Hey Acack
Nope, that was just for you. I was pretty buzzed awhile ago on some Nyquil. Shoulda taken some Dayquil, huh?
Nate
Are the gospels genuine?
by ackack 79 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Nate Merit
-
Leolaia
Forscher....The evidence for Markan Priority is not based on assumptions about literacy in the first century and who had access to educated Greek; it is based on an analysis of the text itself, which in several distinct lines of evidence points to Matthew's dependence on Mark than the other way around. The point about Matthew being more "sophisticated" in language than Mark is that the Second Gospel uses a more oral style than Matthew, not necessarily the sign of an author with limited competence in Greek but that the author stood closer to the stream of oral traditions circulating about Jesus and wrote with greater narrative vividness. Matthew, on the other hand, is a more self-consciously literary composition with greater intertextuality with other existing texts (such as the OT). This phenomenon is unexpected by the Griesbach hypothesis which would place Matthew closer to oral storytelling and Mark several times removed from it through conscious literary redaction of Matthew and Luke (as Griesbach contends, to account for agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew). The directionality of dependence between Matthew and Mark is also indicated by other facts such as the ordering of the pericopes, allusions to the events of AD 70 (which are more concrete in Matthew and Luke than Mark), the evidence of redaction by Matthew, the phenomenon of "editorial fatigue" noted by Goodacre, and the combined weight of what would be under the Griesbach hypothesis Mark's omissions of Matthew and additions to Matthew. The following summary of the latter issue by Davies and Allison is quite perceptive:
"With all due respect to Griesbach's supporters ..., can one seriously envision someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young man, a healing miracle in which Jesus had trouble healing, and the remark that Jesus' family thought him mad?" (p. 109).
Markan Priority however explains these facts neatly: The author of Matthew omitted the strange episode about the naked man, omitted the story about Jesus' imperfect healing (Mark 8:22-26), revised the statement that Jesus "could not do" miracles in his town (Mark 6:5) to say that Jesus "did not do" his miracles there (Matthew 13:58), added a birth narrative and a resurrection appearance narrative (elements sorely lacking in Mark), and added substantial new blocks of teaching and parables...inserted into the narrative frame provided by Mark. While not impossible, the Griesbach assumption of Matthean Priority is on the weight of the evidence the least probable of the two possibilities.
Nor is the Griesbach hypothesis more felicitous with early church tradition about the authorship of the gospels. While Origen (Commentary on Matthew, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4) claimed that Matthew was "the first to be written" and Irenaeus (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2) claimed that "Matthew published among the Hebrews in their own tongue also a written gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome," the earliest tradition by Papias (c. AD 140) made no specific claim about when the gospel was written, only that "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew language and each translated them as best he could" (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16), a statement that is not even clear whether it refers to our own gospel of Matthew, or some other collection of sayings that circulated at that time (compare with Papias' statement that Mark wrote about "the things said and done by the Lord"). Papias did not state that that Matthew was written first (in fact, he appears to mention it after discussing Mark), and in fact the later statements about Matthew's authorship appear to be dependent on Papias (tho interpreting him in a certain way). Matthean Priority thus fits with the later tradition about Matthew, and yet fails on what Papias wrote about the authorship of Mark: "Mark became the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord, not indeed in the right order, because he had not heard the Lord nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, he had followed Peter who used to give his teachings in order to make a composition of the words of the Lord. Thus Mark did nothing wrong in writing down individual pieces just as he remembered them" (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15). Griesbach's priority of Matthew flatly contradicts this tradition because virtually the entirety of Mark, save for some 40 verses, would have been taken directly from Matthew and Luke, not from the oral recollections of Peter. Indeed, Papias leaves no room for dependence on Matthew because what Mark is said to have written down is "all that he remembered" of what Peter said, from memory, "just as he remembered them," and not from a written gospel already before him. This description instead better supports Markan Priority...that Mark wrote directly from Peter and published a gospel with those reminiscenes of what Jesus "said and did", tho "not in the right order", while Matthew would have written down the "sayings" that would later be combined with the "words and deeds" from Mark to produce what is now canonical Matthew. Moreover, the criticism that Mark did not have its stories "in the right order" is clearly based on a comparison with the reordering of the stories in Matthew and in later gospel harmonies; the suggestion, then, is that the order of the pericopes in Mark is original, and not secondary to Matthew (as claimed by Griesbach).
In point of fact, I don't find Papias too credible either, his statements about Matthew are highly problematic as it is (the gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, as its dependence on the LXX and other facts show, and there is no evidence in its textual tradition that varying Greek "translations" of Matthew existed), and his other extant comments about the apostles and Jesus are of a highly legendary nature, but it is worthwhile to note that Matthean Priority is not reconcilable with such traditions about the composition of Mark if Markan dependence on Matthew is to be urged (as well as dependence on Luke, as Farmer and Griesbach claimed as well), and the literary facts demand some sort of extensive dependence in either direction.
-
TheListener
Woe there everyone.
The back of my NWT clearly shows that:
Matthew was written first in 41 in Palestine, Luke was written next in 56-58 in Caesarea, Mark was written third in 60-65 in Rome and John was written last in 98 in Ephesus. 'Nough said.
____________________
In all seriousness, this discussion has been really informative. From what I can tell from my research of the WTS CD the socieyt is relying on the early church fathers for the dating and order of the writings. I think we've seen high quality opposing arguments presented here and I for one am grateful.
-
Forscher
Greetings Leolaia,
I've done my research as well and realise the Pappias was not a scholar. rather he was more a collector of gossip passing on the little tibits that he'd gleaned from sources older people who knew some of the principles. Although I know he does not come up to the standard of modern scholarship, I think that dismissing him completely, as you do, because he does not back up textual speculation is not helpful either.
Therein lies the crux of the whole problem and discussion. Certain groups of scholars reject the ancient witnesses in favor of textual criticism which is nothing more than speculation. While you may dispute that one of the assumptions is regarding the literacy of the writers, that and assumptions of content are implicit in the very framework of the hypothesis. There is no manuscript or other direct evidence to test that speculation with. Remember that the oldest known fragment of the Gospels is a fragment of John, whom everybody agrees was probably the last of the Gospels written and is not even a synoptic Gospel.
The argument that the apparent reliance on the LXX as the basis for the scriptural citations is on shaky ground as well. Remember that the MT is a later construction which the discoveries at Qumran show follows one particular line of transmission. The texts discovered at Qumran showed several different variants, some of which were very close to LXX and may very well have been the basis for it. So it is entirely possible that Matthew, if he did write his Gospel first in Hebrew as Jerome claimed, may well have used a text from that tradition. Remember that the LXX tradition represented a text minus a sigificant portion of the MT database, sort of an ancient reader's digest version. I have no doubt such a database was cheaper to produce I am sure that made it attractive. I realise that is speculative on my part, but since speculation seems to pass as good scholarship in modern circles, please forgive me the indulgence. Besides, if we want to go down the same road we take with the Gospels, then it can be argued, as some do, that the LXX represents the more accurate tradition than the MT. But then, that is another argument altogether. Any way, the reliance on LXX or its Hebrew precusor proves nothing. Please forgive the digression.
Anyway, Since the issue of whether Matt. wrote his gospel first in Hebrew has little relevance to the discussion of which Gospel came first, I really don't see the point in pursuing that particular issue.
You mentioned earlier, Matt. contains something on the order of 90% of the material that Mark does. It that really proof that Mark cam first? What would prevent Mark from lifting his material from an earlier written Matt.? Nothing at all! Modern Higher critics use a historical-anthropological argument that the earliest written records of a figure like Jesus would consist of nothing but a record of sayings. Later writers would add explanatory material with the simplest material representing the earliest and more complex the lastest. They point to the Koran as an example where most of the record consists of the sayings of Mohammad to which are added the later Haddiths. From the materialist perspective, which denies any existence beyond the material universe, that is the only reasonable explanation.
However, what if they are wrong? Unlike Mohammad, Jesus appears to be something of a genious. All he needed to do in order to short-circuit the process was to pick somebody with the ability and mind set to preserve his sayings, check public records, and write effectively. Roman tax collectors fit that profile to a tee. And the Gospels tell us that Matthew was just that! Since Luke follows Matthew more than Mark in his writing, then it follows that Luke gave more authority to Matt. Where Luke differed from Matt., remember that he was going on more than just a manuscript or two, he was also going on personal recollections of eye witnesses to events etc., as he affirmed. Given the education and training of Roman physicians, which we are finding out more about as time goes by, it just makes sense that Matt. likely followed the older and more authoritative of the records Luke had available when he authored his Gospel. That assumes that Mark was written before Luke, something which cannot be adequately proven one way or the other. That is also speculative, but it fits the evidence just as well, or better, than "textual analysis" without any reference to historical data.`
Great day to you Leolaia!
Forscher -
Midget-Sasquatch
Remember that the LXX tradition represented a text minus a sigificant portion of the MT database, sort of an ancient reader's digest version. I have no doubt such a database was cheaper to produce I am sure that made it attractive.
Not relevant to the discussion I know, but I don't think thats generally the case. I know that Jeremiah in the LXX is shorter, but I also know that there were additions made to Daniel and to Esther. Later copies of the LXX also had several books that weren't included in the MT.
You mentioned earlier, Matt. contains something on the order of 90% of the material that Mark does. It that really proof that Mark cam first? What would prevent Mark from lifting his material from an earlier written Matt.? Nothing at all!
On topic though, Leolaia mentioned a slew of details that make more sense assuming the priority of Mark. Recheck them like: Why would Mark have left out the birth stories and some of the resurrection sightings but include that odd bit about a young guy running off buck naked? Smart editing?
-
Narkissos
John, whom everybody agrees was probably the last of the Gospels written
That's the position of ancient tradition, certainly not of recent scholarship; whereas the original GJohn is most probably dependent on (an early form of) Mark, it may well be earlier than (the extant) Matthew and especially Luke.
the MT is a later construction which the discoveries at Qumran show follows one particular line of transmission. The texts discovered at Qumran showed several different variants, some of which were very close to LXX and may very well have been the basis for it. So it is entirely possible that Matthew, if he did write his Gospel first in Hebrew as Jerome claimed, may well have used a text from that tradition. Remember that the LXX tradition represented a text minus a sigificant portion of the MT database, sort of an ancient reader's digest version. I have no doubt such a database was cheaper to produce I am sure that made it attractive. I realise that is speculative on my part, but since speculation seems to pass as good scholarship in modern circles, please forgive me the indulgence. Besides, if we want to go down the same road we take with the Gospels, then it can be argued, as some do, that the LXX represents the more accurate tradition than the MT. But then, that is another argument altogether. Any way, the reliance on LXX or its Hebrew precusor proves nothing. Please forgive the digression.
Hmm... I think you can't have it both ways. Imo the different textual traditions attested in the DSS cannot be explained through the patterns of abridgement or expansion of one another. They are rather textual traditions which separated early and then went through independent development. Back to the topic, resorting to alternative Hebrew texts would not account for the agreement of Matthew with the LXX in Greek wording.
Modern Higher critics use a historical-anthropological argument that the earliest written records of a figure like Jesus would consist of nothing but a record of sayings. Later writers would add explanatory material with the simplest material representing the earliest and more complex the lastest.
This is not what the two-source hypothesis suggests, since the earliest narrative it posits (= Mark or proto-Mark) lacks the main saying source ("Q").
However, what if they are wrong? Unlike Mohammad, Jesus appears to be something of a genious. All he needed to do in order to short-circuit the process was to pick somebody with the ability and mind set to preserve his sayings, check public records, and write effectively. Roman tax collectors fit that profile to a tee. And the Gospels tell us that Matthew was just that! Since Luke follows Matthew more than Mark in his writing, then it follows that Luke gave more authority to Matt. Where Luke differed from Matt., remember that he was going on more than just a manuscript or two, he was also going on personal recollections of eye witnesses to events etc., as he affirmed. Given the education and training of Roman physicians, which we are finding out more about as time goes by, it just makes sense that Matt. likely followed the older and more authoritative of the records Luke had available when he authored his Gospel. That assumes that Mark was written before Luke, something which cannot be adequately proven one way or the other. That is also speculative, but it fits the evidence just as well, or better, than "textual analysis" without any reference to historical data.`
As you know this hypothesis rests only on ancient upbuilding tradition. The four Gospels are anonymous writings. Only the Fourth one refers to an authoritative source (not the writer) which it calls the "disciple whom Jesus loved" -- not "John". If we look for internal clues of authorship we might better conclude that the author of GMatthew was a "scribe" rather than a "tax collector" (cf. 13:52; 23:34). -
LDH
ackack,
The Gospels are Real History in the same way Naugahyde is Real Leather.
-
Hellrider
TheListener :
Matthew was written first in 41 in Palestine, Luke was written next in 56-58 in Caesarea, Mark was written third in 60-65 in Rome and John was written last in 98 in Ephesus. 'Nough said.
You`re kidding, right? How did thye find that out? They consulted the Holy Spirit?
-
Shining One
Hi AckAck,
Check out this link below....
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5380
Here is an excerpt from the link:
Is There Any Good Evidence the Gospels are Reliable?
The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves. This is why the trend in the last 20 years has been for liberal scholars to become more conservative in their views on the reliability of the Gospels, not less.
Recent finds in archaeology, for example, show us that funerals were conducted differently in Galilee than in Jerusalem, consistent with the details in the Gospels. A person fabricating a story generations after the fact would not know this because of the devastation in Galilee by the Romans in 70 A.D.
This doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it's one of a number of things that have been discovered over time that point to the accurate detail of the Gospel accounts. This gives substance to the claim that the writers were eye witnesses at the time of the events.
We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.
It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).
The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors.
There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. They give abundant geographic and cultural details not available to writers of the next century. We also now know that it was the habit of Jewish disciples to memorize entire discourses of their rabbi's teaching. First century oral tradition was not as flexible or fluid as we might imagine.
But there's another problem.
Who Would Follow this Man?
Even the members of the Jesus Seminar admit that Jesus was executed on a Roman Cross. But why was He killed? Who would follow this deconstructed Jesus? Who would care if He lived or died?
Leading Jesus scholar John Meier notes that a Jesus who "spent his time spinning parables and Japanese koans...or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field...would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one."[4]
In Jesus Under Fire , J.P. Moreland sums up what the Jesus Seminar is asking us to believe based on nothing more than the strength of their philosophic assumptions: "It requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate."[5]
Does the Resurrection Matter?
The Jesus Seminar wants us to believe that nothing meaningful is surrendered as a result of their analysis. Even though the resurrection is false, they say, it still has significance because of the story it tells.
The Apostle Paul disagreed. "If Christ has not been raised," he wrote, "your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."[6]
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but instead was buried in a shallow grave and later dug up and eaten by dogs, as Robert Funk asserts, then Christians have nothing to celebrate. Rather, they should be pitied, according to Paul. Pretty stories not grounded in fact save no one. Only a risen Savior can defeat death.
I'm with Paul. I pity the Jesus Seminar who thinks we can hold on to some kind of vain, empty, religious confidence when all the facts of history go against us. If that's true, then you and I and the Jesus Seminar are all still in our sins. That's not something to celebrate on Easter.
As for me, I'm going to stand with Paul. I'm going to stand with Jesus. I'm going to stand with the resurrection.
------
By the way, J.P. Moreland's and Mike Wilkins's book, Jesus Under Fire , published by Zondervan, is a powerful academic and scholarly rebuttal of the Jesus Seminar. You must get a copy of this book . The introduction alone is worth the asking price.
Here's another....
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5473
Ditto!
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5350#3bible
Rex -
peacefulpete
Ironically I find myself agreeing with much of that brief article Rex. I feel the search for an historical Jesus is misguided. While the research has done much to isolate sources for the diverse Jesus legends (such as OT midrash and possible snippets from the zealot exploits) and sharpened our reconstruction of the developement of these legends, it has really done the opposite they set out to do. When all the obvious legendary layers are removed we find nothing left but a hull, an empty character. The Jesus myth was apparently constructed whole cloth from Jewish sources with a Hellenized bent. He is a composite figment of many imaginations.