Depends on who you ask.
For Robert Gundry I am guessing that he thinks ‘Matthew’ left the historiography to GLuke and GMark and wanted to make a kind of ‘commentary’/midrash with some fictional elements in order to help people understand the story better.
The past is another country Nick. They do things differently there.
If God incarnated in to that culture, that world, as a slightly above average guy, rather than a deprived urban labourer or peasant, what we see is what we’d get.
If He didn’t, then a priestly class made it all up. But they made up something radically beautifully new on top of the excellent prophets: no non-violent holds barred social justice.
Sorry but it kinda doesnt make sense. How do you understand a story better if one puts fictional elements? In fact doesnt make it a whole lot harder to understand? And why whould he do that? He was speaking about a literal Jesus and literal events so adding up fictional ones is kinda not optimal i think. Whats your opinion on this? Thanks for your responses!!
Well, I think Gundry would respond with something like “Midrash was only done to texts that were venerated. So in that culture it would have been a way honoring/venerating the story of Jesus.”
My personal opinion is that I think ‘Matthew’ wasn’t written by the apostle Matthew and that he altered GMark to fit his theology over against GMark and in order to try and give his story more credibility than GMark he put in stories like the mass resurrection.
What priestly class made it up? The story had no purpose beign made up. 4 authors or to put it better 4 books cannot be a made up story. Anyway thats a whole different story.
Yeah well it might be that hense the other 3 gospels dont have that event
Yes but why wouktd he want his story to be more credible? The story are the good news of Jesus not a race between authors about who can tell the story better. Correct me if im wrong but thats what i believe it is
The reason I think GMatthew would want his story to be more credible is because his theology is different from the others. The author of GMatthew wanted his theology to win and I think he altered the story of Jesus to do this.
There were theological tensions in the early church we know this from Acts, I think the author of GMatthew belonged to those who opposed Paul and Barnabas
Acts 15:1
Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Note: Not all NT scholars agree that GMatthew is opposed to GMark and the Apostle Paul. Robert Gundry believes that GMatthew accepts GMark and that’s why he does midrash because he honors the text of GMark.
I doubt the theology is different from the others. Its really not . They state real events "Matthew have some strange ones like the ressurected saints but nonetheless the majority are the dame with the other gospels. So the theology is no different
So i cling to the midrash then. Thanks for your response
Nick - I commend you for wanting to know the truth; to search it out and understand it. May that be a fruitful quest that we all partake in along with you.
I think the gospels are written to coax, guide, cajole, exhort, use whatever means those authors felt were at their disposal or that the Spirit led them to use … to bring people into relationship with Christ. Christ himself uses all manner of language - coaxing, cajoling, frightening people even - in order to get them to turn away from their sins and toward himself - which is to draw them to the Father. While hyperbole may not sit well with you or many of us today, it nonetheless is part of the persuasive repertoire of language at our disposal when we really need to communicate the urgency of something.
One thing that may help is to focus on what is the fear and what’s causing that fear. Even if we know it, and it’s bouncing around, if we don’t focus on it and give it parameters it just seems to big because it’s end is blurred.
It seems like your fear is that the entire gospel is fake and that Jesus is not King of King and he’s not going to save you, me or anyone.
It seems like you have that fear because you are hearing and seeing evidence that parts of the Bible are like that and so if part of it is like that then how can you tell where to draw that line because in here you see that line drawn all over the place by different people. Many say they believe genesis 1-11 is not real and it’s allegorical. Then you see those same people split up saying Moses preformed miracles and others saying that’s also just made up. So it seems like some just calls all supernatural events made up. So that brings up did Jesus actually preform miracles or was all of that made up.
Is that essentially the fear and cause of fear?
All religions have a priestly class. The early Christian religion had a radical, meritocratic one. But privilege will out. Look at Paul. All stories serve purposes. Mark’s story came first. Matthew and Luke have large shares of material they got from Mark and lesser shares that they each share with him separately. They share material not in Mark from another source. Q. They all have material they don’t share. Look at the link. Keep looking. Nothing about the three synoptic gospels, which are basically one story from four close sources brought even closer together, written up to 50 years after the events they describe, necessitates that they aren’t even complete fiction. All other religious texts are fiction after all. Their moral content is timelessly true regardless. And nothing touches the moral power of the four gospels. Which, in itself, like the Book of Jonah, and Genesis and Isaiah and Malachi and Ezekiel, is evidence of sublime, even divine moral intelligence. And also, therefore, evidence that the gospels are basically true, regardless of the complete lack of quantitative evidence. Quality counts.
Mi Krumm i dont want to think that these aint real. From the one hand i want to learn the truth about them. From the other if they are not real my life just hasnt a point. My suicidal thoughts are still there and im not afraid to succumb to them. I dont cry about it i just know that it will end someday . If we truly are an accident of this cosmos with no God creating us then my life ends here at the age of 24. I have lived everything. I have no reason to live expect awaiting for the second coming or for my time to come so i wait to see God. Of thats not there then im done. I have no intention of creating a family,no intention of pursuing my career in the future. I have lived anything i could have lived. I have traveled where i could have traveled. If the truth is they are fake then with all due respect im done. Theres no point in suffering
I kindly disagree. Not all religions texts are fiction. Is Jesus ressurection fiction Klax? Im asking you as a brother in dear time. I dont think you believe Jesus ressurection to be fictional. If it were then clearly it wouldnt serve a moral meaning .
I understand. For me, if God was not real it would not change my life. I would still probably study theology because I enjoy it and would use it for philosophy on love.
My life would not change. I don’t do violent things to people I hate easily because I don’t want to go to jail, and I don’t want to be bitter. I enjoy working in keeping my heart soft.
I would still pursue my career and I would still want to have a family. I would still have a purpose. To help others be less angry and sad and help them climb out of their holes and train them to help others do the same. I would still push for people to give up meat and for people to plant native plants and still desire to help restore their earth to a better healthier planet.
Maybe that’s one thing holding you back. If you can find a purpose, even without God, it may help you see God more clearly as he helps you grow in that purpose. I also still stand behind working out is a great way to help burn off that extra energy and stress and you could potentially benefit from just adding a little bit in everyday.
So which religious texts apart from the Christian gospels and epistles aren’t fiction? And yes, of course I want to believe and there is sufficient warrant for me to do so.
Ive done many things mi Krumm. I work out. I have tendencies. All these things are building up to the stress. Studying job etc . The only thing that its not is when im talking about God. I enjoy going to church. I enjoy going for walks on mountais. But thats just because God is there. I look at nature and i admire God. If these things are fake my life is gone. I will become a robot. Stress will build up and eventually develop some bad habbit or something.
Your love for God isn’t fake.
Exactly . There lies your answer. The bible stands out of us defending it and saying that our stories (lets say the majority because we dont agree on some)are literal. Thats what i was trying to say. But theres a lack of historical proof in some of them and the amount of writers who wrote them
Mervin i have thought of the possibility of hyperbolic. But for something to be hyperbolic it needs to have happened
So apart from factual claims in the gospels and epistles, the majority of stories in the TaNaKh are literally true. But no other religious text? There is no historical proof whatsoever for any distinctive claim in any religious text.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.