"Gary's Historical Evidence Rating Scale": Is it valid?

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@klw

Mike Licona’s take is that Matthew inserted a brief poetic/apocalyptic scene to emphasize the importance of Jesus’s resurrection. Apparently, such artistic devices used to emphasize key messages were part of the bios genre back in the day and not viewed as “lying”.

Would it be fair to call it the literary equivalent of the visual halo that so often adorns Jesus in artistic depictions? Does any artist (or subsequent art appreciator) think that some visible ‘halo’ was actually seen above Jesus’ head by those who were physically with him? Some things are just going to be expected parts of the genre in the service of some higher point being made. Whether it be apocalyptic things like horsemen or beasts, or cosmic ‘shakedowns’ to mark the moment of a significant event.

[klw]

Yes, I think that’s a good analogy!

[Gary_M]

Got it. Let’s assume your assertion is correct. The author of Matthew never intended to pull the wool over his readers’ eyes. If he told a story that was fictional (ie, the Dead Saints Story), he did so knowing that his first century audience would know it was fictional and understand it as an allegory/metaphor/symbolism.

But how can people today discern which of “Matthew’s” stories are historical and which are metaphor? Take for example Matthew’s story of Roman Guards at the Tomb.

[St.Roymond]

@klw

The role of such devices would have been understood by the audience of the day who knew the bios genre. Thus, they were fully able to distinguish the relevant facts in the bios from the literary formatting that helped to convey the key (true) message. It’s we 21st century readers who assume that bios must conform to a video-tape like reporting of history who get hung up on these oddities

Exactly.

@Vinnie

Considering two separate authors copied and altered Mark in short order, it seems to have been a popular and widely known text in Christian circles. One could imagine Matthew adding some dramatic flair to what his audience would know are additions to the passion narrative they are already well familiar with and have heard time and time again.

I still say Matthew wrote first, but in Aramaic, and when he made the shift to Greek he used Mark where it seemed appropriate.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Would it be fair to call it the literary equivalent of the visual halo that so often adorns Jesus in artistic depictions? Does any artist (or subsequent art appreciator) think that some visible ‘halo’ was actually seen above Jesus’ head by those who were physically with him?

That’s not a bad comparison at all!

@Gary_M

But how can people today discern which of “Matthew’s” stories are historical and which are metaphor? Take for example Matthew’s story of Roman Guards at the Tomb.

Get an understanding of how bios worked.

[Vinnie]

@St.Roymond

I still say Matthew wrote first, but in Aramaic, and when he made the shift to Greek he used Mark where it seemed appropriate.

I think that puts too much on Papias’s comment and interprets it too stringently.
.
I think scholars are of the opinion that Matthew is not said to look anything like a translation from Aramaic (I cannot evaluate this one way or the other) and it also corrects the Greek of Mark in places.

Did original Aramaic Matthew look like Mark or something different? Why would Matthew not simply rewrite his Aramaic gospel in Greek? Why copy the order and wording of Mark so extensively ?

I’m more partial to Matthew writing an early Aramaic version of Q and since Q evolved and was incorporated into Matthew it retained the name in that community.

Vinnie

[klw]

I’m content to let the literary and textual experts quibble over narrative details among the gospel accounts. Such details don’t affect the central message common to all accounts (that Jesus was crucified and rose again). I don’t hold to biblical inerrancy myself, so such debates– like over whether there were really guards at the tomb don’t much concern or worry me.

[Gary_M]

Very true. The central message that Jesus was crucified and that some of his followers believed he appeared to them in some fashion after this death, leading them to believe that he had risen from the dead, doesn’t change. But, what if all the detailed post-mortem appearance stories in the last three Gospels are just as metaphorical as the Story of the Dead Saints? Would that matter?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Gary_M

But, what if all the detailed post-mortem appearance stories in the last three Gospels are just as metaphorical as the Story of the Dead Saints? Would that matter?

Paul answered that.
If the resurrection is false than we are the most to be pitied.
Christianity relies on the truth of the resurrection, for two reasons

1. Without a death and resurrection there is nor forgiveness from God
2. Without a resurrection death still has mastery and eternity is uncertain

Some things in Scripture need to be true and real otherwise our faith has no root or basis. Scripture is the nearest Christians get to empirical truth, facts, or proof.

Richard

[Terry_Sampson]

[Gary_M]

If the detailed post-mortem appearance stories told in Matthew, Luke/Acts, and John are metaphorical or apologetic fiction, that does not necessarily prove that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur. It would simply mean that we would be left with the claims of Paul and the Early Creed regarding alleged post-mortem appearances. Would the Early Creed and Paul’s statement “Have I not seen the Christ” be sufficient for you to believe in the historicity of Jesus’ bodily resurrection?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Gary_M

If the detailed post-mortem appearance stories told in Matthew, Luke/Acts, and John are metaphorical or apologetic fiction, that does not necessarily prove that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur.

There is no need to do so. It serves no purpose.

The Gospe;s may not be journalistic or historic facts in the modern sense, but they are what they are.

The reasons for the reality of Christ, His death and resurrection are theological as much as anything. Like wise the divinity of Christ. As such they must be considered real.

Why would I wish to challenge them?

Richard

[Randy]

@Gary_M

How should we rate it? Well, it has to be rated as a level 5 for unnatural movements of the sun

For me, when I look straight at the bright sun, I have to look away–I often get a swimming movement if that happens with any bright light.