Clutch

I'm trying to follow this. I don't think I'm succeeding.

Suppose that GMt was presented as historical -- ie, having the conventional hallmarks of recorded history -- but in such an obviously myth/theology-building fashion as to have constituted a "nod and a wink" to its intended audience. Sort of like a historical Bollywood movie in which the sudden complete changes of clothing aren't remarked as unusual or flagged as ahistorical, but are so over-the-top that everyone recognizes their exaggerative and entertainment function.

Wouldn't this account for both the historical hallmarks of the text, and for the way it deadpan-rewrites stories with which its intended audience was likely to have been somewhat familiar?

Or am I really missing the point of the debate? It wouldn't surprise me if I were.

Clutch

A man of many talents?

Or diobol-ical?

Mixing idioms like that can lead to distater, you know...

Rick Sumner

Is there anything in the gospels you think would stretch the credulity of an audience in antiquity?

Bear in mind just how ridiculous we would view many of the things they believed today.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I agree. The writings, particularly because they addressed doctrinal issues, would have been valued.

That doesn't mean that the ability to write letters was such a distinction that it in itself warranted mention, which is what you contended.

Again, you keep alluding to what a distinction worthy of mention it was in the society at large. Yet writing letters hasn't earned anyone else this mention you think should be accorded Paul.

The best you've presented is that it is "Not inconsistent with" a late dating of Acts. It's not inconsistent with an early one either. That does nothing for your argument.

There *are* no examples. That *is* my claim. Nobody was mentioned as being distinct for writing letters.

Were the Pharisees universally literate? Why did they have scribes?

Those at Qumran seem to have had a very high literacy rate for the time. Yet we don't so much as know their names.

I have no need for you to teach me history. Literacy rates were low. Granted. Being literate conveyed authority. Granted. That is all you've presented.

So what? Not everyone who was literate got a mention. Why should Paul suddenly warrant special standards?

Literacy rates were estimated at around three percent (I'd suggest that's high, but that's another issue). We'll go incredibly low, bearing in mind the number of literate people who would have had scribal jobs and taken dictation for a living, and say that of that three percent, twenty five percent of them wrote letters. By your logic--that writing letters was itself a distinction--all 0.75% of the population should warrant some kind of mention for their distinguished abilities.

Yet none of them seem to have been known for their letter writing talents--I'll certainly rescind that claim if you can falsify it, I've been asking you to do so all along.

And thus the reason I can't provide examples. There are none.

Why would Paul be the exception to that?

If your next post does not begin with "We know letter writing was a distinction worty of mention because the following people were distinguished for their ability to write letters," you're probably wasting your time. I'm getting weary of hearing your opinion cited again, and again, and again, paired off with irrelevant claims about the power of the pen.

Either you have a *reason* for me to believe it was worthy of mention, or you don't. A reason to think that this would be a consistent treatment in antiquity. Just one, other than your stock a priori reasoned response--"It's a distinction worhty of mention because I think it is despite a complete absence of this distinction being employed."

To clarify, because you keep clouding the issue, what we are presently dealing with is your claim that letter writing itself was a distinction worthy of mention.

Distinctions worthy of mention get mentioned. It's rather inherent in the phrase. If they don't, odds are good it wasn't so worthy of mention after all.


Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

You are obviously free to stop your end of the discussion any time but please do so for a better reason than this. I have made it clear that I did not intend the observation as an insult so it is difficult to see how this apparent misunderstanding might lead to "more heated discussions". My conclusion resulted from my observation that you appeared to have no evidence to support your repeated assertions which were, in turn, nothing more than denials of my own conclusion. Your argument, in short, was "all hat and no cattle". I'm not claiming you are considering the evidence in a biased manner. I'm claiming you do not appear to be considering the evidence at all.

You appear to be unable to imagine any other possibility than that the authors of the Gospels intended their efforts to be understood as literally true. You assert that this must be true because of an unidentified "trend" in which the Gospels exist yet we have seen no evidence of any such thing. You appealed to the countless other texts and authors who wrote with the intent of being understood literally yet the single text you offered was primarily interpreted allegorically by one of the authors you also offered. The other author you offered in support of your claims explicitly identifies his work as history so as to eliminate any similarity.

If your evidence supported your assertions, I would not have reached the conclusion you interpret as an ad hominem but what other choice do I have, Rick?

My statement results from the absence of any substantive argument supporting your repeated assertions, not a perceived bias in your interpretation of the evidence. If I had intended it as an insult, I would have apologized.

Yes but I have provided specific pieces of evidence that clearly support my conclusion while you have not.

And here are two more specific reasons why it makes no sense for the author to have intended his genealogy to be taken literally:

1. It identifies Jesus as descended from Jechonias but any former Jews in his audience would have known that none of that man's descendants could inherit the throne of David (Jer 22:30)

2. It runs from Abraham through Joseph to Jesus despite the fact that the author, immediately subsequent to this very same genealogy, clearly claims that Joseph was not actually related to Jesus.

While one might argue that the author's audience was not aware of the problematic verse in #1, the problem of #2 would be obvious to anyone.

Neither is a problem if we assume the author did not intend this to be taken literally but to be understood on a "higher" theological level.

Clutch

No argument from me. But does this really speak to the issue of, eg, rewrites of familiar stories? Imagine five literate Hellenized Asia-Minor fellas sitting around the fire. One says, "Yeah, this one time I saw a guy heal this old blind guy by rubbing spit on his eyes. Blew me away." The next fella then says, "Well, me, once I saw a guy heal this... uh, young blind guy by... er... rubbing spit on his eyes."

Everyone, being polite, nods and agrees that the world is a funny old place. But do we suppose that they -- being ancients who believed in all manner of crazy superstitions -- would fail to notice that the second fella just cribbed his story from the first?

They had absurd beliefs, but were they stupid?

Rick Sumner

These are the first two tangible pieces of evidence you've brought to bear.

1) Is irrelevant, firstly because of what you've already noted, and secondly because the promise itself was later rescinded, even in the OT itself. Three descendents of Jeconiah took the throne after.

2) It doesn't trace through from Joseph to Jesus. It says that Joseph was the wife of Mary, the mother of Jesus. All the rest are identifed as having "fathered" the next in line. Joseph is not identified as having fathered Jesus.

In short, it doesn't run through Joseph at all. Read Matt.1.1-16. Note the difference in the treatment of the final verse.

"and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ."

Jesus was begotten of Mary, not of Joseph. Matthew's pretty clear that he assumed the Davidic line through adoption.

*This* is the kind of evidence you need to bring to the table. Not "well, he was liberal with his sources, and the gospels are unique in some abstract way that I can't define."

These two don't quite pass. Perhaps you'll come up with one that does, I'm all ears if you do. But *this*--what you've just presented--is evidence. What you were offering before was nothing more than your opinion.

My turn: How are the gospels unique? You keep claiming it, and keep failing to answer it.

I'll start another thread on it, if you like, and we can hammer that out and then continue here. But I'm not going to grant you the premise no matter how many times you repeat it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I'm not sure how it can be avoided if they insist on digging a hole beneath their own feet.

Rick Sumner

The question for the moment isn't whether or not they would realize he just cribbed his story from the first guy, it's whether or not the second guy *wants* them to believe it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Yeah, nothing says stunning victory like claims to a uniqueness you can't define, claims to a technique that nobody else employed, and then calling me biased for failing to recognize the fact that the technique and the uniqueness are nonetheless wholly valid.

Stunning. A majestic preformance, really. Especially when we follow it up with flagrant baiting.

This, incidentally, was why I intended to stop. Feel free to start another thread if you feel like debating the issues rather than 1) debating my motivations or 2) Being inciteful.

Regards,
Rick Sumner