Rick Sumner

No you haven't. I've asked you for them repeatedly--what characteristics would a narrative *not* intended to be taken literally have that one that *was* intended to be taken literally doesn't?

We still need characteristic X.

Because nobody else wrote in this manner. Because Matthew gives no indication that he intends it to read anything other than what he says it does, and consistently offers indications that his gospel at large *is* to be taken literally--the genealogy, for a flagrant example.

"Reasonable possibility" is the ad hoc of the ill-defended position. I want a reason to think it is likely.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what, exactly, you think distinguishes the gospels.

[QUOTE]The point of the fabricated genealogy is not that Jesus literally shared DNA with David but that Jesus was the Messiah and, subsequent to that primary belief, he "must have" fulfilled any Scriptural messianic prophecies. The author has clearly created this genealogy and it seems odd to me to suggest he could believe something from his own imagination was literally true.[QUOTE]

What he believed was true remains irrelevant. Of course he knew he made it up. Just like Herodotus, Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, the authors of the Qumran scrolls, the authors of the Tanakh and so on knew they made things up. For more contemporary examples--clearly it's not a trend that changes over time--so did Michael Baigent, Barbara Thiering, Dan Brown, Acharya S, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. You want someone who even seems to *believe* things he made up are true, we can throw in Robert Eisenman and Roland De Vaux. Yet all of these people *intended* it to be read literally.

That they made it up has nothing to do with how they hoped it would be read.

How much deception is it, at least from Matthew's perspective? First of all, he'd be following the lead of many a great writer before him. Second of all, he believed Jesus to be the Messiah, it only follows naturally that Jesus was thus Davidic. He just provided a means to what he perceived an already existent ends.

Matthew says "This is the genealogy," quite explicitly (Matt.1.1). You aren't providing me any objective reason to conclude that he meant anything other than what he wrote. What you "perceive" and think a "reasonable possibility" is naught but the subjective argument of the position that cannot be objectively defended.

Matthew tells us exactly what he is attempting to do. You need to provide me something a little more substantial than "Well, I think Matthew had really strong faith" to negate that.

Are you aware of even a modicum of evidence indicating that his audience understood anything of the sort? Even a shred? Because if not, the only recourse is to accept that Matthew wrote what he meant, and his audience read it as such.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I don't know how you could have missed them since I've repeated them in several posts in different wordings:

In addition to the above, something else I have mentioned is an explicit statement from the author that what they are writing is a record of events that actually happened. I have also mentioned that describing specific sources (ie the author claims to have been present, identifies a diary of someone who was present, claims to have interviewed someone who was present) would make the author's intent quite unambiguous. Neither of these is present in Matthew's story.

Except the author of the story upon which his version is based.

Seriously, you consider this a meaningful objection? Especially when I've already stated that I consider the Gospels to be essentially unique in nature. On what basis do you assert it is impossible for an author to write in a relatively unique way? Actually, considering what we've learned about Philo's writing, taking it another step to create an entirely allegorical narrative in an apparently historical context does not require an extraordinary amount of imagination. It also doesn't seem that far from the sort of thinking described in this post.

I've offered several that other folks here (including some who do not always agree with me) consider to qualify. I suspect your commitment to your own currently held conclusion is too strong for any potential explanation to qualify as "reasonable".

Of course it does! If I make up a story with the expectation that my audience will believe it is literally true, I am deliberately attempting to deceive them. You are imputing very dishonest intentions to the author with no justification.

If he knew what he was writing was not literally true but expected his audience to assume it was literally true, the deception is total. I see no reason to make such an assumption about the author.

You keep making that assertion but neither of your offered examples have supported it. Josephus did not write a story about his religious beliefs that he clearly intended to be taken literally and neither did Philo. In fact, we have subsequently seen that Philo considered the allegorical meaning of Jewish Scripture to be the higher meaning. This is far more consistent with my understanding of Matthew than yours.

I agree but none of the above suggests he intended his fabricated genealogy to be taken as literally true.

Let's go back to our buddy, Philo (I am SO glad you mentioned him as an example ):

"Philo bases his hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical...The two interpretations, however, are not of equal importance: the literal sense is adapted to human needs; but the allegorical sense is the real one, which only the initiated comprehend....As a result of some of these rules of interpretation the literal sense of certain passages of the Bible must be excluded altogether..." (Jewish Encyclopedia)

I am not aware of a modicum of evidence, period, indicating how the author's audience understood his work. That is one of the primary reasons I question the conviction with which you make the assertion that they understood it literally. Likewise, we have no direct evidence from the author regarding his intent so I also question the certainty with which you claim to be able to read his mind. All we really have is the evidence of the text, itself, which seems to indicate that the author did not consider his source to be literally true because he felt free to change it and did not have a problem fabricating additions to that original story in order to achieve his apparent goal of expressing his theological beliefs.

I see no reason to interpret the text in any other way than the evidence above suggests.

Rick Sumner

All you have offered is that the narrative contains elements that the author made up. This does not mean he did not intend it to be read literally.

Do we have such mentions in most of the Tanakh? Yet it was understood literally.

Do we have this for most of the Tanakh either? Yet it was understood literally.

And yet again I must ask: Unique in nature *how*?

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it wasn't evidenced. You don't get to declare something an exception by fiat.

And how would you propose this step would occur?

I suspect that this is naught but an ad hominem in a clever guise.

Far too often debates denigrate into a race to see who can cry bias first: I do my damnedest to avoid that, I'd appreciate it if you would do the same. Accusations of bias call into question personal motivations, which--unless explicitly stated--cannot be objectively ascertained. As such, it's an ad hominem--argumenst stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of any motivation of the presenter.

I've provided ample justification. It matches the methods employed by his contemporaries. It is in keeping with his own apologetic aims.

Why does Matthew get such a benefit of the doubt? We know that a great many authors have done exactly that. Call it dishonest, if you like, it doesn't change the reality of the frequency of its occurrence.

I beg to differ. How Philo understood the allegorical meaning doesn't negate the fact that he equated Socrates with Abraham's father, for example.

And yes, Josephus did write a story about his religious beliefs. A long one, in which he did an about face and decided to become an apologist for the Jews to the Romans. It's called the Antiquities of the Jews.

I beg to differ. There is simply no reason to create a genealogy at all if he didn't intend it to be taken as true, even more so to create a genealogy running through the line of kings.

If all he was concerned about was David, he'd have said "Jesus, a son of a David, a son of Abraham" and stopped there.

Yet Philo nonetheless equated Abraham's father with Socrates. Surely you realize how ridiculous that is? More importantly, surely you realize that he meant it.

First of all, I only made this assertion after I was backed into it, because nobody was going to debate the point--a great deal of hemming and hawing and "well I'm just suggesting possibilities" followed up by erroneous claims to a burden of proof I somehow managed to possess for a claim I hadn't made.

Secondly, I assert that they understood it literally because there is no record of anyone who understood it differently. We have Church fathers who understood Matthew literally, we have no one who understood him otherwise.

I assert it is the most probable conclusion because it is consistent with how other authors--even authors spewing nonsense--were understood. Unless you can provide a reason to expect this trend to be broken in this instance, it's unreasonable to suggest that it should. All you've suggested right now is that the gospels are somehow "unique," and that you can "perceive" Matthew's faith.

You're making him an exception. You need to justify that with something more than subjective cries of "It's not impossible."

I have claimed no more certainty on the matter than you have. I've just backed it up with references to how every other religious text of the time was written. You've provided nothing, save your own conviction that Matthew wouldn't be so "dishonest."

No, we have a great many texts, which all follow a fairly consistent trend. You would make this the lonely exception to that, because of a "uniqueness" that you still haven't defined.

Yet again I ask, what makes the gospels "wholly unique?"

What evidence? What did Matthew do with his sources that other authors, who definitely *did* intend their stories to be taken literally, didn't do with theirs?

What makes him different?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

You are obviously free to continue to disagree but I've clearly mentioned other factors than the author's additions.

Not by our buddy Philo, it wasn't. He preferred an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Apparently also not by the folks who felt compelled to create Pesher interpretations.

I think the fact that you have yet to produce a single similar example kinda helps my claim. That you feel free to assert various texts are similiar is hardly sufficient when an actual consideration of them suggests otherwise.

I would gladly acknowledge that the Gospels are not unique if you would provide specific similar examples instead of repeatedly asserting that they exist. Neither of the two you tried to offer were at all similar.

Straw man. I've repeatedly described the specific aspects of Matthew's story that lead me to my conclusion. Clearly you do not consider those reasons sufficient though I've yet to see anything similar coming from your side. All you've done is repeat the same assertion that Matthew must be intending his story to be understood literally. Your two specific comparisons simply do not appear to be at all similar. Josephus does exactly what the author of Matthew did not do. He explicitly identifies that he is attempting to write history. Philo wrote nothing similar to the Gospels either but he was a spectacular mistake for you to cite because he clearly exemplifies exactly the sort of thinking I'm suggesting was true of Matthew and his community. Philo considered the literal meaning of a text ultimately unimportant compared to the deeper and more true symbolic meaning!

Imagination, Rick. And really not much of it given the precedent of the kind of thinking exemplified by Philo. The author of Mark is actually the imaginative one, though.

Then you are mistaken. I do not consider it an insult to observe that someone holds their conclusions so dearly that they refuse to see alternate possibilities. As I've said before, I'm entirely willing to accept your claim but only if you can support it with something more persuasive than appeals to historians or mystical thinkers who considered literal meanings secondary.

Obviously, I disagree. What little justification you've offered has proven either too dissimilar to support your claim or clearly supportive of my own.

Josephus clearly states that his work is to be taken as history but Philo was just as clearly more concerned with the greater truth beyond the literal meaning of a text. In any case, neither produced a story that even approaches similarity to the Gospels.

The only stories I know of that are at all similar are the myths of other religions.

On the contrary, we've seen that taking Matthew literally requires us to assume that his audience believed Jesus capable of making a false prophecy. We've also seen that the historical context is ultimately irrelevant to theological expression that appears to be his primary aim. I would also question how someone who reveres Jesus Christ could consider it appropriate to attempt to intentionally deceive fellow believers.

I don't see it as granting the benefit of the doubt so much as trying to be consistent. This is a text that speaks of tremendous faith and I find that completely at odds with the intentional deceiver you describe.

Philo understood the allegorical meaning to be the greater truth over the literal meaning.

There is a difference between your refusal to accept an offered reason and the nonexistence of a reason. Matthew clearly lacked any knowledge of an actual genealogy but that didn't stop him from creating one to express his communities' beliefs. You keep dodging this question but it seems very relevant to me: Did the author understand the genealogy he fabricated to be literally true?

That would eliminate the symmetry of 14 that was apparently important to him and his audience. And nothing brings to mind the history of the Hebrew people like a good, OT-inspired list of begats.

Given that Philo apparently considered the literal meaning of Scripture secondary to the allegorical meaning, surely your realize how ridiculous this assertion seems?

In all seriousness, though, I would be interested in the actual quote and the context.

This is a specious reason since there is no record of anyone attempting to understand the text until the mid 2nd century.

You've yet to provide any examples of authors writing texts anything like the Gospels. Josephus explicitly describes his work as a record of history while Philo favored allegorical interpretations over a literal reading. Where are the similar authors? If the Gospels stories are not unique, why have you not been able to produce similar examples?

Perhaps you'll have better luck if you look in a different section of the library? Perhaps the "myth" section?

I'm still waiting for you to establish the Gospels as part of any "trend". The only "trend" I see is one that starts with pure theology then moves to theology in narrative form then moves to asserting the narrative to be history. This is the "trend" I see in Christian texts and I see nothing similar anywhere else.

Actually, I've included his source as well. The author of Mark was the true innovator. The author of Matthew basically ripped off his idea and put it to his own use.

The only religious text you've made reference to is the Tanakh but we've also seen that Philo, at least, would argue with you about whether it should be understood literally.

If you know of examples of other authors treating their sources as Matthew treats Mark while explicitly intending their revised version to be taken literally, please share.

Why you would waste so much time when you held such obviously relevant knowledge is beyond me.

Ted Hoffman

Strawman identified. I did not argue that "it was a defining characteristic of Paul's career". What I said is that one would not have known him and travelled with him and not known his forte or fail to find it worthy of mention when talking about Paul. I also argued that people were identified by their strengths or what they were good at/often did and that set them apart from the rest.

We are not just talking about anybody: we are talking about someone who claims to have knowm Paul, purported to have travelled with Paul and later chose to write about Paul. His 'biographer' so to speak. I could be a chain smoker. People can know me as a great orator but they may never know about my chain-smoking habit. But if I am indeed a chain smoker, my biographer, or someone who has lived with me and travelled closely to me, ought to point it out when talking about me.

My point being, what the writer of Acts, purportedly a companion of Paul, should have been even better placed than the Corinthians to know that Paul (1) wrote letters and (2) was better at letter writing than in oral speech.

The writer of Acts fails to mention neither (1) nor (2). Therefore the writer of Acts was not likely to have been a companion of Paul - unless you are willing to argue that Paul suffered the fish-bowl effect in the presence of AActs. My point is not that letter-writing was the major feature of Paul's career but that Paul was a letter writer. A good letter writer as the Corinthians tell us. We all know you can't be a powerful letter writer unless you have written a lot of letters (as a way of practice). Someone cannot travel with you and not notice that its something you do.

Plus, we can say his letters were his legacy. A biographer simply can't fail to mention that Paul wrote a few letters (assuming we can call them 'few') and left them behind or sent them to certain communities. Even if AActs thought that they weren't important to Paul's career.
Thats why I used the chain-smoking example.

Writing was an art, a preserve of the learned and the educated. Its not something one engaged in, sent to communities and were read and yet, one's biographer failed to mention it.

Who among his contemporaries is known to have written letters to communities?
Are you claiming that letter writing was common? If not, what is the basis of this question?

The only way to falsify this argument is to show:

(a) an example of Paul's contemporaries who wrote letters (or did something that can be taken as a valid analogy)

(b) someone who was that person's companion, who wrote about him but failed to mention that activity your example engaged in.

Its as simple as that. This should be disproof by counterexample. Otherwise, you are simply blowing hot air.

If it is 'no', it is no to a red herring. This is the last I am posting on this. You had earlier asked: "You need to give me a reason to believe that, to his *contemporaries*, Paul would be most reknowned for his letters, rather than his deeds.". I gave you a Corinthians quote that indicated that Paul's letters were considered by his contemporaries to have been more powerful than his speech. Whether Paul was 'more renowned' for this or that is not a sensible question because (1) it depends on who you ask and (2) it requires a survey or an opinion poll among the people who allegedly saw/knew Paul. Such a poll was, of course, not carried out. Further, its not asking for facts but a judgement or perspective.

A simple counterexample will suffice for my point here: was the alleged historical Jesus more renowned for his miracles, his eschatological message or for his parables? Look at Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories to get an idea regarding what the answer to this would be.

I hope this helps you see the absurdity of the question.

The bottom line is, Paul allegedly wrote letters, travelled and addressed christian communities. We know of no other person in the first century christian record who wrote letters like Paul and whose letters were widely read. Paul's letters were considered more powerful than his speech and were read (out to/ by) many.

Anyone who was his companion ought to have known Paul wrote letters and ought to have mentioned it when writing a biography of Paul. This is irrespective of whether Paul was known more for letter writing, or whether letter writing was his main career.

Rick,
Share with us please.

And yes, people would not have forged letters under his name if he wasn't known to have written (many) letters.

On a different note, I think its silly that we are arguing about whether the Gospels were written as history. They clearly were not. Right from Mark to the other synoptics, least of all John.

They were all written for theological purposes. Any item with historical connotations like the names of Herod and Pilate, are purely coincidental and not purporseful. These are just life-setting's for their literary creations.

The manner in which the evandelists employ deus ex machinas into the stories to move the characters from one place to the other (census, baby-killings, clearing the temple) etc, the way they employ midrashic plumbing to shape their stories and their total disregard to preserve the accuracy of the contents of the sources they are borrowing from, with respect to the changes they make to suit their theological agendas, make it very clear that they are not writing history.

The way they extract speech from the OT and put them in the mouths of their characters tells it all. The way they even kill their characters in settings that fit with certain prophecies leaves us doubtless that these writers weren't recording or recalling events or writing history but were engaged in literary activity for theological purposes. Literary criticism reveals Mark to be writing the gospel from his own imagination while drawing from scriptural elements. His redactors, knowing this, also recast Mark's work for their own theological purposes and rework his gospel and smoothen out perceived folds, add items and make omissions to suit their theological purposes without any clear concern about preserving historical accuracy or truth.

Bruno Bauer was not far off the point when he stated that Mark invented Jesus just as Mark Twain had created Huckleberry Finn.

A few exmamples to illustrate this:

Why doesn't Mark provide a birth narrative? The answer is in Mark 12:35-37. These passages attempts to show that the messiah was not to be descended from David and in them, David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, denies being an ancestor of Jesus. This only means that Mark and whoever's interests he shared, didn't share the comfort of the Davidic connection and thus needed to create an 'apology' for dismissing it (as Price argues in Incredible Shrinking Son of Man).

Of course the genealogies by Matt and Luke attempt to clumsily trace, with contradictions, Jesus' Davidic ancestry through Joseph and the idea of the virgin birth. This illustrates that where Mark's work doesn't suit their theological agenda, they resort to midrash and literary creation ex nihilo.

To further his agenda, in conformity with omitting angelic virgin birth, Mark, in 3:20 casts Jesus' family/friends as fearing that Jesus is insane thus further terminating the angelic ancestry. Of course in 3.32-35, Jesus 'denies' his 'mother' and 'brothers' (notice that his father is nowhere near) and says "whosoever shall do the will of God, is my brother, and my sister, and mother".

To further see "how unreliable the evangelists were as historians (or even as researchers of fiction), Luke (2:1-2) then places Jesus' birth at the time of an empire-wide census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. It has long been observed that there is no record of a universal census under Augustus (some historians have thought that such a thing would have been all but impossible), and that Quirinius (who conducted a local taxation enrollment in Judea) governed Syria beginning in 6 CE, 10 years after Herod's death" Doherty

Another example in wrt the death of JBap: in Mark (6:19) Herodias wanted to kill John because she had a grudge against him. In Matthew 14:5 it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him killed. If Matthew, relying on Mark, believed that Mark had written the truth (i.e. fact), and Matthew was intent on relaying that truth, he would have copied the story as it were. The fact that he didn't means that either he felt he could recast it the way he wanted (meaning that he regarded it as Mark's own creation) to suit whatever agenda he had (whether literary or theological).

We know that history is not amenable to change so certainly AMatt never regarded Mark as historical. Mark Goodacre, in Fatigue in the synoptics, regards these inconsistencies as symptoms of editorial fatigue - but in this case, I chalk it down to redaction. All the miracles and religious mish-mash in the gospels further indicate that they were written as theological documents.

Anything that can be deemed 'historical' like names and places are just literary settings for their stories.

Price favours a second century provenance for all the gospels but remains flexible because he deems the creation of Matt and Luke (he subscribes to a Ur-Luke) to have been long and involved.

Theological or historical truth?

See above.

The audience were not interested in history. It can be surmised that to them, history was, at best, a poor reflection of the truth. Gospel was historical truth, or historical truth was primary to gospel truth. If they had any problems with the veracity of the claims, or the historical accuracy of the gospels, they would not have transmitted them as they are and would not have preserved them. But they did.

This literature, to use Vernon Robbin's words, was 'good literature'. Full of lessons to learn. Full of wisdom. Full of hope. Showing the glory of God. Interesting. Enrapturing. Rich with sapiental expressions and full of twists in the plot...

These features were more important to them than historical accuracy. These documents had a purporse that was different from relaying historical truth.

Its obvious that there was already a theological bias within each group or intended readership of each evangelist. This bias is likely to have engulfed all detectable historical errors and snuffed out any skepticism and rendered questions of veracity irrelevant. Just like we see among the majority of christians today. Thus each evangelist had free reign to make necessary changes to suit the theological agenda at hand.

And this is why the embarrasment criterion and dissimilarity renders all the gospels as unreliable as historical documents: they were preserved and transmitted as they are because they 'worked' for the people then. The only changes and additions made to Mark were to cater for the interests, traditions and attitudes of the communities or audience of each evangelist. And each evangelist had no regard to accuracy or historical truth.

Mark was thus used as raw material or unfashioned timber that they could carve to whatever shape they wished.

Rick Sumner

Jacob Aliet:

This was one long attempt to shift the burden of proof, and really nothing else.

You have claimed that letter writing was itself a distinction. Watch this:

I don't believe you. You need to demonstrate that it was a distinction. Repeating that you think it was isn't evidence, it's opinion. I don't need counter-examples, when you haven't even provided an example yourself. If it's a distinction, people should be consistently disinguished for it. They aren't. That's my "counter-example."

And you seem to be misunderstanding the question of fiction for the present purposes. Absolutely nobody has suggested that the gospels were historically accurate.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Then I'm afraid we'll have to stop here. And I'm not mistaken, it's something of a gray area between an ad hominem circumstantial, and an ad hominem abusive. That doesn't make it an insult, it makes it irrelevant--not all ad hominems are scathing retorts. But it has a definite tendency to lead to more heated discussions, as well as a tendency to cloud the issues and become a question of individuals involved. I pretty well always withdraw from the discussion when it starts.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homi...circumstantial

You've argued your point just as tenaciously as I have. Why am I biased for not seeing your point, but you aren't for failing to see mine? Simply because I lost the race?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

Rick, if something looks like a fish, smells and moves like a fish, is it a fish?

I've just been googling into the debate about Herod and the Census - very interesting contradiction there!

Related bits note the contradictions in the synoptic gospels for example about Bethlehem and Nazareth, was Jesus born in an outhouse or a house owned by Joseph.

I'm reading a historical novel now that mentions horses bridles. I don't know when they were invented but I am suspicious they may not have been around when the story is set.

I hear lots of people stating they think theological truth is more important than literal truth - this is a very common idea and does not mean that because it is not based in concrete reality that theological truth is a lie. Conversely, the rabbis argued that to attempt to freeze the word of God into literal words was blasphemy.

The Gospel writers were attempting to explain how they found the world. For various reasons they tried to fix their ideas historically - and failed. Hebrews, Paul do talk about a mystical Christ. The historical Jesus sounds like a later invention.

The problem may be more to do with a fixed concept of truth, eternal, and out there somewhere waiting to be discovered. Maybe that is a myth as well.

Rick Sumner

You've just agreed with me. "They tried to fix their ideas historically" means that they intended their story to be read historically.

Nobody is arguing whether or not it is historically accurate, and I don't debate the Jesus-Myth.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Amaleq,
We really ought not to debate our opponents to the ground like this
Well, now we are down to the history of writing and civilization under the Roman empire. Having writing skills was a distinction in all early civilizations. Under Roman rule, the jews worked the land and the few among them, like the writers of dead sea scrolls and scribes were often an exclusive group and most educated people were among the elite and thats why we see NT writers lumping the pharisees and the scribes together(upper class). Unlike fishermen, tektons (like Jesus), and tradesmen (middle class).

Writing ability alone, moved one a class up. The manner in which literary works were stored also shows that they were valued. That was the cultural milieu of Paul.

F. F. Bruce a Classical and New Testament scholar, who is well heeled in classical Greek, wrote of Paul:
How do you know this?
Any examples to support your claim?

The pharisees were regarded as "accurate interpreters of the Law" (Josephus) and we see them as the ones challenging and vetting Jesus when he allegedly starts his ministry. Literacy conferred some power. As they say, knowledge is power.

There is not one civilization where power was not recognized. I recommend that you read some books on the Hellenistic Influence on Jewish society in the first century with respect to writing. Teaching history is beyond the scope of this thread.