hatsoff

I'm curious what you mean that we can "infer from the introduction" that Luke wrote first. Most people would see his comment that "many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us" as evidence of the opposite. As for "Theophilus," there is insufficient reason to identify him with any individual historical person. Unless of course you have in mind some evidence and/or argument(s) that I do not.

spin

I've never said Luke copied Matthew. But you never thought of that. Your train is on the track and the disaster is waiting to happen.

You're into projection and self-irony, I see.

You have no position from which to make relative or absolute chronologies, so why don't you try to say something you can talk about?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Hmmm, lemme see if I understand what you are saying. Greek "Luke" and not the original Aramaic "Luke" left out 6:45-8:26 of Greek "Mark" (not Aramaic "Mark") because this was added to Greek "Mark" after it had been copied by Greek "Luke" even though Greek "Matthew" and not Aramaic "Matthew" copied but did not copy 6:45-8:26 of Greek "Mark" after it was added to Greek "Mark" which proves that Aramaic "Luke" was written before Aramaic "Matthew" and makes "Luke" a better witness to the original unoriginal "Mark" because it removes a part of "Mark" which allows a reproduction of all of "Mark" because this is the simplest explanation?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Nazaroo

Lets see if that's true.

Most textual critics of all stripes make some basic conclusions about the relative age of various strata or layers of tradition within the gospels.

For instance,

(1) passages that clearly deal with conflicts with Jewish authorities are assigned a certain date,

(2) and passages that deal with concerns reflecting the historical position of the early church belong to a different period.

(3) Passages that reflect advanced doctrines or viewpoints involving mature reflection on theology or the meaning assigned to historical events also have their own basic order of precedence.

(4) Finally, passages that reflect historical events known to have occurred later are also assigned a different strata.

(5) The earliest passages are usually assigned based upon plausiblility. For instance, Jesus as an observant Jew or Rabbi would teach one thing, whereas his later Gentile church followers would hold other doctrines.

So generally speaking, although these ideas aren't 'proofs', they are reasonable conclusions based upon plausible historical assumptions, and are accepted by most historians and critics.

To say we have "no position from which to make relative or absolute chronologies" then is a falsehood which paralizes all possible advance from a historical/critical viewpoint.

But your extreme position is in fact false. We do have reasonable probabilities to guide us as to relative age for various types and strata of gospel content.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we apply these reasonable and basic guidelines to the remarkable differences in content between Luke and Matthew, we note as before the following.

Using the standard and very useful general rule or guideline, "Prefer the harder reading" as original, we would say the Social Gospel, which poses clear personal difficulties for middle-class and wealthy Jews and gentile converts will be likely toned down by subsequent editors and expounders or apologists.

And this is what Matthew shows: a tendency to downplay or delete the social gospel. The alternate possibility, that it was added later, makes Jesus' social gospel non-existant. If that were true, and the social gospel was only added later in say the 2nd century as you propose, this would mean Christianity is almost entirely foreign to the early Rabbinical Judaism of Jesus. But the compassionate and merciful content of Jesus' teaching is acknowledged everywhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, when we take the very extreme changes concerning Roman Law and order in hand, it is quite reasonable and expected that a Jesus who was ambiguous about taxes and advised His followers to arm themselves, and made dark, suggestive 'parables' about demons named 'Legion" being excorcised and transferred to pigs and drowned into the sea, the evidence is all in one direction:

(1) Matthew carefully removed the reference to 'Legion' from the veiled story of the demons being thrown off the cliff. (Compare Mark 5:1-20/Luke 8:26-39 with Matthew 8:27-31) Given that the evidence tilts toward Mark being primary and in either scenario Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, then Matthew is the more secondary and developed text.

Matthew has been edited to clean up the dark Zealot-inspired story of the 'Legion'.

(2) Next we look at Jesus advice to his disciples to "buy a sword" because they will no longer be safe. (Luke 22:35). Again, some monkey-business occurs with the sword reference, and now Jesus is a pacifist. "two swords are enough" to fulfill all prophecy requirements (which have no O.T. reference!).

What happened here? The probability is that again Matthew continues to tone down incriminating and dangerous elements of early Christian tradition, and this only serves to make the new religious movement appear more benign to investigators examining their new scriptural texts, which are publicly read and spied upon.

(3) Finally, the ambiguous (and standing alone, sinister) doctrinal instruction concerning taxes (Mark 12:13-17/Luke 20:20) is again toned down and reinterpreted safely for both Roman authorities and Temple hierarchy (favouring the Jewish temple tax even more! Matthew 17:24-26)

Note especially, that Peter is involved in the paying of the tax to the Temple authority. Here is clearly an appeal to the later primacy of Peter, as special authority, and again the veiled reference to a 'fish' ("from now on you will become fishers of men"!) who coughs up the tax money for the Jewish disciples.

Aside from the obviously contrived nature of the story, it speaks strongly of an early arrangement between the Jewish christians and the Temple authorities, long after the crucifixion.

Again Matthew comes out last, the most developed and modified version of the gospel, with its edits all having a simple, easily understandable common purpose:

To appear benign to the Romans and appear 'Jewish friendly' to the Jerusalem authorities.

Any attempt to interpret the edits in a reverse direction poses great difficulties in what Luke's purpose (as the later redactor) could have been.

Nazaroo

Its you who needlessly muddy the waters.

There is no original 'aramaic Matthew', except as a translation into Hebrew of Greek Matthew.

1) Luke used Mark and some other sources.

2) Someone added 6:45-8:26 to Mark.

(note that this section of Mark is suspicious on two counts: The reference to Bethsaida at beginning and end (6:45/8:22)
and the duplication of a standard 'miracle' (feeding of 5000) in another version. Other content seems to indicate a knowledge of the gospel of John, again an anachronism for Mark.)

3) Matthew rearranged Luke, but had access to the new Mark and used the new material

(Mark 6:45-8:26 corresponds to Matthew 14:22-16:12, with Matthew's usual extra bullshit.)

spin

Did you have one there, Nazaroo, or is this grandstanding stuff self-stimulation as it appears?

Gosh how many assumed conclusions is that??


Removing apparent interpolations is what makes Luke secondary amongst a long list of other issues.

Oh, rubbish. It is not appropriate and it is just your rhetoric that spews such silly ideas. Just think a bit more and cut the crap.

It's novel at least.

Ignorant people may call things they don't know much about by the wrong name, but plagiarism is about intent. Drop it. It's just silly on your part to continue to try and justify it.

While you continue to fall over your presuppositions, I guess you can use whatever inappropriate words you like. One of the rules you might like to think about, when you are not plowing on regardless, is that you have to reduce the amount of presuppositions you make, the retrojections you make. These will merely interfere with anything you try to do.

Two separate sources is just as feasible. So is the notion that the woes are a Lucan addition. But there are many more possibilities.

Have you thought of other possible explanations? Why do you think most people who've looked into it go for one of them?

Usually one uses what you call "deletions" as examples where someone has added something.

Uh-huh.

I think you're rushing your material.

Umm, Luke follows Mark.

The widow's mite is from Mark. The connection between it and the foolish virgins seems to be you trying to hard, as seems to be the case frequently in this rushed list.

Obviously deleted from the Marcan source, wouldn't you say?

Matt is Mark verbatum.

Neither of them liked the Marcan original idea, so they changed it.

Sounds like your presuppositions are overburdening to me. Luke adds a sword. Matt doesn't cut off an ear.

It perhaps almost as possible as Luke's additions and alterations.

You signal differences but don't do any of the work to aid your claims. You assume your conclusions and parading this stuff hasn't been used to support what you apparently want to say.

All I see is an awful attitude to the texts, one with which you have no possibility of understanding or appreciating the material you are trying to analyse. What is all the heat about the writer(s) of Matt? You are so far along the rails with such a blind head of steam that you cannot change your destination if you need to. Less heat and less hype and a little more respect for your materials and you will do a little better.


spin

Nazaroo

So far all you've done is snipe. At least I offered a plausible interpretation of the evidence, which I presented (not you). You don't even offer any evidence.


Again, with the consistant picture I presented, Luke reports a sword saying.
Matthew removes the report about the ear, (the obviously more difficult reading) even though it is independantly reported in other gospels, e.g. John.

The only evidence you offer, is consistent with my interpretation.

Mechanically 'feasible' but hardly plausible. What counts is what probably happened, not what you want to have happened.

Everyone acknowledges that the last 200 years of investigation into the Synoptic problem has been based upon a "Christian" viewpoint, whether liberal or conservative. Most textual critics of the past have been either Christians of some flavour or other, or at least hangers-ons.

And most scholars too in this field are researchers who are also Anglican or RC bishops, etc.

No one should be unaware that a large part of 'scholarship' in this area (Synoptic problem) has been apologetic in nature to one degree or another.

Protestants tend to support the Markan hypothesis (the shortest gospel with the least superstitious accretions), while Catholic scholars push the Matthean Priority view (Matthew best supports conservative catholic dogma).

Its no surprise that Christians of every flavour would shrink from Lukan priority relative to Matthew and Matthean dependance upon Luke, even though it is obvious.

If Matthew butchered Luke, (which seems to be the case), then Matthew is hardly an inspired gospel, but rather a cynical Jewish-Christian adoptionist 'gospel' manufactured for the Jewish masses, to keep them from mass exodus out of Judaism.

spin

No evidence at all. You provided data unaccompanied with reasoning.

Uh-huh.

So the writer didn't like his Marcan source.

I haven't attempted to offer evidence.

All lip and no content.

You are clueless as to what happened. You've shown no inclination to understand the material you8 are trying to hack up, so you knee-cap yourself.

This doesn't support your claim of the previous paragraph. Hype doesn't back up hype.

It seems to me a complete and utter blunder, but so does Luke copying Matt.

Who the fuck cares about inspiration? -- another retrojection. One person's inspiration is another's anathema.

And again you are too busy falling over your assumptions to allow yourself room to think about the material.

I don't really care that you support the apparently ludicrous position of Matt copying from Luke. If you could only cut the crappy attitude problem and do some serious presentation of materials that might allow you to make a more sensible case for whatever it is you are bellowing about.

I usually start with Mark because the gospel is shortest, lacks important material such as the resurrection, has the worst language and the most arcane material. When you creatively copy a previous text you try to improve on it, not make it worse, as would have happened if Mark had been derived from one of the other gospels we have. Mark's Greek is improved on in both Matt and Luke. You can apparently see how each of the writers have dealt with Mark. I don't mind the notion of Ur-Mark, as I think it possible that Mark underwent changes after it had been in circulation, but I would doubt that your Ur-Mark would have anywhere near the amount of material mine might, if I looked into it rigorously -- but I'm too lazy. I don't think the relationship will be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. There isn't really enough information available.


spin

hatsoff

I thought you were an inerrantist (specifically, KJVO) Christian? Yet you say that it "seems to be the case" that Matthew is not "inspired"? Perhaps you could elaborate.

Steven Avery

Where is this supposed "fact" factified ?