Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Spud]

There are many small details in the gospels which are either the hallmarks of authentic eyewitness accounts, or are invented to make the stories more convincing.

C.S. Lewis in his 1950 essay, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?" wrote,

"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art." He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."

http://merecslewis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-are-we-to-make-of-resurrection-of.html

I thought I'd check to see if this is correct. Can anyone refute Lewis' statement?

[floo]

There are many small details in the gospels which are either the hallmarks of authentic eyewitness accounts, or are invented to make the stories more convincing.

C.S. Lewis in his 1950 essay, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?" wrote,

"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art." He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."

http://merecslewis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-are-we-to-make-of-resurrection-of.html

I thought I'd check to see if this is correct. Can anyone refute Lewis' statement?

It is just his opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

There are many small details in the gospels which are either the hallmarks of authentic eyewitness accounts, or are invented to make the stories more convincing.

C.S. Lewis in his 1950 essay, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?" wrote,

"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art." He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."

http://merecslewis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-are-we-to-make-of-resurrection-of.html

I thought I'd check to see if this is correct. Can anyone refute Lewis' statement?

It's pish.

Can anyone refute my statement?

You do realise that you were trying to reverse the burden of proof?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 The burden of proof is on CS Lewis who being an Oxford professor of literature could probably have laid his hands on some....and of course those who positively refute them.

I think the bloke who is just interested in reading the paper, frequenting Paddypower and bothering Naebady and has no opinion on Jesus or God and therefore no burden of proof is the actual myth here.

[Nearly Sane]

The burden of proof is on CS Lewis who being an Oxford professor of literature could probably have laid his hands on some....and of course those who positively refute them.

I think the bloke who is just interested in reading the paper, frequenting Paddypower and bothering Naebady and has no opinion on Jesus or God and therefore no burden of proof is the actual myth here.

Agree with the first part of your first sentence but then I once met an Oxford Professor of Philosophy who told me women couldn't do philosophy. So your rather sad attempt at an appeal to authority doesn't wash.


If you and Spud want to make the case, off you go.

Oh and your second paragraph is a strawman.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree with the first part of your first sentence but then I once met an Oxford Professor of Philosophy who told me women couldn't do philosophy. So your rather sad attempt at an appeal to authority doesn't wash.

Of course it collapses in the face of your anti-intellectual pro internet diletanteism. Argumentum ad patinatum turdum.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it collapses in the face of your anti-intellectual pro internet diletanteism. Argumentum ad patinatum turdum.

Stop talking pish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop talking pish

The only ''pish'' going down here is your 'An Oxford professor once said something stupid to me so that wraps it up for expertise' schtick.

[Nearly Sane]

The only ''pish'' going down here is your 'An Oxford professor once said something stupid to me so that wraps it up for expertise' schtick.

Except that isn't what was said but there we are. You appealled to the Oxford Professor stuff, I merely pointed out  that it wasn't that useful.

[jeremyp]

"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art."

Bullshit.

He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."

Ever heard of the Iliad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bullshit.

Ever heard of the Iliad?

WRONGGG!!!!!!!!!!
Of course these days vox populi trumps expertise.
I think Professor Lewis would have recognised the differences in the fine detail between the New Testament and the Iliad.

[Shaker]

WRONGGG!!!!!!!!!!
Of course these days vox populi trumps expertise.
I think Professor Lewis would have recognised the differences in the fine detail between the New Testament and the Iliad.

Given his trilemma twaddle he couldn't recognise a shit argument when he saw one, so that's doubtful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given his trilemma twaddle he couldn't recognise a shit argument when he saw one, so that's doubtful.

As I said....the triumph of cyber dilettantism over actual expertise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given his trilemma twaddle he couldn't recognise a shit argument when he saw one, so that's doubtful.

Lewis states the trilemma as a 'It comes down to this' position.
New Atheists don't want to be pinned down thus and adopt the colander principle.......As many options to squeeze out of as possible.

[Stranger]

Lewis states the trilemma as a 'It comes down to this' position.

Except that it quite obviously doesn't - hence it's a crap argument.

New Atheists...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that it quite obviously doesn't - hence it's a crap argument.

Except that it quite obviously doesn't - hence it's a crap argument.

I disagree. In the whacky world of atheism there is a pathological hatred of coming down off the fence hence allergy against coming out in one of the categories of the trilemma which all categories of objection or agreement in the matter boil down to.

Why the trilemma is unpopular is more to do with wanting to avoid stigmatising what they referred to in Lewis's time as the mad.

[Shaker]

I disagree. In the whacky world of atheism there is a pathological hatred of coming down off the fence hence allergy against coming out in one of the categories of the trilemma which all categories of objection or agreement in the matter boil down to.

Why the trilemma is unpopular is more to do with wanting to avoid stigmatising what they referred to in Lewis's time as the mad.

If you rearrange all the words in the two paragraphs above, they make sense in standard, comprehensible English.

Maybe.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you rearrange all the words in the two paragraphs above, they make sense in standard, comprehensible English.

Maybe.

I have had a go with some of the words --

 In the whacky world of a pathological hatred of atheism.


Is that a start?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have had a go with some of the words --

 In the whacky world of a pathological hatred of atheism.


Is that a start?

Shit, derivative joke........and it's not even ten o'clock.

[Maeght]

Shit, derivative joke........and it's not even ten o'clock.

Derived from where?

[Stranger]

I disagree. In the whacky world of atheism there is a pathological hatred of coming down off the fence hence allergy against coming out in one of the categories of the trilemma which all categories of objection or agreement in the matter boil down to.

Why the trilemma is unpopular is more to do with wanting to avoid stigmatising what they referred to in Lewis's time as the mad.

To the (limited) extent that makes any sense at all, it's utter drivel.

The trilemma falls down right at the start because it makes the completely unwarranted assumption that we are dealing with a wholly accurate account of a real person's life. Even if you ignore that gargantuan hole in what passes for its 'logic', it doesn't get much better - people are complicated. After all, all religious or superstitious people are deluded to a certain degree - doesn't mean they can be summed up by the word "mad".   

[Sebastian Toe]

Shit, derivative joke........and it's not even ten o'clock.

Let's try again...

Ten o'clock derivative joke....and it's not shit.


I think I'm getting the hang of this!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To the (limited) extent that makes any sense at all, it's utter drivel.

The trilemma falls down right at the start because it makes the completely unwarranted assumption that we are dealing with a wholly accurate account of a real person's life. Even if you ignore that gargantuan hole in what passes for its 'logic', it doesn't get much better - people are complicated. After all, all religious or superstitious people are deluded to a certain degree - doesn't mean they can be summed up by the word "mad".   

To call belief that Jesus was an historical figure completely unwarranted is itself completely unwarranted.
The rest is debateable.

[Stranger]

To call belief that Jesus was an historical figure completely unwarranted is itself completely unwarranted.

That isn't what I said. Want to try again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That isn't what I said. Want to try again?

I feel then you don't understand your own motivations to atheism or rather it would be un PC to express them.

Mad, bad or The son of God is a pretty good summary of possible positions.
What is your view of the dilemma?