Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous.
But there is no reason that any of the rest of us need to accept your straw man definition of "anecdote".
Sorry, I don't understand your point.
Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel).
But his resurrection accounts are still just anecdotes. He tells us he has researched things, but he doesn't tell us who his sources are. The problem is not necessarily that they are anecdotes, but that they are anecdotes about extraordinary events.
If by "anecdote" you mean he is reporting what someone else told him (whether they were eye-witnesses or not), then that would surely depend on how reliable their information was. A statement by an eye-witness is not worth less if a copper writes it down (and gets the eye-witness to sign it off) than if the eye-witness wrote it down him/herself (assuming the eye-witness can write).
The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle
Would you care to elaborate on the reasoning that led them to that conclusion?
I can't. What I can do is point out that they were 1900 years nearer the event than you or I though. If we were relying on just Matthew's gospel as a source for the events of Jesus' life then I would be loathe to base my life on it, but we aren't. It is only part of the evidence we have.
Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness.
As above.
Papias and so on.
You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?
Yes I do doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get those facts right (we are talking mid to late second century here). I am pretty sure that, when you write down the reasoning for the attributions as I requested, it will be fairly obvious that it is really guesswork.
Incorrect, unless you are saying that the quotes we have today were definitely the very first ones ever written down. Papias died, what 140ADish. The Didache is probably late 1st century, early 2nd century. We have the first epistle of Clement from right the end of the first century. We have Paul's letters, even if we only accept 7 of them. We have Josephus and Tacitus telling us of a Jesus in Judea. None of this requires us to have a belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures to believe that the sources we have are sufficient to know that there was such a Jesus, that he was crucified and buried and that starting a couple of days later, individuals and groups of people were convinced that on about a dozen occasions (that we have recorded) they met, talked and sometimes ate with him.
I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later
It's reasonable, but is it true given that executed criminals weren't usually afforded personal tombs.
OK with that, but the NT tells us that he was put in someone else's tomb.
and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus.
Them being convinced is not unreasonable, but that it happened would be quite extraordinary and you therefore need much better evidence than you have.
Incorrect. It is not necessary to have extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it happened (as is sometimes claimed). What is needed is that the probability of it happening (on the background evidence) is higher than the probability of us having the evidence if the resurrection did
not happen (as I
think you and I agreed on another thread).
You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda.
A religious cult that actively proselytises? What more motive do you want?
A decent motive. Wanting to convert someone to a religious belief which highly prizes honesty and membership of which might well lead to persecution and, possibly, death does not seem to me to be a good reason for lying to people.
Right, I'm only 700 posts behind now.
