RE: Bart D. Ehrman - The Bane of Fundies!
November 5, 2010 at 4:45 am
(This post was last modified: November 5, 2010 at 4:55 am by coffeeveritas.)
Hello all! New to the forum, this looked interesting.
Ah Bart Ehrman! There is an entire website dedicated solely to discrediting his arguments, that's when you know your career is picking up!
Anyway, what we typically see in an attempt to reconcile the Gospels is usually something along the lines of a unified Gospel account, which has Jesus doing the same things over-and-over, and accounts strained to the breaking point in order to make everything line up historically. I think a better approach is to simply recognize what the Gospels are, theologically motivated biographical accounts written in the style of an ancient Greco-Roman biography. We can't read modern historical practices backward in time. Any ancient historian will tell you that the ancient idea of historical accuracy was much different than ours. We see several ancient historians openly admit that the speeches they quote are not verbatim, just written down to the best of their memory. The idea of ancient history was to get the basic idea and message, this guy did this, said something along these lines, then did something like this. There are also confusing factors like the ancient world's tendency to name every person and town at least twice, and refer to places and people by names related to them. There was no wikipedia and video cameras to simply this process, and oral tradition, while closely controlled and quite accurate, was not as interested in the fine details of the story as much as the outline and significance of the story. So the fact that some things are quoted differently and other narrative differences fall well within this tendency. Anyone who thinks the history we have in our history books contains exact quotes and perfect details will be shocked to find that much of what we know about history is based on copies of copies of copies of an author writing about events that happened hundreds of years before he was born. History is hard work, and it is ongoing. Discoveries in the last few centuries have changed our understanding of the Gospels. For example, many people had the Gospel of John dated well into the second century, until a fragment dated to the early second century showed that John was already being copied then. This being said it is important to remember that the Gospels have lots of good historical evidence, and the author's intent was clearly to relay historical information. One can argue that they were lying, exaggerating, or whatever your favorite view of their motivation is, but reading the Gospels critically reveals that they were meant to convey historical events.
One also has to keep in mind that the Gospels were written to be grounded in historical events, but they were written by particular individuals for a specific purpose. Mark's account was short, often touching on certain elements of Jesus' life very briefly. Mark wanted to emphasize what Jesus had done, and he wanted emphasize that Jesus was the hero of the story, and that the humans involved failed. Matthew was written to expand on things Mark touches on, but doesn't fully explain, and to make other specific points about Jesus, particularly the motif of portraying him as the second Moses. Matthew also sees the disciples more favorably than Mark does. Luke was written in a very Greek style, even using a Greek historical introduction. He was trying to relate the story historically, based on Matthew and Mark's gospels, and most likely witness accounts. He was trying to portray Jesus as a friend to the poor and oppressed. John was written later and may have seen the other Gospels, but didn't have ready access to them. John wants to emphasize that God is loving, and leaves out many things that don't fit into his purpose. John is also famous for using many paradoxes in his account. So the Gospels were all written for a specific theological purpose, but that doesn't make them true or false. Jesus' contemporaries wouldn't have been as worried about the variance in the accounts as much as the context. One can easily see that all four can refer to the same historical person, and the fact that the don't line up perfectly is actually pretty consistent with what we see in historical documents of the time. Also important to keep in mind is that the Gospels writer were aware of the Gospels written before them, so they didn't feel the need to exactly repeat the theological point and content of the early Gospels. They had there own account to give, based on their own eyewitness accounts, or based on the accounts given to them. An important parallel is memoir writing. When an author writes a memoir, while they are giving an account of their life, they have to focus it on a central point. The story of how they fell in love, for example. While the account may take a broader view of the author's life, the details of the story are told in a way that leads towards the central premise. Depending on the author's style the events may also occur out of order, but may not be stated so in the book because the chronology of the one story doesn't really matter to the central premise of the book. All of this may seem like bad modern historical writing to you, and it is, because a memoir is not the same thing is a history textbook, though both describe actual people and events. So when an account is written for a purpose, one has to be careful to see the historicity of the account in the context and style in which it was written rather than imposing one's own ideas of composition onto the text. That's just good historical practice.
Also important to keep in mind is the fact that the authorship and dating of the Gospels is a debate. There are many positions on this subject, but it would be unwise to assume that the traditional view of authorship is wrong. First of all, there is no evidence we have that strongly suggests that the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write their respective Gospels. There are questions one can raise, but nothing even remotely conclusive. That fact is that we don't have hard, fast evidence. The best we have is that the authorship of the Gospels was attributed to their namesakes fairly early in church history. By the mid-second century we have the Gospels circulating with the names of the authors attached, and the early church fathers writing in the second century don't seem to doubt the authorship of the Gospels at all. Many of the accounts of history we have are hundreds of years removed from the events they describe but are accepted without reservation, but here we have accounts written within a generation that we are quick to discredit. I think there is much bad historical science applied in the area of the Gospels, on both sides. One should not forget that the historical data we have is subjected to special criticism because the texts themselves are so pivotal to the modern Church, and the fact that they make big claims. If they were merely another biography of the period we would have already put them in the textbooks with their authorship and dating stated quite certainly.
One should also keep in mind that the variances in the Gospels are not something that was just discovered now. The Church has been aware of them since the accounts were written, and the church fathers wrote on the subject more than once. So these problems have always been a part of the church, but they weren't really a significant hang-up until the advent of modern history.
There are many positions one can argue on this subject, the only ones I dislike are the ones based on faulty or unbalanced historical science, but you can take your pick. Always an interesting sidebar to the larger debate on Christianity, great topic and comments! Look forward to discussing with all of you more!
P.S. Minimalist, I for one am more than happy to be kicked out of the fundie club!
Ah Bart Ehrman! There is an entire website dedicated solely to discrediting his arguments, that's when you know your career is picking up!
Anyway, what we typically see in an attempt to reconcile the Gospels is usually something along the lines of a unified Gospel account, which has Jesus doing the same things over-and-over, and accounts strained to the breaking point in order to make everything line up historically. I think a better approach is to simply recognize what the Gospels are, theologically motivated biographical accounts written in the style of an ancient Greco-Roman biography. We can't read modern historical practices backward in time. Any ancient historian will tell you that the ancient idea of historical accuracy was much different than ours. We see several ancient historians openly admit that the speeches they quote are not verbatim, just written down to the best of their memory. The idea of ancient history was to get the basic idea and message, this guy did this, said something along these lines, then did something like this. There are also confusing factors like the ancient world's tendency to name every person and town at least twice, and refer to places and people by names related to them. There was no wikipedia and video cameras to simply this process, and oral tradition, while closely controlled and quite accurate, was not as interested in the fine details of the story as much as the outline and significance of the story. So the fact that some things are quoted differently and other narrative differences fall well within this tendency. Anyone who thinks the history we have in our history books contains exact quotes and perfect details will be shocked to find that much of what we know about history is based on copies of copies of copies of an author writing about events that happened hundreds of years before he was born. History is hard work, and it is ongoing. Discoveries in the last few centuries have changed our understanding of the Gospels. For example, many people had the Gospel of John dated well into the second century, until a fragment dated to the early second century showed that John was already being copied then. This being said it is important to remember that the Gospels have lots of good historical evidence, and the author's intent was clearly to relay historical information. One can argue that they were lying, exaggerating, or whatever your favorite view of their motivation is, but reading the Gospels critically reveals that they were meant to convey historical events.
One also has to keep in mind that the Gospels were written to be grounded in historical events, but they were written by particular individuals for a specific purpose. Mark's account was short, often touching on certain elements of Jesus' life very briefly. Mark wanted to emphasize what Jesus had done, and he wanted emphasize that Jesus was the hero of the story, and that the humans involved failed. Matthew was written to expand on things Mark touches on, but doesn't fully explain, and to make other specific points about Jesus, particularly the motif of portraying him as the second Moses. Matthew also sees the disciples more favorably than Mark does. Luke was written in a very Greek style, even using a Greek historical introduction. He was trying to relate the story historically, based on Matthew and Mark's gospels, and most likely witness accounts. He was trying to portray Jesus as a friend to the poor and oppressed. John was written later and may have seen the other Gospels, but didn't have ready access to them. John wants to emphasize that God is loving, and leaves out many things that don't fit into his purpose. John is also famous for using many paradoxes in his account. So the Gospels were all written for a specific theological purpose, but that doesn't make them true or false. Jesus' contemporaries wouldn't have been as worried about the variance in the accounts as much as the context. One can easily see that all four can refer to the same historical person, and the fact that the don't line up perfectly is actually pretty consistent with what we see in historical documents of the time. Also important to keep in mind is that the Gospels writer were aware of the Gospels written before them, so they didn't feel the need to exactly repeat the theological point and content of the early Gospels. They had there own account to give, based on their own eyewitness accounts, or based on the accounts given to them. An important parallel is memoir writing. When an author writes a memoir, while they are giving an account of their life, they have to focus it on a central point. The story of how they fell in love, for example. While the account may take a broader view of the author's life, the details of the story are told in a way that leads towards the central premise. Depending on the author's style the events may also occur out of order, but may not be stated so in the book because the chronology of the one story doesn't really matter to the central premise of the book. All of this may seem like bad modern historical writing to you, and it is, because a memoir is not the same thing is a history textbook, though both describe actual people and events. So when an account is written for a purpose, one has to be careful to see the historicity of the account in the context and style in which it was written rather than imposing one's own ideas of composition onto the text. That's just good historical practice.
Also important to keep in mind is the fact that the authorship and dating of the Gospels is a debate. There are many positions on this subject, but it would be unwise to assume that the traditional view of authorship is wrong. First of all, there is no evidence we have that strongly suggests that the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write their respective Gospels. There are questions one can raise, but nothing even remotely conclusive. That fact is that we don't have hard, fast evidence. The best we have is that the authorship of the Gospels was attributed to their namesakes fairly early in church history. By the mid-second century we have the Gospels circulating with the names of the authors attached, and the early church fathers writing in the second century don't seem to doubt the authorship of the Gospels at all. Many of the accounts of history we have are hundreds of years removed from the events they describe but are accepted without reservation, but here we have accounts written within a generation that we are quick to discredit. I think there is much bad historical science applied in the area of the Gospels, on both sides. One should not forget that the historical data we have is subjected to special criticism because the texts themselves are so pivotal to the modern Church, and the fact that they make big claims. If they were merely another biography of the period we would have already put them in the textbooks with their authorship and dating stated quite certainly.
One should also keep in mind that the variances in the Gospels are not something that was just discovered now. The Church has been aware of them since the accounts were written, and the church fathers wrote on the subject more than once. So these problems have always been a part of the church, but they weren't really a significant hang-up until the advent of modern history.
There are many positions one can argue on this subject, the only ones I dislike are the ones based on faulty or unbalanced historical science, but you can take your pick. Always an interesting sidebar to the larger debate on Christianity, great topic and comments! Look forward to discussing with all of you more!
P.S. Minimalist, I for one am more than happy to be kicked out of the fundie club!
