FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-13-2006, 04:47 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,729
Default Matthew was written as a fiction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 27
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
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.

The passage is an interpolation.

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.

The event didn't happen but the author believed it did.

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.

The author was well aware that the event didn't happen but decided to write it for propoganda purposes.

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.

The author was knowingly writing fiction.

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.
pharoah is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:58 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

I first mention this on my blog back last July.

Quote:
The current consensus on the raison d’être for the Gospel of Matthew is that it was written to reconcile Jewish-Christian relations. Having read Matthew a little closer, though, I’ve come to an entirely different conclusion on its formation and why it was written. Matthew is instead writing a (knowingly fictional) novella on Jesus Christ establishing him the new Moses for Christians.
I further explain the matter here and here.

From the second link:

Quote:
First, we must keep very distinct modern genres from ancient ones. Anachronistic thinking, such as that the gospels are “literal history” or “novel”, is a modern invention. In antiquity, what happened and what the author wrote are intertwined, and rarely are distinct.

Without going into all the different genres available, Matthew’s appears to fit into the theological history genre, opposed to normal history. Theological history is a theological “treatise” set in narrative form, most often using a story taken to be at least somewhat true. However, it contains moral or ethical scenes which often can be the authors invention.
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.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 05:35 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pharoah
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.
.
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.
Gamera is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 06:26 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

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)
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 07:31 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
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.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 08:28 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 05:21 PM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
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.
Gamera is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 07:56 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
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.
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.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.