Ben C Smith

I once gave a similar example, also from Isaiah 53, and expanded on it with examples from Christian websites in a later post.

You are right. This practice does not give us very good historical information, but it also does not mean that the ones doing it are imagining anything other than a real historical happenstance.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

For this argument to have force, you must do three things:
a) First demonstrate that we have reason to believe that something actually happened.
b) Demonstrate the evangelist felt the need to support that event (the word "support" suits the example you have given above though I would have expected you to use "recast" as consistent with Judith Newman's scripturalization) .
c) Demonstrate that the author found the OT best placed to support the event and proceeded to use it.

The main challenge is in a). Because if something actually happened, why does it need to be supported? (you can use the word recasted if you want but the burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate that there was an event in the first place that required recasting).
In fact, the following sequence makes sense, is easy to support and is less parsimonious and unless you can demonstrate that the above sequence is more likely than the one below, you have no case:
This is easy:
a) We have no reason to believe that something actually happened or believe something probably never happened (reasons given below).
b) Because of a), the evangelist felt the need to support that event by presenting it as prophecy and attaching a godism to it and thereby making it significant while smuggling historical connotations to it ('godism' is an expression used by Daniel June in God is Propaganda).
c) The author found passages in the OT best placed to support the event and proceeded to use them.

a) is easy to support in this second case because several events in the NT lack MA, they are contradict nature (hence impossible), have literary parallels in the OT or simply defy reason (unlikely or probably false). Hence the fictional/allegorical interpretation is more probable than the historical one.

We can use the temple ruckus incident, or triumphal entry into jerusalem on the back of a donkey to test these two interpretations and we will see that your interpretation is less probable.

Ted Hoffman

I think using modern Christians is a false analogy. For the following reason:
Modern Christians have no event in mind: what they have are narratives they are trying to make sense of. In other words, they are secondary sources because they are relying on a primary source they find lacking. They only have the OT and the NT.

The evangelists on the other hand are regarded as primary sources of the events they describe in the gospels. They have the priveledge of relying or referencing more respectable sources like eyewitnesses and other sources ancient authors referenced for information. This difference falsifies your analogy.

Amaleq13

It is certainly a challenge to convince anyone already embracing a mythicist position that "something actually happened" just as it is a challenge to convince anyone already embracing an historicist position that nothing actually happened. IMO, throwing this tired and thoroughly chewed bone out as your first stumbling block is unlikely to result in anything but additional chewing of the same bone. It is simply disingenuous to assert that either side is the more parsimonious or to suggest that either side is more obviously wrong than the other.

The answer to your "Because" question is not difficult at all, however. Given the nature of the "something" that is alleged to have happened and the rather obvious incompatibility with traditional messianic beliefs/expectations, the motivation for seeking scriptural support for such odd beliefs should be obvious. You just are not going to be able to sell a crucified-but-raised messiah to anyone with any respect for Judaism unless you can make a case for it based on Jewish scripture.

This is false and you know it, Ted. Just because you don't accept the reasons others follow in taking a historicist position doesn't render those reasons non-existent. The other side can just as easily engage in this same tired rhetoric so why waste everyone's time singing the same old song?

We have a heavily mythologized historical figure about whom we can say very little with confidence or we have a secret, hidden belief about a spiritual figure that is never explicitly described or specifically opposed but somehow came to be accepted as history.

Let's all agree to quit pretending that either of these positions is strong enough to render the other a joke, OK?

Ben C Smith

I think you have misunderstood the argument.

I am not arguing that modern Christians provide evidence of any kind for ancient historicity, or even for positive evidence of ancient historical intent.

It is strictly an argument against the presumption that an OT match means lack of historical intent. It is an argument that it is possible for an OT match to line up with historical intent.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

This is precisely what Andrew does not have to do. He is arguing for the possibility of historical intent, not for the definite presence of historical accuracy. Note his careful wording:

This is an argument against the following assertion or argument:

Notice the positivist assumption in this argument: If the OT is the source, then the author did not think the event really happened. Andrew and I both provided instances (modern, I admit) of people whose sole source is the OT yet obviously really believe the event happened. These examples falsify the assumption. The conclusion may yet be sound (I doubt it is in most cases, but it may be), but the assumption is faulty.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

You need to be a mythicist to have difficulty believing that a stranger can ride smoothly on the back of an untrained donkey? You need to be a mythicist to have difficulty believing that people can give a red-carpet welcome to a stranger in Galilee?
Please dont reduce this to an argument between mythicists and historicists. We know virgins do not give births. This has got northing to do with mythicism.
I will put your prediction to the test.
You will be required to do more than just assert it.
Cant wait for you to show us.
Given the nature of the strong Jewish desire for a messiah and need to prove their faith and prophecies to be true, the need for religious writers to narrate tales that offer support for such odd beliefs should be obvious. And you just are not going to be able to sell a crucified-but-raised messiah to anyone with any respect for Judaism unless you can make a case for it based on Jewish scripture.

Thank you very much.
Please feel free to play the devil's advocate and present the reasons why we should believe the triumphal entry in Jerusalem actually happened.
Interesting opinion. Would you care to provide evidence that there is an actual historical figure that has unfortunately been heavily mythologized?
Nobody was doing that Amaleq. Don't confuse your opinion with facts.

spin

Is this necessary? Isn't it sufficient that the relevant Matthean writer received a tradition that he 1) accepted as fundamentally correct, and 2) he felt he had to augment or illuminate on the basis of his belief that the Hebrew bible signs were a reflection of reality -- such as putting Jesus on two animals (a misunderstanding of HB).

I fundamentally believe andrewcriddle's proposition:

this thread is intended to challenge b/ the idea that if a Gospel writer consciously based part of his story on the OT then he did not believe that things had literally happened the way he described them.

Though this may be true, it in no way reflects any necessary reality behind the received tradition.

I also accept the first part of andrewcriddle's comment:

To clarify, this is not an argument for the historical accuracy of the Gospels but an argument for their historical intention. Even if the ways in which the writers composed their accounts seem strange to us they may still have been trying to tell it as it really happened.

It is one reason why I have difficulty with mythicist and fictional analyses of christian literature. I find it easier to accept that the writers fundamentally believed these traditions were kosher.

The second sentence of andrewcriddle's I would have to change as follows:

Even if the ways in which the writers composed their accounts seem strange to us they may still have been trying to tell it as they thought it really happened.

(I'm not sure how andrewcriddle would feel about that change.)

I think one of us has failed to understand andrewcriddle's intention with this thread, for I have difficulty seeing how what follows is related to the OP!


spin

Ted Hoffman

Note his words:I expected him to use "as they want us to believe it happened". What does the word "really" mean above?

Ted Hoffman

Yes, this is another way he (andrew) could have phrased it.