By: Brian LePort
I don’t think Matthew or Luke thought of their writings as something less than history. All history is interpretive, and we do need to acknowledge this, and ask what interpretive categories filtered...
View ArticleBy: Funnier and Wronger?
[...] Brian LePort joined the conversation between Tony Jones and myself about the story of the slaughter of the innocents in Matthew’s Gospel. Allan Bevere also did so. And now Tony Jones himself has...
View ArticleBy: Brian LePort
FYI: Tony Jones responded with the argument that you can’t get “behind the text”. I think he made some good points to worth reading:...
View ArticleBy: John Meade
So it is not methodologically flawed to write history from a point of view. I think you are on the right track.
View ArticleBy: Brian LePort
I think it <i>impossible</i> to write history without a point of view. The question is whether or not one is aware of one's point of view <i>and</i> willing to critique one's...
View ArticleBy: Ken
Hey Brian, This is off topic, ignore if it’s too far irrelevant to the discussion… To what degree do you think Matthew might have had the whole of Jer. 31.1-26 in mind when he quoted v 15 as a...
View ArticleBy: Brian LePort
Ken, Merry Christmas to you as well. Whenever I read a quote of the OT in the NT I presume the broader context is worth investigating. As you note, v. 15 is a sorrowful statement in the midst of a...
View ArticleBy: Thomas R
Andrew, let me make myself perfectly clear as a former President once said. I did not like what McGrath had to say about Matthew. Statements like”If Matthew had had more sympathy towards those who lose...
View ArticleBy: Andrew T.
Thanks for the clarification Thomas. I agree that Luke writes his Gospel more has a historian than Matthew does, I also agree that Matthew’s ‘genre’ must be read according to its intent, but I would...
View Article
