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?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

The problem is that the divide between non-fiction and fiction is a fairly recent divide.
Rather, art is what best describes writing through the ages.

Modern history writing didn't arise before the later half of the 19th century with Leopold von Ranke.

Check him out on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke.

You may want to look up Philosophy of History (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/.

All the best.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

The problem is that the divide between non-fiction and fiction is a fairly recent divide.
Rather, art is what best describes writing through the ages.

That's a great point! A member on another site introduced me to author Karen Armstrong and I think she has some good and relevant insight that covers this topic:

Protestant fundamentalists, for example, claim that they read the Bible in the same way as the early Christians, but their belief that it is literally true in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in the late 19th century. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.

We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia in which the faithful look up facts about God. Many assume that if the scriptures are not historically and scientifically correct, they cannot be true at all. But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat), and its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.

Source: The Guardian

[William]

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?

Under the circumstances I think that everything which cannot be supported by evidence sourced in other information other than itself, should be considered fictional.

That applies to human history in general, not just religious [cultural] history.

This does not prevent me seeing value in fictional material - as long as I bear in mind to keep focus on that it is to be treated as fiction until otherwise shown to me that it should be treated as fact.

The problem with the past is that it doesn't exist. In most cases to do with nature, we can verify that something which doesn't exist now, did exist as fact ...once upon a time.

But the superimposing of "super" over the natural and referring to that as also 'fact', has more to do with magic tricks [a science in itself] and the ability to hold an audience while you attempt to make them believe the fiction you perform, is factual.

If the audience believes your actions are fact, they are most inclined to believe that your words are also fact.

And in terms of the biblical, all we have are words about actions - magic actions at that...so double caution... to be handled by the wise, as with a grain of salt.

[bjs1]

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

You are absolutely free to believe this. However, the Gospel authors appear to have believed such things did happen. The wondrous nature of these events appear to be part of the reason that they were recorded. If these event were in fact fantasy or not, the authors did not present them as such.

[Difflugia]

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

You are absolutely free to believe this. However, the Gospel authors appear to have believed such things did happen.

Other than your own absolute freedom of belief, what evidence do you have that the authors believed these things happened?

The wondrous nature of these events appear to be part of the reason that they were recorded.

Since fiction is also recorded, that's not really much of a distinction.

If these event were in fact fantasy or not, the authors did not present them as such.

No? The Gospels make heavy use of literary devices (omniscient narrator, theophany, implausible coincidences with allegorical significance) that are normally associated with fiction. What's behind your assertion that the authors "present them" as anything other than fiction?

[Goat]

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

You are absolutely free to believe this. However, the Gospel authors appear to have believed such things did happen. The wondrous nature of these events appear to be part of the reason that they were recorded. If these event were in fact fantasy or not, the authors did not present them as such.

That is your claim. However, an alternate explanation would be 'they were using that as a literary device to show something really important is happening'. That is typical of writing of that time period.

[RJG]

I think the gospels may have some details based on fact, but so many of the stories are much less than credible, having no verifiable evidence to back them up.