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.
