Is the Sermon on the Mount historical?

[unknown soldier]

Did Christ really preach the Sermon on the Mount? I can think of some reasons to doubt the Sermon's historicity. Consider the fact that it appears only in Matthew. Mark, Luke, and John omit it. There are at least three reasons why the Sermon appears only in Matthew:

1. Mark, Luke, and John never heard of the Sermon on the Mount.
2. Mark, Luke, and John knew about the Sermon, but they didn't bother to include it in their gospels perhaps thinking it was unimportant.
3. Matthew made up the Sermon on the Mount.

I think that if Christ really preached the Sermon on the Mount, then 1 and 2 are very unlikely. Eliminating those two possibilities, we are left with 3; Matthew fabricated the Sermon which explains very well why only his gospel includes it. If we want to conclude that the Sermon is historical, then we are left with no good idea why Mark, Luke, and John don't include it.

Maintaining a historical view of the Christ story is laden with difficulties like this. If we see the gospels as works of fiction, by contrast, we can much more easily explain their many peculiarities.

[Goose]

So when I say I can’t imagine why one would assert such a thing, I mean I can’t imagine why one who has even a beginner level knowledge of the lives of both characters would make such a badly overstated assertion.

My mistake. I guess I should have recognized that you were addressing hyperbole with hyperbole.

No, I took your statement at face value. If you meant that statement to be hyperbolic thereby conceding it’s not the case all the details of Jesus life can fit the Mosiac pattern, that’s fine, I will accept your concession.

That’s your proof the sermon on the mount was fictional?

Nope. That's the proof that the story of Jesus as a whole is fictional, which is what I was I was talking about when you asked me to "prove it."

But you didn’t prove it. You didn’t even come close to proving it. Or if you did, I can use your reasoning to prove the story of Caesar as a whole is fictional. No more Caesar.

Pointing to stuff you don’t believe happened? With that kind of logic I can point to the crucifixions, something we know can and did happen, therefore the sermon on the mount is historical.

The barrel of that gun's pointed the wrong way. Stories about ghosts must be fiction. That doesn't mean that stories without ghosts must be nonfiction.

Stories about ghosts must be fiction is a circular premise. Your criteria gives you a way (albeit a circular way) to determine what must be fiction but no way to determine what must be non-fiction. Using your circular criteria here, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species may very well not be a work of non-fiction. How would you know it was? It wouldn’t happen to be because of the intention of Darwin to write non-fiction would it?

Fictional stories may contain historical events, but if we already know that the author is writing fiction then there's no reason to treat any of the events as historical without independent corroboration.

But how do you already know the author is writing fiction? Our difference is a methodological one. You think the author must be writing fiction because you don’t believe the stuff the author is writing about. The contrary being the work must be non-fiction because you believe the stuff the author is writing about. Whereas I think the author must be writing fiction (or non-fiction) because that was the intention of the author.

Not to mention using your reasoning Caesar’s entrance into the senate house prior to his assassination was fictional because the narratives from Nicolaus of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius include details such as omens, apparitions, and supernatural events.

You seem desperate to have me address Caesar's assassination, so I read the Nicolaus of Damascus account. To be blunt, I don't know why you think that one, at least, helps your case. That particular account has fewer bits of superstitious commentary than many modern works of nonfiction, let alone what I was expecting out of something from the first century B.C. If anything, its way of telling history puts the Gospels in an even harsher light.

What Nicolaus’ Life of Augustus (which contains his account of Caesar’s assassination) does is force you into a position of applying an obvious double standard in which you must make a blatant Special Plea. Which you’ve demonstrated so very nicely. Just a few sentences ago you explicitly asserted, ”Stories about ghosts must be fiction.” But when it comes to Nicolaus’ account you give it pass calling it a “sober and measured account.” Even though you concede it contains supernatural references. Further it references mythological characters like the demi-god Romulus in an historical context, contains prophetic omens, implies the gods such as Tyche have orchestrated events, and implies Caesar is exacting revenge from beyond the grave.

Here is another example that is the most egregious intrusion that I see of the supernatural into the otherwise sober and measured account:

And fate becomes a still stronger force if indeed one acknowledges her part in these things: on that day his friends, drawing conclusions from certain auguries, tried to prevent him from going to the senate room, as did also his physicians on account of vertigoes to which he was sometimes subject, and from which he was at that time suffering; and especially his wife Calpurnia, who was terrified by a dream that night.

An otherwise sober and measured account that contains the supernatural? What happened to the whole ”Stories about ghosts must be fiction” thing? I guess Nicolaus just gets a pass here. Of course he does because if he doesn’t your whole argument unravels into absurdities.

Nicolaus recasts Caesar as the new Romulus.

The demi-god Romulus is placed in history by Nicolaus. Brutus was the primary antagonist in the assassination story. Like his forefathers who overthrew the kings who ruled from the time of the mythological god-man Romulus to establish the Republic so will Brutus overthrow Caesar.

”The reputation which had long been attached to the Brutus family was very influential in causing the uprising, for Brutus' ancestors had overthrown the kings who ruled from the time of Romulus, and they had first established republican government in Rome.” – 19

The gods Tyche and Moira act in space and time orchestrating the entire affair. Prophetic omens and dreams predict Caesar’s demise.

”Fortune [Tyche] had a part in this by causing Caesar himself to set a certain day on which the members of the Senate were to assemble to consider certain motions which he wished to introduce. When the appointed day came the conspirators assembled, prepared in all respects. They met in the portico (stoa) of Pompeius' theater, where they sometimes gathered. Thus the divinity showed the vanity of man's estate--how very unstable it is, and subject to the vagaries of fortune--for Caesar was brought to the house of his enemy, there to lie, a corpse, before the statue of one whom, now dead, he had defeated when he was alive. And Fate [Moira] becomes a still stronger force if indeed one acknowledges her part in these things: on that day his friends, drawing conclusions from certain auguries, tried to prevent him from going to the Senate Room [bouleuterion], as did also his physicians on account of vertigoes to which he was sometimes subject, and from which he was at that time suffering; and especially his wife Calpurnia, who was terrified by a dream that night. She clung to him and said that she would not let him go out on that day. But Brutus, one of the conspirators, though he was at that time thought to be one of his most intimate friends, came up to him and said, 'What do you say, Caesar? Are you going to pay any attention to a woman's dreams and foolish men's omens, a man such as you? Are you going to insult the Senate which has honored you and which you yourself convened, by not going out? No; if you take my advice you will dismiss from your mind the dreams of these people and go, for the Senate has been in session since morning, and is awaiting you.' He was persuaded and went out. - 23

Meanwhile the assassins were making ready, some of them stationing themselves beside his chair, others in front of it, others behind it. The augurs brought forward the victims for him to make his final sacrifice before his entry into the Senate Room. It was manifest that the omens were unfavorable. The augurs substituted one animal after another in the attempt to secure a more auspicious forecast. Finally they said that the indications from the gods where unfavorable and that there was plainly some sort of curse hiding in the victims. In disgust, Caesar turned away toward the setting sun, and the augurs interpreted this action still more unfavorably.” – 24

Nicolaus implies a dead man, Caesar, will exact revenge from beyond the grave.

”They declared that Caesar would give his murderers and their companions much trouble, even though he was dead, since here was a large force threatening them, with energetic men in charge of it.” – 27

The gods make things right.

”Divine providence [Tyche] finally ordered these things aright.” – 28

Then there is Plutarch’s account in his
Life of Caesar.

Signs, apparitions, omens, men on fire who do not burn, and animals without hearts.

”But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen. 2 Now, as for lights in the heavens, crashing sounds borne all about by night, and birds of omen coming down into the forum, it is perhaps not worth while to mention these precursors of so great an event; 3 but Strabo the philosopher says108 that multitudes of men all on fire were seen rushing up, and a soldier's slave threw from his hand a copious flame and seemed to the spectators to be burning, but when the flame ceased the man was uninjured; 4 he says, moreover, p591 that when Caesar himself was sacrificing, the heart of the victim was not to be found, and the prodigy caused fear, since in the course of nature, certainly, an animal without a heart could not exist... And when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him that the omens were unfavourable, he resolved to send Antony and dismiss the senate.” – 63

Once again the gods are responsible.

”So far, perhaps, these things may have happened of their own accord; the place, however, which was the scene of that struggle and murder, and in which the senate was then assembled, since it contained a statue of Pompey and had been dedicated by Pompey as an additional ornament to his theatre, made it wholly clear that it was the work of some heavenly power which was calling and guiding the action thither.” – 66

Seven day comets, a darkened sun and weird weather for a whole year, and a giant scary phantom who shows up at Brutus’s door to talk with him. All orchestrated by the gods of course.

”and among events of divine ordering, there was the great comet, which showed itself in great splendour for seven nights after Caesar's murder, and then disappeared; also, the obscuration of the sun's rays. 5 For during all that year its orb rose pale and without radiance, while the heat that came down from it was slight and ineffectual, so that the air in its circulation was dark and heavy owing to the feebleness of the warmth that penetrated it, and the fruits, imperfect and half ripe, withered away and shrivelled up on account of the coldness of the atmosphere. 6 But more than anything else the phantom that appeared to Brutus showed that the murder of Caesar was not pleasing to the gods... And now [Brutus] thought he heard a noise at the door, and looking towards the light of the lamp, which was slowly going out, he saw a fearful vision of a man of unnatural size and harsh aspect. 10 At first he was terrified, but when he saw that the visitor neither did nor said anything, but stood in silence by his couch, he asked him who he was. 11 Then the phantom answered him: "I am thy evil genius, Brutus, and thou shalt see me at Philippi." At the time, then, Brutus said courageously: "I shall see thee;" and the heavenly visitor at once went away” – 69

You’re royally Begging the Question here by assuming the Jesus narrative is fictional overall.

Am I? This is C&A, where magic doesn't get a free pass. I'm not assuming that it's fiction, I'm pointing out that the narrative is fictional because it contains obvious fictional elements. If I were simply claiming that Matthew's fiction because it's in the Bible and we know the Bible's fiction, then you'd be right.

Therefore, using your reasoning, Caesar’s narrative is fictional because it contains supernatural elements.

I’m going to use your reasoning and argue the Caesar of history is lost to us. I’m going to use your reasoning to argue the story of Caesar as a whole is fictional and he wasn't a real guy by comparing the life of Romulus with Julius Caesar.

Mimetic signals with references:

	Romulus	Julius Caesar
1. Assassinated by senators	Plutarch, Rom 27.5; Dionysius, Rom Ant. 2.56.4; Livy 1.16.4; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511	Nicolaus, Augustus 24-25; Plutarch, Caesar 66-67; Suetonius, Caesar 81-82; Dio, History 19, 49
2. Missing body	Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.3-5	Plutarch, Caesar 68; Nicolaus of Damascus, Augustus 26; Suetonius, Caesar 82.3
3. Prodigies	Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.3-5	Nicolaus, Augustus 24; Suetonius, Caesar 84.3, 88.1; Plutarch, Caesar 63, 69.3-14; Cassius Dio, Roman History 44.52.1
4. Darkness over the land	Ovid, Metam. 14.816-22; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6;Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7	Plutarch, Caesar 69.4-5
5. Mountain top speech	Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24	Caesar, Gallic War 7.52-53
6. Son of a god	Livy 1.16.3 Matt 27:54; Dionysius of Halicarnas- sus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2	Dio, History 44.37.5
7. Honored by all people	Plutarch, Romulus 23.5	Suetonius, Caesar 88.1;Dio, History 44.48.1
8. Ascension	Livy 1.16.6; Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24;Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.2.56.2-6;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7	Plutarch, Caesar 67; Suetonius, Caesar 88.1; Dio, History. 44.17.1
9. Taken away on a cloud	Livy 1.16.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6	Dio, History. 44.17.1
10. Meeting on the road	Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4	Suetonius, Caesar 31-32 (apparition)
11. Immortal/heavenly body	Livy 1.16.8; Ovid, Metam. 14.818-28; Plutarch, Rom. 28.6-8	Suetonius, Caesar 88.1
12. The people flee	Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.5; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7	Nicolaus, Augustus 25; Plutarch, Caesar 67.1-2; Dio, History 44.20.2
13. Deification	Livy 1.16.3; Cicero, Resp. 2.10.20b; Ovid,Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.5-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7	Suetonius, Caesar 84.2, 88.1; Nicolaus, Augustus 26, 29; Plutarch 67.8; Dio, History 44.49.1
14. Belief, homage, rejoicing	Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch, Rom. 27.8	Suetonius, Caesar 84-85, 88.1
15. All in sorrow over loss	Livy 1.16.2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Plutarch, Rom. 28.2	Nicolaus, Augustus 26; Suetonius, Caesar 84.5; Plutarch 67.7
16. Great warrior/commander	Dionysius Rom. Ant 2.55.1ff; Livy 1.15.4, 6; Plutarch, Rom 24.3, 25.3	Paterculus, Roman History 2.46; Plutarch, Caesar 15.1-5; Suetonius, Caesar 55.1, 57.1,60,62; Dio, History 44.49.2
17. Showed mercy to enemies	Plutarch, Rom 25.4-5; Livy 1.15.5	Paterculus, History 2.56.1, 3, 86; Plutarch, Caesar 16.9, 57.5; Suetonius, Caesar 63.1, 74.1, 75.1; Dio, History 44.39.4-5
18. Called “Father” by the people	Livy 1.16.3,6; Plutarch, Rom 28.2	Suetonius, Caesar 85.1; Cicero, Philippic 2.13; Dio, History 44.48.1
19. Hailed as King	Plutarch, Rom 28.2	Plutarch, Caesar 60.3, 61.8
20. Divinely inspired emotion	Plutarch, Rom 28.3	Plutarch, Caesar 66.3

Look at all those parallels to a mythical demi-god. Coincidence? Look at all that supernatural stuff. Therefore, using your reasoning, the accounts of Caesar are fictional and Caesar wasn’t a real guy.

As for the analogy to Dracula. That analogy fails because we know Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a fictional novel.

That's exactly the analogy that I meant to draw.

You meant to draw a false analogy?

Since you obviously got it, I was at least that successful. You obviously don't agree that Matthew is fictional, despite containing elements that anywhere else would be considered proof of such. Are you, perhaps, indulging in a bit of begging the question?

Nope, no question begging on my end. I don’t agree Matthew is fictional for the same reasons I don’t agree Nicolaus Life of Augustus and Plutarch’s Life of Caesar are fictional even though they contain supernatural elements. That reason is their genre. Unlike you, I don’t start with the circular assumption that supernatural elements must be fictional. How could I claim to be open minded if I did? Besides you don’t seem to apply this standard consistently anyway. You argue Matthew is fictional because it contains supernatural elements that you consider proof of such but also hold that Nicolaus’ account is “sober and measured” despite containing supernatural elements. I’m guessing you don’t think Caesar was fictional.

We know it was meant as fiction because we have 1) Bram Stoker’s notes showing how he created the characters, 2) the original publishers publication notices placing it in a fictional genre, 3) reviews from readers at the time of publication which understood it was fiction, and 3) it falls into the fictional genre of horror and gothic horror fiction.

We do have those, but we don't need them. It's enough (for most people, anyway) to note that the antagonist is an undead nobleman.

If you don’t need those, how do you know Pride and Prejudice, Gone With the Wind, or The Hunt for Red October are fiction?

I suspect that nobody questions whether A Princess of Mars is fiction, despite the foreword penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs that insists that the manuscript is not his own, but that of a man that travelled supernaturally to Mars. If you'd care to engage your historical method and argue otherwise, however, I'd find that entertaining.

One wouldn’t have even needed to open the book to know it was a work of fiction. Not because of its content but because the original synopsis published on the back cover explicitly called it a “piece of imaginative fiction.”

At the very least, if Matthew was recasting Jesus as the new Moses, we would expect Matthew to have Jesus born in Egypt and leave Egypt as a grown man.

Why? You keep arguing for some arbitrary amount of literalism in allegorical fiction. Do you have something to support that with?

Why? Basic logic. It’s the story line of Moses and the argument is that Jesus is being recast as the new Moses. Aren’t you the one who has been making a big deal out of verbatim usage?

Matthew doesn’t do that.

Matthew also chooses to address the expectation of the Davidic Messiah being born in Bethlehem as well as Nazareth as the explanation for the epithets "Nazarene" and "Nazorean." In Matthew, the Jesus family lives in Bethlehem where Jesus is born, covering the Davidic expectation.

Easily explained by Matthew’s agenda to highlight that Jesus was the fulfillment of scripture.

They then flee to Egypt to escape the slaughter of Jewish baby boys, paralleling the escape of Moses from a similar literary conflict. Finally, they resettle in Nazareth so he can be a "Nazorean."

Or a similar historical conflict.

Matthew’s story line for Jesus here doesn’t have much in common with the story line of Moses aside from them both leaving Egypt.

Don't forget the "slaughter of innocents."

I haven’t. You say that like there’s something special about reports of infanticide or genocide in the ancient world.

Which can be easily explained, if one can’t bring oneself to holding that Jesus’ flight to Egypt was historical, by Matthew’s agenda of seeing Jesus fulfill the scriptures through, in this case, aligning Jesus as a typology with Israel.

Perhaps. That has a bit of a Johannine flavor in which Jesus is himself the covenant, but I could see Matthew intending that in parallel with the Moses allusions.

Thanks for sharing. Point is, Matthew’s agenda to have Jesus align with a typology to Israel is a better explanation of the evidence here at 2:14-15 than a recasting of Jesus as the new Moses.

What I had in mind was some kind of explicit reference to Jesus being the new Moses or perhaps the last Moses. Something like what Paul does with the “last Adam” reference to Jesus in 1 Cor 15:45.

I guess we can disagree, but the implicit parallels are strong enough that a more explicit reference would be a literary weakness.

Why would it be a literary weakness? Because you say so? And that’s a funny argument to make considering in your previous post you claimed "Matthew does explicitly equate Jesus with Moses in 2:14-15:”.

Matthew is certainly less subtle than Mark and adds explicit Old Testament quotes to pericopes from Mark where Mark assume the readers will make the connections themselves, but I honestly don't think one can argue that Matthew's Jesus isn't Mosaic enough without a bit of ax grinding.

Mosaic enough for what? I’ve already agreed in this post that Matthew seems to frame Jesus as a kind of new Moses at certain points. I even provided my own example of Matthew giving what may be a nod to Moses in the transfiguration. The trouble with the new Moses argument is that it is far too narrow. It doesn’t explain all the evidence and it runs against expectations at numerous points. A far better explanation is that Matthew intends to show Jesus to be a fulfillment of scripture and takes opportunities to highlight that to his Jewish audience.

And you’ve not addressed the argument regarding the number of explicit mentions of the name Moses in Mathew being the least of the Gospels.

I haven't addressed it because I don't know why you think it matters.

It matters because it runs against expectations if Matthew’s Gospel is the one which is recasting Jesus as the new Moses. On the one hand you make a big deal out of explicit verbatim usage of a four word clause in Exodus as though that were concrete. On the other hand, you can’t understand why it matters that the Gospel of Matthew has the fewest explicit mentions of Moses. But, yeah, just keep ignoring it.

If the sermon on the mount is exactly what we would expect of the new Moses wouldn’t we expect the new Moses to also ascend the mountain, receive a revelation from God, descend the mountain, and then deliver the teaching to the people as Moses did in Exodus (19:21, 25)? Matthew seems to imply the inverse where Jesus ascends, the people follow, and Jesus teaches the people up on the mountain (5:1-2, 28-29).

If Matthew were a hack, then you're right, we would. Perhaps he wasn't, though.

Perhaps, huh? Using your two premise argument here, you can go one of two ways now.

You can commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent in order to infer I’m wrong.

Technically, you're right.

I’m right that we would expect that or I’m right that you will have to commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent to infer I’m wrong?

I thought it was a funny way to answer your repeated and unsupported assertion that allegorical fiction requires a weird, slavish literalism. Instead, I'll just be blunt again and ask you to support your assertion.

Look, I’m working within the framework of your reasoning. So the support comes from your arguments. In regards to Moses ascent up the mountain it’s you who first put forward an argument entailing a kind of “slavish literalism.” The verbatim usage of ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος at Matthew 5:1 was argued as evidence that Matthew is recasting Jesus as the new Moses, remember? So the expectation that Matthew would also literally have Jesus follow the same pattern of Moses follows logically from that. Of course, you can deny that consequent thereby falsifying the premise that the verbatim usage of ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος at Matthew 5:1 is evidence that Matthew is recasting Jesus as the new Moses.

I will say this, though. I do think there is some merit to the argument that ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος has some significance and very well could be a nod to Moses. But I think you are pressing this argument far too hard. It’s just not that strong an argument and hardly concrete.

Considering that you're just asserting that verbatim agreement isn't uncommon enough for you, there's not much refutation required. I think, though, that you're underestimating the amount of variation inherent in written language. I'll assume you have a searchable Bible (Greek or English, it doesn't really matter). Pick a few four-word phrases and try to get a feel for how rarely even short phrases get repeated.

It’s like you didn’t even bother reading my post. I provided numerous instances where 1) ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος was used verbatim in contexts to people other than Jesus or Moses, 2) where ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος was used in contexts to Jesus that had no discernible parallel to Moses, 3) similar but not verbatim verbiage used in context to Moses to going up the mountain in Exodus, and 4) similar verbiage but not verbatim used in context to people other than Moses or Jesus. A broader sampling showed that ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος or similar verbiage was used in a variety of contexts, applied to a variety of people beyond Moses and Jesus, in a variety of genres.

[Difflugia]

We must be almost done. Nearly every argument here that you claim is mine is a straw man. I assume that part of the sport of debate for you must be the word games and attempts to put words into my mouth, but I find those tedious.

No, I took your statement at face value. If you meant that statement to be hyperbolic thereby conceding it’s not the case all the details of Jesus life can fit the Mosiac pattern, that’s fine, I will accept your concession.

Like that. Exactly. Tedious

But you didn’t prove it. You didn’t even come close to proving it. Or if you did, I can use your reasoning to prove the story of Caesar as a whole is fictional. No more Caesar.

Proving the Caesar story is fictional doesn't prove that Caesar himself is fictional. He might be fictional and if there is no other evidence then we might be justified in concluding that he is, but the way you've stated it isn't even a logically valid, let alone something you could reasonably argue.

Since you're pretty good at logic, I assume you know that, but are hoping to recast my argument (the Gospels are fiction, so they themselves are poor evidence that the narraed events are historical) into something logically invalid (the Gospels are fiction, therefore Jesus didn't exist).

Stories about ghosts must be fiction is a circular premise.

No, it's just a regular premise.

• P1 Stories depicting supernatural events are fictional.
• P2 The Gospels depict supernatural events.
• The Gospels are therefore fictional accounts.

It's not circular for me to disagree when you want to deny my premises.

I will concede that my first premise is a simplification; a historian claims that "God's grace was evident" or even something like "God orchestrated their meeting" doesn't cast doubt (or much doubt, anyway) on his or her faithful presentation of factual information. For the purposes of my argument, "Jesus smiled down from his heavenly abode upon the events unfolding," isn't what I mean by supernatural. "Jesus walked on water," is.

Pointing out that there's a difference and I haven't defined it is technically correct (I'll even concede that). I don't find it a particularly interesting argument, though, and the only way I can see it being helpful is if you try to turn it into a slippery slope where there actually isn't a difference.

Your criteria gives you a way (albeit a circular way) to determine what must be fiction but no way to determine what must be non-fiction. Using your circular criteria here, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species may very well not be a work of non-fiction. How would you know it was? It wouldn’t happen to be because of the intention of Darwin to write non-fiction would it?

We haven't even discussed my methods of evaluating non-fiction. You're still trying to argue that the ways I detect fiction are invalid. The criterion that you're railing against would only go far enough to determine that On the Origin of Species isn't necessarily fiction.

But how do you already know the author is writing fiction? Our difference is a methodological one. You think the author must be writing fiction because you don’t believe the stuff the author is writing about.

So far, you're right. It's always possible that I'm wrong, but any method has its dangers. You can argue that I'm not being credulous enough in my evaluation of the evidence, but that's hardly a critique of my method.

The contrary being the work must be non-fiction because you believe the stuff the author is writing about.

No! That's not something I either said or implied. I'm not going to speculate whether that mistake is intentional or unintentional and I'm not sure which conclusion would be less flattering.

Whereas I think the author must be writing fiction (or non-fiction) because that was the intention of the author.

That's certainly a solid criterion, but we don't know that for Matthew.

What Nicolaus’ Life of Augustus (which contains his account of Caesar’s assassination) does is force you into a position of applying an obvious double standard in which you must make a blatant Special Plea. Which you’ve demonstrated so very nicely. Just a few sentences ago you explicitly asserted, ”Stories about ghosts must be fiction.” But when it comes to Nicolaus’ account you give it pass calling it a “sober and measured account.” Even though you concede it contains supernatural references. Further it references mythological characters like the demi-god Romulus in an historical context,...

I suspect that Nicolaus means that metaphorically as "...the kings that reigned since the founding of Rome...," but let's say that he meant it absolutely literally and believed in his heart of hearts that Romulus himself founded Rome. Then I'll turn a bit of a jaundiced eye to reported events of deep history. If you're trying to slippery-slope your way to "Jesus walked on water" being credible, then just make your argument.

...contains prophetic omens,...

It contains people acting on what they think are prophetic omens. This is the point I made before and I should have been more clear I meant that the "most egregious" supernatural events were reported as being believed by other people, which they probably were. Nicolaus was always careful when writing about superstitious people to describe the beliefs as belonging to specific characters rather than presenting them as narrative truth. There probably was a host of superstitious people surrounding the Caesar and there probably were always conflicting auguries. Confirmation bias being what it is, I have no problem believing that the stories Nicolaus heard included a bit of superstitious nonsense, but he was always careful to report the nonsense so that the reader knows that the nonsense belongs solely to the character (whether or not we choose to believe along with them) and didn't originate with him.

...implies the gods such as Tyche have orchestrated events,...

No, he doesn't. Τύχη is only used once in the sense of a proper noun and it's again presented as the sentiment of "the people."

Then the people clamored that he become king and they shouted that there should be no longer any delay in crowning him as such, for Fortune had already crowned him.

and implies Caesar is exacting revenge from beyond the grave.

"They declared...."

Therefore, using your reasoning, the accounts of Caesar are fictional and Caesar wasn’t a real guy.

No. That's that same straw man argument.

You meant to draw a false analogy?

No. Matthew's a fictional account of a (possibly) real guy. Dracula's a fictional account of a (probably) real guy. The analogy is apt.

I don’t start with the circular assumption that supernatural elements must be fictional.

No? How often do you secretly suspect that the Eddas or the Ugaritic story of El's drinking party are historically accurate?

Just a few sentences ago you explicitly asserted, ”Stories about ghosts must be fiction.” But when it comes to Nicolaus’ account you give it pass calling it a “sober and measured account.”

From here on, your argument seems to be that the Nicolaus account of Caesar's murder is as bad as the Gospels, so we should therefore not trust it. Historians do trust it, though, so we should trust at least the mundane part of the Gospels and maybe even the magic parts.

Did I get that right? Did I miss some important nuance?

The only part that I care at all about is whether or not the Nicolaus account actually is as bad as the Gospels. I don't think so, I stand by my assessment of "sober and measured", and I think your arguments are no more than ax-grinding word games. That's the part that I'll address. I won't however, be addressing multiple instances of arguments already addressed.

If, however, you're right about the account of Caesar being just a bad in a historical sense as the Gospels, then I'll concede that you're also right that we shouldn't trust the traditional account of Caesar's assassination any more than we should trust the Gospel accounts. Therefore, I won't be addressing that part of your argument.

First, I want to quote something from Alexander Loveday in Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context that I found enlightening when I read it a few months ago (pp. 137-8):

The construction of this authorial persona is a crucial step in the development of Greek historiography. It allows Herodotus to maintain a sense of 'objectivity and detachment' throughout (even though the third person disappears after the preface) by introducing himself as observer and commentator on his own narrative. Sometimes this takes the form of first-person authentication for sights he himself has seen, for example on the sources of the Nile. More distant phenomena can also be authenticated at one remove: not 'I saw' but 'I heard from an informant' (2.32.1, 33.1). The use of the first person here implicitly provides a reassuring link in a chain of autopsy. The incredible data related have actually been 'seen', if not by the author himself, then by somebody he has met: the anonymous 'they say' becomes a series of real (if unnamed) informants.

But the authorial persona can also be used to create an (equally reassuring) buffer zone of scepticism between 'what is reported' and the reader. It speaks the language of reason, of conjecture and probability and calculation (e.g. 2.31). It proposes rationalistic, physical explanations for the marvellous phenomena of legend and travellers' tales (e.g. 2.24-28). Probability - 'what usually happens' - plays an important part in these explanations (e.g. 2.27). It is frank about the limits of autopsy: 'I have not seen a phoenix myself, Herodotus reassures his readers, 'except in paintings, for it is very rare and only visits the country (so at least they say in Heliopolis) only at intervals of 500 years, on the death of the parent-bird'. The implication is that the equally incredible descriptions of the crocodile and the hippopotamus (2.68-71), which carry no such limitation, are trustworthy reports of real animals. Reassurance also lies in the way the historian-as-observer is careful to distinguish between observable and verifiable facts (paintings, places, animal bones, religious customs) and the stories told to explain them (e.g. 2.75). Having heard and relayed the most amazing variety of tales passed on by the scribes, priests, travellers and native inhabitants who cluster at the boundaries of autopsy, the authorial voice presents itself as one which can afford to select and discriminate on rational, commonsense principles: two witnesses are better than one, though rival traditions which do not agree may discredit one another. And in the last analysis, the historian reserves the right to an absolute scepticism: 'I give the story as it was told me,' he says of the phoenix, 'but I don't believe it' (2.72, cf. 2.28).

In broad terms, Nicolaus avails himself much of these techniques, while the Gospels never do so and in what may be an illustrative example, Acts does so only once that I remember, but to opposite effect, dismissing the mundane explanation in favor of the supernatural, in 2:13-15:

But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke forth to them, saying, "You men of Judaea, and all of you that dwell at Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give ear to my words, for they are not drunk as you suppose, because it is only the third hour of the day."

Now, in light of that, note again what I called the "most egregious intrusion" of the supernatural. I pointed out before that any superstition was in the minds of the characters rather than the author's narrator persona. I was apparently too subtle in leaving the specifics to the reader, so I've added what I hope is clarifying emphasis:

And fate becomes a still stronger force if indeed one acknowledges her part in these things: on that day his friends, drawing conclusions from certain auguries, tried to prevent him from going to the senate room, as did also his physicians on account of vertigoes to which he was sometimes subject, and from which he was at that time suffering; and especially his wife Calpurnia, who was terrified by a dream that night.

Nicolaus wasn't reporting that the supernatural things actually happened, but that the characters believed them. To offer an example of what I mean, "God dwelt among us" is a supernatural event; "John the Baptist said, 'God dwelt among us'" is not.

"Fortune [Tyche] had a part in this..."

You'll note that, at least in the edition I'm referencing, neither tyche nor moira is capitalized as a proper noun in the Greek. While that itself isn't an argument for the actual intentions of Nicolaus, it does mean that the compiler of the edition thought that these were mundane expressions rather than literal or metaphorical descriptions of divine action. If it's difficult to decide if it should even be read as involving the supernatural at all, then I hope you'd agree that it's not much of a comparison with someone miraculously walking on water.

"The augurs brought forward the victims for him to make his final sacrifice before his entry into the Senate Room. It was manifest that the omens were unfavorable. The augurs substituted one animal after another in the attempt to secure a more auspicious forecast. Finally they said that the indications from the gods where unfavorable and that there was plainly some sort of curse hiding in the victims. In disgust, Caesar turned away toward the setting sun, and the augurs interpreted this action still more unfavorably.

Read carefully. Nicolaus was describing the behavior of those conducting the augury. He reported that "they said" that the indications from the gods were unfavorable and that they interpreted his action unfavorably, but offers no opinion on whether the supernatural was involved.

Nicolaus implies a dead man, Caesar, will exact revenge from beyond the grave.

No, Nicolaus said outright that "men who had a reputation for greater foresight" "declared" this.

"Divine providence [Tyche] finally ordered these things aright."

The phrase is "τὸ δαιμόνιον καὶ ἡ τύχη." Again, the compiler thought neither noun should be capitalized and the expression is a mundane one in the sense of "divinity and fortune."

I’m going to use your reasoning and argue the Caesar of history is lost to us. I’m going to use your reasoning to argue the story of Caesar as a whole is fictional and he wasn't a real guy by comparing the life of Romulus with Julius Caesar.

Mimetic signals with references:

I'm not going to look these up, so I'll just assume that you're being completely honest and your conclusions are either legitimately analogous to ones I draw from the Gospels or are ones you believe yourself.

If additionally, all of our sources for our knowledge of Caesar's assassination likely depend on a single, original source of the tradition, then you may be right. Maybe Caesar wasn't actually assassinated and, in a similar setup to the Gospels, Nicolaus wrote a subtle fiction (though obviously more subtle than even Mark) with the intention that it would be read as such by his contemporaries, which was then misinterpreted as history by later historians.

Nope, no question begging on my end. I don’t agree Matthew is fictional for the same reasons I don’t agree Nicolaus Life of Augustus and Plutarch’s Life of Caesar are fictional even though they contain supernatural elements. That reason is their genre.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make and how it's less circular than what you assert I'm doing. Is there a definition of "fiction" as a genre that is something other than "contains fictional stories?"

If you don’t need those, how do you know Pride and Prejudice, Gone With the Wind, or The Hunt for Red October are fiction?

I might need those for such novels. If we lost such external indications, then we'd have to decide from the text itself. If Eliza, Rhett Butler, or Jack Ryan performed miracles, I wouldn't mistake them for non-fictional characters (even if they were ultimately based on such).

One wouldn’t have even needed to open the book to know it was a work of fiction. Not because of its content but because the original synopsis published on the back cover explicitly called it a “piece of imaginative fiction.”

Unless this is an attempt to argue that we literally cannot know that the Barsoom series is fictional without being told, you're just ax-grinding.