The Gospels "obviously" fiction or nonfiction?

[Difflugia]

I just read an article at Patheos, "Jesus as the New Moses and Theology Historicised". While I'm sure I found it interesting at least in part because it broadly agrees with how I read the Gospels, it also pointed out a number of parallels between Jesus and Moses that I didn't know.

The part that struck me, though, was a characterization of a statement by a literature professor that had converted to Catholicism:

Today I heard part of an interview with Dr. Holly Ordway who was an atheist and became an atheist academic (PhD in English) with a specialty in fantasy literature. She is now an academic Catholic. Surprisingly, she said that, as an adult literary professional, she was completely unfamiliar with the Gospels, not even knowing how many there were. But what struck me more was that, when she finally read them, she immediately knew from the literary style that they were historical, in the sense that they were meant to describe real historical events, not myths or fantasies. That’s all she knew. She had no opinion or knowledge at the time whether the Gospels were true or false or some mixture of the two. Only that they were written as history.

The article author then put this in his own context with the following statements:

This is the problem if you create a false dichotomy of there being (fantasy) fiction and history as the only two possible options.

My theist friend used to tell me that he saw the Gospels as history scripturalised – that this was history given the veneer of Scripture, history enrobed in theology.

I disagreed (see the aforementioned books) to rebut that this was not history scripturalised, but theology historicised. This was pure theology dressed up to look like history.

What struck me was the differences in impression when reading the Gospels. When you read any of the Gospels or Acts, what details impress upon you a particular authorial intention? What things trigger "that's definitely meant as history" or "that's definitely not" while you're reading?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

You ask an interesting question, but does it refer to the modern versions of those texts or the original versions that no longer exist? It might not be impossible to determine what was intended by the authors if their original works are now lost to history. I understand that skilled and talented textual critics have attempted to reconstruct what may have been contained in the original manuscripts, but isn't a great deal of speculation and artistic license still involved in their reconstruction process? I would be reluctant to defend any given answer to your question based on the unreliability of the source materials. It will be interesting to observe how other people respond to your post. Maybe I'll learn something new.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

I don’t see much support to the idea that the canonical gospels were intended to be fantasy, or “theology historicized.” There two reasons for this.

First, the gospels lack the tell-tale signs of such fantasies. They contains works that were theology historicized; i.e. the parables. The parables include lines like “There was a man with two sons,” or “There was a rich man whose manager accused him…” We see little of that kind of thing in the Gospels, suggesting that authors were not trying to tell a story that they intended to be read as fiction.

Second, the Gospels make regular mention of contemporary historical figures. Names like Herod, Annas, and Quirinius pop up throughout the Gospels. Were the gospels written in the mid-2nd century or later, this might not convince us they are fanciful. However, if they were written in the first century – which is the prevailing view – then it is unlikely a work of fiction at that time would include names readers would be so familiar with.

This does not show that the Gospels actually were historical, but it does suggest that the authors intended them to be read as history.

[Difflugia]

First, the gospels lack the tell-tale signs of such fantasies.

I disagree. I'd argue that one of the "tell-tale signs of such fantasies" is the narrative inclusion of fantastic events.

• "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: After his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit."—Matthew 1:18
• "Then the devil took him into the holy city. He set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, 'If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down...'"—Matthew 4:5-6
• "Behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared to many."—Matthew 27:51-53

They contains works that were theology historicized; i.e. the parables. The parables include lines like “There was a man with two sons,” or “There was a rich man whose manager accused him…” We see little of that kind of thing in the Gospels, suggesting that authors were not trying to tell a story that they intended to be read as fiction.

I assume that by "that kind of thing" you mean indeterminate characters and settings? Matthew 11-16 is a long series of events that are just as vague:

• "when John heard in prison"—11:2
• "As these went their way, Jesus said to the multitudes"—11:7
• "Then he began to denounce the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done"—11:20
• "At that time, Jesus answered"—11:25
• "Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered, 'Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.'"—12:38
• "While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, seeking to speak to him."—12:46

Second, the Gospels make regular mention of contemporary historical figures. Names like Herod, Annas, and Quirinius pop up throughout the Gospels. Were the gospels written in the mid-2nd century or later, this might not convince us they are fanciful. However, if they were written in the first century – which is the prevailing view – then it is unlikely a work of fiction at that time would include names readers would be so familiar with.

Why? This is fiction.

This does not show that the Gospels actually were historical, but it does suggest that the authors intended them to be read as history.

I'd argue that the incorporation of so many implausible events with no explanation or commentary suggest that the authors expected audiences to "suspend disbelief" as when reading fiction. The various resurrection narratives alone are replete with angels, voices from heaven, and magical disguises. How many other stories like that are accepted as narrative nonfiction, even by contemporary standards of the first century?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'd argue that the incorporation of so many implausible events with no explanation or commentary suggest that the authors expected audiences to "suspend disbelief" as when reading fiction. The various resurrection narratives alone are replete with angels, voices from heaven, and magical disguises. How many other stories like that are accepted as narrative nonfiction, even by contemporary standards of the first century?

Your standard is too simplistic. We need something more nuanced than that.

The reason why I don't accept your standard for calling something fiction is because the Jews in that day believed in the supernatural. Therefore, writing about the supernatural would not automatically mean that they intended something to be fiction, because they could've also wrote about what they believe to be genuine supernatural encounters.

I personally don't believe that there is a perfect standard for deciding fiction from non-fiction, especially in a society that believed in miracles.


Of course we should also acknowledge that just because the Jews viewed their encounters as being real, that doesn't mean that they were genuine supernatural encounters. Some conclusions may've been reached out of ignorance or superstition.

[Difflugia]

I'd argue that the incorporation of so many implausible events with no explanation or commentary suggest that the authors expected audiences to "suspend disbelief" as when reading fiction. The various resurrection narratives alone are replete with angels, voices from heaven, and magical disguises. How many other stories like that are accepted as narrative nonfiction, even by contemporary standards of the first century?

Your standard is too simplistic. We need something more nuanced than that.

You might be right, but I'm not sure what sort of nuance could rescue the Gospels from seeming like fiction.

One could always make the argument, though, that Matthew was just so credulous that he took all of the stories at face value and passed them on. I suppose that could represent a subtle difference in genre in that Matthew failed to recognize fiction and reported it as fact. I personally don't think that's true (personal incredulity?), so how would we detect that?

One of the features of Matthew's Gospel specifically are the literary comparisons to Moses, as pointed out in the article and discussed in old thread. It's possible that the literary allusions are either coincidence or from another source and misunderstood by Matthew, but nonetheless repeated. Once we hit that point, though, we're in the realm of claiming that any fictional story might actually be intended as nonfiction, only written (or indeed, merely reworked) by a very credulous author.

The reason why I don't accept your standard for calling something fiction is because the Jews in that day believed in the supernatural. Therefore, writing about the supernatural would not automatically mean that they intended something to be fiction, because they could've also wrote about what they believe to be genuine supernatural encounters.

Did they also believe that others, but not they themselves, regularly witnessed miracles affecting dozens or hundreds of people? The problem that I have with this argument when compared to the way the Gospels were written is that everyday people seem to take miracles in stride. Even if people believed they could happen, that would mean that people found them boring and normal. That makes sense to me in a fictional setting, because it's hard to tell many parables if the only available punchline is the much more realistic, "and then everybody panicked and ran."

I personally don't believe that there is a perfect standard for deciding fiction from non-fiction, especially in a society that believed in miracles.

Who said we need a perfect one? How about one that's right most of the time? How much nonfiction recounts people walking on water or appearing in the middle of locked rooms?

Of course we should also acknowledge that just because the Jews viewed their encounters as being real, that doesn't mean that they were genuine supernatural encounters. Some conclusions may've been reached out of ignorance or superstition.

On the other hand, both Matthew and John, at least, tried to anticipate such mundane explanations for the events and narrate them away. Matthew added the guards to eliminate the disciples stealing the body and John added the spear to eliminate the "swoon" theory. Apparently, they anticipated their audiences being skeptical enough to think of those things and felt the need to pre-emptively counter the skeptical arguments.

[Mithrae]

What struck me was the differences in impression when reading the Gospels. When you read any of the Gospels or Acts, what details impress upon you a particular authorial intention? What things trigger "that's definitely meant as history" or "that's definitely not" while you're reading?

The most obvious cue in this regard would be the start of Luke's gospel:
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah...."

Whatever creative liberties he himself may have taken with his material, it seems pretty clear that Luke intended his readers to accept his account as historical truth.

At the opposite end of the spectrum we have the opening to John's gospel:
''In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him...."

Seems obvious that this is a guy who is writing theology. Even the introductions of John and Jesus and the disciples in these first two chapters have overriding theological messages - the herald, the lamb of God, "come and see" - propped up by dubious plotlines and disconnected dialogue, which don't really get any more plausible throughout the gospel. Nevertheless, even this author positions himself as a witness testifying to truthful events such as the incarnation of 'the word' and the death of Jesus (1:14, 19:35). The introduction and general style seem to imply far more openness about the creative liberties being taken than Luke's profession of strict factual accuracy, but even John clearly suggests that there is a historical foundation somewhere underneath his theological ramblings.

[Difflugia]

Whatever creative liberties he himself may have taken with his material, it seems pretty clear that Luke intended his readers to accept his account as historical truth.

I go back and forth with Luke. It looks to me like Luke had a copy of Matthew and was attempting to tone down the supernatural stuff. It's obvious that Luke is writing in the style of history, but I argue with myself over whether it's meant as literal or allegorical history. Part of that hinges for me on whether Luke expects his audience to know Mark or Matthew, because he changes what I would expect to be well-known traditions. John the Baptist gets a much different introduction in Luke, for example. and the Baptist is often considered to be one of the more historical elements. In Luke 3, we have the Baptist doing baptisms in the Jordan (which is apparently important to the story) and Jesus is baptized (also apparently important), but Luke makes an effort to separate the two. Whereas in Mark and Matthew, Jesus and the Baptist have conversations establishing their relationship, it's not clear in Luke if they meet at all and I think the implication is that they didn't (John is baptizing, John is hustled off to prison, Jesus is baptized). This might be considered a merely stylistically altered version of the same story, except Luke later includes a different interaction between Jesus and John to replace the one he removed.

It's generally not read this way in church, but Luke 6:11-17 ("raising the widow's son") and 6:18-35 ("messengers from John the Baptist") go together. The pericope of the widow's son appears only in Luke and is the miracle that brings Jesus to the attention of John the Baptist. Note how Luke 6:16-20 sound if read together, rather than as parts of two independent pericopes as they usually are (ESV):

Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” And this report about him spread through the whole of Judea and all the surrounding country.

The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” And when the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?’”

This is a rather different tradition than the one presented in Mark and Matthew, so the question for me is whether Luke is attempting to get people that already know the other tradition to see it in this new way or did he intend this to be the "new original?"

At the opposite end of the spectrum we have the opening to John's gospel:
''In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him...."

Seems obvious that this is a guy who is writing theology. Even the introductions of John and Jesus and the disciples in these first two chapters have overriding theological messages - the herald, the lamb of God, "come and see" - propped up by dubious plotlines and disconnected dialogue, which don't really get any more plausible throughout the gospel. Nevertheless, even this author positions himself as a witness testifying to truthful events such as the incarnation of 'the word' and the death of Jesus (1:14, 19:35). The introduction and general style seem to imply far more openness about the creative liberties being taken than Luke's profession of strict factual accuracy, but even John clearly suggests that there is a historical foundation somewhere underneath his theological ramblings.

This gets to bluegreenearth's comment about originals. The final historical assertion in John ("This is the disciple that bears witness of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.") is widely (though not universally) accepted as part of a later addition to the Gospel and not part of the original. That raises the question of whether the other historical affirmations are later interpolations to intentionally change a theological document into a historical one. As it is, I don't have a problem with an otherwise fictional document including such affirmations as a form of verisimilitude, even though that raises the spectre of question-begging. I'd be tempted to see John as fiction with a form that is at least somewhat influenced by Luke's assertion of history. If Luke was intentionally fiction that reads as history, then the precedent would already have been set for such statements in John. Are they assertions of historical accuracy or an immersive component of the fiction?

[Mithrae]

I go back and forth with Luke. It looks to me like Luke had a copy of Matthew and was attempting to tone down the supernatural stuff. It's obvious that Luke is writing in the style of history, but I argue with myself over whether it's meant as literal or allegorical history. Part of that hinges for me on whether Luke expects his audience to know Mark or Matthew, because he changes what I would expect to be well-known traditions.

How many Christians nowadays recognize those as changes? Even in a highly literate society with all three gospels side by side in the same volume? Granted there are cases of simple dogmatism and obstinacy like the angels at the tomb or efforts to 'harmonize' the obviously different nativity stories, but I'm pretty sure that in most cases, most casual readers and particularly believers simply don't notice the changes in detail between the synoptics even reading them week to week. There'd likely be some folk going over them all with a fine-tooth comb in any era of course, but pretty sure Luke's duplicity would be even more likely to pass unnoticed in the 1st century than in the 20th.

John the Baptist gets a much different introduction in Luke, for example. and the Baptist is often considered to be one of the more historical elements. In Luke 3, we have the Baptist doing baptisms in the Jordan (which is apparently important to the story) and Jesus is baptized (also apparently important), but Luke makes an effort to separate the two. Whereas in Mark and Matthew, Jesus and the Baptist have conversations establishing their relationship, it's not clear in Luke if they meet at all and I think the implication is that they didn't (John is baptizing, John is hustled off to prison, Jesus is baptized).

As you know, Jesus' baptism by John is considered particularly likely to be historical precisely because gJohn, Luke and Matthew all in their own ways seem to have been uncomfortable about it, making it otherwise puzzling why (if the story had been invented) the earliest known version took the form of Jesus being baptized for repentance and forgiveness of sins.

This is a rather different tradition than the one presented in Mark and Matthew, so the question for me is whether Luke is attempting to get people that already know the other tradition to see it in this new way or did he intend this to be the "new original?"

Presumably folk familiar with the older versions would take Luke's as being consistent with them, while folk not familiar with them were meant to accept Luke's new and improved story. It's not like he actually says "Jesus was not baptized by John," just glosses over the tricky bits. Although why do you think Luke wouldn't have simply accepted Matthew's version, if he was familiar with it? Luke (like Mark and Matthew) obviously wants John to be the "voice in the wilderness," not just some random preacher who eventually enquires about Jesus, and while it's made a little ambiguous it's still fairly natural to assume from Luke that Jesus was baptized by John. Seems to me that Matthew's solution of having John protest and Jesus saying it's a formality is much cleaner than Luke's ambiguity, both resolving the implied problem of Jesus' sinfulness and solidifying John's role as his herald... and that's a story which would fit even better with Luke having portrayed Elizabeth and Mary as cousins who already knew their sons' respective roles. It's a bit off topic, but things like that make me wonder whether Luke knew Matthew at all; if he wanted a tidier and more apologetically sound story, why would he pass up the few occasions on which Matthew offered good solutions? The story of the guards at the tomb would be another example, a godsend to apologists willing to take it seriously, which Luke easily could have modified to avoid explicitly bringing body-stealing to mind if that were a concern.

This gets to bluegreenearth's comment about originals. The final historical assertion in John ("This is the disciple that bears witness of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.") is widely (though not universally) accepted as part of a later addition to the Gospel and not part of the original. That raises the question of whether the other historical affirmations are later interpolations to intentionally change a theological document into a historical one.

Without some kind of evidence from manuscripts or early quotations I generally try to take that kind of speculation with a grain of salt. Probably the second strongest / second most obvious discrepancy in the gospel is 14:31 ("rise, let us be on our way") into 15:1 (staying around for chapters of further dialogue), yet even that could just as easily be explained by the author finishing off on Friday afternoon and then having some new ideas over the Sabbath; in fact more easily I'd say, since a redactor would likely remove such obvious traces. To my mind only the potential addition of 20:24ff offers any fertile ground for speculation, that I've seen at least, obviously alongside those for which documentary evidence exists (the story of the adulteress, added much later, and the 'appendix' which isn't quite the same thing as redaction/modification of the original work).

As it is, I don't have a problem with an otherwise fictional document including such affirmations as a form of verisimilitude, even though that raises the spectre of question-begging. I'd be tempted to see John as fiction with a form that is at least somewhat influenced by Luke's assertion of history. If Luke was intentionally fiction that reads as history, then the precedent would already have been set for such statements in John. Are they assertions of historical accuracy or an immersive component of the fiction?

My pet theory - partly under the wise scholarly influence of System of a Down's Chop Suey - is that Jesus himself promoted the view of a core message and its effects being more important than details and mere facts. For starters much of his reported teaching in the synoptics consists of parables, metaphor and hyperbole. But more specifically, it may be that his goal or hope was to replace or at least mitigate the kind of messianic expectation and nationalism represented by folk like Judah of Galilee which would inevitably bring down the wrath of Rome - and indeed was prophesied by Daniel to result in the temple's destruction - firstly through his teachings and 'kingdom of God' rather than of men, but ultimately by intentionally provoking his own execution with his temple disturbance during Passover so as to become a martyr and (perhaps planned in advance with some disciples, perhaps not) eventually risen messiah. If he could ensure salvation from the Roman legions for even a fraction of his people by such means, that would surely be more important than the mere details of how the message was made to take root; that's something that he and others might be willing to die for, and to lie for.

The idea that Luke was intentionally fiction, total fiction, written and portrayed as history doesn't really gel to my mind; to what end would the author do that? What did he gain by it? And even John, the most overtly theological of the gospels, what would be the point of insisting here and there "Yes, this really did happen" if it was purely theology? We can readily imagine a single author doing that for some reason or other, but why would (so far as we know) all the early Christian story-tellers do it? Seems to me that if they all put their stories into a historical-seeming format - even John in places - it was because they were all interested in/inspired by a core historical story. But similarly each of the later three authors and presumably Mark also took considerable liberty with the details of that story, which to my mind implies that it really was just the core story or message that they considered paramount, and the rest merely a means to an end.

[Goat]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

I don’t see much support to the idea that the canonical gospels were intended to be fantasy, or “theology historicized.” There two reasons for this.

First, the gospels lack the tell-tale signs of such fantasies. They contains works that were theology historicized; i.e. the parables. The parables include lines like “There was a man with two sons,” or “There was a rich man whose manager accused him…” We see little of that kind of thing in the Gospels, suggesting that authors were not trying to tell a story that they intended to be read as fiction.

Second, the Gospels make regular mention of contemporary historical figures. Names like Herod, Annas, and Quirinius pop up throughout the Gospels. Were the gospels written in the mid-2nd century or later, this might not convince us they are fanciful. However, if they were written in the first century – which is the prevailing view – then it is unlikely a work of fiction at that time would include names readers would be so familiar with.

This does not show that the Gospels actually were historical, but it does suggest that the authors intended them to be read as history.

One tell tale sign is 'People coming back from the dead', 'Turning water into wine', and 'walking on water'. Those are pure fantasy.