Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
X
-
"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostAssuming Markan priority, Matthew replicates 90% of Mark's Greek, so scholars generally say that Matthew is literarily dependent on Mark.
Generally speaking, the dates of the gospels are as follows:
Mark: 63-75
Matthew: 75-85
Luke: 75-85 (there's been an increasing tendency to date it to the 90s or to the early second century recently)
John: 90-110
The dates of the synoptic Gospels are relatively arbitrary. There's not much preventing them from being as early as the 40s or as late as the late 80s/early 90s.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostEven granting this point for the sake of argument, though, Matthew would still have needed an expensive education in Greek grammar and writing, which-- again-- it is not likely he would have received in his youth, given the background described for him in the NT. Whether or not he utilized a Hellenistic rhetorical flair, he most certainly wrote in a quality of Greek which would not have been expected of a native Aramaic-speaking Galilean.
Catherine Hezser, Professor of Jewish Studies at London University, points out that a knowledge of Greek would have been paramount for those working with the imperial administration. She writes in Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, "It almost goes without saying that the Jews who collaborated with the Romans in the administrative realm had to be loyal supporters of the foreign government and knowledgeable of Greek, that is, they must have belonged to the most assimilated circles of the Jewish population."
And Bauckham points out in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostAssuming Markan priority, Matthew replicates 90% of Mark's Greek, so scholars generally say that Matthew is literarily dependent on Mark.
Generally speaking, the dates of the gospels are as follows:
Mark: 63-75
Matthew: 75-85
Luke: 75-85 (there's been an increasing tendency to date it to the 90s or to the early second century recently)
John: 90-110
The dates of the synoptic Gospels are relatively arbitrary. There's not much preventing them from being as early as the 40s or as late as the late 80s/early 90s.
Do you think 37818 is right on the 70 A.D.+ datings being based on the prophetic statements re the Temple's destruction?We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'- 2 Corinthians 5:20.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bisto View PostI see. Thanks for answering!
Do you think 37818 is right on the 70 A.D.+ datings being based on the prophetic statements re the Temple's destruction?
It would not surprise me if the gospels dated from the 50s or 60s, nor would it surprise me if Matthew were the first gospel written.
If the Synoptics are pre-70, then I think it would look something like this (on Markan priority):
Mark: 50-55
Matthew: 55-65
Luke: 65-75
John: 80-100
On the other hand, certain correspondences between Matthew and Paul may suggest that Paul was at least familiar with some of the Matthean material (or even the gospel itself, possibly).
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostI'm unsure. Prophecies about the destruction of the Temple weren't exactly rare (e.g. Josephus and Jesus ben Ananius). In addition, C.H. Dodd showed that Luke's account of Jerusalem's destruction is more indebted to the Septuagint than to the events of 70 AD. Against those considerations, there's an issue that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants may show knowledge that the Temple has been destroyed or that its destruction is imminent. Moreover, particular considerations in John suggest that the Jewish community and the early Christian community have split from one another.
It would not surprise me if the gospels dated from the 50s or 60s, nor would it surprise me if Matthew were the first gospel written.
If the Synoptics are pre-70, then I think it would look something like this (on Markan priority):
Mark: 50-55
Matthew: 55-65
Luke: 65-75
John: 80-100
On the other hand, certain correspondences between Matthew and Paul may suggest that Paul was at least familiar with some of the Matthean material (or even the gospel itself, possibly).. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostA late date for Luke is biased against the authenticity of some of the epistles of the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 5:18 citing Luke 10:7)."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostIf the historical Matthew is the one who wrote the text, then he must have had an expensive education in Greek rhetoric and grammar, and considering the background described for the man in the NT, it doesn't seem likely that he would have received such education in his youth.
As a Levite he has certainly had Hebrew literacy. As to Greek, it may have been optional, or he may have been of hellenised background. As to rhetoric, it is much the same for all languages. YOu learn Hebrew rhetoric, you then learn Greek grammar, hey presto, you have Greek rhetoric for free.
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostAs such, if Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, he would have needed to undergo an expensive and difficult education while he was an adult in order to do so.
If he was an Apostle, once Christians started involving non-Hebrew speakers on large scale, it became a priority for the Church to teach any Apostle Greek who did not already know Greek. So, even if he had not known Greek before becoming an Apostle (unlikely in one whom the Romans entrusted with tax collecting, perhaps), the Church would have paid for his studies.
Nor would they have been difficult.
Remember, he certainly knew some Greek, but even if not, the syntax is not of the most difficult ones (I think Lysias would have been ashamed to have written anything as simplistic as the syntax of St Matthew) and some coincidence of syntactic features can be counted on in a bilingual culture (i e, his native Aramaic would have involved more similarities to Greek syntax than Classical Hebrew would have done).
Plus we have no way to tell exactly how Greek and exactly how foreign St Matthew's text would have sounded to Greek ears of the time. We can just judge by grammatic correction, we can't trust our grasp on idiom totally. Over two millennia Greek ears have heard St Matthew from the pulpit, so asking a Greek would be the least instructive on this point.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostAgainst those considerations, there's an issue that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants may show knowledge that the Temple has been destroyed or that its destruction is imminent.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThe case for 1 Timothy being pseudepigraphal would be rather strong even without a late date for Luke. That's not bias. It's honest scholarship.
Originally posted by psstein View PostI see almost no evidence for the authenticity of any of the pastorals.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostFor the time being, let's accept the claims of attribution to the Gospels made by the early church.
This is also a good reason to accept traditional dates, meaning for Matthew year 37 or 40 for the Greek version and 34 for his own previous Hebrew one.
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostOnce we do that, we are reminded that Mark isn't just Mark writing without a source really. Mark is the testimony of Peter. (Interestingly, the church never called this the Gospel of Peter. They could have skipped the middleman, but they didn't. This was the work of Mark.) Why would this matter?
This version would obviously rule out Matthew borrowing anything at all from Mark, but explain similarities as Mark (taking down the reading of St Peter, misunderstanding it as St Peter dictating a Gospel) taking down what St Peter read quasi verbatim from St Matthew.
* read!
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostIt's because despite Matthew being an apostle, Matthew was not part of the inner circle. Many times in the Gospels, you'll find that Jesus takes with Him Peter, James, and John. These three then directly saw things that Matthew himself did not see. By going to Mark, Matthew could ascertain his information on these events that he did not see.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Matthew the disciple was a first hand witness of Jesus (Matthew 9) where as Mark was not ( Mark 2).. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
|
1 response
29 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-02-2024, 08:29 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
196 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM |
Comment