spin

No. You misrepresent me because I haven't elucidated on my understanding of the evidence pointing to the evolutionary processes.

The second part of your statement is correct.

Let me take the simpler course at the moment. Look at any given related passage between Mark and Luke, such that the passage chosen has clear linguistic overlap, ie one is obviously related to the other. You will find consistently that Matthew's Greek is better than that of Mark. A speaker of a language has a better passive understanding of that language than he/she has of producing the language, so if Mark's redactor was working from Matthew, you would expect him to basically maintain the level of linguistic competence of his source, which is not the case. However, if the redactor of Matthew, using Mark, has a better linguistic competence, you would expect that writer to improve the standard of the Greek. This is plainly what the evidence points to.

I think on linguistic grounds Matthew is obviously dependent on Mark and I will argue further at length if need be. But the same can also be argued for the relationship between the language of Luke and Mark: Luke is obviously better Greek again, though different from that of Matthew, so therefore unlikely to be derived from the latter. Now you understand the Q theory: when the Marcan material is removed from the gospels of Matthew and Luke we are left with materials which can be divided into two groups, material that is common and that which is unique to each. The material which is common derives from a literary source, given the often word for word similarities between the common materials.

Is much of this debatable? If so, why?

This is just vulgar rhetoric.

Naturally, to prove me wrong aboutmy statement about Justin, all you have to do is to provide a text from the fathers which shows specific knowledge of the gospels before the time of Justin. I don't mind either way of course.

I doubt that anything can persuade you anyway, for you either don't seem to be aware of the last 100 years of textual analysis of the synoptic gospels or you choose not to acknowledge it for some reason (whether it is correct or not -- and obviously I show my acceptance of some of the notion, hence I was working on the usually wide knowledge of the work).


spin

Layman

No evidence is no evidence.

Right.

And how does this prove that Mark requires a lengthy literary development stage?

I agree Marcan priority and with Q. None of which explains why Papias could not have been referring to the Gospel of Mark.

It's an accurate assesment of your "evidence" to date.

There are many factors to be used for dating texts. Explicit reference is only one, and usually the most lagging of indicators.

More baseless rhetoric on your part. What has "100 years of textual analysis" done to prove the gospels were written in the middle of the second century? And how is that possible since most of the scholars doing the criticizing date them to the first century? I'm quite familiar with the state of scholarly opinion. You are the one wildly departing from it.

Doctor X

genesis2K3:

Welcome to the forums . . . mind the hounds. . . .

Pretty much everyone else answers your questions. I will note if Strobel is correct he would have a hard time explaining why Lk and Mt are off on dates by about 10 years and cannot agree whether or not Judas hung himself or exploded!

These are not exactly minor errors. . . .

Along with the link recommended by Vork, checketh thou the Recommended Reading for some good introductions on the NT . . . and OT as well.

--J.D.

spin

Layman,


I left Mark to later, because it is more complex to deal with than the others (though the seeds of my thought on the matter can be found in my first message in this thread). It should be sufficient to show that Matthew doesn't fit Papias's comments ("Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language", which is patently absurd for our Matthew) to bring the merit of Papias into general question.

When you say "No evidence is no evidence" you have come to my idea exactly. There is no evidence for HJ, so the idea of HJ is unfounded. Perhaps you can provide some evidence for HJ and then we could get past this point. As I said it is up to the one positing a substantive position to justify it.

On the subject of vulgar rhetoric, this is exactly what you said:

Simply to spout off about Martyr and assume no gospel was written prior to that is not very persuasive.

Please don't continue on the subject other than to apologize.

You write:

"There are many factors to be used for dating texts. Explicit reference is only one, and usually the most lagging of indicators. "

We need markers that are considered objective. The most objective is when people show awareness of the gospels. This only provides us with a terminus ad quem, but it is the only starting point we have. Couple that with the indication that the term "son of man" as used in the gospel as a target is specifically repudiated by Barnabas and that there is no-one we can securely date before the time of Justin Martyr also points to a late use of "son of man" as a title, for it is not a Hebrew usage. (If you want to argue from Dan 7:13, please check the archives before doing so.) So, there are two markers for a late date of the gospel. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are late, but I have seen nothing tangible that suggests that a gospel was written much earlier than Justin. I'm happy to consider your substantive evidence, or any marker that you find convincing for a much earlier dating.

You wrote:

What has "100 years of textual analysis" done to prove the gospels were written in the middle of the second century?

I was actually making sure that you weren't going to denounce the synoptic/marcan priority stuff.

And how is that possible since most of the scholars doing the criticizing date them to the first century?

Most scholars don't get into dating in any coherent way. It was the synoptic scholarship that they couldn't mess up too much.

I'm quite familiar with the state of scholarly opinion. You are the one wildly departing from it."

As I said, I was interested, in an effort to maintain communication lines, to stabilize the current basic synoptic state of analysis. I don't want to mix the scholars of philology up with historians who apply historical methodology. So, I don't care if I depart "wildly", fellah, from scholarly opinion with regards to dating. Philologists can't necessarily be expected to get dating right.

My cards should by now be on the table. History is done with methodology, not presuppositions. As I said before, if one cannot question one's basic principles at any time, they are of no value.

I find your response on this matter both arrogant and inconsequential. Hopefully this is not a correct perception. I will assume that we come across a common lack of communication because of the medium we are using which makes us less clear than we would think.


spin

Layman

Since I did not argue that our Gospel of Matthew was the one Papias referred to, you are arguing with shadows. I think it is quite likely that Papias was correct that Mattew did put together a sayings source about Jesus in Hebrew or, more likely, Aramaic.

More conclusory rubbish. The evidence for the historical Jesus is overwhelming.

The statement was accurate.

Sure. Like I said, it's a good endcap.

[quote[]This only provides us with a terminus ad quem, but it is the only starting point we have. [/quote]

So?

I saw that argument. It was one of the silliest reasons to date the gospels I had ever heard of.

The evidence is legion and discuss in a myriad of places. If you want to start a thread on this subject, please do. For now, I was pointing out the folly of your assertion that Mark could not have been written in the first century because it requires too much literary development.

Like I said, you are boxing with shadows. I have no time to waste on people who are going to imagine my opinions.

Most scholars are actually quite forthright and rigorous about their dating conclusions. Not that they are right, but they approach it coherently and deserve a coherent response. Simply making sheer assertions that Mark shows too much literary development to be based on Peter's preaching is hardly a coherent approach.

You were chasing wild gooses.

The existence of Jesus is a princinple. It is a sound conclusion that has not seriously been challenged.

It appears that opinions are all you have to offer. The assertion I questioned here was your ranting about Marcan literary development. When I did you completely ignored that theory and proceeded to rigorously argue about points that I had not made.

You are wasting my time.

spin

Again you seem to misunderstand.

It's a shame that it has nothing to do with our Matthew.

That is of course why you can't cough it up.

The rest of your message is more evasion of your responsibilities. So, you can't participate in ordinary conversation.

What are you doing in this forum, other than wasting time?


spin

Layman

You are the one who is arguing with arguments no one has made.

It is a shame we do not have more information about where our Gospel of Matthew has come from. I'm not convinced that Papias' statement is completely unrelated, but it seems very likely that our GoMatthew was not originally written in Aramaic and that it is dependent on Mark.

I have many times and will do so again.

Right. I don't want to stick around and argument with someone who invents my own positions without consulting me. Cute.

Calling you on your unsupported assertions in this thread.

spin

Because of its Greek language. I have already talked about it, Layman. Matthew has a better Greek, than Mark, but clearly related to Mark's Greek.

I haven't seen one example, though I have seen your efforts. Could you do so again?


More evasion, which is not cute. Where is your data, Layman? One can only ask so many times.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Why are you averse to supplying substantive data for your substantive claim that Jesus existed??


spin

Layman

What is your point? That Matthew is dependnet on Mark? I've already said I accept that. I've always accepted Marcan priority. What is the hold up here?

This is tedious. We all know where the lines are drawn and what the issues are. The evidence is known to all--Josephus, the gospels, Paul's epistles, the other epistles, Papias, 1 Clement, Ignatius. The issue is not what the evidence is, but what it means.

Well that is true. Which is why I'm close to giving up on you offering any evidence supporting your assertion that Mark requires too much literarty development to have been written in the first century. Trying to leapfrog over your own inadequates to demand that I retread well-plowed ground is highly disengenuous. Kirby's sticky post has severl references to my discussion of the evidence for Jesus and against the Jesus myth. You can start there.

The more I discuss with you the more I feel like I'm on an elementary school playground.

I'm not. I have done so many times and will continue to do so. That you ignored or refused to take part in or were unaware of these dicsussions doesn't obligate me to rehash this on demand.

spin

Why try to have it both ways, entertaining Papias's Hebrew Matthew and Marcan priority over Matthew? They are mutually exclusive positions.

Your repetition doesn't make it true.

Wrong. You are assuming you can use sources without relating them to a (historical) context. If you cannot relate your data to the context, then you have no evidence. Try again.

When you have nothing to say, why bother insulting. You just wear egg more plainly.

As you've shown here no responsibliity in your unsupported conversion of data to evidence, what would be the point?? Besides, in the sticky that's there and its links I have seen no reference to your discussion.

I can understand you feeling in your element there, but I'd recommend that you get out of the playground and learn a bit of responsibility.

I've only seen you ducking and weaving.

Oh, you're being ignored. I am sorry.

Rehashing implies that you've already hashed your stuff, but that ain't obvious there, fellah.


spin