Roland

Are there any other "historical" writings from that time that read like the gospels? I mean, more like narratives than recounted histories.

The gospels seem to be me to be written in the form of third-person novels. They have characters who interact with one another as if they were acting out a drama. Dialogue is also used much as a novelist or short story writer would use it. This is very different from the writings of historicans like, say, Josephus or Tacitus, who often intrude into their narratives, explaining where they discovered this or that little tidbit of information. The gospel writers never apply the historian's eye to their works, stepping out of the drama, indentifying himself and the sources for his material. (Well, Luke does a little at the beginning of his and John a little at the end, but those sections could easily be later appendages to the whole. The writers still don't tell us where they glean particular elements of the story). For the most part, though, the authors function much as the writers of narrative fiction would.

So I guess what I'm asking is to what genre of ancient writing do the gospels belong?

Amaleq13

Actually, I'm questioning why we should assume the author or his audience took the stories literally rather than as they appear to have been primarily intended (ie theologically instructive). The way AMt treats his primary source (ie Mark) does not suggest he considered that story to be history so it is difficult to understand why he would intend for his own version to be. Also, it is quite apparent to me that the primary intent for all of these stories is theological significance rather than teaching history.

Whether the Gospel stories contain history or not, there can be no question that the authors intended their works to convey a specific theology. It seems to me quite obvious that this was the primary purpose of the creation of the stories. The historicity of the stories can only be considered secondary because, as I argued against ichabod, the specific historical contexts don't appear to be terribly relevant to the message. The scene with the woman anointing Jesus before his death works just as well set in Sepphoris in the house of a Jim the tax-collector. We don't appear to have a story being interpreted theologically but a theological story set in a historical context.

Your "nutshell" incorrectly phrases my position so as to shift the burden of proof. Given that the obvious primary purpose of the stories is theological, the burden lies on any who would claim that they are also historically reliable.

I see no reason to assume these stories are historically reliable but I do see many rather incredible claims that suggest otherwise absent supporting evidence. I also see a depiction of a historical figure, Pilate, that is entirely contrary to depictions found in the writings of others whose primary intent is to record history (eg Josephus). In addition, I see subsequent authors fail to treat the original story as though it was history. I see many reasons to question the historicity of these stories.

I think the author and his audience considered the story to be, first and foremost, theologically true. I don't think the question of historicity ever crossed their minds because historical realities would have been of, at best, secondary importance to the "ultimate truth" of what the story taught.

rlogan

You have not established this. Merely asserted it. On the other hand the Corinthians passage has been offered as positive evidence in support of his fame for powerful writing.

I have not argued that he was most famed for anything. I observed what I took to be an argument that he was not famed for writing. I took that as absurd and stepped into the discussion.

I would like to cease an argument we are not having therefore.

Moving the goalposts. I have stated Paul was famous for these writings. Not just writing per se, but that they were inter-regional religious matters. Here my argument is rephrased by you even further to pretend that I am saying he is famous among his peers. John Glenn is famous for being an astronaut. He is not famous among astronauts for being an astronaut.

I would like therefore again for you to stop rephrasing my arguments into strawmen.
What evidence do you have that he dictated? And even so, it is still pretending I have said less than what I did.

It was a distinction of the time when literacy was 3% or less. Whether you are remembered two thousand years later for it is a very, very poor argument for contemporary (1st century) note. His mother would be quite proud of him.

Could we be a little less patronizing please?

This is a worthless rhetorical red herring. The issue is the veracity, and playing wordsmithing is not only a dodge, but plain wrong.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiction

2. fiction -
false statement, falsehood, untruth, falsity - a false statement

So Rick, your patronizing assertion is dead wrong. Perhaps your condescending attitude could be adjusted?


And could we be a little less insulting? You were insisting I had presuppositions. The presupposition was the opposite - the whole hog acceptance of the Christ fiction for a number of years on my part.

So you were flat wrong about that too.

An individual with just the slightest courtesy, such as Ichabod, would acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of material brought to bear on this question. Much of which is in threads I have participated in over the last year, some of which I have referred to. Some of which others have referred to.

Other material has been directly referred to such as the slaughter of the innocents, the clearly fictional birth narratives, and etc.

Instead of acknowledging this, we are met with insulting derision as if the only things written at all are those you explicity choose to selectively acknowledge.

I see you have appointed yourself as dictator over sufficiency of argument.

Three different lineages for Jesus. At least two of them must therefore be untrue. Q.E.D.

Nobody appointed you to decide what words mean, and I take my authority to be dictionaries of repute rather than you.

Heh. His highness wishes for me to supplicate?


Rick Sumner[/QUOTE]

I could care less at this point.

Toto

<Moderator clears throat>

Can we stick to the issues and have a little bit more civility all around, please?

Thanks.

Rick Sumner

I don't need to establish it. You need to establish that we should expect him to be acclaimed for it. You can't demonstrate that something shouldn't be expected, you can only look at whether or not it occurs in other instances. All I need is continuity. You need to either break that continuity, or establish that there are other factors to be considered.

I'm not moving the goalposts, you're building strawmen. Nobody said he wasn't famed for writing now. In fact, I've emphatically and repeatedly said he was. The question is whether or not we should expect a biography of Paul to mention the fact the he wrote letters. More specifically, whether a "biography" with such flagrant theological aims as Acts should do so.

You were responding to *me*. My argument has consistently been that he is famous for writing now, but there is no reason to presume that this was always a distinguishing factor in the character of Paul. It's not my fault that you were engaging in "arguments we aren't having." I've held the same position throughout. You don't get to dictate the terms of my argument, and then accuse me of building strawmen when I respond in the context of the original discussion.

Gal.6.11. Nobody would notice what "large letters" Paul uses when "writing in his own hand," unless someone else wrote for him with smaller letters at other times. It would appear that Paul dictated the remainder of the letter, and wrote himself for the closing.

So I keep hearing. If it's such a distinction, you should have no trouble listing scores of people known for their writing. In fact, by your estimate, three percent of the population should be acclaimed for literacy.

There's no reason to think it made much of a distinction at all.

Incorrect. The issue is whether or not the intent was fiction, at least for what the purposes of this thread have been. The definition you provided is equivocation--the question is whether or not the authors intended it to be taken literally.

Apologetics are not fiction in this sense, for example, despite the fact that they aren't true.

That you do not presuppose that the gospels are true does not mean that you do not presuppose anything. I'll readily concede that you don't presuppose that the gospels are true, if you like. I never said you did.

That you do not accept the gospel narratives does not inherently mean you never presuppose anything. Thus the assertion that I am "flat out wrong" is in no way relevant to whether or not you are Christian.

This is wholly inappropriate.

This continues to be inappropriate, and a gross misrepresentation of what is being presented.

Nobody said the slaughter of the innocents, for example, was historical.

This continues to be inappropriate. I am cautiously optimistic that a moderator will intervene. *cough**cough*

Three? I only count two. Matthew and Luke. And both of them are untrue.

"What words mean" is determined by how they are used in the context of the discussion. The question, for example, of the dating of Matthew based on the "some who are still alive," is being addressed by the suggestion that Matthew did not intend it to be taken literally--that is what is meant by "fiction" in the contexts of the present discussion.

This continues to be inappropriate.

Do I really need to continue to point this out?

This is uncalled for. There was no direct attack on you, yet you've unleashed a half a dozen in retaliation to an imaginary slight.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I agree. The primary purpose of Josh McDowell is theological as well. He still intends every word of it to be taken literally.

This notion that "Every thing in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened," a la Marcus Borg, is an extremely recent phenomena. There is every reason to believe that Matthew intended it to be taken literally--that is how such apologetic texts as the gospels were consistently written in the first century CE--even flagrantly unhistorical, nonsensical ones. Look at Philo, for example, who spewed such apologetic nonsense that it strikes me as laughable that anyone looks to him as a source for anything. Yet he still meant what he said.

The argument is quite simple--prima facie continuity. Should we need to expand beyond that, I'll need to dig through the archives for an argument Peter Kirby presented at least twice (to my knowledge), that I have yet to see anyone address.

I need a *reason* to think otherwise, it's not enough just to tell me that you think it to be the case.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Carr

I'm sure that when he was only a little baby, he was not famous for writing letters.

However, by the time he began to complain about people forging letters in his name, we can assume that his letter-writing activities had begun to be noticed.

Steven Carr

Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Did Matthew intend that to be taken literally - that people would literally see the Son of Man?

Rick Sumner

Can we? It looks like a standard attempt to usurp authority, to me. People could have delivered sermons on his behalf just as easily.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Good question, though I'd suggest it might warrant a separate thread. I'd suggest he probably did. All sorts of nifty things were supposed to be seen by all sorts of people in the War Scroll, for example. There's nothing really anomalous in such a belief at that time, it just seems silly now.

[Editted to add] Though whether or not Matthew really believed the son of man would be seen by people is irrelevant to whether or not he intends his story to be taken literally--the question is whether or not Matthew literally means that Jesus *said* people would see the Son of Man.

To draw a parallel, if I tell you that "Tom said that there are men on Mars," I mean this quite literally--Tom did in fact say there were men on Mars. I don't think they are there, but Tom nonetheless said so.

So to the question of whether or not Matthew is writing literally, I'd have to answer in the affirmative. Again, prima facie continuity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner