rlogan

Yup.

Amaleq13

He doesn't express his theological beliefs in the form of a narrative so this really isn't relevant.

Feel free to describe some of these reasons.

You might, however, first clarify what you mean when you use "literally". I am understanding it in the context of the Gospels to be the same as "a history lesson". In that context, I see no reason to assume that Matthew intended his story to be understood as a history lesson nor that his audience understood it as such.

What story written by Philo do you consider comparable to the Gospels? To my knowledge they are entirely unique.

Rick Sumner

Use Philo then. Or Josephus. They're better examples anyway.

I gave you the only one I need, at the moment--it's prima facie. It's how others contemporary with the gospels wrote, we should expect continuity.

I mean that Matthew expects his audience to believe that what he records actually happened. It's not an allegory, it's not a metaphor, it's not abstract theology--Matthew said exactly what he meant.

Entirely unique how? I'm not sure where you're going with that--they're only unique if one is semantic and nitpicks a lot, they're no more or less "unique" than any other writing.

Am I to presume you don't have a "postive" argument in favour of Matthew not intending it to be taken literally? I still haven't seen one.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

They are your examples to carry the argument.

What "contemporary" authors were writing texts like the Gospels?

I agree with your second sentence but the first does not necessarily follow. You need more than a specious appeal to "prima facie continuity".

I see an author take an earlier story and change it to fit his personal theology. I see that same author add incredible stories of rising corpses and earthquakes and eclipses and fabricated geneologies and fabricated nativity stories.

Why should I assume that this author believed that the narrative he had created was literally true?

The evidence, at a purely "prima facie" level, is that the author is well aware that he is creating a narrative to convey his beliefs. He feels free to create narrative details because he firmly believes in the theological truths they express.

Please point to an example. I know of none. The writings of Philo and Josephus seem nothing like the Gospel stories to me.

Again, you are attempting to shift the burden. Matthew's rewrite of Mark's story does not "at first sight" strike me as an effort to record history. Or do you consider Dawn of the Dead to be history?

I'm willing to accept this as a possibility but I need a good reason to think it is true. Asserting a "prima facie" case that does not match my first impressions of the story is simply not sufficient. I realize that rational thought and modern notions of skepticism were not typical in the ancient past but I question the basis for how credulous you seem to want me to assume these ancients were.

jbernier

First off, the best parallels to the gospels vary from gospel to gospel. For instance, let us take Luke: The only document that claims to be writing what we might call history. We refers to his gospel as an "orderly account of what has happened among us." Now, what is an "orderly account" in the ancient world? That was a basic premise of history writing: That what was most important was an well structured account. Beyond that there was freedom to play with details; or, more accurately, there was not the obsession with details that we moderns have. Or take Matthew: Matthew is perhaps closest to certain later forms of Rabbinic writing, such as Talmud and Midrash, albeit with a narrative structure which frames the Talmud- and Midrash-like statements from Jesus. Either way what was important was making the point that Matthew or Luke wanted to make; in ancient history writing the historical details were secondary to making that point.

Read above. Further, the claim that one should read Matthew literally is a positive claim; it is your responsibility to substantiate said claim, not my responsibility or Amaleq's responsibility to disprove it. There is absolutely no compelling reason to assume a literal reading of the text until proved otherwise.

jbernier

This is an important point. Matthew and Luke seemed to feel as if they had the freedom to edit Mark in a creative fashion. They both obviously share a deep respect for Mark as they both use that book; however, they both are obviously prepared to change both minor and major parts of Mark to better suit their purposes. Creativity (the ancient enemy of the literalist) does not seem a problem for them.

Rick Sumner

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that we should read the story literally, I could care less how you want to read the story. I'm saying that Matthew *intended* it to be taken literally--he intended to convey a point to his audience through their literal reading of the text.

I haven't suggested we should read the text literally. I've suggested that Matthew *intended* it to be taken literally.

And I have no idea where people got the idea that a "positive" claim bears the burden of proof, but it's incorrect. The burden of proof rests on anyone making *any* claim. In the case of prima facie evidence, the burden rests on the person attempting to dispute it--prima facie evidence is accepted unless there are grounds to doubt. That's rather what the phrase means.

What we are asking is what Matthew intended to convey to his audience, what you have suggested is exactly what I have--you aren't arguing for Amaleq13, despite your apparent misconception that you are.

Matthew sometimes "makes his point," for example, by placing imaginary words on the mouth of Jesus. He hopes his audience to read that and say "Hey, Jesus really said that." He's not looking for some deeper spiritual truth, he's looking to convey that this *is* the truth.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Both Philo and Josephus fabricated events and interpretations in order to convey their point.

They are, in short, exactly what the gospels are: Narratives that serve an apologetic purpose.

I can't answer this until I know what you view as setting the gospels apart.

No I don't. The case *is* prima facie. Other people wrote narratives that they intended to be taken literally. I'm aware of no Jewish text written in this timeframe that meets any other description, even the most ridiculous of claims are intended to say exactly what they do. The best Doherty could come up with in defense of this notion was that some people *interpreted* texts allegorically, which is irrelevant. I need to see people who *wrote* apologetic texts with allegorical or metaphorical intentions.

Without a parallel instance, there is no reason to presume that the gospel authors are doing anything different than their contemporaries. That's prima facie.

Okay, and?

What he believed, and what he intended to convey to his audience, are two entirely separate things.

Of course he does. That still doesn't mean it's what he intended to convey. Herodotus doubtlessly knew that he made up the entire narrative of Solon and Croesus too, yet he nonetheless clearly intended it to be taken as history.

Again, I can't until I know what you see as distinguishing the gospels.

It's not an effort to record history, in any contemporary understanding of the term. That doesn't mean he didn't intend it to be taken literally.

And analogies to contemporary stories simply don't hold up, I don't know why they're so often countenanced. There was no printing press then, much less the variegated forms of media available today. It's a much different world.

These were people who genuinely believed in Zeus, in the Exodus, in workings of miracles. People who genuinely believed that the divine worked regularly in the mundane world. It doesn't get much more credulous than that.

See above for an expansion on what I mean by prima facie continuity. There's simply no reason to think that the gospel authors had such different intentions , and were so much more sophisticated, than their peers. Even beyond that, not only the evangelists, but their audiences, need to epitomize the height of sophistication in antiquity, or the intent you suggest would have been missed.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I should probably add that many of the Matthean additions to the Markan source also strongly indicated that Matthew definitely intended his story to be taken literally.

For perhaps the most flagrant example, what would the point of the genealogy be, if not to establish that Jesus was a real descendent of David? And how well would this hold up to his audience if this did not place Jesus at a real time and place?

In Matthew one is not accorded the benefit of the pseudo-ambiguous "kata sarka" of Paul. There can be no doubt what he means by tracing his genealogy.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

And, IMO, you've yet to defend this claim beyond an apparently specious appeal to "prima facie continuity". As I mentioned, my "first sight" impression of Matthew's story is that it is primarily an attempt to express his theology within a narrative framework that, despite the "real world" context, is apparently deliberate fiction.

Why should we assume your assertion above when the theological point can quite obviously be obtained without reading the story literally?

And I would be very interested in the evidence that allows you to make this claim about the intent of the author.

The nature of the prima facie evidence would appear to differ across subjective perceptions so repeated appeals to your first impression are not terribly compelling. Please point to more objective evidence that you find supports your view.

I've already identified the observations that lead to my conclusion.

OR Matthew sometimes "makes his point," for example, by placing imaginary words on the mouth of Jesus. He hopes his audience to read that and say "Hey, this is what a belief in Christ really means." He's not looking for a superficial consideration of the story used to convey the deeper, spiritual truth.

Please explain why the above is not a reasonable possibility.

No, that is an example of overgeneralization. Josephus explicitly claims to be recording history. He is not telling a story about the central figure of his belief system. Philo, on the other hand, is writing philosophy and apparently trying to reconcile Jewish theology and Greek philosophy. He, too, is not writing a story about a particular figure that conveys his beliefs about that figure. Regardless, it seems to me a mistake on your part to appeal to Philo as an example of someone who "clearly intends their work to be understood literally".

"Martin McNamara writes: "Even though he does treat of the literal meaning of the texts in his 'Questions and Answers,' Philo's chief interest is in the allegorical interpretation of the scriptures. The titles of his works show that his thought centered around, or flowed from, the sacred text. However, he can be studied both as a philosopher and exegete. Central to his teaching on God's relationship to the world is his doctrine of the Logos. The term itself occurs repeatedly in his works but is never defined. In Who is Heir of Things Divine?, chapter 42 ( 206) the Logos says of itself: 'I stand between the Lord and you; I am neither uncreated like God nor created like you, but midway between the two extremes, a hostage on both sides.' It is a matter of debate whether Philo considered the Logos as a reality, as a distinct identity having real existence, or as no more than an abstraction." (Intertestamental Literature, pp. 232-233, emphasis mine)

from
Kirby's newest gift to the internet

"He explains the Pentateuch catechetically, in the form of questions and answers ("Z??????? ??? A?????, Qustiones et Solutiones"). It can not now be determined how far he carried out this method. Only the following fragments have been preserved: passages in Armenian in explanation of Genesis andExodus, an old Latin translation of a part of the "Genesis," and fragments from the Greek text in the "Sacra Parallela," in the "Catena," and also in Ambrosius. The explanation is confined chiefly to determining the literal sense, although Philo frequently refers to the allegorical sense as the higher." (Jewish Encyclopedia , emphasis mine)

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. What doesn't seem odd to me is the notion that he didn't think the literal truth was important at all compared to the theological truth the fabricated list conveyed. It is entirely possible that the author intended to deceive his audience into accepting his fabrication as the result of searching ancient records but I find that kind of intentional deception at odds with the genuine faith I perceive behind the creation of the account.

It would hold up just fine if his audience understood it to affirm their belief in Jesus as the Messiah rather than as a researched history of the actual genealogy of an ultimately irrelevant human parent.