Jerusalem in the days of Jesus and Paul
Paul visited Jerusalem on at least three occasions (Acts 11-12, Acts 15, and Acts 18). Luke, the presumed author of Acts, omits any record that Paul visited the empty tomb. Why? Paul’s epistles also fail to mention a personal examination of the tomb. Why? This question is an argument from silence. One speculative possibility is that the story of Jesus’ burial and subsequent discovery of the empty tomb was either deliberately invented or grew out of a legend. If this was the case, the alleged events never occurred. Paul could not have visited it if there had been no burial in a tomb.
–Michael Alter, Jewish counter-missionary, in his book, The Resurrection and Its Apologetics: Jesus’ Death and Burial, Volume 1, p. 228
Gary: And Paul is not the only early Christian apologist who fails to mention visiting Jesus’ empty tomb. Origen visited the holy land in the third century. In his writings about this pilgrimage, he discusses visiting the alleged site of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and the alleged site of Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River. But not a peep about the site of Jesus’ greatest miracle; the miracle upon which Christianity rises or falls: the site of the Resurrection: the Empty Tomb. Nope. Not a single word.
Apologists will try to spin the idea that first century Jews would not venerate a tomb. Nonsense. They are venerating Abraham’s alleged tomb to this very day. And we know that first century Gentiles venerated the tombs of their pharaohs, kings, and Caesars, so don’t try to convince us that first and second century Gentile Christians would not be interested in visiting the site of the Resurrection of THEIR King. The place where GOD returned from the dead!
Of course they would.
The fact that neither the Twelve, the Romans, the Jewish authorities, Paul, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or Origen say a word about the Empty Tomb is overwhelming evidence that the Empty Tomb did not exist.
The. Empty. Tomb. Did. Not. Exist!
If it had existed, early Christian apologists would have used it as their FIRST piece of evidence for Jesus’ bodily resurrection…just as modern apologists use it as their first, best, go-to evidence today!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Think Gary….why would the early Christians not venerate Jesus’ tomb? Why wouldn’t there be a sustained interested in the tomb?
LikeLike
The site of Jesus’ alleged empty tomb, located within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, is visited by ONE MILLION Christian pilgrims EVERY year. It is the number one visited Christian holy site in the Holy Land. More visits than the site of Jesus’ alleged birth place in Bethlehem. More visits than the alleged site of his baptism in the Jordan. More visits than Nazareth. More visits than Capernaum.
Yet you want us to believe that the Christians of the first century were different. They regarded the empty tomb of Jesus with indifference. First century Christians didn’t care where God’s dead body had laid in the earth for 3 days and nights. First century Christians were focused on other things. They didn’t realize that documenting the location of the empty tomb for posterity would be the greatest and best evidence used by every future Christian apologist, like yourself, for the cornerstone evidence of the Christian Faith: the Resurrection of Jesus.
Baloney.
The evidence speaks for itself: There. was. no. empty. tomb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the empty tomb existed, anyone to whom Paul preached the Resurrection could have gone and visited it to verify Paul’s claims. Jews, whether they were believers or deniers, who heard Paul preach in Greece and Asia Minor could visit the empty tomb of Jesus on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem at Passover. But Paul said nothing. He tells people that most of the “five hundred eyewitnesses” are still alive in Jerusalem as evidence for the Resurrection but says nothing about people visiting the empty tomb. Paul desperately wanted people to believe in the Resurrection, yet never mentions this crucial piece of objective evidence. He did not mention the Empty Tomb in his famous speech at Mars Hill in Athens where he attempted to prove that Jesus is the unknown god that the Greeks worship. Why not???
Face the facts, dear Christians: If he had known about it, Paul would have used the existence of an empty tomb as evidence for the Resurrection; just as every modern apologist uses the empty tomb as their go-to evidence for this alleged once in history corpse revivification.
Paul did not know about (the author of) Mark’s empty tomb! It is as clear as day to anyone without an agenda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First century Christians were no different than Christians of every other century: they knew that Christianity rises or falls with the resurrection. ANY evidence to support the historicity of that event would NOT be treated with indifference.
They would have never forgotten the location of Jesus’ empty tomb. Never.
But they did forget… because it never existed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because they didn’t know where it was because it wasn’t there to venerate.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t there be a sustained interested in the tomb? –Joel Edmund Anderson, Old Testament Bible scholar
“Well, of course, the strongest evidence for the resurrection is the empty tomb.” –Max Anders, evangelical theologian
“The Resurrection’s key proof: The Empty Tomb.” –Justin Holcomb, apologist with Christianity.com
“Given the importance of Easter for Christians, it is appropriate for us to consider a dozen evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. #1: Jesus’s Empty Tomb.” –Kenneth Samples, apologist, Reason to Believe
“So let’s consider five evidences in John’s Gospel for Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead. The first evidence for Jesus’ resurrection: the stone was rolled away and the tomb was empty.” –Gary Davenport, Christian pastor and blogger
“In writing to the church at Corinth, the Apostle Paul declared that without Jesus’ resurrection their faith is worthless. The resurrection of Christ is central to Christianity and it is thus often attacked by skeptics and others antagonistic to the faith. After an appraisal of recent scholarship on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Dr. Craig contends that the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith all point unavoidably to one conclusion: Jesus’ resurrection is a historical reality.” —Reasonable Faith, blog of William Lane Craig, Christian apologist
Gary: I believe the comments I have just listed strongly indicate that there is a sustained interest in the Empty Tomb among Christians, even today, attempting to convince a skeptical world that a first century corpse underwent revivification, hung out with his former fishing buddies for forty days, and is now seated on a golden throne ruling the universe as King of the Cosmos.
LikeLike
You simply are unable to get my responses to your initial questionable assertions.
You initially asserted that since Paul doesn’t record his visit to the tomb, because there is no account in the NT of Christians venerating the tomb, and because the Sanhedrin didnt accuse the disciples of stealing the body, that therefore there was no tomb in the first place.
I simply pointed out that the early Christians believed Christ rose from the dead, therefore venerating the tomb wouldn’t have made sense, because Jesus defeated death.
The irony is that you ignore the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb.
Besides, the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, and the small Christian community there had fled the city just before the war.
We do know that Hadrian had a temple of Jupiter built over the site of a specific tomb for some reason, and that Constantine later built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on that site because when his mother visited Jerusalem, she was told that was the site of Jesus’ tomb.
That tells me that people knew where the tomb was. Simply because there isn’t any accounts in the NT of Christians venerating the tomb–that is literally an argument from silence that there was no tomb in the first place.
LikeLike
I simply pointed out that the early Christians believed Christ rose from the dead, therefore venerating the tomb wouldn’t have made sense, because Jesus defeated death.
venerate: regard with great respect; revere.
And I said that one million Christians today revere the alleged Empty Tomb each and every year. Yet, you want us to believe that first century Christians were unlike Christians of today and Christians of the fourth century who pleaded with Constantine to venerate Jesus’ alleged empty tomb with a massive cathedral built on top of it.
What evidence do you have for your assertion?
LikeLike
What is your evidence that Christians in the 4th century “pleaded with Constantine to venerate Jesus’ empty tomb”?
The FACTS we know is that (A) when Constantine’s mother went to Jerusalem, Christians there showed her Jesus’ tomb, and (B) Constantine decided to build a church on the site.
LikeLike
You forgot to mention that the Marcarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem during the time of Constantine, also claimed to have found Jesus’ cross and displayed it to the Queen Mother, Helena. (He obviously was a VERY reliable source.)
From this Christian website: here
St. Macarius was Bishop of Jerusalem from the early 300’s till his death about 325. He was a lifelong and staunch opponent of Arianism and fought strenuously against this pernicious heresy. He was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and played a large role in drafting the Creed. Soon after the Council, together with St. Helena, Macarius miraculously discovered the true Cross in Jerusalem, and he was commissioned by her son, Emeror Constantine, to build the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Later, he and his fellow Bishop of Palestine received another letter from Constantine to construct a church at Mamre.
Gary: Marcarius and Eusebius were not trustworthy sources. This same “Church” would later claim to possess Jesus’ burial clothes in Turin, nails from the cross all over Europe, splinters from the cross all over Europe, and let’s not forget the discovery and display of the Holy Foreskin in a church in Italy for hundreds of years.
Christians were NOT reliable sources of information. They LIED. They had an agenda.
LikeLike
That’s a splendid rule: “Christians LIE! Let’s not believe any claim!”
LikeLike
I never said that. Christians are human beings. They lie no more nor no less than other human beings. All human beings are capable of lying when they have an agenda they feel they must achieve (converting lost souls to the cause).
The same Christian who “discovered” Jesus’ empty tomb in circa 300 CE is the same Christian who claims to have discovered Jesus’ (empty) cross. Do you believe this man was a trustworthy historical source, Dr. Anderson?
LikeLike
All human beings are capable of lying when they have an agenda they feel they must achieve …
Even in the present day … !
LikeLike
But Gary, anyone who reads your posts knows that, practically speaking, that is where you go to 9 times out of 10.
To you, practically everything in the Bible, or particularly the Gospels, is “a forgery,” “plagiarism,” etc. etc. That provides you a really nice “out” whenever you want to dismiss anything in the Bible.
LikeLike
Give me any story in the Gospels which you believe to be historical. Let’s analyze the evidence for that event together, and then let’s see who is rational and who is irrational. (Not a general concept but an actual story.)
LikeLike
Here you go again with this idiotic simpleton stuff. I have explained what the Gospels are to you time and time again, and you insist on this stupid “either/or” crap.
But okay, I believe Jesus really healed the blind and lame. I believe he really cast out demons. He cured Peter’s mother-in-law. The stories in the Gospels shouldn’t be read as “historical documentaries;” they are crafted literarily as the authors shape their Gospels and major themes, etc. But they talking about historical events and people.
LikeLike
Demons? Are you serious?
What other beliefs have you up your theist sleeve, Joel?
Witches on broomsticks?
Have you drunk any poison lately or allowed a snake to bite you?
After all, the bible says it’s perfectly okay to do so if you have…. Faith.
And you have the audacity to deride Ken Ham.
🤦
LikeLike
You’re not a serious person, Ark. You live in a perpetual state of mockery and condescension. That’s why no one can have a serious, civil conversation with you.
LikeLike
Oh, the hypocrisy from the great Mister Anderson.
We live in the 21st century and here you are expressing belief in demons as if we are in the middle ages, and we know what often happened to those who fell foul of authorities like you.
You berate Gary and I for our simplistic, mocking take of your religion yet you have gone out of your way to mock Ken Ham. And yet, here you are defending the ludicrous notion of demon possession.
LikeLike
Yep…
LikeLike
No … he just sees things as they are. He’s not blinded by years of indoctrination that accompanies folks who need to validate their beliefs via others who support those beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, you guys are some of the most indoctrinated people I’ve ever come across. You are absolutely incapable of contemplating anything outside of your deeply ingrained, indoctrinated dogma. Anything outside of that, you immediately attack with mockery and scorn.
LikeLike
Says the man who goes to enormous lengths to ridicule Ken Ham and YEC.
You are the epitome of indoctrination or, if you don’t like the term, blatent dishonesty.
LikeLike
Yes, both you and Ken Ham have a set of rigid ideological beliefs, and you attack and mock anyone who expresses an opinion different from them.
LikeLike
In actual fact I am open-minded about many things. However, I will not tolerate dishonesty, disingenuity and religious BS from hypocritical adults like you who lack basic integrity and should know better.
LikeLike
HAHAHA….”I’m totally open-minded, but screw religious types!”
LikeLike
Ok, everyone. Let’s get back to discussing the evidence for our claims.
Joel: Do you believe it is wise to trust Marcarian for the location of Jesus’ empty tomb when he is the same guy who claimed to discover Jesus’ cross?
LikeLike
Not screw religious types per say…
Screw hypocritical disingenious religious types who lack basic integrity
LikeLike
Lol…Ark, you never change.
LikeLike
And neither do you.
I always smile when you start to include your manic ‘Lols’ in your comments.
Always a sign you know when you have painted yourself into a corner.
LikeLike
No, just laughing at you.
LikeLike
Glad to oblige
LikeLike
Sorry! I can’t resist!
Takes one to know one.
LikeLike
I applaud your restraint, Nan.
He really does not deserve such a polite response to his dishonesty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The irony is that you ignore the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb.
I don’t ignore them. They are evidence that supports the historicity of the empty tomb, but they are weak evidence for several reasons:
-These four texts are anonymous. Their authors do not tell us who they are. Their authorship was attributed to disciples of Jesus and disciples of the Apostles approximately one century later, but the accuracy of this attribution is contested among experts.
-All four books were written decades (at least one generation) after the alleged events they describe. A significant percentage of scholars doubt that the authors were eyewitnesses or even associates of eyewitnesses.
-The four Gospels’ status as “corroborating, independent sources” is hotly contested among the experts, as it is possible that all of the latter three authors had access to the first author’s text.
-Paul says nothing about an empty rock tomb. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the empty rock tomb story was invented by the author of Mark, and simply embellished by the later three gospel authors, two and probably three of whom had access to Mark’s original story.
-There is no evidence that the Romans or the Jews had any interest in the “Empty Tomb”. This is odd, especially for the Romans, because it would have been a huge embarrassment for Rome that Roman guards allowed the body of a seditionist which they were guarding to be stolen. A massive search would have been conducted to bring the perpetrators to justice.
–The Sanhedrin did not attempt to arrest Peter and John for preaching the resurrection on Pentecost. If the Sanhedrin had publicly accused the disciples of stealing the body, a body under Roman guard, how would it have looked to Pilate that the Sanhedrin let the perpetrators of this high crime slip through their fingers?
The evidence strongly indicates that the Empty Tomb tale was a later invention. It is probably not historical.
LikeLike
(A) The Gospels are dated within a generation of Jesus’s ministry–and they attest to an empty tomb.
(B) You consistently misunderstand and mischaracterize the whole “anonymous Gospels” claim. It simply is the observation that the Gospels themselves aren’t “signed” so to speak.
(C) Your claim that since Paul doesn’t mention a rock hewn tomb, that therefore Mark made it up is the most silent of arguments from silence.
(D) Your claim about the Romans and the tomb is entire conjecture.
(E) In Acts, the Sanhedrin did arrest Peter and John because they were preaching Jesus’s resurrection and that the Sanhedrin was guilty of getting Jesus killed.
(F) As for Matthew 28, we are told the Sanhedrin tried to keep everything quiet precisely because the soldiers told them what had happened.
There is NO evidence that the empty tomb was a later invention. Your speculations are not evidence.
LikeLike
Besides, the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, and the small Christian community there had fled the city just before the war.
Yes, everyone (Christians, Jews, and Romans) prior to 70 CE knew of the location of the Empty Tomb but by 71 CE everyone who knew its location was dead or had forgotten. Sure. That is certainly within the realm of possibilities but another possibility is that no one prior to 70 CE knew about an Empty Tomb either … because Jesus’ empty tomb never existed.
LikeLike
Your speculations are not evidence.
LikeLike
Don’t be so gullible, Dr. Anderson. Just because a story exists in an ancient middle eastern text is not evidence of its veracity. Use a little common sense. Please. These ancient superstitious people had an agenda: to win souls! “I am willing to be all things to all men” if it converts non-believers.
LikeLike
I am sticking with the ancient sources we have. I’m not summarily dismissing any and everything claimed in the Gospels and the early Church.
Again, the FACTS:
1. First century documents dating within a generation claim and empty tomb.
2. Paul, a Pharisee, claimed Jesus was resurrected–and Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection.
3. Constantine built a church on the site the people of Jerusalem claimed was Jesus’ tomb.
At the very least, from the late 60s, we have IN WRITING claims of a literal empty tomb. To sweep all that aside simply because Paul doesn’t say in one if his letters, “there was a rock hewn tomb” is the epitome of irrational and hyper-skepticism that cannot be taken seriously.
LikeLike
The CORRECT facts:
A generation is usually considered to be 20-30 years. If Jesus died in 30 CE and Mark was written in 65 CE, that is slightly more than one generation, but lets not quibble over five years. Let’s agree that the first Gospel, Mark, the first Christian document to say anything about an empty tock tomb, was written within a generation of Jesus. Is 35 years enough time for legend and hearsay to enter the Jesus Story? Christian apologists are adamant that this is too short a time period. I would suggest that anyone who believes that gossip and rumor cannot radically change an historical core fact within only a few WEEKS need only investigate QAnon.
I agree. However, that in no way proves that Paul believed that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb or that Paul could give directions to an empty grave in Jerusalem for people to visit to verify it did not contain a body.
Assumption! As far as I am aware, the only person to claim knowledge of the site of Jesus’ empty tomb was one man, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Marcarius. It is reported in Christian texts that his finding of the cross of Jesus was “miraculous”. Maybe his finding of the tomb was “miraculous”? Please provide evidence than other people in Jerusalem claimed to know the site of Jesus burial before Marcarius’ miraculous discovery. (I will bet that you can’t!)
LikeLike
Your first paragraph–if you think claims of a dead guy coming back to life could just “appear” within weeks, when no one ORIGINALLY thought that–and then that claim would stick….maybe you’re the QAnon guy. lol
Blather. Paul claimed Jesus resurrected. Resurrected physically. Paul said he was crucified, BURIED, and rose on the third day, then appeared to his disciples. He clearly believed Jesus was BURIED. You’re dismissing claims of his being buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s TOMB, simply because Paul doesn’t say, “Jesus was buried in a ROCK HEWN TOMB”? Really?
I have no problem believing that Christians in Jerusalem in the early 4th century thought that was the location of Jesus’ tomb. Or are you claiming that ONLY Marcarius thought that…and he didn’t tell ANYONE, until Constantine’s mother showed up? Really?
LikeLike
-Ghost stories “pop up” all the time, Joel. The onus is on Christians to prove that the Resurrection tales in the Gospels are facts, not legends.
-Just because Paul claimed that Jesus was buried does not mean that Paul believed that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb (the type of burial that only the rich could afford in Paul’s day). You believe that four books, written decades later, two and maybe three of which had authors who had access to the first book, is good evidence. I believe that the silence of Paul, the Romans, the Jewish authorities, and the Early Church Fathers regarding this alleged site is strong evidence that it is a theological invention.
We will have to let the Reader decide for him or herself.
-I too have no problem believing it is possible that Christians in Jerusalem in the early 4th century believed that the site on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was later built was the location of the tomb of Jesus. But before stating it is a fact, I’d like to see some evidence. Do you have any?
I didn’t think so.
Or are you claiming that ONLY Marcarius thought that…and he didn’t tell ANYONE, until Constantine’s mother showed up? Really?
Let’s see…Do I believe that it is possible that the same organization which claims, to this day, that pieces of the cross, nails from the cross, the thorns from Jesus’ head, his burial clothes, and even his holy foreskin have been “miraculously” discovered and are now displayed in churches as “authentic”, in churches all over Europe, would invent the “miraculous” discovery of his tomb?
You’re damn right, I do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you believe that Marcarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem in the early 300’s, found the cross of Jesus as he claimed?
LikeLike
To be clear, the question as to whether there was an empty tomb at all in AD 33, and the question as to whether or not the tomb under the Church of the Holy Sephulcre is the actual tomb of Christ are two different questions.
I don’t see any reason to doubt the claim in the Gospels that Jesus was buried in a tomb. We know that the tomb under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is dated to the first century, so it is of course possible it is Christ’s tomb, but there is no way to know for certain.
LikeLike
I don’t see any reason to doubt the claim in the Gospels … 😈
And therein lies the conundrum.
LikeLike
Crucifixion was used as punishment against enemies of the state. The character Jesus of Nazareth was executed for sedition.
Those crucified were left on the cross to rot it, or if lucky, buried in a shallow grave.
Pilate’s nature is documented and he was recalled to Rome for excessive brutality. Hardly the type of person to bow to pressure from a bunch of noisome Jews!
So there is no reason why a trouble making Jew would have been shown any mercy in this regard by Pilate and been allowed a formal buriel.
This is why there is no verified archaeological evidence of a rock hewn tomb.
In fact, the entire trial from the minimalist exchange in gMark to the almost ‘chatty’ Jesus in gJohn to the ridiculous appeal to the crowd reads like a piece of theological prose/ theater.
LikeLike
Actually, it would be very much in Pilate’s character to stick it to the Sanhedrin who pressured him into crucifying some obscure peasant who spoke against the Temple establishment but who was no real threat to Rome.
LikeLike
Your reply makes no sense as Pilate simply followed protocol and crucified the character for sedition.
End of story.
Furthermore if he wanted to “stick it” to the Sanhedrin, the last thing he would have done would be to have given the body over to a member of the Sanhedrin for a formal buriel.
LikeLike
BTW: Thank you to everyone involved in this conversation for maintaining a polite tone. We can disagree vociferously over the evidence in question without engaging in personal insults.
Keep it up, everyone!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you state what Jesus did to be convicted of sedition?
Giving the body to a follower of Christ for burial would be a way to stick it to the high priest who arranged everything to get Jesus killed.
LikeLike
Exactly.
So, Joel, you want us to believe that Pilate executed Jesus for sedition against Caesar…but fifty days later he could not be bothered that FIVE THOUSAND Jews, in the Temple, convert to this man’s new (seditious) sect…and he does…nothing??? These “facts” are fabricated.
Too silly to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why didn’t the Sanhedrin round up, arrest, and hand over to Pilate the entire existing Church who were preaching in the Temple on Pentecost? After all, the Sanhedrin had publicly accused these very people of corpse theft from a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers. Why let them off with a slap on the wrist? And how could “five thousand” people convert to this new belief system on Pentecost, in the most public place in Jerusalem, the Temple, just 50 days after Pilate had executed its leader, and Pilate makes no effort to round them all up and execute them?
This story is just too silly to be historical.
LikeLike
You really think Pilate would care about rounding up and executing some Jews who claimed their crucified leader came back to life, especially when they were causing any trouble to him?
The Sanhedrin’s charge of corpse theft was as transparent and stupid as the claims that Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t really his. There was no way they could justify arresting them.
5,000 didn’t “convert to a new belief system” at Pentecost. They were filled with the Spirit and accepted that Jesus was the Messiah. They still considered themselves Jews.
Your claims are too silly to be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Hear. Hear.
LikeLike
I don’t see any reason to doubt the claim in the Gospels that Jesus was buried in a tomb.
Well, of course you don’t. You want so desperately for your superstitious belief system to be true that you suspend rational judgment and objectivity regarding evidence which if used for any other religion’s supernatural claims you would snicker and handwave away.
LikeLike
It is a completely realistic, non-miraculous claim. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss that claim, especially when it is found in the same passage where we are told that Jesus was arrested, crucified, and died….things I’m assuming you accept as true.
So, what you are doing is taking a single passage and saying, “Yes, A, B, and C, all happened, but that D part–the claim that a dead body was buried in a tomb–CRAZY!”
Really?
LikeLike
Do you believe everything you read, Joel?
The authors of the Gospels were not writing history text books. They had an agenda. They were selling something. That something is “eternal salvation”. I don’t trust people who are trying to sell me something. I don’t trust salesmen! Salesmen will often exaggerate and fabricate their stories to sell whatever it is they are selling.
So, no. I do not believe ANYTHING, no matter how mundane, a salesman (including the authors of religious pamphlets or books) says without verifying his claims. The issue with any salesman is: How far will he (or she) go to make a sale? Would they tell a white lie to make a sale? Would they fabricate a whopper of a lie to make a sale? Well, I would have to know the character of the salesman, wouldn’t I. And since we don’t know for certain who the authors of the Gospels were, there is no way to verify their honesty and character.
So telling me to trust four Christian salesmen, who lived and wrote 2,000 years ago, just because you think they were being truthful, is irrational, immature, and ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for putting your irrational hyper skepticism on full dislay.
LikeLike
You keep telling yourself that the problem is my hyper skepticism, Joel. It is all because I don’t believe in the supernatural. The problem with that argument is that the world’s 2 billion Muslims and Jews agree with me. And they all believe in the supernatural. How do you explain that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We do know that Hadrian had a temple of Jupiter built over the site of a specific tomb for some reason, and that Constantine later built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on that site because when his mother visited Jerusalem, she was told that was the site of Jesus’ tomb. That tells me that people knew where the tomb was. Simply because there isn’t any accounts in the NT of Christians venerating the tomb–that is literally an argument from silence that there was no tomb in the first place. –Dr. Anderson, OT Bible scholar
There is NO evidence whatsoever that Hadrian built a temple over one specific tomb. The fact that he built a new building outside the walls of a major city and ended up building on top of a few graves should not be surprising to anyone. PLEASE provide any evidence you have that Hadrian intentionally built his pagan temple on the site of Jesus’ empty tomb. I would LOVE to see it. But you don’t have any evidence, do you? Nice try.
And why did Constantine build a church on the same site as Hadrian’s temple which happened to have a few tombs underneath it? Please provide the evidence. I’ve read the research and this is it: “there MIGHT have been some graffiti on the tomb, indicating it was the empty tomb of Jesus”. THAT’S IT!!! Historians have zero evidence that anyone knew the location of Jesus’ tomb prior to the Bishop of Jerusalem requesting that a great church be built in his city. For all we know, he made it up for obvious personal reasons.
And please answer this question: Why was Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea at the time, initially skeptical of the site if everyone in Palestine had known the location of this tomb for the previous circa 300 years???
LikeLike
As always, you twist what I’m saying. I didn’t say, “Hadrian built a temple, knowing it was Jesus’ tomb.” I said Hadrian built a temple on the site of a tomb (yes, I used the word “specific”), and then later, the people in Jerusalem told Constantine’s mother that site where the temple was, was indeed the tomb of Jesus.
Those are the historical facts we have. You claiming here in the 21st century that the bishop of Jerusalem had “personal reasons” for requesting a church–again, your speculations are not evidence.
LikeLike
No. That is not what you said. Let me copy and paste your statement:
“We do know that Hadrian had a temple of Jupiter built over the site of a specific tomb for some reason,”
Your comment infers that Hadrian knowingly built a temple over a specific tomb which carried some unknown significance. An honest statement would be: Hadrian had a temple of Jupiter built outside the walls of Jerusalem. When it was excavated by Constantine multiple graves were found underneath.
But no, you chose to infer that Hadrian knew there was a special tomb under his pagan temple. Typical Christian fudging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe it did. We don’t know. But he DID choose to build a temple to Jupiter over that tomb. Why did ancient rulers often build monuments and pagan temples in specific places? Can you tell me?
LikeLike
I can think of one. How many temples to Jupiter (the supreme god of Rome) were there in Jerusalem at the time? One? If so, I will bet that Constantine wanted to show that his god (Jesus) was more powerful than the god of his pagan opponents back in Rome (and that he was more powerful than his pagan human opponents). So he tore down Jupiter’s temple and erected a temple to Jesus on the exact same site.
LikeLike
And why do you think Hadrian built the Temple to Jupiter on that spot in AD 135, right after the Bar-Kochba Revolt? Yes, he wanted to show dominance over the Jews, but he also was well aware of Christians and their claims by then as well. So let’s see, why would he build a Temple to Jupiter on that particular spot??? Hmmmm….
LikeLike
Could you provide your sources, please? Or are you just blowing hot air?
LikeLike
It is common knowledge that Hadrian built it in Jerusalem in 135 AD, right after his crushing the Bar Kochba revolt.
LikeLike
You are a master of prevarication!
The issue is not IF Hadrian built a temple in Jerusalem but the reasons for the particular site he chose to build upon. Please be honest and provide sources for your claim that he built on the site he chose because he knew Jesus’ empty tomb was underneath it.
You can’t. That is why you create Strawmen and prevaricate.
LikeLike
You LITERALLY made the exact same kind of claim when you said Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to show victory over paganism!
I was AGREEING with you a bit. Yes, that is what kings would do–build temples and shrines on the older holy sites of a defeated people. Do you HONESTLY think Hadrian, after defeating the Jews in the Bar Kochba Revolt, and who also knew about the Christians and their claims by that point, do you HONESTLY think he just plopped down the Temple of Jupiter on a random spot in Jerusalem?
LikeLike
If the Christian Church had left prior to 70 CE, why would Hadrian care about them? And if he really wanted to offend the Jews he would have built his pagan temple on top of Temple Mount. There is no record for why Hadrian chose the site he did. Just admit it, Joel. You are making assumption after assumption to hold your cherished belief together. Doesn’t that tell you something?
LikeLike
Do you trust the Church’s “discovery” of the nails from the cross? How about splinters from the cross? How about the crown of thorns from the crucifixion? How about the entire cross???
I doubt it. Yet you want us to trust the same Church regarding the location of Jesus’ empty tomb. A tomb about which no Christian said a peep for the previous 300 years! Are you being rational on this issue, Joel?
LikeLike
Like I said earlier, the claim in the Gospels that Jesus was buried in a tomb and the claim the the Church of the Holy Sephulcre was built on the site of the tomb are two different issues.
And like I said before, I see no reason to reject the claim in the Gospels that he was buried in a tomb. It is completely non-miraculous claim. You accept other claims in the narrative (his arrest, crucifixion, death) but for no rational reason at all, you reject the notion he could have been buried in a tomb.
And, then I detailed the undisputed facts regarding when and where the Church of the Holy Sephulcre was built. Of course the site is disputed, but what isn’t in dispute is that the church was built on a tomb from the 1st century.
As for Hadrian’s temple, it turns out some sites say he built it on the Temple mount, and some say he built it on a grave site. Other sites say the there was a shrine to Jupiter or Venus over the grave site. So, who knows? I’m not going to bother to try to investigate it any further on my phone. But either way, I was simply pointing out that if you were to be consistent with your claim that Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sephulcre intentionally over a pagan site, then you’d had to also acknowledge it entirely possible for pagan emperors (like Hadrian) to build temples/shrines on religious sites for Jews and Christians.
LikeLike
And like I said before, I see no reason to reject the claim in the Gospels that he was buried in a tomb. It is completely non-miraculous claim. You accept other claims in the narrative (his arrest, crucifixion, death) but for no rational reason at all, you reject the notion he could have been buried in a tomb.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe that a first century Jew named Jesus caused a disturbance with his apocalyptic preaching and was crucified by the Romans, and, that some time after his death, some of his followers believed he appeared to them in some fashion. That does NOT mean that I accept as historical fact any of the stories about this man in the Gospels. Can you understand the difference, Joel? I can believe that George Washington was a historical person who lived on a plantation in Virginia without believing a story about him chopping down his father’s cherry tree.
LikeLike
But you are rejecting the veracity of the only first century documents we have about Jesus and are basically making up your own reasons as to why Jesus was crucified.
The only reason you say he was an “apocalyptic prophet” is because you’re parroting Ehrman. His take is simply wrong.
Besides, since you’re always gung-ho on corroborate evidence, what is your evidence that Pilate at that time viewed Jesus as a threat to Rome? Is there any Roman record from that time that suggests that?
LikeLike
The historicity of Jesus hangs by a thread. I believe he existed only because that is the consensus of historians. So don’t ask me for evidence of his existence.
LikeLike
You have an amazing talent for intellectual gymnastics.
LikeLike
HA-HA! Takes one to know one …
LikeLike
What are you? 12?
I’m quite consistent on my approach to the Bible. I accept the Gospels as historical biographies. Still, I acknowledge there is literary artistry going on (not just in the Gospels but throughout the Biblical narratives)–what we have is history presented through literary art. Therefore, when it comes to every specific detail, of course we can’t “prove” everything historically. But there is enough other textual and archeological evidence that places the narratives in the Bible within history. That’s good enough for me.
When I read something, like the Gospel of Matthew, therefore, I am interested in how the author of Matthew has shaped his Gospel and what he is trying to teach through his telling of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t obsess over the insane things that are obsessed over on this blog. It gets to the point of outright silliness.
Gary says, “The historicity of Jesus hangs by a thread.” That tells me he is a mythicist at heart, but just can’t bring himself to fully embrace it, because he knows, deep down, how insane such a view is. And so, he gives a general acknowledgement that “there was some dude named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans”–but then he fights tooth and nail with every other single thing put forth in the NT. It is a fanatical skepticism, masquerading as intellectualism, but it comes across as just absurdity.
LikeLike
No, I’m just a BIT older than that … 👵
But your accusation to Gary related to “intellectual gymnastics” is exactly what comes across in your many responses to his questions. I’m certain you’re convinced that your extensive reading and study gives you an in-road, but when push comes to shove … that’s all it is. There simply is no proof of ANY of it.
LikeLike
Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.
I accept as historical fact all details about Jesus about which there is a consensus of historians. Ditto with Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Muhammad. I am consistent.
If you can demonstrate that it is the consensus of historians (not Christian Bible scholars and theologians) that the empty rock tomb of Jesus existed and provide reputable sources which support that claim, I will accept it as fact.
LikeLike
No you won’t.
LikeLike
So you admit you don’t have any evidence. Thank you.
LikeLike
LOL…no…
LikeLike
Here is the position of most historians on the question of the historicity of Jesus: A collection of snippets from non-Christian sources about Jesus exist. They may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.
That’s it.
A few brief references from non-Christian historians and the fact that no non-Christian historian indicated he was a made up character. That truly meets the definition of: “his historicity hangs by a thread”.
LikeLike
Yes, if you throw out four historical biographies of the man that date to within 30-60 years of the events in question, yes, there isn’t much there. Haha
LikeLike
Would you kindly detail your definition of historical biography?
LikeLike
We’ve had this discussion many times before, and you refuse to accept it. They are historical biographies and historical narratives. They are about history. You refuse to accept them as reliable.
LikeLike
If the Gospels are historical biographies, written by Jewish authors, about an historical Jew, why do you believe the overwhelming majority of Jews, including Michael Alter, the Jewish author of the book featured in this post, reject the Gospels as historically reliable texts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It isn’t a matter of “if.” It is a basic acknowledgement of their genre. What you’re asking is like, “IF Pride and Prejudice is a novel…”
You’re just denying reality. Alter has a bias and agenda and he is mischaracterizing the Gospels. Much of what he says (what you’ve highlighted) I just find absurd.
LikeLike
@joel.
I cannot recall ever reading a critical Bible scholar or historian that has asserted the gospels are historically reliable.. Can you offer a few names to support your assertion so I can fact check?
LikeLike
Then you haven’t been reading much. I am simply stating a genre category fact: They are historical biographies.
And, like I’ve send millions of times before, that doesn’t mean they are historical documentaries. There is obviously literary artistry going on in the telling. But they are still HISTORICAL biographies, about a HISTORICAL person and HISTORICAL events.
And I’ve given names of scholars in the past on this very topic, and, like clockwork, your reply is, “Oh, but they’re CHRISTIANS! They’re INDOCTRINATED! They work at CHRISTIAN schools and have to sign statements of faith!”
It is so predictable and pathetic. You have an excuse for everything, so you can justify your irrational denial of basic facts.
LikeLike
I know how you interpret the term historical biographies.
However, you asserted the gospels are historically reliable. This is the statement I am querying and why I asked for a few names, obviously not the likes of McDowell or Strobel, but critical scholars, historians etc that I could read and fact check.
LikeLike
Generally, they are. They tell about what Jesus preached and did.
Like I’ve said millions of times before, that doesn’t mean they are like historical documentaries. They aren’t news reports. They are WORKS OF LITERATURE. That means there is LITERARY CREATIVITY going on. How many times do I have to spell this out?
That means that you can’t go through the Gospels and “prove” that every single person Jesus healed was clearly a historical person. That doesn’t mean they were literary fictions. It means that the Gospels are testifying that Jesus did, in fact, heal people, and they then have crafted those accounts into their literary framework.
Did Jesus heal one or two men outside of Jericho? Who cares? Both Mark and Matthew mention it, but Matthew often puts things in twos throughout his Gospel. The point is that both are testifying that Jesus did, in fact, heal someone of blindness.
But you will reject that, not really because Matthew and Mark don’t say the exact same thing, but because you simply reject anything that smacks of the supernatural out of hand. You simply don’t believe–and you won’t believe anything that makes those claims, no matter how reliable it may be.
LikeLike
I really am not interested in your personal interpretation so please, stop with the gaslighting and have the integrity to provide a few name
( historians / critical Bible scholars) that support your assertion the gospels are historically reliable
LikeLike
It is not a “personal interpretation.” As a specific genre, the Gospels are historical biographies.
And then, I’ve explained to you what that means. Good Lord…You can look up the work of Ben Witherington, Gordon Fee, NT Wright….the list can go on and on. This is basic, elementary stuff when it comes to Biblical Studies.
LikeLike
You confuse Greco-Roman biographies with modern biographies.
LikeLike
No, I don’t. I have REPEATEDLY said throughout the years there is a difference. But you don’t listen–you are unable to listen because you are in your own world of indoctrinated hyper-skepticism.
LikeLike
Then stop saying that the Gospels are historically reliable. Being historically reliable was not a mandatory criterion of Greco-Roman biographies.
LikeLike
Anderson is simply a disingenious, dishonest evangelical fundamentalist.
He really should stick to writing his awful book reviews.
LikeLike
I have REPEATEDLY SAID they are historical biographies. I’ve explained what that means, time and time again. You have ears but you cannot hear.
LikeLike
No one is arguing with you about the genre of the Gospels. We are debating your claim that the Gospels are “historically reliable”. You are either very dense or very devious. Which is it?
LikeLike
I am not asking about historical biographies but your assertion the gospels are historically reliable.
Once again, will you please offer a few names of critical bible scholars and/ or historians who support your assertion of historical reliability?
Of those you have offered, Witherington and Fee are evangelical/Pentecostal.
Seriously, do you not know of a single mainstream historian who supports your assertion of historical reliability?
LikeLike
“Of those you have offered, Witherington and Fee are evangelical/Pentecostal.”
Right on cue. You are laughably predictable.
LikeLike
The only people who believe that the Gospels are historically reliable are believers in the corpse revivification of Jesus. Jews don’t believe they are historically reliable. Muslims don’t believe they are historically reliable. Atheists and agnostics don’t believe they are historically reliable. And even a significant percentage of Christians don’t believe the Gospels are historically reliable. The majority of the people of the world do not believe the Gospels are historically reliable, Joel.
You believe the Gospels are historically reliable because you so desperately want your magic-filled Jesus Story to be true. You are not a child, Joel. It is time to grow up. Magic is not real.
LikeLike
No, I believe they are historically reliable because they are, in fact, historically reliable.
I feel sorry for you Gary. No matter how often I try to explain things to you, you simply insist in remaining in your insulated little positivist bubble, where nothing can challenge you or get in the way of your own indoctrinated ideology.
LikeLike
So you cannot give the name of a single historian who supports your assertion the gospels are historically reliably.
Right on cue you are a liar.
LikeLike
Have a wonderful time in your insulated bubble of confirmation bias. When evidence is presented, you dismiss it and then insist on seeing evidence. When scholars are offered, you reject them and then scream for scholars.
It is laughable juvenile and childish.
LikeLike
You are a disingenious evangelical who when challenged, misrepresents every aspect of your faith-based belief. In essence, you simply have no integrity and lie.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not an Evangelical. It’s like you never get anything right.
When someone disagrees with you and gives reasons why they think/believe what they do, that is not “lying” or being “disingenuous.”
When you fly off in a rage and insult and attack people so much that even those on your own “side” tell you to knock it off…then that’s saying something. Do a little self-reflection.
LikeLike
I repeatedly asked you for the names of historians who support your assertion the gospels are historically reliable.
Show some integrity and give me at least one name.
LikeLike
No, you are lying, Joel. Stop it. Admit that the issue in contention is your claim that the Gospels are historically reliable and not their literary genre. You have created a convenient strawman with which to berate us.
LikeLike
I take my leave of you both. You both have proven yourselves incapable of understanding any kind of nuanced explanation that goes beyond the most simplistic of answers.
LikeLike
No. Labeling us as idiots is not going to work, not with any reader of this blog who is honest and open-minded. Admit you have been deceitful, Joel. We are not contesting the genre of the Gospels, and you know it. Shame on you.
Is that what is ultimately required to protect and defend your cherished Christian superstitions: Lying and deceit? Jesus must be rolling over in his grave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No…you have repeatedly made the utterly ridiculous claims that the Gospels may be historical biographies, but they aren’t really historical. You cannot hold together this historicity of the Gospels with the literary artistry of the Gospels. You think that because the authors were writing them to convince people Jesus was Lord, that they were writing fiction.
It amazes me how you can’t see the ridiculousness of that view.
LikeLike
You are either prevaricating (lying) again or not as intelligent as we thought. Greco-Roman biographies were not required to be historically accurate. What was required is that the story reflected the “true character” of the main protagonist. That is all that had to be accurate! Fictional details and even fictional stories were frequent features of this genre. So, no one but fundamentalist Christians believe that the story of Jesus feeding five thousand people or the story of Jesus being greeted by great crowds of people on Palm Sunday as the new king of Israel (the Romans would have slaughtered every person present) are historically accurate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, let’s flesh this put.
You are claiming that ancient historical biographies would create fictional stories to reflect the true character of the individual.
The difference between what I’m saying and you’re saying is this: I acknowledge the Gospel writers used creative, artistic license; I said Matthew probably conflated Jesus’ various teachings over the course of his ministry into a singular “Sermon on the Mount.” Therefore, yes, you can argue that the “Sermon on the Mount” is a literary “fiction”–there was no literal, one-time Sermon on the Mount. Still, there is historical material upon which the Sermon on the Mount is based. Matthew does it that way because it reflects Jesus’ true character and teaching.
The same can be said with everything in the Gospels. That is what they’re doing in their historical biographies of Jesus.
So, the stories of his healing. Of course they are literarily/artistically crafted in the same fashion. Whether there was a historical Bartimaeus or not, that story is telling us something about Jesus’ character and ministry that involved his healing people.
If he didn’t literally heal people, then those stories, even if you call them “fictional stories,” would not be based on history, and would be COMPLETE fictions. And if they were COMPLETE fictions, then they wouldn’t be reflecting Jesus’ true character.
Simply put, if the stories in an ancient biography are COMPLETE fictions, they wouldn’t be called HISTORICAL biographies. The stories in ancient historical biographies are fundamentally based on actual historical happenings. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be a true reflection of the individual who is the focus of the ancient historical biography.
Please tell me you get that.
LikeLike
Wrong.
If a Greco-Roman author claimed that Jesus as an emperor of Rome who defeated the Persians in a battle near present day Baghdad in 33 CE, that would not be acceptable. But if a first century author believed that the protagonist of his book, a real historical person, was a healer and miracle worker it would be perfectly acceptable to invent elaborate healing stories and miracle stories about him that had no basis in reality (fiction). In other words, the author sincerely believes the man in question had the power to heal and perform miracles but the healing and miracle stories the author tells about this man in his book are pure fiction.
Can you understand that nuance, Joel? If you can’t, you are poorly informed or are lying.
LikeLike
That’s not nuance. That is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Joel: You are demonstrating to the world that you are a fundamentalist Protestant at heart. Here is proof:
Dale Allison, Christian New Testament scholar: “Early Christians had the imaginative ability to fabricate fictions on the basis of theological convictions, and on more than one occasion they did so.” Allison writes emphatically, “One of them made up the story in Matthew 27:51b-53:
And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
We can also be fairly confident that the narrative about the guard [at the tomb] in Matthew 27:62-66, which has no parallel in Mark, Luke, or John, is sheer fiction.”
–Dale C. Allison, Jr. is the Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He earned his MA and PhD from Duke University. His academic research and publications include the historical Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew, Second Temple Judaism, and the history of the interpretation and application of biblical texts. His book, Constructing Jesus, was selected as “Best Book Relating to the New Testament” for 2009–2010 by the Biblical Archaeology Society. His most recent books are The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemic, History and Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age. He served for several years as the main New Testament editor for de Gruyter’s international Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception and has been on the editorial boards of multiple academic journals.
LikeLike
It is amazing how you are unable to comprehend anything I’ve said, no matter how many times I spell it out for you. You’re hopeless.
LikeLike
You have a very hard time with very simple English words.
fiction: something that is invented or untrue.
Dale Allison, a respected mainstream New Testament scholar, a professor at Princeton University, says that early Christian authors invented untrue stories about Jesus. They invented fictional stories about Jesus, according to Dr. Allison. YOU are not a New Testament scholar. YOU are not a professor at an Ivy League school.
We can only guess as to why early Christians did this. Maybe they believed that their first century readers would know that these stories were for theological purposes only; they never intended for them to be understood literally. Maybe they invented them just to make for a more compelling story (literary embellishments). And maybe… they LIED. Maybe they lied so that you and I might believe. That we might believe their tall tale of corpse revivification.
Is that simple enough for you, Joel?
LikeLike
Not only is my grad work in Biblical Studies, but my major was in Literature. Your definition of fiction is, as usual, wrong.
How does Allison know the Gospel writers invented their stories out of thin are? How does he know they are untrue? My guess is his reasoning goes like this: “This story shows signs of artistic shaping. This story has a theologial agenda. Therefore, it must be invented.”
Do you think that is sound reasoning? I don’t.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what you think. Having a BA in literature does not make you an expert in Literature. Experts in the field of New Testament Studies say some of the stories in the Gospels are invented fiction. The BIG question is: which stories are fiction and which are fact?
Answer: No way ANYONE can know for sure.
That is why it is entirely possible that there was no empty rock tomb. Mark’s Empty Rock Tomb Story may be fiction. It may be a theological/literary invention.
Please stop pushing a fundamentalist agenda. It is beneath you.
LikeLike
….and you are certain that they are invented fictions. You really need to acquire some self awareness. I mean, you have no idea whatsoever how NOT a Fundamentalist I am. To you, it is just an insult you throw at people who don’t accept your claim that the stories in the Gospels are invented fictions.
And it DOES matter that I have more education in literature than you, because your definition of “fiction” is simply wrong–objectively wrong.
LikeLike
No, I am not certain either way. Some of the stories in the Gospels may be historical. But since we have no undisputed, independent, corroborating secondary sources for these stories, no one can know for sure. (And if you dare to tell us that the four Gospels are undisputed, independent, corroborating sources I have some land in the Everglades to sell you.)
That is all The Historical Method 101, Joel. Very basic.
LikeLike
If you are not certain, then stop saying, “They are invented fictions!” That has been what I’m calling you on over and over again.
LikeLike
I’ll do that if you promise to stop saying “The Gospels are historically reliable”.
Deal?
LikeLike
And it DOES matter that I have more education in literature than you, because your definition of “fiction” is simply wrong–objectively wrong.
Are you really going to assert that Dr. Dale Allison, a professor at Princeton University, does not know the correct definition of “fiction”??? Good god. Get over yourself, Joel. You are NOT the final authority (typical fundamentalist thinking) on all issues.
LikeLike
If Dale Allison said the definition of “fiction” when it comes to literature and genre as “something that is invented and untrue,” then absolutely–he is 100% wrong and does not know the correct definition of “fiction.”
And there is the “Fundamentalist” accusation again–typical for someone who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
LikeLike
A fundamentalist believes that he alone (with the assistance of an all-knowing ghost which he believes lives inside his body) is the final arbiter of truth.
From MasterClass:
Works of fiction are those that tell made up stories. As opposed to the many genres of nonfiction—biography, autobiography, commentary, data analysis, philosophy, history, and others—fiction is defined by its focus on narratives invented by the author. Most academics and literary critics further subdivide fiction into two categories: genre fiction and literary fiction. What Is Literary Fiction? When compared to genre fiction, literary fiction tends to follow non-conventional plot structures while containing embedded symbolism and allegory. As a general rule, literary fiction and literary fiction writers are often studied in English departments at universities and receives careful criticism in journals like the Paris Review, The New York Review of Books, and The London Review of Books. Literary fiction can include novels, novellas, and short stories.
Literary fiction is not a rigidly defined term, but most works of literary fiction include one or more of these facets:
Character-focused narratives
Ample symbolism, metaphor, and allegory
Advanced vocabulary infused with imagery
Ambiguous plot points, including even the work’s conclusion
Exploration of larger philosophical themes regarding the human condition and the will of nature
Exploration of larger trends in history and culture
Lack of adherence to a fixed plot formula
Source: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/literary-fiction-definition-and-characteristics#3VVYief9ZMOOUoHZwP8WE5
LikeLike
So can a Greco-Roman biography contain literary fiction (material invented by the author)? Answer: Yes!
LikeLike
That’s not what a Fundamentalist….but that doesn’t describe me anyway.
LikeLike
I’ll do that if you promise to stop saying “The Gospels are historically reliable”.
Deal?
LikeLike
I can say, without any hesitation, that it is possible that some stories in the Gospels are historical; but it is impossible to know which are and which are not. But for you to make the very same statement would be an act of betrayal to your Faith. You can’t do it even though you know it is true. That is why trying to have a rational conversation with you is impossible. Reason and critical thinking skills will always take a back seat to your superstitions.
LikeLike
That is why it is wise to stick to what can be known: ancient historical biographies; historical; literary.
As soon as you start saying, “Okay, which parts are historical? Which are fiction?” You are trying to decide something that you have JUST ADMITTED you can’t do!
I’ll say it again: since they are HISTORICAL biographies, you have to take them that way at heart. You should also acknowledge their literary creativity and artistry. That is what I’ve been saying this entire time.
Nothing that I just said has anything to do with superstition or even religion. It is the rational way to approach ancient historical biographies.
But every time I challenge you when you start making baseless claims, you immediately resort to accusations of “fundamentalism” “superstition” “indoctrination”–its weak and lazy.
LikeLike
No, what you have been saying is that the Gospels are historically reliable. If no one knows which stories in the Gospels are historical and which are not it is ludicrous to claim the Gospels are historically reliable.
LikeLike
It truly is amazing how everything I say and explain goes in one ear and out the other.
LikeLike
I am willing to admit that it is possible that every story in the Gospels is historical. Can you admit that it is possible that every story in the Gospels is non-historical?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
Seriously? You are willing to accept the episode about the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian as historically reliable.
LikeLike
Sure. Anything is possible if one allows for the supernatural. But let’s see if Joel can be as open minded. I doubt it.
LikeLike
Possible vs. plausible. Do I think the resurrection appearances stories are possible? Yes. Do I think they are plausible? Hell, no.
LikeLike
When you say “possible” , you mean as a form of hallucination or some such?
LikeLike
That EVERY story in the Gospels is non-historical? Oh gosh no…that’s absurd. The only people who believe that are Jesus mythicists.
LikeLike
The existence of Jesus, his reputation as a healer and miracle worker, his crucifixion, his empty grave, the belief by some of his disciples that he appeared to them could all be historical and at the same time none of the stories as told in the Gospels are historical.
LikeLike
Point out to us a specific story in the Gospels that the consensus of historians believe to be historical. Not an event (his crucifixion) but a story; a story about his crucifixion, for instance.
LikeLike
Just give up, Gary. You just don’t get it. No matter how many times I try to explain to you what the Gospels are and how they work, you insist on this oversimplistic “What parts are historical? What parts are fiction?” false dichotomy.
Forget it. I’m just going to give up interacting with you. It is a hopeless affair.
LikeLike
That is what you always do when trapped in a corner: declare your interlocutor an idiot and leave the discussion. It is beneath you, Joel. It is disgusting. If you cannot provide even one story from the Gospels which the consensus of historians agrees is historical, be honest and admit it.
LikeLike
No, it’s what I do when I’m trapped by a utterly moronic point of view.
You’re like Zoolander–after JP Prewitt explains how the fashion industry has always used male models to assassinate world leaders, Derek then says, “But what about male models?”
Nothing that is told you actually sinks in.
Hahaha…
LikeLike
Readers: decide for yourselves who is being rational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why should skeptics accept the historicity of the canonical Gospels when Christians reject the historicity of all the non-canonical Gospels? If stories of a talking corpse are historical why aren’t stories of a talking cross?
LikeLike
Dear Reader: Why is Dr. Anderson being so evasive? I’m not insisting that every detail in a Gospel story be historical, but are the core details of the story historical? Did magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem or not? Did Jesus converse with the Temple priests at age 12 or not? Did Jesus feed five thousand people or not? Did Jesus turn water into wine at a wedding in Cana or not? Did Jesus walk on the Sea of Galilee or not? Did Jesus raise the widow’s son from the dead during his funeral procession or not? Did Jesus send demons into a couple thousand pigs who then ran into a lake or sea and drowned or not? Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead or not? Did Jesus appear to his disciples in a locked room after his death or not?
That is all I am asking Dr. Anderson to answer. He knows that. So why is he playing word games to avoid answering? The answer is obvious: other than his reputation as a miracle worker and healer, the only historical consensus regarding this man is his crucifixion.
Every story in the Gospels could be fiction. That doesn’t mean Jesus did not exist or that he was not crucified. But it is possible ALL the stories we have learned about this man (from the Gospels) are legends, and nothing more. It is entirely possible that during his lifetime Jesus was a nobody; just one in a long line of messiah pretenders. He caused some trouble, maybe in the Temple, maybe somewhere else, and the Romans snuffed him out. Dr. Anderson doesn’t want to admit this scenario is possible because his precious supernatural belief system is dependent on Jesus being the big deal the Gospels make him out to be. If Jesus was a nobody, no one is going to worship him as their “savior”.
That is what Dr. Anderson fears.
LikeLike
Therefore it should be no big deal for you to identify at least a couple of historians who support your assertion the gospels are historically reliable.
LikeLike
You claimed the bible is historically reliable. There is nothing nuanced about that assertion.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you are nothing but disingenious and lack any sort of integrity.
You personify the wilfully ignorant apologist and when caught with your pants down resort to lying out of your arse.
I relish reading your pathetic attempts at defending your faith on Gary’s blog.
As a Christian you do more damage to your ridiculous beliefs than a handful of non-believers.
I only wish you were able to debate a genuine scholar such as Ehrman. I would pay good money to watch that, if only on YouTube. It would be a true delight to see you reduced to a dribbling incoherent lump.
I would even send you a box of tissues.
🤣
LikeLike
Ark, you have the reasoning capacity of a sophomore.
LikeLike
Even a sophomore recognizes a liar.
And you aren’t even clever enough to be good at it.
Ehrman would reduce you to tears in no time at all.
LikeLike
Grow up, junior.
LikeLike
You think you are an adult? 😂
Well, perhaps that’s your excuse for being a condescending disingenious liar?
LikeLike
Lol….ok
LikeLike
And like clockwork… heeere’s Joel and his manic lol.
LikeLike
You may claim to be “orthodox” Joel, but your views are still heavily influenced by your evangelical upbringing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. He continues to demonstrate his disingenuity.
LikeLike
The only people who believe that the Gospels are historically reliable sources are believers in the Resurrection. Take the rose colored glasses off, Joel, and you will see the truth.
LikeLike
(This is where you say, “Touche, Joel. You got me on that one.” Lol)
LikeLike