In the book, "*The Art of Biblical Narrative*", which I gather is a fairly common and well-regarded book, [Robert Alter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Alter) makes an interesting observation that we rarely see epithets used in the Old Testament. Namely, he points out that we typically see "Jacob" and not "wily Jacob" and "Moses" as opposed to "sagacious Moses" -- contrasting with what we might find in Greek texts, such as the Homeric epics. Aside from the obvious inference that Greeks and Jews are two different peoples and two different cultures, Alter also asserts that the absence of epithets allows for a greater potential for intra-character change. This allows for story arcs over the life time of a character to unfold in a way that amplifies man's precariousness in the world, the importance of heeding the Lord's message and striving not to sin. I don't dispute that. However, it seems that there are cases when this general rule seems to not fit. It would seem that Balaam is a good example here. He has many epithets: "open-eyed", "eyes-unveiled", etc. In fact, it could be argued, it is because of these epithets that makes his ultimate failure so poignant. A cherry-picked example, perhaps, but it still shows that epithets can conform to and effectively complement the biblical narrative.

Question

Given that there are a handful of cases where epithets are used, rather successfully, to accentuate the biblical narrative, why weren't they used more? Thus taking the form of the epithetless-approach highlighted by Alter?

To extend this [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11384/69) , what about the text of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an "actual" account?

In the Catholic Church there is a uniquely Catholic approach to almost any human subject. **What is the Catholic approach to the analysis of fiction, stories, and characters?** What I mean by "analysis" is determining the core values and the internal logic of characters, and how that relates to other characters and the story itself as a macrocosm. Examples of core values: salvation, love, dehumanization, altruism, togetherness, slavery, etc. Notice that not all core values are necessarily good. **Has any Catholic moralist seriously looked and listed core values in stories? Has any Catholic moralist drawn out the implications of core values as they occur in stories?**

Multiple sources have put forward this argument. For example, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article *Stylometric Analyses of the Book of Mormon: A Short History* ([link](https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=jbms)) affirms: > **Abstract** > The abundance of skeptical theories about who wrote the Book of Mormon has led many scholars to seek scientific data to discover the > answer. One technique is stylometry. Having first been developed in > the 1850s, stylometry seeks to find the “wordprint” of a text. > Although these stylistic studies are not as accurate as a human’s > fingerprint, they can give researchers a good idea either of > differences in style between authors or of who might have written a > text from a list of possible authors. Beginning in the 1960s > individuals have completed four major stylometric studies on the Book > of Mormon, studies that varied in both findings and quality of > research. In addition to these four studies, this article presents a > fifth study—using extended nearest shrunken centroid (ENSC) > classification—that incorporates and improves on the earlier research > > [...] > > **Conclusion** Stylometric analyses of the Book of Mormon have generated much interest over the past thirty years. Some of these analyses have produced interesting information, but some of the studies have been characterized by hyperbole, faulty reasoning, and misapplication of statistical methods. **When examining all the evidence, our overall conclusion is that the Book of Mormon displays multiple writing styles throughout the text consistent with the book’s claim of multiple authors and that the evidence does not show the writing styles of alleged nineteenth century authors to be similar to those in the Book of Mormon. Further, the claims thus far put forward for alternative authorship of the Book of Mormon, other than as described by Joseph Smith, are untenable**. Similarly, the article *Is Stylometry the Ultimate Proof that Joseph Smith Did Not Write the Book of Mormon?* ([link](https://searchisaiah.org/headlines/is-stylometry-the-ultimate-proof-that-joseph-smith-did-not-write-the-book-of-mormon/)) states: > [...] Together this presentation helped the audience consider **the impossibility of someone of Joseph Smith’s age and limited experience working with Oliver Cowdery over 60 working days to compose anything so complicated as the Book of Mormon**. It worked for me and others in the audience. > [...] Like Fields and Roper, many other scholars have used stylometry to show the distinctive styles of the book. These studies show that the major contributors, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and Alma, all have distinctive “wordprints” in comparison to Joseph Smith’s. **Clearly, he did not author the book, but a team of many writers compiled it and none of them were Joseph’s contemporaries**. User @HoldToTheRod presents the stylometry argument too in his [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) to the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83901/50422 : > *** > 1. Positive arguments > *** > In order to pretend to be concise I'll just focus on 3. > > A. *Stylometry* > > (Drawn from *Book of Mormon Authorship – New Light on Ancient > Origins*) > > Stylometry studies word-prints and offers a means of determining who > wrote an anonymous text. Like a fingerprint, people leave traceable > patterns in their writing. Very small samples (e.g. a few verses) are > insufficient for statistically-significant stylometric analysis, but > longer passages are quite relevant and the scientific apparatus is > well-studied. Stylometry has been used to determine authorship of a > variety of documents, including some of the Federalist Papers. > > An author’s word-print has been shown to survive translation, and > authors who try to game the system and mimic another author’s style > have been betrayed by their own unconscious writing habits—stylometry > can catch the ruse. Even when an author has multiple characters who > speak and behave differently, the author’s word-print can be > discerned. > > The Book of Mormon has been subjected to stylometric analysis which > has demonstrated, among other things: > - Neither Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, nor Solomon Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon > - The Book of Mormon was written by multiple people. I.e. Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni etc. are not just different characters—their > words were written by different people > > The authors of the aforementioned *Book of Mormon Authorship* provide > an extensive discussion of the statistical data, and they offer > rebuttals to counterarguments that have failed to capture the depth of > the stylometric analysis that has been performed. _____ **Question** How do non-LDS Christians respond to the stylometry argument for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92431/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83906/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89274/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83901/50422

I've come across some criticism of the gospels as historical accounts based on the author’s ability to know certain events that seem unknowable, or at least hard to know, like the quote below: > Mark’s narrator can describe the inner feelings of the characters – their compassion, anger, fear, sadness, amazement and love. The narrator tells when characters are dazed, stunned, puzzled, pleased, terrified or dejected. The narrator also tells the audience what the characters are thinking, for example, that the opponents think Jesus is a blasphemer or that Pilate knows the high priests are envious. The narrator explains why characters do things and when characters do not understand and when they do not know what to say. *Source*: [Quora post by Dick Harfield](https://qr.ae/pvkK73) referencing [Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 3rd Ed](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800699092) (2012) by Rhoads, Dewey and Michie > When a narrator is omniscient, audiences tend to be unaware of the narrator's biases, values and conception of the world, and therefore tend to trust the narrator as a neutral, objective teller of the events. *Source*: [Google preview](https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Mark_as_Story/H1oqpGN5WeMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22narrator%27s+biases,+values+and+conception+of+the+world%22&pg=PT80&printsec=frontcover) of [Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 3rd Ed](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800699092) (2012) by Rhoads, Dewey and Michie, Chapter 2: The Narrator, Section "The Narrator's Point of View", Subsection "The narrator is not neutral" Whilst this quote pertains to Mark, there are multiple instances in the gospels, or even Acts, where things appear to be written from an omniscient narrator perspective, or at least written regarding things the disciples weren’t present at. Consider: > “Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭2:7-8‬ ‭ > “About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭19:23-25‬ ‭ There are multiple other examples, such as when the gospels record the discussion of the Pharisees amongst themselves, etc. I have heard that the gospels aren’t verbatim transcripts, but there are just some events where it seems hard to believe that the writers could have even known what happened, or even what was said. So then, how are the gospels able to record some events like omniscient narrators when they would not have even been present, let alone be able to record the private discussions of individuals? How would one refute the quote posted above? Does the (potential) use of omniscient narration impact the reliability of the gospels / their ability to be historical biographies? Please note: I’m not saying there is or isn’t omniscient narration, but for the purpose of asking about it, I've included it in the title of my question. Irrespective of whether you think it is omniscient narration or not, there are some private events in the Bible that are described by the authors which seem difficult for them to be present at. I'm not asking this question to be critical and I understand it may be broad. But, I guess I just want a clarity on **how certain events in the gospels can be recorded if the disciples weren’t there?**

I recognise the modern challenges of traditional/specific dating of the NT books; and that this may suggest various answers. Are there any letters which are reliably recognised as having been written while under arrest in Rome?

It is often asserted that the Gospel of Mark distinctively presents Jesus as the Servant, even the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. What is it about the particular content of the gospel of Mark that gives rise to this assertion? What is the basis for this distinction?

I've often heard that if you lay out the books of the New Testament by the chronological order of their composition, the story of Jesus' resurrection becomes more important in the later books. Some also say it becomes more supernatural. Is there any truth to this? I do not know the order of the books by when they were written.

When the spies returned from Canaan, to verify the kind of land God was going to gives them, all but two said, among other problems, that there was 'big strong men' there. Therefore, if they tried to take the land they would be killed.   Not only did these spies doubt but the whole camp wanted to stone the two spies that had faith, as they hated their blind confidence on being able to destroy those 'big men'. God himself says: >“How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them? (NIV Numbers 14:11) In light of all this, I am wondering whether we can draw the similarity that many who are exposed to Christianity and feel certain 'doubts' they have are 'too big' to kill are really no different then these faithless explorers (assuming these doubts keep them from faith. ) **Is it fair to say biblically that such cases are just modern intellectual honesty, or would it be reasonable to say biblically it is contempt of God, as in the case of the spies? Where does intellectual honesty turn into wicked contempt from a biblical perspective?** I am only looking for answers that are made from the scriptures. Is this a fair biblical comparison, or would the Bible not draw these parallels?