How do we normally determine whether something was written to be taken
as historical fact or as literary fiction?
First, we can look at the internal evidence. In a movie we often see at the
end that "this was based on a true story." In the preface the author often
says how he went about constructing the document. There are often
footnotes for a historical work. The scenes themselves can be riddled with
coincidences, ironies, jokes, and nonsense; or it can be dry as dust and
technical in nature. The author can write as though the significance of the
story lies in its literal truth or in its overall themes and entertainment
value. It can appear to be a rehashed well-known fictional cliche.
The synoptic gospels seem to fail
prima facie under the internal evidence
test, especially when compared to modern-day nonfiction. There are no
explicit references to the particular sources used to substantiate any data
points in the synoptics. Only the Gospel of Luke has a preface, where the
author claims to be teaching in accordance with eyewitnesses and
traditioners, so that might account slightly against Matthew and Mark even
as it counts for Luke. The synoptic gospels are not dry at all--they are
delightfully colorful and passionately bring out themes and moral lessons.
But, still, I get the sense that the oultine is assumed to be true for the
reason that (a) well-known historical figures are named in reference not just
to chronology but to the central event, the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands
of Pilate and the high priest (and perhaps Herod in Luke). This may be
possible in a Forrest Gump sort of way, but it seems more straightforwardly
to be explained by the fact(oid) that the author wants us to see these as
having actually happened in a specific time and place. Especially with
Luke, who connects his gospel with the subsequent narrative of the early
church including a host of figures known from other Christian and secular
records. And (b) the evangelists seem to be building off of earlier tales
about a Jesus on earth. I once mentioned the fact that the author of Mark
often has stories set in Palestinian settings even though he is ignorant of
the accurate geography in significant ways, and thus these settings came
to him not from historicising geography but through tradition. The setting in
life for all the sayings attributed to Jesus do not seem to be the spur-of-the-
moment invention of the evangelist, yet they often were attributed to Jesus
before the evangelists. For example, it is possible that Mark unwittingly
retained a pericope that was formed by Christians who did not believe
Jesus was given proper tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea. The Parable of
the Tenants is interpreted as referring to Jesus. In Mark 12:8, it is said, "So
they seized him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard." This
quite plausibly reflects an early tradition that those who arranged the
execution of Jesus also arranged his shameful burial. Calling it all the
author's own fiction, or even historicizing fiction, sounds good in the
abstract, but I have not seen it based on a detailed exegesis of what the
stories say in particular. So there is some disconfirming indications in the
internal evidence, but overall my guess would be that the authors thought of
these as being real events.
Second, we can look at the external evidence and context. There is plenty
of that for modern-day works, so much so that it is difficult to imagine an
ambiguous case without positing a future dark age. For example, modern
day novels are conveniently placed in a fiction section of the library. Movies
use different techniques than docutainment, and are shown on different
television channels. Books often come with reviews on the back cover.
And if there is any doubt, you can always just ask someone who is familiar
with the work: that book you read, is the author making it up or is he trying
to get at the truth? The answer is generally reliable.
On the external evidence criterion, even though we don't have the
immediate feedback we have with modern works, there is a lot of
confirmation for the taken-literally view and not so much for the "I've read
the gospels because I think they're good stories and not because they
contain the facts." For example, though Price once suggested that it refers
to the Kerygmata Petrou, most people see this as referring to the Gospel of
Mark in some form (found in Eusebius Hist. Eccl.):
[For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the
books themselves [[Dang!! -ed.]]; but now, to the extracts already made,
we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding
Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following
words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not,
however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For
he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said,
he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the
necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular
narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in
thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he
took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put
anything fictitious into the statements.
One could hardly imagine more historicist sentiments, whether they tell us
the true author of GMark or not, Papias takes the book to be an attempt at
accurate remembrance, which has been criticized for not being in exact
order--which is not a usual criticism for allegories--and Papias even says
that the author didn't make up fictitious stories--we know that's not
completely true, but what do you expect, Papias is rhapsodic about the
historical value of Mark. And this is perhaps the earliest external evidence
we have for a gospel attributed to Mark (excepting other gospels using it).
What do others say? Justin Martyr says, "For the apostles, in the
memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered
unto us what was enjoined upon them"--again the belief that the gospels
are recording tradition and not made up allegories off in the clouds. And
even Marcion, an enemy of Justin Martyr, seems to take the Gospel of the
Lord as being a record of Christ--or else why would it matter whether it says
that he were born or descended directly from heaven? The Epistula
Apostolorum, written before Justin Martyr wrote, takes the synoptics and
John to be historical. So we have Papias, gnostics, and anti-gnostics
treating the gospel narratives as being real events. Such is some of the
external evidence concerning how the gospels were received by their early
interpreters.
So, we hear the claim being made all the time that the gospel writers were
writing allegories or fictions--but what is the external and internal evidence
pointing to a completely non-literal take on the gospels? Without some
strong counterbalancing evidence, it would be reasonable to assume that
the gospel writers wanted their narratives to be taken as literally true (to
some degree). That doesn't necessarily prove a historical Jesus, but it
does affect the landscape of our discussions.
12 Comments:
Peter,
Good to see you posting again. And with a thought-provoking entry.
I think the preface of the Gospel of Luke bears reproduction here:
"Inasumuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."
As I argue in my article on Acts (on this site), this preface shows clear historical intent.
One way this fits into your post that I think went unmentioned is that this not only tells about the author of the Gospel of Luke's intentions, but also about his understanding of the Gospel of Mark and either Q or Matthew.
Clearly, one of the others who had written a narrative was the Gospel of Mark. Luke takes it to be true and be an account of what was passed on "from the beginning" by "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word."
Note that I do not argue here that Luke accepted Mark as itself an eyewitness account, only that (like Luke itself) it was based thereon or derived therefrom. The only critique Luke has about Mark, if any, seems to be that Luke's account will be properly ordered.
The author of the Gospel of Luke is also referring to some sort of Q source, whether standing alone or contained in the Gospel of Matthew or some other medium, that he believes constitutes what was passed down by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.
Thus, decades before Papias, the Gospel of Luke evidences that the Gospel of Mark and Q or Matthew were understood as narrative accounts with historical intent.
Additionally, works like Richard Burridge's revised What Are the Gospels? A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography and David Aune's The New Testament in its Literary Environemnt, show that the gospels were in the genre of ancient biography, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Luke, which conjoined with the Acts of the Apostles were of the genre of ancient historiography. The notion that they were ancient novels or complete midrash have little to commend them.
Great discussion. I'll add my two cents (anonymously).
I think it is difficult to say that the gospel authors, whoever they were, wanted their narratives to be taken as "historically true" in the sense that modern man would understand that phrase. Simply put, the gospels are filled with statements and details that the authors most assuredly knew were not "historically true."
How else do we get Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals, as in Matthew? (a mistranslation of the original Hebrew) Did the author of Matthew think that this particular detail was historically true? Or, didn't he know it was his own literary invention, borrowed from what he thought was in existing scripture?
This may seem like a trivial detail, but it is quickly supported by countless similar instances. For example, John Dominic Crossan (not always the best source) has demonstrated that the passion narrative was similarly constructed from previously existing Jewish scriptures. Surely the author of such a narrative would know that this wasn't a literal, historical truth. After all, he is borrowing from a source that had no literal connection to a first century Jew named "Jesus"?
I think the manner in which the gospels were constructed says much about their lack of historicity.
Anon,
I also think that there is a danger of being anachronistic. I think that, apart from the Passion Narratives, the gospels authors did not expect their chronology to be strictly understood. And ancient biographies and historiography could include legend, errors, or biased presentation of the information at hand. Josephus, for example, is not read as a modern historical piece would be, but he is a valuable source of historical information.
Robert Gundry, who otherwise finds much accurate information in the gospels, thinks that the Gospel of Matthew includes some creative midrash. Matthew, a Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Even Gundry, however, does not buy the theory that AMatthew included the reference to two donkeys because of a misreading of the text.
"It is hard to think that Matthew misunderstood Zecharaiah's synonymous parallelism in making its first line refer to a mother donkey; for his diagreements with the LXX show consultation of the Hebrew text; and a misunderstanding of the common Hebrew word [for male donkey], as a mother is unlikely.... That the male colt had not been ridden (though he may have carried other kinds of burdens) opens the possibility of a historical reminesence in the mention of two animals. For the sight of an unridden donkey colt accompanying its mother has remained common in Palestine up to modern times."
Gundry, op. cit., page 409.
Gundry is a very creative thinker! I admire the ability of people like that to pull completely ridiculous explanations out of their butts. Hilarious.
Anyway...
This may be possible in a Forrest Gump sort of way, but it seems more straightforwardly to be explained by the fact(oid) that the author wants us to see these as having actually happened in a specific time and place.
The idea of the author "wanting us to see" implies that the author is well aware that he is writing fiction.
I once mentioned the fact that the author of Mark often has stories set in Palestinian settings even though he is ignorant of the accurate geography in significant ways, and thus these settings came to him not from historicising geography but through tradition.
There is no evidence that the writer of Mark obtained these tales from tradition. Internal evidence suggests rather that he is using the OT and the Pauline epistles to construct a fictional narrative of Jesus' life.
As I've said before, the midrashic construction of Mark indicates that its author well knew he was making things up. So does the complexity of its fine structure, and I suspect, its global structure, though elucidating that is more difficult. The authors of Matt and Luke also knew they were writing fiction, and the fact that they too used midrashic techniques indicates that they knew how Mark had been composed. This, along with their rearrangement and editing of Mark, implies that they knew both Mark and their own works were fiction.
Internal evidence suggests fiction.
Michael
My name is Jacob Jenkins and I am currently doing a "virtual book tour".
I've stopped at this blogsite because I have recently written a book on Christian spirituality, and it appears that many of you might be interested in joining the national discussion it has begun.
The book is entitled:
"Buried Alive - A Discussion on Overcoming the 'Seven Lifeless Sins'".
Its premise is that most of Christians are not evil.
Must of us don't have 12 mistresses. We aren't serial killers.
Rather, it is the the sly and subtle sins of life - sins like fundamentalism and materialism and comfort and busyness - that keep us from the life we were intended.
By referencing over 2600 Scripture verses "Buried Alive" discusses how each of us can overcome the hidden dangers of lifeless living.
"Fresh, bold and convicting." - Jason Pollack,
Project Coordinator, Soderquist Center for Leadership & Ethics
"...will shake you out of a business-as-usual faith walk. A must read." - Ivan Max Dunn,
Retired US Navy Captain
"Buried Alive: A Discussion on Overcoming the Seven Lifeless Sins" is available now at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com
Come join the discussion!
(Upon reading the book I would love to hear your personal feedback. You can reach me at: jenkinsbookinginfo@yahoo.com)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home