Review of Dave Matson’s Commentary (Part 2)
McFall's Response to Matson in the Following:

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THIS DISCUSSION
1) Introduction to an Object of Faith (Believing the Resurrection Story of Jesus Christ) - by Brian Lawson
2) A Believer Objectively Comments on the Resurrection of Jesus - by Mark McFall
3) It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman! (Identifying the Resurrection Body of Jesus) - by Brian Lawson
4) Commentary By Dave E. Matson (Response to ITW articles, items 1-3) 
5) Brian Lawson's Response to Dave Matson's Commentary
6) Mark McFall's Response to Dave Matson's Commentary   *This Page*
7) Dave Matson's Reaction
8) Concluding Remarks in a Discussion with Dave Matson

By Mark McFall

Are the Gospels on the same fictional level as Alice in Wonderland? Is it true that mainstream scholarship has abandoned the Gospels as historical? These are the type of questions Dave Matson asserts in the affirmative. The problem is that Matson appears to have never tested his ideas within informed circles. This is rather evident in his opening paragraph where he attempts to tie in the thrust of mainstream biblical scholarship with his fanciful theory regarding Alice in Wonderland. But as Brian Lawson alluded to in his review, a knowledgeable skeptic wouldn’t have made a weak connection like this nor made a statement that included a consensus that really didn’t exist.    

For instance, even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that Matson is on to something regarding the alleged similarities between the Gospels and Alice in Wonderland, upon perusing this matter we would eventually discover there is a vast difference between the two natures of these stories. One allows for elements of historicity coupled with believable time frames and characters that carry a realness about them whether they are imaginary in reality or not, while the other carries a genre of un-realness where fantasy is the obvious intended purpose (more modern examples: Harry Potter; Van Helsing; etc…). Objectively speaking, the most that can be said of the Gospels in the negative is that they may contain points of “historical fiction” while Alice in Wonderland never gets beyond “fantasy.” But Matson would have us believe the two stories are on the same level thru and thru. Yet, the differences between the two natures are light years apart. The idea the Gospels fall into the same category as Alice in Wonderland is ridiculous even if the Gospels contain points of “historical fiction” because they are still intertwined with known history. The point being, Matson has blurred categorical lines in order to paint the Gospels in the most negative light he can.  

Anyway, even though Matson used a poor comparison I get the gist of his argument as he views the Gospels on the same playwright level as Alice in Wonderland because Jesus is reported to have performed feats that defy common natural understandings (i.e. miracles). While I certainly can, and do, identify with this basic intellectual concern Matson ought to be aware that not every Christian so-readily accepts every out-of-the-norm thing Jesus is said to have done. Many educated Christians, perhaps to Matson’s surprise, allow for the possibility that the writers of the Gospels may have either used “historical fiction” at points to emphasis their retrospective version of Jesus or somehow received information already ingrained with fictional elements.  This does not mean that every nature-bending story is discredited on account of this as they represent, on the whole, the kind of thing Jesus is known to have done regardless of the religious agendas of the Gospel writers. Hence, with question, the inquisitive truth seeker ought to weigh individual stories and judge accordingly rather than relegate the whole Gospel genre to that of mere fantasy as Matson has done.  

Moreover, when Matson asserts: “mainstream Bible scholars, many of whom are devout Christians who would hardly have abandoned traditional doctrines willingly, have long ago abandoned the Gospels as historical accounts,” readers like me would like to know who in particular these “mainstream” scholars are that Matson invokes to his cause [?]. After all, as far as I am aware, the academic consensus indicates that both conservative and liberal scholars embrace the Gospels as having overall historical value.  

Sure, various portions of the Gospels have different levels of historicity depending on the information sought; and some portions appear to have points of contact with “historical fiction” as previously acknowledged. But mainstream scholarship and classicists uphold the idea that the Gospels have useful data about Greco-Roman culture and other information pertinent to that time; and reflect, with various debatable degrees of reliability, late 1^st century retrospective interpretations of Jesus’ public life that help further our understanding about Him.  

Even the Gospel of John, which has had problems in the past establishing itself as historically credible, is now regarded as generally historically reliable. According to a resource often recommended by informed skeptics, The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “Since roughly the middle of the twentieth century support has been growing for the view that the basic tradition underlying John’s gospel may be historically more reliable than previously acknowledged” (pg. 374). Moreover, John Shelby Spong, probably the most controversial Christian philosopher of our time, also acknowledges the four Gospels to contain some reliable information pertinent to our overall understanding of Jesus (one can glean this from Spong’s new book, A New Christianity For A New World). What I would like to see from Matson is a list of scholars he identifies as “mainstream” because without a list his assertion is just that: a baseless assertion. Perhaps this is a slippery tactical move on Matson’s part [?]. Regardless, surely if Matson is properly expressing “mainstream” scholarly thinking there are available resources that express that sentiment. Perhaps Matson can bring those to our attention?  

Further, Matson states: “those same scholars tell us that the four Gospels are, in truth, four versions of how early Christian communities envisioned Jesus decades after the historical, human Jesus lived.” Here, while I grant Matson this particular point as well as the way he finally invoked scholarship correctly, it must be said that the negative spin he gives here is really mute as most well-read Christians find this ill-harmful in helping to know the character of Jesus. After all, we have four versions to help shape and balance our reflections out. That is not to say that the Gospel writers wrote to fit the needs of the church on every occasion, as Matson suggests, but that they did on some occasions (e.g. John 8:1-11; John 14:6; etc…).   Sure, there are informed Christians, like Brian Lawson in his review, who may make critical eyes toward Matson on this, but not all Christians process information in the same way; and as Lawson points out, there are weaknesses within this view as the Gospels lack material directly addressing issues related to the early church which should have surfaced as we see in Paul’s writings (i.e. “circumcision, church policy, speaking in tongues, etc.”).  

Nevertheless, Matson goes on to state that he “suspect[s] that most of the biblical authors viewed themselves as preserving the holy truth---even as they created false history.” But Matson seems unaware of the general consensus among scholars that the writers of the Gospels had no idea they were writing material that would one day be considered scripture. In fact, critical scholars tell us, we have four Gospel versions precisely because each Gospel-composer thought the other Gospel-composer did a deficient job and needed to be improved upon.  

Moving on, Matson grants that older resurrection stories do not necessarily invalidate Jesus’ resurrection, but insists that they do provide a model for mythical development. To that I will acquiesce with Matson’s response while re-emphasizing what I argued earlier about Jesus resurrection being the best attested as far as resurrections go: which ought to cause just about anybody familiar with resurrection stories a pause and/or double take. There exists too much information of postmortem observances, in material known to have historical value, to simply dismiss the data surrounding Jesus’ resurrection out-of-hand. 

Having said that, I can identify with Matson when he says “it is a lot easier to believe that yet another savior-god (in a long line of savior-gods) came into being according to the accepted pattern than it is to believe that Jesus’ resurrection was real, the one exception in this long line of savior-gods.” As I said in my essay, it is not easy for me to embrace the resurrection of Jesus in light of this knowledge. Yet I do, not because of the resurrection-narratives only, but rather coupled with what I’ve come to learn about Jesus as well as His reported character which all seems to correspond to the Old Testament expectation of a future Messiah. While the documents that make up the Bible don’t necessarily carry divine evidential weight (beyond inspirational and devotional purposes) in my eyes, they do fit into a theme of expectation and interpretation I share with biblical writers regarding God’s presence and involvement with mankind. 

As for Matson’s remark that Paul’s writings “bear no relationship at all to the Gospel stories about Jesus except for the name and some overlap in theology,” I think is quite a vague statement. As is plain to see, the writings that bear Paul’s name which touch on Jesus capture a Jesus-message reminiscent of the Gospels: Paul never met Jesus therefore his writing could only be reflective of what was commonly known. In that regard, I think Paul’s interpretation of Jesus squares with the writers of the Gospels who also never met Jesus (though the Gospels have embedded eyewitness material) on message content as is evident here: 

Regarding Matson’s thoughts on a possible “mass hallucination” regard the 500 or so people that saw Jesus alive after death, it is certainly possible, but doubtful. The same goes for Matson speculation that Paul’s personal encounter with the risen Christ was due to an “epileptic seizure.” This type of negative argumentation doesn’t hold much water in my eyes as others from Jerusalem to as far away as Galilee (a distance of roughly 75 miles) experienced similar sightings. I can’t explain the nature of these various sightings; nor why certain reports are deficient in evidential weight; nor why contradiction exists in detail, but I am certain that something out of the ordinary occurred on a level comparable to what many thought they saw: Jesus alive after death. Whether “that something” was indeed the resurrected Christ remains to be seen in fact, but for people such as myself who are under the impression that Jesus was no ordinary man the idea of resurrection isn’t that far of a stretch, especially in light of supportive eye-witness embedded material.  

Admittedly, my preconceived views are at work here, but I glean validation of these views even after reflection on skeptical material. For the last 6 or 7 years I have spent a considerable amount of time delving into anti-Christian material, and while I have certainly trimmed up a bit in many respects, the reports that surround Jesus’ resurrection hold my attention as being true at the core. Something unusual occurred after Jesus died, and it’s got the attention of many informed and educated individuals whether they are believers or not.   

----End Article---

END                    Revised: 03/14/05