pharoah

I believe that if you really think about the implications of the above verses, you will have no choice but to conclude that Matthew was originally meant to be fiction.

First of all, the event described above didn't happen. If it had happened it would have easily been the most sensational occurrence in biblical history, dwarfing the resurrection of Jesus. Yet only Matthew wrote about it. The argument from silence is absolutely compelling here.

If the event didn't happen then we need to examine why the author wrote it. Here are the possibilities as I see them.


As far as I know, there are no manuscript variations to support this hypothesis. An interpolater would likely have also edited Mark and possibly Luke and John to bolster the pericope's credibility. Furthermore, the exaggerated claim is in keeping with the author's style.


I think this possibility must be rejected. It would require us to believe that the author was a gullible fool who would believe every wild rumor without checking it out.


I think this possibility must also be rejected. Would the author go to the trouble of writing a book to convince others that Jesus is the messiah, then undermine his cause with an outright fiction that can't possibly be believed? It's one thing to try to convince others that an extraordinary man was born of a virgin, worked miracles, died, rose again and established a new religion. It's something else altogether to try to convince them that their dead heroes Noah, David, Moses, Isaiah and Daniel all got out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem 40-50 years ago without anyone hearing or writing about it till then.


To me, this is the possibility that makes the most sense. It also satisfactorily explains pericopes such as the virgin birth, the roman guards, etc. These all made for a compelling story. Many of the changes that he made to Mark were also storyline driven.

This does not mean that there wasn't a HJ behind the fiction, although the author never met him or anyone who knew him. I think that Jesus lived and was clearly a heroic figure among a certain set. After he died, his legend grew until it culminated in the embellishment known as GMark. It's hard to say whether Mark knowingly wrote fiction or not - he could have sincerely believed all or most of what he wrote - but I strongly believe that the author of Matthew deliberately set out to write what we would nowadays call a novel.

Chris Weimer

I first mention this on my blog back last July.

I further explain the matter here and here.

From the second link:

If you search forum, you'll find several discussions here also. I believe Andrew Criddle was the main participant with me, though there may have been others.

Gamera

You're a 21st century person with a 21st century person's notion of factuality.

There are numerous texts from the classic and mediaeval period that purport to be historical and factual and are filled with this type of thing. I'm afraid you just have to realize that people of that time didn't think miracles and ghosts were that unusual. Indeed, they were rather common place. No religious leader worth his salt would go about claiming he couldn't perform miracles.

A claim that dead people walked around town, I'm afraid, would not be considered earth shattering in the slightest in that time or another 1500 years thereafter. The sagas, which purport to be family histories among the Norse, are filled with the walking dead, and they were written in the 12th century.

Malachi151

Actually, see my post on Mark:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168802

Since Mark was the first gospel written, and Matthew was based on Q/Thomas/Mark, you first have to understand Mark.

Mark was DEFINATELY a fiction, becasuse its a virtual copy of the Illiad and the Odyssey! (rearranged)

Chris Weimer

Would it help you to understand that many people did not, in fact, think that the Iliad and Odyssey were fictional? Moreover, you have not even begun to embark on the full literary critique demanding of such an emulation, as Stephen Carlson hinted at in your thread. Anyone can find parellels - look at Archaya S. Parallels, quite frankly, are bullshit, unless analyzed contextually and shown to have a relationship with the texts. Happy hunting.

aa5874

The book of Matthew was written to decieve. It was written to be accepted as the truth, when in fact the author knew the writings were not based on a real person or actions of that person. Ghost cannot have children. Jesus is siad to be the son of a Ghost. No such person lived.

All the prophecies in Matthew has already been shown to be false by Thomas Paine in 'Examinaton of the Prophecies'.The outrageous ghost stories in Matthew can be clearly seen when compared to the appropiate OT passages.

A condition constantly overlooked when dealing with the writings of the Bible is that for hundreds of years very few people had access to the Christian bible. It was regarded as sacred and was not expected to be in the hands of the general populace, as it is today. Errors in the Bible could then be concealed for hundreds of years.

Gamera

Yes I could see how a reader could confuse Mark with the Illiad and the Odyssey. I often can't distinguish them myself.

If this isn't the clearest evidence of the absurdity of structural analysis, I don't know what is.

aa5874

There is no evidence that miracles and ghosts were commonplace, it is belief in ghosts and miracles that was prevalent. Your statement shows the basis of the Christian Bible, it was believed that there were bad and good ghosts that could actually do evil or good deeds. Satan was the most evil ghost and God the Almighty, the best ghost. Sickness, greed, poverty and criminality were thought to be actually caused by direct intervention of the most evil ghost. The best ghost, God, they believed could neutralise the evil one.

The faith healers of today cannot perform miracles, so it is highly unlikely that religious leaders at any time could have done so. It may be that magic tricks were regarded as miracles.