Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on September 03, 2024, 07:22:47 PM
-
The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.
I came across this comment somewhere:
Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?
-
The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.
I came across this comment somewhere:
Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?
We don't know.
-
We don't know.
I agree. And it is more complicated than the question implies as the text we now have available to us is undoubtedly the result of many authors.
While we tend to consider there to be a single author and a single point in time (usually about 80-90CE), this is simplistic. Firstly scholarly analysis suggests that there may be multiple sources for the gospels prior to their 'writing'. But as significant is the timeline from their original version (which we do not have) to the versions we do have, typically from hundreds of years after their claimed original date. These later version is what we know as the gospel and will have had many 'hands' involved - for example in accurate or inaccurate copying, and more active editing through the decades that may have resulted in chunks being changed, added or deleted.
So what we actually have - and what we would now consider to be orthodox gospel text - is in fact the product of writing, editing, curating etc etc by many people over hundreds of years. And importantly what was considered to be 'orthodox' or otherwise is effectively a political decision by the early church in about the 4thC.
-
The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.
I came across this comment somewhere:
Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?
The person who wrote the gospel of Matthew displays a lack of knowledge of the culture of 1st century Judea. He also talks about the disciple in the third person and his account does not read like an eye witness account. The disciple Matthew did not write the gospel. The chain of "reasoning" that led to the traditional attribution is flimsy at best.
-
We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
It's surprising that 'John' could reference himself in writing at all when described as 'an uneducated and common man' in Acts 4:13
-
It's surprising that 'John' could reference himself in writing at all when described as 'an uneducated and common man' in Acts 4:13
There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.
-
I agree. And it is more complicated than the question implies as the text we now have available to us is undoubtedly the result of many authors.
While we tend to consider there to be a single author and a single point in time (usually about 80-90CE), this is simplistic. Firstly scholarly analysis suggests that there may be multiple sources for the gospels prior to their 'writing'.
I agree. Harold Riley has found within the text of Canonical Matthew, what he calls 'proto Matthew', to which has been added other material, which he identifies by looking for signs of interruption in the narrative. For example, Matthew 9:27-34 has the healing of two blind men, and then a mute spirit is driven out from another man. Riley says that these two incidents are doublets of Matthew 20:29-34 and 12:22-24, the latter two being embedded in the original narrative.
So it looks like 9:27-34 is a later addition. (There is more evidence for this. The section in chapter 9 before the miracles involving blindness and demon possession, which is the raising of Jairus' daughter, makes a fitting climax for a larger section, 4:12-9:26, which expounds the author's quote from Isaiah 9 in Mt 4:14-16. The quote finishes with "on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned").
But as significant is the timeline from their original version (which we do not have) to the versions we do have, typically from hundreds of years after their claimed original date. These later version is what we know as the gospel and will have had many 'hands' involved - for example in accurate or inaccurate copying, and more active editing through the decades that may have resulted in chunks being changed, added or deleted.
In the context of the sections containing the call of Matthew and the list of the disciples, the three Synoptics are similar in format and wording, indicating a degree of copying between them. But as you say, alterations have been made by later copyists. For example, Matthew 9:13 has "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners". Textus Receptus and Byzantine have "but sinners, to repentance" which is in Luke's version but not Mark's. It looks as if "to repentance" has been added into Matthew by TR and Byz due to a recollection of Luke.
So what we actually have - and what we would now consider to be orthodox gospel text - is in fact the product of writing, editing, curating etc etc by many people over hundreds of years. And importantly what was considered to be 'orthodox' or otherwise is effectively a political decision by the early church in about the 4thC.
Equally the original texts can to a large extent, it seems, be deduced through analysis.
-
There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.
The author of John clearly states that the beloved disciple was the one who wrote everything down.
Mark's 'young man who fled' is an incidental detail, which is why it was suggested he was the source or author.
-
The author of John clearly states that the beloved disciple was the one who wrote everything down.
But it doesn't say he wrote the Gospel of John. In fact, he refers to the beloved disciple in the third person, so definitely not the author.
Mark's 'young man who fled' is an incidental detail, which is why it was suggested he was the source or author.
So every character who appears in an incidental detail is the author of the work. Can you support that assertion?
-
But it doesn't say he wrote the Gospel of John. In fact, he refers to the beloved disciple in the third person, so definitely not the author.
So every character who appears in an incidental detail is the author of the work. Can you support that assertion?
Sure, but whoever the final author is ('we'), says that the beloved disciple wrote it all down.
I can't think of any other incidental details in Mark in which a character appears, but will have a look.
-
There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.
I think the point was that for one particular character to flee naked is a very memorable detail, more so than something like 'they were fishermen'.
'Matthew the tax collector' is quite memorable, but my idea was that it is enhanced as a self identifier if Luke and Mark deliberately obscured Matthew's previous profession, in order to not interfere with his self-identification. Maybe Mt and Lk do not mention the young man who fled naked because they had no reason to, whereas Mark did.
-
Sure, but whoever the final author is ('we'), says that the beloved disciple wrote it all down.
I can't think of any other incidental details in Mark in which a character appears, but will have a look.
Yes but the point is that "we" is not the beloved disciple, if it was, they would say "I" and they wouldn't refer to the beloved disciple in the third person.
-
Yes but the point is that "we" is not the beloved disciple, if it was, they would say "I" and they wouldn't refer to the beloved disciple in the third person.
I'm not disagreeing with that, and it still means that the source was an eyewitness. But the beloved disciple could also behave been using the pronoun 'we' to refer to himself.
The person who wrote the gospel of Matthew displays a lack of knowledge of the culture of 1st century Judea.
Any examples of this?
He also talks about the disciple in the third person and his account does not read like an eye witness account.
This must be the most convincing argument that
The disciple Matthew did not write the gospel.
-
I'm not disagreeing with that, and it still means that the source was an eyewitness.
No it doesn't. It could just be that the author of John wanted to give his version of events some legitimacy.
But the beloved disciple could also behave been using the pronoun 'we' to refer to himself.
Read the text. It's clearly referring to the beloved disciple in the third person.
Any examples of this?
A particularly egregious one would be the account of the events following the arrest of Jesus. These all take place on the first day of Passover (according to Matthew). Clearly this writer has no real understanding of Passover because there is no way the priests and Sanhedrin would have bee prosecuting Jesus on a holiday which has the same restrictions as an ordinary sabbath.
-
No it doesn't. It could just be that the author of John wanted to give his version of events some legitimacy.
I doubt it. The narrative flows too smoothly for that. The final verse about writing all the other things Jesus did, is continuous with the idea in the verse before of writing them down. To you that may not seem difficult to make up but to me it looks genuine.
Read the text. It's clearly referring to the beloved disciple in the third person.
I think you are right but wouldn't rule out it's refering to himself.
A particularly egregious one would be the account of the events following the arrest of Jesus. These all take place on the first day of Passover (according to Matthew). Clearly this writer has no real understanding of Passover because there is no way the priests and Sanhedrin would have bee prosecuting Jesus on a holiday which has the same restrictions as an ordinary sabbath.
According to Matthew it was the first day of the unleavened when they ate the Passover. Luke interprets this as the day when the passover lamb was sacrificed; Mark copies this from Luke. However, the context of Matthew's version points to the last supper being on 13th Nisan.
In 26:2 Jesus says "the passover is two days away, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified".
If 'the passover' here means the day of the passover meal, then it means 14th Nisan. Jesus is saying he will die in two days time, at passover, which was on 14th. So he must have said this on 12th. If 27:1 marks the begining of 14th, then when 26:17 says "on the first of the unleavened" this is referring to the day in between when he said it's two days away, and the actual day. So according to Matthew the last supper was on 13th.
Luke and Mark misinterpret the phrasing in Matthew and as a result give the impression that Jesus died on the day after Passover.
-
I doubt it. The narrative flows too smoothly for that. The final verse about writing all the other things Jesus did, is continuous with the idea in the verse before of writing them down. To you that may not seem difficult to make up but to me it looks genuine.
The narrative in the Lord of the Rings flows smoothly. You can write fiction in a smooth style, you know.
I think you are right but wouldn't rule out it's refering to himself.According to Matthew it was the first day of the unleavened when they ate the Passover. Luke interprets this as the day when the passover lamb was sacrificed; Mark copies this from Luke. However, the context of Matthew's version points to the last supper being on 13th Nisan.
In 26:2 Jesus says "the passover is two days away, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified".
If 'the passover' here means the day of the passover meal, then it means 14th Nisan. Jesus is saying he will die in two days time, at passover, which was on 14th. So he must have said this on 12th. If 27:1 marks the begining of 14th, then when 26:17 says "on the first of the unleavened" this is referring to the day in between when he said it's two days away, and the actual day. So according to Matthew the last supper was on 13th.
Luke and Mark misinterpret the phrasing in Matthew and as a result give the impression that Jesus died on the day after Passover.
Are you serious? Matthew explicitly states that the Last Supper is the Passover meal. The Passover meal always happens in the evening of the first day of Passover which is 15 Nisan (the day starts in the evening). From the Passover meal for the whole of 15 Nisan, the same restrictions apply as on a normal Sabbath. There is absolutely no way the members of the Sanhedrin would congregate at the high priest’s house for a trial on that day.
-
There is absolutely no way the members of the Sanhedrin would congregate at the high priest’s house for a trial on that day.
So for 26:17 to refer to Nisan 13 is consistent with verse 5 where the Jewish leaders resolve not to kill him during the feast.
-
So for 26:17 to refer to Nisan 13 is consistent with verse 5 where the Jewish leaders resolve not to kill him during the feast.
No!
This is what it says:
On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”’
See. It explicitly talks about the Passover meal. This is the meal that unambiguously happens at the beginning of 15th Nisan. According to Matthew Jesus ate the meal, went out to Gethsemene, got betrayed and then was put on trial and executed all on the 15th Nisan. This is simply not how it would have been done which means that writer of Matthew cannot have been a disciple of Jesus because he obviously wasn't there and displays a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs.
-
Is it possible to know?
Does it matter?
"Il n'y a pas de hors-texte."
-
No!
This is what it says:
See. It explicitly talks about the Passover meal. This is the meal that unambiguously happens at the beginning of 15th Nisan. According to Matthew Jesus ate the meal, went out to Gethsemene, got betrayed and then was put on trial and executed all on the 15th Nisan. This is simply not how it would have been done which means that writer of Matthew cannot have been a disciple of Jesus because he obviously wasn't there and displays a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs.
Do you think the writer of Matthew could record this, “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” and not be aware that what he recorded them as saying was the reality?
Can we not infer that Jesus himself also knew that they wouldn't try him and have him killed during the festival, and therefore that when he said “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” he actually meant that he would be killed on the day of passover, the 14th.
Bear in mind also that the actual first day of unleavened bread was the 15th. So Matthew was not using the phrase "the first of the unleavened" in its literal sense. He could have chosen it to describe the day in between his prediction of his death and his actual death on the 14th. If so, he then has a series of five consecutive days, begining in 26:2 and ending with the day of his resurrection.
-
Do you think the writer of Matthew could record this, “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” and not be aware that what he recorded them as saying was the reality?
That was clearly made up. There's no way that anybody not in the Sanhedrin had access to the private meetings of the Sanhedrin.
Can we not infer that Jesus himself also knew that they wouldn't try him and have him killed during the festival, and therefore that when he said “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” he actually meant that he would be killed on the day of passover, the 14th.
That is plausible. You are suggesting that John got the date right and all of the synoptics got it wrong.
Bear in mind also that the actual first day of unleavened bread was the 15th. So Matthew was not using the phrase "the first of the unleavened" in its literal sense. He could have chosen it to describe the day in between his prediction of his death and his actual death on the 14th. If so, he then has a series of five consecutive days, begining in 26:2 and ending with the day of his resurrection.
What you are saying is that the writer of Matthew had no clue how Passover works. It is more plausible that the events of Jesus' arrest and trial happened before the Passover meal but that is not what Matthew says. Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.
Other things you should know about trials before the Sanhedrin: they never held the trial and had the sentencing on the same day according to the Talmud and Josephus and neither could be on a Sabbath.
-
That is plausible. You are suggesting that John got the date right and all of the synoptics got it wrong.
I think that this is one of the very few occasions when John's gospel is more likely to be historically accurate. Not that there is much verifiable historical truth in any gospel, and practically none in John, but in this instance the details stack up. The dates also (conveniently) support John's idea of presenting Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb. Of course, in this gospel, the Last Supper is not a passover meal.
What you are saying is that the writer of Matthew had no clue how Passover works. It is more plausible that the events of Jesus' arrest and trial happened before the Passover meal but that is not what Matthew says. Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.
There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.
-
There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.
Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.
Matthew saying it was the passover meal doesn't prove that he thought of it as being eaten at the official time.
Imagine you were working on Christmas day: would you have Christmas dinner the day before or the day after?
-
I think that this is one of the very few occasions when John's gospel is more likely to be historically accurate. Not that there is much verifiable historical truth in any gospel, and practically none in John, but in this instance the details stack up. The dates also (conveniently) support John's idea of presenting Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb. Of course, in this gospel, the Last Supper is not a passover meal.
There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.
There are other examples where John is the accurate version. For example, in Matthew, the cleansing of the temple and the annointing at Bethany both interrupt the flow of the narrative, suggesting that they are insertions at convenient points in the narrative. According to John, the annointing at Bethany was six days before the passover. This means that Matthew's account moves from 2 days before passover, straight to the day of the last supper, and then to the day of passover when Jesus dies.
The statement of the Jewish leaders about not arresting Jesus during the feast controls the subsequent actions of the people in the narrative. Judas would not have led them to Gethsemane during the official Passover night after what they are quoted as having said.
-
Matthew saying it was the passover meal doesn't prove that he thought of it as being eaten at the official time.
If he didn't think of it being at the official time, he could not have been a first century Jew and could not have been the eponymous disciple of Jesus.
Imagine you were working on Christmas day: would you have Christmas dinner the day before or the day after?
Christmas dinner is not the Passover Seder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder). The latter is an integral part of the Jewish holiday of Passover and is a religious ritual.
-
If he didn't think of it being at the official time, he could not have been a first century Jew and could not have been the eponymous disciple of Jesus.
Christmas dinner is not the Passover Seder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder). The latter is an integral part of the Jewish holiday of Passover and is a religious ritual.
Unless he was there when it happened, and was writing down what he remembered?
True, passover is a more rigidly kept festival.
-
Unless he was there when it happened, and was writing down what he remembered?
True, passover is a more rigidly kept festival.
If it was some meal other than the Passover Seder, a practising first century Jew would not have described it as such. The author of Matthew is not a practising first century Jew.
-
If it was some meal other than the Passover Seder, a practising first century Jew would not have described it as such. The author of Matthew is not a practising first century Jew.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
Whereas the disciple called Matthew clearly was a first century Jew. Hence the author of the gospel is not the disciple.
-
Whereas the disciple called Matthew clearly was a first century Jew. Hence the author of the gospel is not the disciple.
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
-
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
So he forgot about Jewish traditions?
-
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
Yet this same Matthew felt it important to record Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".
You presumably think that this same Matthew (the one you think is the disciple) was around to attend the great Jerusalem debate, centred on whether to retain certain Jewish traditions in the emerging Christian church. That debate did not take place, so it has been argued, till ten years after the events you're discussing here, so early Christian practices were by no means clearly distinguished from Jewish ones, apart from belief in the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. I believe that applies to dietary practices too. "Peter's Dream" had not yet occurred, and the glib insertion of "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7: 18-20 is surely a gloss added as an afterthought.
-
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
So you are saying he forgot the traditions he grew up with and that he practised whilst he was following Jesus. If he can forget things like that, why would you describe his account of the ministry of Jesus as reliable?
-
Yet this same Matthew felt it important to record Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".
But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.
You presumably think that this same Matthew (the one you think is the disciple) was around to attend the great Jerusalem debate, centred on whether to retain certain Jewish traditions in the emerging Christian church. That debate did not take place, so it has been argued, till ten years after the events you're discussing here, so early Christian practices were by no means clearly distinguished from Jewish ones, apart from belief in the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. I believe that applies to dietary practices too. "Peter's Dream" had not yet occurred, and the glib insertion of "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7: 18-20 is surely a gloss added as an afterthought.
A look at the sermon on the mount or Matthew 15 shows that at the time of writing, the author of Matthew understood that the rituals and observances had been superseded.
-
But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.
That's exactly what he is saying.
A look at the sermon on the mount or Matthew 15 shows that at the time of writing, the author of Matthew understood that the rituals and observances had been superseded.
Quotes please.
-
But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.
I don't think he could have made it clearer, since the text says "till heaven and earth pass away.... and all things are fulfilled".
As far as I'm aware, the earth at least has not passed away, and the Last Judgment has not occurred.
-
That's exactly what he is saying.
Interesting, I had never looked at it that way. While he is illustrating how he has come to fulfill the law he does mention making an offering at the temple (Mt 5:18). This suggests that at the time of writing, the temple was still in use and that practicing the rituals associated with it was considered acceptable among Christians.
Quotes please.
Not sure why I mentioned the sermon on the mount. But in Mt 15 I was thinking of the section where he is accused of not obeying the traditions of the elders, such as hand washing before eating. But of course this was a ritual that was taught by the elders and wasn't, as far as I know, commanded by Moses.
So I retract my comment about the writer of Matthew understanding that observance of Passover, in the way that the Mosaic law instructed, had been superseded. As Dicky said, this seems to have taken years (and would also point to a very early date for the writing of this part of Matthew). I would point out though that Jesus' criticism of the Jewish leaders in Mt 15:3-9, how they set aside the commands of God in order to follow their own teachings, shows that 'Matthew' had a good understanding of the culture of first century Judea.
Regarding the last supper, I had a thought. When Matthew says "On the first day of Unleavened Bread" did he mean 14th of Nisan or what? If he was talking about the 14th, wouldn't he have called it the day of Passover? Apparently there is a tradition that on the evening of the 13th, they hunt for leaven in the house. So perhaps this is what 'Matthew' means by the first day of unleavened bread?
-
Regarding the last supper, I had a thought. When Matthew says "On the first day of Unleavened Bread" did he mean 14th of Nisan or what? If he was talking about the 14th, wouldn't he have called it the day of Passover? Apparently there is a tradition that on the evening of the 13th, they have a tradition where they hunt for leaven in the house. So perhaps this is what 'Matthew' means by the first day of unleavened bread?
The author of Matthew is clearly confused about how Passover works. The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. This is the day of the Passover meal (remember, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins in the evening, not at midnight). Matthew also explicitly claims they were organising the Passover meal on "the first day of unleavened bread". This is utter nonsense. The author didn't know how Passover works. Hence he not the disciple Matthew.
-
The author of Matthew is clearly confused about how Passover works. The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. This is the day of the Passover meal (remember, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins in the evening, not at midnight). Matthew also explicitly claims they were organising the Passover meal on "the first day of unleavened bread". This is utter nonsense. The author didn't know how Passover works. Hence he not the disciple Matthew.
Apparently it's said in the Mishna that in Galilee people would not work on 14th Nisan. This is all I can find in terms of actual evidence, but some articles about the last supper say that they would prepare for passover on the 13th. This was apparently to do with a fast which was held by firstborn males during the day of 14th. They would have a meal, the evening before, similar to the night before the Day of Atonement which was a fast day.
This could explain why Matthew, who was from Galilee, described the events the way he did.
-
Another piece of evidence is that Matthew, Mark and Luke all use the word artom for bread in their accounts of the last supper. This word always refers to leavened bread. If it had been the official passover meal they would have been eating unleavened bread.
-
Apparently it's said in the Mishna that in Galilee people would not work on 14th Nisan. This is all I can find in terms of actual evidence, but some articles about the last supper say that they would prepare for passover on the 13th. This was apparently to do with a fast which was held by firstborn males during the day of 14th. They would have a meal, the evening before, similar to the night before the Day of Atonement which was a fast day.
This could explain why Matthew, who was from Galilee, described the events the way he did.
You cannot get around the fact that Matthew had Jesus' disciples organising the Passover meal on the first day of unleavened bread which is after the date it should have happened.
There is no evidence that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel and there's plenty of evidence that he did not.
-
You cannot get around the fact that Matthew had Jesus' disciples organising the Passover meal on the first day of unleavened bread which is after the date it should have happened.
There is no evidence that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel and there's plenty of evidence that he did not.
Riley's theory in The Making of Mark is that Matthew seems to be dividing his narrative into consecutive days, starting two days before the Passover. He needs to call day 2, the day in between, something, so he calls it "the first day of unleavened bread". Day 3 ("when morning came" - 27:1) he has already named the Passover. Day 4 he calls "the next day, the one after Preparation Day". Day 5 he calls "in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (kjv).
He doesn't say "the first day of the festival of unleavened bread", as Luke does, which would have been even less accurate, as that is what Exodus 12 refers to. The phrase "first day of unleavened bread" isn't found elsewhere, so Matthew may have used it loosely for convenience.
-
starting two days before the Passover.
The author explicitly calls that the "first day of unleavened bread". That is factually incorrect. Game over.
-
The author explicitly calls that the "first day of unleavened bread". That is factually incorrect. Game over.
Not sure you got my meaning. The sequence is:
Day 1: Two days before Passover and death of Jesus (12 Nisan)
Day 2: First day of unleavened bread (Preparation for Passover, 13 Nisan)
Day 3: The Passover and death of Jesus (14 Nisan)
Day 4: Day after the Preparation, that is, the Sabbath (guards posted, 15 Nisan)
Day 5: First day of the week (16 Nisan)
Still factually incorrect, but explains the chronological discrepancy with John, and doesn't mean the author wasn't Matthew the disciple.
-
Not sure you got my meaning. The sequence is:
Day 1: Two days before Passover and death of Jesus (12 Nisan)
Day 2: First day of unleavened bread (Preparation for Passover, 13 Nisan)
The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. Game over.
Day 3: The Passover and death of Jesus (14 Nisan)
The Passover meal always happens in the evening when 14th Nisan changes to 15th Nisan. This fixes the Last Supper (according to Matthew) and the subsequent trial and execution as all being on the 15th (remember the date changes at sunset, not at midnight).
Day 4: Day after the Preparation, that is, the Sabbath (guards posted, 15 Nisan)
Day 5: First day of the week (16 Nisan)
Still factually incorrect, but explains the chronological discrepancy with John, and doesn't mean the author wasn't Matthew the disciple.
Matthew gets in a terrible mess about Passover. Would a Jew from the 1st century do this? No.
There are other reasons to refute the traditional authorship. The first is that Matthew clearly uses Mark as his source and repeats many of tMark's errors.
Against that, the reasoning behind the traditional attribution is extremely weak.
-
The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. Game over.
I haven't quite finished. The following is with the help of The Making of Mark:
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, agreed. Matthew isn't referring to that. How do we work out what he was referring to? First, he doesn't use the word Feast. Second, we look at the context. Jesus has said that "the Passover" is coming after two days, which read naturally means the day after tomorrow, in the evening. Then Matthew describes a day on which preparation was made for the Passover. If he meant the day on which they sacrificed the Passover lamb, as Mark states, we might expect Matthew to have called it, as he did to start with, "the Passover". But he does not; so it is possible that he meant the day before that, the 13th. This day was not part of the feast, but as the day when leaven was removed from the house, it wouldn't be unnatural to describe it as the first day of unleavened bread.
A further consideration is that in 26:1-5 Jesus is explaining what will happen in two days' time, and at the same time the chief priests and elders are conspiring to do this, saying "but not during the feast".
On the morning following the last supper, the chief priests and elders conspire to put Jesus to death, and Jesus is delivered up to be crucified. The description of this day contains content and wording first used in 26:1-5. We can assume therefore that this is still "not during the feast", that the Passover was on the evening of that day.
The Passover meal always happens in the evening when 14th Nisan changes to 15th Nisan. This fixes the Last Supper (according to Matthew) and the subsequent trial and execution as all being on the 15th (remember the date changes at sunset, not at midnight).
Matthew gets in a terrible mess about Passover. Would a Jew from the 1st century do this? No.
There are other reasons to refute the traditional authorship. The first is that Matthew clearly uses Mark as his source and repeats many of tMark's errors.
Against that, the reasoning behind the traditional attribution is extremely weak.
Once we get out of the mindset that Matthew was using Mark, it is possible to see his chronology agreeing with John's.
There are two incidental details that suggest a recollection by an eyewitness source: Go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says, "My time is near. I will keep the Passover with My disciples at your house."
-
I haven't quite finished. The following is with the help of The Making of Mark:
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, agreed. Matthew isn't referring to that. How do we work out what he was referring to? First, he doesn't use the word Feast. Second, we look at the context. Jesus has said that "the Passover" is coming after two days
He says that at the beginning of Chapter 26. Between then and the preparation stuff, there are several events. When we get to the preparation stuff it is introduced thus:
17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ 18 He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”’ 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.
20 When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;[c] 21 and while they were eating...
This passage naturally introduces a new day ("on the first day of...)), which Matthew calls "the first day of Unleavened Bread". He gets this wrong, because that would be 15th Nisan and he is now talking about preparations for the Passover meal. Verse 20 onwards are clearly describing events that Matthew thinks occur during the Passover meal.
Incidentally, all that stuff about preparations? The 14th is called the "Day of Preparation".
Once we get out of the mindset that Matthew was using Mark
Why would we when he did use Mark
it is possible to see his chronology agreeing with John's.
No because, in John, Jesus was already dead when it was time to eat the Passover Meal. In Matthew he was very much alive.
There are two incidental details that suggest a recollection by an eyewitness source: Go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says, "My time is near. I will keep the Passover with My disciples at your house."
Why do you think those suggest a recollection of an eye witness source?
-
He says that at the beginning of Chapter 26. Between then and the preparation stuff, there are several events.
John tells us that the anointing at Bethany happened six days before the Passover. The plot to kill Jesus had been underway since the raising of Lazarus (John 11:45-57). So over those two days all that happens is Judas agrees to betray Jesus, which Luke confirms. Matthew has pictured the conspiracy of the Jewish leaders as occurring at the same time. The anointing at Bethany, in Matthew, is an insertion.
When we get to the preparation stuff it is introduced thus:
This passage naturally introduces a new day ("on the first day of...)), which Matthew calls "the first day of Unleavened Bread". He gets this wrong, because that would be 15th Nisan and he is now talking about preparations for the Passover meal. Verse 20 onwards are clearly describing events that Matthew thinks occur during the Passover meal.
I agree, but this doesn't prove that Matthew thought of the last supper as taking place on the official date of Passover. That Matthew time stamps each day suggests that he is thinking of five consecutive days.
Incidentally, all that stuff about preparations? The 14th is called the "Day of Preparation".
We don't know that. The word Paraskeue was definitely used for Friday. Mark explains this. Would the disciples have left the Passover preparations until the 14th, especially if they were required to prepare for the Sabbath as well?
Why would we when he did use Mark
I've explained why I would. From my perspective, Luke and Mark have incorrectly interpreted Matthew's version to mean they ate the Passover on the 14th, and so they define the first day of unleavened bread more specifically, for their readers, as the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed.
No because, in John, Jesus was already dead when it was time to eat the Passover Meal. In Matthew he was very much alive.
Why do you think those suggest a recollection of an eye witness source?
Riley thinks that the phrase, "My time is at hand" would not carry any meaning for the householder, if it was said on the 14th. But it does if it was said on the 13th, as Jesus would be implying that he cannot wait until the official time because he knows he is about to be betrayed. "A certain man" implies that the man was not to be identified in order to keep the location secret.
-
That was clearly made up. There's no way that anybody not in the Sanhedrin had access to the private meetings of the Sanhedrin.
According to Luke, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Council, and had not consented to Jesus' conviction.
-
Sorry to come back to the issue of the relationship between the Synoptics again, but it does affect whether Matthew's source was an eyewitness of Jesus or someone from a later generation.
One particular evidence sometimes cited for Mark's dependence on Matthew and Luke is his use of dualisms: in particular, sentences or phrases in which Matthew has one half and Luke has the other half. A well known example is Mark 1:32, "And evening having come, when the sun had set" (cf Mt 8:16, "And evening having come"; Lk 4:40, "Now when the sun was setting"). If Luke and Matthew were copying from Mark, it would be less likely that on many occasions one of them copied one half while the other of them copied the other half of Mark's sentence than that Mark was conflating the phrases he found in Matthew and Luke.
While reading The Making of Mark I've come across many examples like these, and in Mark 14 we have a few:
Mk 14:1, "Now it would be the Passover and unleavened bread after two days"
Mt 26:1, "You know that after two days the Passover takes place"
Lk 22:1, "Now the feast of unleavened bread, called Passover, was drawing near".
Mk 14:1, "and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how, by stealth..."
Lk 22:2, "and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how..."
Mt 26:4, "...by stealth...
Mk 14:12, "And on the first day of unleavened, when they were to sacrifice the passover lamb"
Mt 26:17, "Now on the first of the unleavened"
Lk 22:7, "Then came the day of the unleavened, on which it was necessary for the passover lamb to be sacrificed"
This happens throughout Mark's gospel, so frequently that it points strongly to Mark conflating Matthew and Luke.
Matthew, then, was the first to write about the Last Supper. And John gives us the correct chronology with regard to its date.
Whether or not Matthew meant that the last supper happened on the evening of the official Passover, his account is the earliest.
-
John tells us that the anointing at Bethany happened six days before the Passover. The plot to kill Jesus had been underway since the raising of Lazarus (John 11:45-57). So over those two days all that happens is Judas agrees to betray Jesus, which Luke confirms. Matthew has pictured the conspiracy of the Jewish leaders as occurring at the same time. The anointing at Bethany, in Matthew, is an insertion.
I agree, but this doesn't prove that Matthew thought of the last supper as taking place on the official date of Passover. That Matthew time stamps each day suggests that he is thinking of five consecutive days.
We don't know that. The word Paraskeue was definitely used for Friday. Mark explains this. Would the disciples have left the Passover preparations until the 14th, especially if they were required to prepare for the Sabbath as well?
I've explained why I would. From my perspective, Luke and Mark have incorrectly interpreted Matthew's version to mean they ate the Passover on the 14th, and so they define the first day of unleavened bread more specifically, for their readers, as the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed.
Riley thinks that the phrase, "My time is at hand" would not carry any meaning for the householder, if it was said on the 14th. But it does if it was said on the 13th, as Jesus would be implying that he cannot wait until the official time because he knows he is about to be betrayed. "A certain man" implies that the man was not to be identified in order to keep the location secret.
Just accept that the author of Matthew referred to the Last Supper as The Passover Meal. Either he was wrong about that or he was wrong about the subsequent events. Either way, He is not a first century Jew who knew Jesus.
Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?
-
Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?
The tradition of the early church, and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark or any other known source. If Luke and Mark both used Matthew, and other editors added material to it, they considered it a reliable account.
-
The tradition of the early church, and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark or any other known source. If Luke and Mark both used Matthew, and other editors added material to it, they considered it a reliable account.
The names were assigned in the second century, so nearly 100 years without names being attached. Doesn't sound like great supporting evidence to me. Do you think they would really know for certain who wrote them 100 years later? Do you think they might have had other reasons for assigning names of people close to Jesus and his time frame such as to strengthen the claims made in those gospels?
-
The names were assigned in the second century, so nearly 100 years without names being attached. Doesn't sound like great supporting evidence to me. Do you think they would really know for certain who wrote them 100 years later? Do you think they might have had other reasons for assigning names of people close to Jesus and his time frame such as to strengthen the claims made in those gospels?
The names are found in writings from the second century, yes, but that doesn't mean they were not attached before that.
-
The tradition of the early church,
Would you like to expand on what that tradition is and how it came about? "Because people in the second century thought so" is not a compelling argument.
and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark
You are still in fantasy land. It's almost certain that Matthew relied on Mark, rather than the other way around.
-
The names are found in writings from the second century, yes, but that doesn't mean they were not attached before that.
There is no evidence that they were and there is some evidence they weren't, Justin Martyr for example seems very familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke but never refers to them by those names.
-
Would you like to expand on what that tradition is and how it came about? "Because people in the second century thought so" is not a compelling argument.
You are still in fantasy land. It's almost certain that Matthew relied on Mark, rather than the other way around.
There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.
-
There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.
No, there isn't
-
There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.
Evidence please.
-
Evidence please.
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
-
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.
-
If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.
As a chain of custody, it isn't even close. It's a chain of assertedy
-
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
No they don't.
I've read stuff from cold case Christianity before and am not convinced. Lots of assertions in there but no actual evidence, which is what I asked for.
-
I have this image of a small group of anoraks, and no doubt Spud is among them, who think that 'who wrote what' in unprovenanced anecdotes from antiquity has relevance currently - it doesn't.
-
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
I'm afraid that article is complete drivel. J Warner Wallace seems totally clueless which means I worry about the criminal cases he was involved in.
For a start, he doesn't know what an eye witness account is. John's gospel does not read like eye witness testimony (not that we are talking about John's gospel in this thread). I would be interested to have a separate thread where we take this article apart though.
-
I'm afraid that article is complete drivel. J Warner Wallace seems totally clueless which means I worry about the criminal cases he was involved in.
For a start, he doesn't know what an eye witness account is. John's gospel does not read like eye witness testimony (not that we are talking about John's gospel in this thread). I would be interested to have a separate thread where we take this article apart though.
Not its first appearance on the board
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg636401#msg636401
-
Not its first appearance on the board
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg636401#msg636401
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
-
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The website is almost funny in its lack of understanding about what it's claiming.
-
If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.
I had a read of one of the article's links: The Circumstantial Case For John’s Authorship (https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-circumstantial-case-for-johns-authorship/). He sets out the reasoning of Max Andrews on who wrote John.
It starts with 1:14 "we have seen his glory", then 2:11 "[by turning water into wine] he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". So the "we" is his disciples: as the reference to 'his glory' shows.
He then continues to identify John as the probable author by a process of elimination of the other disciples, using references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.
-
I had a read of one of the article's links: The Circumstantial Case For John’s Authorship (https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-circumstantial-case-for-johns-authorship/). He sets out the reasoning of Max Andrews on who wrote John.
It starts with 1:14 "we have seen his glory", then 2:11 "[by turning water into wine] he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". So the "we" is his disciples: as the reference to 'his glory' shows.
No.
It talks about the disciples in the third person. Clearly "we" are not the disciples.
He then continues to identify John as the probable author by a process of elimination of the other disciples, using references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.
Since we know it wasn't a disciple that wrote John, this step is erroneous.
-
No.
It talks about the disciples in the third person. Clearly "we" are not the disciples.
Since we know it wasn't a disciple that wrote John, this step is erroneous.
"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.
-
"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.
Where does it say that?
-
Where does it say that?
John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV
-
John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV
Thanks.
-
"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
Christians. You keep banging on about it all the time.
The first line of the Battle Hymn of the Republic "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". Do you think Julia Ward Howe was one of the disciples?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
Yes he does and that is perfectly natural, given that he is not the disciple whom Jesus loved.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.
Nonsense.
-
John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV
Disciples referred to in the third person again. Not the author.
-
Christians. You keep banging on about it all the time.
The first line of the Battle Hymn of the Republic "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". Do you think Julia Ward Howe was one of the disciples?
Meyer says,
It [his glory] presented itself to the recognition of believers as a reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it[98] (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognised by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1 John 1:1; comp. chap. John 2:11)
Which seems to be saying that beholding his glory is the result of the Word becoming flesh, and being seen by them. You're probably right that the 'we' is not just the disciples; it is the community of believers who saw Jesus in the flesh.
This implies the writer was an eyewitness, as per the first point in the list. Note that Meyer says "comp. Chap. John 2:11"
-
Disciples referred to in the third person again. Not the author.
That doesn't preclude the author being one of the disciples.
-
Meyer says, Which seems to be saying that beholding his glory is the result of the Word becoming flesh, and being seen by them. You're probably right that the 'we' is not just the disciples; it is the community of believers who saw Jesus in the flesh.
This implies the writer was an eyewitness, as per the first point in the list. Note that Meyer says "comp. Chap. John 2:11"
No it doesn’t imply the writer is an eye witness nor does it imply the “we” is the group who saw Jesus before he died. Furthermore, there’s still the problem that the key people, if John is the author, are described in the third person.
-
No it doesn’t imply the writer is an eye witness nor does it imply the “we” is the group who saw Jesus before he died.
In the context of the incarnation (1:14) and of people believing in Jesus because of his miraculous signs (2:23), which revealed his glory (2:11, 11:40), which is the glory of God (11:40), yes it does imply that the writer is an eyewitness and the we is him and the others who saw Jesus in the flesh.
Furthermore, there’s still the problem that the key people, if John is the author, are described in the third person.
Why is it a problem?
-
In the context of the incarnation (1:14) and of people believing in Jesus because of his miraculous signs (2:23), which revealed his glory (2:11, 11:40), which is the glory of God (11:40), yes it does imply that the writer is an eyewitness and the we is him and the others who saw Jesus in the flesh.Why is it a problem?
You are cherry picking verses. You jump from 1:14 to 2:23 to 2:11 to 11:40 whilst ignoring all the context.
There is nowhere where the author is implied as an eye witness to the life and death of Jesus. Furthermore, the people who are said in the gospel to be eye witnesses are referred to in the third person.
-
You are cherry picking verses. You jump from 1:14 to 2:23 to 2:11 to 11:40 whilst ignoring all the context.
I'm not cherry picking. The whole book is about how Jesus revealed his glory through miraculous signs (as well as his 'grace and truth'). Those particular verses are consistent with that.
The statement, "we beheld his glory" follows the statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, to paraphrase Don Carson, "we" can only refer to people who physically saw Jesus.
There is nowhere where the author is implied as an eye witness to the life and death of Jesus. Furthermore, the people who are said in the gospel to be eye witnesses are referred to in the third person.
Isn't "we" inclusive of the first person?
-
I'm not cherry picking. The whole book is about how Jesus revealed his glory through miraculous signs (as well as his 'grace and truth'). Those particular verses are consistent with that.
You picked out three verses in isolation and put them together with no thought about the context in which they appear and whether they should go together.
The statement, "we beheld his glory" follows the statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, to paraphrase Don Carson, "we" can only refer to people who physically saw Jesus.
Isn't "we" inclusive of the first person?
But as we have discussed, "we beheld his glory" does not mean "we" literally saw him while he was alive. And you still haven't addressed the fact that the disciples are always discussed in the third person.
-
But as we have discussed, "we beheld his glory" does not mean "we" literally saw him while he was alive.
Yes it does. It's linked with the statement that God became man and lived among us, so it can't be interpreted otherwise.
Regarding the other verses, they define what it means to behold his glory, and nothing about their contexts disproves that, as far as I can tell.
-
Yes it does. It's linked with the statement that God became man and lived among us, so it can't be interpreted otherwise.
Regarding the other verses, they define what it means to behold his glory, and nothing about their contexts disproves that, as far as I can tell.
Nonsense. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the disciples are referred to in the third person.
-
Nonsense. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the disciples are referred to in the third person.
I'll quote Don Carson word for word on John 1:14,
"In the context of incarnation, the we who saw the Word's glory must refer to the Evangelist and other Christians who actually saw Jesus in the days of his earthly life". (D. Carson, The Gospel according to John, p 128). Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. That is the natural way to understand it.
Are you saying, why would the author refer to himself and other eyewitnesses as 'we' in one place, but then use the third person, "his disciples", instead of 'we', in another (eg 2:11)? If so, then interpreting 'his disciples' as indicating that he isn't one of the Twelve or the 'we' of 1:14, would thus lead you to interpret 'beholding his glory' in 1:14 in the sense of contemplating his glory instead of seeing it physically.
One reason why I would disagree with you is that John's gospel was written before the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Interpretation of John 1:14 is not dependent on that hymn, but should be based on the immediate context, as Carson indicates.
If the author meant that he witnessed Jesus physically, would it really be unnatural for him to refer to the disciples in the third person, or could there be another reason? Especially if 2:11 is set the day after the calling of Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathaniel. At that point he has only mentioned those disciples, so it is appropriate to use the third person.
I think it is Meyer who says that the 'us' and 'we' in 1:14 refers to "all who did receive him, who believed in his name" in verse 12. I don't think the author would have used both 'us' and 'we' if he wasn't in that category.
-
I'll quote Don Carson word for word on John 1:14,
Who is he?
"In the context of incarnation, the we who saw the Word's glory must refer to the Evangelist and other Christians who actually saw Jesus in the days of his earthly life".
Nonsense. What's his evidence.
Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. That is the natural way to understand it.
No it isn't. Especially if John is a very late first century / early second century document as most scholars believe. Christians today still claim to have witnessed Christ's glory.
Are you saying, why would the author refer to himself and other eyewitnesses as 'we' in one place, but then use the third person, "his disciples", instead of 'we', in another (eg 2:11)?
No. I'm saying that the author always refers to the disciples and other people around Jesus when he alive in the third person. He clearly wasn't one of them.
Interpretation of John 1:14 is not dependent on that hymn
You want to have your cake and eat it.
Sorry but the evidence against the disciple John or any other eye witness writing the gospel is pretty strong.
-
Christians today still claim to have witnessed Christ's glory.
This argument is unnecessary. The 'we' in the verse is talking about the 'us' among whom Jesus lived. They beheld his glory as a result of him living among them, not as a result of hearing about him from others.
That the disciples are in the third person doesn't rule out that the author was one of them. The author(s) said "we know that his testimony is true" which points to them having having been eyewitnesses themselves.
What do you think of the statement in 19:35, "35The one who saw it has testified to this, and his testimony is true. He knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe." which reads as if it was the author speaking?
-
This argument is unnecessary. The 'we' in the verse is talking about the 'us' among whom Jesus lived.
But there is no evidence. Your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
-
But there is no evidence. Your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
As I understand it, you are saying there is no evidence that the author is included in the 'we' of John 1:14. But when we see a statement with 'we' in it, it's natural to assume the 'we' includes the person speaking, unless there is reason to think otherwise. So really, you need to show your evidence that 'we' doesn't include the author. A hymn about the second coming doesn't influence how we interpret a statement about Jesus' first coming.
-
As I understand it, you are saying there is no evidence that the author is included in the 'we' of John 1:14.
No. I'm saying that the "we" in John 1:14 is the body of Christianity as a whole and there is no expectation that any or all of them actually saw Jesus alive. By the time that the gospel was written, it is entirely possible that all of Jesus' companions were dead.
-
No. I'm saying that the "we" in John 1:14 is the body of Christianity as a whole and there is no expectation that any or all of them actually saw Jesus alive. By the time that the gospel was written, it is entirely possible that all of Jesus' companions were dead.
I agree with you that it means believers, on the basis of its reference back to John 1:12-13, which determines who the 'us' and 'we' are (those who believed).
But what they beheld was his glory, and the rest of the book defines what that means: his miracles, his grace and truth, and his glorification through his death and resurrection. This suggests that the author is speaking of the believers who had seen Jesus physically.
Edit: I was chewing this over a lot yesterday, and concluded that perhaps Carson's view that I quoted was not correct. But having gone back to it this morning I think he is right. The incarnation gives a physical manifestation of God's glory, so the beholding in 1:14 is explained by that.
However, I agree that Christians who have not seen Jesus physically can still see his glory, by reading the accounts of his miraculous signs or through encountering him in prayer
-
I agree with you that it means believers, on the basis of its reference back to John 1:12-13, which determines who the 'us' and 'we' are (those who believed).
But what they beheld was his glory, and the rest of the book defines what that means: his miracles, his grace and truth, and his glorification through his death and resurrection. This suggests that the author is speaking of the believers who had seen Jesus physically.
Edit: I was chewing this over a lot yesterday, and concluded that perhaps Carson's view that I quoted was not correct. But having gone back to it this morning I think he is right. The incarnation gives a physical manifestation of God's glory, so the beholding in 1:14 is explained by that.
However, I agree that Christians who have not seen Jesus physically can still see his glory, by reading the accounts of his miraculous signs or through encountering him in prayer
Off on a tangent, who do you think the 'we' is referring to in Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians, 4:15?
I mention this because I know that there are many Christians who do not want this to refer to contemporaries of Paul, or to Paul himself. Confirmation bias rules, okay.
-
Off on a tangent, who do you think the 'we' is referring to in Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians, 4:15?
I mention this because I know that there are many Christians who do not want this to refer to contemporaries of Paul, or to Paul himself. Confirmation bias rules, okay.
There Paul is saying that according to the word of the Lord, those who are alive at the advent will not precede those who have died. His statement that he would be among those in the former group is not part of the information that he says is from the Lord, and so must be a subjective supposition or hope. He is also aware that people are 'falling asleep' all the time, and so when saying 'we' he must still be open to his own death happening before the advent.
-
There Paul is saying that according to the word of the Lord, those who are alive at the advent will not precede those who have died. His statement that he would be among those in the former group is not part of the information that he says is from the Lord, and so must be a subjective supposition or hope. He is also aware that people are 'falling asleep' all the time, and so when saying 'we' he must still be open to his own death happening before the advent.
So "we" means what you want it to mean.
-
So "we" means what you want it to mean.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it includes the writer, but isn't he saying that if the advent were to occur now (he is aware of the unknowableness of its timing, see ch 5), he and those believers still living would not be better off than those believers who are dead? Nothing to do with what I want it to mean.
-
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it includes the writer, but isn't he saying that if the advent were to occur now (he is aware of the unknowableness of its timing, see ch 5), he and those believers still living would not be better off than those believers who are dead? Nothing to do with what I want it to mean.
Well the gospel of John was written quite a while after 1 Thessalonians, so we can assume that "we" is used in a similar sense. i.e. it's is talking about the Christian church in general, including the author. "we are the witnesses" says John and it's said by Christians to this day.
-
There is no evidence that they were and there is some evidence they weren't, Justin Martyr for example seems very familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke but never refers to them by those names.
But he calls them gospels, and also says they were written by the apostles, iirc?
-
There is no evidence that they were
Among the manuscripts that contain the begining of a gospel account, I think there is one manuscript that is untitled, the rest are all titled 'According to Matthew/Mark etc.' If they were not assigned names until that later time, we would expect at least some of those earliest manuscripts to be untitled.
-
Among the manuscripts that contain the begining of a gospel account, I think there is one manuscript that is untitled, the rest are all titled 'According to Matthew/Mark etc.' If they were not assigned names until that later time, we would expect at least some of those earliest manuscripts to be untitled.
They are untitled
-
But he calls them gospels, and also says they were written by the apostles, iirc?
But he doesn't give names to the authors of any of the gospels and he was writing between 155 and 160, which is roughly 50 years after the last gospel was written (and the evidence that he was aware of the Gospel of John is sketchy).
-
They are untitled
They are all anonymous, you mean?
-
But he doesn't give names to the authors of any of the gospels and he was writing between 155 and 160, which is roughly 50 years after the last gospel was written (and the evidence that he was aware of the Gospel of John is sketchy).
He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.
-
Well the gospel of John was written quite a while after 1 Thessalonians, so we can assume that "we" is used in a similar sense. i.e. it's is talking about the Christian church in general, including the author. "we are the witnesses" says John and it's said by Christians to this day.
'Quite a while' - if you mean after the eyewitnesses died, what's the evidence for this, and how do you explain the author identifying himself as one of the twelve disciples towards the end of the book?
-
He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.
No, it doesn't.
-
They are all anonymous, you mean?
You used the term 'untitled'. Seems a bit odd you asking me what you meant. The earliest manuscripts are scraps with no attribution.
-
He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.
No it doesn't. Just because he says they were written by the apostles doesn't mean they were. He was writing perhaps a hundred years later and may have had bad information. Furthermore, the world "apostle" didn't necessarily mean one of the Twelve to the early Christians. Justin Martyr was writing in Greek and in Greek, "apostle" just means "emissary".
-
'Quite a while' - if you mean after the eyewitnesses died, what's the evidence for this,
There's quite a lot of evidence for the late authorship of John (~90CE or a bit later). The theology is quite well developed and there are anachronisms which can only mean a late date.
and how do you explain the author identifying himself as one of the twelve disciples towards the end of the book?
No he doesn't.
-
You used the term 'untitled'. Seems a bit odd you asking me what you meant. The earliest manuscripts are scraps with no attribution.
The title would be "The Gospel According to X" where X is the alleged author. These titles were not originally on the manuscripts as far as we know.
-
No it doesn't. Just because he says they were written by the apostles doesn't mean they were. He was writing perhaps a hundred years later and may have had bad information. Furthermore, the world "apostle" didn't necessarily mean one of the Twelve to the early Christians. Justin Martyr was writing in Greek and in Greek, "apostle" just means "emissary".
The point is that Justin not naming the authors is not evidence that the names were not attached to the gospels before his time. That he says they were the memoirs of the apostles is evidence for them being attributed to them.
-
The title would be "The Gospel According to X" where X is the alleged author. These titles were not originally on the manuscripts as far as we know.
How do we know these titles were not originally on the manuacripts?
-
How do we know these titles were not originally on the manuacripts?
We din't but your claim was that they were there. So do you accept that you were wrong?
-
We don't
So why does Jeremy think they weren't originally on the manuscripts? Is the handwriting in the title different from that in the main account, or something?
but your claim was that they were there.
That would be the logical conclusion unless they look like they've been added afterwards.
-
The point is that Justin not naming the authors is not evidence that the names were not attached to the gospels before his time.
Wouldn't he have named them if he knew the names?
That he says they were the memoirs of the apostles is evidence for them being attributed to them.
Except of course, even in tradition, two of the authors were not apostles.
-
Please note, the point here is that the manuscripts we have that contain the beginning of a gospel all (but one) have a title, which is always, in essence, 'the gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John'. And I'm assuming those titles were put there by the same copyists that wrote the manuscripts.
If these titles had been made up, why do they all have one, and why is it always the same? If the original copies were untitled, and the titles added a century later, we would expect to have some extant copies (or copies of copies) of those originals which were still untitled, or have a different title.
We also have statements from second century church leaders about who wrote the gospels. These leaders were separated geographically and temporally yet all give the same names for the authors.
-
You might find the Jesus Seminar site interesting ..... https://virtualreligion.net/forum/complete.html
-
We also have statements from first century church leaders about who wrote the gospels.
No we don't. This is completely false.
-
No we don't. This is completely false.
Just keeping you on your toes
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
In the second century or later.
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later.
Yes but it is third century (or possibly late second). Nobody is disputing that the traditional names had been ascribed by then.
I'm not sure if the text includes "The Gospel According to John" or if it just starts. In any case, since this is part of a compilation (maybe there is a lost first volume consisting of Matthew and Mark) it would be natural for the scribe to put "Gospel of John" at the start to differentiate it from the end of Luke.
The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
What? How do you know Irenaeus ascribes the text that we now have to John? Who is the other source? If you are going to say "Papias", you need to think again.
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
Spud
Some questions.
1. Why are you content with suppositions?
2. Do you realise that little of this is verifiable, since it is largely indistinguishable from fiction?
3. Why does this matter at all in the 21st Century?
4. These days, who the fuck actually cares anyway?
-
There's quite a lot of evidence for the late authorship of John (~90CE or a bit later). The theology is quite well developed and there are anachronisms which can only mean a late date.
I looked up 'anachronisms in John's gospel '. One supposed one is 9:22, about a healed blind man's parents' fear of being expelled from the synagogue. Here's a rebuttal (https://isjesusalive.com/is-the-blind-mans-expulsion-from-the-synagogue-in-john-922-anachronistic/).
No he doesn't.
Here is John 19:35:
35He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
If the author was not this disciple, how could he know that the disciple knows he is telling the truth?
-
In the second century or later.
The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."
-
The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."
Are the gospels actually named in Papyrus 75?
-
The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."
Bart Ehrman says that he thinks the gospels were anonymous until 'there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it.'
-
I looked up 'anachronisms in John's gospel '. One supposed one is 9:22, about a healed blind man's parents' fear of being expelled from the synagogue. Here's a rebuttal (https://isjesusalive.com/is-the-blind-mans-expulsion-from-the-synagogue-in-john-922-anachronistic/).
That's really weak sauce. We have external corroboration that heretical sects were banned from the synagogues much later. Of course, synagogues in Israel in the first century are something of an anachronism just by themselves. The claim that Luke referred to them in Acts isn't worth much since Acts itself is also late first century.
Here is John 19:35:
35He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
If the author was not this disciple, how could he know that the disciple knows he is telling the truth?
If the author is this disciple why is he referred to in the third person? Why do you do all these contortions of logic and ignore the obvious basic stuff?
-
Are the gospels actually named in Papyrus 75?
Yes, it contains Luke 3-24, then, after the ending of Luke, "The gospel according to John", followed by John 1-15.
-
Bart Ehrman says that he thinks the gospels were anonymous until 'there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it.'
When you say anonymous, do you mean untitled? They are all anonymous.
If Bart is correct, then that information didn't have long to be distributed to France, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.
The screenshot is from
this video (https://youtu.be/wHFLUIU4mps?si=QNRVf-RwlUQEq3tf)
-
If the author is this disciple why is he referred to in the third person? Why do you do all these contortions of logic and ignore the obvious basic stuff?
The most likely reason that I have come across is that the author wanted to make the focus on Jesus.
Other ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person, such as Josephus.
-
When you say anonymous, do you mean untitled? They are all anonymous.
If Bart is correct, then that information didn't have long to be distributed to France, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.
The screenshot is from
this video (https://youtu.be/wHFLUIU4mps?si=QNRVf-RwlUQEq3tf)
Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.
Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!
-
Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.
Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!
I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.
-
I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.
In the colloquial use of the word theory maybe.
-
The most likely reason that I have come across is that the author wanted to make the focus on Jesus.
Don't be silly. The most likely reason is that the author is not the disciple.
Other ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person, such as Josephus.
So what? Don't forget that the author of the gospel is not afraid to use first person pronouns at other times.
-
I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church
Evidence?
, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.
Just a load of confirmation bias.
-
Don't be silly. The most likely reason is that the author is not the disciple.
You said "if the author is the disciple why is he referred to in the third person?" "The author is not the disciple" is not a reason why the disciple is referred to in the third person.
-
So what? Don't forget that the author of the gospel is not afraid to use first person pronouns at other times.
Meyer says of the use of the third person in John 19:35 that it's a "solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon" (the outflow of blood and water). Likewise of 9:37, Meyer says that using the third person is a way of introducing himself (to the man he cured of blindness) as the Son of Man with special emphasis.
-
You said "if the author is the disciple why is he referred to in the third person?" "The author is not the disciple" is not a reason why the disciple is referred to in the third person.
Yes it is. It's the obvious reason. It's how language works: you talk about somebody in the third person, you mean somebody who is not you and is not me. In fact the clue is in the name "third person". The first person is me. The second person is you. The third person is somebody else.
Seriously, Spud, this just makes you look desperate.
-
Meyer says of the use of the third person in John 19:35 that it's a "solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon" (the outflow of blood and water). Likewise of 9:37, Meyer says that using the third person is a way of introducing himself (to the man he cured of blindness) as the Son of Man with special emphasis.
No.
This is just more apologetics. You want the author to be John, so you desperately contort everything the way you want it. Try getting some intellectual honesty.
-
Yes it is. It's the obvious reason. It's how language works: you talk about somebody in the third person, you mean somebody who is not you and is not me. In fact the clue is in the name "third person". The first person is me. The second person is you. The third person is somebody else.
Seriously, Spud, this just makes you look desperate.
How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?
-
No.
This is just more apologetics. You want the author to be John, so you desperately contort everything the way you want it. Try getting some intellectual honesty.
No, it's answering the question you raised, which was if the author is the disciple, why does he use the third person. We have an example within the narrative where Jesus substitutes a title for the pronoun 'I', so it's not unnatural for the author to do the same thing.
-
How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?
I would say this is an actual example of begging the question... but it is dead, the great fallacy is dead.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22239.msg896602;boardseen#new
-
How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?
The author is not the disciple. That should be obvious to you by now.
-
Watched an interesting lecture on YouTube from Centreplace about the authorship of John - talking about John 1 (author of the bulk of John) and John 2 (author of the last chapter and editor of John 1). It said how the last chapter seems to be an addition and the writer of that is referring to the writer of the rest of John - and said why John 1 couldn't really be John the apostle. It talks of how John 1 believes in a spiritual interpretation of Jesus's words but John 2 was a literalist. There was more to it than that and was a good watch.
-
Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.
Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!
If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias says that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.
-
Watched an interesting lecture on YouTube from Centreplace about the authorship of John - talking about John 1 (author of the bulk of John) and John 2 (author of the last chapter and editor of John 1). It said how the last chapter seems to be an addition and the writer of that is referring to the writer of the rest of John - and said why John 1 couldn't really be John the apostle. It talks of how John 1 believes in a spiritual interpretation of Jesus's words but John 2 was a literalist. There was more to it than that and was a good watch.
The last chapter could well be a supplement, given that the last verse of the preceding chapter reads like a conclusion to chs. 1-20. Why would ch 21 not be written by the same author as 1-20? The last verse of ch.21 may be from an editor, being somewhat fantastical in nature.
There are lots of indicators that John was written by an eyewitness - in particular, details that only an eyewitness would know, such as who spoke when; which disciples went fishing with Peter, etc. There is no reason not to believe the tradition of the early church regarding who the author was.
-
If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias days that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.
I'm sure Bart Ehrman is aware of those points. I could go and look up what he says about it but of course so can you. I'm not saying Ehrman is right but pointing out that respected scholars have a different view or views on this. As i say, I'm not a respected scholar so any post I would make would be based on looking up what respected scholars say.
-
The last chapter could well be a supplement, given that the last verse of the preceding chapter reads like a conclusion to chs. 1-20. Why would ch 21 not be written by the same author as 1-20? The last verse of ch.21 may be from an editor, being somewhat fantastical in nature.
There are lots of indicators that John was written by an eyewitness - in particular, details that only an eyewitness would know, such as who spoke when; which disciples went fishing with Peter, etc. There is no reason not to believe the tradition of the early church regarding who the author was.
Scholars give plenty of reasons why. Have you watched the Youtube clip I referred to? I'll find a link if not.
-
If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias
Well we can't. His writing has only survived as quotations in Eusebius' work.
, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Yes, but the gospel that has survived to the present day was written in Greek. If Papias is being reported correctly, then he is saying that the gospel we call "Matthew" is not the one written by Matthew.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias days that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.
We clearly do not have three independent traditions. We only know Papias through Eusebius. How can you possibly claim them as independent?
-
Yes, but the gospel that has survived to the present day was written in Greek. If Papias is being reported correctly, then he is saying that the gospel we call "Matthew" is not the one written by Matthew.
Hebrew versions of Matthew from around the 14th century have also survived. Do you know of any internal evidence for Matthew being composed in Greek? Peter Williams did a talk on this, citing the Beatitudes as being sort of poetic (in Greek). Apparently the Hebrew versions contain puns, word connections and alliterations (https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-the-gospel-of-matthew-originally-written-in-hebrew/) (scroll down for examples) that must be part of an original composition, not a translation. This would suggest that the extant manuscripts are copies of a now lost Hebrew original.
We clearly do not have three independent traditions. We only know Papias through Eusebius. How can you possibly claim them as independent?
By assuming Eusebius' quote from Papias is accurate.
-
Hebrew versions of Matthew from around the 14th century have also survived.
This is totally irrelevant. English versions of the gospelalso started appearing around that time. It doesn't mean the gospel was written in English.
Do you know of any internal evidence for Matthew being composed in Greek?
Experts say it appears to have been written in Greek. A lot of the evidence is very technical but two pieces are easy to understand:
1. The early Greek manuscripts are remarkably consistent. If they are translations of an earlier Hebrew document, we would expect huge variation (think of all the different English language translations)
2. Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament. When he does, it is invariably from the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. There are variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text and Matthew always uses the Septuagint variation.
Nobody, not even most apologists believes Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
-
By assuming Eusebius' quote from Papias is accurate.
You clearly do not understand the meaning of "independent". If Eusebius agrees with Papias on something, you cannot claim they are independent because Eusebius may have formed his own opinion by reading Papias.
-
You clearly do not understand the meaning of "independent". If Eusebius agrees with Papias on something, you cannot claim they are independent because Eusebius may have formed his own opinion by reading Papias.
Here's Papias' quote according to Eusebius:
"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
From reading Eusebius' statement does it really look as though that is what he did?
"Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel in his own native tongue for those he was leaving".
Here is what Riley says, in a section in which he discusses the language in which Matthew was written:
"Eusebius knew Papias' writings, but there is no reason to assume that it was only the words of Papias that made him so write. Like the detail in Irenaeus that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church," that of Eusebius about the apostle's decision 'to go to others' appears to be an independent item of tradition." (from the concluding chapter of The First Gospel).
-
This is totally irrelevant. English versions of the gospelalso started appearing around that time. It doesn't mean the gospel was written in English.
Experts say it appears to have been written in Greek. A lot of the evidence is very technical but two pieces are easy to understand:
1. The early Greek manuscripts are remarkably consistent. If they are translations of an earlier Hebrew document, we would expect huge variation (think of all the different English language translations)
2. Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament. When he does, it is invariably from the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. There are variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text and Matthew always uses the Septuagint variation.
Nobody, not even most apologists believes Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
If the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew, couldn't Greek Matthew be also? If Hebrew translations exist, we should try to work out whether they are direct translations from Greek Matthew or not.
This is new to me. Notwithstanding evidence that parts of Greek Matthew suggest composition in Greek, here's an example of possible evidence for a Hebrew original.
Matthew 7:16
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
ESV
The two types of plant mentioned here are the thorns and thistles of Genesis 3:18, and the same words are used as in the Septuagint.
In one Hebrew Matthew manuscript, (https://www.hebrewgospels.com/matthew?srsltid=AfmBOop4cz6CWz4yJi5xLO2JCTHtNJr5V8amL2H4Hp1ihcpN9JeFEYfc) the verse reads,
"By their deeds you will recognize them– for a man is not able to gather
grapes from a bramble, neither figs from thorn bushes."
Here, the word for the first of the two plants is the same as the word for the burning bush that Moses saw. It is literally translated, "bush". The second is the same word for thistle as in Genesis 3:18.
So the question is, which is closer to the original saying by Jesus? Does one version lead to a deeper understanding of the saying than the other?
-
Here's Papias' quote according to Eusebius:
"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
Does that seem like a description of the current Gospel of Matthew? Try being honest with yourself. Is Matthew a list of oracles?
From reading Eusebius' statement does it really look as though that is what he did?
"Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel in his own native tongue for those he was leaving".
No. For a start his native tongue would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew and not Greek.
Here is what Riley says, in a section in which he discusses the language in which Matthew was written:
"Eusebius knew Papias' writings, but there is no reason to assume that it was only the words of Papias that made him so write. Like the detail in Irenaeus that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church," that of Eusebius about the apostle's decision 'to go to others' appears to be an independent item of tradition." (from the concluding chapter of The First Gospel).
So he's handwaving other sources into existence. How do we know he had an independent item of tradition? How can we say how reliable it is?
-
If the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew, couldn't Greek Matthew be also? If Hebrew translations exist, we should try to work out whether they are direct translations from Greek Matthew or not.
No.
It is beyond doubt that Matthew quotes the Septuagint and not the Hebrew version of the OT.
This is new to me. Notwithstanding evidence that parts of Greek Matthew suggest composition in Greek, here's an example of possible evidence for a Hebrew original.
-
Does that seem like a description of the current Gospel of Matthew? Try being honest with yourself. Is Matthew a list of oracles?
Not a list; but Papias doesn't say they are. What is evident is that the parables and instruction in Matthew are integrated into a narrative, without which the oracles would be just a list. Is it likely that the apostle Matthew would have written nothing about when and where the 'oracles' were spoken, or about things that Jesus did?
No. For a start his native tongue would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew and not Greek.
The key point being, not Greek.
So he's handwaving other sources into existence.
He's saying there is no reason to assume that it was only Papias' words that made Eusebius mention Matthew's native tongue.
How do we know he had an independent item of tradition? How can we say how reliable it is?
For the reason given by Riley: that the detail given by Eusebius that Matthew decided "to go to others" appears to be an independent item of tradition. Eusebius would have to have added the words, 'in his own native tongue' to the statement, "and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel for those he was leaving", if indeed he did get that detail from Papias only.
-
Not a list; but Papias doesn't say they are.
"Oracles". What do you think that is?
What is evident is that the parables and instruction in Matthew are integrated into a narrative, without which the oracles would be just a list. Is it likely that the apostle Matthew would have written nothing about when and where the 'oracles' were spoken, or about things that Jesus did?
The key point being, not Greek.
The key point being that this does not describe the document we call "The Gospel According to Matthew".
He's saying there is no reason to assume that it was only Papias' words that made Eusebius mention Matthew's native tongue.
Matthew's (as in the disciple) native tongue would most likely be neither Greek nor Hebrew, but Aramaic. The person who wrote the gospel was very proficient in Greek.
For the reason given by Riley: that the detail given by Eusebius that Matthew decided "to go to others" appears to be an independent item of tradition. Eusebius would have to have added the words, 'in his own native tongue' to the statement, "and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel for those he was leaving", if indeed he did get that detail from Papias only.
You don't understand what "independent" means when talking about historical sources.
-
"Oracles". What do you think that is?
The 'to teach' component of what Luke describes in Acts 1:1. "All that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven"
Papias mentioning only Jesus' teaching doesn't preclude Matthew also writing about what Jesus did. I mean, try extracting the teaching from the rest of Matthew. You can't really, because it is an integral part of the narrative.
-
The 'to teach' component of what Luke describes in Acts 1:1. "All that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven"
OK. So that's not really what we've got now is it.
Papias mentioning only Jesus' teaching doesn't preclude Matthew also writing about what Jesus did. I mean, try extracting the teaching from the rest of Matthew. You can't really, because it is an integral part of the narrative.
Papias is the linchpin of your argument. You can't just pretend he said stuff of which we have no evidence.
-
OK. So that's not really what we've got now is it.
Papias is the linchpin of your argument. You can't just pretend he said stuff of which we have no evidence.
Papias' book which Eusebius is quoting from is called "Expositions of oracles of the Lord", and Papias seems to be primarily concerned with the true or accurate doctrine taught by the apostles and those who had been in direct contact with them. He is mainly concerned with what Jesus taught, although he mentions 'the things said or done by the Lord' in speaking of Mark. So we can conclude that when Papias mentions with regard to Matthew only the logia, this does not mean that Matthew only wrote down what Jesus said. It's more likely that he mentioned only the logia because they were the subject of his book. Here is the full chapter containing the quotes by Papias:
https://bkv.unifr.ch/de/works/cpg-3495/versions/the-church-history-of-eusebius/divisions/83
-
Papias' book which Eusebius is quoting from is called "Explanation of the sayings of the Lord", and Papias seems to be primarily concerned with the true or accurate doctrine taught by the apostles and those who had been in direct contact with them.
But it's important to understand that we do not have this book. It is no longer extant. The only way we know anything about Papias at all and his writings is through Eusebius. Saying anything about the bits Eusebius hasn't told us about is guesswork. Relying on there bits that Eusebius has told us about is dangerous because, Eusebius is likely to have put his own spin on them.
He is mainly concerned with what Jesus taught, although he mentions 'the things said or done by the Lord' in speaking of Mark. So we can conclude that when Papias mentions with regard to Matthew only the logia, this does not mean that Matthew only wrote down what Jesus said.
"Mark wrote about the things Jesus said and did. Matthew wrote about the things Jesus said" ~ Papias (according to Eusebius).
On what planet is this evidence that Matthew wrote about what Jesus did?
You are inferring facts not in evidence and you are doing it through the lens of your beliefs.
-
"Mark wrote about the things Jesus said and did. Matthew wrote about the things Jesus said" ~ Papias (according to Eusebius).
This would be a possible interpretation if Papias's original statement about Matthew followed directly on from that about Mark. But it seems fairly clear that the words translated 'so too' do not refer back to the quote about Mark. The contrast you have suggested doesn't exist. Furthermore, the word order in the extract about Mark doesn't support the idea of a contrast.
For more information see towards the end of this link (where it talks about the oracles):
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/lightfoot/supernatural/6.htm
(Health warning: the above link is a bit brain bending)
-
This would be a possible interpretation if Papias's original statement about Matthew followed directly on from that about Mark. But it seems fairly clear that the words translated 'so too' do not refer back to the quote about Mark. The contrast you have suggested doesn't exist.
It wasn't my contrast, it was yours.
Papias says (according to Eusebius) "and so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability." You cannot infer from that that Matthew also wrote about the things Jesus did.
-
It wasn't my contrast, it was yours.
Papias says (according to Eusebius) "and so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability." You cannot infer from that that Matthew also wrote about the things Jesus did.
I said Papias was concerned with the oracles, not Matthew. You inferred the latter.
Lightfoot, in the link, gives several examples of the word logia being used where it refers to teaching incorporated into narrative.
-
I said Papias was concerned with the oracles, not Matthew. You inferred the latter.
No I didn't. I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.
Lightfoot, in the link, gives several examples of the word logia being used where it refers to teaching incorporated into narrative.
So what? You are still inferring facts not in evidence.
-
No I didn't.
OK.
I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.
OK.
So what? You are still inferring facts not in evidence.
So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.
We will also find evidence that the oracles of the Lord that Papias says Matthew wrote down, must include narrative, by the fact that Jesus's sayings in Greek Matthew* emerge out of the course of events in the narrative. For example, Mt 12:46 says,
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
King James Bible
* That Papias knew Greek Matthew is shown by the way he says that "each translated (past tense) the sayings as he was able", not "translates"; here the past tense shows that it was no longer necessary for each person to translate the Hebrew, which must mean that a Greek translation had been accepted at that point
Papias' book was called, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord'. That Papias meant the written gospels is suggested in his preface where he says, "But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing their truth."
"Along with my interpretations" suggests that he is expounding written work, and supporting this exposition with oral tradition he has received from the Elders.
It's difficult not to think of this written work as being the four gospels as we know them.
-
OK.OK.So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.
Here's an English translation of Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm
It certainly says Papias bore witness to a lot of things. But your quote is right at the front of the chapter and Papias bearing witness is in fourth paragraph. It certainly doesn't say Papias quoted any of those scriptures nor any of the other alleged sayings of Jesus mentioned that do not appear in any of the current gospels.
You're still cherry picking.
-
Here's an English translation of Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm
It certainly says Papias bore witness to a lot of things. But your quote is right at the front of the chapter and Papias bearing witness is in fourth paragraph. It certainly doesn't say Papias quoted any of those scriptures nor any of the other alleged sayings of Jesus mentioned that do not appear in any of the current gospels.
Agreed.
-
A little piece of evidence that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew:
In 1:21 the angel says to Joseph, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
The word Jesus is the English form of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.
Joshua means 'Yahweh saves'.
Someone reading Greek Matthew who doesn't speak Hebrew would not understand the reason given by the angel for naming him Jesus.
If the verse was originally written in Hebrew, it would be understood by a Hebrew reader.
Moreover, apparently the Hebrew word translated as "he will save" is 'yoshia', so this is a pun, indicating again that the original was in Hebrew.
-
A little piece of evidence that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew:
In 1:21 the angel says to Joseph, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
The word Jesus is the English form of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.
Joshua means 'Yahweh saves'.
Someone reading Greek Matthew who doesn't speak Hebrew would not understand the reason given by the angel for naming him Jesus.
If the verse was originally written in Hebrew, it would be understood by a Hebrew reader.
Moreover, apparently the Hebrew word translated as "he will save" is 'yoshia', so this is a pun, indicating again that the original was in Hebrew.
Yeshua was a very common name in 1st century Palestine. There's no need to attach any underlying significance to is use where Jesus was concerned and "Jesus" is merely a Greek rendering of the name, much like "Peter" is the English version of "Pierre".
-
Yeshua was a very common name in 1st century Palestine. There's no need to attach any underlying significance to is use where Jesus was concerned and "Jesus" is merely a Greek rendering of the name, much like "Peter" is the English version of "Pierre".
Right, but what do you think about the pun in Mt 1:21 "for he will save" which only makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew?
Genesis 3:20 is similar:
The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Or, Genesis 19:22
Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. (See verse 20)
-
Right, but what do you think about the pun in Mt 1:21 "for he will save" which only makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew?
Why would it not make sense if it was composed in Greek and everybody knew what it meant.
The whole thing is a little bit embarrassing anyway because the very next verses say
All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’
There are multiple problems here. This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14. Leaving aside that this is not a Messianic prophecy and "Jesus" ≠ "Emmanuel", the use of the word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint. Can you explain why Matthew writing in Hebrew would quote from the Greek version of the Bible?
-
Why would it not make sense if it was composed in Greek and everybody knew what it meant.
It would still make sense as a Hebrew pun, but it would not make sense for an author to compose it in Greek without explaining it. He wouldn't assume that everyone would understand it.
-
It would still make sense as a Hebrew pun, but it would not make sense for an author to compose it in Greek without explaining it.
Absolutely right. That's probably why the author explained it.
-
Absolutely right. That's probably why the author explained it.
But the explanation (and the pun that reinforces the explanation) only makes sense if the reader speaks Hebrew. So according to you, the author assumed his readers were bilingual.
-
You understand that the word 'Joshua 'means 'Yahweh saves', does this mean that you are fluent in Hebrew?
-
You understand that the word 'Joshua 'means 'Yahweh saves', does this mean that you are fluent in Hebrew?
I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.
-
But the explanation (and the pun that reinforces the explanation) only makes sense if the reader speaks Hebrew.
No it doesn't, not if the reader also knew a little Hebrew or where the name comes from. In fact, if the gospel had been written in Hebrew, no explanation would have been necessary.
So according to you, the author assumed his readers were bilingual.
Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at that time. Hebrew was the language of much of the Old Testament. The ordinary people living in Galilee and Judea would have been native speakers of Aramaic. It's not unreasonable to expect an educated person in the region at the time to speak both Greek and their native language.
Furthermore, puns in other languages are not unheard of. Consider:
I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church
That's a pun in Greek and you probably had it explained to you as a child. There's no need to be able to speak Greek to understand that "Peter" means "rock".
-
I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.
And of course it was totally impossible for anybody to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek in the First Century /s
-
I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.
I learned this from the Jehovah's Witnesses when I was twelve. The JWs are notoriously not fluent in Hebrew (and certainly the translators of their bible weren't). However, their translation of the instance in question was correct.
-
Furthermore, puns in other languages are not unheard of. Consider:
That's a pun in Greek and you probably had it explained to you as a child. There's no need to be able to speak Greek to understand that "Peter" means "rock".
Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.
-
There are multiple problems here. This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14. Leaving aside that this is not a Messianic prophecy and "Jesus" ≠ "Emmanuel", the use of the word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint. Can you explain why Matthew writing in Hebrew would quote from the Greek version of the Bible?
The word translated 'virgin' by the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. The same word occurs in Genesis 24:43, where the Septuagint translates it as 'virgin' (parthenos). According to an AI comment I read, the meaning of 'almah' is twofold: a young adolescent woman who is unmarried and therefore assumed to be virgin. This is clear from its use in Song 6:8, where it is distinct from queens and concubines (who would not be virgins). All 6 usages outside Isaiah 7:14 have this twofold meaning; the AI says that the Jews started to deny that it meant virgin after Matthew was written.
So if Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew text, then either 'virgin' or 'young woman' would be accurate.
Hebrewgospels.com renders it 'virgin' also.
-
Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
Why? Whoever wrote John is a different person.
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.
You are fixating on the Peter example. I only brought that up to point out to you that you do not need to speak the language to understand the pun, if somebody explains the meaning of the name to you. All it means is that your Yeshua argument does not hold water.
-
The word translated 'virgin' by the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. The same word occurs in Genesis 24:43, where the Septuagint translates it as 'virgin' (parthenos).
So the Septuagint gets it wrong twice.
According to an AI comment I read, the meaning of 'almah' is twofold: a young adolescent woman who is unmarried and therefore assumed to be virgin. This is clear from its use in Song 6:8, where it is distinct from queens and concubines (who would not be virgins). All 6 usages outside Isaiah 7:14 have this twofold meaning; the AI says that the Jews started to deny that it meant virgin after Matthew was written.
Almah means young woman which could clearly encompass "virgin". However, Hebrew also has bethulah which does mean explicitly "virgin". Isaiah 7:14 was clearly talking about a young woman, a pregnant one at that, so not a virgin. The septuagint is a mistranslation.
So if Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew text
He wasn't. That's the point. The point is Matthew was using the Septuagint and he was writing in Greek.
-
You are fixating on the Peter example. I only brought that up to point out to you that you do not need to speak the language to understand the pun, if somebody explains the meaning of the name to you. All it means is that your Yeshua argument does not hold water.
But would the author leave it to someone else to explain to the reader what Yeshua means?
His explanation as to why he would be called Yeshua ('for he will save etc) assumes the reader already knows what it means.
-
Why? Whoever wrote John is a different person.
Because if John and Paul called him Cephas, that was his name at the time. Peter is a pun on the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for 'stone'.
-
Because if John and Paul called him Cephas, that was his name at the time. Peter is a pun on the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for 'stone'.
Thought his name was Simon/Shimon.
-
But would the author leave it to someone else to explain to the reader what Yeshua means?
He didn't. He tells you what it means right there in the text.
His explanation as to why he would be called Yeshua ('for he will save etc) assumes the reader already knows what it means.
Why did he explain it then?
-
So the Septuagint gets it wrong twice.
Almah means young woman which could clearly encompass "virgin". However, Hebrew also has bethulah which does mean explicitly "virgin". Isaiah 7:14 was clearly talking about a young woman, a pregnant one at that, so not a virgin. The septuagint is a mistranslation.
He wasn't. That's the point. The point is Matthew was using the Septuagint and he was writing in Greek.
Perhaps the emphasis conveyed by 'almah' is on her unmarried status? Matthew sees this as fulfilled by the events he describes: an unmarried young woman was to conceive and give birth. The assumption that the unmarried woman is a virgin is not explicit in Isaiah, but is in Matthew, because he is recording the event as it happened.
The Hebrew Matthew manuscript I linked to earlier, when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Mt. 1:23, uses the word 'almah'.
-
Thought his name was Simon/Shimon.
Not sure but I think this is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Sim'on.
-
Not sure but I think this is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Sim'on.
Not Cephas then.
-
Perhaps the emphasis conveyed by 'almah' is on her unmarried status?
No. It just means young woman. The woman in Isaiah is not explicitly unmarried. She's just a woman who will give birth in the near future.
Matthew sees this as fulfilled by the events he describes: an unmarried young woman was to conceive and give birth. The assumption that the unmarried woman is a virgin is not explicit in Isaiah, but is in Matthew, because he is recording the event as it happened.
It is explicit in the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. And Matthew did not record the event as it happens, but decades later. Except it didn't happen. The whole of Matthew's nativity is almost certainly fiction.
The Hebrew Matthew manuscript I linked to earlier, when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Mt. 1:23, uses the word 'almah'.
That's a translation back into Hebrew from the Greek. It's not relevant to whether Matthew originally wrote in Greek (he did).
-
Not Cephas then.
His former name was the Hebrew version of Simon and his new name was Cephas, meaning rock in Aramaic. Our gospels have translated this to Simon Peter.
-
No. It just means young woman. The woman in Isaiah is not explicitly unmarried. She's just a woman who will give birth in the near future.
So why does the Septuagint call her a virgin?
It is explicit in the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. And Matthew did not record the event as it happens, but decades later.
I meant "as it happened" as in, "in the way that it happened" not "while it was happening".
Except it didn't happen. The whole of Matthew's nativity is almost certainly fiction.
That's a translation back into Hebrew from the Greek.
That's an assumption.
It's not relevant to whether Matthew originally wrote in Greek (he did).
It's consistent with him originally writing in Hebrew, even if it doesn't prove that he did.
-
He didn't. He tells you what it means right there in the text.
No, he assumes you know what Yeshua means.
Why did he explain it then?
He didn't. He explained why he would be called Yeshua, not what Yeshua means. The pun involving "yoshia" ("he will save") also helps a Hebrew reader understand. The angel was basically saying, "you will call his name 'Salvation', because he will save his people" - but in Hebrew.
-
So why does the Septuagint call her a virgin?
Because it is a mistranslation.
It's consistent with him originally writing in Hebrew, even if it doesn't prove that he did.
It's consistent with Matthew originally writing in Swahili. So what?
-
No, he assumes you know what Yeshua means.
People assume we know what Peter means or Cephas. We don't need to speak the language to understand the meaning of a name in that language.
He didn't. He explained why he would be called Yeshua, not what Yeshua means.
If he'd been writing in Hebrew, he wouldn't have needed to do that. It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. I wouldn't need to say "I named him Arsenalarerthebest because Arsenal are the best".
* Everybody will be relieved to know I have no children.
-
It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. .
Might that be because Jesus plays for them and Gabriel is also in the team?
-
Might that be because Jesus plays for them and Gabriel is also in the team?
Well, signing Jesus from Man City was one of their best signings for a long time. And Man City appears to need miracles now.
-
Because it is a mistranslation.
The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages. The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.
It's consistent with Matthew originally writing in Swahili. So what?
No it isn't.
-
The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages. The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.
Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.
Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.
-
If he'd been writing in Hebrew, he wouldn't have needed to do that. It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. I wouldn't need to say "I named him Arsenalarerthebest because Arsenal are the best".
That's not analogous to Matthew 1:21. Better: "I named him Aresenalarethebest because Arsenal were top of the league."
-
It's like Genesis 2:5 - "And there was no man to cultivate the ground" doesn't appear to have any wordplay, but in Hebrew there's a pun with adam (man) and adamah (ground).
-
Genesis 2:25 "the man and his wife were naked"
Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was the most clever"
No pun in English.
But in Hebrew, 'naked' = 'arumim', 'clever' = 'arum'
-
According to Nehemiah Gordon, the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew says at Matthew 16:18,
"You are a stone (Heb: 'even') and I will build (Heb: evneh) my house of prayer upon you."
-
The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages.
Not only is that false, but the word Bethula is the one used when Isaiah really wants to mean "virgin".
The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.
This is false and the context tells us that. The pregnant young woman is there to give a timescale to a prophecy about the enemies of Ahaz. It's nothing whatever to do with the Messiah.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
-
It's like Genesis 2:5 - "And there was no man to cultivate the ground" doesn't appear to have any wordplay, but in Hebrew there's a pun with adam (man) and adamah (ground).
Nobody disputes that Genesis was written in Hebrew.
Nobody seriously disputes that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.
-
the word Bethula is the one used when Isaiah really wants to mean "virgin".
Given that hinnēh ("look", "behold") is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence (Keil & Delitsch), then Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young virgin who at the time wasn't pregnant but would soon become so in the usual way. But this also allows for its 'greater fulfillment' later when Mary conceived without Joseph's help.
-
Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.
Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.
It's off-topic though: jeremy was originally citing Mt 1:21 as evidence that Matthew was composing in Greek, since he quotes the Septuagint. I've linked to a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which quotes the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, so by the same logic, Matthew was composing in Hebrew.
-
Nobody disputes that Genesis was written in Hebrew.
Nobody seriously disputes that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.
More examples:
See #205 and:
Mt 18:23-35. In the parable of the debt, Hebrew Matthew uses the word for "to pay" (shalem) five times. The same word means "complete", and the parable concludes, "So shall my father in heaven do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a complete heart".
Hebrew Matthew 12:13,15. Then he said to the man, "stretch out your hand, and he stretched out (vayet) his hand.
And it was after this that Yeshua knew and he turned (vayet) from there and many sick people went after him.
Hebrew Matthew 9:8 And the crowds saw (vayir'u) and they feared (vayir'u) very much.
From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y&t=6225s)
-
It's off-topic though: jeremy was originally citing Mt 1:21 as evidence that Matthew was composing in Greek, since he quotes the Septuagint. I've linked to a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which quotes the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, so by the same logic, Matthew was composing in Hebrew.
Nope. Your Hebrew manuscript is an attempted translation of the Greek. It is not relevant.
Whenever Matthew quotes the OT he always uses the Septuagint. 1:21 is just one example.
Together with plenty of other evidence including the fact that there are no significantly different Greek versions of Matthew, it's as close to certain as it is possible to say that Matthew was written in Greek. That, together with the fact that Papias says Matthew wrote a sayings gospel not a narrative shows that the document we have today is not the one he was talking about which means you cannot use Papias as an authority to claim the author of the gospel is Matthew the Apostle.
We do not know who wrote that gospel and your posturing on the subject is just wishful thinking.
-
More examples:
See #205 and:
Mt 18:23-35. In the parable of the debt, Hebrew Matthew uses the word for "to pay" (shalem) five times. The same word means "complete", and the parable concludes, "So shall my father in heaven do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a complete heart".
Hebrew Matthew 12:13,15. Then he said to the man, "stretch out your hand, and he stretched out (vayet) his hand.
And it was after this that Yeshua knew and he turned (vayet) from there and many sick people went after him.
Hebrew Matthew 9:8 And the crowds saw (vayir'u) and they feared (vayir'u) very much.
From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y&t=6225s)
Matthew was not written in Hebrew. End of story.
-
Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.
Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.
This is quite interesting:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15pcrwa/what_is_this_dr_jones_found_early_hebrew_gospels/&ved=2ahUKEwi1xfH8lJuKAxWhaEEAHfXsAHgQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1q7OgfH95T35fzxyW5D07d
Seems that not everyone thinks that Spud's sources are truly scholarly.
-
Given that hinnēh ("look", "behold") is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence (Keil & Delitsch), then Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young virgin who at the time wasn't pregnant but would soon become so in the usual way. But this also allows for its 'greater fulfillment' later when Mary conceived without Joseph's help.
These supposed 'greater fulfillments' of Old Testament texts are nearly always Christian misinterpretations of OT texts, often glaringly inaccurate as to what the gospel writers thought the original text was, and in some cases referring back to Old Testament texts which do not exist (e.g. 'He would be called a Nazarene').
And of course, in the Isaiah text which you are presently arguing over, the "young woman" was supposed to call the child "Immanuel - God with us". Not 'Yeshua - Yahweh saves'.
-
These supposed 'greater fulfillments' of Old Testament texts are nearly always Christian misinterpretations of OT texts, often glaringly inaccurate as to what the gospel writers thought the original text was, and in some cases referring back to Old Testament texts which do not exist (e.g. 'He would be called a Nazarene').
And of course, in the Isaiah text which you are presently arguing over, the "young woman" was supposed to call the child "Immanuel - God with us". Not 'Yeshua - Yahweh saves'.
Note that the 'greater fulfillment' is salvation from sins, as the angel says.
-
It's off-topic though:
It isn't off topic Spud - you are making completely unevidenced claims about the intentions and motivation of translators and, potentially, original authors. It is not off-topic to point out that we have no idea who these people were and we have no evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture.
-
Nope. Your Hebrew manuscript is an attempted translation of the Greek. It is not relevant.
Whenever Matthew quotes the OT he always uses the Septuagint. 1:21 is just one example.
This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.
Together with plenty of other evidence including the fact that there are no significantly different Greek versions of Matthew, it's as close to certain as it is possible to say that Matthew was written in Greek.
Actually, certain inconsistencies in the Greek version are absent in the Hebrew version. Unfortunately, there isn't an interlinear version of the latter yet, so unless someone reads Hebrew they can't study it. But people who can read Hebrew are claiming that that version gives a deeper understanding of the text.
That, together with the fact that Papias says Matthew wrote a sayings gospel not a narrative shows that the document we have today is not the one he was talking about which means you cannot use Papias as an authority to claim the author of the gospel is Matthew the Apostle.
We do not know who wrote that gospel and your posturing on the subject is just wishful thinking.
What Papias said doesn't mean that the sayings were not integrated into a narrative. Moreover, Jerome stated that the original Matthew was in Hebrew and that it was then in the library in Caesarea.
-
Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.
Spud, I'm rather struggling to understand exactly what you mean by "the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew", as no doubt a few others have been if they've shown any interest in this thread.
I just like to outline a few points to attempt clarification.
Firstly, we have the assertions from Papias and Eusebius that a certain Matthew wrote 'something' in Hebrew, which may have been a prototype to the gospel of Matthew we have today.
Then we do have a version of Matthew, translated in the mediaeval period from the Greek by Shem-Tob ben Isaac. This version is purported by some Christian devotees to indicate that there was an original Hebrew version, but not liked by Christians, since the purpose of this Jewish version was to deny Jesus' divine Sonship and the claims that he was the Messiah. Besides which, it avoided any mention of the divine name. For a refutation that this might indicate an original Hebrew version, see what David Bivin has written here:
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4067/
The apologists for an original Hebrew version were delighted when the Vatican fairly recently released certain manuscripts which purported to relate back to a faithful Christian version of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew. This unfortunately bore all the signs of having been translated back into Hebrew from Catalan !
Honestly, Spud, with all this back and forth translating, tergiversations and people attempting to include confirmation bias into these mediaeval versions of Matthew's gospel, do you honestly think they give a modern reader any confidence that there ever was such an original gospel in Hebrew? This despite your worthy attempts to show how puns work in Hebrew, for which claim to esoteric scholarship we have only your word to rely on.
-
This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.
And is it not possible that these mediaeval translators, knowing that the Septuagint version that Matthew was using (or badly remembering) was skewed, tried to go back to the original version of the Hebrew scriptures (which certainly Shem-Tob ben Isaac would have known)?
-
This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.
Hebrew Matthew is a figment of your imagination. The Hebrew gospels that you seem to love so much are later translations of Matthew into Hebrew from (I note from Dicky's link) Catalan - so not even Greek.
How can you possibly bring them up as evidence?
Actually, certain inconsistencies in the Greek version are absent in the Hebrew version. Unfortunately, there isn't an interlinear version of the latter yet, so unless someone reads Hebrew they can't study it. But people who can read Hebrew are claiming that that version gives a deeper understanding of the text.
So the person who translated them into Hebrew smoothed out some of the problems. It means nothing.
What Papias said doesn't mean that the sayings were not integrated into a narrative.
The argument from possibility. This is a dishonest argument. It's possible that the entire canon of early Christian literature was fabricated by Eusebius. Yes, some people do believe that. That doesn't mean it's probable or worthy of serious study.
It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but clever people have studied the possibility and concluded it is extremely unlikely.
Moreover, Jerome stated that the original Matthew was in Hebrew and that it was then in the library in Caesarea.
This is St Jerome who lived in the second half of the fourth century, who, as far as I can tell, never went to Caesarea and who translated the Bible into Latin using only Greek texts from the New Testament?
-
And is it not possible that these mediaeval translators, knowing that the Septuagint version that Matthew was using (or badly remembering) was skewed, tried to go back to the original version of the Hebrew scriptures (which certainly Shem-Tob ben Isaac would have known)?
Yes, and likewise a person who translated an original Hebrew version into Greek might have quoted the Septuagint.
What language was the Catalan version translated from?
-
Yes, and likewise a person who translated an original Hebrew version into Greek might have quoted the Septuagint.
There wasn't an original Hebrew version. Matthew was written in Greek.
What language was the Catalan version translated from?
Who cares? It's not relevant.
-
The argument from possibility. This is a dishonest argument.
It's not, because it's a fact that the oracles attributed to Matthew were integrated into the narrative. The sermon on the mount happened when Jesus went up a hill because great crowds were following him, because he was healing people and had become famous. For every 'oracle' we are told what the occasion was that led to him saying it. This is why Papias had to be referring to the gospel we know as Matthew - unless the sayings he is talking about were a completely different set of sayings.
-
It's not, because it's a fact that the oracles attributed to Matthew were integrated into the narrative.
Really? What's the evidence?
The sermon on the mount happened when Jesus went up a hill because great crowds were following him, because he was healing people and had become famous.
The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Q material. I'm not averse to you claiming that Q was originally written by Matthew the Apostle, but by the time it was incorporated into the gospel, it was in Greek and similar arguments apply to Q as to Mark and the rest of Matthew's gospel.
For every 'oracle' we are told what the occasion was that led to him saying it. This is why Papias had to be referring to the gospel we know as Matthew - unless the sayings he is talking about were a completely different set of sayings.
I do not see how your conclusion follows.
-
Really? What's the evidence?
Okay let's take a shorter saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
If you separate this from it's context, it's meaningless.
Then little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them. And the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.
-
Okay let's take a shorter saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
If you separate this from it's context, it's meaningless.
I don't think so. And even if so, you can't show that Matthew the Apostle wrote that or the context in which it appears.
-
What language was the Catalan version translated from?
On further investigation, it seems probable that the Catalan version and Shem-Tob ben Isaac's version were both translated from Jerome's Latin version, which in turn was translated from the Greek. And by all accounts, the Catalan version is an appallingly bad translation.
Have you heard of Chinese whispers, Spud?
-
I don't think so.
Maybe not meaningless, but it's difficult to imagine it originating outside the context of people bringing their kids to Jesus, and the disciples rebuking them.
And even if so, you can't show that Matthew the Apostle wrote that or the context in which it appears.
Papias' statement suggests it.
Of course you could argue that it originated in Mark's account, along with many other sayings, but that brings us back to the relationship between the Synoptics again.
-
Maybe not meaningless, but it's difficult to imagine it originating outside the context of people bringing their kids to Jesus, and the disciples rebuking them.
But that doesn't mean anything in terms of who wrote it down. Even if it refers to a real event, it doesn't mean that it was written by a witness.
Papias' statement suggests it.
There's nothing that has survived from Papias that suggests the gospel he refers to is the one we have. There's not even anything in there to suggest that what he referred to is Q, although Q fits the description a little better - ignoring the fact it was written in Greek.
If you want Papias's testimony to be relevant, you have to show he was talking about the gospel we have. You haven't done that and all the evidence from Papias suggests he is talking about a different document - a sayings gospel written in Hebrew.
-
But that doesn't mean anything in terms of who wrote it down. Even if it refers to a real event, it doesn't mean that it was written by a witness.
There's nothing that has survived from Papias that suggests the gospel he refers to is the one we have. There's not even anything in there to suggest that what he referred to is Q, although Q fits the description a little better - ignoring the fact it was written in Greek.
If you want Papias's testimony to be relevant, you have to show he was talking about the gospel we have. You haven't done that and all the evidence from Papias suggests he is talking about a different document - a sayings gospel written in Hebrew.
A sayings gospel does describe our Matthew quite well, and yes, reading the quotes from Papias it appears that he hadn't read our Matthew. But he says he got information by word of mouth from the disciples of the apostles, so perhaps they described it to him as a book containing Jesus' oracles, and that's why he doesn't mention things Jesus did along with what Jesus said?
-
A sayings gospel does describe our Matthew quite well,
No it doesn't. There's quite a bit of narrative in the gospel.
and yes, reading the quotes from Papias it appears that he hadn't read our Matthew. But he says he got information by word of mouth from the disciples of the apostles,
Third hand at least then.
And, of course, we have only got Papias at second hand.
so perhaps they described it to him as a book containing Jesus' oracles
Speculation
-
There's quite a bit of narrative in the gospel.
The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?
-
The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?
Matthew concise? As in an angel being seen to descend and roll away the stone, and zombies wandering through Jerusalem after the Resurrection?
-
The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
No it isn't. Consider that about 90% of Mark is in Matthew.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?
You wouldn't call it a sayings gospel if it had lots of narrative.
-
Matthew concise? As in an angel being seen to descend and roll away the stone, and zombies wandering through Jerusalem after the Resurrection?
Those events may be later additions to Matthew's first edition. They appear to have been absent from Luke and Mark's copies of Matthew. If we assume, based on general evidence, that Luke used Matthew and then Mark used both Mt and Lk, then when we find a section in Matthew which Luke and Mark omit, we should consider the possibility that it was added to Matthew's original text. An example is Peter walking on the water, or the parables of Mt 25. Much of the material which appears to have been added, relates to the Gentiles, while the original narrative is concerned with Jesus' ministry to Israel. A very good example is in Mt 10, where Jesus sends out the twelve, instructing them not to go to the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel. Half way through the chapter, he begins to warn them that they will face persecution; this didn't happen until after the ascension; therefore it must have been added to the original account of the sending out of the twelve.
I was referring to material like the accounts of the paralytic and the synagogue ruler's daughter, which are less detailed than Mark and Luke.
There are five discourses in Matthew, each of which concludes with "after Jesus had finished instructing his disciples". Luke only has this statement in one place, which suggests (see above) that its use after the Sermon on the Mount was adapted as a formula for the second to fifth discourses, which were expanded by the editor.
-
No it isn't. Consider that about 90% of Mark is in Matthew.You wouldn't call it a sayings gospel if it had lots of narrative.
We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?
-
We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?
You could use John 1:1 as well. As can be seen, the Greek 'logos' has multiple meanings. I've seen it translated as 'expression', 'creative energy' etc as well as 'word'. Not something to make a mathematically precise argument with.
-
Those events may be later additions to Matthew's first edition. They appear to have been absent from Luke and Mark's copies of Matthew.
And yet nobody who has studied the subject critically and honestly thinks Mark could possibly have had a copy of Matthew because Matthew copied Mark, not the other way around.
If we assume, based on general evidence, that Luke used Matthew and then Mark used both Mt and Lk,
The "general evidence" refutes this.
-
We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?
Which translation are you using?
NRSV has "oracles". But so what?
-
You could use John 1:1 as well. As can be seen, the Greek 'logos' has multiple meanings. I've seen it translated as 'expression', 'creative energy' etc as well as 'word'. Not something to make a mathematically precise argument with.
And of course means that God is Grease
-
Which translation are you using?
NRSV has "oracles". But so what?
The word logia is used four times (https://biblehub.com/greek/3051.htm) in the NT, as well as by other writers. The 10 commandments are referred to by Philo as the Decalogue (Ten words). I agree that logia means divine oracles, but you are saying that we should assume Papias is talking about them in isolation from any narrative. We could say that the Ten Commandments are logia. But they are embedded in the story of the Exodus, and Moses on Mount Sinai. To say that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) means that they preserved them in writing, within the story of how they came to receive them. This fits Papias' description of what Matthew did with Jesus' oracles, exactly.
-
The word logia is used four times (https://biblehub.com/greek/3051.htm) in the NT, as well as by other writers. The 10 commandments are referred to by Philo as the Decalogue (Ten words). I agree that logia means divine oracles, but you are saying that we should assume Papias is talking about them in isolation from any narrative.
No. I'm saying you should not assume that Papias is talking about a narrative just because you can twist the facts to pretend it is a narrative to shore up a failed argument.
This is what Papias says
And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.
He is talking a bout a document that is a "sayings" gospel and is written in Hebrew. The first gospel we have is a narrative written in Greek. No reasonable person would conclude that Papias is referring to the first gospel here. Instead of discarding this as evidence for your assertion (which you would do if you were intellectually honest), you try to find ways to massage it to fit your purpose.
-
The first gospel we have is a narrative written in Greek.
Presumably you're referring to Mark. Yes the earliest copies we have are of a Greek narrative. But we don't have the originals, so it would be unreasonable to discard Papias as evidence that Matthew was written by the apostle.
No reasonable person would conclude that Papias is referring to the first gospel here
Eusebius must have concluded that he was, since he says elsewhere: "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence."
Link (https://hebrewgospel.com/matthewtwogospelsmain.php#:~:text=For%20Matthew%2C%20who%20had%20at,the%20loss%20of%20his%20presence.)
And Irenaeus would also have thought Papias was referring to a gospel: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome"
So Eusebius and Irenaeus were not reasonable people?
-
Matthew 5:23-24 says,
"So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
Would the author have recorded this saying if, at the time the gospel was written, the offering of gifts at the altar at the temple was not still a practice acceptable to Christian disciples?
-
Matthew 5:23-24 says,
"So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
Would the author have recorded this saying if, at the time the gospel was written, the offering of gifts at the altar at the temple was not still a practice acceptable to Christian disciples?
Don't know: don't care.
This could be made-up stuff for all you know, and since that risk can't be resolved it is of no import.
-
Don't know: don't care.
This could be made-up stuff for all you know, and since that risk can't be resolved it is of no import.
Important enough for you to comment on it though?
-
Important enough for you to comment on it though?
Not really - just commenting on the notion that, in current times, who wrote what in the NT matters very much at all: I don't think it does.
-
Not really - just commenting on the notion that, in current times, who wrote what in the NT matters very much at all: I don't think it does.
But that just makes what "matters"what personally "matters" doesn't it?
-
But that just makes what "matters"what personally "matters" doesn't it?
Yep - what 'matters' to people, and also what doesn't matter, can often be subjective.
I can't see that there is anything profoundly objective about the NT, given its lack of provenance, so that it matters to some is subjective. I'm just surprised that they would take it seriously at all.
-
Yep - what 'matters' to people, and also what doesn't matter, can often be subjective.
I can't see that there is anything profoundly objective about the NT, given its lack of provenance, so that it matters to some is subjective. I'm just surprised that they would take it seriously at all.
I look to historians regarding provenance.
You are I'm sure aware that my own view of the NT is that the only element of the NT that needed to reach us is the notion of the need of salvation and that salvation has been offered.
-
I look to historians regarding provenance.
You are I'm sure aware that my own view of the NT is that the only element of the NT that needed to reach us is the notion of the need of salvation and that salvation has been offered.
Those are indeed notions, albeit not credible ones.
-
I look to historians regarding provenance.
You are I'm sure aware that my own view of the NT is that the only element of the NT that needed to reach us is the notion of the need of salvation and that salvation has been offered.
You can get that from just one of Paul's letters - written by a man who never met a flesh and blood Jesus. Nothing else that might interest us?
-
Those are indeed notions, albeit not credible ones.
And I remain hopeful of a full justification of that that does not involve a bum understanding of history or induction or an appeal to numbers in some population.
-
You can get that from just one of Paul's letters - written by a man who never met a flesh and blood Jesus. Nothing else that might interest us?
And yet most history which you accept is written by people who they never met the people they write about.
-
And I remain hopeful of a full justification of that that does not involve a bum understanding of history or induction or an appeal to numbers in some population.
I'm not the one who thinks that 'salvation' involves a character who has been dead these last 2,000 years: but that is your notion, Vlad, so the burden of proof is all yours.
-
I'm not the one who thinks that 'salvation' involves a character who has been dead these last 2,000 years: but that is your notion, Vlad, so the burden of proof is all yours.
No, You are the one suggesting that these things are impossible so you also have a burden.
-
No, You are the one suggesting that these things are impossible so you also have a burden.
No I don't: I haven't said they are 'impossible' but that notion of 'salvation' via a long-dead character is not 'credible'. For it to be credible I'd need to see an explanation and that, dear boy, is your problem and not mine. If you can't show how it is credibly possible then there is nothing to take seriously.
Your problem is that if you want people to accept metaphysical notions of supernatural agency then you need a means to explain how these notions are 'possibility-apt', and that is where you guys fall to pieces. If you can't show how such a thing is possible, then 'impossibility' is surely moot.
-
Don't know:
Put another way, would it be appropriate to include it in the sermon on the mount, if Jerusalem and the temple had been burnt to the ground and there was no longer a sacrificial system?
-
Matthew 27 and Acts 1 speak about the "field of blood" bought with the money paid to Judas for betraying Jesus. It was where Judas died, and his death became known to all who lived in Jerusalem. Matthew says it was called the field of blood "to this day", and Luke tells us who called it that: "all who lived in Jerusalem".
After AD70 no Jews lived in Jerusalem, as they had all been killed or enslaved.
So this passage from Matthew 27 as well as the account of the rumour spread by the guards at the tomb, in which the same time stamp is given, had to have been written before AD70.
I wanted to show this, because it narrows down the possibilities for the author of Matthew to someone who would have been either an eyewitness himself, or would have received his information from eyewitnesses.
-
So this passage from Matthew 27 as well as the account of the rumour spread by the guards at the tomb, in which the same time stamp is given, had to have been written before AD70.
No it doesn't - all it may mean is that the author is referring to a tradition that might, or might not, have been swirling around earlier than 70CE.
But the comment itself reads as classic hyperbole - "all who lived in Jerusalem", really?!? So not a single person in Jerusalem didn't call it that. But even if "all who lived in Jerusalem" called it that it really means nothing - we have a road in my town called Holywell Hill - legend suggests that a well sprang up where the head of an executed martyr landed. Sure everyone in St Albans calls it Holywell Hill (interestingly pronounced Hollywell), but that doesn't mean that someone writing as such must have been writing earlier than a particular date (as the legend persists), and nor, of course, that the legend has one iota of truth associated with it.
-
I wanted to show this, because it narrows down the possibilities for the author of Matthew to someone who would have been either an eyewitness himself, or would have received his information from eyewitnesses.
No - it narrows it down to a person who was aware of a legend or tradition, regardless of whether or not that legend or tradition was based on factual events.
-
No it doesn't - all it may mean is that the author is referring to a tradition that might, or might not, have been swirling around earlier than 70CE.
But the comment itself reads as classic hyperbole - "all who lived in Jerusalem", really?!? So not a single person in Jerusalem didn't call it that. But even if "all who lived in Jerusalem" called it that it really means nothing - we have a road in my town called Holywell Hill - legend suggests that a well sprang up where the head of an executed martyr landed. Sure everyone in St Albans calls it Holywell Hill (interestingly pronounced Hollywell), but that doesn't mean that someone writing as such must have been writing earlier than a particular date (as the legend persists), and nor, of course, that the legend has one iota of truth associated with it.
If you were to take Acts 1 on its own then yes that could have been written post-AD70. But there is also the reference to the same field in Matthew 27. Matthew says it was called the field of blood "to this day". That means at the time of writing it was still called that. After AD70 there was no-one living there to call it that, so he must have been writing before that date.
-
AI says
'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'
-
If you were to take Acts 1 on its own then yes that could have been written post-AD70. But there is also the reference to the same field in Matthew 27. Matthew says it was called the field of blood "to this day". That means at the time of writing it was still called that. After AD70 there was no-one living there to call it that, so he must have been writing before that date.
I'm sorry Spud - you are talking complete nonsense.
The whole point about legends and traditions is that they persist long, long after any eye witnesses to the perceived founding event have long died out. In the case of Holywell Hill in St Albans the legend and tradition and the naming convention remain some 1800 years after the claimed 'miracle'.
All that a reference to a transition or legend tells us is that the writer was writing at some point after that legend or tradition first arose - it tells us nothing about how long afterwards as long as the legend or tradition persists.
-
AI says
'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'
True - and the tradition wouldn't necessarily have persisted amongst the jewish population alone. Indeed, given its provenance it is more likely to have persisted in communities other that the orthodox jewish population, who, of course, did not ascribe to the claims of the NT.
Also remember that there is no evidence that the authors were writing in Jerusalem and plenty of evidence that they weer writing elsewhere, so if there were a jewish diaspora (who had been excluded from Jerusalem) those may have been the people who the authors tapped into for their legends/tradition.
-
Your assertion that it's a legend is based on your preconception, not on the natural way to understand it in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Riley comments that the words "that field has been called the field of blood to this day" would hardly have been appropriate if written in the period immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and suggest a date prior to AD70.
If the field was no longer in use, as would have been the case for some time after AD70, the author would have no reason to include the words "to this day".
-
Your assertion that it's a legend is based on your preconception, not on the natural way to understand it in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Firstly, nice bit of misrepresentation of what I said. Note I talked of legends and traditions. Now, there is no evidence that this piece of land actually turned into blood, so in that context we are talking of a tradition of naming this area as such by people who considered Judas to be a figure of infamy (which, let's be clear would be a small subset of those living in Jerusalem at the time). Were there to be a (completely unevidenced) claim that the area really did spout blood then that would be a legend. So legends and traditions are exactly the correct terms to use and show no bias or preconception on my part.
Riley comments that the words "that field has been called the field of blood to this day" would hardly have been appropriate of written in the period immediately after the destruction Jerusalem, and suggest a date prior to AD70.
If the field was no longer in use, as would have been the case for some time after AD70, the author would have no reason to include the words "to this day".
I have no idea who Riley is but if his suggestion is that naming traditions about an area of a city always die out if that area is destroyed or reconfigured then he is talking demonstrable non-sense. The whole point about such traditions is that the naming persists long, long after the area itself may have been totally destroyed or reconfigured beyond recognition.
Back to St Albans as another excellent example. The area where the roman city of Verulamium used to exist, 2000 years ago is still known 'to this day' universally as Verulamium, despite the fact that the city was completely destroyed over 1500 years ago. Now the area is a park with a lake and with a couple of short stretches of roman wall. Yet it is still known 'to this day' universally as Verulamium.
So realistically all we can say is that there was a tradition that arose amongst some of the population in Jerusalem (those that considered Judas to be a figure of infamy) to name this area the field of blood. And that someone writing about this must have been writing after the tradition arose and before the tradition disappeared, which as I've pointed out can easily be centuries or longer later (and in this case the tradition persists to this day). The destruction of an area would have no impact on whether a tradition of naming an area in a particular manner persists.
-
AI says
Yes, let's not put any weight onto anything AI says please.
'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'
That's probably correct even though it was said by AI. However, even if everybody died or left, there would be memories of the places in Jerusalem amongst the refugees. Also, Matthew, writing in Syria, probably just heard the Field of Blood thing as a tradition and he probably wouldn't have bothered to go to Jerusalem and check its veracity.
-
That's probably correct even though it was said by AI. However, even if everybody died or left, there would be memories of the places in Jerusalem amongst the refugees. Also, Matthew, writing in Syria, probably just heard the Field of Blood thing as a tradition and he probably wouldn't have bothered to go to Jerusalem and check its veracity.
True - so Spud's notion that the tradition of naming of this area would have died out following the (partial) destruction of Jerusalem is complete nonsense, given that the people who appeared to be aware of the tradition and wrote about weren't writing in Jerusalem but elsewhere. Indeed the dispersal of people from Jerusalem throughout the region would have helped the tradition of Field of Blood to come to the attention of the writers.
But the very fact that we are discussing this tradition 2000 years on demonstrates that the notion that the tradition could only have been known to someone in Jerusalem before the time of the destruction is totally bonkers.
-
Your assertion that it's a legend is based on your preconception, not on the natural way to understand it in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Riley comments that the words "that field has been called the field of blood to this day" would hardly have been appropriate if written in the period immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and suggest a date prior to AD70.
If the field was no longer in use, as would have been the case for some time after AD70, the author would have no reason to include the words "to this day".
My home town has a blood fields. Comes from being a traditional place for people to fight in Victorian times.
-
Thanks for your replies. I have lots of thoughts in response, but the important one is to do with Matthew's wording. "To this day" suggests that, although some time had elapsed, it was known by occupants of the city at the time of writing.
For example, if the writer was writing after AD70, a long way from the city, a more appropriate way to put it would be simply, "that field became known as the field of blood" and leave it at that. 30 years ago my college friends used to meet in a pub called "The Battle of Trafalgar". It became known as "The Traff". I probably wouldn't make a point of stating that it is still known as that, if I were to write about it (especially if London was in ruins). Matthew's point is more to do with the prophecy being fulfilled. Why would he point out that it was still known as the field of blood, when it was derelict and nobody lived there?
Again, who is he referring to if it's post-70? Not the residents of Jerusalem - only the Roman garrison remained. His Christian circle of friends, or his Jewish acquaintances? To know something by a name implies knowing the thing itself. Nobody would be talking about it enough to merit a mention, if they did remember it. It wasn't an important detail unless the time of writing the account is pre-70.
-
AI says
'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'
Not sure where AI gets this - I can't find any website that says anyone except the Roman 10th legion lived in the city after the siege. Wiki's page on the siege of Jerusalem indicates that the Romans basically killed or took prisoner everyone in the city, which was reduced to ash and rubble.
-
Thanks for your replies. I have lots of thoughts in response, but the important one is to do with Matthew's wording. "To this day" suggests that, although some time had elapsed, it was known by occupants of the city at the time of writing.
For example, if the writer was writing after AD70, a long way from the city, a more appropriate way to put it would be simply, "that field became known as the field of blood" and leave it at that. 30 years ago my college friends used to meet in a pub called "The Battle of Trafalgar". It became known as "The Traff". I probably wouldn't make a point of stating that it is still known as that, if I were to write about it (especially if London was in ruins). Matthew's point is more to do with the prophecy being fulfilled. Why would he point out that it was still known as the field of blood, when it was derelict and nobody lived there?
Why would he say that? Well to cement a view that Judas should be considered to be a figure of disrepute. He emphasises this using the classic hyperbole that all people called it that (really!?! I very much doubt it) and until this day - to reinforce that the tradition persisted (albeit only likely persisted amongst the porto-christian minorities).
Again, who is he referring to if it's post-70? Not the residents of Jerusalem - only the Roman garrison remained. His Christian circle of friends, or his Jewish acquaintances? To know something by a name implies knowing the thing itself. Nobody would be talking about it enough to merit a mention, if they did remember it. It wasn't an important detail unless the time of writing the account is pre-70.
Well given that we don't know who wrote Matthew, nor exactly when or where it was written it is, of course, also speculation as to the audience. However we can certainly consider that the section would have been aimed at those for whom Judas was a hate figure, a betrayer, a figure of disrepute. So who would that be, and who wouldn't it be?
Well it is unlikely to be either the Romans nor those who resolutely rejected the claims of Jesus and stayed with their traditional Jewish religion. Firstly because these groups would have considered Jesus to have been (at best) a somewhat awkward agitator who might have caused instability in the region and challenge to their authorities. So they's probably have considered Judas to have acted in a responsible and praise-worthy manner in helping bring Jesus to justice. So I cannot see how Judas would be a figure of disrepute in their eyes. But also remember that Matthew was writing maybe 50 year after the events, so I doubt these groups would have still been thinking about Jesus/Judas in any serious manner at all. They would have moved on well beyond this.
So that leaves the most likely audience - the proto-christian communities. Those who may be early followers of Jesus but likely would not have been around at the time and place where Jesus was. So to cement a view that Judas (and by inference, and I'll come back to this, the broader Jewish authorities) were disreputable would have been important to help persuade these people that they'd picked the 'good guys' rather than the 'bad guys'. Classic propaganda that has remained unchanged across centuries. And actually this tiny section with its references to betrayal and blood money aimed at the jews is the kernel of thousands of years of disreputable stereotyping and persecution of the jewish peoples.
-
Not sure where AI gets this - I can't find any website that says anyone except the Roman 10th legion lived in the city after the siege. Wiki's page on the siege of Jerusalem indicates that the Romans basically killed or took prisoner everyone in the city, which was reduced to ash and rubble.
Aelia Capitolina was formed in around 130AD and Jews were banned from the city. Doesn't that suggest that Jews were in the area before that date? Not having really looked into it.
-
Aelia Capitolina was formed in around 130AD and Jews were banned from the city. Doesn't that suggest that Jews were in the area before that date? Not having really looked into it.
I think there is plenty of evidence to substantiate the claim that Jerusalem was largely destroyed around 70CE and thereafter a roman garrison was based there, with Aelia Capitolina established about 50 years later.
However it is naive to think that the only people living there in the area in those intervening years were roman soldiers. There would have been all kinds of support structures needed to maintain the garrison, which would have involved the local population. So it may have been that, in theory, no civilians were living in Jerusalem during the period, but in practice there would have been plenty of people living close to the garrison, visiting to do business etc throughout those 50 years.
-
True - so Spud's notion that the tradition of naming of this area would have died out following the (partial) destruction of Jerusalem is complete nonsense, given that the people who appeared to be aware of the tradition and wrote about weren't writing in Jerusalem but elsewhere. Indeed the dispersal of people from Jerusalem throughout the region would have helped the tradition of Field of Blood to come to the attention of the writers.
But the very fact that we are discussing this tradition 2000 years on demonstrates that the notion that the tradition could only have been known to someone in Jerusalem before the time of the destruction is totally bonkers.
If you want me to make my best guess, I'd say that neither the Acts tradition nor the Matthew tradition has any basis in fact (note that they are mutually contradictory). The Field of Blood is a real place but I don't think there is any evidence for how it was named outside of the New Testament. I think that there was some garbled oral tradition associating Judas with that field - maybe he really did hang himself there - and Matthew and Luke wove it into their stories in different ways.
-
If you want me to make my best guess, I'd say that neither the Acts tradition nor the Matthew tradition has any basis in fact (note that they are mutually contradictory). The Field of Blood is a real place but I don't think there is any evidence for how it was named outside of the New Testament. I think that there was some garbled oral tradition associating Judas with that field - maybe he really did hang himself there - and Matthew and Luke wove it into their stories in different ways.
Did the priests buy the field or did Judas? Either way, both state it was bought with the money he was given. They both mention the potter's field becoming known as the field of blood, as well as Judas dying a violent death.
-
Did the priests buy the field or did Judas? Either way, both state it was bought with the money he was given. They both mention the potter's field becoming known as the field of blood, as well as Judas dying a violent death.
Nope, the accounts are radically different - in one Judas simply hangs himself, committing suicide which is a perfectly plausible explanation for someone who may be wracked with remorse, requiring no kind of divine intervention. In the other account Judas when buying the land with the money he'd received was immediately struck down - 'falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out', in other words some kind of direct and violent divine retribution.
And there are also discrepancies as to who bought the land - in Matthew it is the jewish authorities while in Acts it is Judas himself.
What is clear in both accounts is that this cements the notion of 'blood money' a slur used to support persecution of jewish people for thousands of years.
-
The destruction of an area would have no impact on whether a tradition of naming an area in a particular manner persists.
Correct, but it would impact on whether a writer would have reason to mention that it was still called that. If the city was in ruins, then Matthew would be referring to people who lived far away from the city. This is possible, but he would more naturally be referring to people living in the city at the time, which implies a date earlier than AD70. If I wrote an account of my time in London, I might say that the pub we went to became known as the Traff. I would not write that it is still known as the Traff, because I no longer live there and I've unfortunately lost touch with the people.
-
Correct, but it would impact on whether a writer would have reason to mention that it was still called that. If the city was in ruins, then Matthew would be referring to people who lived far away from the city. This is possible, but he would more naturally be referring to people living in the city at the time, which implies a date earlier than AD70. If I wrote an account of my time in London, I might say that the pub we went to became known as the Traff. I would not write that it is still known as the Traff, because I no longer live there and I've unfortunately lost touch with the people.
I think you need to consider the context of the time.
The destruction of Jerusalem marks a point at which traditional judaism and developing christianity began to radically diverge. And with it the development of a narrative from the proto-christian church that the jewish people were cursed, with the destruction of Jerusalem seen as an act of divine punishment for the jews. So in this context it would have been easy to slot in an earlier claim of divine retribution towards an individual seen as jewish, rather than christian and to add to the narrative that the jews and their sacred city of jerusalem were cursed.
History is littered with ancient tropes and traditions being trotted out as propaganda to divide the 'good' us from the 'bad' them.
-
I think you need to consider the context of the time.
The destruction of Jerusalem marks a point at which traditional judaism and developing christianity began to radically diverge. And with it the development of a narrative from the proto-christian church that the jewish people were cursed, with the destruction of Jerusalem seen as an act of divine punishment for the jews. So in this context it would have been easy to slot in an earlier claim of divine retribution towards an individual seen as jewish, rather than christian and to add to the narrative that the jews and their sacred city of jerusalem were cursed.
History is littered with ancient tropes and traditions being trotted out as propaganda to divide the 'good' us from the 'bad' them.
Overthinking it. Maybe Matthew added the bit about the field as evidence for his claim that Jesus is the Messiah? How would that work - the field was named after the blood money used to pay for it. That fulfilled the messianic prophecy.
-
Overthinking it. Maybe Matthew added the bit about the field as evidence for his claim that Jesus is the Messiah? How would that work - the field was named after the blood money used to pay for it. That fulfilled the messianic prophecy.
There was no Messianic prophecy.
-
There was no Messianic prophecy.
Thanks for this comment! Seriously, thanks. I looked at it yesterday and found nothing convincing, until last night on YouTube and here's the link:
https://youtu.be/On_H9kyVlA8?si=gQCLsXwqRYTAn2hG
I haven't checked out the guy speaking regarding his background, but what he says is mind-blowing. Basically the prophecy Matthew quotes is indeed from Jeremiah, even though it appears to be from Zechariah.
If you don't believe that, the point for this conversation is that Matthew thought prophecy was being fulfilled, and this is why he included the account about Judas. He wasn't trotting out propaganda.
-
Thanks for this comment! Seriously, thanks. I looked at it yesterday and found nothing convincing, until last night on YouTube and here's the link:
https://youtu.be/On_H9kyVlA8?si=gQCLsXwqRYTAn2hG
I haven't checked out the guy speaking regarding his background, but what he says is mind-blowing. Basically the prophecy Matthew quotes is indeed from Jeremiah, even though it appears to be from Zechariah.
If you don't believe that, the point for this conversation is that Matthew thought prophecy was being fulfilled, and this is why he included the account about Judas. He wasn't trotting out propaganda.
I suspect that you and Maeght are talking at cross purposes.
Of course there were claimed prophecies and of course later writers attempted to shoehorn actual or claimed events into a narrative that the earlier prophecies had been fulfilled. But that isn't the same as there actually being prophecy (except in the minds of earlier writers) not that they were actually fulfilled. It is, of course, very easy to 'reverse engineer' and cherry pick later events or traditions to appear to be the fulfilment of some earlier claim, but that doesn't mean it is real.
It is also easier to make that claim of fulfilled prophecy when the audience were not there at the time and were not first hand eye witnesses to the claimed events. And here I come back to a regular narrative of mine, effectively that the overwhelming majority of those who were there at the time (the actual eye witnesses to the claimed events) did not follow Jesus, effectively meaning they did not believe the later claims. Rather they rejected the notion of Jesus as the messiah and remained steadfast in their existing jewish belief that a messiah would come, but had not come yet.
If your eyewitnesses by and large weren't impressed (and there are claims in the NT that there were many thousands of witnesses to claimed 'miracles') there are really only two conclusions. Either that miracles of the type claimed were ten a penny and nothing to write home about (which seems exceptionally unlikely) or that the 'miracles' simply didn't happen as claimed. Realistically had you been a witness to the numerous claimed miracles in the NT (as claimed) then is stretches credibility to the limit that your conclusion would be 'nothing to see here, not the messiah'.
-
Thanks for this comment! Seriously, thanks. I looked at it yesterday and found nothing convincing, until last night on YouTube and here's the link:
https://youtu.be/On_H9kyVlA8?si=gQCLsXwqRYTAn2hG
I haven't checked out the guy speaking regarding his background, but what he says is mind-blowing. Basically the prophecy Matthew quotes is indeed from Jeremiah, even though it appears to be from Zechariah.
If you don't believe that, the point for this conversation is that Matthew thought prophecy was being fulfilled, and this is why he included the account about Judas. He wasn't trotting out propaganda.
My view is that there are Messianic prophecies in the bible but Jesus didn't fulfill any of them as far as I can see. The supposed prophecies he is claimed to have fulfilled were not prophecies about him.
I accept that Matthew got it wrong and quoted the wrong person thinking it applied to Jesus but it didn't.
-
He wasn't trotting out propaganda.
Depends on how you define propaganda, which is often determined by whether a person believes it or not. But to my mind much of the NT is classic propaganda - claims which are devoid of any independent corroboration, written with the claim of authority which are aimed at people changing their behaviours (in this case becoming followers of Jesus) where the readers will have absolutely no ability to verify or falsify those claim.
From Wiki:
'Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.'
Seems to perfectly fit the bill for the gospels.
-
Depends on how you define propaganda, which is often determined by whether a person believes it or not. But to my mind much of the NT is classic propaganda - claims which are devoid of any independent corroboration, written with the claim of authority which are aimed at people changing their behaviours (in this case becoming followers of Jesus) where the readers will have absolutely no ability to verify or falsify those claim.
From Wiki:
'Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.'
Seems to perfectly fit the bill for the gospels.
Aside from your hyperbole eg "perfectly" and that you are saying "propaganda" as if it is a bad thing because facts are left out....what facts are you alleging have been left out of the gospel which, in your view render the gospel propaganda.
You seem to presume shady motives, if not exclusively to people who don't share your view, then universally.
What do you see also, as the agenda of the gospel writers?
-
Aside from your hyperbole eg "perfectly" and that you are saying "propaganda" as if it is a bad thing because facts are left out....what facts are you alleging have been left out of the gospel which, in your view render the gospel propaganda.
You seem to presume shady motives, if not exclusively to people who don't share your view, then universally.
What do you see also, as the agenda of the gospel writers?
"Propaganda" is a strong term but not inappropriate. The gospels were certainly not written as history (despite what the author of Luke might claim) but as religious tracts promoting the "good news" of Jesus and the resurrection. Their purpose is not to inform us as to the historical events of Jesus' life but to make more Christians.
-
"Propaganda" is a strong term but not inappropriate. The gospels were certainly not written as history (despite what the author of Luke might claim) but as religious tracts promoting the "good news" of Jesus and the resurrection. Their purpose is not to inform us as to the historical events of Jesus' life but to make more Christians.
CS Lewis a professional handler of mythic literature detected reportage in the gospel. I think you yourself suggested the bible could have been written in a factual, historical style.
-
Depends on how you define propaganda
...
Propaganda aside, we were discussing which is more likely: that Matthew would write 'to this day' before the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.
I was hoping people might agree that it is more naturally understood as written while the city was still inhabited.
My plan was to show that the author was someone who was associated with Jesus, having narrowed the date of writing down to pre-70.
-
My view is that there are Messianic prophecies in the bible but Jesus didn't fulfill any of them as far as I can see. The supposed prophecies he is claimed to have fulfilled were not prophecies about him.
I accept that Matthew got it wrong and quoted the wrong person thinking it applied to Jesus but it didn't.
The author of the YouTube clip appears to be a Mormon, which does not immediately inspire confidence. He seems to be suggesting that Matthew attributed the specific details of the prophecy (incorrectly) to Jeremiah, whereas the closest parallels to what he is alluding to are in Zechariah. This, he says, is ostensibly a mistake. But he goes on to suggest that Matthew was deliberately alluding to another scripture behind all this at Jeremiah 19:4, which refers to the "shedding of innocent blood" (which would most likely in the original instance have been child sacrifice to 'false gods'). This is then claimed to be a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of the innocent Jesus.
Well, maybe. I hardly think the differing attribution of the appropriate prophecy by Matthew was deliberate, though. He might have had a shadowy memory of some text about 'innocent blood' in Jeremiah, but no doubt you can find any number of texts anywhere about shedding innocent blood if you look long enough. I really can't see any true parallel between this text and the crucifixion of Christ: the former sacrifices were made by misguided people who thought that such sacrifices might appease their fearsome gods to allow their tribes to prosper. The latter was supposed to be made by an innocent who voluntarily gave his life, not to appease a bloodthirsty deity, but somehow to reestablish a connection between humanity and that deity (at-one-ment).
Anyway, don't ask me to give an exposition of the meaning of the atonement, since this doctrine has always seemed to me such a mixed-up and mangled affair with endless interpretations, that I can't for the life of me see how anyone could believe it meant anything.
Just so everyone can see the context, here is the scripture in question:
Thus saith the LORD, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; 2And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, 3And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. 4Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: 6Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. 7And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
There is a reference to "a potter's earthen bottle", but that's the extent of references to pottering matters.
-
The author of the YouTube clip
....
He points out four similarities between Matthew 27 and Jeremiah 19:
-The chief priests and elders
-Innocent blood
-Burial place
-For foreigners (Matthew) / a foreign place.(Jeremiah)
-
Propaganda aside, we were discussing which is more likely: that Matthew would write 'to this day' before the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.
I was hoping people might agree that it is more naturally understood as written while the city was still inhabited.
My plan was to show that the author was someone who was associated with Jesus, having narrowed the date of writing down to pre-70.
Yes, sure that was your plan. It failed.
-
CS Lewis a professional handler of mythic literature detected reportage in the gospel.
CS Lewis the prominent Christian and inventor of the stupid trilemma argument? That CS Lewis? Excuse me for not taking much of what he says seriously.
I think you yourself suggested the bible could have been written in a factual, historical style.
I would argue that the Bible cannot be summarised in that way. It is not a single book but a collection of books in different genres. some of it purports to be history (although not necessarily very reliable). Some of it is poetry (erotic poetry at times). Some of it is theology and some of it is overt fiction.
-
The author of the YouTube clip appears to be a Mormon, which does not immediately inspire confidence. He seems to be suggesting that Matthew attributed the specific details of the prophecy (incorrectly) to Jeremiah, whereas the closest parallels to what he is alluding to are in Zechariah. This, he says, is ostensibly a mistake. But he goes on to suggest that Matthew was deliberately alluding to another scripture behind all this at Jeremiah 19:4, which refers to the "shedding of innocent blood" (which would most likely in the original instance have been child sacrifice to 'false gods'). This is then claimed to be a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of the innocent Jesus.
Well, maybe. I hardly think the differing attribution of the appropriate prophecy by Matthew was deliberate, though. He might have had a shadowy memory of some text about 'innocent blood' in Jeremiah, but no doubt you can find any number of texts anywhere about shedding innocent blood if you look long enough. I really can't see any true parallel between this text and the crucifixion of Christ: the former sacrifices were made by misguided people who thought that such sacrifices might appease their fearsome gods to allow their tribes to prosper. The latter was supposed to be made by an innocent who voluntarily gave his life, not to appease a bloodthirsty deity, but somehow to reestablish a connection between humanity and that deity (at-one-ment).
Anyway, don't ask me to give an exposition of the meaning of the atonement, since this doctrine has always seemed to me such a mixed-up and mangled affair with endless interpretations, that I can't for the life of me see how anyone could believe it meant anything.
Just so everyone can see the context, here is the scripture in question:
There is a reference to "a potter's earthen bottle", but that's the extent of references to pottering matters.
It looks like he's saying that Matthew's attribution of the prophecy to Jeremiah is a subtle allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem that Jeremiah was warning of. By fulfilling Zechariah 11, the Jewish leaders were bringing a second destruction upon Jerusalem.
-
Propaganda aside, we were discussing which is more likely: that Matthew would write 'to this day' before the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.
I was hoping people might agree that it is more naturally understood as written while the city was still inhabited.
My plan was to show that the author was someone who was associated with Jesus, having narrowed the date of writing down to pre-70.
Well I don't believe that you can simply 'set-aside' the agenda of the writer, whether or not we choose to call it propaganda. And I will come back to that in a further post.
But first I think we need to be clear about the geography. The so-called field of blood isn't in the old city of Jerusalem, but some way outside (just click open the map in the link below):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akeldama
So it is unlikely that this area would have been subject to the destruction wrought on the old city, nor would this area have been necessarily part of the area restricted to Jews in later times. And the area wasn't part of the built environment of Jerusalem but either just a filed or later potentially a graveyard for non-Jews so there really wouldn't have been much to 'destroy'.
So the point is that the area was probably very similar before and after the destruction and was also likely accessible to all communities (including jews) as it lay well outside Jerusalem proper.
-
CS Lewis the prominent Christian and inventor of the stupid trilemma argument? That CS Lewis? Excuse me for not taking much of what he says seriously.
I'm hoping you will take this this beyond the "CS Lewis was just a big silly poo" level and justify any issues who have with the trilemma...beyond arguing that it is a quadrilemma that is
I would argue that the Bible cannot be summarised in that way. It is not a single book but a collection of books in different genres. some of it purports to be history (although not necessarily very reliable).
I may be at fault here and should have made it clear that Lewis stated that he detected reportage in the new testament and was not talking about the Bible as a whole.
-
Yes, sure that was your plan. It failed.
Looks like I will have to hold off with the second part of the plan, then. Here is a link (https://jimmyakin.com/2018/11/was-matthew-written-before-a-d-70.html) detailing passages in Matthew which presuppose that the temple was still standing. Mt 5:23-34; 12:5; 17:24-27; 23:16-22; 24:1-2, 15-16, 20 contain things Jesus said that would be less relevant to Matthew's readers post-AD70, therefore he would be unlikely to record them. The question about the temple tax in 17:24-27 is interesting because after AD70, the Romans forced Jews to pay a tax to a Roman temple. This implies that if Matthew wrote post-70, he thought this teaching meant that Christians who were also practicing Jews should pay a tax to an idolatrous temple.
24:20 says that Christians in Jerusalem should pray that their flight would not be in winter or on a sabbath. Why would Matthew want to preserve Jesus' exhortation to pray this, if the events had already occurred and the need to pray no longer existed? (Note, I don't agree with his reasoning that Matthew's source was Mark and that he dropped some of Mark's sentences in order to conserve space. But the point still stands)
The blog also asks why there is no mention in Matthew of the actual fulfillment of his prediction that the temple would be destroyed, when he mentions other fulfillment of prophecy?
-
Propaganda aside, we were discussing which is more likely: that Matthew would write 'to this day' before the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.
I was hoping people might agree that it is more naturally understood as written while the city was still inhabited.
My plan was to show that the author was someone who was associated with Jesus, having narrowed the date of writing down to pre-70.
So back to the agenda of the writer - as I said previously this cannot be ignored. Matthew was writing with an agenda to try to persuade people to join the developing group of early christians at a time when early christians were actively trying to move away from being seen merely as a rather obscure jewish sect. To do so one of the things he needed to do was 'other' the jewish mainstream, specifically to make it seem that god not only was on the side of the christians but also was actively punishing the jewish people for 'betraying' Jesus and not accepting him/rejecting him as the messiah.
So the field of blood tradition and narrative plays into this agenda - Judas seen as representing the jews is punished for betraying Jesus. But on its own this narrative is pretty weak as it simple applies to one person and one punishment. However the early christians adopted a view that the destruction of Jerusalem represented a much broader punishment for the jewish people, so it would make sense to align the 'field of blood' trope alongside recent history involving the destruction of Jerusalem.
So to me it makes far more sense to argue that Matthew would have been writing after the destruction allowing the field of blood to be aligned with the destruction and a broader punishment narrative, rather than writing before the destruction where the trope would have no broader context.
-
I'm hoping you will take this this beyond the "CS Lewis was just a big silly poo" level and justify any issues who have with the trilemma...beyond arguing that it is a quadrilemma that is
No, I'm pointing out that your authority is not very authoritative.
I may be at fault here and should have made it clear that Lewis stated that he detected reportage in the new testament and was not talking about the Bible as a whole.
Can you tell me which bits of the gospel of Matthew (the subject of this thread) he found reportage in and how he decided it was reportage.
-
No, I'm pointing out that your authority is not very authoritative.Can you tell me which bits of the gospel of Matthew (the subject of this thread) he found reportage in and how he decided it was reportage.
That leaves us no clearer on what is meant to be wrong and stupid about the trilemma and moves us back onto you "asking ze qvestions"..I should Co Co. I think Lewis just makes the comment that parts of the new testament read like reportage indeed, I seem to recall you viewing the NT as some kind of historical fiction.
-
That leaves us no clearer on what is meant to be wrong and stupid about the trilemma and moves us back onto you "asking ze qvestions".
This is a thread about the gospel of Matthew. I brought up the trilemma only to point out that CS Lewis was not the sharpest tool in the box. Happy to discuss it elsewhere if you really aren't clear about it.
I should Co Co. I think Lewis just makes the comment that parts of the new testament read like reportage
So he provides no evidence for his view?
indeed, I seem to recall you viewing the NT as some kind of historical fiction.
I have never done that. Well, the gospels and Acts might be historical fiction* but most of the rest of the NT is theology.
* although they may contain some grains of truth.
-
So back to the agenda of the writer - as I said previously this cannot be ignored. Matthew was writing with an agenda to try to persuade people to join the developing group of early christians at a time when early christians were actively trying to move away from being seen merely as a rather obscure jewish sect. To do so one of the things he needed to do was 'other' the jewish mainstream, specifically to make it seem that god not only was on the side of the christians but also was actively punishing the jewish people for 'betraying' Jesus and not accepting him/rejecting him as the messiah.
But this assumes that the city had already been destroyed. It doesn't prove, or support any theory that it had, which is what you are supposed to be doing.
-
But this assumes that the city had already been destroyed. It doesn't prove that it had, which is what you are supposed to be doing.
Correct - we have no real way of proving whether the gospel was written before or after the destruction. However to my mind (and to many serious bible scholars) the writing makes far more sense if written after the destruction, at a time when the early christians were actively distancing themselves from judaism and were developing a narrative that the jewish people were cursed and were being punished for rejecting Jesus as the messiah.
And also back to another of my themes - specifically that we do not have the original texts, nor anything close to original, for any of the gospels. In the case of Matthew 27:7 if I'm not mistaken the earliest actual text we have is from the 5thC (maybe even later). So we can be 100% sure that the earliest actual version of the text is from long, long after the destruction. We cannot be sure, of course, to what extent this 5thC text may or may not be similar to the original (unknown) text from the late 1stC.
-
Correct - we have no real way of proving whether the gospel was written before or after the destruction. However to my mind (and to many serious bible scholars) the writing makes far more sense if written after the destruction, at a time when the early christians were actively distancing themselves from judaism and were developing a narrative that the jewish people were cursed and were being punished for rejecting Jesus as the messiah.
Why, though? He could have been warning them of the impending destruction (which is actually what the book does do - it never refers to it as an event that has happened). What you're actually saying is that Jesus is much less likely to have predicted it, and hence Matthew written his warnings, than Matthew was to have known it happened and written to explain why.
-
Why, though? He could have been warning them of the impending destruction (which is actually what the book does do - it never refers to it as an event that has happened). What you're actually saying is that Jesus is much less likely to have predicted it, and hence Matthew written his warnings, than Matthew was to have known it happened and written to explain why.
But you are simply describing the narrative style of the gospels - effectively narrating the claimed story of Jesus as if it is contemporaneous (i.e in the present) when we know that they were written at best decades later and, in reality, discussing something in the past.
So, of course, Matthew needs to allude to the destruction rather than simply say 'hey look what happened 5 years ago in CE70'. But also prophesying is a highly risky game unless you are writing with hindsight - in other words the thing you are prophesying has already happened, which is, of course, what Matthew is doing. Knowing full well that the destruction has happened but writing as if it is some kind of prophetic future event.
So basically what Matthew is doing is creating a narrative as follows: 'Judas rejected and betrayed Jesus and look what happened to him - he was punished and cursed. And now the whole of the jewish people are rejecting Jesus and so they will be punished and cursed' - knowing full well that this had already come to pass through the destruction and the narrative that the early church were creating around that event.
So yes, it only really makes sense if written after the destruction (as basically all serious bible scholars agree).
And I come back to my other point - the earliest actual texts we have on field of blood or prophecy of destruction are from way, way later than CE70 so even if there was some text earlier than the destruction there was plenty of opportunity for this to be revised to take account of the destruction and the purported fulfilled prophecy (actually merely fitting a prophetic narrative to an event that had already happened).
-
But you are simply describing the narrative style of the gospels - effectively narrating the claimed story of Jesus as if it is contemporaneous (i.e in the present) when we know that they were written at best decades later and, in reality, discussing something in the past.
So, of course, Matthew needs to allude to the destruction rather than simply say 'hey look what happened 5 years ago in CE70'. But also prophesying is a highly risky game unless you are writing with hindsight - in other words the thing you are prophesying has already happened, which is, of course, what Matthew is doing. Knowing full well that the destruction has happened but writing as if it is some kind of prophetic future event.
So basically what Matthew is doing is creating a narrative as follows: 'Judas rejected and betrayed Jesus and look what happened to him - he was punished and cursed. And now the whole of the jewish people are rejecting Jesus and so they will be punished and cursed' - knowing full well that this had already come to pass through the destruction and the narrative that the early church were creating around that event.
So yes, it only really makes sense if written after the destruction (as basically all serious bible scholars agree).
And I come back to my other point - the earliest actual texts we have on field of blood or prophecy of destruction are from way, way later than CE70 so even if there was some text earlier than the destruction there was plenty of opportunity for this to be revised to take account of the destruction and the purported fulfilled prophecy (actually merely fitting a prophetic narrative to an event that had already happened).
I really can't imagine how it would help an author who wants to persuade his readers to reject Judaism and embrace Christianity, to create the narrative that the Jews have recently been punished for rejecting Jesus, yet pretend that it hasn't yet happened.
-
I intended to talk about why the author of Matthew must have been one of the twelve disciples. Most people believe that the author used Mark as the source for his narrative, and that he could not have been Matthew, because it would be unlikely that an apostle would rely on an account written by someone who wasn't an apostle.
But Matthew's narrative has its own distinct structure, such that that it cannot have been derived from Mark. And each section of his teaching material is set in a definite context within the narrative, and follows naturally from that context. Additional material has been added to both the narrative and teaching material either by the original author or a later editor.
The contents of the pre-edited text of Matthew show signs of direct association with Jesus during his ministry.
For example, Mark states simply that after John the Baptist was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee and began to preach. Matthew however gives the reason for Jesus' move to Galilee, saying that "When Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, He withdrew to Galilee" and "From that time on Jesus began to preach". Then, after John's execution, Mark, like Luke, explains Jesus' withdrawal from the public eye as due to a need for rest, whereas Matthew says that it was because Jesus heard about John. In both instances Matthew links Jesus' withdrawal to Herod's actions towards John. This is what we would expect if the author was one of the twelve disciples, who would have had this kind of inside information about Jesus' ministry, in contrast with Mark for whom that detail was apparently not important. For another example, the author of Matthew (but not Luke or Mark) mentions flute players at Jairus' house when Jesus arrived there, typical of eyewitness recollection.
-
Or Matthew takes mark and adds material from other sources and writes in a way as to tell the story and give the message he wanted to.
-
Or Matthew takes mark and adds material from other sources and writes in a way as to tell the story and give the message he wanted to.
Comparing the two, it seems obvious that the author of Matthew had a more extensive knowledge and deeper understanding of what happened.than the author of Mark. Surely this indicates that Matthew was closer to the source than Mark, and therefore written nearer in time?
-
Comparing the two, it seems obvious that the author of Matthew had a more extensive knowledge and deeper understanding of what happened.than the author of Mark. Surely this indicates that Matthew was closer to the source than Mark, and therefore written nearer in time?
Added details but not necessarily knowledge. The details could be inaccurate. Later stories could have been added by the author based on circulating stories or he could have just invented them.
-
Comparing the two, it seems obvious that the author of Matthew had a more extensive knowledge and deeper understanding of what happened.than the author of Mark. Surely this indicates that Matthew was closer to the source than Mark, and therefore written nearer in time?
Or perhaps he simply took Mark's account as the basic structure, did some further research or was aware of other oral traditions and added them to the narrative. And I'd say it's obvious he made certain details up to add a bit of extra drama to the narrative - such as the zombie apocalypse and the description of the angel descending to roll away the stone.
-
Or perhaps he simply took Mark's account as the basic structure, did some further research or was aware of other oral traditions and added them to the narrative. And I'd say it's obvious he made certain details up to add a bit of extra drama to the narrative - such as the zombie apocalypse and the description of the angel descending to roll away the stone.
But is it also possible that Mark was using an earlier edition of Matthew which didn't contain those additional traditions?
-
But is it also possible that Mark was using an earlier edition of Matthew which didn't contain those additional traditions?
Possible but no evidence for an earlier version of Matthew is there?
-
Possible but no evidence for an earlier version of Matthew is there?
From what I've read, there definitely is; there are lots of sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well. However I think it's not the same issue as where you have a story that's common to Matthew and Mark, and Matthew's version is part of the original text, but is longer. Eg John the Baptist's preaching, or the temptation in the wilderness. Neither of these stories in Matthew show signs of editing but we could still ask whether it is Matthew who has expanded Mark or Mark who has shortened Matthew.
-
Added details but not necessarily knowledge. The details could be inaccurate. Later stories could have been added by the author based on circulating stories or he could have just invented them.
But in the examples of John the Baptist's preaching and Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, the extra information in Matthew fits naturally into its context. John's description of the winnowing fork of the one who was coming after him, and the detail that Jesus fasted in the desert, explaining the reason for saying that Jesus was tempted, suggest that Matthew's structure was not derived from Mark's, since Matthew's additional information explains the information he has in common with Mark. This must mean that Mark has abbreviated Matthew.
-
From what I've read, there definitely is; there are lots of sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well. However I think it's not the same issue as where you have a story that's common to Matthew and Mark, and Matthew's version is part of the original text, but is longer. Eg John the Baptist's preaching, or the temptation in the wilderness. Neither of these stories in Matthew show signs of editing but we could still ask whether it is Matthew who has expanded Mark or Mark who has shortened Matthew.
I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?
-
I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?
This seems the same as saying that the later editor(s) expanded the writings of an apostle?
-
I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?
Matthew has to be the first written: think back to when you have read in Mark that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. If you hadn't read Matthew's account, you would have no idea in what way Jesus was tempted, or why.
Also Matthew makes sense of the sequence (Jesus baptism is followed by his temptation), because in the first God says "this is my Son", in the second the devil tries to make him doubt, saying "if you are the Son of God...". We wouldn't understand why the two are in sequence from just reading Mark.
-
Matthew has to be the first written: think back to when you have read in Mark that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. If you hadn't read Matthew's account, you would have no idea in what way Jesus was tempted, or why.
Also Matthew makes sense of the sequence (Jesus baptism is followed by his temptation), because in the first God says "this is my Son", in the second the devil tries to make him doubt, saying "if you are the Son of God...". We wouldn't understand why the two are in sequence from just reading Mark.
Why do most scholars not think that then?
-
From what I've read, there definitely is; there are lots of sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well.
But the text we actually have (rather than the hypothetic 'original' which is unavailable to us) is largely from the 3rd-6thC CE. So surely a more plausible explanation for 'sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well' is that the text has been edited, added to, had section removed over the 2-300 years after it was purported to have been written. Accordingly what we actually have available to us as text is a highly edited and 'curated' version deemed suitable to be considered as 'orthodox' by the early church.
-
But the text we actually have (rather than the hypothetic 'original' which is unavailable to us) is largely from the 3rd-6thC CE. So surely a more plausible explanation for 'sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well' is that the text has been edited, added to, had section removed over the 2-300 years after it was purported to have been written. Accordingly what we actually have available to us as text is a highly edited and 'curated' version deemed suitable to be considered as 'orthodox' by the early church.
If "to this day" is a comment by an editor, it suggests a date for the additional material earlier than AD70, although I know you have your own theory about that, involving anti-Semitism of the author.
Agreed, minor textual variances have appeared over the centuries.
-
If "to this day" is a comment by an editor, it suggests a date for the additional material earlier than AD70, although I know you have your own theory about that, involving anti-Semitism of the author.
Yup we've been through this, and we all agree that the gospels weren't contemporaneously written and therefore are written in the form of a current account but written decades or centuries later. This gives amply opportunity to create 'reverse' prophecy - in other words imply something to be a prophesy in the future when it actually alludes to something that had already happened at the time of writing to claim that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Well of course it had as they were writing after the event.
Agreed, minor textual variances have appeared over the centuries.
There are literally thousands of minor textural variations between earlier version of the bible - indeed I think there are more variations that there are actually words in the gospels.
But there are also some humdinger changes (that we know about) - the most notable being the edited end to Mark which changes the narrative from 'no resurrection' to 'resurrection'. But we only know about this because we have before/after versions. For most texts we have nothing until hundreds of years after they were written and therefore we do not know and cannot know how these 3rd/6thC 'first' versions we have compare to the original and whether they varied in only minor respects or (as in the ending of Mark) in day/night variations.
-
Yup we've been through this, and we all agree that the gospels weren't contemporaneously written and therefore are written in the form of a current account but written decades or centuries later.
In the past tense but could still have been pre - AD70.
This gives amply opportunity to create 'reverse' prophecy - in other words imply something to be a prophesy in the future when it actually alludes to something that had already happened at the time of writing to claim that the prophecy had been fulfilled.
How did that help their cause? Why didn't they just say it had been fulfilled, as Matthew did so often in the text regarding old testament prophecy?
Well of course it had as they were writing after the event.
There are many verses that suggest otherwise. Matthew sometimes mentions aspects of temple worship as though they were still being practiced, such as offering a gift at the altar, or swearing by the temple.
There are literally thousands of minor textural variations between earlier version of the bible - indeed I think there are more variations that there are actually words in the gospels.
But there are also some humdinger changes (that we know about) - the most notable being the edited end to Mark which changes the narrative from 'no resurrection' to 'resurrection'. But we only know about this because we have before/after versions. For most texts we have nothing until hundreds of years after they were written and therefore we do not know and cannot know how these 3rd/6thC 'first' versions we have compare to the original and whether they varied in only minor respects or (as in the ending of Mark) in day/night variations.
We have recently been talking about the changes made to Matthew. Once identified, a coherent underlying narrative with integrated discourses is seen.
Mark 16:8 is similar in form to Matthew 28:8, but with marked differences - we don't know why Mark changed it to say that the women told no-one; however, they must have broken their silence at some point for Mark to know what they had seen. This also prompts the question as to whether Matthew 28:8 was the final verse of his original narrative.
I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".
-
I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".
Occam waves hello!
-
I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".
So from that, is it possible that it didn't happen?
-
Occam waves hello!
Occam?, or your conspiracy theory, Davey?
-
Occam?, or your conspiracy theory, Davey?
No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.
But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.
-
No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.
But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.
Zero historical scholarship involved here. Plus I suspect a shifting of the definition of Occams razor from not multiplying entities beyond necessity to not multiplying entities
-
No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.
But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.
I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.
-
I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.
Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.
-
So from that, is it possible that it didn't happen?
Well, the hypothesis is that the details in Matthew 28 about the guards and the great commission are later additions.
But the disciples going to Galilee (Mt 28:16) follows naturally from Jesus' words, "after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee" in chapter 26. So it's not clear cut.
If Mark and Luke were following Matthew up to the angel at the tomb, the fact that they don't include the appearance in Galilee suggests it wasn't in their copies of Matthew. So Luke got his details of the appearances from another source and Mark might have done the same.
If the resurrection did happen, more than one person would be available as a witness to appearances, so for Matthew not to include one doesn't mean it didn't happen, as Luke and John have independent accounts.
-
Well, the hypothesis is that the details in Matthew 28 about the guards and the great commission are later additions.
But the disciples going to Galilee (Mt 28:16) follows naturally from Jesus' words, "after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee" in chapter 26. So it's not clear cut.
If Mark and Luke were following Matthew up to the angel at the tomb, the fact that they don't include the appearance in Galilee suggests it wasn't in their copies of Matthew. So Luke got his details of the appearances from another source and Mark might have done the same.
If the resurrection did happen, more than one person would be available as a witness to appearances, so for Matthew not to include one doesn't mean it didn't happen, as Luke and John have independent accounts.
If he said that rather than it being claimed that he said that by the authors of the Gospels years after the events.
-
Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.
Yet the razor works on explanations that have the same value in terms of methodology and explanatory terms which is not the case here. You could arguably be steelmanning this but it seems to me a misuse of the razor, and hides the fact that there is no methodology for evaluating supernatural claims.
-
Occam waves hello!
The other miracles in Matthew's gospel send their greetings.
-
The other miracles in Matthew's gospel send their greetings.
Fantastic claims without a methodology to validate don't become more likely by the use of more fantastic claims without a methodology to validate them
-
Fantastic claims without a methodology to validate don't become more likely by the use of more fantastic claims without a methodology to validate them
Professor's comment assumed that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence for a miracle, as did mine.
-
Professor's comment assumed that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence for a miracle, as did mine.
Your assumptions are fallacious.
-
Your assumptions are fallacious.
I know, but we frequently hear the argument that Mark didn't include a resurrection appearance, and therefore the resurrection was made up. The accounts of other miracles in Matthew's gospel suggest that there was another explanation why the resurrection appearance was not part of the original, if that is found to be the case.
-
I know, but we frequently hear the argument that Mark didn't include a resurrection appearance, and therefore the resurrection was made up. The accounts of other miracles in Matthew's gospel suggest that there was another explanation why the resurrection appearance was not part of the original, if that is found to be the case.
Making fallacious assumptions makes the entire discussion worthless
-
Professor's comment assumed that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence for a miracle, as did mine.
No I didn't - I merely pointed out that assuming a supernatural occurrence adds and additional unnecessary assumptions and therefore falls foul of Occam.
And while we are at it, assuming that the purported 'eyewitnesses' were accurate in their recollection of what they say (regardless of whether they were correct in their interpretation of what they say) represents another unnecessary assumption. Noting, of course, that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
And further assuming that those eye witness testimonies (regardless of whether they were correct or not) were accurately transferred across many years and across significant geographical and linguistic distance represents yet another unnecessary assumption.
So the notion that the writing we have decades (well actually centuries) after the event represents a faithful depiction of a supernatural event falls foul of occam in at least three different ways.
-
I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.
So what - Occam is simply about considering that the explanation with the fewest necessary assumption is to be preferred. I think it is completely silent as to whether those assumptions are naturalistic or supernatural. Nor is it concerned with whether there are methods to test those assumptions.
-
So what - Occam is simply about considering that the explanation with the fewest necessary assumption is to be preferred. I think it is completely silent as to whether those assumptions are naturalistic or supernatural. Nor is it concerned with whether there are methods to test those assumptions.
No, it isn't. It's about the explanations being of equal explanatory value. That cannot be the case here, and your misuse of the razor just leads to giving credence to the claims.
-
No, it isn't. It's about the explanations being of equal explanatory value. That cannot be the case here, and your misuse of the razor just leads to giving credence to the claims.
I'm sorry but you are talking non-sense.
Occam, in its usual formulation is simply 'Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity' - it is completely silent, as far as I'm aware, as to whether those entities are natural or supernatural. Indeed in its earliest formulation it was used in the context of god, a clearly supernatural entity. So Occam applies equally to supernatural as to natural entities - the only issue being whether those entities are necessary or not and that the explanation with the fewest necessary entities (or assumptions) should be preferred.
So Spud's claims relies on more necessary assumptions in order to justify the claim (i.e. entities) than other explanations. Specifically 1) the existence of supernatural events; 2) fidelity of eye witness account and 3) fidelity of transfer of that information from person to person across tens to hundreds of years and significant geographical and language divides.
-
No I didn't - I merely pointed out that assuming a supernatural occurrence adds and additional unnecessary assumptions and therefore falls foul of Occam.
What I thought you meant was that if Matthew didn't originally include the resurrection appearance in his account, the most likely explanation is that there wasn't a resurrection.
-
So Spud's claims relies on more necessary assumptions in order to justify the claim (i.e. entities) than other explanations. Specifically 1) the existence of supernatural events; 2) fidelity of eye witness account and 3) fidelity of transfer of that information from person to person across tens to hundreds of years and significant geographical and language divides
So three assumptions. Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true. For example, that Jesus died is a claim backed up with lots of evidence from the NT. Likewise that the tomb was empty. Also, the body wasn't ever produced. The numerous times the accounts of the appearances agree (eg 2 gospels say there was an appearance in Galilee, two of them say at least two appearances in Jerusalem, all say he appeared to women first, two say they touched him and saw his hands and feet, and he ate fish. Acts cites multiple ones, Paul cites one to 500 people. NT describes persecution for their belief.)
-
All of which are no more than anecdotes: and that ain't evidence, since they could involve mistakes, exaggeration or lies.
One can't really ask for more reliable evidence, given the limitations of it being a supernatural event. And supposing it was your trusted friends telling you - would you believe them?
-
One can't really ask for more reliable evidence, given the limitations of it being a supernatural event. And supposing it was your trusted friends telling you - would you believe them?
No - remarkable claims (such as the supernatural) require remarkable and related evidence: the NT ain't it.
-
Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true.
But there isn't any credible evidence that the claims in the gospels are true. What do we actually have? Well:
1. That some people (and we don't actually know who those people are) claimed some things happened. And those claims are in texts that we have available to us that were written centuries later, albeit they may (or may not) bare resemblance to texts purportedly written decades later. But we don't have those texts. And even in those text the earliest claims (e.g. Paul and the original ending of Mark) have no post-resurrection accounts at all (Mark) or none that represent a physical resurrection (Paul). And, of course a claim that something happened provides no evidence that it actually did happen.
2. That some people believed in those claims. But notably by and large those who were closest to the events (living in the place and at the time) did not believe the claims as they did not accept Jesus as the messiah. And of course people believing something provides no evidence that the something they believe in is true.
And ... err ... that's it.
And the ancient world is littered with claims in ancient and sacred texts and also people who believe in those claims. So why don't you believe in all these other claims which have exactly the same credible evidence for them ... i.e. none.
-
So three assumptions. Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true. For example, that Jesus died is a claim backed up with lots of evidence from the NT. Likewise that the tomb was empty. Also, the body wasn't ever produced. The numerous times the accounts of the appearances agree (eg 2 gospels say there was an appearance in Galilee, two of them say at least two appearances in Jerusalem, all say he appeared to women first, two say they touched him and saw his hands and feet, and he ate fish. Acts cites multiple ones, Paul cites one to 500 people. NT describes persecution for their belief.)
No strong evidence there.
-
Moderator:
Since a discussion on the Resurrection occurred on this thread, the relevant posts have been moved to a separate thread, and further discussion of the Resurrection should be in this new thread.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22800.new#new
-
I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?
Can I give you an example:
Mt 5:31 says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"
Compare this with Mt 19:9
"9And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
This saying about divorce is in both chapters 5 and 19.
In 19:9 the context is a dispute with the religious leaders about divorce, and the saying fits naturally into its context.
5:31-32 however seems to have been tagged onto the previous saying in 5:27-28 which is specifically about the commandment against adultery, and conforms to the formula "you have heard that it was said...but I say to you". It appears likely that Jesus originally talked specifically about divorce during the dispute with the Pharisees, recorded in chapter 19. Mark also records the dispute.
Like lots of other examples there seems to have been editing. Whether this was done as part of the process of writing the original text I'm not sure.