Susan2

Well, I just want to know what happened to JoeWallack. He tends to be most insightful. I would have like to hear his further testimony. Why the silence?

Toto

Have you read Plato? Philo? Origen? Eusebius? This was not a culture that valued a "just the facts" style of reporting. The purpose of literature was to instruct and educate. A little entertainment was used to help the student absorb the lesson.

The supernatural events were not "documented." They are just further evidence that the gospels are something other than dry history.

What evidence do you have of this before the 19th century and the modern fundamentalist movement?

Why did Matthew and Luke copy Mark word for word in part but feel free to change details to suit their theological aims?

sschlichter

You are describing a range of nearly 1000 years. There are also many examples of obvious historians (good and bad) (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius) from a more precise timeframe. Philo and Origen are not good examples anyway, because they saw allegory as an deeper, underlying truth, not an alternative one. Origen beleived Christ was crucified and was resurrected and does not help your case. the allegory was used to absorb the lesson but the lesson was the application of the historical sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The gospels seem to go to great stakes to link events to OT predictions, link events to non-biblical historical events, and link events to geographical locations. My question is how are you delineating from allegorical higher truths, a naive and fanciful view of history, or outright intentional mis-reporting of history?

to pick one person randomly, there is overwhelming evidence that St. Augustine understood the gospels to be an historical account of the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I think you answered your own question and supplied the motive. I would have worded it differently though. Matthew beleived that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and wanted to reach out to a Jewish audience. Mark's previous work did not accomplish the goal that Matthew had, so he wrote a new account. Matthew wrote a new book that suits his practical needs to communicate his theology. The fact that he is 'selling something' does not make it untrue.

His theological aims appear to be to associate the person of Jesus Christ with the Messianic prophecies of the OT. How does this appearance of motive jive with the notion that the gospels are allegorical higher truths devoid of motive?

Deus Ex

The same Augustine argues that the Genesis account was allegorical and not meant to be historical.

I think the point being: If Matthew assumed that Mark was writing historical facts, then he should not change those facts just for theological reasons unless he assumed that Mark's facts were in error.

aa5874

But there is no corroborative evidence that there were persons named Matthew, Mark and Luke who wrote any Gospels.

It is more likely that all three Gospels, under the names of Matthew, Mark and Luke, were derived from some other source or sources.

Based on Justin Martyr, there were no Gospels named Matthew, Mark and Luke up to the middle of the 2nd century, he mentioned only the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The Synoptics may have been derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in the writings of Justin, since Irenaeus, writing after Justin, was the first to mention that there were Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Susan2

I call them eye candy. They make the message palatable, especially to impressionable children, desperate adults. The Jewish people did the same thing, with stories of the exodus and Moses, Noah, the prophet who can fill all the pots you can provide with oil to the widow, ect.

Notice the dryness of Islam, and yet it too has it's adherants. If I have to choose between Islam and my heritage, well, no contest.

sschlichter

yes, the same Augustine that wrote A literal interpretation of Genesis. Augustine (and Origen) beleived that the Scriptures contained truth at many levels. the allegorical does not preclude the historicity, it is a deeper meaning that God is using history to teach. Regardless, I am sure you agree that Augustine beleived that Jesus physically rose from the dead and therefore did not see the gospels as teaching only a higher allegorical truth.

Reporting of facts does not indicate reporting of all facts. Why couldn't Mark have reported facts and Matthew have reported more facts, different facts, a different perspective on the same facts, or a different emphasis on the same facts. Is it possible that there is more than 1 book written about WWII that is factual? Why could more than 1 book be written on WWII be factual but not on this subject.

~Steve

sschlichter

well, the eye candy of resurrection appears to be the message. There is no point to the gospels without it and there is no motive to write them without the resurrection as far as I can tell.

Mohammed appeared to have understood that the Christians claimed Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and was God as well. the allegorical higher truth appears to have been lost on him as well.

premjan

Muhammad was trying to be more "scientific".

Toto

I think you are stuck on this issue, and I can't dislodge you.

You seem to be obsessed with an idea that the gospels are either an attempt at a true report, or an outright lie.

But I think it is clear that the gospels were written well after the events, when there was little possibility that any real history could be recovered. They were written for theological purposes.

There are also some indications that the source of the gospels was "revelation" - the "holy spirit" "descended" on a prophet(ess) who channeled information from another dimension. Does the channeler consciously lie? I don't think so, but most modern skeptics do not consider the information reliable.

From my point of view, the gospel writers misreport history. But from the gospel writers point of view, I'm sure that they thought their motives were pure. Their motives were a mixture of religious feeling, community service, and support for the orthodox leadership of the Christian movement.

There were probably a few conscious liars in the movement - there always are people like that. But probably more people who were deceiving themselves for the usual reasons that people deceive themselves.