Christian Canon: Authorship of Matthew (and various other topics)

[technomage]

Greetings, Pythagoras, and hello anyone else who wants to jump in,



If Jesus was a man, living on the earth, who died, and somebody writes a book about him fifty years later, is Jesus to blame for what was written? Again--absolutely not, and to blame Jesus for the writings of the authors of Matthew or Luke is preposterous. Somebody writes a book about him 50 years later? Are you serious?

As I said in the other thread, "Quite serious." However, Nero's persecution of Christians has absolutely nothing to do with the date or authorship of Matthew.

The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between 80-100 CE, almost certainly in Syria, quite possibly in Antioch. It was originally written in Greek, and borrowed phrasing from Mark, and possibly from an unknown source scholars have named Q. It was not written by the disciple Matthew.

The book of logia written by Matthew the disciple was originally written in Aramaic, but no longer survives. Brief excerpts are preserved in the writings of Clement, Origen, Cyril, and most importantly from Jerome; Nicephorus cites it as separate from (and shorter than) the Gospel of Matthew. I'll follow the mainstream scholarship and refer to this book as the Gospel of the Hebrews.

It should be noted that the brief exceprts that are quoted of the Gospel of the Hebrews are not found in the Gospel of Matthew. Jerome is our primary source of information: here are a few relavent quotes from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

'Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)', and again after a little, 'Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread', and immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep'.

'Even now did my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor'

(Referring to the tale of the man with the withered hand.) 'I was a mason seeking a livelihood with my hands: I pray thee, Jesus, to restore me mine health, that I may not beg meanly for my food.'

(Referring to the descent of the Holy Spirit after Jesus's baptism.) And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said unto him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldst come, and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, and thou art my first begotten son, that reignest for ever.

As we can see, there are distinct differences between the text of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Matthew.


In the summer of 64, Rome suffered a terrible fire that burned six days and seven nights.In order to deflect these accusations and placate the people, Nero laid blame for the fire on the Christians. So less than a generation after Christ's death, 'a vaste multitude of Christians' (Tacitus) had already reached Rome.
That's not quite what Tacitus said. Let's look at the excerpt you quote.


"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race."
First the Christians were arrested. Then, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted. However, the text does not specifically state that this "vast multitude" were Christians, nor does it tell us how many a "vast multitude" is.


Many Christians were ironically incinerated on 'crosses' , the Christian's hope, and mark of their Lord's resurrection.
Incorrect, but a minor grammatical error: "others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed." Those who were crucified (an extremely common form of execution in Rome) were separate from those who were set on fire.


Why were thousands of Christians dying for their faith in AD60, at a time when the Gospels were supposedly non-existent, and the idea of the resurrection not developed , if you're to be believed?
Now, Py, that's not what I said. The Gospels were not written yet ... but Paul had been preaching the resurrection for several years. The Epistle to the Romans had already been written (probably several years before Nero's persecution), and was undoubtedly widely circulated within Rome.


With all due respect , Christ was not merely claiming to be one of many generic sons of God, he was calling himself the only begotten Son of God(John 3:16). I think C.S. Lewis's trilemma addresses this problem succinctly:
Long before we discuss the Trilemma, we must discuss the claims: specifically, whose claims were they?

Were the Gospel accounts an accurate depiction of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth? Pythagoras, I have reason to be dubious that the Gospels are entirely accurate. I've gone over some of these in the "Christian Canon: Authorship (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46747)" thread, but for the Gospel of Matthew, I'll recap here.

First and foremost, our current Gospel of Matthew was not the same book putatively written by the tax collector who became a disciple: I've already discussed the reasoning behind that in this post. Therefore, I'll refer to the anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew as "Matthew," with the quotes to indicate pseudonymous authorship.

"Matthew" was not an eyewitness to the events portrayed in his book. Indeed, it is quite possible that Matthew had never been to Jerusalem: Josephus makes it quite clear that the city of Jerusalem was mostly destroyed, though a large section of the western city wall and several towers were allowed to remain standing, and a Roman garrison is left there. This garrison fort develops a vicus, which quickly becomes the basis for the reconstruction of Jerusalem. This vicus is up and running by the time of "Matthew's" writing.

So "Matthew" has probably not seen the city: he also probably never met Jesus, considering how much time has passed since Jesus's death, and the fact that most of the population of Judea has been killed or deported. "Matthew," however, has a copy of Mark, a copy of the LXX, and perhaps some other writings, so it is not unreasonable to assume that "Matthew" wrote his Gospel specifically to firmly knit the Jesus account into the Old Testament prophecies.

This is not "intellectual dishonesty": "Matthew" is a believer, who is sincerely trying to reconcile the beliefs of the Jewish community that he lives in with his new-found faith. So--in the manner accepted in his time--"Matthew" combines Mark (and whatever other oral or written sources he has) with an exegesis of the OT prophecies. Some of these prophecies have long been considered Messianic: hence the references to David in the lineage of Jesus, and the insistance on Jesus's birth in Bethlehem. Some of these prophecies are not Messianic, but have struck "Matthew's" heart in such a way that he feels they refer to Jesus--hence, perhaps, "Matthew's" application of Isaiah 7 to Jesus.

And some of the events that "Matthew" writes about are rumors--hence, perhaps, placing Jesus's birth during the reign of Herod (which conflicts with the Lucan account), the story of the Magi from the East, and the Massacre of the Innocents, events that are not attested in any other Gospel.

So how much of the claims of Jesus in GMatthew are actual quotes, and how much was "Matthew" putting into Jesus's mouth? Pythagoras, I have no idea, nor any reliable way to determine that--and neither does anyone else, despite what the folks at the Jesus Seminar claim. I do know that the document is corrupted from actual history, but have no way to determine even the percentage of corruption.

And with that in mind, we turn to the Trilemma.


"A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. ... But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
It is quite true that--in the light of the Bible text--Jesus must be cast into one of those three roles. But that only remains true when one interprets the Bible as both historically accurate and spiritually authoritative. I, obviously, do not.


I want to say something about the scroll whose siglum number is 4Q246.
Let's look at the text of the uncorrupted column:


1. He will be called son of God, and they will
call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks
2. of a vision, so will their kingdom be;
they will rule several years over
3. the earth and crush everything; a people
will crush another people, and a city another city.
4. [blank] Until the people of God arises and
makes everyone rest from the sword.
5. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom,
and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness].
6. The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace.
The sword will cease in the earth,
7. and all the cities will pay him homage.
He is a great God among the gods (?).
8. He will make war with him; he will place the
peoples in his hand and cast away everyone before him.
9. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom,
and all the abysses.

As we can see from the text, the one referred to as "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High" is certainly not the Messiah: the text speaks of this "Son of God" ruling until the People of God rise up. At best, he is a false Messiah whose coming is prophesied by the author of this text, but against whom the Qumran community perceived itself fighting. Indeed, if this is not a prophetic account, this may be either an allegory of the Qumran community's resistance agaisnt the Jerusalem priesthood, an older polemic against the Herodian line, or a historic recap of the Maccabean revolt.

[quote]While much work must still be done, obviously this text is of extraordinary importance to New Testament scholars and to every individual Christian..."
What Mazar needs to do is read the text, instead of quote-mine from it.

Justin

[Jaltus]

Justin,

Mainstream scholarship has not concluded that the logia of Matthew are the Gospel to the Hebrews. Some theorize that, but even more dispute it.

[technomage]

Justin,

Mainstream scholarship has not concluded that the logia of Matthew are the Gospel to the Hebrews. Some theorize that, but even more dispute it.
Hmmm. I was under the impression that it was the mainstream position: checking my sources ... nope, you're quite correct. Thanks for the correction.

Pythagoras, and anyone else, change that to read "I'll refer to this book as the Gospel of the Hebrews for convenience sake, but the identification of Matthew's logia Gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews is contested."

Thanks again, Jaltus. :thumb:

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Wiccan,



Nero's persecution of Christians has absolutely nothing to do with the date or authorship of Matthew.
You're missing the point. A vaste multitude of Christians died for the faith in AD60.

(1)What was their motivation?
(2)How did this sect reach Rome so quickly and in such large numbers?




The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between 80-100 CE, almost certainly in Syria, quite possibly in Antioch.
Actually the Jewish nature of Matthew's Gospel may suggest that it was written in Palestine, though some think it originated in Syrian Antioch. (I don't understand how you could be so certain of Syrian origin.)

Because of it's Jewish characteristics it may have been written in the early part of AD 50,when the church was largely Jewish and the Gospel preached to Jews only. However those who have concluded both Matthew and Luke drew from mark's Gospel date it later-- Matthew in the late 50's or in the 60's. Others who asume Mark was written between 65 and 70 place Matthew in the 70's.



It was originally written in Greek, and borrowed phrasing from Mark, and possibly from an unknown source scholars have named Q. It was not written by the disciple Matthew.
And you're 100% sure of all that I suppose?


Jerome is our primary source of information: here are a few relavent quotes from the Gospel of the Hebrews...Stick to the Canon for now.




That's not quite what Tacitus said. Let's look at the excerpt you quote.
Obviously you can't read.




Then, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted. However, the text does not specifically state that this "vast multitude" were Christians, Read Tacitus again, honestly. According to him,a vaste multitude of Christians were convicted . Immagine how many more Christians living in Rome at that time weren't!. Multitute upon vaste multitude, as it were..



nor does it tell us how many a "vast multitude" is.I see... You're beginning to sound like Bill Clinton,"it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."... I'm not going to dignify this with further comment.



The Epistle to the Romans had already been written (probably several years before Nero's persecution), and was undoubtedly widely circulated within Rome.
What about your mysterious Q? I suppose it too hadn't been written yet.



First and foremost, our current Gospel of Matthew was not the same book putatively written by the tax collector who became a disciple: I've already discussed the reasoning behind that in this post.Unsatisfactory. Speculation.


"Matthew" was not an eyewitness to the events portrayed in his book. That's your opinion.



So "Matthew" has probably not seen the city: he also probably never met Jesus, considering how much time has passed since Jesus's death, and the fact that most of the population of Judea has been killed or deported. "Matthew," however, has a copy of Mark, a copy of the LXX, and perhaps some other writings, so it is not unreasonable to assume that "Matthew" wrote his Gospel specifically to firmly knit the Jesus account into the Old Testament prophecies.
You should take up fiction.



Pythagoras, I have no idea, nor any reliable way to determine that--and neither does anyone else,
That's the first honest thing you have said all post.




As we can see from the text, the one referred to as "Son of God" and "Son of the Most High" is certainly not the Messiah
It boggles my mind how you could say such a thing , and especially after reading the 'uncorrupted text' .Do you even know what you're talking about?

No offense Wiccan, I'm blunt.

Why don't we dissect one issue at a time, ....you're trying to bite into more than you can possibly chew on...Afterall the Devil is in the details, isn't he Wiccan?

[technomage]

No offense Wiccan, I'm blunt.
Then let me also be blunt: I've asked nicely twice, and I'm not asking anymore. Keep the personal attacks and insults out of your discussions with me, or you can ruddy well discuss these issues with yourself.

Now--having said that, I'm certainly willing to go over it point by point, provided that you can abide by the above.

Justin

[jpholding]

So, Justin. :teeth:

Have you seen the debates I've had with people on this subject?

I dispute just about every one of your main points --

1) The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between 80-100 CE -- can't find any reason to date it later than 65, myself. Maybe even 55.
2) almost certainly in Syria, quite possibly in Antioch -- the one point I grok with
3) It was originally written in Greek -- no...originally in Aramaic. I know the usual arguments of course. :smile:
4) and borrowed phrasing from Mark, and possibly from an unknown source scholars have named Q -- nope. Relied on the same oral tradition as Mark, independent products. Q is a phantom -- if it's anything, it's Papias' logia.
5) It was not written by the disciple Matthew -- no reason why not. Testimony external and internal that it was is unanimous.

Wanna do a hokey pokey? :ale:

[technomage]

So, Justin. :teeth:

Have you seen the debates I've had with people on this subject?
Some of them, read your article, and have been digging throught the Glen Miller article. Let's look at the points you make in the article:

1: Authorship and date are important; but equally important, if not more so, is whether what is in the Gospels is true.

Absolutely no argument here.

2: Critical arguments about authorship and date of the Gospels revolve around the same data, and have revolved around it, for the past 2 million years.

Irrelevant. If argument A is repeatedly assailed with the same criticisms, that means one of three things has happened
a: The critics aren't listening to valid rebuttals of their criticism. (the outcome you argue for)
b: The defenders aren't listening to valid criticism. (JP, you have to admit that this would not be the first time something like this has happened in apologetics.)
c: Nobody's listening on either side.

Now, knowing human nature, I tend to think outcome C is the most likely, but I'm kind of cynical that way. :lol:


Wanna do a hokey pokey? :ale:
:serenade:
That's what it's all about.... :lol:

Actually, what I'm wanting to do is compile the evidence for evaluation. I've got your input and have been working with it, and you're more than welcome to jump in. However, the one thing I do NOT want to do is to make this a debate or an argument: to my mind, debate is best used between two people whose positions are firmly established. My purpose is inquiry, not defense of a non-Matthian authorship.

Justin

[jpholding]

Hey ho,





Now, knowing human nature, I tend to think outcome C is the most likely, but I'm kind of cynical that way. :lol:


Actually I would agree. But it has much to do with that there is just so much lit out there, and so little desire to have to change one's paradigm (which is a lot harder than changing underwear, at least for some people). :rofl: I think many Evangelicals accept Q, for example, just because they do not have the time to do original research on the subject.



Actually, what I'm wanting to do is compile the evidence for evaluation. I've got your input and have been working with it, and you're more than welcome to jump in. However, the one thing I do NOT want to do is to make this a debate or an argument:

OK then. As long as you know where to find my material there's nothing new to say yet anyway. :teeth:

[One Bad Pig]

Justin,

The excerpts from the "Gospel to the Hebrews" read like they're way late, IMHO. They're obviously legendary. They're like Mark 16:9-20, but more whacked. The quote about James is suspect for a couple reasons. It contradicts the canonical Gospels; in them, nobody was expecting Jesus to resurrect. It also paints a rosy picture of James.

[Amazing Rando]

I'm inclined on an earlier date for Matthew because of the Didache- it quotes freely from Matthew (likely the same material that the logia is made of).

[Ray Fletcher]

If the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew, then why did he copy verbatim from Mark, the scene where Jesus called him from his work station?

It just seems to me that if Jesus would have called Matthew to follow him, the details of it would have been more personal, and perhaps even more emotionally charged. But rather, he just copies from another source. Why?

[Ray Fletcher]

I'm inclined on an earlier date for Matthew because of the Didache- it quotes freely from Matthew (likely the same material that the logia is made of).

Perhaps the Didache, as well as the gospel of Matthew, quote from the same source?

[Amazing Rando]

If the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew, then why did he copy verbatim from Mark, the scene where Jesus called him from his work station?

It just seems to me that if Jesus would have called Matthew to follow him, the details of it would have been more personal, and perhaps even more emotionally charged. But rather, he just copies from another source. Why?

Ray- that's a good observation. Check out this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49771&page=1&pp=16) in which I argue my own alternative thesis- i.e. that Matthew was behind the sayings source known as Q, and that the canonical gospel of Matthew was composed by a disciple of Matthew's, using Q and Mark.

It's in the scholars' corner, so if you post there, it'll take a little while for your post to appear.

[Amazing Rando]

Perhaps the Didache, as well as the gospel of Matthew, quote from the same source?

That's a possibility. Or Didache might quote from canonical Matthew. I'm not really qualified to say one way or the other. But if you're interested in the Didache, here it is (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lake.html). To see the parallels it shares with Matthew, note especially the ethical exhortations in chapter 1, the trinitarian baptism formulation in chapter 7, the Lord's Prayer in chapter 8, and many others. Didache was probably written in the late 1st century, perhaps a bit after canonical Matthew was composed.

[Ray Fletcher]

Ray- that's a good observation. Check out this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49771&page=1&pp=16) in which I argue my own alternative thesis- i.e. that Matthew was behind the sayings source known as Q, and that the canonical gospel of Matthew was composed by a disciple of Matthew's, using Q and Mark.

It's in the scholars' corner, so if you post there, it'll take a little while for your post to appear.

Thanks for the link. Your thesis makes more sense than the disciple Matthew writing the book himself.

[Amazing Rando]

:smile: That's what I think too.

[markporter]

Ray- that's a good observation. Check out this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49771&page=1&pp=16) in which I argue my own alternative thesis- i.e. that Matthew was behind the sayings source known as Q, and that the canonical gospel of Matthew was composed by a disciple of Matthew's, using Q and Mark.

It's in the scholars' corner, so if you post there, it'll take a little while for your post to appear.
Hmm, that link doesn't let me in for some reason.

[Amazing Rando]

Works okay here, Mark. :nsm:

[markporter]

markporter, you do not have permission to access this page. Try and try as you may this won't change because we have brilliantly determined that it could be one of any number of reasons. We have left it up as an exercise for the reader to figure out which are relevant.

1. You have committed the most heinous of acts against this website and have refrained from paying your annual dues to the TWeb Illuminati. Remedy this promptly. Start by going here.
2. You never hung out with the cool kids at school.
3. You didn't promptly pay due respect to someone with vast God-like™ powers.
4. You are DLW or a DLW-sympathizer and as such have not been hooked up with any of those previously mentioned vast God-like™ powers so you can't edit someone else's post, or make the rules here cause to much to your own chagrin you do not own this website.
5. We have decided that you have obsessively used "detente in the cultural wars" just one too many times and in leu of banning you to the highest mountain with an itchy sweater we came up with this error message.
6. We actually wake up in the morning thinking of these new ways to torture people with obnoxious errors like this. Unfortunately for you, you're our latest unlucky victim. Sucks to be you.

If you figured out which one is relevant and it isn't reason #1. Our well documented and scientifically proven method of resolving this is by flapping your arms up and down repeatedly or brib...err paying your TWeb rent or doing your darndest to suck up to the big guy at postmaster@theologyweb.com. Nasty emails about this error message to said big guy may result in this error message being viewed by you inevitably throughout the entire site.

This is what I get.

[One Bad Pig]

This is what I get.
You might want to submit a thread on this at the Front Desk.

[Amazing Rando]

This is what I get.

Aha! They've caught you, you DLW sympathizer!

[cweb255]

A couple of things since I'm getting into this so late:

1. Amazing Rando - how do you get your date on Didache?

2. I once held a very similar position to yours, AR, that someone wrote a sayings gospel and later a narrative structure was placed over it. However, ever since I've been studying Matthew more intensely, all the "sayings" of the Gospel really relate to the overall narrative thematically.

3. The persecutions of Christians, if the Tacitus quote isn't an interpolation, wasn't in Rome only. Obviously, if you had read your Pliny, in a letter to Trajan he asks him what to do with the Christians, if he should persecute them on hearsay or not. But Pliny administered in Bithynia, not Rome. So vast multitudes covered the Roman Empire, and not just Rome.

4. Romans did persecute people on hearsay of being a Christian, so that doesn't necessarily mean that they were Christian, but that they were merely condemned as such.

5. Tacitus is known for superb hyperbole. Just read the Annals yourself.

6. Back to Matthew again. Matthew most certainly was not written in Aramaic. His grammar is distinctively Greek. Anyone who wants to argue Matthew being in Aramaic has the burden of proof of doing so...and a lot of explaining to do. Every single arguement I've had or seen with an Aramaic priorist thus far has been totally annihilated. Oh, and don't even bother arguing by authority. Those without serious scholarship under their belt need not apply, and will be duly ignored.

[jpholding]

I'm not sure who you are addressing in some of these, but I'll pick out what I disagree with ---



3. The persecutions of Christians, if the Tacitus quote isn't an interpolation,

Are you proposing that as a serious idea?


wasn't in Rome only. Obviously, if you had read your Pliny, in a letter to Trajan he asks him what to do with the Christians, if he should persecute them on hearsay or not.

Are you keeping in mind that "persecution" can mean anything from social ostracization to execution (by the state or by a mob)?


6. Back to Matthew again. Matthew most certainly was not written in Aramaic. His grammar is distinctively Greek

That may be as that may be, but none of this prevents the existence of an earlier Aramaic version, testified to by external sources (Papias, etc.) and merely saying this or that has been "annihilated" isn't particularly impressive. Jewish authors like Josephus, writing in Greek while at times translating Hebrew materials, often leave no linguistic clues to betray their Semitic sources, as Blomberg has noted. So distinctive Greek grammar proves little. And it is absurd to suggest that no written Aramaic version preceded our written Gospels.

[technomage]

That may be as that may be, but none of this prevents the existence of an earlier Aramaic version, testified to by external sources (Papias, etc.) and merely saying this or that has been "annihilated" isn't particularly impressive.

The problem with that is while Matthew may have written a book in Aramaic, we have no internal evidence to connect that book with the present gospel.


Jewish authors like Josephus, writing in Greek while at times translating Hebrew materials, often leave no linguistic clues to betray their Semitic sources, as Blomberg has noted. So distinctive Greek grammar proves little.

There's more to the conclusion that Matthew was originally written in Greek than the grammar. Distinctive Greek grammar plus direct quotation from the Septuigent (as opposed to the Tanach or any of the various targums) plus the extensive copying from Mark plus the anti-Pharisaic stance and the off-again, on-again contention with the rulers of the Synagogues. And that's before you consider the probable (but not definite) origin in Syria.


And it is absurd to suggest that no written Aramaic version preceded our written Gospels.

:shrug: That's a judgement call on your part. I would be more tempted to say that it is absurd to connect GoMatt with Papias's attribution in the face of the available evidence.

Justin

[jpholding]

The problem with that is while Matthew may have written a book in Aramaic, we have no internal evidence to connect that book with the present gospel.

Why is this a problem? Are you proposing that there was another document by Matthew with entirely different contents, and that Papias, et al were mistaken in indicating a continuity?


There's more to the conclusion that Matthew was originally written in Greek than the grammar. Distinctive Greek grammar plus direct quotation from the Septuigent

I don't see why this forbids an original in Aramaic. At best is establishes Greek Matthew as to some degree a novel composition, adjusted for a Greek readership.


plus the extensive copying from Mark

As you (may) know, I don't buy into Marcan priority.


plus the anti-Pharisaic stance and the off-again, on-again contention with the rulers of the Synagogues.

? -- it is impossible to write things against Pharisees in Aramaic? I think you have inserted an argument here against something else.


And that's before you consider the probable (but not definite) origin in Syria.

Where the, er, native tongue was Aramaic....

[technomage]

Why is this a problem? Are you proposing that there was another document by Matthew with entirely different contents, and that Papias, et al were mistaken in indicating a continuity?

It's not "Papias, et al." Papias is our sole source for this: Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted from Papius. Could Papius have made a mistake? It's certainly a possibility.


I don't see why this forbids an original in Aramaic. At best is establishes Greek Matthew as to some degree a novel composition, adjusted for a Greek readership.

It doesn't forbid an original--though it does make it much tougher. It simply demonstrates that there is no textual or linguistic evidence for an Aramaic original. At that point, most scholars are going to say "Matthew was originally written in Greek" unless evidence of an Aramaic original shows up."


As you (may) know, I don't buy into Marcan priority.

Actually, no, I didn't. :shrug: In that case, JP, you're almost completely four-square from not only the evidence that I've seen, but against an almost universal consensus statement among Biblical scholarship. I honestly and sincerely do not know how to reconcile your statement with the text of GoMatt and GoMark without accepting it as a "My mind's made up." (And I don't mean that derisively ... JP, I'm currently somewhere between shocked and flabbergasted, so I may not be expressing myself too clearly.)


? -- it is impossible to write things against Pharisees in Aramaic? I think you have inserted an argument here against something else.

No, that's also part of my own reasoning process for a Greek original: I can't really separate the problem of "what language was Matthew written in" and "When was Matthew written"--the two questions are too interdependant. The evidence I have suggest a Greek original, written sometime in the early 80s. (However, I know you also disagree with the date.)


Where the, er, native tongue was Aramaic....

Native tongue--yes. Most common spoken tongue after Alexander, however, was Greek. Aramaic played a much smaller part in the Syrian Jewish community than in the Jerusalem community. (I had a reference for this, and drat it all, I can't find it now!)

Justin

[cweb255]

Why is this a problem? Are you proposing that there was another document by Matthew with entirely different contents, and that Papias, et al were mistaken in indicating a continuity?
Actually, yes I am. In fact, there were probably several. It's not like Matthew actually wrote the thing. Anonymous works were assigned apostles' authorship to give them credence.


I don't see why this forbids an original in Aramaic. At best is establishes Greek Matthew as to some degree a novel composition, adjusted for a Greek readership.
Do you have any proof whatsoever of what you are saying?


As you (may) know, I don't buy into Marcan priority.
What else do you not buy? Does the Sun revolve around the Earth? Really now, what's your reasoning and textual evidence for Mark to not have been written first.


Where the, er, native tongue was Aramaic....
Not quite. Obviously, you show your signs that you don't frequently travel much, do you? Ever been to India? China? African countries that were once colonies? By this time, everything would have been bilingual completely.

[jpholding]

It's not "Papias, et al." Papias is our sole source for this: Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted from Papius.

And why does this lead you to the conclusion that Irenaeus and Eusebius had no other sources or backup for their chief source?


Could Papius have made a mistake? It's certainly a possibility.

It is also possible that Toby will get up and make my lunch for me. The burden is on others to show why Papias must be mistaken.


It doesn't forbid an original--though it does make it much tougher. It simply demonstrates that there is no textual or linguistic evidence for an Aramaic original.

Tougher to make a case, you mean? I don't see why. I see this as a 100% firm case, which textual and linguistic data would prop to 150%. In any event, we have no textual or linguistic evidence for many of Josephus' other-language sources either.


Actually, no, I didn't. :shrug: In that case, JP, you're almost completely four-square from not only the evidence that I've seen, but against an almost universal consensus statement among Biblical scholarship

Not really. Most who accept that consensus have never done original work on the subject. And I think you know I don't just assume it. :smile: I have an entire huge series on the subject, and a full accounting of scholars not in line with the hypothesis of Marcan priority:

http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html

I don't care for Q, either...except the one on Star Trek or James Bond...


No, that's also part of my own reasoning process for a Greek original: I can't really separate the problem of "what language was Matthew written in" and "When was Matthew written"--the two questions are too interdependant. The evidence I have suggest a Greek original, written sometime in the early 80s. (However, I know you also disagree with the date.)

I can accept an 80s date for Matthew's Greek edition, though I see no reason to put it past 60. After all, a heavily evangelistic movement would see every need to quickly converts critical texts into the lingua franca.


Native tongue--yes. Most common spoken tongue after Alexander, however, was Greek. Aramaic played a much smaller part in the Syrian Jewish community than in the Jerusalem community. (I had a reference for this, and drat it all, I can't find it now!)

Please do. I have not found such a thing to be true nor seen anything about it.

[jpholding]

Actually, yes I am. In fact, there were probably several. It's not like Matthew actually wrote the thing. Anonymous works were assigned apostles' authorship to give them credence.

Pffft. :rofl: Want to come out and play, do you? Several such documents? This is truly a riot. No evidence for any of these at all; yet you need it to explain away the evidence that does exist.

Anonymous eh. Well, tell us, little one: How do we know Tacitus wrote the Annals, please? And tell us why the evidence for that is superior to that of Matthew, et al writing their Gospels. Do tell. Or are you one of these oddities who claims that Tacitus' works were all forged as well?



Do you have any proof whatsoever of what you are saying?

What in particular from what you quoted? I made no positive statement in what you quoted.



What else do you not buy? Does the Sun revolve around the Earth? Really now, what's your reasoning and textual evidence for Mark to not have been written first.

Follow the little linky-link in the last message. If you want to start a new thread on it somewhere let me know. I imagine the credentialed scholars who agree with this view would find your evaluation as an amateur fascinating.


Not quite. Obviously, you show your signs that you don't frequently travel much, do you? Ever been to India? China? African countries that were once colonies? By this time, everything would have been bilingual completely.

Say what? How is this relevant to the point that Aramaic was the native tongue of Syria?

Are you one of these people who composes your arguments while on drugs?

[Amazing Rando]

A couple of things since I'm getting into this so late:

1. Amazing Rando - how do you get your date on Didache?

Just the general consensus- either late 1st century or early 2nd. Either way, it's pretty darn early.

2. I once held a very similar position to yours, AR, that someone wrote a sayings gospel and later a narrative structure was placed over it. However, ever since I've been studying Matthew more intensely, all the "sayings" of the Gospel really relate to the overall narrative thematically.[/quote]

That's precisely what I'm saying! Look at the Lukan parallels as well. They also relate nicely to Luke's overall narrative. I'm suggesting both authors used the same materials to for somewhat different purposes, reflecting the different situations they were in when they composed their gospels.


6. Back to Matthew again. Matthew most certainly was not written in Aramaic. His grammar is distinctively Greek. Anyone who wants to argue Matthew being in Aramaic has the burden of proof of doing so...and a lot of explaining to do. Every single arguement I've had or seen with an Aramaic priorist thus far has been totally annihilated. Oh, and don't even bother arguing by authority. Those without serious scholarship under their belt need not apply, and will be duly ignored.

I'd be willing to wager that the logia were originally in Aramaic.

[technomage]

And why does this lead you to the conclusion that Irenaeus and Eusebius had no other sources or backup for their chief source?

For Eusebius, because he darn near couldn't get a paragraph in edgewise if he didn't quote something. :giggle: Seriously, Eusebius was extremely meticulous in quoting his sources. Are you going to assert that he used a source, and didn't quote or cite it?

As for Irenaeus, I've not done as much work with him: however, the passage of Against Heresies that mentions the authorship of Matthew is a very close copy of Papias as quoted by Eusebius (we cannot know if it is an exact copy: Irenaeus' Greek original is lost, but a Latin translation was made fairly quickly after Irenaeus wrote his books). (See Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:1 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7304_1939792).) With wording that close--especially the repetition of "in their own dialect/language," should give serious doubt to the suggestion that Irenaeus used another source besides Papias.



Could Papius have made a mistake? It's certainly a possibility.
It is also possible that Toby will get up and make my lunch for me. The burden is on others to show why Papias must be mistaken.

Ah--but you mis-state my position. I said Papias could have made a mistake: I did not say that he must be mistaken. There's an incredible amount of difference between could and must.


Tougher to make a case, you mean? I don't see why. I see this as a 100% firm case, which textual and linguistic data would prop to 150%.

JP, I'm forced to the conclusion that your "100%" surety is a faith-based conclusion. Hey, I'm not objecting or casting aspersions on your faith, or even on your conclusion ... I'm just saying that I have reached a different conclusion, and cannot accept your faith as evidence.



In any event, we have no textual or linguistic evidence for many of Josephus' other-language sources either.

Irrelevant. Josephus is Josephus and Matthew is Matthew.



In that case, JP, you're almost completely four-square from not only the evidence that I've seen, but against an almost universal consensus statement among Biblical scholarship
Not really. Most who accept that consensus have never done original work on the subject. And I think you know I don't just assume it.

No, I don't. If you want to make a statement like "Most who accept that consensus have never done original work on the subject," I want to see some hard documentation for your assertion. JP, that's not a slam to you personally, but your assertion is a nuclear bomb in the scholarly community: it's roughly equivalent with saying Einstein took credit for the work of his lab assistants. It's a hard-ball accusation that could wreck careers--it needs to be backed up with evidence or retracted.


I have an entire huge series on the subject, and a full accounting of scholars not in line with the hypothesis of Marcan priority:

:nods: I've seen your work on the subject ... frankly, my friend, it sounded like you were torching the strawmen, not the actual arguments.


I don't care for Q, either...except the one on Star Trek or James Bond...

:snicker: Or, to cross movie metaphors, "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"


I can accept an 80s date for Matthew's Greek edition, though I see no reason to put it past 60. After all, a heavily evangelistic movement would see every need to quickly converts critical texts into the lingua franca.

Hmmm.... Frankly, JP, I kind of have my doubts. Evangelism was done orally: the writings were more for the teaching and support of those who already believed. Heck, you've commented enough on oral tradition: you know the popularity of oral teaching in that culture; you know the expense (and hazards) of copying and translation; and you know that there were a lot more illiterate folks then than there are in our Western culture today. Frankly, the books were for the teachers and pastors: they weren't for the rank and file ... many (most?) of whom couldn't have afforded them, or used them.


Please do. I have not found such a thing to be true nor seen anything about it.

I'm beginning to think it was a library book, or a borrowed book. I can't find the reference, and on the Web, the closest thing I can find is from Wikipedia ("Though Matthew wrote mainly for the Jews, everywhere that they had been assimilated into Hellenistic culture, notably in Alexandria, they were familiar with the Greek language; the exception, of course, was in Jerusalem, where Jewish parties were divided, and Aramaic was the common tongue." Wikipedia article on Gospel of Matthew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew).)

Additionally, there's the testimony of Jerome and Nicephorus that the Aramaic Matthew and the Greek Matthew were two separate books: Jerome's a little late in the game (and Nicephorus is right out, both for the late date and the brevity of information), but Jerome had copies of these two books. The best thing we can say for the Aramaic and Greek versions is that the association was not direct--but again, this is a problem. Did Greek Matthew copy the Aramaic with some additions? Did Aramaic Matthew copy the Greek, but with some editing? Were they both independant works?

JP, I'm not saying that they were definitely independant works--all I'm saying is that there exists a good possibility that the book papias was speaking of is not the book we now have. There's also a good possibility that our current Matthew is a descendant of the Aramaic--that's my own preferred theory, though I do also support Markan priority. All I'm saying is that the Papias reference is our sole authority for Matthew's authorship, and it's not enough to bet the farm on.

Justin

[cweb255]

Pffft. :rofl: Want to come out and play, do you? Several such documents? This is truly a riot. No evidence for any of these at all; yet you need it to explain away the evidence that does exist.
Big Boys, JP Holding? Funny, I've never known one scholar to take you seriously. You're the butt of every joke - well, you share the table with Thiede, Thiering, and Eisenman. No wait, even they have credential. You have nothing. And yes, I can name several documents offhand. Infancy Gospel of James, Apocryphon of James, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas just to name a few. And then you have the other hundreds of independent gospel traditions such as Egerton. No evidence for any of these? Ha, where have you been living, Jesusland? Sorry, amigo, but you don't know jack about what you're talking about. I think the only thing I actually agreed with what you ever said was when you linked Luke-Acts to the Pastorals, but even then the link is relatively weak until more stylistic features other than nomikos is found.


Anonymous eh. Well, tell us, little one: How do we know Tacitus wrote the Annals, please? And tell us why the evidence for that is superior to that of Matthew, et al writing their Gospels. Do tell. Or are you one of these oddities who claims that Tacitus' works were all forged as well?
You have a lot of nerve with your ad homina, oh ignorant one. How do I know that Tacitus wrote the Annals? Why, I'm not claiming he did, but if you have reason to suspect he didn't, by all means, let's hear it out. But in Matthew's case, the anonymous work written in the 80's CE and later only being attributed to him by a vague reference from Papias is very suspect. Secondly, what is a disciple doing copying off of a non-disciple for details? Even more suspect. You have nothing, Holding, not even a real name here. Go find one and we can talk.


What in particular from what you quoted? I made no positive statement in what you quoted.
Well if you don't want to back up a Greek Matthew translated from Aramaic adjusted for Greek readership, then by all means drop the thing. It's not like you actually know Greek and Aramaic, do you?


Follow the little linky-link in the last message. If you want to start a new thread on it somewhere let me know. I imagine the credentialed scholars who agree with this view would find your evaluation as an amateur fascinating.
What are your degrees? Where do you teach at? How are you being paid? And if you have some repute, why remain psuedonymous? Hrm...:ahem:

All I asked was what are your reasons for Mark not being first, and you evaded the question. Poor scholarship coming from a pseudonymous insult hurler. Bad form, Holding, bad form.


Say what? How is this relevant to the point that Aramaic was the native tongue of Syria?

Are you one of these people who composes your arguments while on drugs?
Because the native language of Syria has nothing to do in with what language the gospels wre written in. There are plenty of areas in China that are not dominated by the Mandarins, yet if someone wanted to get around in China, of course they would revert to the official Mandarin. As I said again, your ignorance shows.

I would like to continue this conversation, but if you continue to hurl insults and attack people instead of ideas, you might as well just blow yourself for all I care.

Edited for descriptive language of an inappropriate nature.

[cweb255]

Just the general consensus- either late 1st century or early 2nd. Either way, it's pretty darn early.
Well, I was questioning because some scholars place it mid 2nd century, others place mid first century but before Matthew, so I was wondering where exactly are you getting this "consensus."


That's precisely what I'm saying! Look at the Lukan parallels as well. They also relate nicely to Luke's overall narrative. I'm suggesting both authors used the same materials to for somewhat different purposes, reflecting the different situations they were in when they composed their gospels.
Well, sort of. Matthew's overall theme is the Mosaic transformation of Jesus freeing us from slavery (dual attack on both hamartia and pharisaic judaism) to lead to the promised land (Kingdom of God), but those who do not join will be cut down (as Moses had the Levi's do to the dissenting Jews in the wilderness). Matthew actually is the defining book of modern Christianity, while Luke, who was more interested in historical justification for his cult (here speculation, and a lot to do with the Pastorals) which led to his thoughts on Paul and universalism. "For all writings are god-breated."


I'd be willing to wager that the logia were originally in Aramaic.
Which logia? Do you have any reference to these logia? How about a snippet or two from these. Now, obviously there must have been some sort of gospel written in Syriac, but whether or not its the Gospel of Matthew as we have it today is a matter of debate. Present your evidence and I'll present mine.

[jpholding]

For Eusebius, because he darn near couldn't get a paragraph in edgewise if he didn't quote something. :giggle: Seriously, Eusebius was extremely meticulous in quoting his sources. Are you going to assert that he used a source, and didn't quote or cite it?

Yes, and the same with the others. Assuming that quotation of a source equals the sum of knowledge and evidence and authority a writer has would get you into huge trouble with my works, because for every position I cite a reference for, there are between 2-10 other sources I don't cite that say the same thing and/or offer more evidence I don't always use. I quote who I do because they are my favorite writers, or the most clear expositiors, or because I got them off the shelf first...whatever. The point is that it is reductionistic to think that someone like Irey had no idea who wrote Matthew and how without Papias' help and apart from any other evidence at all.


As for Irenaeus, I've not done as much work with him: however, the passage of Against Heresies that mentions the authorship of Matthew is a very close copy of Papias as quoted by Eusebius

If it is, that's fine -- authors used imitation as a form of flattery to their sources in this day; but it by no means allows for an assumption -- very gratuitous -- that Papias was all Irey had to go on, as if he knew zero about Matthew before reading Papias just a few moments before. I expect Papias was a very early and reputable source that church writers got accustomed to turning to first; but hardly then all that was around to inform.


Ah--but you mis-state my position. I said Papias could have made a mistake: I did not say that he must be mistaken. There's an incredible amount of difference between could and must.

Well, if there isn't any actual evidence for a mistake, that's not much of a difference. :teeth:


JP, I'm forced to the conclusion that your "100%" surety is a faith-based conclusion.

We shall see. But then, I do define "faith" in terms of trust based on certain evidence... :wink:


Irrelevant. Josephus is Josephus and Matthew is Matthew.

And this makes it irrelevant that we have no data for either on the critical issue, how?


No, I don't. If you want to make a statement like "Most who accept that consensus have never done original work on the subject," I want to see some hard documentation for your assertion.

I have a bibliography at the end of the link I gave. Many of those books made such a statement. Most recently, here are some lines from my review of the very recent book, Questioning Q, by Mark Goodcare:
*********
Mark Goodacre has been a loud voice arguing against Q (though not Markan priority) for some time now, and this book is one of the latest fruits of his labor. The evaluation of resistance to dispensing with Q as being the result of "intractable intellectual inertia" [9] strikes a chord in me; as we have noted before, it seems that many accept Q (even Witherington) for no other reason than that it takes too much to look at the question afresh.

The essays in this book vary in their usefulness. Poirer's essay on how Q found its ground in a 19th century tendency to look for pre-synoptic sources offers a fascinating glimpse into why the idea has been so stubbornly persistent. Poirer offers as well a startling indictment that key promoters of Q (like Mack and Koester) are "lagging 50 years behind in their understanding of the Synoptic problem." [22] I'd like to say that isn't true, but our own investigations suggest as much, given that Streeter is still the source status quo for many such theorists, and that as Goodacre says, the real problem is that dispensing with Q requires scholars to "rethink redaction criticism at every step." [174]. Any volunteers?
*********
Goodacre does not reject Marcan priority, but the two ideas (that and Q) go hand in hand, so it is shown here that in both cases original research just is not being done by most adherents.


:nods: I've seen your work on the subject ... frankly, my friend, it sounded like you were torching the strawmen, not the actual arguments.

Specifics, by chance? I got the arguments from the sources themselves.



Hmmm.... Frankly, JP, I kind of have my doubts. Evangelism was done orally: the writings were more for the teaching and support of those who already believed.

I agree. But I don't see how this requires a late date. If you think that popularity of oral teaching, et al kept people from writing things down, I have one word for you that erases all doubt: "Qumran". But then again, I have no doubt that the Gospels were for teachers and pastors mainly as well....


the reference, and on the Web, the closest thing I can find is from Wikipedia

Unf...where's a gagging smiley when you need it...


Additionally, there's the testimony of Jerome and Nicephorus that the Aramaic Matthew and the Greek Matthew were two separate books:

I more or less agree that they are. I see the Aramaic Matthew as closer in order and form to what we currently have in Mark. Are you sure you read my material on Q and Marcan priority? :wink: That is where I already have answers to your questions. Well, I'll give it here:
****
1. Matthew (in his Aramaic form) and Mark were independent products of apostolic eyewitness and oral tradition, based on a core of oral tradition used by the Apostles.
2. Aramaic Matthew's order was closer to, if not exactly like, Mark's order.
3. Greek Matthew is a post-Markan product that was perhaps influenced by Mark (as the classicist Kennedy observed in his evaluation of the Q/Markan priority hypothesis), but with certainty is an artifical construction that rearranged material to suit Greek Matthew's purpose as a teaching manual.
4. Luke is a combination of data collection and use of sources, including Matthew and Mark, and in the case of Matthew, relying on the earlier Aramaic version rather than the Greek version we know now. This would be sufficient to explain:
* Why Luke follows mostly "Markan order";
* Why Matthew, in spite of his differences, still retains much of what is called "Markan order" -- if Aramaic Matthew was also in "Markan order" prior to Mark, then there is no need to wonder why Luke follows Mark's order rather than that of Greek Matthew.
* Correspondences between Matthew and Luke that do not exist in Mark
* Why Luke's version of alleged Q material is sometimes (not always) more Semitic in character than Matthew's
* Why Luke does not reproduce "typically Matthean additions" within the so-called "Triple Tradition", and didactic additions that would have been a product of Greek Matthew's orientation
* Perhaps, why Luke does not use any of Matthew's special material in the infancy narrative and resurrection narrative

Thus the order of composition would be as follows:

1. Matthew composed a Gospel first, in Aramaic. In its order it was more like Mark is now.
2. Mark composed a Gospel next, or perhaps at the same time, but either way independently of Matthew's, using the same core apostolic tradition all of the apostles had access to (including Matthew and Peter, Mark's source). Peter and Matthew as apostles would of course transmit the same traditions, and in as much the same order as possible, having been both part of the apostolic ministry. Peter, however, expanded upon the material while preaching by adding eyewitness and personal observations, and it is possible that Peter (as well as Matthew later) did his own thematic arrangement now and then -- as opposed to the idea [Hawk.HS, 126] that Matthew went through deleting so much material, it makes much more sense that Peter added his own touches to a common core he and Matthew shared. (An irony to note here [Farm.SP, 134] is that greater and more specifics in detail are a characteristic of the later apocryphal literature, which would make Mark by this standard a later document than either Matt or Luke!)
3. Luke came next, using Mark (likely), AND Matthew in Aramaic (definitely).
4. Finally we have Greek Matthew, which was not just a Greek compositional original but was also substantially reorganized for use as a teaching tool.



There's also a good possibility that our current Matthew is a descendant of the Aramaic--that's my own preferred theory, though I do also support Markan priority.

Ah. You will like part of my theory at least, then.

JPH

[jpholding]

Dearsmall fry,


Big Boys, JP Holding? Funny, I've never known one scholar to take you seriously.

I see you have not met many scholars. That's too bad. You need to get out more.


And yes, I can name several documents offhand. Infancy Gospel of James, Apocryphon of James, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas just to name a few. And then you have the other hundreds of independent gospel traditions such as Egerton. No evidence for any of these?

As early representatives for the Jesus tradition? Nope. Not one bit of evidence, sorry, which was my entire point. All late works of no worth to speak of, except as insights into the minds of latecomers to the ballgame. All irrelevant to whether the canonical Gospels are of the same nature. Unless you are indeed so deluded as to think, say, GThom is from the first century. Are you?


How do I know that Tacitus wrote the Annals? Why, I'm not claiming he did, but if you have reason to suspect he didn't, by all means, let's hear it out.

I don't. But I see you very much wish to avoid a comparison. By your game, it is just as well to say that all we have is a "vague reference from Tertuallian" about the Annals which "is very suspect." Thus you wisely avoid answering my question. As for the rest:


Secondly, what is a disciple doing copying off of a non-disciple for details?

As noted, I see no reason to think he did, and you won't as much as touch that specific. But even if not, if Mark had Peter's words, what exactly is the problem?


Well if you don't want to back up a Greek Matthew translated from Aramaic adjusted for Greek readership, then by all means drop the thing

I do, as noted. But I'm still waiting for an answer as to what positive statement I made.


It's not like you actually know Greek and Aramaic, do you?

No, just my sources know it, actually. :thumb:


What are your degrees? Where do you teach at?

There's a Locker Room thread on this, go have a look. What's this have to do with what I asked/said?


How are you being paid?

Cash, check, or Mastercard, usually.


And if you have some repute, why remain psuedonymous?

Silly boy. I operate as JPH in 99% of my venues, and that name has far more repute than my other one. Hrm.


All I asked was what are your reasons for Mark not being first, and you evaded the question

With a link to a huge series of articles I wrote on why? That sure does seem like an evasion....so when do you plan on reading it and providing a real answer to any of it?


Because the native language of Syria has nothing to do in with what language the gospels wre written in.

Oh I see. How sensible. You would NEVER write a document in a locale in the language that the people of that locale know best.


There are plenty of areas in China that are not dominated by the Mandarins, yet if someone wanted to get around in China, of course they would revert to the official Mandarin.

So you're saying Matthew wrote his Gospel because he was trying to "get around" in Antioch? Where did you get this information? Maybe we're missing the part where Matt asks for directions to the nearest couscous stand.

My goodness. I've seldom seen such stupidity outside of Monkey World.


I would like to continue this conversation, but if you continue to hurl insults and attack people instead of ideas,

Phew...hypocrisy. No, take what excuse you can to avoid being embarrassed. By all means.

[cweb255]

Dear Wishyoucouldbe (so ad homina are legal here, eh? Very well. I hate arguing with people who can't hold a real arguement, by hey, you're just asking for it).

Dearsmall fry,
Yawn. Come on, JP, you're just a wanna be. Cut the bullshit and move on.


I see you have not met many scholars. That's too bad. You need to get out more.
If you define yourself as a scholar, than yes, I meet idiots every day.


As early representatives for the Jesus tradition? Nope. Not one bit of evidence, sorry, which was my entire point. All late works of no worth to speak of, except as insights into the minds of latecomers to the ballgame. All irrelevant to whether the canonical Gospels are of the same nature. Unless you are indeed so deluded as to think, say, GThom is from the first century. Are you?
No, Gospel of Thomas is clearly second century, just like Luke and John. Matthew is the end of the first century (or at least part of Matthew) and Mark is late first century also. But again, what's your point? My point was that gospels are anonymous and were named after apostles to give them creedence. I said that it was common, you said they don't exist. Now you're trying to change the subject. Grow up Holding.


I don't. But I see you very much wish to avoid a comparison. By your game, it is just as well to say that all we have is a "vague reference from Tertuallian" about the Annals which "is very suspect." Thus you wisely avoid answering my question. As for the rest:
Your move, Holding. Want to discuss Annals or not? OK then. Next.


As noted, I see no reason to think he did, and you won't as much as touch that specific. But even if not, if Mark had Peter's words, what exactly is the problem?
Oh cut the crap! Mark listening to Peter preach? Listen man, if you haven't at least got the basics of the Synoptic Problem down, you might as well just leave. You've got a whole field to cover, and you're avoiding it. Do you know anything about this subject? I'm not going to sit here and baby you.


I do, as noted. But I'm still waiting for an answer as to what positive statement I made.
When you state that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, that's a positive statement. When you say that it was altered for Greek readership, that's a positive statement. You want to defend Aramaic primacy? If not, you're already dead in the water.


No, just my sources know it, actually. :thumb:
Arguement from Authority Fallacy. Aut disce aut discede.


There's a Locker Room thread on this, go have a look. What's this have to do with what I asked/said?
So let me get this straight. You don't even have a relevant degree in the subject matter, haven't actually read the New Testament in its original language, rely on others for your primary sources, and to top it off, call me a small fry? :lol: Oh boy, wait until I tell the boys back home about you.


Silly boy. I operate as JPH in 99% of my venues, and that name has far more repute than my other one. Hrm.
:ahem:


With a link to a huge series of articles I wrote on why? That sure does seem like an evasion....so when do you plan on reading it and providing a real answer to any of it?
That has nothing to do with neither here nor now. You can write anything you want to, but here is where the debate is at.


Oh I see. How sensible. You would NEVER write a document in a locale in the language that the people of that locale know best.
Now you take my words and twist them? You're even more desperate than I suspected. You yourself said that Christianity was a evangelizing religion. Would not documents aimed at evangelizing be written in the common tongue?


So you're saying Matthew wrote his Gospel because he was trying to "get around" in Antioch? Where did you get this information? Maybe we're missing the part where Matt asks for directions to the nearest couscous stand.

My goodness. I've seldom seen such stupidity outside of Monkey World.
All you have to do is look in the mirror. In no such place did I say Matthew wrote his document to get around in Antioch. Quit building strawmen, it only shows your ignorance.


Phew...hypocrisy. No, take what excuse you can to avoid being embarrassed. By all means.
You started it. And now I'm finishing it. You could barely formulate one sentence in response to me. You are a nobody, with no credentials, and no idea.

You can cut the language as well, sir... Please take the time to read the Decorum if you haven't done so already.

[technomage]

JP! CWeb!

I started this thread as a scholarly discussion of the topic at hand, and I am asking that you two drop the incivility or take it elsewhere. If you don't like either of those options, we'll get together with the moderators and discuss other options.

Justin

[Richbee]

Greetings, Pythagoras, and hello anyone else who wants to jump in,

O.K. a little late, but hey, I am searching for all your truth assertions and you make many proclaimation right here, but what are your sources or what is your objective standard for truth?


The Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between 80-100 CE, almost certainly in Syria, quite possibly in Antioch. It was originally written in Greek, and borrowed phrasing from Mark, and possibly from an unknown source scholars have named Q. It was not written by the disciple Matthew.

Sounds like the opinions of Men and quoted by a witch no less, and where by we know that you will only quote sources supporting your Anti-Biblical POV's? No? Well, we all pick and choose, so what is the Truth?

Quote:

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel.

The debate is far from over.

The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.

(See: Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.)


"Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died.

Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as early as A.D. 50.

Source:: Justin's dogmatic assertions refuted again - Gospel of Matthew (www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm#5)

[cweb255]

1. No reputable scholar holds Matthew to be written before 70 AD. That's a blatant falsehood.

2. The curse of the Jews at the end of Matthew seems to foreshadow the destruction of Jerusalem, and Mark also has a "temple destruction" prophecy as well. Since Matthew copied off of Mark (and Mark wrote in Greek, thus Matthew was written in Greek ;)) Matthew was after 70 AD.

[One Bad Pig]

1. No reputable scholar holds Matthew to be written before 70 AD. That's a blatant falsehood.
What are the criteria for being called "reputable"?


2. The curse of the Jews at the end of Matthew seems to foreshadow the destruction of Jerusalem, and Mark also has a "temple destruction" prophecy as well. Since Matthew copied off of Mark (and Mark wrote in Greek, thus Matthew was written in Greek ;)) Matthew was after 70 AD.
IOW, since you a priori assume they couldn't have foretold this accurately, they were written after Jerusalem was destroyed. :ahem:

[technomage]

What are the criteria for being called "reputable"?

While I don't necessarily agree that "no reputable scholar" holds the position, I quite agree that there is a definite problem defining "reputable."

* By (conservative) Christian definition, no scholar who takes a position of operational materialism is "reputable," because they refuse to consider any possibility of supernatural events in their history.
* By (mainstream) schoarly definition, no scholar who takes a position of Divine Inspiration is "reputable," because they refuse to consider any possibility of error in their a priori beliefs.


2. The curse of the Jews at the end of Matthew seems to foreshadow the destruction of Jerusalem, and Mark also has a "temple destruction" prophecy as well. Since Matthew copied off of Mark (and Mark wrote in Greek, thus Matthew was written in Greek ;)) Matthew was after 70 AD.
IOW, since you a priori assume they couldn't have foretold this accurately, they were written after Jerusalem was destroyed. :ahem:[/QUOTE]

I rest my case.

This is a case of dueling a priories--OBP's vs CWeb's. This problem is not mutually soluble, because both parties cannot agree on a common basis for knowledge. There is a true and correct answer for the questions I've posted, but both of you assume that you have the truth, and the other is wrong.

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

I rest my case.

This is a case of dueling a priories--OBP's vs CWeb's. This problem is not mutually soluble, because both parties cannot agree on a common basis for knowledge. There is a true and correct answer for the questions I've posted, but both of you assume that you have the truth, and the other is wrong.

Justin
Justin,

I do not assume that it was written prior to AD 70 because of the prophecy about Jerusalem. I assume it was written by Matthew, because I haven't seen a compelling reason to doubt that. IMO the prophecy has no bearing on the date whatsoever if it is reporting what Jesus actually said.

[technomage]

Justin,

I do not assume that it was written prior to AD 70 because of the prophecy about Jerusalem. I assume it was written by Matthew, because I haven't seen a compelling reason to doubt that. IMO the prophecy has no bearing on the date whatsoever if it is reporting what Jesus actually said.

Yet the basic question is this: what constitutes a compelling reason?

There's absolutely nothing that is morally wrong with holding to an a priori belief in religion: but it can be fatal to any hope of objectivity in certain areas of scholarship. A priori beliefs, as you know, are beliefs that are acquired without (technically, "before") evidence ... the problem occurs when those beliefs are held even if contradictory evidence is presented. We all develop an emotional and psychological attatchments to our views: a posteriori views can be difficult to relinquish, but a priori beliefs can be nearly impossible to change, even if it can be conclusively proved that they are factually incorrect.

OBP, I honestly do not think that anything will suffice for that, and--please forgive me if I'm wrong, my friend--I submit with all sincerity that your belief in Matthian authorship is a priori. And I further submit that it is not that you have not "seen a compelling reason," but ... well, to put it bluntly, I have my grave doubts if any reason would be sufficiently "compelling."

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

Yet the basic question is this: what constitutes a compelling reason?

There's absolutely nothing that is morally wrong with holding to an a priori belief in religion: but it can be fatal to any hope of objectivity in certain areas of scholarship. A priori beliefs, as you know, are beliefs that are acquired without (technically, "before") evidence ... the problem occurs when those beliefs are held even if contradictory evidence is presented. We all develop an emotional and psychological attatchments to our views: a posteriori views can be difficult to relinquish, but a priori beliefs can be nearly impossible to change, even if it can be conclusively proved that they are factually incorrect.

OBP, I honestly do not think that anything will suffice for that, and--please forgive me if I'm wrong, my friend--I submit with all sincerity that your belief in Matthian authorship is a priori. And I further submit that it is not that you have not "seen a compelling reason," but ... well, to put it bluntly, I have my grave doubts if any reason would be sufficiently "compelling."

Justin

I did indeed assume Matthian authorship before being presented evidence for it. That's not one of those things you question when you're 5. It would indeed be difficult to find a compelling reason; evidence from the 1st/2nd centuries is rather scarce. Impossible? I don't know. If offered conclusive proof, I'd like to think my beliefs would change. I am an engineer, after all.

[technomage]

I did indeed assume Matthian authorship before being presented evidence for it. That's not one of those things you question when you're 5. It would indeed be difficult to find a compelling reason; evidence from the 1st/2nd centuries is rather scarce. Impossible? I don't know. If offered conclusive proof, I'd like to think my beliefs would change. I am an engineer, after all.

The problem is, outside of that a priori knowledge, we have no evidence from the 1st century ... for or against. Irenaeus is the very first primary source citation of Matthian authorship (though Eusebius, for all his derision of Papias, certainly affirms Irenaeus' accuracy to the original). Thus the problem is not "Were Papias' claims correctly transmitted," but "Were Papias' claims accurate?"

And Papias has some serious deficits.
* Papias was not a terribly reliable historian. Papias passed along a number of apocryphal tales, including the story of Judas: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
* Papias relied primarily on oral tradition, feeling that written books were inferior. "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
* Perhaps most damaging to Papias' accuracy, Papias never met any of the Apostles. " If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."

(All quotes from Papias taken from "Fragments of Papias (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html).")

So then--tell me why I should trust that Papias knew what he spoke of?

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

The problem is, outside of that a priori knowledge, we have no evidence from the 1st century ... for or against. Irenaeus is the very first primary source citation of Matthian authorship (though Eusebius, for all his derision of Papias, certainly affirms Irenaeus' accuracy to the original). Thus the problem is not "Were Papias' claims correctly transmitted," but "Were Papias' claims accurate?"

And Papias has some serious deficits.
* Papias was not a terribly reliable historian. Papias passed along a number of apocryphal tales, including the story of Judas: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
Okay, that gives cause to not accept everything from him uncritically.


* Papias relied primarily on oral tradition, feeling that written books were inferior. "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
In a society that was largely illiterate and relied heavily on memory, I don't think that was a problem.


* Perhaps most damaging to Papias' accuracy, Papias never met any of the Apostles. " If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say."
This is damaging how, exactly? It sounds like he talked to many individuals who had talked with them, so he would've been able to check what each person said. If he were another generation removed, then I would start to be concerned by this.

[jpholding]

Dear Cornball,

Out of respect for Justin's request I will merely address actual arguments in your last post, and places where you actually address my arguments about Gospel authorship and patristic evidence for an Aramaic Matthew; or, actually address anything in my entire series about Q and Marcan priority...










Thank you.

[jpholding]

And Papias has some serious deficits.
* Papias was not a terribly reliable historian. Papias passed along a number of apocryphal tales, including the story of Judas: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

Why is this apocryphal? Other than that it uses some humor at the expense of one of the worst betrayers in history, I don't see any problem with it.


* Papias relied primarily on oral tradition, feeling that written books were inferior.

And in that, he shared values with the best minds of his day. I think you ought to read my item on oral tradition before passing judgment on Papias here:


* Perhaps most damaging to Papias' accuracy, Papias never met any of the Apostles. "

Er -- what of it? You don't suppose Tacitus met Augustus, do you? Yet this is hardly assumed to be a problem by historians in reckoning how accurate he is about Augustus, or any other person he never met. Moreover the reliability of oral transmission in this day makes what he did not in the least suspect of damage.


[quote]So then--tell me why I should trust that Papias knew what he spoke of?

You may as well have asked why we ought to trust any ancient source...you just pulled the rug out from under most or all of them on most everything they wrote.

[cweb255]

Since jpholding is by his own admission deficient to address arguements, I have put him on my ignore list, thus if by some miracle that he actually raises a good point, do not think that I'm unable to answer it, but unwilling to put up with his blatant stupidity.

One Bad Pig - For Matthew writing the Gospel of Matthew, I once again bring this up: if Matthew was an eyewitness, why would his testimony be based largely off of Mark's, a non-disciple?

[technomage]

Okay, that gives cause to not accept everything from him uncritically.

But does not give cause to examine everything he says critically? There is a difference....


In a society that was largely illiterate and relied heavily on memory, I don't think that was a problem.

I don't think the analogy is relevant. Yes, the society was largely illiterate, but Papias was not--and the emphasis in Papias makes it sound like it was the medium he was rejecting.


This is damaging how, exactly? It sounds like he talked to many individuals who had talked with them, so he would've been able to check what each person said. If he were another generation removed, then I would start to be concerned by this.

OBP, you know as well as I do the problems with eye-witness testimony and oral tradition. They are not the "ultra-reliable standards" that some Christian apologists portray them as ... and errors take a considerably shorter time than "a generation" to settle in.

Justin

[cweb255]

Justin - that's not necessarily true. There are plenty of Christian "reputable" scholars, one of my favorites being Millar Burrows, but let's be realistic here. Why else would Matthew be damning to the Jews in Jerusalem if they were not already damned?

The gospels are man-made stories to portray incidents, beliefs, and/or an interesting narrative. And you can't even say that I have a bias against the documents being divinely inspired, but that was eliminated when I took up textual criticism and explored the synoptic problem. If you haven't thoroughly done your homework in this area, you may still have the bias that it was divinely written. I suggest starting off with Streeter's The Four Gospels, then moving according to what you find most interesting.

[technomage]

Justin - that's not necessarily true. There are plenty of Christian "reputable" scholars, one of my favorites being Millar Burrows....

No, no--sorry. I meant those Christian "scholars" who take a presupositional view to the traditional dating and authorship as an article of faith, instead of as a starting point for investigation of the evidence. (And no, OBP, that's not a slam against you ... if I remember correctly, you've very specifically stated that you were not a scholar, and may have even joked about being "insulted" when someone called you one. :wink:)


...but let's be realistic here. Why else would Matthew be damning to the Jews in Jerusalem if they were not already damned?

Well ... several ways about that: the condemnation in Matthew makes perfect sense if the historical Jesus acted as a schismatic religious leader, an apocalyptic preacher, a reformer, or as a political rabble-rouser (all of which have been conjectured). On the other hand, it also makes sense if this was a post-destruction treatise after the Jewish and nacent Christian communities were no longer speking in civil terms to each other. I can't see this specific point as being all that crucial to the dating question specifically.


The gospels are man-made stories to portray incidents, beliefs, and/or an interesting narrative. And you can't even say that I have a bias against the documents being divinely inspired, but that was eliminated when I took up textual criticism and explored the synoptic problem. If you haven't thoroughly done your homework in this area, you may still have the bias that it was divinely written. I suggest starting off with Streeter's The Four Gospels, then moving according to what you find most interesting.

Ummm ... not sure who this was for. For those Christians who believe that it was divinely written, I can't use the term "bias" in good conscience. No, I don't believe it was true ... but I take an "operational materialism" view of history, so (IMO) history is not a competent field to investigate "divine inspiration," any more than science is.

Justin

[jpholding]

Since jpholding is by his own admission deficient to address arguements, I have put him on my ignore list, thus if by some miracle that he actually raises a good point, do not think that I'm unable to answer it, but unwilling to put up with his blatant stupidity.


I guess that someone with the name "web" sure ought to be able to SPIN! :rofl:

[One Bad Pig]

But does not give cause to examine everything he says critically? There is a difference....
Of course. If what he's saying is the same as what other people are saying, then there is less reason to examine the matter critically. If he's a lone voice or offers contradictory information, then there is cause to examine critically.


I don't think the analogy is relevant. Yes, the society was largely illiterate, but Papias was not--and the emphasis in Papias makes it sound like it was the medium he was rejecting.
Yet he used that very medium. Do you accept the majority of what you read without skepticism?


OBP, you know as well as I do the problems with eye-witness testimony and oral tradition. They are not the "ultra-reliable standards" that some Christian apologists portray them as ... and errors take a considerably shorter time than "a generation" to settle in.
However, these were testimonies eagerly and attentively listened to by large numbers of people. Sure, there's room for error to creep in, but with a large number of independent listeners (and a critical interrogator) the errors will tend to get weeded out. Jesus did not do his deeds in the darkness, and the disciples did not hide their testimony. There was plenty of cross-checking going on.

[technomage]

Of course. If what he's saying is the same as what other people are saying, then there is less reason to examine the matter critically. If he's a lone voice or offers contradictory information, then there is cause to examine critically.

OK, so let me get this straight ... do you examine Papias critically?
1: He's a "lone voice"--no other surviving source states the authorship of Matthew. (As you know, Papias does not survive, but Irenaeus and Eusebius quote from him. If there were any other sources--as JP Holding posits, but has no proof for--we no not know them.)
2: He offers contradictory information on other assertions (the fate of Judas, for instance, and also some assertions on the afterlife that are well outside the pale of Christian doctrine.)
(See Fragments of Papias (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html).)

If you do view Papias critically, I would appreciate a definition of what you consider a "critical examination."


Yet he used that very medium. Do you accept the majority of what you read without skepticism?

OBP, I fail to see any connection whatsoever between my statement, and these two statements. Could you clarify, please?


However, these were testimonies eagerly and attentively listened to by large numbers of people. Sure, there's room for error to creep in, but with a large number of independent listeners (and a critical interrogator) the errors will tend to get weeded out.

HOW? How are the errors weeded out if--as you assert, and I agree--the majority of the listeners are illiterate, and cannot check the written notes or transcription? How can they be "cross-checked," when according to some of the estimates from JP Holding, literacy was less than 10%?

OBP, can you not see the massive construct of conjecture, illogic, and denial that has gone into the support of this "tradition?" Do you not see that the entire Christian church has listened to one man--one pious, well-intentioned, but fallable man--and has constructed the tradition of Matthian authorship, based solely on his testimony? Have you no cause to doubt that testimony--especially in light of his other highly dubious statements?

Or do you build your edifice of Matthian authorship on the "solid rock" of this man's testimony?

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

OK, so let me get this straight ... do you examine Papias critically?
1: He's a "lone voice"--no other surviving source states the authorship of Matthew. (As you know, Papias does not survive, but Irenaeus and Eusebius quote from him. If there were any other sources--as JP Holding posits, but has no proof for--we no not know them.)
2: He offers contradictory information on other assertions (the fate of Judas, for instance, and also some assertions on the afterlife that are well outside the pale of Christian doctrine.)
(See Fragments of Papias (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html).)

If you do view Papias critically, I would appreciate a definition of what you consider a "critical examination."
Papias wrote about many things, correct? Of the things he wrote, he got some things right, correct? Where he is in agreement with other writers, there is less occasion to find error. Where he is outside the pale, there is reason to reject his assertion. Where he is a lone voice, we don't know at first glance if he's right or wrong. However, we do know that other writers pointed out his errors. If he is wrong on this point, why wasn't it exposed? The idea that Matthew is the author of Matthew is so straightforward I'm not sure it needed to be explicitly stated; once such had been accepted (which seems to have happened pretty quickly and uniformly), why waste writing material defending a POV that no one disputes?


OBP, I fail to see any connection whatsoever between my statement, and these two statements. Could you clarify, please?
You castigated Papias for disdaining written material. If he himself wrote, he likely wasn't disdaining written material in toto, but hyperbolically pointing out that written material wasn't necessarily true just because it had been written down.


HOW? How are the errors weeded out if--as you assert, and I agree--the majority of the listeners are illiterate, and cannot check the written notes or transcription? How can they be "cross-checked," when according to some of the estimates from JP Holding, literacy was less than 10%?
Justin, just because people were illiterate doesn't mean they were stupid. If you cannot read, you must rely on your memory. People's stories were cross-checked with what other people remembered. We're talking multitudes of people who depended on their memory for survival, not a few people at a crime scene who can't remember what they had for breakfast this morning.


OBP, can you not see the massive construct of conjecture, illogic, and denial that has gone into the support of this "tradition?" Do you not see that the entire Christian church has listened to one man--one pious, well-intentioned, but fallable man--and has constructed the tradition of Matthian authorship, based solely on his testimony? Have you no cause to doubt that testimony--especially in light of his other highly dubious statements?

Or do you build your edifice of Matthian authorship on the "solid rock" of this man's testimony?

Justin
Why do you insist on disputing something that was not an issue for the first 1900 years or so of the church because someone who affirms it got some other things wrong? It's not as if apostolic authorship was required for a gospel to be accepted into the canon; only two of the four we have are attributed to apostles. The other two are attributed to a) one who deserted Paul and Barnabas on their mission trip and b) a non-Jew who never evidently even saw Jesus. Sorry, but I really see this issue as making mountains out of molehills. :shrug:

[technomage]

Papias wrote about many things, correct?

OBP, that's the point ... have you even looked at the "Fragments of Papias (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html)" page that I've posted the link to twice (now three times)? That is all of Papias' writings that survive ... ten sections, about enough to cover two type-written sheets.

OBP, let's make an experiment. Go through those pages, if you will: read them critically. See how many of the assertions you agree with--mark those sections with a highlighter. Then read it again, and see how many assertions you disagree with--mark those sections with a different colored highlighter. If you want to, go through the paper again and mark those sections with a third color. See where you end up.

As for the rest of your post ... I'm going to have to let it go for the moment. We've got some weather headed in, so my bones are giving me some grief ... and frankly, I hate to admit it but my patience is not what it should be.

Justin

[Ray Fletcher]

One Bad Pig - For Matthew writing the Gospel of Matthew, I once again bring this up: if Matthew was an eyewitness, why would his testimony be based largely off of Mark's, a non-disciple?





Not only did the author copy from other sources, but the scene where Jesus calls Matthew off his tax collecting job to follow Him was copied. It seems to me that if the disciple Matthew wrote his namesake gospel, then this scene would have been more personalized with his own unique perspective. But instead, he lackadaisically copies from Mark...verbatim!