[
Replying to Difflugia in post #287]
I don't think you quite understand what it is that the "liberal scholars" have "conceded." There is no consensus on whether or not the gospel genre is biography in the Greek sense and even Greek biography is often not historical in the modern sense. There are elements of history that can perhaps be gleaned from the biblical narrative, but that's not the same as saying that it was written as history, or at least not as modern history in which the goal is to recount a series of events more or less as they happened.
Again a simple reading of the text disproves this:
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph′ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
The gospels raise a whole series of interesting questions. Are they intended by the evangelists to be read as accurate records of the life of Jesus? Or are they theological treatises cast very loosely in a narrative framework? Were the evangelists simply editors, compilers, or anthologists? Or were they self-conscious authors? Are the gospels stories whose purpose is to engage the reader whose understanding or knowledge is expected to progress from the beginning to the end of the narrative?
This writer's thesis at least bout the gospels is disproved right out of the gate by Luke 1:1-4. Also by the fact that the message of Christianity is that Jesus died and rose again which each of the four Gospels describes in detail. That Jesus died and rose again for the forgiveness of their sin are the facts that must be believed to be a Christian. In fact, there were enough Christians in Rome who believed this message as fact, that by AD 67 Nero could blame the Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome.
Besides the fact that there is evidence outside the Bible that supports the Gospel Narrative.
- Tiberius' Proposal to the Senate
Tertullian's account suggests that Pilate reported to Tiberius
not only the trial and condemnation of Jesus but also subsequent
events indicating his divinity.9 The existing forged letters of Pilate
to Tiberius emphasize especially the darkening of the sun and the
'Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.2.1, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:105. A good example of the
ongoing extensive correspondence between governors and emperors is provided, of
course, by the Letters of Pliny, governor of Bithynia, to Emperor Trajan.
8Tertullian, Apology 5, in ANF 3:22. Cf. Apology 21, in ANF 3:35, where
Tertullian explicitly states that Pilate reported concerning Christ "to the reigning
Caesar, who at the time was Tiberius." Justin Martyr in his I Apology, addressed to
Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman people, appeals twice to the "Acts of
Pontius Pilate"-to substantiate his account of Christ's crucifixion (chap. 35) and of
Christ's mighty works (chap. 18). "That these things did happen, you can ascertain
from the Acts of Pontius Pilate," he states in chap. 35 (ANF 1:175). It is hard to
believe that Justin would challenge Romans to verify his account by reading the
"Acts of Pontius Pilate," if such a document did not exist or was not readily
available. The acta mentioned by Justin presumably refer to Pilate's report to
Tiberius.
The extant versions of the Acts of Pilate and of the Letters of Pilate are, of
course, an obvious Christian forgery, but they were probably based upon a genuine
historical tradition. Further discussion of this matter will be given below.
This is indicated, e.g., by the account of the darkening of the sun at the time of
Christ's crucifixion, an account which, Tertullian says, "you yourselves [i.e.,
Romans] have . . . still in your archives" (Apology 21, in ANF 3:35). Eusebius
explicitly says that Pilate "gave an account also of other wonders which he had
learned of him [i.e., Christ], and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he
was now believed by many to be a God" (Eccl. Hist. 2.2.2, in NPNF, 2d Series,
1: 105). https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/ ... ntext=auss
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:59 pm
3. The resurrection was described as a historical event that actually took place. Leaving reality again.
I guess it depends on how you mean that. If you mean "described as a historical event within a narrative that may be partly or completely fictive," then I agree with you. This paragraph from The Wind in the Willows, for example, is described as a historical event:
The following evening the Mole, who had risen late and taken things very easy all day, was sitting on the bank fishing, when the Rat, who had been looking up his friends and gossiping, came strolling along to find him. 'Heard the news?" he said. 'There's nothing else being talked about, all along the river bank. Toad went up to Town by an early train this morning. And he has ordered a large and very expensive motor-car."
We can be pretty sure it's not a historical event, but that's how it's described.
Again who believes this actually happen? If you believe this happen it does shed light on why you would believe the actual historical facts that are described in the Bible.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:59 pm
I do not even understand what you are basing your answers on. Even a simple reading of the Bible proves your above statements incorrect.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. I took what you wrote to be asking if the New Testament authors were writing what they believed to be accurate accounts of historical events.
I am saying that it was an accurate account of historical events and that most scholars agree with me.
