EmmaZunz

Let's presuppose please that GMark was written as allegory.

Then when GLuke and GMatt were written using GMark, do you think they carried on the same genre and intention, or do you see evidence they were already writing what they thought was literally the recent history of HJ?

I originally thought GLuke was entirely allegorical like GMark. I still think the first GLuke was allegorical.

But now I think that Marcion's GLuke and the canonical GLuke, which is an expanded and edited version of the original GLuke, were intended as historicist. The canonical version was put together by an "orthodox" historicist against Marcion's docetist-historicist GLuke.

Some time before Marcion's GLuke, the historicity of the Gospels became widely accepted.

What about GMatthew? The strong focus there on fulfillment of OT "prophecies" suggests GMatthew might have been written against Marcion (who held that Jesus was not the prophesised Jewish Messiah), but those fulfillments don't have much anti-Marcionite force unless they were interpreted as literal HJ history.

Do you think GMatthew is free fictional allegory, with Matthew freely adding details to Mark's narrative (Massacre of Innocents, Three Magi); or historically irresponsible editing and expansion of what he took to be Mark's literal history?

Juststeve

There is nothing irresponsible about adding new information to a preexisting historical narrative. Historians and biographers do it all the time.

The simplest explanation is that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one source and added information gleaned from other sources as well. Luke explicitly says thats what he did.

Steve

EmmaZunz

Hi Steve.

I say irresponsible because (as I believe) Luke and Matthew's extra details are entirely invented.

Can we presuppose that GMark (and therefore GLuke and GMatt's additions) are not historically accurate? That's what I believe, and I don't want to have that argument here.

The Lukan prologues are I think later additions due to Luke's anti-Marcionite redactor who also wrote Acts.

Juststeve

EmmaZunz:

If we presuppose your conclusion you are necessarily correct. You are also begging the question which is whether there is any accurate history in the Gospels or not. Either there is or there isn't but I deem your belief on the subject to be as persuasive as that of the fundy who says it all happened as written. Two competing faith claims about the same question.

Steve

EmmaZunz

No. I do not ask you to agree on the basis of no evidence. I just lay the question open only to people who already do agree on the basis of evidence and argument.

Two very different things!

If there is no accurate history in the Gospels, there is still the question whether the writers of Luke and Matt perceived there so to be.

seeker

I think each of the gospels after Mark are attempts to clarify particular aspects of doctrine. There was never any real worry about history or any historical value, they were describing a a theological basis for Christianity.

Early on Christianity began to be compared to the other mystery religions around at the time so they started claiming that the big difference was that Jesus was a real person. Luke and Matthew, with their greater detail etc. were an attempt to counteract Gnosticism and separate Christianity from its religious rivals.

aa5874

Please Identify the sources for any detail in gMatthew and gLuke not found in gMark??

You simply have nothing but speculation.

There is virtually nothing about Jesus in gMatthew and gLuke that can be considered or can be shown to be historically accurate.

If one is SERIOUS about investigating any matter NOTHING can be automatically ruled in or out.

Whether or not the author of gLuke claimed he used sources for his Jesus story it is obvious that so-called details of Jesus were INVENTED no matter which part of the source chain we employ.

For example, the birth narratives in both gMatthew and gLuke were invented so it is of very little consequence that some other source had the same inventions.

Juststeve

seeker:

Your thesis about the gospels clarifying particular aspects of doctrine would be far more convincing if they didn't conflict to with regard to doctrine. For example, do Matthew and Luke offer the same answer to the fundamental question, how do I get right with God and obtain salvation. The answer is no but you can check it for yourself if you want.

What I see is two authors, with Mark before them, trying to fashion a more complete narrative with information from other sources that were available, some common, some not. Each author had a separate and distinct notion of the theological significance of Jesus. There is no reason to posit some grand plan, just inconsistent efforts to say what each believed happened.

Steve

aa5874

Of all the Gospels, gMatthew and gLuke, do NOT depict Jesus as a real person.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost. The author of gLuke even decribed PRECISELY how the Holy Ghost would "overshadow" Mary.

See Matthew 1.18-20 and LUKE 1.26-35


Now, if the real human father of the supposed Jesus was ALIVE then the authors of gMatthew and gLuke would NOT be regarded as credible.

seeker

The point is precisely that they do not agree. If they agreed there would have been no reason to write another gospel.

You are forgetting that the gospels aren't originally written as a set to be used in conjunction with each other.