Peter Kirby

Hi Rick,

It's good to know that you're alive!

You said: "All works of fiction have characeristic X, where all works that aren't fiction do not have characteristic X. The gospels have characteristic X."

I. "All works of fiction have characteristic X" translates into "If A is a work of fiction, A has characteristic X."

II. "All works that aren't fiction do not have characteristic X" translates into "If A is not a work of fiction, A does not have characteristic X." That is, ~F(A) -> ~X(A). This equates to X(A) -> F(A). That is, "If A has characteristic X, then A is a work of fiction." Or, "All works with characteristic X are works of fiction."

The assertion in II can be used to make a valid argument for fictionality. For example, suppose that the characteristic is "the work takes place entirely on Mars." And the assertion is "All works that aren't fiction do not take place entirely on Mars." Or in other words, "All works that take place entirely on Mars are works of fiction." With the other premise that "the work takes place entirely on Mars," the conclusion follows that "it is a work of fiction."

But the statement in I is neither necessary nor sufficient for making an argument for fictionality. Suppose the statement is "All works of fiction have more than five words." Well, suppose we have a work with 1000 words. Without any more information, it could be a work of fiction. Then again, it could be non-fiction. There would be no way to tell based on a word count. (Well, it could go the other way: based on the assertion, a work with four words would definitely not be a work of fiction...again, per the assertion.)

So this is something to keep in mind when constructing an argument of this type. Of course this is kind of off the title subject.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I wrote my response to Rick before I read your note. I guess it is already applicable.

The argument above reads:

1. If a work is unreliable as history, the work contains claims that cannot be confirmed by other sources.
2. 'The Gospels' contain claims that cannot be confirmed by other sources.
3. Therefore, 'The Gospels' are unreliable as history.

This is a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. In symbols it is:

R="Reliable" (~R="unreliable as history").
C="Confirmed" (~C="cannot be confirmed by other sources").

1. ~R -> ~C
2. ~C
3. Therefore, ~R

The fallacy is discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and here:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism...tml#consequent

Of course, you may have meant something other than what my reading of your argument indicates. If so I would welcome a reformulation of the argument.

best,
Peter Kirby

mlcowgurl04

Ok. Christ was alive c30. The documents had to be written around that time in order to be reliable which they, of course, are. When they were written, nobody contradicted what they said, which is significant because enemys of Jesus would want to bring Him down. Therefore, the records must be written during a lifetime while people are still remembering Christ.
We know that Matt. wrote Matt. etc.
Acts (written by Paul) doesn't record Peter and Pauls deaths (c. 67AD), the fire in Rome (64 AD) and the destruction of the temple (70 AD). These are important events fo rPXians, so you'd think they'd be included. Unless, it was finished before the mid-60s. Luke must have been written before.
Paul quotes from Luke and calls it Scripture. So Luke existed before Acts. The excepted theory is that Mark was written first, then Matt., and then Luke. Hope this helps.

Toto

Sorry, it doesn't help.

We don't know that Jesus was alive in 30 CE. We don't know that the gospels are reliable, or that Jesus had enemies who would want to bring him down, or that Matt wrote Matt. We are pretty sure that Paul did not write Acts. Paul does not quote from Luke.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure if "affirming the consequent" is accurate. It seems to me that the first statement should read:

~R = ~C

Is that the same thing as "affirming the consequent"? I'm better with words than mathematical symbols.

I think the flaw has more to do with overgeneralization since even a single unconfirmable claim would render the entire text unreliable. That doesn't seem fair.

I think we have to address each claim within a given text individually and, if a claim cannot be confirmed (or, to be a little more realistic, how about "supported"?), the claim cannot be relied upon as historical.


If a text contains claims that cannot be supported by other sources, those claims cannot be relied upon as history.

The Gospels contain claims that cannot be supported by other sources.

Therefore, the Gospels contain claims that cannot be relied upon as history.


To be honest, I think this is a bit simplistic but it avoids getting into the messy differences between claims such as those that assert nothing outside common experience versus those that assert unique events, etc.

Amaleq13

The vast majority of scholars, including Christian scholars, consider the earliest Gospel (Mark) to have been written around 70ce but I think it is false to assert that they had to have been written sooner in order to be reliable.

What we know of early Roman opinions regarding the early Christians is that they were considered ignorant and superstitious. That hardly suggests their claims were accepted as legitimate nor does it suggest that anyone considered Jesus or those who continued to believe in him enough of a threat to try to "bring him down".

We know that, some time around the turn of the 1st century, a guy named Papias claims that a guy named Matthew wrote something related to Jesus in Hebrew. While some argue otherwise, most scholars consider our Gospel that is attributed to Matthew to have been originally written in Greek.

We don't find evidence of the extant texts being associated with the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until the 2nd century but most scholars consider the texts to have been originally anonymous.

Acts is generally understood to have been written by the same author as Luke.

Please identify the specific passage to which you are referring.

Actually, the theory accepted by the majority of scholars is that Mark was written first while the authors of Matthew and Luke independently rewrote that story. This is one of the reasons why few scholars believe that the Gospel attributed to Matthew was actually written by a firsthand witness.

Ted Hoffman

Rick,
2 Corinthians 10:10

Rick Sumner

Fair enough, I phrased it badly. But the point I was trying to make still holds--a characteristic(s) needs to be established that is exclusive to fiction in order for claims that the gospels are fictitious writings--that the authors did not intend them to be taken literally--to hold up.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Could be. These communities also gathered to debate points that Paul had taught them in person, apparently. While they were at it, they also remembered that Paul had *established* them. This hardly makes letter writing a distinction.

Paul wrote relatively few letters, given the length of his career.

This is irrelevant to the claim that the gospels are fiction--in particular, it's irrelevant to your contention that they are "literary fiction"--that they weren't to be taken literally.

You can't gauge such intent by veracity, except in obvious instances, such as blatant caricature or satire.

Here, in a nutshell, is where we're at:

You: They were writing literary fiction.

Me: I don't believe that. Show me what evidence indicates they did not expect it to be taken literally.

You: ?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

This is a different contention than your initial one--which was that the fact he wrote letters was itself a distinction.

Yet how large a role does this play in 2Cor? How large a role does it play in Paul's letters in general? Is that role large enough to reasonably conclude that it should have been a defining characteristic of Paul's career? Is letter writing a defining characteristic of any of his contemporaries careers? I've waited some time now for an answer to the latter, it's beginning to look like a "no."

Regards,
Rick Sumner