Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Doug Shaver]

. . . the point of my response, which was: "The text of the story doesn't say that. You got that information from external sources." Would you care to comment on that?

Yes. I did not know about the short story. So yes, I had to read some external sources. And yes they explicitly called that story a short story and did not use the term "novel." I used the term "novel" on the sole basis that it was a short story fiction.

That comment has nothing to do with the main point of my response, which had nothing to do with any differences between a short story and a novel.

[37818]

That comment has nothing to do with the main point of my response, which had nothing to do with any differences between a short story and a novel.

Please correct me if I got this wrong. The point was the mere fact of a story having a real historical element does not in of itself make that story true. Is that the argument?

[Doug Shaver]

Please correct me if I got this wrong. The point was the mere fact of a story having a real historical element does not in of itself make that story true. Is that the argument?

No. The argument is that just because the text of a narrative says something the person telling the story doesn't mean it is reporting a fact about the person who wrote the story. In "The Man Without a Country," the narrator says he was personally acquainted with Philip Nolan. But the story's author could never have met Philip Nolan because Philip Nolan was only a product of his imagination. Also, the narrator identifies himself as a former naval officer named Frederic Ingham. The story's actual author was named Edward Everett Hale, and he apparently never served in the Navy or any other military service.

[37818]

No. The argument is that just because the text of a narrative says something the person telling the story doesn't mean it is reporting a fact about the person who wrote the story. In "The Man Without a Country," the narrator says he was personally acquainted with Philip Nolan. But the story's author could never have met Philip Nolan because Philip Nolan was only a product of his imagination. Also, the narrator identifies himself as a former naval officer named Frederic Ingham. The story's actual author was named Edward Everett Hale, and he apparently never served in the Navy or any other military service.

Ok. How does that discredit the truth of the gospel narratives, the connecting historical elements or the authorship identified for them?

[Doug Shaver]

Ok. How does that discredit the truth of the gospel narratives

It doesn't, and it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to discredit your claim that a disciple of Jesus must have written one of the gospels because "All the full copies of the gospel according Matthew identify them as Matthew's account."

[37818]

It doesn't, and it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to discredit your claim that a disciple of Jesus must have written one of the gospels because "All the full copies of the gospel according Matthew identify them as Matthew's account."

So then it discredits the argument I made, not that Matthew was the author of the work.

[Doug Shaver]

So then it discredits the argument I made, not that Matthew was the author of the work.

If I have no good reason to believe Matthew was the author, then I don't need to discredit his authorship. I am under no obligation to believe whatever you say unless I can disprove it.

[Tassman]

Oh. What is the basis that it [the first gospel] is known to be by Matthew [Levi]?

[Roy]

So then it discredits the argument I made, not that Matthew was the author of the work.

Wow.

[37818]

If I have no good reason to believe Matthew was the author, then I don't need to discredit his authorship. I am under no obligation to believe whatever you say unless I can disprove it.

Wow.

For the record, the Matthew account was considered the first of the gospel accounts to have been written up until the late 18th century.

[Doug Shaver]

For the record, the Matthew account was considered the first of the gospel accounts to have been written up until the late 18th century.

For what reason was it so considered?

[Tassman]

For the record, the Matthew account was considered the first of the gospel accounts to have been written up until the late 18th century.

It is not considered the first of the gospel accounts now, by virtually universal consensus among biblical scholars for reasons given previously.

[37818]

It is not considered the first of the gospel accounts now, by virtually universal consensus among biblical scholars for reasons given previously.

From the perspective that the disciple and Apostle Matthew did write it, those modern scholars would be wrong. So what do those modern scholars got which makes that not possible?

[Doug Shaver]

So what do those modern scholars got which makes that not possible?

Nothing, and they don't need it. Nobody needs to prove that he couldn't have written it. We need a good reason to believe he did write it. You haven't shown us one yet. And you're not going to, are you?

[37818]

Nothing, and they don't need it. Nobody needs to prove that he couldn't have written it. We need a good reason to believe he did write it. You haven't shown us one yet. And you're not going to, are you?

That church that received the original Greek edition of it knew who it was from. And the copies identified Matthew as the writer.