>If I come to the Gospels expecting a linear chronology
> of The Life of Jesus, I quickly run into big problems
>over "historical reliability". But if I come to understand
>something of what genre "a gospel" is, I willthen
>recognize the extent to which materials have been grouped
>by each Gospel writer to make his point. And in the
>process, I will learn that what*appears* to us to be
>"historical narrative" can be more of a literary device to
>tie thematically related material together - and that *by
>the historical standards of the day* there was nothing
>wrong with this.
In the definition of historical that I would advocate
(Alice's definition 1 of the word historical), a sequence
of events do not have to be linear to be historical. They
just have to have happened. Even many modern history books
are not done linearly. They discuss the economic aspects
of, say, the second world war. Then they may discuss the
cultural history which led to the various belief systems
which produced the crises. Then they may discuss the
campaign itself. The events described actually happend,
(def. 1).
But how would we feel if we found out that the resurrection
of Lazarus was a literary device and that the water turned
into wine really remained as water? The embellishement of
course was a literary device common at the time.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm