JoeWallack

Apologies And The Apologetic Apologists Who Tell Them - A Fair And Balanced Look At The Religious Right


JW:
The Apologist JP Holding is currently arguing that there are excellent reasons to attribute "Matthew" to "Matthew". In my opinion, due to a lack of existence of the usual positive evidence indicating authorship Holding is forced to resort to a primarily negative evidence argument which I can summarize in one sentence:

"Why would a Religion which is based on Faith accept on Faith that "Matthew" wrote "Matthew"? (Talk about asked and answered!).

Holding's Avoidance of the criteria normally used to establish authorship and Promotion of criteria which is less important than the criteria he is Avoiding to determine authorship reminds me of the following analogy:

Let's provide excellent reasons to predict that the Cubs will win the World Series but Avoid discussing criteria such as Pitching, Offense, Defense, Experience and Coaching.

While such a discussion might be entertaining would any related conclusions mean much in the Real World with the Avoidance of discussion of the usual Criteria?

As far as criteria that Holding is Avoiding in trying to determine authorship of "Matthew" the most important one in my opinion is the Natural/Supernatural consideration. Simply stated, if the Impossible is Impossible then it would have been Impossible for the Matthew in "Matthew's" Gospel to have written "Matthew" because the Real witness Matthew could not have witnessed the Impossible. We can be exponentially more certain that the Impossible is Impossible than that any of Holding's assertions promoting Matthew as author are likely. So WHY should Holding be permitted to ignore the Impossible/Possible issue in an argument which tries to depict itself as a Logical argument?

When detectives try to solve crimes or Judges or juries try to decide cases do they consider the possibility that the Impossible is possible? Would anyone including the religious right want them to? Let's say that JP Holding was killed during a debate with Farrell Till. Would even Holding want us to consider the possibility that the Supernatural was involved in his death?

I throw out the Natural/Supernatural issue for starters as an important issue that I think Holding is Avoiding in his argument that "Matthew" wrote "Matthew" but I can think of a few other excellent reasons to doubt attributing "Matthew" to "Matthew" as well.


Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Metacrock

Meta: Ok, so far so good. But here's where the problems begin:







Meta: Matt couldn't have written Matt because Jesus couldn't water into wine? That's a ridiculous argument! What does the possiblity of the SN have to do with authoriship?

Ok let's make a similar argument: Jules Vern could not have written Twenty Thousand Legagues Under the Sea because it's a fictional story and didn't happen?


Secondly, you can't jus doub the Suerpnatuarl as "impossible." prove it's impossible! That's nothing more than an ideolgoical. I hate to keep saying this, but real scholars do not try to determine authorship by this kind of queistion. No scholar anywhere has ever argued this way.






Meta:prove the supernatural is impossible!!!

and why should we use court for a basis? Why sholdn't we use the standards of literary and textual criticism since determining authorship is part of the job of textual and litereary critics?

But if we were in a court case and crucial testimony revovled around seeing something that is deemed to be "impossible," they would not just stirke it from the record. They would say "this witness bleieves this is what he/she saw."





Meta: It shouldn't be an issue at all. It has no place in Biblical scholarship or any kind of textual or litrerary criticism. It's never been propossed as a way of doing higher criticism.

Morover, it calls for a Metaphysical assumption which just doesn't belong in the subject matter.

Toto

Meta - The author of Matthew doesn't say anything about Jesus turning water to wine. That was the author of John. </nitpick>

So are you saying that Matthew wrote fiction? Thought that he saw miracles happen because he was delusional?

Or do you have to believe in miracles in order to believe that Matthew wrote the gospel with his name?

This means that modern people who do not believe in miracles will automatically reject the possibility that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Sounds fair to me.

Metacrock

Meta: O how embarrasking, yakuckuckuc (Pyepeye immitation).




Meta: Yea so what? I would expect that anyway. Doesnt' prove it wasn't written by Matt. Just means he didn't see all he claimed to have seen.




apparently modern people do believe in miracles. 60% of Americans say they do, 50% believe in demon possession.

Matt could have made it up. It was JW's argument that this nixed Matt's authorship. My point is that it doesn't, and that this is not even a fair or scholarly criterion for authorhsip!

Doctor X

The problem remains that Mt dates later than Mk since he used him as a source.

This makes Mt as an eyewitness rather difficult. Add in the mistakes he makes, it makes the likelihood minute.

Holding is simply trying to rescue the "eyewitness" myth in order to find historical validity for his faith.

Nothing more. . . .

Nothing less. . . .

--J.D.

Metacrock

Meta: a couple of possiblities:


(1) Matt the saying source is older than Mark.


Just because the narrative version of Matt follows Mark doesnt' mean the saying source did. The Father's statment that Matt worte "the logia" (the sayings) indicates that it was written by Matthew as a list of sayings not as a story. then someone put the saying into a narrative. So the sayings are authentic.

Less likely but still a possibility:

(2) Matt didn't know how to write a narrative

that would be a reason to copy Mark's story outline.

(3) The Geisbach hypo still alive and well

there are still major scholars who think Matt came first. If you make that assumption Q just disapears and it' a lot easier; everything falls into palce.


(4) Prior veresions of both.

Helmutt Koster gives evidence of an older version of Mark. We know that Matt and Luke used different versions of Mark. The versions of Mark and Matt we have today may be that Mak is older, but the original verion of Mark may not be first, there may be an older version of Matt that's even older still:

(a) There Syriac theory--Peshetta

that is the Aramic version of Matt, if it was original, might be older than the oldest version of Mark

after all, one of the chruch fathers, I think Papias said Matt first wrote in his native tonge, arimaic or Hebrew. that would be the logia.

(b) some primordial copy we dont' have

Doctor X

Possible if not probable since Mk dates after the fall of Jerusalem--but this does not save Mt as an eyewitess, the "Matthew," as Holding seems to want.

Contradicted by the narratives contained only in Mt.

this theory was and still is dropped because it creates more problems than it solves.


since the "oldest" version dates after the fall of Jerusalem, we are right back to where we started.

Judge is a fan of this, but I am afraid he has never made a convincing case for it. Certainly, it is not mainstream scholarship; on the contrary, Mt proves rather Greek. Even so, since Mt quotes Mk . . . and Mk dates after the fall of Jerusalem. . . .

Parts of Mt may be that . . . just as some scholars argue Mk "must have" had a "passion" source, or that some "miracle source" was about. Nevertheless, Mt--as you suggest above--does follow Mk in structure and quotes him--without attribution, of course.

--J.D.

JoeWallack

JW:
"As far as criteria that Holding is Avoiding in trying to determine authorship of "Matthew" the most important one in my opinion is the Natural/Supernatural consideration. Simply stated, if the Impossible is Impossible then it would have been Impossible for the Matthew in "Matthew's" Gospel to have written "Matthew" because the Real witness Matthew could not have witnessed the Impossible. We can be exponentially more certain that the Impossible is Impossible than that any of Holding's assertions promoting Matthew as author are likely. So WHY should Holding be permitted to ignore the Impossible/Possible issue in an argument which tries to depict itself as a Logical argument?"


Metacrock [no need to think up a funny spoof of name]:
"Matt couldn't have written Matt because Jesus couldn't water into wine? That's a ridiculous argument! What does the possiblity of the SN have to do with authoriship?"


JW:
Lack of belief in the Supernatural in general is probably the main reason most Skeptics don't believe in the Christian Bible. As a Skeptic, since I don't believe the Impossible is Possible, I can easily conclude that the Matthew of "Matthew" could not possibly have been the author because it would have been Impossible for the historical Matthew to witness the Impossible. Therefore it doesn't matter to me what the other evidence is regarding authorship, I still conclude that the Matthew of "Matthew" did not write "Matthew". As opposed to the current situation where we have had an unidentifed and biased link of unidentifed and biased individuals determine based on unidentifed and biased criteria that an unidentifed and biased individual was the author of "Matthew" even if I had an undisputed original with an undisputed autograph of "Matthew" claiming to be the Matthew in the story I still wouldn't believe it knowing that the Impossible is Impossible.

I know some Skeptics will complain about what I just wrote seeing it as confirming the Christian stereotype that Skeptics start with the position not to believe and simply argue that position no matter what the evidence. Yet assuming in this case that we had the best possible autograph evidence that Matthew wrote "Matthew" which is more LIKELY, that someone two thousand years ago witnessed a bunch of Impossible events or that someone 2,000 years lied about writing "Matthew"? In the Real World, WHAT is written is normally more important than WHO wrote it in determining credibility. WHY should different standards of credibility be applied to religion than to any area outside of religion?

My point is that an Apologist like Holding shouldn't be permitted to Avoid the Natural/Supernatural issue just because there is a difference in assumptions regarding the Supernatural between Skeptics and Believers. That belief in the Supernatural is superstitious nonsense in the setting of a Logical argument is normally the Skeptic's best argument and also the reason most people leave Christianity. Reasons that support conclusions should not be ignored just because the debaters have different assumptions regarding reasons. To turn things around, in the related argument Holding has a basic assumption that the Church as an institution is credible. I have the opposite assumption that the Church as an institution is not credible. Since I don't accept Holding's assumption here if I'm arguing that Matthew did not author "Matthew" is it okay for me to Avoid External Church testimony because I have an assumption that the Church isn't credible anyway?


Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Metacrock

Meta:that just depends upon what you expect out of a Gospel. The Matt we know and that we find printed in our Bibles today is not the actual work of the very eye witness Matthew the Apostle. That doesn't mean it has no "apostolic authority." If the saying source is by Matt the apostle then the teachings are authortative. It just depends upon what you want out of the narrative.



Contradicted by the narratives contained only in Mt.



this theory was and still is dropped because it creates more problems than it solves.


Meta: I don't understand what you are saying. the copier left out some crucial part of the other post.





since the "oldest" version dates after the fall of Jerusalem, we are right back to where we started.





Meta: Not if Matt saying source stands behind pre Markan redaction. That would put it at 50AD. (see Koster)


Peshetta


Judge is a fan of this, but I am afraid he has never made a convincing case for it. Certainly, it is not mainstream scholarship; on the contrary, Mt proves rather Greek. Even so, since Mt quotes Mk . . . and Mk dates after the fall of Jerusalem. . . .



Meta: "Hebrewisms" in Matt have been an old controversy going way back. Every other decade they say they are all cleared up and aren't there,and in between time they find new one's to raise. I think it could be a possible live issue, but one the majority of scholars dont embrace because most of them don't know Aramic.




Parts of Mt may be that . . . just as some scholars argue Mk "must have" had a "passion" source, or that some "miracle source" was about. Nevertheless, Mt--as you suggest above--does follow Mk in structure and quotes him--without attribution, of course.

--J.D.



Meta: As much as I like J.P. as an aquantence, and a friend of friends, I am not an Evangelical. I don't have to have the Gospels written by the name sakes and all there in every jot and tiddell.

I think the authority of the Gosples can be security without all that fundie stuff.

Metacrock

Metacrock [no need to think up a funny spoof of name]:



Meta:ahahhaha, that's why I chose it. But don't think many an atheist haven't tried to come up with the perect one. Among my favorite attempts are "Metacock" and "meatcork."




Meta: Then why make a post talking about criteria for authorship? It clearly doesnt' matter to you who wrot it, if JC himself wrote it wouldn't matter to you. your objections are ideolgoical, not historical-criticial









Meta: What do you mean by "biased?" The criteria previously was 'eye witness.' Do you believe that an eye witness wouldn't be "biased?"


why do you think the criteria are "unidentified?" Maybe Holdings are, but I doubt that. Nevertheless there are clearly identifiable criteria by which most scholars argue for or agaisnt authorship.



Meta:Yea, they could say that. They would not be alone. In fact I think you kind of gave away the store the on that one.





Meta: But of course you are assuming that your metaphysical biases have to reign supreme in this discussion. They do not. There are cliams of miracles today and even good support them. I've found in the past that supporting material that isn't about biblical issues gets moved to other boards. So I wont bother with it. But tell me why I could buy into your metaphysics?









Meta:well actually I don't think he does abvoid it. I think he puts it where it belongs, which is not in a discussion about authorship.






Meta:No it isn't. The Christian concept of the supernatural, if properly understood, is as far removed form supersition as Hegel is from Buzby Berkeley. In fact, the Christian notion of the supernatural is the ultimate form of rationalism.


see Nature and Grace by Methias Joseph Scheeben. (that's circa 1856 but still important to read).








Meta:I think your method would set scholarship back 500 years. We can't just drag any extreaneous issue into historical/critical methods and expect them to replace actually dealing with the text and with issues of higher cirticism.

The truth of the supernatural is not an issue of higher criticism and has nothing to do with authorship. For that matter I can't see why you even bother with posting on this board. why not spend all your time on the existence of God board. If you beat that you don't need to ever talk about the Bible.

really your argument is must begging the question. You expect everyone to accept your metaphysics without question and opporate on those assumptions without ever thinking about them.


STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/ [/B][/QUOTE]