archibald

Ooh. An anthropologist AND a linguist.

Toto

Slavonic Josephus is a medieval fantasy based on the gospels, not a "record" that could validate an event like the Killing of the Innocents.

Toto

That's an argument based on your personal incredulity.

Think of it this way: the authors of the gospels believed in the supernatural, so whether Jesus existed on a material plane of existence was not as meaningful to them as to modern materialist historians.

Vorkosigan

TedM this is rank nonsense. We know the gospelers altered what they copied, and we also know that the authors of Matt and Luke knew how Mark was constructed by paralleling off the OT. We know this because of Matthew's famous error off Zech 9:9, where he screws up and has Jesus mount two animals. In Luke, similarly, he realizes that Mark is paralleling the OT and adds details off the OT omitted in Mark.

But you seem to missed the major insight of your OP: the fact that the authors of Matt and Luke chose to write their own gospels rather than simply pay for more copying of Mark presupposes a decision to alter the story.

Vorkosigan

Toto

Some posts have been split off here that went off on several tangents

DCHindley

Ted asks "Why do the synoptics match?"

I'll tell you, and this is no secret, but the root ὄψις ("opsis") is feminine, and everyone knows that the feminine gender is much better at getting things to match. Ask yourself, who is (usually) better dressed, you or your wife?

DCH

GakuseiDon

I think it is important that the Synoptics were not only similar in content but also similar in style. Whatever genre they fall into, it's reasonable to think that Matthew, Mark and Luke fall into the same genre.

Luke then becomes important, since the start of Luke reads:

Luke 1.1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So aLuke claims to be writing history. Thus the options are:

1. "Fraud": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He was trying to make people think he was writing history.
2. "Fiction": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He wasn't trying to make people think he was writing history, since he expected his readers to understand that he wasn't writing history about an actual person.
3. "Fact": Luke claimed to be writing history because he thought what he was writing was history about an actual person (though putting his own twist on things).
4. "Mistaken": Luke didn't claim to be writing history. The claim was interpolated or misinterpreted.

I don't think many would choose "Mistaken", so we can leave it aside. There is another possible category "Lies", where Luke thought he was writing history about an actual person but was making up stuff to promote Jesus. But I would put that under "Fact" (as "twisted details about an actual person") for this exercise.

Keeping in mind that the three Synoptic Gospels appear to be similar genre, and that aLuke had access to Mark and/or Matthew, then the options are:

1. "History": Luke thought gMark and gMatthew were history
2. "Non-History": Luke thought gMark and gMatthew were not history

If Luke was writing "Fraud", then he probably thought that the other Gospels were Fraud or Fiction, and thus Non-History.

If Luke was writing "Fiction", then he probably thought that the other Gospels were Fiction (though probably not "Fraud"), and thus Non-History.

If Luke was writing "Fact", then he probably thought that the other Gospels were also Fact, and thus History.

I think we can rule out "Fraud". It seems like Conspiracy Theory to me. Of course, the bigger the conspiracy, the less evidence can be expected. You may as well simply claim that the first three centuries were all fraud. :wave:

Can we decide between "Fiction" and "Fact"? Was Luke thinking that he was writing "Fiction" (not about a real person)? Or did he think he was writing "Fact" (about a real person)?

From what we can tell, no-one thought that Luke was writing "Fiction". This included a lot of educated Christians converting in the Second Century. Luke seems to be thinking that he is writing "Fact".

And that gLuke appears to be the same genre as aMark and aMatthew, then it would be reasonable to think that they were written as "Fact" also. That is, it would be strange that aLuke would write in the same style as the others, if he thought he was writing Fact and they were Fiction.

GakuseiDon

You don't even need to ask yourself, while your wife is there to tell you.

Lao Zi asks: If a man says something in a forest, and his wife isn't there to hear him, is he still wrong?

aa5874

What!!! Do you have a clue when Slavonic Josephus was written? Slavonic Josephus is NOT a credible source for Jewish History.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the author of Slavonic Josephus was from the 1st century.

Please, when I say "records" I refer to CREDIBLE sources NOT Slavonic Josephus.

The author of Slavonic Josephus may have plagerised gMatthew.

TedM

Thanks for the clarification. I was pulling your leg anyway.