke than the others, but in every case they are telling the story of a real man and a real time. There are no references to submarines or diesel powered destroyers or cruise ships – or other anachronisms in their accounts. Every detail they include works – including Mark’s/Peter’s description of the trip Jesus and his disciples made back from the region of Tyre and Sidon. http://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2023/12/ol-mixed-up-mark-one-of-errors-that.html
Don’t you think that route looks a lot easier than a trip along the coast clear to Acre or Haifa?
LikeLike
May 26-June 4, 1940. Neither of us were alive to experience that week, but you know the story – better than any Yank. Dunkirk. The British Expeditionary Force and the French 1st Army had been pushed to the beach and were about to be overrun by the German army. There seemed no way out and no one to come to their aid.
The news of this impending disaster reached as far as America and most understood how dire the destruction of those armies would be for the world.
While German guns pounded the trapped armies and planes strafed the beach, people in England and America prayed.
“The waters of the Channel are notoriously treacherous, which could have posed problems for the smaller boats, but thanks to a spell of settled weather the sea remained unusually calm with little more than a light breeze.
Light easterly winds blew smoke over the beaches, screening the soldiers as they waited to be evacuated.
Cloud cover between 28th and 30th May obscured the beaches, preventing the Luftwaffe from bombing the Allied forces and their rescuers as they sailed across the Channel. Above the clouds, the Royal Air Force was able to engage the Luftwaffe in the skies. ” https://www.bbc.com/weather/features/52808043
Tell these who prayed that the “Miracle of Dunkirk” that God is not a player in our history and the miracle was not God’s answer to their prayer.
LikeLike
Oh my God, you’re right. It was a miracle. A miracle by the god would could’ve prevented the war in the first place. The god who could today answer the prayers of those in the Ukraine being bombarded by Putin’s forces. I wonder why he doesn’t when he’s such a whizz with clouds?
Shakes head in sheer disbelief (at your gullibility.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ezekiel 36. God did it before. He did it in the Second World War. He is doing it again.
LikeLike
It has never been a good idea to attack God’s people. That is what Hitler did. At Dunkirk and after his blunder in tactics, he should have cleaned out his desk, packed his boxes and gone home. The writing was on the wall: mene, mene, tekel, parsin.
It’s over. It may be another 5 years – during which your cities will be bombed to oblivion and millions die in the flames, and you will die as the arch-villian of the 20th century, but with Dunkirk, it is over. And the Jews who you hate so violently will survive and return to their land as God designed.
No miracle? Step back and view the larger picture. It is THE miracle of the second millennium.
LikeLike
Here’s someone that doesn’t believe your “miracle” account Don:
“Dunkirk—Miracle or Blunder?
By Colonel George C. Reinhardt, C. E., U.S. Army”
July 1951 Proceedings Vol. 77/7/581
“Those who prefer to believe in miracles will resent the idea that the headline filling story of Dunkirk’s evacuation, just ten years ago this month, was compounded more from the blunders of Hitler, Reynaud, and even of Churchill than from British valor. Those who prefer their history hidden under garlands should turn the page without reading.”
He goes on to explain how it all happened…no miracle necessary.
LikeLike
And yet, the BEF and French 1st Army were saved. Many consider Dunkirk one of the turning points in the war. It was a defeat (for which Hitler himself was partly responsible) that God turned into a victory against Fascism and the evil the Nazis afflicted upon the Jews and all who sought to protect them. That is the miracle.
It is a lesson we should take to heart today as the Jews are under attack again.
LikeLike
Don believes everything he reads as long as it supports his beliefs…
And since he doesn’t understand how skepticism and logical reasoning work, he has no way of filtering out garbage from fact.
Don:
“Oh my goodness! What happened to Kos’s logic of identity?”
Are you trying to say,
“Law of Identity”?
Man, you’re really revealing how little you know about logic.
LikeLike
Don:
“ You do have a hair trigger, don’t you?”
Leviticus 20:13
ESV
13 if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
I wonder why?
LikeLike
Don:
“And the Jews who you hate so violently”…
What? Who said anything about “hating Jews so violently”?
Why would you write something like this?
LikeLike
What? Who said anything about hating the Jews so violently?
Ah! I had to look back in the replies. That was Hitler who hated the Jews so violently. It is best to read the whole paragraph.
LikeLike
Don:
“It was a miracle…people prayed, winds blew, clouds covered…
Me:
“Here’s the debunking of your miracle…”
Don:
“ It was a defeat (for which Hitler himself was partly responsible) that God turned into a victory”
This is too easy…you contradict yourself constantly!
LikeLike
I was saying that it was not only the winds and clouds that was the miracle; it was the outcome. What might have been a huge victory for Hitler with the destruction of the BEF, for a number of reasons became a turning point in the war and resulted in the defeat of Hitler and his plan of extermination of the Jews.
It is one of the mental blocks you all seem to have about answered prayer and miracles. You seem to think a miracle requires angels flying in to do something impossible and then flying out again. In most cases miracles and answers to prayer are a whole complex of things that result in God’s will being done – and prayer being answered beyond what we might have prayed.
In the case of Dunkirk many people prayed that God would protect the British army. And he did, but he did more; he protected the world from Fascism. And he protected the Jews from annihilation. It was not done in an instant (maybe that is the point of puzzlement for you) but it was done , and it was done in such a way that the UN in the years following made it possible for the Jews to return to their homeland and reestablish their nation.
Ironic, don’t you think , that what Hitler tried to do was reversed and the Jews whom he hated would in fact be affirmed and given their nation back. Talk about a twist in plot!
Now, that was THE miracle.
LikeLike
Part of the miracle, but maybe the biggest part, was the preservation of the Jews during the holocaust. You should do a search for the number of Jews who survived the Holocaust and how that happened. Wiki has a long page in that topic. It is totally amazing the number who were saved and the number of people involved in saving them.
Even more amazing is that this miracle is ongoing today. It is God’s plan and purpose not only to preserve the Jews as a people and to bring them back to their land but to revive them spiritually. If I read the Bible right, that will mean they will go through more pain, but pain that will cause them finally to turn their hearts back to their God. I think we are at that stage right now – the pain.
LikeLike
Good grief!
LikeLike
Don:
“So, the genre is announcement.
Does that make any sense to you at all?”
No, it doesn’t. I have searched my teacher resources, and can’t find anything that says “announcement” is a genre.
What is your source for this statement so I can check it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Genre is simply a type of communication. There are many, and they include all kinds of communication. A commercial on TV is a type of communication. The Congressional Record is a type of communication. The NOAA warning of danger we get on the TV is a type of communication.
When I was teaching high school English, we focused on the genres that the kids were most likely to encounter and on what the characteristics of each were. That included typical newspaper articles, which as you know are constructed with the most important facts first and include the who, what, where, when and why of the event and essays, etc.
The purpose was to prepare the kids to read with understanding.
In a way, the Gospels are like news reports. But there is an added element. They were not composed to simply report; they were composed to persuade a particular audience that Jesus was the Messiah (Matthew), was the Savior for all, Jews and Gentiles (Luke), the Savior who came to serve and give his life (Mark), and the Son of God (John).
In that function they become persuasive literature. (You perhaps have taught persuasive writing.) But persuasive writing usually in our modern forms has an appeal. The appeal in the Gospels is low key and indirect. It is like the writers laid out the information and left it up to the reader to infer the “to do” part. Or allowed Jesus to make the appeal. Because of that the Gospels really are more announcement, which is exactly why Mark calls them, euangelion rather than argument or persuasion.
LikeLike
Loving all this redefining. You’re getting good at it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“It is THE miracle of the second millennium.”
Wow! That’s a pretty strong statement there!
First, you state that there was a miracle that people prayed and god calmed the wind, ocean, etc…
by the end of your explanation, it’s
“It was a defeat (for which Hitler himself was partly responsible) that God turned into a victory”
“It was not done in an instant (maybe that is the point of puzzlement for you) but it was done , and it was done in such a way that the UN in the years following made it possible for the Jews to return to their homeland and reestablish their nation.”
Here, it’s the UN performing the miracle.
Then, you say:
“You seem to think a miracle requires angels flying in to do something impossible and then flying out again. In most cases miracles and answers to prayer are a whole complex of things that result in God’s will being done”
Definition of a miracle:
“a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.”
Another:
“an extraordinary event taken as a sign of the supernatural power of God.”
Are those definitions wrong?
Those signs are exactly what we would expect if there were miracles, but since your claim was debunked, you have to rationalize everything away, so that the “miracle of dunkirk” is explained by Hitler’s ineptitude, and the UN working everything out.
Not impressed!
LikeLike
Goyo: Are those definitions wrong?
Not entirely. But they do not cover the range of things I call miracles.
an extraordinary event taken as a sign of the supernatural power of God.”
The clouds and lack of wind was an event whose timing was extraordinary. Perhaps you’d prefer “providential.” But miracle will do.
The crushing of the Nazis was a “welcome event” that was not necessarily the prediction of many at the time. Miracle through agency.
The returning of the land of Palestine to the Jews was the outcome of all these. It was the miracle by biblical definition. Even though there was a Zionist movement before the war, there is no reason to think that would have resulted in the repatriotization of the Jews were it not for the war and the outcome.
Biblical definition: A miracle is something that God does either through agency or as the sole Agent. It is not something that is totally impossible, though possible but unlikely is often the definition of providence rather than miracle. Both are things that further God’s agenda and purpose.
Like I said, a miracle is not solely defined by angels flying in and changing water to wine and flying out again.
LikeLike
Don:
“But judging them on the basis of the genre of history misses the point and actually is a category error”
Here you accuse us of a category error…then, you commit a category error by misnaming the category!
Genre:
“a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.”
In Writing, genre is a category such as:
Poetry
Drama
Informational
Fiction
Mythology
Author’s Purpose:
To persuade, inform, entertain.
You have committed the category error of saying that “to persuade” is a genre, when it’s not!
For example:
A commercial is an informational text written in a persuasive manner.
You come onto blogs, spouting your godly wisdom, then, when questioned further, you show how little you know of the subjects:
Science
Logic
Math
History
Why doesn’t your god give you better evidence to convince us, rather than your continual erroneous opinions?
Do you pray to god and ask him, “lord, please give me the words to convince those nasty atheists that you exist”?
Or better yet, why doesn’t your god just show up and prove himself?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the Hebrew/Jews, prophecy is a genre as well.
And really, Goyo, so is argumentative or persuasive writing. Our history is full of it.
LikeLike
@Don.
In other words, they are simply made up.
Or, if you prefer, historical fiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil if angels and portents bother you in the Jesus story, you should know they are not limited to the Gospels. The Palestine and Babylonian Talmuds both record signs and portents related to the destruction of Jerusalem. Even Josephus reports some that he heard from those who experienced them. And they were pretty impressive. (Wars of the Jews 6.5.3)
Perhaps you count God out of the picture prematurely
LikeLike
Yes, the ancient world was awash with superstition. We know this from the very documentation you mention. They had no other way to explain the world around them. What was lacking then, and still is, is evidence for their perspective.
It’s no surprise the talmunds fantasised about the destruction of their hated neighbours. As ever you focus on the ‘portents’ which came to be and ignore all the others.
Angels, signs and wonders don’t ‘bother’ me. Why should they? What bothers me is that credulous people, such as yourself, still believe and promote them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, regrettable they didn’t take a photograph.
Multiple witnesses.
Testimony of the person who spoke to the witnesses.
Multiple events that took place repeatedly over 40 years.
None of that is worth a bent copper penny (US)
So, what you’re saying is that you would not believe anyone’s report of supernatural things no matter the evidence provided. Then or now. Right?
I expected that.
I, on the other hand, “credulous” as I am, think that these rise to the level of plausibility. Even Josephus thought so, though he didn’t reach that conclusion lightly. I don’t believe every bad dream. I inquire if the dreamer might have had a spoiled pizza the night before. But because I do believe in and have experience with supernatural things, I am inclined to weight the testimony. Yes, even Moroni’s gold plates, though not the story they supposedly told.
I think that openness is how every intelligent person should approach these reports. You could learn something.
LikeLike
No-one mentioned photographs, as you well know.
Quasi-philosophical ‘musings’ such as yours are not evidence either; plausibility is not probability, nor probability certainty.
Approaching supernatural tales with ‘openness’ leads to all sorts of contagion. Try some healthy scepticism instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Healthy skepticism/doubt is a good thing. It can lead one to look further and dig deeper. Skepticism becomes unhealthy when it closes the mind.
What I find amazing about the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and their stories of the lot, the red strip, and the temple door I linked to is that they are the extra-biblical evidence that you have been looking for.
These Talmuds were compiled many years after the events, of course, but they are the record of oral history dating back at least to the period just before the destruction of the temple. And they are the witness of people who would not have wished to confirm Jesus as the Messiah. And one more “and,” they being Jewish and firmly controlled by Jewish rabbis are as unlikely as any to have been tampered with by Christian redactors.
The specific Talmudic references in https://www.windowview.org/hmny/pgs/talmuds.30ce.html tell about what happened in the temple starting with the Day of Atonement in 30 A.D. and continuing until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. So, what happened in 30 A.D. coinciding with the beginning of these strange events? Well, Jesus was crucified on Pentecost in the spring of that year. Coincidence? There really are very few coincidences that remarkable. So, if you’re inclined to skepticism maybe these reach a threshold where skepticism is no longer healthy.
https://hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/Yoma/yoma.html#loaded
LikeLike
I asked for contemporaneous, independent evidence of the Jesus story. The talmuds are neither. They are hundreds of years too late and their mention of one or more Yeshuas does not necessarily mean your guy. See koseighty’s comments for more problems.
It’s another fail, Don.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The contemporary references to Jesus are the Apostles. Read Mark if you like. He recorded the words of Peter as he spoke of Jesus.
Otherwise, you might see https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2023/12/why-didnt-anyone-speak-up-of-all.html
There really was no writer or historian there to write. What you ask for is like the report of the high priest at the time. But if he wrote anything it was burnt up in the conflagration that consumed the temple in 70 A.D. Or like the many unnamed volumes of ancient history and literature that were burnt in the fire that consumed the library at Alexandria. So, you’ll have to be satisfied with the oral histories that were passed down by the Jews.
LikeLike
Which is an admission there is no contemporaneous, independent record of Jesus or the events surrounding him.
No-one shpuld be content with the gospel propaganda, for reasons I’ve made abundantly clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But billions of people are – from all walks of life and education. Go figure.
LikeLike
And even more are not. Go figure.
LikeLike
Oh yes – who burnt down the library at Alexandria? That’s right: Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Don
The author of the gMark, ( as are the authors of the other gospels) is unknown.
On what basis do you consider it to be trustworthy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, on the basis of his signature./b>
Just kidding. Would you accept a signature anyway? How would you verify it?
gMark is regarded as Mark’s composition on the basis of reports of those who wrote in the early and late 1st century – Papias and Clement of Alexandria and those who affirmed their testimony later.
And on the basis of the settled conviction of the mid-1st century church who accepted Mark’s authorship and offered no alternate name. Ever.
On the basis of what the letters of Paul and Peter and Acts say about Mark and how makes sense with the chronology offered by Papias and Clement. BTW you tend to believe Josephus on no better grounds.
On the basis of the writing that is Mark’s, distinguished from the words of Peter grammatically and literarily, and the plausible location of Mark’s mother Mary’s house in Jerusalem making it plausible that Mark was actually there in the last hours of Jesus’ life.
That is really how historians arrive at answers to questions such as yours – convergent data.
LikeLike
@Don.
Unfortunately your explanation flies in the face of all known critical scholarship.
The gospels are anonymous.
There are no original manuscripts, and no independant contemporaneous sources to support them or the claims they make.
Again, on what basis are they trustworthy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the basis of their outcome. They produce what they promise.
LikeLike
You’ll have to be a bit more explicit than this.
LikeLike
Just a guess, but I think he’s intimating that what they were expressing is that “salvation” comes from believing in Jesus — and thousands upon thousands are persuaded that they knew what they were talking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure similar sentiments are expressed by every religion in one way or another.
Doesn’t make it so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It changes lives as promised. It connects people with God as promised. The kingdom has become large and extends into every corner of the earth as promised.
History as a genre? I don’t think I said that. History as in historical, that’s what I meant.
None of the Gospels attempt to fit into what was a fairly well established genre of history. But they do speak of things that happened in real life to people who were real people and they fit in real places.
That is the thing that was not characteristic of ancient fiction. There was no attempt at verisimilitude.
LikeLike
Don:
“On the basis of their outcome. They produce what they promise.”
Wait…didn’t you say:
“The appeal in the Gospels is low key and indirect. It is like the writers laid out the information and left it up to the reader to infer the “to do” part.”
So how does an inferred to do part produce an outcome if that outcome is inferred?
What exactly do they “infer” that is promised?
LikeLiked by 1 person
On what basis is Josephus trustworthy?
No original manuscripts, few copies, and none anywhere close to the original as the NT.
No contemporaneous sources for much of anything ancient but also including the period of time of Jesus’ life.
Lots of reason to think he had a personal agenda of rehabilitating his reputation with the Jews and rehabilitating the Jews’ reputation with the emperor. Lots of questions about several places where Jesus shows up. Lots of angels and demons. Lots of political intrigue where personal opinion creeps in.
Yet you probably accept Josephus’ history as accurate. Why?
LikeLike
So, on what basis are they [the Gospels] trustworthy?
Well, one student of the Bible wrote a book a while back called The Ring of Truth Another, a historian, wrote a book called The Logic of History.
Both meant that the history the Gospels relate fit everything we know from other sources. The people have a degree of reality about them (verisimilitude, correctness) that is hard to achieve in fiction and is pretty much absent in the fiction of that time, that reality incudes characterizations that are round rather than flat (literary language).
The places where we can check the accuracy of the details, especially in Luke and Acts, leads many historians to praise Luke’s ability as a historian.
The uncontested letters of Paul either affirm or assume the core facts of the Gospels.
The effects of the events related are what we would expect, real effects. The existence of the church within a very few years of the death of Jesus made up of people who were in Jerusalem at the time Jesus lived and were Jews who were not inclined to accept who Jesus was.
There was no contemporary objection that the Gospels were made up and the Gospel Jesus was a myth. The acknowledgement of hostile witnesses like Celsus and the Talmuds that Jesus was not only a real person but a problem for their position. Obvious spinning of that testimony for the advantage of the witnesses.
LikeLike
So what you are describing here is the gospels are historical fiction.
A pastiche of fictional stories painted over a known historical background.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How you get that from what I wrote I have no idea.
LikeLike
Don, Don, Don!
How many times do we have to go over all this? How many times do we repeat the same topics? Year after year? Neil has been the most patient of hosts with you, but even his patience seems to be wearing thin.
One more time on Papias:
1 – He was a nutcase (not unlike some apologist we know).
His claims about the early church — Jesus, apostles, etc. — are ridiculous and the vast majority of biblical scholars dismiss all his claims except two: His claims about Mark and those about Matthew.
2 – The gospel of Mark he describes does not match the gospel we have. So, his claims about Mark do not apply to our gospel/author.
3 – The gospel of Matthew he describes does not match the gospel we have. So, his claims about Matthew do not apply to our gospel/author.
It seems some scholars accept these erroneous claims, not because of scholarship, but because of faith. They want something that ‘legitimizes’ these gospels. Well, Papias ain’t it.
We go now to Dr. Dan McClellan who will explain it one more time (should be cued up to 12:28 through 18:47):
LikeLike
Kos: [Piapias] was a nutcase.
Who said? Some documentation would be nice. What I know from Eusebius is that he didn’t think Papias was reliable primarily because he was a millennialist (theological conviction) and Eusebius was not. He after all lived in the hay day of Constantine’s reign and expected God to bring in the kingdom through the Empire. (Notice how that turned out.) But none of that has to do with Papias’ accuracy when it comes to historical fact.
Kos: The gospel of Mark he describes does not match the gospel we have.
Where do you get that. As I read Eusebius’ History (3.39) I don’t find anything like that.
Kos: The gospel of Matthew he describes does not match the gospel we have.
Again, I don’t know what that has to do with our discussion of Mark. However, many of the early Christian authors do remark on the Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. So, the likelihood that Papias was right is high.
BTW Papias is not the only source of information about the origin of Mark’s Gospel. Clement of Alexandria has a more detailed story.
LikeLike
Don,
It’s great you are open to outside sources for confirming the stories in the Bible. Let’s consider some.
Josephus places the death of John the Baptist in 36 CE. So, Jesus could not have lived at the time of John’s death AND have died himself in 30 CE. (Or even 33 CE as some claim.)
The Talmud identifies the father of Jesus as a soldier in the Roman army. Jesus can’t be the son of God AND the son of a Roman soldier.
The Talmud tells us that Jesus was stoned for blasphemy in 75 BCE. The Law requires stoning followed by hanging the corpse on a tree. Imagine a small group of followers hanging on to the memory of their teacher. Over generations the story and the culture changes. The Romans start crucifying more and more Jews and the term “hung on a tree” comes to mean “crucified.” Slowly the descendants of those first followers come to think Jesus was crucified by the Romans rather than stoned by the Jews. Paul (or someone like him) picks up the story and runs with it.
Sorry, Don. Outside sources do as much to disconfirm your interpretation as they do to confirm it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josephus places the death of John the Baptist in 36 CE. So, Jesus could not have lived at the time of John’s death AND have died himself in 30 CE. (Or even 33 CE as some claim.)
Could you identify where that is found in Josephus?
I’ll reply to the other objections on my blog. Neil doesn’t like long epistles.
LikeLike
No, he doesn’t, least of all from people who make the same point repeatedly, even after it’s been conclusively refuted.
Case in point, your insistence Peter dictated part of his gospel to Mark. Your ‘evidence’ is flimsy, relying on the unreliable Papias and your own conjecture.
In addition, you redefine terms – ‘miracles’, ‘genre’, ‘literature’ and ‘history’, to name but a recent few – to suit your purposes. You really have nothing to say when the conclusion you must reach every time is how wonderful Jesus is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Case in point, your insistence Peter dictated part of his gospel to Mark. Your ‘evidence’ is flimsy, relying on the unreliable Papias and your own conjecture.
And you know better. Maybe you should enlighten us. Where did Mark get his information about Jesus? Evidence please.
LikeLike
And here’s something else you do: repeatedly return to the same ground, demanding I and others supply you with information you’ve already had. Look back over the comments when you previously raised the provenance of Mark. Pretending we haven’t covered an issue when we have and raising it again (and again and again) is disingenuous. You’re not going to get any different an answer.
I suggest you start here:
Or here: https://rejectingjesus.com/2023/06/14/the-gospels-and-other-fiction-part-1/
Or here: https://rejectingjesus.com/2022/11/30/cruci-fiction/
And if you don’t believe me (because you know, I’m in thrall to Carrier), try here: https://vridar.org/2013/09/28/why-the-gospels-are-historical-fiction/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah! So, Mark got his information about Jesus from the prophets of old? And with” literary artifice” wove bits and pieces from them together into a “historical fiction.”
Godfrey seems as hung up on “history” or “fiction” as the genre of Mark as you are.
“If we want history, we need to look for the evidence of history in a narrative that is clearly, again as a result of our analysis, capable of yielding historical information.”
Even though Mark tells us right off in 1:1 that what he is writing is the announcement of good news. And even follows with John the Baptist who is, you guessed it, announcing Jesus.
Now how would the genre of announcement be different from history or from fiction, for that matter?
LikeLike
You’ve got it at last. Your first paragraph is spot on.
As for how ‘the genre of announcement is different from history or from fiction’, I thought you’d know, given you invented it. No one else has heard of ‘the genre of announcement’.
I’d hazard a guess though that it’s no different from fiction and is, to quote you, like history without actually being history. Propaganda in other words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We’ve chewed on genre. So has everyone. I think it is a problem for Bible scholars like James Tabor and Bart Ehrman too. They both want to fit the Gospel into a well-recognized genre like history or biography or fiction. And in doing so they ignore that fact that this is a piece with a Hebrew background, not Greek. Even Godfrey seems to be doing that. They miss that one genre common to the Hebrews is prophecy. And prophecy is announcement.
Prophecy announces danger ahead OR hope ahead.
In the case of Mark and Matthew both are announcing the completion of the hope prophecies. That is why both refer regularly to the prophecies.
You don’t like prophecy. But what should be obvious even in your criticisms of prophecy is that prophecy anticipates the completion of the prophecy. So, the prophecy and fulfillment are really one piece. That is what we see in Mark and Matthew.
I might add that all OT prophecies expect a real fulfillment in history even if it is the end of history.
LikeLike
Here we go again. It is clear from the text that Mark is constructing his fiction from what he thinks is prophecy in Jewish scripture. He is not recording real-life events that miraculously fulfilled prophecy; he’s inventing that fulfilment. Matthew takes the same technique to extremes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is it clear?
LikeLike
Refer to the links I sent previously. To summarise, the text itself, which according to you is not history but only like history, is what makes it clear. Everything, according to Mark, is metaphor. Remember?
Let’s not go down this route yet again.
LikeLike
I’d happily not go down that road again, so note: I said there were a lot of metaphors in the Bible, including those that Jesus spoke as parable. **BUT** NOT EVERYTHING IS METAPHOR. An instructor in English should know how to distinguish between them.
LikeLike
I can only go on what Mark says, that everything is metaphor. Your dispute is with him.
I see you’re back to arguing that the gospels are literature/fiction. After all, it’s fiction that makes extensive use of metaphor. I’d have thought a teacher of literature would know this.
A preacher on the other hand will always change his terms of reference to promote his beliefs. How long before you’ll be claiming again that the gospels are history because that better suits your purpose?
LikeLike
I make extensive use of metaphors. The average person uses metaphors. Aren’t you listening to what people say? “The sky was painted in red this evening is a metaphor almost everyone uses in some form or another at times.
Fiction, however, though it uses metaphors just like we all do, is not all about metaphor nor is it identified by metaphor. Certainly, it is not ALL metaphor.
LikeLike
As I’ve said, your dispute is with Mark.
LikeLike
It happens that I am reading Mark as my devotional reading this month. I am in chapter 3. Now in the first 22 verses, what are the metaphors? Where is there even figurative language? But in veers 23 the speaker/narrator Peter identifies something as metaphor. It is a parable Jesus spoke.
What is that metaphor pointing to in reality? (That’s the whole point of metaphors.) Now, go back to the first 22 verses. If you see metaphor there, what is it pointing to in reality?
LikeLike
All of Jesus’ healings are symbolic. Why should this one be any different? The healing of the withered hand is key to understanding the metaphorical meaning of Mark 3:1-21. I’d have thought a teacher of literature would be able to work this out.
He who has ears let him hear.
LikeLike
But still, no metaphor there, tight?
LikeLike
Only for those unable to see.
LikeLike
Don: Godfrey seems as hung up on “history” or “fiction” as the genre of Mark as you are.
This is hilarious coming from you, Don. Wasn’t it you who spent the last few years insisting that the Bible and the gospels in particular were history. My gods, you never shut up about it. Until recently when you invented the “announcement” genre. 🤣
Dear Israel,
Mr. and Mrs. God are pleased to announce the birth of their only begotten son
Jesus Wonderful Counselor Mighty God Everlasting Father Prince of Peace Immanuel Christ
born at midnight, December 25, some year between 6 BCE and 6 CE.
Worship him or burn in hell.
LikeLike
I am amazed that you all are so ignorant of literature. There are many kinds of writing. Writing to persuade is common. Writing to announce is common.
BTW what I said and implied is that the Gospels are historical but not written as histories.
LikeLike
Don: I am amazed that you all are so ignorant of literature.
No, Don. You are the one who has set the parameters. It is you who has spent years yammering on about “the fact” that gospels are “history” and (somehow) therefore TRUE™.
Before that, years ago, you decided that the gospels were “biography,” and again, therefore TRUE™.
And now, years later, you’re changing your song. The gospels are now “announcement literature.” (I think the word you are looking for is “gospel” not “announcement literature.” The Romans had a long tradition of the divine callings of their heroes. These were proclaimed in tiding of “good new” or gospels.)
Yes, Don. The genre you’ve been struggling to find all these years is “gospel.” But that doesn’t carry the “proof” of historicity you want to force in the gospels.
Don, we know the genre of gospels. And like those of the Roman heroes, they’re mostly made up stories. Myth. Folk lore. Fairy tales.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you’re changing your song.
No. We have changed the topic. “History” has a fairly specific characteristics as far as genre is concerned, and lately it has been history as a genre we have been talking about. Before we were talking about whether the Gospels were based in history, and I used the term history in a common way, but when it became necessary to distinguish something based in history and the genre of history with all its specific features I have used the term historical.
“Historical” does seem to have a different connotation for you and Neil, however, you think of “historical” as historical fiction. But “historical fiction” is a different genre. “Historical” by itself means true to history or concerning past events. That is not my definition; you will find that in the dictionary.
LikeLike
Let’s apply this ‘not history but historical’ distinction (which only you make) to a different context.
Let’s say ‘the stories of Robin Hood are not history but they are historical’. They have a real setting – Sherwood Forest, Nottingham – and include real people – the Sheriff of Nottingham, Bad King John, Good King Richard – so they’re definitely historical. While this is so, it nonetheless leaves Robin Hood a legendary figure, his stories entirely made up.
Now apply this to Jesus, bearing in mind the spurious distinction between history and historical is what you propose for the gospels.
LikeLike
But Robinhood doesn’t get in your face, does he? Jesus does.
That really is a difference, if you stop and think about it. He certainly gets in my face, while Robinwood and King Arthur are interesting, Jesus is not. He is arresting.
LikeLike
‘But Robinhood doesn’t get in your face, does he? Jesus does.’
He really doesn’t.
LikeLike
Wait! What? I thought the whole point of your blog was captured i the title.
LikeLike
Well done spotting that. It does not mean, however, that I am under anybody’s gaze. You do jump to some bizarre conclusions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I asked earlier if you would document your statement that John the Baptist died in the middle of the 30’s and after Jesus. Since you did not reply I looked at Josephus again and found no place where Josephus writes about the time of the Baptist’s death Here is the place you’ll find what he did say Antiquities 18.5.2 (116)
LikeLike
WordPress usability update: I was able to Like a comment for the first time in quite a while today. Also, I was able to comment without logging in twice (once before entering the comment and once after hitting the Reply button).
I’d like thank the WordPress gods and programmers for returning this functionality.
LikeLike
Praise be. Long may it continue.
LikeLike
I’m trying it with this comment … but I admit, I’m doubtful since I’ve been attempting to get around this WP hiccup for the past week without success and thus been forced to use the Reader.
LikeLike
AH-HA! It worked! Although I’m STILL unable to “Like” a comment. This is nuts.
LikeLike
Okay. I LOVE this line from Don’s link:
According to this passage, the lot for Azazel, contrary to all the laws of probability, came up 40 times in a row in the left hand. (Emphasis mine.)
The author must have gone to the Don Camp School of Statistics and Probability. 🤣
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s look at this specific claim from the point of view of an historian.
According to this passage, the lot for Azazel, contrary to all the laws of probability, came up 40 times in a row in the left hand.
“The laws of probability” actually tell us the odd of something with the odds of 1:2 (left or right hand) happens 40 times in a row the odds are 1:1 trillion (approximately). Highly improbable, yes. But completely within “the laws of probability.” Remember, only something with odds of 0:1 is impossible. Something with 1:1 trillion is highly improbable, but not impossible.
An historian looking at such a probability would likely decide, without additional extraordinary evidence, the event didn’t actually happen, at least as described.
First, we notice the number 40. In Jewish literature this is a magic number. It’s not to be taken literally but to imply providence. 40 days and nights of rain. Moses spends 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian, and 40 years wondering in the desert. Jesus fasts for 40 days. etc.
At the very least, the number 40 is an exaggeration. And the odds change rapidly as the actual number decreases. 30 times in a row, 1:1 billion. 20 times in a row, 1:1 million. 10 times in a row, 1 in a thousand.
Second, we know that the oral traditions weren’t written down until about 500 CE. A lot of time for stories to grow or be invented.
Third, the claim is in a list of miracles that happened during the 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple. History, like all academic disciplines, can’t accept claims of magic as fact.
I know, I know, Don is screaming “Not fair!” But why is it not allowed? Because magic has never once been shown to exist. In fact, in literature the presence of magical elements is a marker of some form of fantasy, including its subgenres of fairy tale, folklore, ghost story, historical fantasy, mythopoeia, and others.
Sorry, Don. Nothing about this claim rises to the level of history. It’s most likely something someone made up to show the power of their god. People do that shit all the time.
Now, if you want to accept this claim at face value, you have to accept the magic claims from every culture and religion ever. Otherwise you’re special pleading. You don’t want to be accused of special pleading, do you Don?
LikeLiked by 1 person
> Neil. The problem with your idea about prophecy is that pretty much all that is quoted or incorporated Mark without comment is type and antitype.
Take Psalm 22 as we find it indirectly in the passion story. Psalm 22 is directly about David’s own experience. There is no suggestion that it is a type of something else. So, the Gospel writers would be unlikely to have created an antitype. … unless they saw some similarity in Jesus. Without that, no prophecy.
But they did see some similarity in Jesus. And they highlighted that in their narrative. What triggered their awareness of the similarity? Jesus’ words from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Without those words, how would they recognize any similarity? How would they think Psalm 22 was a type with an antitype?
https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/05/prophecy-primer.html
LikeLike
I didn’t mention type and antitype, but as you’ve attributed it to me, I’ll respond.
Types are created retrospectively, in this case by the gospel writers (you’re either naive or disingenuous to suggest they’d do no such thing). Moses, Joshua, David et al were not originally written as types for Jesus. The creators of their stories did not say to themselves, ‘we must make sure our heroes serve as types for a character who won’t come along for centuries yet.’ They only became types when gospel Jesus was constructed around those same earlier figures.
Sumilarly, we have no idea what Jesus’s final words were. Mark added, ‘My God, my God…’ as part of his story, lifting them knowingly from Psalm 22, thus making David and his anguish the type and Jesus the antitype. The declaration is not history (you see; it didn’t take you long for you to be arguing the gospels are history); it is a literary flourish emphasising the parallel between Jesus and David. I thought as a teacher of literature you’d know this.
Your blind faith prevents you from seeing that this is how the gospels were constructed, the Jesus story being built from scraps, usually unrelated to the anticipation of a Messiah, from Jewish scripture. Of course the gospel writers created the types and antitypes (or rather antitype, singular, as it is invariably Jesus); further evidence gospel Jesus is a literary construct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Moses, Joshua, David et al were not originally written as types for Jesus.
Exactly. So, the Gospel writers were not picking using prophecy to build the character Jesus.
They only became types when gospel Jesus was constructed around those same earlier figures.
Or when the writers saw the similarity.
we have no idea what Jesus’s final words were
How are you so sure? You are creating your own story again.
Jesus was well acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures. Almost every Jewish boy was taught the scriptures in synagogue school. Why might he not feel forsaken on the cross? I would think it would be natural that he would. Why then would he not use a phrase from the scriptures he knew to express that?
LikeLike
Moses, Joshua, David et al were not originally written as types for Jesus.
Exactly. So, the Gospel writers were not picking using prophecy to build the character Jesus.
How on earth do you reach this conclusion? That’s precisely what they were doing.
we have no idea what Jesus’s final words were
How are you so sure? You are creating your own story again.
Nope, I’m reading the bible. The other gospel writers apparently didn’t like the quotation Mark supplied. Consequently, each created his own final words for Jesus. Who knows which, if any, were the real ones? Not you, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
Don: So, the Gospel writers would be unlikely to have created an antitype. … unless they saw some similarity in Jesus. Without that, no prophecy.
This is what we’ve been saying. The gospel writers searched the Hebrew scriptures, not for prophecies of the messiah, but for things that sound similar to Jesus. They then wrote stories about Jesus that “fulfilled” the verses or phrases they found.
They could have gone to the verses that specifically prophesied the messiah. But Jesus didn’t fulfill any of those. So they had to make some up.
This is what I was trying to show with the scriptures that prophesy the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. It’s a trivial thing to go through (in this case the Protestant) Bible and find verses that sound like they’re talking about the Mormon movement. But just like those of Jesus, they weren’t prophecies, they’re devoted cherry-picking for something “similar” to the BofM and J. Smith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gospel writers searched the Hebrew scriptures, not for prophecies of the messiah, but for things that sound similar to Jesus.
My point is that there had to be a Jesus to search for things about. They had the fulfillment already.
LikeLike