When I initially encountered this article by Matthew Ferguson, I was not blogging. Now that I am, I would like to analyze it here. Ferguson was the man to beat, and in some ways, still is, because his style of argumentation is still being used. I have skipped over some parts, as they do not weaken my argument.
He writes: Ancient historical prose has a very distinct style, in which the historian often discusses the methodology of his research, the sources he consulted, the differences between multiple traditions about a person or event, and his judgment as an inquirer into past affairs.
Naturally, I think the gospel authors are on different historical realms than the famous Greco-Roman (GR) historians. Ancient historians write for fame and to impress their peers, whereas the authors of the gospels are writing for their communities who are already familiar with the story of Jesus.
Continuing: As someone who studies ancient historical writing in the original Greek and Latin languages, it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient novelistic literature
1: I agree with Ferguson in some respect here. However, some clarifications are in order. I don't assume that the gospels are modeled on GR histories, they are modeled on the OT history books as well. They even mix the genre in some respects.
2: I believe the gospel genre is just that--gospel. Not ancient novel.
In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted, and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources.
Given Matthew, John, and partially, Mark, are eyewitnesses, they are not going to show the type of research you see in the works of Plutarch, Polybius or Thucydides. Again, given they are written for communities who are already familiar with the Jesus tradition, what is the need for them to cite their sources? Even if they did cite sources, they would be insignificant nobodies.
Ancient historical works at their beginning (or somewhere else within the body of the narrative) are often prefaced with statements from the author about the period they will be investigating
But again, the gospel authors were present, as well as a large majority of their communities! As John Chrysostom noted long ago:
“...they were writing to people, who were present, and it had been superfluous to show themselves when they were present. But this man (i.e. Paul) sent his writings from afar and in the form of a letter, for which cause also the addition of the name was necessary.” Homily 1.1 on Romans https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210201.htm
Consider the very sparse information that the author of Luke (1.1) provides about his written sources (none of whom are identified in any capacity
1: The "autopai" in v.2 isn't touched by Ferguson. Such a narrow and simplistic handling of the preface.
2: In Acts, Luke has a wide range of informants he is with quite frequently.
Census of Quirinius (6 CE)
I will just cite Glenn Miller's work on this. He has given this topic more than anyone. I invite readers to read all his posts on this issue: http://search.freefind.com/find.html?si=64437574&pid=r&n=0&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=Census
Notice in the two examples above how both Dionysius and Suetonius have active roles in the narrative, as historians who are interjecting their own voice, in order to discuss their sources and relation to events. We learn details of how Dionysius traveled to Rome and learned Latin, and how Suetonius was acquainted with Augustus' own letters. The Gospel authors are silent about their identities and give context about their relation neither to their sources nor to the events they contain. The Gospel narratives instead read like novelistic literature, told from a camera-like perspective, which omnisciently follows around the characters with minimal methodological analysis. This third-person style of narration further casts doubt on whether the Gospels' authors are relating eyewitness experiences.
Once more, the gospels are imitating the OT history books in this regard. As Armin Baum observes:
"In contrast to the works of Greco-Roman historiography the Old Testament historical books are anonymous without exception. The author’s name is never mentioned. Even the historical source texts to which the Old Testament narrators refer remain anonymous...The historical books of the Hebrew Bible are not named after their authors but after their introductory words (“In the beginning” etc. in the Pentateuch), after their content (Chronicles) or after their main characters: Joshua, Judges, etc. Later narrative works like Tobit, Judith or the Books of the Maccabees and other writings like the anonymous Vitae Prophetarum or Joseph and Aseneth have also been named after their main characters." Baum, A., 2008. The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Novum Testamentum, 50(2), pp.120-142.
This refutes his simplistic understanding in §3.
Given what I have said above, we do not need to address his §4.
The Gospels are not even written in the same Aramaic that Jesus spoke. We have no such honesty and sign posts in the Gospels. The Gospels are not even written in the same Aramaic that Jesus spoke.
1: Palestine was at least Bilingual, at best even multilingual. Where is the citation of Hughson Ong's The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament?
The Life of Aesop and the Gospels
1: The fictitious lives involve characters from the distant past, whereas the gospels give us a recent figure.
2: The Lives of Aesop are more than likely the product of at least a half a millennium of oral tradition.
3: Why would a fictional work get so many little incidental details right? Compare the 4 gospels we have with the later apocryphal gospels. Small villages include: Aenon, Cana, Ephraim, Salim and Sychar are all mentioned in the canonical gospels.
Matthew uses the word sea 16 times. 4 times it does not refer to anything in particular, but the other 12 times it has some reference to the Sea of Galilee. Mark uses sea 19 times. Twice it refers to no sea in particular (9:42; 11:23). The first occurrence in Mark is expressly the Sea of Galilee (1:16). Luke is different. It uses the word see only three times and it never refers to a particular body of water. Also, If traditional authorship is true, Luke came from Antioch on the Orontes, not far from the Mediterranean, he certainly would not have thought of the tiny sea of Galilee as the sea. He just calls it “the lake“ (5:1; 8:22, 23, 33). John, who is traditionally held to be a Galilean fisherman, uses the word Sea 9 times. Two scenes by the sea of Galilee in chapters 6 and 21. The first occurrence is the most specified “ The sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias” where the sea is also named after Tiberias, A major town on the shore (John 6:1). Subsequent references in the same chapter or just to “the sea” (6:16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25). John also tells us of the seasonal stream, the Kidron, near Jerusalem, and of two pools in Jerusalem, one of which he correctly described as having five colonnades.
Now, contrast this with the apocryphal gospels the Gospel of Thomas mentions Judaea once, names and no other locations. the Gospel of Judas names no locations, the Gospel of Phillip names Jerusalem 4 times, Nazara once and the Jordan once, however, Jerusalem was the religious capital, no special knowledge required to know it. The Jordan was the main river and Nazareth became famous because of Jesus. For more on this, see Peter J Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?
Writing for entertainment purposes would hardly talk about such minute details and instead, focus on the larger cosmopolitan.
4: There is also several degrees of moral ugliness in the gospels, hardly fanciful.
The authors of Matthew and Luke may have had the diligence to copy certain sayings from an earlier Q source—a hypothetical collection of sayings reconstructed by modern scholars
1: Q isn't a given.
2: The argument from undesigned coincidences shows the gospels have multiple sources for the same events they narrate.
Simply because ancient historical authors conducted more rigorous research does not entail that they were skeptical of the supernatural. Unbelievable stories still crop up in the writings of Greek and Latin historians
Unbelievable for Ferguson's naturalism.
The Gospels, in contrast, simply narrate unbelievable claim after unbelievable claim about a man who can feed whole crowds with one tuna sandwich, cause dead saints to rise from their graves, himself resurrect from the dead
Except we have good evidence that miracles happen. I compiled a small reading list on that topic here Ferguson's hostility to the truth of these accounts is rooted in his commitment to naturalism.
and then fly into space in broad daylight.
That is simplistic understanding of the ascension narratives
1: Jesus was taken into heaven, not outer space. In Christian theology, there is a distinction.
2: The Shekinah glory took Jesus up after levitating up a certain distance, this isn't Ferguson's fanciful "flying into space."
the frequency of these unbelievable stories casts doubt on even the mundane details in the narrative.
A lot of times, we are justified in believing events took place based on the sheer amount of testimony we have.
Another thing that should be noted is that, while ancient historians occasionally report miracles, they often use specific grammatical constructions that distance themselves from affirming the stories and make clear that they are only reporting claims. The historian Titus Livy, for example, in reporting some of the miracle stories of regal Rome, frequently uses terms like ut dicitur ("as it is said") or ferunt ("they claim") to specify that he is not endorsing these claims, but only recording that they were made. One such example is when Livy (1.39) discusses the tale of how the king Servius Tullius' head, when he was a child, caught on fire while he was sleeping, but did not harm him, as it was a sign that he would be a future king. Livy's careful use of the verb ferunt ("they claim") indicates that he is distancing himself from gullibly believing in this fable. The Gospels, in contrast, just throw out miracle after miracle, asking us to believe every single one of them, in a manner that presumes far less critical thinking on the part of the reader.
1: The gospels writers witnessed their miracles, and report them, just like those who have experienced miracles first hand would report it today.
2: Is Livy writing about an event he or others close to him experienced, like the gospels are?
And yet in the Gospels, earth-shaking events take place that then receive no follow-up and strangely disappear once they have played their symbolic role in the narrative. Take the Gospel of Matthew, for example. While Jesus is being crucified, the sky grows dark for three hours at midday (27:45). Next, Jesus' death (27:51-53) causes an earthquake that rips the curtain in the Jewish Temple in twain. The earthquake likewise opens the tombs of the saints, from which dead people resurrect and then appear throughout Jerusalem. This is an extraordinary event, indeed, and yet there is no follow-up in the Gospels or Acts of how the city was affected by this. Then, the Jewish authorities are so worried that Jesus' tomb will be found empty, lest people believe that a miracle has occurred (as if the midday darkness and the ripping of the Temple curtain weren't already convincing enough), that they convince Pilate to station guards at the tomb. When the guards are foiled, however, and Jesus' body is found missing, the Jewish authorities claim (28:11-15) that the disciples stole the body. Grave robbery was a capital offense in ancient Judea, and yet, there is no follow-up prosecution of the disciples for this charge, even when they are brought to court on other issues. Furthermore, what happened to Joseph of Arimathea? His tomb was the one that was supposed to remain occupied, and yet, when it is found empty, he is not even questioned on the matter. The Jewish authorities had gone to great lengths to ensure that Jesus' body did not go missing, and yet, when Jesus is claimed to have risen, they do not even undergo an investigation into the circumstances.
I will leave the readers with the replies of Jason Engwer, here and here.
An additional final point, which is not so much a criterion of distinction, but rather a reason why even the lack of these differences would still not save the Gospels, is that not even the real historical works that we have from antiquity should be taken at face value
I agree entirely!
As I explained above, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio are not simply copying each other, whereas the Gospels are heavily dependent upon each other for information. This does not entail that the Pagan miracles are true, but it does show that they were not invented by these historians and most likely derive from an earlier common source
I'm wondering what kind of evidence Ferguson would like to accept miracles? I certainly hope he is consistent and doesn't use independent testimony for other events!