I return here to a topic that I think is important, though I'm taking an unpopular position: I think that there is probabilistic tension between the occurrence of *unstated* symbolic or allusive meanings in the details of the Gospels' narratives. This does not mean that it is *strictly impossible* that a detail could be both historical and intended by the author to have an unstated symbolic meaning. I just think it's unlikely. I think there is a pretty good reason why skeptics (and for that matter some Christians) try to use claims that the author put something in as an allusion to the Old Testament (e.g., the claim that Matthew put in the slaughter of the baby boys in Bethlehem to allude to the infancy of Moses) as an argument against the historicity of that incident or detail. And I think we should hesitate before dismissing such claims merely by saying, "That doesn't necessarily mean it's not historical." No, it doesn't *necessarily* mean that, but there is some tension nonetheless.In this video I explore this tension in terms of genre. If the Gospels' genre is, as I think we have ample evidence that it is, memoir reportage coming from people very close to the facts, whose primary purpose was testimonial, then this is some evidence against unstated symbolic meanings or unstated Old Testament allusions in the events and details of the narratives. In fact, the Gospel authors aren't subtle, because they aren't worrying about making a work of Art with a capital A. If they want to tell you that something fulfills prophecy, they don't hesitate just to come right out and tell you that, so you don't miss it.Here I use some references to works of fiction, including Chaim Potok's excellent novel _The Chosen_, to make these points. Enjoy!