Why Do the Gospels Contain Differences?

[Outis]

Then how is it an issue at all?

The refinement of beliefs, during the first century of the Church, is an important area of study. For this particular question, it explains why the seeming differences in the Gospel accounts exist. Admittedly, it is neither the "It all fits together" hack-job of the apologete, nor is it the "Ha! Contradictions!" foolishness of the skeptic, but it is one important tool (among others) in understanding why the Gospels are as we see them today.

[Paprika]

The refinement of beliefs, during the first century of the Church, is an important area of study. For this particular question, it explains why the seeming differences in the Gospel accounts exist. Admittedly, it is neither the "It all fits together" hack-job of the apologete, nor is it the "Ha! Contradictions!" foolishness of the skeptic, but it is one important tool (among others) in understanding why the Gospels are as we see them today.

You said that "But the argument ignores a larger issue". How is the refinement of beliefs an issue with Licona's argument?

[Outis]

You said that "But the argument ignores a larger issue". How is the refinement of beliefs an issue with Licona's argument?

I did not say that ignoring the refinements of beliefs causes an issue with Licona's arguments. I said that Licona, in his arguments, ignores a larger issue. I have not directly addressed his arguments at all. If you took it that I had, then we have had a miscommunication.

[Paprika]

I did not say that ignoring the refinements of beliefs causes an issue with Licona's arguments. I said that Licona, in his arguments, ignores a larger issue. I have not directly addressed his arguments at all. If you took it that I had, then we have had a miscommunication.

You say he ignores an issue. Why should he address it?

[The Pixie]

From the transcript of this interview:

...In verse 12, Luke mentions only the lead disciple, Peter, running to the tomb. But the “some of our own” in verse 24 strongly suggests that Luke knows of one or more who had accompanied Peter. In these examples, both Luke and John appear to employ spotlighting. ...

A more likely explanation, in my opinion, is that in Luke's narrative Peter went to the tomb alone to verify what the women said, and then reported back to to the disciples, who then all went to see. For brevity, Luke omitted explicitly stating that second part.

In fact, this idea of "spotlighting" looks suspiciously like an after-the-fact rationalisation. Licona cites Plutarch:

"Perhaps Matthew and Mark are focusing on the angel announcing the news to the women that Jesus was raised from the dead just as Plutarch focused on the major person bringing the letters to Cicero."

I would suggest there is a significant difference between witnessing an empty tomb (when every individual is important) and delivering a letter (which by its nature requires exactly one person).

[Doug Shaver]

I just finished watching a lecture on this topic by Mike Licona. His main point is that ancient biographers used compositional devices that gave them flexibility to change what they were reporting to emphasize something. Sometimes the same author told the same story in ways that would appear to contradict themselves, but they were actually using one of those devices.

That might explain a few things, if we assume that the gospel authors were writing biographies, but I see no reason for that assumption. I think it more likely they were writing fiction.

[Outis]

That might explain a few things, if we assume that the gospel authors were writing biographies, but I see no reason for that assumption. I think it more likely they were writing fiction.

"Fiction"? You are applying modern genre ideas to texts that do not qualify. Worse, you are mis-applying the genre.

[Doug Shaver]

"Fiction"? You are applying modern genre ideas to texts that do not qualify. Worse, you are mis-applying the genre.

I am applying a modern label to a kind of literature that has always existed. By fiction I mean a narrative that the author does not think is factual and does not intend his readers to think is factual. Such narratives were produced in the ancient Greco-Roman world, no matter what the people of those times would have called them. I believe the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles originated as narratives of that sort. After they were written, Christians who read or heard about them came to believe that they were factual accounts of how their religion got started.

[Outis]

I am applying a modern label to a kind of literature that has always existed. By fiction I mean a narrative that the author does not think is factual and does not intend his readers to think is factual. Such narratives were produced in the ancient Greco-Roman world, no matter what the people of those times would have called them. I believe the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles originated as narratives of that sort. After they were written, Christians who read or heard about them came to believe that they were factual accounts of how their religion got started.

I did not say that the genre of fiction did not apply: I said that your idea of the genre is modern, and that you are misapplying it.

We have few examples from that time period of what would today be called fiction. We have more examples of text that could be considered fictional, but where "fiction" was not the primary genre classification, nor the primary intent. To call the Gospels fiction, in the modern sense, you have to know their thoughts. You are claiming knowledge of the authors' beliefs regarding the text. That's certainly a novel claim to make.

I certainly would not consider the Gospels to be historically accurate accounts, but to call them "fiction" is nothing more than a derisive dismissal, requiring no critical thought.

[Doug Shaver]

I did not say that the genre of fiction did not apply: I said that your idea of the genre is modern, and that you are misapplying it.

I told you how I was defining the word. If you think I'm wrong, then you think the gospel authors either believed that what they wrote was true, or else that they intended their readers to believe what they wrote. That is the issue between us. It has nothing to do with semantic quibbles about applications or classifications.

You are claiming knowledge of the authors' beliefs regarding the text.

No, I am not. I told you what I believe about their beliefs and intentions. I know the difference between belief and knowledge. Do you?

but to call them "fiction" is nothing more than a derisive dismissal, requiring no critical thought.

I agree that a derisive attitude toward the gospels does not require any critical thought. However, I intend no derision, and I have devoted a great deal of critical thought to the gospels.

For most of my life, I believed as you do that although they were inaccurate, they contained some material that was historically factual. But, having reached that conclusion in my youth, I did not consider the matter settled and I kept re-examining it, until I eventually changed my mind.

[shunyadragon]

I told you how I was defining the word. If you think I'm wrong, then you think the gospel authors either believed that what they wrote was true, or else that they intended their readers to believe what they wrote. That is the issue between us. It has nothing to do with semantic quibbles about applications or classifications.

I believe the highlighted is a more accurate description regardless of whether they are true of not. Deliberate fiction is more a modern genre. The writers may not have considered them absolutely factually true, but more a descriptive narrative of belief that were edited and added to from earlier simpler 'sayings' and biographical writings. Parts were possibly based on testimony the authors considered reliable, and written to support and promote their beliefs. By the evidence I have no reason to believe that the final compilations were written by those who lived at the time Christ lived.

I believe that some of the material on prophecies were added later to argue for the legitimacy that Christ was indeed the Messiah.

[Doug Shaver]

Deliberate fiction is more a modern genre.

The label is modern. The literary practice is ancient.

[shunyadragon]

The label is modern. The literary practice is ancient.

But the nature of the genre is very different. The concept of deliberately writing fiction is very recent. It may be comparable to writing 'historical fiction' with a deliberate purpose of communicating a religious message. Josephus was a great writer of 'Historical Fiction,' containing many facts from a personal perspective of much that was not historically true.

[Outis]

The concept of deliberately writing fiction is very recent.

No, it's not. Examples include Metamorphoses by Apuelus, the plays of Aeschylus, even the parables of Aesop and Jesus. Fiction for entertainment, enlightenment, and moral teaching was well known in the period under discussion.

[shunyadragon]

No, it's not. Examples include Metamorphoses by Apuelus, the plays of Aeschylus, even the parables of Aesop and Jesus. Fiction for entertainment, enlightenment, and moral teaching was well known in the period under discussion.

The parables I do not consider the beginnings of fiction, but you are correct Greek plays are probably the earliest versions of deliberate fiction.