Page 1 of 2

Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 8:48 pm
by _Kishkumen
A friend of mine who is pursuing a PhD in Religious Studies wrote a useful article on the difference between New Testament Gospels and ancient historical writing. I am posting it here because knowledge of and attitudes about history are key issues in the struggle with faith in Mormonism and Christianity both.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-genre.html

Matthew Wade Ferguson wrote:As someone who studies ancient historical writing in the original Greek and Latin languages, it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient novelistic literature.[3] In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted, and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources. The authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple "whom Jesus loved," the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author).[4] Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. Accordingly, the Gospels all fall short from the criteria that can be used to categorize a piece of historical prose.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:13 pm
by _Symmachus
It seems to me it's a question of degree, and it's quite revealing that most of the link's discussion of ancient historians in extenso centers on Suetonius and Dionysius, neither of whom I would look to for analytical rigor or as paradigmatic of classical historiography. I am partial to Ammianus Marcellinus for lots of reasons, but it's not for nothing that T. D. Barnes sees him as a sort of proto-novelist, even if he perhaps overstates his case. The novelistic angle is something I am not convinced of with respect to the gospels. They don't read to me like histories, sure, but they don't read like Greek novels either. It's actually kind of hard to follow the narrative of the gospels, especially John but even Mark. They are strung-together vignettes, but they don't have a narrative thrust so much as a theological one: they are the vehicles for the delivery of Jesus's sayings. I think you could make a gospel by taking stories and sayings of one of the sages in the Talmud: cut them out from their Talmudic context, then string them together, and voi-là! you've got a gospel. That Talmud context is itself constructed and redacted, just with a different editorial technique than the gospels because it served a different social function.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:17 pm
by _Nightlion
Kishkumen wrote:A friend of mine who is pursuing a PhD in Religious Studies wrote a useful article on the difference between New Testament Gospels and ancient historical writing. I am posting it here because knowledge of and attitudes about history are key issues in the struggle with faith in Mormonism and Christianity both.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-genre.html

Matthew Wade Ferguson wrote:As someone who studies ancient historical writing in the original Greek and Latin languages, it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient novelistic literature.[3] In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted, and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources. The authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple "whom Jesus loved," the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author).[4] Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. Accordingly, the Gospels all fall short from the criteria that can be used to categorize a piece of historical prose.

D...s like this give a flying pig what THE GOSPEL actually is. They want to get a PHD rise out of their judges.

I dare say: Line up ten thousand Doctors of Religion/Theology and what have you and there will not be one of them who can rightly expound the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let them have their letters of renown from the Beast that Rules All Nations with her iron rod. For the war they rage against God, God will give them no quarter.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:20 pm
by _RockSlider
Nightlion wrote:I dare say: Line up ten thousand Doctors of Religion/Theology and what have you and there will not be one of them who can rightly expound the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Well of course not! They have not had the Baptism of Fire. Only NightLion has had the Baptism of Fire. Only NightLion knows the truth!

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:24 pm
by _Kishkumen
Nightlion wrote:D...s like this give a flying pig what THE GOSPEL actually is. They want to get a PHD rise out of their judges.

I dare say: Line up ten thousand Doctors of Religion/Theology and what have you and there will not be one of them who can rightly expound the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let them have their letters of renown from the Beast that Rules All Nations with her iron rod. For the war they rage against God, God will give them no quarter.


Ah... you're great, Nightlion. Keep up the good work.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:25 pm
by _Kishkumen
Symmachus wrote:It seems to me it's a question of degree, and it's quite revealing that most of the link's discussion of ancient historians in extenso centers on Suetonius and Dionysius, neither of whom I would look to for analytical rigor or as paradigmatic of classical historiography. I am partial to Ammianus Marcellinus for lots of reasons, but it's not for nothing that T. D. Barnes sees him as a sort of proto-novelist, even if he perhaps overstates his case. The novelistic angle is something I am not convinced of with respect to the gospels. They don't read to me like histories, sure, but they don't read like Greek novels either. It's actually kind of hard to follow the narrative of the gospels, especially John but even Mark. They are strung-together vignettes, but they don't have a narrative thrust so much as a theological one: they are the vehicles for the delivery of Jesus's sayings. I think you could make a gospel by taking stories and sayings of one of the sages in the Talmud: cut them out from their Talmudic context, then string them together, and voi-là! you've got a gospel. That Talmud context is itself constructed and redacted, just with a different editorial technique than the gospels because it served a different social function.


Yes, I can see what you are saying. And I understand that the comparison with the novel is also problematic. Indeed, Matthew would probably enjoy hashing this out with you. He loves to compare Suetonius and Plutarch with the Gospels. You two may be closer than you think. Thanks for your valuable insights on this, Symmachus.

Still, I think it is worthwhile for people who are digging into the discussion for the first time to be able to familiarize themselves with some of the formalistic differences between historiography and the writing of Gospels. The novice student will walk away from this document knowing some useful things. Granted it is not the definitive treatment of the problem or anywhere close. I don't think Matthew wrote it with such aspirations.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:19 pm
by _Analytics
Is Matthew a mythicist? Noting that the most important evidence for the historicity of Jesus reads like some sort of allegorical novel rather than history is one of the pieces of the Jesus Puzzle. Matthew cites Richard Carrier twice in his footnotes.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:50 pm
by _Kishkumen
Analytics wrote:Is Matthew a mythicist? Noting that the most important evidence for the historicity of Jesus reads like some sort of allegorical novel rather than history is one of the pieces of the Jesus Puzzle. Matthew cites Richard Carrier twice in his footnotes.


He is not a dogmatic mythicist, but I think he leans strongly in that direction. He likes Richard Carrier and his work. I believe they are friends. At the same time, I don't believe he is uncritical in his view of Carrier's arguments.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:17 am
by _Philo Sofee
Kishkumen wrote:
Analytics wrote:Is Matthew a mythicist? Noting that the most important evidence for the historicity of Jesus reads like some sort of allegorical novel rather than history is one of the pieces of the Jesus Puzzle. Matthew cites Richard Carrier twice in his footnotes.


He is not a dogmatic mythicist, but I think he leans strongly in that direction. He likes Richard Carrier and his work. I believe they are friends. At the same time, I don't believe he is uncritical in his view of Carrier's arguments.

Thank you for sharing this with us Kish.... I have been gathering some items on the idea of how Luke is perhaps the closest to a historian's approach to his subject than the other Gospels are. If I understand even today, it is still considered that Mark is the earliest Gospel. I know Farmer was a helluva arguer against that, I believe thinking Matthew was the earliest, don't quote me, I shall have to look that up again. Anyway, it is interesting. I got a lot of Farmer's books (mostly in the 1970's era) for super cheap at a used bookstore, so I blew my dough on it, someday hopefully to make my way through his stuff.

Re: Gospels and Histories

Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 4:51 am
by _Symmachus
Kishkumen wrote:Still, I think it is worthwhile for people who are digging into the discussion for the first time to be able to familiarize themselves with some of the formalistic differences between historiography and the writing of Gospels. The novice student will walk away from this document knowing some useful things. Granted it is not the definitive treatment of the problem or anywhere close. I don't think Matthew wrote it with such aspirations.


I certainly agree with that. The fact that the gospels aren't historical texts should be better known, and if I were a believer (or a Mormon leader), I think I'd latch onto this and coopt some of these modes of reading. To the extent that the Church leadership is concerned about the problems of Mormon history, disentangling the Mormon foundation stories from people's conception of what "history" means can only be beneficial.