Rick Sumner

I can play that too. Matthew is not meant to be taken as a metaphorical account.

One has to support *any* claim, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Otherwise people can just engage in the footwork both of us have exhibited--any claim can be worded such that it is a negative.

He's pesharing, in essence. Something akin to 1QpHab.. Using prophetic material to describe real world events. But Matthew still intends us to read the virgin birth as a real world event. That is what is being meant by "literal" in the context of the present discussion.

No, "literal" for the purposes of this discussion, has referred to whether or not Matthew intended his story to be taken to mean what it says, rather than having a more allegorical meaning. It's how it's been defined throughout this thread. No worries, you're not the first one to misunderstand it.

The usage would be definition five, from Webster's. For example, if I say "John said that it's hotter than hell out," it does not literally mean that it is hotter than hell--that's a metaphor. It means that John really said it. My narrative of John is literal--John really said that it is "hotter than hell out."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

When Parson Weems wrote that the young George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, did he intend for it to be taken literally by anyone over the age of 12?

(I hope this example makes sense to you non-US'ers. If not - George Washington was the leader of the American army and the first president and was held up as a role model for young children. But there was a problem - he wasn't a devout Christian - in public, at least. So Parson Weems "improved" his life story to add some moral tales, to better inspire the younger generation.)

Amaleq13

This is somewhat related to my line of questioning that Rick considers irrelevant.

Did the author consider his genealogy to be literally true?

Rick says "No".

I then asked:
Did the author consider his genealogy to be theologically true?

Rick has yet to reply but it seems safe to assume that the answer would be another "Yes" because I don't think Rick's conception of the Deceptive Author extends that far.

My next question would be:
If the author was capable of appreciating the text for its theological truth independently of its nonexistent literal truth, why should we assume his audience wasn't equally capable?

Rick Sumner

My answer would actually be "no."

Matthew considered Jesus the Messiah. It follows inherently that he thought Jesus was descended from David.

He made up the genealogy, he knew it wasn't true. But he firmly believed Jesus was the son of David--he had to be. So he manufactured a genealogy to show this.

He believed in the literal truth of the Davidic descent, not the literal truth of the way he got there. He made one up, that handily ran through the line of kings.

Clutch's point is rather more analogous to your earlier argument regarding whether or not Jeconiah is pertinent. If we presume that his audience both knew of and accepted the curse of Jeconiah, you would have a case on that point. Yet there is no reason to presume they knew of it, and even less to believe they accepted it--clearly the curse of Jeconiah was never enforced.

Clutch has suggested exactly the kind of argument that would be strong in this situation--one in which knowledge we can securely presume the audience had runs flagrant in the face of what is said. One in which, were Matthew to be taken literally, his audience would know full well they were strung along.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

No post printing press analogy is going to hold up, but it's a situation where even Gutenberg's earth changing invention need not be employed to rebut.

Yes, he intended it to be taken literally. He wasn't writing a children's book, there's no reason to presume he was writing for anyone under 12. Weem's aim was to create a Washington we could all relate to, without sacrificing the high moral code generally ascribed. This is arguing for me, not against, as it demonstrates that people did indeed make things up that they wanted to be taken literally.

You might want to read the book. Weems is very clear that he is biographing. It's available online.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/weems.html

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

The Moral Washington: Construction of a Legend (1800-1920s)

So Weems must have known that he was writing moral fiction. Some readers "likely" questioned the authenticity of the work, later historians had no difficulty discovering that the myth was myth, but held on to the stories for their moral values.

Are you contending that Weems seriously intended to deceive an investigator into the real facts?

At this point I've lost track of the point of this argument. What does it matter if the author of a gospel wrote it as moral fiction, and it was mistakenly treated as fact by readers, as opposed to the author penning a "royal lie," fiction that he knew was fiction but thought ought to be fact?

Amaleq13

Why do you assume his audience did not think the same way?

Added later: The initial phrase above is exactly what I am thinking of when I use the term "theological truth". The author believed this to be true absent any knowledge of actual events to support it. He believed that it was theologically required that Jesus be of Davidic descent and that was more important than knowing how such a result was literally obtained. This is what generated my question above.

A genealogy leading from Abraham to Joseph and intended to show that Jesus was of Davidic lineage runs flagrantly in the face of the subsequently expressed belief that Jesus had no human father if the story is taken literally. To suggest the apologetic explanation that Jesus was adopted does not change the fact that he was still not descended from David as the author literally claims. The author is expressing two theological truths that are literally incompatible.

The scene where Matthew depicts Jesus riding two animals into Jerusalem is also problematic if taken literally. Did his audience imagine Jesus actually riding an ass and a colt or did they ignore the literal meaning in favor of the obvious theological significance?

Clutch

I also made some astonishingly clever jokes, but you guys are just too busy haranguing to get on board. "A man of many talents"? C'mon, that killed.

Amaleq13

Rick claims that the author intended his audience to understand his story as history.

It occurs to me that there are a couple pretty basic questions I have failed to ask about his claim:

1. If this was the intent of the author, why didn't he identify a source for the story that would make that clear?

2. Given that no such identification exists as part of the text, who did his audience think wrote it?

Asha'man

Well, it’s very hard to evaluate motives, especially when we know almost nothing about the authors except for a heavily edited piece of work. Given that, we have a little bit of knowledge to work with.

The authors must have been evangelists, preachers. To me, an evangelist is little more than a salesman. Given the atheist assumption that Jesus wasn’t really divine, what we have is a salesman with no product, or a snake-oil salesman.

I’m going to assume that the authors would say anything they could get away with that would sell their product. If the audience expected the Messiah to be Davidic, then they were going to deliver exactly that, using the only proof that could fit the bill: a genealogy. Genealogies essentially have no non-literal meanings, no moral truth, no value as a parable. What other purpose can we find for a genealogy traced from David?

The importance of a literal genealogy is made even more clear when we find a second one, trying to fix the mistakes of the first. Somebody was trying to answer the objections of his audience, and the first one wasn’t good enough to do the job.

As time progresses, it’s easier to add to a circulating story than it is to subtract. When the virgin birth idea was added, it was also to improve the product, make it sell better. However, now we have a pesky genealogy to deal with. But since written copies were rare, and memories imperfect, changing a word or two here and there isn’t too difficult. So the genealogy was shortened by one link, and became the meaningless line of Joseph, not Jesus.