Rick Sumner

I that he was intending to deceive is your wording. I don't think he was intending to deceive any more than I think Luke was. He probably presumed his account was more or less accurate, based on his own theological motivations and his redaction of Mark.

You've already suggested otherwise with the example of Robert Eisenman, where it was inherent.

Certainly there is. Matthew does more or less the same thing, to exactly the same sources.

By "style" I refer to his treatment of his sources, his tendency to redact freely, to steal your phrasing, his "dishonesty." Both him and Matthew exhibit it. Luke exhibits it with full intent of "deceiving." Thus your argument that we cannot reasonably expect Matthew to do so is moot. We can reasonably expect Matthew to do so, because we know for a fact that other people, writing the same genre, with the same sources, did so.

Not at all.

1) Luke does X.
2)Matthew likewise does X.
3) We have no other instances of X.
4) Luke does X with intent Y.
5)It is thus most probable that Matthew does X with intent Y as well.

Find me a single shred of evidence, a single parallel source--and I'll allow a remarkably broader selection than you will--that indicates otherwise.

You need to find a reason yours is probable. We know for a *fact* that Matthew used his sources the same way as someone presenting an historical narrative. We do *not* know for a fact that he used his sources in the same way as someone who wasn't. I've got evidence. You've got nothing. Eat crow.

I didn't forget.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

It was clearly implied by your claims. You have acknowledged that the author fabricated details (eg the genealogy) and claimed that he intended that those fabricated details be accepted as literally true. You have subsequently appeared to imply (I can't tell for sure until you answer the questions in the original thread) that his audience did not share his beliefs. If the above does not equate with an intent to deceive on the part of the author, this is all the more reason for you to answer the questions in the original thread because I don't see how that could be possible.

I don't understand how one's "theological motivations" can remove the apparent intentional deceptiveness of trying to convince others than one's fabricated details are reliable history. Again, I think this can be cleared up in the original thread.

Actually, I questioned whether Eisenman explicitly states that he intends his work to be taken as literally true. To my knowledge, you did not say whether this was true or not. I did go on to note that Eisenman does identify himself as the author and as an authority. These are examples of explicit indications that the author intends his work to be taken literally and that he wishes to convince those who do not share his conclusions. These are also examples of precisely what is missing from the text of Matthew.

If I fabricated a story, using the same sources as Eisenman and interpreting them in the same way, your reasoning would require that I must also intend that my story be accepted as literally true. The flawed nature of that reasoning seems apparent. It is an example of overgeneralization.

This is true of both texts but "dishonesty" only applies if the author intends for his fabrications to be accepted as reliable history. The author of Luke gives clear indication of this intent but the author of Matthew does not. It is only if your claim that the author intended his work to be accepted as reliable history is true that we must, therefore, conclude the author intended to deceive.

You have offered no support for this generalization beyond your apparently subjective judgment of reasonable expectation. We know that one author, writing the same genre, with the same sources, did so. You appear to be arbitrarily favoring one possibility without offering any specific support. Isn't that what you criticized me for earlier?

We know 4 only because of specific evidence unique to Luke so your leap to 5 is unjustified. Unique evidence of intent in one author's work cannot legitimately be used to assume the intent of another author's work even if they used the same sources and even if they told the exact same story. As far as I can tell, this exact same pattern of evidence would exist if the author of Matthew wrote with the intent I have suggested. Whether the author of Luke knew of Matthew's specific version or not, he clearly knew of other stories but felt compelled to "correct" them with his own version. What better way to establish his work as The True Version than to depict it in a way that none of the earlier versions had been (ie a researched and reliable historical account)?

What evidence eliminates this possibility so that your own might appear more likely to someone other than yourself?

You've got evidence for the wrong author and, so far, no legitimate reason to apply it to the right one.

Ah, so you do intend to answer the questions! Good. I was starting to worry that you were deliberately ignoring my requests for elaboration on your position despite your frequent admonitions for others to do so.

Julian

Sorry to butt in, but it seems to me that since GLuke and GMatthew are based to some extent on GMark and GJohn are based on all three that a connection between GMark, being the first, and similar literture would be sufficient to show that the gospels are not unique. I would argue that Dennis R. MacDonald has shown an abundance of similarities in his book, "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark." Yes, their goals are different but they are certainly very similiar in many, many ways.

Julian

Amaleq13

Even though the issue of "uniqueness" appeared to be resolved earlier (here and in subsequent posts), it was inexplicably revived as though it had not. The links I cited even earlier lead to sources who considered "gospels" to be a unique genre. (Rick indicated he would eventually respond to those.) In other words, the Gospels as a whole are unique. This appeared to accurately represent my original position but, as I already acknowledged, this may ultimately be an example of special pleading.

As I have also repeatedly stated, I never intended "unique" to imply that there were no points of similarity with other texts. I also subsequently restated my position that none of the offered points of similarity appeared to allow one to assume that the author of Matthew intended his work to be taken literally. The relevance of that assumption requires a return to the original thread referenced in the OP.

MacDonald doesn't simply identify similarities, though. He claims that Mark actually used Homer as a source for the creation of his story. In addition, he concludes that Mark's author was neither writing history nor recording tradition but that he "crafted a myth to make the memory of Jesus relevant to the catastrophes of his day." (p. 190). I would contend this is entirely consistent with what I am suggesting as the intent of the author of Matthew. In fact, if we accept MacDonald's conclusion about Mark, Rick's reasoning leads us to assume the same is also true of Matthew's author.

I'm going to guess, however, that Rick will not accept MacDonald's conclusion.

Clivedurdle

If that is possible, why not go a step further and ask if they are a play? That was a very significant form of artistic expression then - did the novel exist?

Rick Sumner

Here's where we're at. You have suggested an interpretation of the gospels. I have suggested that when authors that parllel both broadly and specifically have done exactly the same thing, they have not done so in the manner you have suggested. You have responded to this by claiming "uniqueness." You have now walled yourself in, however, and left no point of comparison, no way to test your hypothesis, and no way to falsify it.

I am under no obligation to entertain, much less accept, an unfalsfiable hypothesis. Your suggestion, on those grounds and those grounds alone, can be dismissed a priori.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I would be delighted to undertake a comparison between the two.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

deleted

Amaleq13

As I have already pointed out, they have not "done exactly the same thing". Unlike the author of Matthew, the author of Luke has explicitly stated that he intends his story to be taken as reliable history. The true parallel is between Matthew and Mark where neither makes any such explicit statement. You have also indicated (in the original thread where you continue to inexplicably refuse to defend your own claims) that Matthew's author was trying to convince others to accept his beliefs/claims as true. This requires that he intend that his work be taken as reliable history and that they consider him a reliable source of that history. You have offered nothing credible to support either of these assumptions. I, OTOH, claim that he was writing to his own community who already shared his beliefs. They had no more need for his story to be literally true than he did. The majority of scholars I've read, from Mack to Meier to the Catholic Study Bible, consider Mark to have been writing to his own community (ie an audience that shares his beliefs). Given the absence of any explicit indicator of intent, I will have to rely on the shared opinion of these expert scholars. By your reasoning, this indicates we should reach the same conclusion about Matthew given their obvious parallels.

Mark was written as a narrative expression of the theology of the author's community. The literal truth of the story was secondary, if relevant at all, to the theological truth expressed by the story. The author of Matthew rewrote Mark but changed it to reflect the beliefs of his own community. Again, the literal truth of the story was secondary, if relevant at all, to the theological truth expressed by the story. Unlike either of the other two, the author of Luke clearly states that his intent is to convince his audience that his version of the story is reliable history.

Your argument from the original thread required that we assume Matthew was written with the intent that it be taken as literal history and, as your own reasoning demonstrates, we have good reason to make the opposite assumption.

I understand why you would prefer that I continue to defend uniqueness because that is a much easier task given that I have, quite some time ago, acknowledged that the position appeared to be logically flawed.

I also understand that it is far easier to attack the claims of others than it is to defend one's own. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to present a comprehensive attack without making counterclaims and those require support just as much as the original claim. That Rick has repeatedly pointed this out to others yet failed to take his own advice continues to baffle me.

I am perfectly content to allow anyone interested enough to read through both threads to reach their own conclusion.