The gospels and compositional devices

[ho_idiotes (Matt)]

@Faizal_Ali

it seems self-evident to me that any claims regarding the process by and circumstances under which these texts were written, as well as the degree to which they accurately reflect the events described therein, cannot be asserted with much beyond a minimal degree of confidence.

I guess I am looking at this as whether there are things in the text that should lower my expectation of accuracy elsewhere in it. So if I agree that events were made up to situate a speech, then it lowers my confidence in other events that are recorded.
For me it is a matter of whether the probability of something in it being accurate is raised or lowered or remains the same based on the assessment of issues like this.

I am just at the beginning of my reading on it, will probably take a couple of months to try to read the main sources (i don’t have as much free time to do so as I used to) and to try to come to some tentative conclusions

[ho_idiotes (Matt)]

@Chad_the_Layman

The authors of the Gospels used literary devices to tell their stories. In doing so, did they stretch and alter events to such an extent that it calls into question whether or not the stories are based on actual events?

Good summary - yes. Did the literary devices used by the authors present things in such a way that they appear as though they are historical events or speeches when in fact they did not recognisably happen.
If this is the case, then how do I work out what does correspond to actual events and words, and what is literary device. How many theological or other views do I hold because I read a text as literally happening in history when it did in fact not

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@Faizal_Ali

I’m not an expert, or even particularly knowledgeable, regarding this field. But it seems self-evident to me that any claims regarding the process by and circumstances under which these texts were written, as well as the degree to which they accurately reflect the events described therein, cannot be asserted with much beyond a minimal degree of confidence.

I appreciate that, in theological terms, it would be very important be quite certain about these matters. Just because its really important that you know something does not mean it is possible for you to know it.

Good points, sir. For the sake of conversation, and because you’re a good thinker, how would you answer this question.

If in the culture in which the Gospels were written, as cdods states above, “conflation was expected”, is the presence of conflation in the Gospels irrelevant to the question of whether the Gospels were written based on actual events.

[Michael_Okoko]

@ho_idiotes

I mentioned in a previous post that I am currently floating on the edges of giving up my faith

I am close to the edge too, but I am pretty stable where I am. Sort of like I camped close to the edge.

@ho_idiotes

It strikes me that if we can pick and choose which bits are factual and which bits aren’t then I frankly have good reason to strongly question whether I really want to trust it.

This is what keeps me close to the edge too. The ultimate question, how do I know? Its certainly surprising that God keeps mute and allows us to wallow in countless musings of what we think is true or not. That’s weird behavior from someone described as not being a “God of confusion”

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@ho_idiotes

@Puck_Mendelssohn

So my own take on it is that ancient writings can be of no value at all in judging the truth of supernatural claims. These claims are best judged by the demonstration, in the here and now, of the forces and entities claimed to be at work. And that’s a bit thin on the ground.

I slightly differ from you on this, but don’t have the mental energy to really think through why. I will however ponder on what you say here and see whether my difference in opinion is reasonable

I am very fond of the essay by Thomas Huxley, “The Value of Witness to the Miraculous”:

Witness to the Miraculous (1889)

It’s not a long read, and makes what I see as an unimpeachable case. One can always disagree with Huxley on feeling – certainly many people WANT to believe textual accounts of miracles – but the difficulty comes when one wants to know what is true rather than wanting to believe X.

Or, shorter than Huxley, my own analogy: if we had reliable witnesses of known honest character who knew Napoleon and who claimed that he was so good at throwing stones that he could hit a fence post from 50 yards ten times in a row, we might doubt the account but we would have to admit that it was within the realm of the believable. People with such talents exist, though the particular talent may be rare. But if we had witnesses of the very highest quality who swore that they had seen Napoleon throw a five-pound cobble a distance of ten miles with a slight flick of the wrist, we would not believe the account, and our evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, rather than our understanding of what is physically possible, would be what we had to adjust.

[Faizal_Ali]

@ho_idiotes

I guess I am looking at this as whether there are things in the text that should lower my expectation of accuracy elsewhere in it. So if I agree that events were made up to situate a speech, then it lowers my confidence in other events that are recorded.

Many of the people most interested in the question of the accuracy of the Gospels consider it feasible that the accounts of Jesus coming back to life after being dead for three days could be true.

If one adopts those standards, I really don’t see what criteria would be reasonable in assessing the accuracy of the rest of the text. I’m not saying this applies to you, just making a general observation.

@Chad_the_Layman

If in the culture in which the Gospels were written, as cdods states above, “conflation was expected”, is the presence of conflation in the Gospels irrelevant to the question of whether the Gospels were written based on actual events.

I’m not sure how to answer that question. I believe among scholars it would only be a few extreme outliers who would say the Gospels were not based on actual events.

Which of the events described are actual is, of course, a different question. Those that have the appearance of being literary devices would reasonably be considered less likely to be actual, I think.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

But if we had witnesses of the very highest quality who swore that they had seen Napoleon throw a five-pound cobble a distance of ten miles with a slight flick of the wrist, we would not believe the account, and our evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, rather than our understanding of what is physically possible, would be what we had to adjust.

I regret that I can only give this comment one like.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Chad_the_Layman

If in the culture in which the Gospels were written, as cdods states above, “conflation was expected”, is the presence of conflation in the Gospels irrelevant to the question of whether the Gospels were written based on actual events.

The difficulty, of course, is that the Oliver Stone film “JFK” was also written based on actual events. But the central themes of the film are probably quite false.

I’m not a “Jesus mythicist” person – after trying very hard to understand just what the texts are and where they come from and what corroboration there is, I find myself thinking that the source of the stories probably, like the film JFK, has some character at its core of whom some of the things – not, probably, the most important things – said of Jesus are true. So there might indeed have been such a person, who might either have taught some ethical lesson or performed some folk-magic type trickery or gotten himself into difficulties with the law. But given that some parts of the tale are as credible as the hypothetical story of Napoleon throwing a stone ten miles, and given that we have no ability to corroborate any of it meaningfully, it becomes clear that we really cannot trust any of it – not the broad strokes, not the small details. All we can say is that the origins of this folkloric tradition are likelier to have their roots in some real person than not.

Debate has raged at times in the past over whether Paul Bunyan is based upon a real person who actually lived. I think the scholarship presently tends toward the view that this is not so. But what if it were? Would one’s belief that there was some historical core to the story lead one to look for blue-tinted giant ox bones in the Canadian forests? Or would it just shed light on the fanciful nature of folkloric exaggeration?

[Faizal_Ali]

I may have written this here before, but the way I look at it: If it was determined that Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel had a mild-mannered friend named Clark Kent who wore glasses and worked for a newspaper, that would not mean Superman was real.

[BrianLopez (Independent Christian Researcher (and IT Technician))]

faded_Glory

To my untrained eye the conclusion of literary devices having been employed seems very obvious.

@faded_Glory : Hi, the compositional devices that Matt (ho idiotes) referred to (proposed by Dr. Michael R. Licona in his Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (2016)) are not the ones you referred to. So, they are not so obvious. You will have to look at summaries or reviews on this book to see what the compositional devices actually are.

ho_idiotes[Matt]

She does seem to be in alignment though with some scholars such as Blomberg and a few others, so not entirely an outlier.

@ho_idiotes : Ah…I know Blomberg by name, but I never read any of his works. I didn’t know. Okay.

Agreed. The position I am in at the moment is very much one of deciding whether to keep hanging on on the fringes hoping things change, or whether I just bite the bullet and say that I currently have no reason internally or evidentially to believe.

Understood, but as I understand the genre of the Gospels and of the NT, it’s not its historical problems that would convince me or not. (I’ll keep what would make me disbelieve for some other post because the reasons lean towards Science and not biblical scholarship).

I did try to find her work on Amazon, but couldn’t find anything. Is there something you would suggest?

I was referring to her conversation with Mike Licona: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoq4bLxzop4
She is a PhD student and she has not published books yet:
https://scholars.duke.edu/person/laura.b.robinson

John_Harshman
Secular Avian Phylogeneticist

faded_Glory
7h
Just a couple of examples, when Jesus prays in the garden we are told the exact words he spoke, yet there were no eyewitnesses (the disciples had all fallen asleep). So how do we know these words?

You forget that the scriptures were inspired. God told the writers what Jesus had said. Literally, the omniscient narrator.

@John_Harshman : Of course, this is the traditional understanding of how the Gospel get there (and the default view by laypeople and common pastors), but it turns out that there is arguably quite a bit of a human-side into this issue. But, on the surface–and theologically speaking–I would not deny whole cloth…Thus @Chad_the_Layman is correct to assert that: “Some folks think this. I don’t. I don’t believe that most scholars think this. The Bible is best described as a human/devine partnership. God inspired prophets and scribes to write and put the different writings together, but I see no evidence from the text that he told them what to write.”

Witchdoc

John_Harshman
7h
You forget that the scriptures were inspired. God told the writers what Jesus had said. Literally, the omniscient narrator.

An omniscient narrator, who makes mistakes when tired.

@Witchdoc : This is what I meant above to John and Chad, that there is definitely some human-side to this. Of course, some of you atheist would suggest that it’s only human (and no divine input at all). This is part of the discussion between confessional scholars and unbelieving scholars.

cdods Unconflicted Christian

I believe Craig Keener has been mentioned. He has a new book out " Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels", that based on an interview I heard, would be a really good starting point to really understand how to think about the reliability of the Gospels.

@cdods : Agreed, good suggestion.

Faizal_Ali Anti-Creationist Psychiatrist
I appreciate that, in theological terms, it would be very important be quite certain about these matters. Just because its really important that you know something does not mean it is possible for you to know it.

@Faizal_Ali : Very true, and although Luke and Acts try to argue for evidence (Jesus eating a piece of fish / being seen by women and the disciples / being seen by ~500 at his ascension), it is not verifiable at an historical, scientific level, although there is debate here all the time between Licona & Habermas vs Paulogia & Matt Dillahaunty.

Michael_Okoko Nigerian Catholic Agnostic
This is what keeps me close to the edge too. The ultimate question, how do I know? Its certainly surprising that God keeps mute and allows us to wallow in countless musings of what we think is true or not. That’s weird behavior from someone described as not being a “God of confusion”

@Michael_Okoko : Very true. This is a common objection by most agnostics and atheists, and even us believers. We all wonder why a Supreme being would not make it more obvious all around. Why must it be purely by faith. I can think of a few reasons, but they are subjective and weak, unverifiable guesses.

Puck_Mendelssohn Amazon Reviewer of ID
But if we had witnesses of the very highest quality who swore that they had seen Napoleon throw a five-pound cobble a distance of ten miles with a slight flick of the wrist, we would not believe the account, and our evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, rather than our understanding of what is physically possible, would be what we had to adjust.

@Puck_Mendelssohn : Very good illustration. However, there is a difference: Jesus of Nazareth and of the NT Gospels is not portrayed as making remarkable feats (i.e., miracles) in his own name, but in the name (or power) of God. Jesus’ resurrection also rests on God’s raising him. Acts also repeatedly claims that God raised him. John claims that Jesus supposedly said not to believe him because he says so and so, but because of his miracles (“works”) and because he was sent by the Father. So, textually speaking (and Im not arguing this proves it to be actually so), Jesus is not doing that on his own, but by God’s power. So, it comes back to investigating if there is possibly and probably a God out there despite what @Michael_Okoko pointed out above.

Faizal_Ali
Anti-Creationist Psychiatrist
I may have written this here before, but the way I look at it: If it was determined that Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel had a mild-mannered friend named Clark Kent who wore glasses and worked for a newspaper, that would not mean Superman was real.

@Faizal_Ali : Of course, but the NT has a Israelite/Jewish backdrop (i.e., the OT). To assess the NT’s claims, one has to delve into other Big Questions (besides historical ones): Is there a God? The fine tuning of the universe arguments? The bioinformation (which is immaterial) which makes up DNA? Does consciousness survive brain death (i.e., NDEs / OBEs); does consciousness go outside the brain? Shroud of Turin? Present-day miracles? (Craig Keener has written two volumes on miracles).

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@BrianLopez

So, it comes back to investigating if there is possibly and probably a God out there despite what @Michael_Okoko pointed out above.

Yes, and that’s more or less what I said earlier:

@Puck_Mendelssohn

So my own take on it is that ancient writings can be of no value at all in judging the truth of supernatural claims. These claims are best judged by the demonstration, in the here and now, of the forces and entities claimed to be at work. And that’s a bit thin on the ground. Apologetics for why that is abound, but are of limited persuasive force.

It seems to me that unless and until one conquers that problem, the assertion that such-and-such was done with the aid of a god is no more helpful to the historical inquirer than the assertion that it was done by telekinesis. History can do nothing to help establish the existence of a god, but if there were a god known to exist, then history might turn out to contain reports of some of its doings.

[BrianLopez (Independent Christian Researcher (and IT Technician))]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

@Puck_Mendelssohn

So my own take on it is that ancient writings can be of no value at all in judging the truth of supernatural claims. These claims are best judged by the demonstration, in the here and now, of the forces and entities claimed to be at work. And that’s a bit thin on the ground. Apologetics for why that is abound, but are of limited persuasive force.

It seems to me that unless and until one conquers that problem, the assertion that such-and-such was done with the aid of a god is no more helpful to the historical inquirer than the assertion that it was done by telekinesis. History can do nothing to help establish the existence of a god, but if there were a god known to exist, then history might turn out to contain reports of some of its doings.

Yes, agreed. Otherwise, it remains faith-based (and relationship-based for the believer, as pointed out by @thoughtful ); and of course, this should not detain the curious one from entertaining the big questions.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@ho_idiotes

didn’t spot that (hopefully) error. Always nice to know someone actively wants to be a hindrance and not a help

Oops. Definitely backwards of what I meant to write. Blame my pregnancy?

@ho_idiotes

Unfortunately the “you just need to choose to believe” that some (not saying you) suggest is not how human psychology works, nor exactly what I see as compatible with the believe of God working in someone’s heart to bring them into a relationship with him

Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense. I have written my reasons to believe in God here in the forum before. “Because of my relationship with Jesus then I trust scripture” is what I was trying to say. Should you trust 2000 year old writings on their own merit? Scholars that could care less about the religious implications don’t necessarily. I still think there’s enough there to pull you to truth. (I tend to think that biblical scholars are the biggest skeptics in academia even though so much of the Bible has been confirmed.) But if anyone takes an extremely skeptical view then of course not. I think there’s more to faith than that and obviously you think there’s a relationship too.

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@thoughtful

(I tend to think that biblical scholars are the biggest skeptics in academia

There are lots of believing biblical scholars doing great work. Believing biblical scholars are primarily who I find when looking for blblical scholarship.

[BrianLopez (Independent Christian Researcher (and IT Technician))]

@thoughtful

I tend to think that biblical scholars are the biggest skeptics in academia even though so much of the Bible has been confirmed

Well, good. We have more than 2,000 years of examples where Jewish rabbis, Christian Fathers, Monks, medieval and modern scholars were proven terribly wrong at times. We have to be objective. There is no point in defending and teaching something that is wrong, since if it’s wrong then it’s false. Why spread something false. If we find out something to be true that we don’t quite like, what will be impacted is not God nor what the Bible actually is; what will be impacted is our view of what the Bible is. The Bible has always been what it actually is, not what we wish it would be.

We must be careful not to conflate anti-Christian scholars who are negatively skeptic (e.g., Hector Avalos) with genuine scholars who are genuinely skeptic.

To my knowledge, “so much of the Bible has been confirmed,” doesn’t reflect modern academic scholarship. What do you have in mind when you say this?

@Chad_the_Layman

There are lots of believing biblical scholars doing great work. Believing biblical scholars are primarily who I find when looking for blblical scholarship.

Of course, the Evangelical Theological Society has thousands of members, for example. However, some of them have flawed views about certain topics and so we should compare them among each other and against non-confessional scholars.

I blogged about some of this in April/May 2019:

http://mcthinker.ca/bad-and-good-scholars-and-conferences/

[Michael_Okoko]

@BrianLopez

ultimate question, how do I know? Its certainly surprising that God keeps mute and allows us to wallow in countless musings of what we think is true or not. That’s weird behavior from someone described as not being a “God of confusion”

@Michael_Okoko : Very true. This is a common objection by most agnostics and atheists, and even us believers. We all wonder why a Supreme being would not make it more obvious all around. Why must it be purely by faith. I can think of a few reasons, but they are subjective and weak, unverifiable guesses

This observation, to me, is one reason why I no longer hold Christianity as special. Its just strange that God put in quite a lot of effort to make himself known to the Jews, but can’t recapitulate that same effort in modern times. If he is so concerned about people not entering eternal damnation (whatever that is), what stops him from performing some super miracle no one could reasonably deny. He could just bellow from the heavens and everyone would hear him or grant all humans the ability to see his angels for a brief period. These things might not push people to believe in him, but its extremely unlikely that no one would deny his existence afterwards.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Chad_the_Layman

Believing biblical scholars are primarily who I find when looking for blblical scholarship.

Shouldn’t you be more interested in their output than personal belief? Just asking.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Michael_Okoko

If he is so concerned about people not entering eternal damnation (whatever that is), what stops him from performing some super miracle no one could reasonably deny.

I’ve heard a lot of answers to that over the years, but none of them have ever made a lick of sense.

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I’ve heard a lot of answers to that over the years, but none of them have ever made a lick of sense.

If you guys are talking about eternal torment I’ll join you in saying that it doesn’t make a lick of sense. But I don’t think death, the grave and the lake of fire have anything to do with eternal torment in the context of the biblical story.

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

The context of my post was “I tend to think that biblical scholars are the biggest skeptics in academia.” I was just saying that my experience has been different from that. When I look for biblical scholarship I don’t primarily find skeptics.

To your point, I look for content. It just so happens that most of the content that I’ve found that has helped me to better understand the biblical story has been put out by Christians. But not all, for sure. My understanding of the Hebrew Bible has been helped by Jewish scholars as well.

As far as what I should be interested in, I’ll go ask my wife and report back.