Interesting Stuff Thread

Peregrinus wrote: »

His argument is essentially that the historical trustworthiness of the NT documents is undermined by the gap between the original composition of the documents, and the earliest surviving copies of each that we have.

But, of course, this isn't an issue just for the historical trustworthiness of the NT documents; it must apply equally to any text that historians of the ancient world treat as a primary source.

What's completely lacking from the article is any reference to what historians of the classical period make of gaps such as these. Are they typical of the gaps that historians have to take account of? Are they strikingly long gaps, by the standards of ancient history? Strikingly short? The author - a hardware designer and software programmer in his day job - simply asserts that there's a reliability problem here, but he makes no claim that those with expertise in the field agree with him, and he tells us nothing about how big a problem historians consider it to be, or how they respond to it.

I note that he tends to phrase his conclusions as questions. Who knows how many errors remain? How much confidence can we have? Etc. They're good questions, but the article would have been a much better one if he had attempted to answer them, or even to survey the answers offered by experts in the field.

I think it's important here to not get misled and to separate the actual textual criticism of the New Testament manuscripts from the claims made by some Christians about the historical reliability of the New Testament.

With regard to the actual textual criticsm of the New Testament, Peregrinus is right, there is no mention made by the author of the article about the scholarly position on these variations and gaps, which significantly undermines his argument.
You see, most of the copying errors that occur between New Testament manuscripts (about 300,000 individual variations in total) are very minor and of a technical nature.
One type of variation is that of haplography and dittography, the omission or repetition of text where two different sentences begin with (homoeoarcton) or end with (homoeoteleuton) the same string of letters. This is seen in Matthew 5:19-20 where the presence of the same string of letters: ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν at the end of the first and last sentence of verse 19 and the last sentence of verse 20 has given rise to a haplographic omission in both the Codex Sinaiticus (where most of verse 19 is deleted) and the Codex Bezae (where everything between the end of the first sentence of verse 19 and the end of verse 20 is deleted).
Another example of variation is Romans 5:1 where homophonous words in Greek have created manuscript variations. In the verse:

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

the phrase "we have" above is translated as we have in some manuscripts and we might have in others with the split seemingly fairly even between both interpretations. This arises from the similarity between ἔχομεν and ἔχωμεν in Greek.
Most of the other forms of textual variation are unintentional and very minor and involve spelling errors, word sequence adjustments, corrections to grammar and word substitutions. However, that is not to say that aren't some intentional and in some ways significant alterations to the text.
One example of an intentional and non-trivial alteration to the text is the retroactive harmonization of the text of Mark 9:31 and 10:34. In Mark 9:31 and 10:34, the foretelling of Jesus' death predicts that he will arise "after three days" or "three days later" (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας). This stands in contrast to Matthew 17:20 (and Luke) where the verse is rendered "on the third day"(τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Later copies of Mark use the wording from Matthew in order to try and gloss over Mark's seeming mistake.
Another intentional change is found in Luke 23:32. The verse is translated in modern bibles as:

"Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him."

The majority of manuscripts agree with this translation, however, the older manuscripts (P75, Sinaiticus etc.) render the verse as:

"And also other criminals, two, were led away to be put to death with Him."

The text was changed in later manuscripts to avoid the implication that Jesus was a criminal.

However, the big takeaway from all this is that the historical reliability of the New Testament works is not to be decided on the basis of the age of the copies we do have. Of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts in existence, there is only approximately 0.5% difference between all the different copies. This means that it is unlikely that there were wholesale changes to the text between their original composition and the forms we have now. The historical reliability of the New Testament works is much more fundamentally damaged by the internal and external contradictions present in the texts, the factual errors made by the authors, by the fact that none of them are eyewitness accounts or purport to be. None of the gospels are written in the style of historical documents and all are written anonymously. There is evidence of later additions in some works (e.g. Mark 16:9-20) and other whole works are outright forgeries (e.g. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Peter, John). It is for these reasons above and others that we have good reason to doubt the historicity of the New Testament, not because of the publishing gap.
There is however, one caveat in this conclusion. It's important not to be too all sweeping and generalised about this. The basis of scholarly opinion is that where we have two or more different copies of a text there appears to be very little evidence of difference. So the text of John in P52 is the same as that in Codex Sinaiticus. However, there are some whole texts and many sections of other texts (57 chapters or 22%) which don't exist prior to Codex Sinaiticus. For example, 1 and 2 Timothy and 3 John only occur in Codex Sinaiticus and the only prior copy of Titus is papyrus p32 which is restricted to Titus 1:11-15 and 2:3-8. The rest of the text only appears for the first time in Codex Sinaiticus. Now, we can use textual evidence to give us an indication of the age of a text. For example, the fact that the church in 1 and 2 Timothy is portrayed as being much more established than in other Pauline epistles has lead the majority of scholars to conclude that 1 and 2 Timothy were not written by Paul. However, these kinds of conclusions are more art than science and scholarly opinion is still sharply divided in certain areas such as the authorship of Ephesians and Colossians. It is entirely possible that a letter such as 3 John was written in 105 CE or 305 CE. It's not very likely given the similarity of styles between the Johanine epistles but it's possible. As bible scholar C.H. Dodd notes:
"If we attempt to ... identify the anonymous author of these epistles with some known individual, we have little but surmise to go on."

The other key point here is that while the minor variation between copies is not relevant to a discussion on the historicity of the New Testament, it has been used by some Christians to buttress their claims. For example, when discussing the gospels on the Christianity forum I noted that the real problem is the gap between the composition of the gospels and the events they ostensibly record. In an attempt to defend the reliability of the gospel accounts hinault posted this:

hinault wrote: »

Hold on there.

We possess over 5,000 copies of the gospels dating from the 1st centures, found throughout disparate locations all hand written, which agree with each other in 99% throughout.
In other words the copy of Mark found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Mark found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?

And this applies with each of the other copies of the 1st century gospels.
Matthew, John, Luke, each of the copies of the 5,000+ first century versions replicate each other in 99%.

In other words the copy of John found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of John found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?


In other words the copy of Matthew found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Matthew found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?


In other words the copy of Luke found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Luke found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?

Similarly in the "Who do you think Jesus was?" thread, philologos raised the topic of the lack of textual variation to buttress his claim for the authenticity of the bible.

philologos wrote: »

A comparison of roughly 40,000 New Testament manuscripts suggests that the New Testament is at least 99.6% authentic, meaning that at most 40 verses are in doubt.

Indeed, there is more reason from the analysis of the Isaiah scrolls at the Qumran findings in 1948 to regard the Old Testament as authentic.

Compare this to any other ancient work, and it is an outstanding measurement. Texts such as Plato and Aristotle are nowhere near this level, indeed there are nowhere near as many manuscripts despite their popularity in the intellectual world.

So yes, laugh all you will, but I would far prefer for you or Des Carter to provide some reasons why one would be led to think that they are inauthentic, or indeed any reason why I should dismiss this evidence for Biblical authenticity.

There are some Christians who blur the lines either intentionally or unintentionally between the composition of the New Testament texts and their subsequent transmission. The integrity of the latter is never going to erase the flaws in the former.

Absolam wrote: »

If you believe it's the literal word of God then the historical trustworthiness is irrelevant; it only matters to those who don't believe it, because the documents are significant for their historical value.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Have you not read the article? The author doesn't point to the gap to counter the argument that the texts are "the literal word of God"; he points to it to counter the argument that they are historically reliable.

(For those who do believe that the texts are "the literal word of God", the gap presumably isn't a problem at all. If God can inspire the original author to transcribe his "literal word", then he can just as easily inspire a team of authors, editors and copyists to transcribe his "literal word". It's the finished product, the one received by the church as canonical, that's regarded as the "literal word", not the first draft.)

With all due respect I think you've both missed the point that Pherekydes was making. If you take Plato's republic, the historicity of Plato is merely a secondary consideration since nobody is really invested in the existence of Plato. If Plato never existed or his works were ghost written by some anonymous author, it doesn't really matter because the ideas themselves have value. However, the existence of Jesus is a foundation of the gospel stories. If he didn't exist, then the stories are meaningless. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14

"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain"

There is a larger burden of proof for the historicity of the New Testament than there is for other ancient works because of the nature of the text itself.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

With all due respect I think you've both missed the point that Pherekydes was making. If you take Plato's republic, the historicity of Plato is merely a secondary consideration since nobody is really invested in the existence of Plato. If Plato never existed or his works were ghost written by some anonymous author, it doesn't really matter because the ideas themselves have value. However, the existence of Jesus is a foundation of the gospel stories. If he didn't exist, then the stories are meaningless. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14

"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain"

There is a larger burden of proof for the historicity of the New Testament than their is for other ancient works because of the nature of the text itself.

It’s a fair point. Given how foundational the historicity of the NT texts is for Christianity, and given how influential Christianity has been and continues to be on our world, the historicity of the NT texts is a matter of much greater moment than the historicity of, e.g., Plato.

But I stand by my claim - and I think you agree with it - that the points made in the article to which Pauldla linked don’t actually amount to a serious assault on the historicity of the texts.

And I also think we have to distinguish between the questions of (a) how significant the historicity of the text is, and (b) how we assess the historicity of the text. To use a courtroom analogy, whether you’re convicted of murder is much more important than whether you’re convicted of urinating in a public place, but we apply the same rules of evidence, the same burden of proof, the same forensic techniques, etc, to answer both questions.

So, we may consider the historicity of the NT texts to be particularly important, but that doesn’t mean we go about answering the question in a different way from the way we would answer the same questions about other texts from the same period. So, in so far as somebody does attempt an attack on the historicity of the texts on historiographical grounds, the standards applied by academic historians are important.

The points you raise - the anonymity of the sources, the internal contradictions, etc - seem to me much more pertinent than the gap between the date of composition and the date of the earliest surviving copies. But I’d still offer the same comment; how do historians of the period address such issues when faced with non-scriptural texts? These issues don’t have greater probative (or disprobative) value merely because we invest a particular significance in the text under consideration.

Finally, I’d make one other comment about the article that Pauldla linked to. The author lays some stress on the point that the texts advance supernatural claims. (As indeed they do: “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”) But the problem with accepting claims of this kind is not lack of robust primary evidence; it’s that they’re, well, supernatural. If the event was claimed to have happened yesterday, and was evidenced by a first-person account in the New York Times, you still wouldn’t accept it as historically established, would you? The barrier is not lack of historical evidence; it’s our own rooted convictions about what is and is not possible. So, in so far as the author is seeking to challenge scriptural claims about supernatural events, I really don’t think a historiographical attack is all that pertinent. Those who accept such events as real do not do so in reliance on the historical evidence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The points you raise - the anonymity of the sources, the internal contradictions, etc - seem to me much more pertinent than the gap between the date of composition and the date of the earliest surviving copies. But I’d still offer the same comment; how do historians of the period address such issues when faced with non-scriptural texts? These issues don’t have greater probative (or disprobative) value merely because we invest a particular significance in the text under consideration.

Thank you for your response Peregrinus and I agree with your points. I would like to address the point you make above, however.

In terms of dealing with issues like internal contradictions and their impact on historicity, biblical scholars tend to compare how the authors deal with or resolve the contradictions when compared to acual historical or biographical works of the era. Take the contradiction above regarding the date of Jesus' birth. The later author (Luke) makes no attempt to address or resolve the contradiction and John makes no mention of a nativity at all. When we contrast this with a biographical work of the time "The Life of Caligula" by Suetonius, we see the difference in approach:

"Gaius Caesar, surnamed Caligula, was born the day before the Kalends of September [August 31st], during the consulship of his father Germanicus and Gaius Fonteius Capito [12 CE]. Contradicting sources have made the place of his birth uncertain. Gnaeus Lentulus Gaetulicus writes that he was born at Tibur, whereas Pliny [the Elder] says that he was born among the Treveri, in a village named Ambitarvium, above the confluence of the Rhine and the Moselle. Pliny further adds as evidence alters located there, bearing the inscription: ‘For the delivery of Agrippina.’ Verses that were in circulation shortly after he became emperor state that he was born in the winter-quarters of the legions: ‘Born in camp and weaned amidst the arms of his country, he was already a sign of future imperium.’ I myself have found it published in the acta diurna that he was born at Antium. Pliny has discredited Gaetulicus, on the grounds that he falsified his account through flattery, so that he could exalt the praises of a young and vainglorious prince who was even from a city sacred to Hercules; and that he made this lie with greater confidence, since there had actually been a son born to Germanicus at Tiber, nearly a year earlier, who was also named Gaius Caesar (concerning whose lovable innocence and premature death I have already spoken about above). Accurate chronology disproves Pliny. For the historians who committed the reign of Augustus to memory agree that Germanicus was not sent to the region of Gaul and Germany until the close of his consulship, when Caligula was already born. Nor does the inscription on the alter in any way confirm the judgement of Pliny, since Agrippina twice gave birth in that region, and any childbirth, regardless of sex, is called ‘puerperium.’ Indeed, from ancient times people called girls ‘puerae,’ just as they called boys ‘puelli.’ There is also a letter of Augustus that survives, addressed to his granddaughter Agrippina just a few months before he died, which is written about the Gaius in question (since there was not any child of that name who was still alive by that time), in which he states: ‘I arranged yesterday for Telarius and Asillius to bring your boy Gaius, should the gods be willing, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of June [May 18th]. I am sending with him a physician from my staff of slaves, and I wrote to Germanicus that he can keep him, if he wishes. Farewell, my dear Agrippina, and take care that you come to your Germanicus in good health.’ I think that it is abundantly clear that Caligula could not have been born in a place, to which he was first taken from Rome when he was almost two years old. This letter also diminishes the evidence of the verses, which in any case are anonymous. The sole source that remains, therefore, is the public record stating that he was born at Antium, which we must accept as the only remaining testimony. Furthermore, Caligula always loved Antium above all other places and preferred it as none other than his own native soil, and he is even said to have considered transferring the seat and capital of the empire to Antium, when he had grown weary of Rome."

Here Suetonius not only acknowledges that there are contradictory accounts of Caligula's birthplace but he goes on to give a detailed analysis of the contradictions and resolve them using external evidence. None of this is present in the gospels which undermines their historical reliability as much as the contradiction itself.

Furthermore, when we look at the gospels we see a lot of direct speech, oration by Jesus which is ostensibly recorded verbatim. The frequent use of dialogue in the gospels stands in marked contrast to other historical works of the era and reads more like a novel than an eyewitness report. This is particularly problematic in light of the composition gap. In actual historical texts of the era, the authors are careful to point out the limitations of memory. For example in Thucydides "History of the Peleponnesian War", the author notes:

"Now, as much as particular persons gave speeches, either entering the war, or when it was already taking place, it has been difficult for me to remember precisely the exact words that were spoken, either from those that I heard myself, or from those that I was informed of by others. And so, my practice has been to make each speaker say what I regard as the most suitable words that the occasion demanded, while adhering as close as possible to the general sense of what was actually spoken. As for the events of the war, I did not think it fitting to write what I learned from the first source at hand, nor what I speculated to be true, but only those things for which I myself was present, or for which I had inquired each detail to the best of my ability from others. And even these matters have been difficult to learn, on account of the fact that those present did not always say the same thing about the events they witnessed, either because they had imperfect memory, or because they were partial to one side or the other."

The fact that the gospel authors make no attempt to warn the reader where they speculate on dialogue compromises their historical reliability.

Finally, the anonymity of the authors is also a problem for the historical reliability of the gospel accounts. When we look at other historical accounts of the era we see that the author invariably places himself in the narrative and explains the relationships between him and the people he documents, whether or not he knew them well. For example, in "Histories", Tacitus concisely deals with the relationships between himself and those he documents:

"I myself was not acquainted with Galba, Otho, or Vitellius, either by profit or injury. I would not deny that my rank was first elevated by Vespasian, then raised by Titus, and still further increased by Domitian; but to those who profess unaltered truth, it is requisite to speak neither with partisanship nor prejudice."

So, to answer your question Peregrinus, biblical scholars examine questions like anonymity and internal contradictions using comparison to actual historical works of the era. However, as we've discussed before and early Church leaders such as Origen pointed out, the gospels were promoted not so much for their historical reliability but for their theological impact.

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, just for clarification: with regard to, e.g., the conflict over the date of Jesus’ birth, you offer this as an instance of an “internal contradiction”. Is that strictly correct? Matthew suggests one date; Luke suggests an inconsistent date, but surely that’s an external contradiction, a conflict between two different texts by two different authors?

Yes, you're absolutely right. I should have said external contradiction. Apologies.

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the main point, Suetonius acknowledges different accounts and attempts to resolve them. Whichever of Luke and Matthew is writing later makes no mention of the earlier nativity account. This could be either (a) because he doesn’t know of it, or (b) he does know of it, but he’s not bothered by the contradiction and doesn’t expect his readers to be bothered by it.

If we assume (a), obviously the historicity of each of the nativity accounts is undermined by the existence of an independent, and completely different, account. But the historicity of other material which is common to the two texts is not compromised. If anything, surely, it’s enhanced? If we take the later writer to have known nothing of the earlier text, obviously he can’t be copying the earlier text, so he represents an independent source for the material that they have in common. Or, both are drawing common material from an earlier source (which could be Mark or Q) which is not compromised by the inclusion of a problematic nativity narrative.

If we assume (b) then, again, the historicity of both nativity accounts is undermined. But we can’t say that the historical reliability of the later text as a whole is undermined; all we can say is that the author wasn’t seeking to write history in the way that Suetonius wrote it. Suetonius felt the need to reconcile known contradictions; the gospel writer did not feel a similar need, at least with respect to the nativity story, and he obviously didn’t think that this would impeach his credibility for his readers. He’s writing in a different genre, in other words, with differing conventions and differing expectation from his readers. That doesn’t necessarily mean that his reliability as a historical source is compromised; just that we have to read him mindful of the conventions of the genre.

Firstly, I would say that I think your dilemma between (a) and (b) above is incomplete. I think that the far more likely option is that Luke is aware of Matthew's gospel and rather than deal with the contradiction he simply corrects (from his perspective) Matthew's mistake. There is some precedent for this in the gospels. In chapter 5 of Mark, Jesus casts out a legion of demons from a possessed man which then enter a herd of pigs who run down the hill and are drowned. However, Mark, due to his ignorance of Palestinian geography places this event in the land of the Gerasenes about 30km from the Sea of Galilee, undermining the historicity of the story. Matthew, realising Mark's mistake makes a subtle but important change. He changes the location from the land of the Gerasenes to the land of the Gadarenes, about 5km from the Sea of Galilee. It doesn't completely solve the problem but it lessens Mark's mistake. However, in both instances the later writer simply overwrites the earlier writer's mistake rather than further draw attention to it. Whether this is done out of a desire to preserve the sanctity of the earlier work or because historical details are less important to the writer than the theological message, I'm not entirely sure.
Also, with regard to the infancy narrative and the relationship between Luke and Matthew, the two source hypothesis that Luke and Matthew derived their gospels from Mark and an unnamed Q source is at odds with this contradiction. Firstly, Q is a sayings gospel and as such an infancy narrative is not something which would have been documented in Q. Secondly, if the two authors are drawing their material from a common source, there shouldn't be a contradiction in the first place.

Secondly, I would say that the idea that Luke is unfamiliar with Matthew is very unlikely IMHO. There are some clear examples of passages where Luke borrows from Matthew.

One such example of Luke copying from Matthew is the parable of the Ten talents in Matthew 25 and Luke 19.
Matthew's account is more coherent and easier to read while Luke's contains some anachronistic passages which are hard to understand until you read the two of them side by side.

The problem originates from Luke changing the story from three servants in Matthew's version to ten. As a result, we see some very odd passages.

In Matthew's version there are three servants who are given five, two and one bag of gold respectively. They then earn five more, two more and none respectively. However in Luke's version, although there are ten servants we are only told about three (the first, the second and the other). Furthermore, the best servant in Matthew's version has turned his five bags of gold into ten, which prompts the line:

"So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags."


However, in Luke's version all ten servants are each only given one minas. So when the best servant reports:

"Sir your mina has earned ten more"


this servant now has eleven minas. However the king goes on to admonish the wicked servant by saying:

"Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas"


So Luke directly copies the line from Matthew and fails to allow for the fact that the best servant actually has eleven minas, thus revealing his copying mistake.
Luke's version is incoherent and disjointed until you read it as a poor copy of Matthew's version.

Editorial fatigue is a moderately recurring theme in Luke and is best shown in the feeding of the Five Thousand. In this story Mark places the setting for the story in a desert place, making the lack of food make sense. However, Luke opens his version by placing the setting in Bethsaida. This causes two problems. Firstly, in a city like Bethsaida food and drink should be close at hand and a miracle would not be necessary. Secondly, later on in the story Luke forgets himself and agrees with Mark saying: "because we are in a remote place here."
Luke makes this exact same mistake in copying Matthew with the story of the Centurion in Matthew 8. In Matthew's version he refers to the centurion's servant as pais consistently throughout the story. However Luke opens his story by referring to the servant as doulos before forgetting and switching to pais in Luke 7:7 and then switch back again in Luke 7:10.

So, in conclusion I think we can dispense with the (a) option of your dilemma, which just leaves the (b) option. I agree with you that the unreliability of the infancy narrative alone doesn't undermine the historical reliability of the whole text. However, repeated examples of similar contradictions does. There are a multitude of examples from the different gospels where the historical reliability is compromised by external contradictions, factual mistakes, syncretic borrowings etc.

Peregrinus wrote: »

With regard to anonymity, the term may be a bit misleading. None of the four gospel writers name themselves, but does Suetonius? Or is it external evidence that persuades us that this text was, in fact, written by a bloke named Suetonius? And even if Suetonius does name himself, so what? The author’s name, as such, isn’t of great importance and, unless the author is a known associate of his subject or eyewitness of his events, it’s no indicator of historical reliability. As you point out Tacitus is explicit in saying that he didn’t know at least some of his subjects. We admire his candour, but how does this reassure us of the historical reliability of what he narrates about his subjects? If anything, the opposite, surely?

Firstly, Suetonius does identify himself in the text. He makes numerous autobiographical references to himself. In The Life of Caligula he references his earlier writings:

"I myself find in the gazette that he first saw the light at Antium."

and in The Life of Otho he makes reference to his father (in such a way that a reader could verify his claims):

"My father Suetonius Laetus took part in that war, as a tribune of the equestrian order in the Thirteenth legion. He used often to declare afterwards that Otho, even when he was a private citizen, so loathed civil strife, that at the mere mention of the fate of Brutus and Cassius at a banquet he shuddered; that he would not have engaged with Galba, if he had not felt confident that the affair could be settled peacefully; further, that he was led to hold his life cheap at that time by the example of a common soldier. This man on bringing news of the defeat of the army was believed by no one, but was charged by the soldiers now with falsehood and now with cowardice, and accused of running away; whereupon he fell on his sword at the emperor's feet. My father used to say that at this sight Otho cried out that he would no longer endanger the lives of such brave men, who had deserved so well."

However, Suetonius in writing biographies rather than an even more rigorous historical account doesn't make the kind of explicit identification typical of the genre. For example, in The Roman Antiquities, Dionysius of Halicarnassus opens his work by explaining his motivation for undertaking his work, he cites previous authors in the field and their contribution and finally he makes this statement:

"Such things, therefore, will be the subjects of my history and such will be its form. I, the author, am Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the son of Alexander. And at this point I begin."

Dionysius' work reads like a modern scientific paper (although more long-winded) compared to Suetonius' textbook approach. However neither of these works, nor other historical works of the time read like the gospels. This is, of course, consistent with the academic position. Although we are merely scratching the surface of this topic here, the structure of the gospels and the import of this for their historical reliability has been well studied:

Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Ronald Hock)
Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (Jo-Ann Brant)
The Ancient Novel and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: Fictional Intersections (Marilia Pinheiro)
Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Richard Pervo)
The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (Michael Vines)
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Richard Burridge)
The Homeric Epics and the gospel of Mark (Dennis MacDonald)

I think the best way to sum up the difference between the gospels and historically reliable accounts is this:



In Cryptonomicon, Neal Stephenson constructs a complex and in-depth narrative ranging from the codebreakers of WWII to the SE Asia tech boom of the 90s. It contains fictional characters such as Lawrence Waterhouse and real historical figures such as Alan Turing. There are parts of the book which are historically accurate. However, nobody in their right mind would suggest that we should treat Cryptonomicon as a source for answering historical questions because the book isn't intended to be a historical account, it is a novel. Similarly the gospels shouldn't be relied upon for historical information because that's not what they are. They are biographical novels, adding a backstory for Jesus to try and promote the newly formed Christian religion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not so much interested in the names of the writers, as their sources and purpose in writing; these will tell me far more about reliability, surely? Some of the sources we know or can conjecture. (Matthew and Luke are both relying on Mark and probably Q; each is also relying on other, not-shared, sources.) Sometimes the authors tell us a little about their purpose in writing. Luke, for example, starts off by telling his reader(s) that there are already a number of accounts in circulation, baseed on eyewitness testimony, and that his purpose is to compile them into a single narrative, to make their significance easier to understand. In other words, he’s not seeking to tell people facts they don’t already know; he’s compiling what they do know and presenting it in a way that underscores its significance. Which tells me that there was (or Luke believed that there was) already an audience out there who accepted the factuality of the material he is dealing with. Knowing that is much more useful as a critical tool, surely, than knowing Luke’s name?

Sorry, Peregrinus but I have to disagree here. The "sources" documented by Luke are so vague that they are completely useless. Luke claims that there are multiple sources for his work:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

This is just a claim, just like the claim by Paul that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. And without identifying the sources, Luke's claim is just as useless to a historian as Paul's. It is hearsay, something that in today's system of jurisprudence we have learned to disregard completely. Compare and contrast Luke's vague declaration above with an actual historian's discussion of his sources below (Roman Antiquities by Dionysius):

Thus, having given an explanation for my choice of subject matter, I wish now to discuss the sources that I used when setting out to write my history. For perhaps readers who are already familiar with Hieronymus, Timaeus, Polybius, or any other historian that I mentioned a short while ago as being careless in their works, when they do not find many things in my own writings that are mentioned in theirs, will suspect me of fabricating them, and will want to know where I learned of such things. Lest anyone should hold such an opinion of me, it seems better that I should state in advance what narratives and records I have used as sources. I sailed to Italy at the very time when Augustus Caesar put an end to civil war, in the middle of the one hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad [30 BCE], and having spent twenty-two years in Rome from that time to the present, I learned the Latin language and familiarized myself with Roman literature, and during all this time I remained devoted to matters bearing upon my subject. Some of my information I learned orally from the most educated men whose company I shared, while the rest I gathered from the histories that were written by esteemed Roman authors–such as Porcius Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the Aelii, Gellii and Calpurnii–as well as other men who are noteworthy. Setting out with these works, which are similar to the Greek annalistic accounts, as my sources, I then put my hands to writing my history.

Dionysius is transparent and names his citations just as any modern peer-reviewed paper would. Luke doesn't and so his claim that there are sources is useless.

Secondly, you refer to Mark and Q as sources for Luke. However, this just pushes the question back a step. Mark is also anonymous and from the evidence of his gospel is someone who is clearly not an eyewitness and is unfamiliar with the customs, geography and laws of the region he is writing about. So what about Mark's sources? Q is even weaker since there is no extant copy of Q. It is just assumed that there must be a Q because both Matthew and Luke copy from it. However, the existence of Q is no measure of its reliability.

Finally, as you say, Luke is not writing for non-Christians. He is writing for an educated Greek-speaking Christian audience. His intention is to explain the meaning of events that have occurred rather than convince his audience that these events have occurred. However, this means that historical accuracy is not a primary motivation for Luke.

Peregrinus wrote: »

With regard to the narration of direct speech, yes, obviously we have to ask how journalistically accurate this can be. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that Jesus is presented as an itinerant teacher who taught by preaching; that it’s reasonable to suppose that he delivered the same teachings many times over (and indeed there’s evidence in the texts that he did) and that his close followers would have heard them frequently over a period of possibly years; that his followers had an interest in recalling and preserving his teachings; that many “sayings gospels” which consist solely of teachings attributed to Jesus are known to exist or to have existed, and that the competing canonical gospels are far more likely to agree on speech attributed to Jesus than they are on any other point. So I suggest that Thycidides’ comments about recalling speech in the context in which he was writing are not entirely apposite in this context. The gospel writers could be capturing speech, if not perfectly reliably, certainly more reliably that Thucydides claimed to.

OK, there are two points here.

The first but less important point is that Christians are not likely to have been any better at remembering speeches forty years later than non-Christians were. It's very likely, even taking into account the repetition of the speeches, that the sermons recorded in the gospels are synopses of the original speeches, editorialised recollections. They will have gotten the message right and the basic structure right but they're not likely to be 100% accurate word for word.

However, the important point here is not about the faultiness in recording direct speech but the level of direct speech which is presented in the gospels. Both Acts and the Gospels have use direct speech at a much higher frequency than historical works of the era and much more in line with fictional novels of the time. Acts reports the highest usage with 51% of the overall text being made up of direct speech. The gospels have a slightly lower but similar proportion. This aligns well with Jewish novels of the day (Judith 50%, Susanna 46%) but stands in marked contrast to historical accounts and biographies: (Josephus’ Jewish War I: 8.8%, Plutarch’s Alexander: 12.1%; Tacitus’ Agricola: 11.5%).

Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre


Mark's gospel which forms the backbone of the synoptics is written as a novel. It is told from the perspective of a 3rd person omniscient narrator and borrows heavily from the Old Testament, Egyptian myth and Homeric epics to construct a "hidden hero" style backstory for Jesus. It may contain historical characters and events but anyone looking to use Mark as a historically reliable document is barking up the wrong tree.

The gospels are backstories for Jesus, something used to put a bit of meat on the bones of the primordial Christian religion. They are not intended to be used as historically reliable accounts. Unfortunately for Christians, despite the claims of Matthew 4:24 and Mark 7:36, the fame of Jesus doesn't seem to have spread far or wide enough for any non biblical historians to have made anything more than passing references to him. So, as unreliable as the gospels may be, they're the best Christians have got.

That's interesting - and it does account for 'the flood' - if not Noah and his ark - just about the right (for Creationists) amount of time ago!

I still dont understand that tbh and I have genuinely tried to wrap my head around it over the years, its just seems completely mad.

Same for quantum entanglement, I dont doubt they exist it just doesn't seem possible. Why is the universe set up like that?

The BBC's In Our Time recently had an episode about the Baltic Crusades in the 12th century. Very interesting.

An interesting 'unofficial' course offered by two faculty at the University of Washington:

Calling Bull**** in the Age of Big Data
http://callingbull****.org/syllabus.html

The link works if you replace the **** with sh1t (but an i not a 1)