Doctor X

Metacrock:

though the says are not exactly earth-shattering, provide not historical support and . . . if you believe the Q scholars . . . have layers of development by the time they get to Mt.


This is why I eschew the "Quote" button. I noted that Mt has considerable narrative of his own that is not dependent on Mk. As for the "theory"--Mattean priority creates more problems than it solves.

The "meat" of the gospel are not the sayings. That one of the sources used by Mt is earlier--and most probably is you have Q1, Q2, ad nauseum--does not really give us historical justification. The reason for the creation of "historical justification" is to have a theology "true"--"this is what Junior taught." Better for an apologist if a gospel writer becomes an eyewitness.

you are fine until the last sentence. I find a lot of "Greekisms"--actually, scholars I have read have found them--but I have read the argument that Mt is a "Jewish" gospel . . . written by a Jew or "for" a "Jewish" audience. That Hellenistic Jews may only be literate in Greek would explain how a "Jewish" work is Greek. One of the evidences of Mt "Greekness"--aside for his heavy alcohol consumption and enjoyment of toga parties [Stop that!--Ed.]--is his correction of Mk's Greek.

I do not think one can declare that "most of them don't know Aramaic." There are scholars--recent JBL has an article--who argue for a "Jewish" gospel--Mt Jewish targeting Jews.


. . . or as I like to repeat the advice of a mentor, "do you have faith because of scripture or in spite of it?" Some just have a problem with doubt--if the texts have doubt, where does the doubt end? Another mentor remarked that the "genius" of Funk--the Jesus Seminar--is he forced scholars to identify "the Teachings of Jesus" and, surprise, they cannot actually find them. Each scholar votes for parts he "likes."

--J.D.

Metacrock

Meta: I'm not necessarily convenced of their ability to pin down a definate source they call "Q." Even so that development is all haromonious; if you compare to teachings in "lost gospels" there is a unified body of teaching that comes through on three levels; ethical, metaphysical, and Messianich. We can weed out latter gnosticism (talk about 'the powers' for example) and it all forms a very unified picture of a single body of beliefs.






Meta: That's a matter of opinion. Don't get me wrong, I"m a two sourcer. But I was aqunented with Dr. William Farmer at Perkins. He's the champion of the Greisbach hyp. So i have respect for that view.




The "meat" of the gospel are not the sayings.


Meta: clearly matter of opinion.Matt is the Gospel of the Sermon on the mount.






Meta: Like I say, it depends upon what you expect to get out of a gospel. One bad habit I find amnog many on this board is the assumption that if a scholar says it, it's in there and it's part of the deal and we have to assume it (at least if it's an "non fundie scholar"). But you will find that in the 500 years since people have been attempting systemic scientific study of the Bible many people have said many things and 90% 0f it is hog wash. Not that they are bad for doing it, most of that is necessary for the process of discovery.

I say this for the many possible layers of Q one can imagine. we dont' really have even one Q except as a litterary or critical device. we have textual support of a Q gospel. So to speak of Q1, Q2 and so forth and to imagaine this as a barrier to faith is just absurd.

of course all of this depends upon how one consrues faith; if you think faith has to be "proven historically" ala McDowell, then that's too bad. If you understand faith as a response to the divine, and see the Gospels as part of the data which informs us about that response of those in the past communities, then it's a different matter.





Meta: Like I said, that goes back and foth.





Meta: I know, I know Greeks scholars who study Aramic and Copitc! I was echoing the view of that Judge guy.







Meta: That view that there is no core teaching that can be found I was introduced to by Joette Basslar at Perkins. I think it is BS!

JoeWallack

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

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?"

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?"

JW:
It's best to leave emotionally charged words like "ridiculous" out of serious arguments. It just opens the door for me to respond with something like, "The only ridiculous argument is believing that Jesus could turn water into wine. I find it ironic that someone who believes the following supernatural assertions of Christianity [fill in the blanks] would label a natural assertion as "ridiculous"."
My position is that it is Impossible to turn water into wine and therefore the author of "Matthew" never witnessed Jesus doing this supposed miracle. My conclusion though doesn't require my position that the Impossible is Impossible. It's also supported by your position that it is possible but unlikely. I could also conclude that Matthew probably didn't write "Matthew" because it's unlikely that Matthew witnessed Jesus turning water into wine. Which is more likely, that someone saw Jesus turn water into wine or that someone THOUGHT Jesus turned water into wine. Insisting that my argument here is ONLY Impossible vs. Possible is a strawman. Makes you sound like an Apologist. My position is that the Impossible is Impossible but it doesn't prevent me from being on the right side of "likely".

Meta:
"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?"

JW:
I accept that it is possible for authors to write fiction. However, my position and your position is that the author of "Matthew" did not intend it as fiction. Let me give you a better example, biographies of the Caesars by Roman authors who like to throw in a few supernatural accounts to illustrate what a swell guy said Caesar was. The difference though is that in these biographies the Natural dominates while in "Matthew" the Supernatural doesn't just dominate, it's the primary theme and you have an institution behind it which apparently has always promoted it as real.

Meta:
"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."

JW:
You can't just accept the Supernatural as "possible." prove it's possible! That's nothing more than an ideological. I'll make the same argument I made before. The test of "likely" is "likely". While my position is that the Impossible is Impossible I don't have to prove it to make my point. I just have to demonstrate what's likely. Outside of religion we all generally assume that the Supernatural is Impossible. I agree that it's difficult to find Bible scholars who start with the assumption that the Impossible is Impossible but I can easily explain that with the observation that Christian Bible scholarship has long been dominated by clergy. It's only in the last 50 years or so that Christian Bible scholarship has accepted that "Mark" was first when the necessary evidence has been available since the beginning and was even better before the Church started to consolidate Gospels in Byzantine times.

JW:
"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?"

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?"

JW:
My argument is that the Supernatural/Natural issue should be IDENTIFIED as an issue and not that the Supernatural is Impossible has to be accepted as an issue. Watch out for the Apologist strawman.

Meta:
"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."

JW:
That doesn't change the fact that generally speaking in your example the witness would not be believed.

JW:
"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."

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."

JW:
I'll just repeat that while I think a Natural assumption is superior to a Supernatural assumption I can easily retreat for the purpose of argument to a Natural explanation is more LIKELY than a Supernatural one. Therefore, Apologists should not be allowed to accept as an assumption that the Impossible is Possible without Skeptics making such an assumption an issue and using a Natural argument as evidence.

Getting back to the specifics of whether Matthew observed any miracles, in addition to observation and experience, which the Law and our everyday lives are guided by, indicating that the Supernatural is not currently possible and has never been possible while there is no shortage of people who have mistakenly thought it possible, we also have the consideration of IMPLICATIONS from Christianity's assertion of miracles in the Christian Bible. According to the Christian Bible, early Church Fathers and the Church, Christian miracles are supposed to continue through time just like they did in the Bible. Yet we see no evidence in our time of fabulous miracles as described in the Christian Bible. The implication of course is that just as these promised miracles have not happened in our time they also did not happen in their time. A logical explanation for this observed implication is that the Impossible is Impossible.


Joseph

MIRACLE, n.
An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

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

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

Doctor X

Meta:

I will leave deciding exactly what is and is not "Q" in Mt and Lk to bleary-eye graduate students. Regarding:

. . . ahhhh . . . not if you believe Mack and, apparently others like Kloppenberg whom see radical shifts within the Q tradition. Nevertheless, Jn is radically different from Mk.

there is an "Against Q" book that came out a year or two ago--I have not read it. It received polite review from Kloppenberg--"raises interesting questions" sort of things. I do not believe it has threatened the Two Main Source

Bah! The Sermon on the Mount is probably not original to Mt and it is the stuff of bad posters with kittens on cubical walls!

I have a different perspective from boards--that are not religious--where know one has heard of Q or J, P, E and just assume scholars are idiots. So, I find things rather nice here. I do find people argue about what a scholar says--I do when I think I have a better perspective--which is rare.

Ah . . . I, too, take a jaundiced eye to running the assumptions--"there was a proto-passion for Mk . . . which must have been based on a source that . . ."

However, Mack's popular book on Q--The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins gives a good summary of the evidence for "layers" in the material.

Why is this a "barrier to faith?"

If you demonstrate a history to the development of faith it becomes clear that the current faith is not the original faith.

indeed . . . a McDowell cannot deal with the doubt I wrote about--believing in something that has little relationship to "what was." They need "proof" that what they believe is "true."

then what is the "core teaching" and how does one prove it?

--J.D.

JoeWallack

JW:
I've indicated my assumption that the Impossible is Impossible. I've also given my opinion that when Skeptics argue with Christians they shouldn't concede the Christian assumption that the Impossible is Impossible and ignore the Natural/Supernatural issue. Now let's take a look at the relationship between assumptions regarding the Impossible and the consensus of modern Bible scholarship that the author of "Matthew" is anonymous. Which assumption regarding the Supernatural is a better fit with the conclusion that the author of "Matthew" ended up anonymous:

1) The Impossible is Possible.

Jesus performed the Supernatural which was witnessed by disciples who wrote what they saw. For the most part subsequent Christianity failed to document and forgot the details concerning the author of "Matthew" such as who, what, where, when, how and why only being able to provide vague, sparse and relatively late guesses which seem to primarily go back to one author, Papias. Presumably post disciple Christianity would have had tremendous incentive to research, document and remember authorship details as competing Christian sects were trying to promote their version of Christianity as having direct Apostolic authority.

Under this assumption it is difficult to explain why there are so few details available regarding the authorship of "Matthew".


2) The Impossible is Impossible.

Jesus did not perform the Supernatural so there could not have been any disciples who witnessed him doing so. Therefore, no disciple including Matthew wrote "Matthew". At some point at least a part of subsequent Christianity knew the who, what, where, when, how and why of the authorship of "Matthew". When the Christianity that was trying to document the authorship of "Matthew" checked with the real author of "Matthew" they found out that the real author of "Matthew" never knew Jesus and was not a disciple. The real author Believed that Jesus did the Supernatural but didn't witness it. The Christianity trying to document authorship didn't believe that a non disciple could have written "Matthew" and therefore eliminated the actual author as a possible author of "Matthew" and once the actual author had been eliminated as a possible author an anonymous one had to take his place.

Under this assumption it is easy to explain why there are so few details available regarding the authorship of "Matthew".


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/

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!).

I've previously indicated that in my opinion the Supernatural issue is the best reason why Matthew did not write "Matthew". As the Impossible is Impossible it would have been Impossible for Matthew to witness the Impossible. Therefore "Matthew" had to have been written by someone who Believed in the Supernatural as opposed to witnessed the Supernatural. This conclusion is consistent with how all of us think in the Real World, outside of religion. We assume a Natural explanation and not a Supernatural one. That the real author of "Matthew" did not witness any miracles also helps explain why "Matthew" ended up anonymous much better than an assumption that Matthew did witness miracles would.

Let's move on now to the category of evidence which is normally the most determinative for authorship in the Real World, External evidence. As a starting contrast let's consider modern type evidence for authorship:

1) Live author who says he is the author.

2) Live author who will autograph your copy of the book.

3) Live publisher who advertises that the live author is the author.

4) Picture of live author on book.

5) Biography of live author in book.

6) Live literary critics who verify that author of book is author of book.

7) Family and friends of live author who verify that author is author.

8) Media personalities interview author regarding authorship.

Now let's look at what JP Holding has to say about the External evidence issue and authorship of "Matthew":

"The following factors may be cited favoring Matthean authorship:

External evidence. The second-century writer Papias shares the following concerning Matthew:

Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able...
Great debate has attended this phrase in terms of what Papias meant by "oracles" (a collection of sayings? a full narrative Gospel?) and what he meant by "in the Hebrew language." Some say that this may refer to an early Aramaic version of Matthew, which may be the source equal to the mysterious Q document. This is corroborated by the testimony of Irenaeus, who says that Matthew published a gospel among the Hebrews while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and perhaps also by the existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew attested in the 14th century (see George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text). In any event, we have here direct testimony that Matthew authored a document. That it is to be considered in some sense equal with or related to our modern Matthew is indicated by the fact that Eusebius, who quotes Papias on this matter, is discussing issues related to the composition of the canonical Gospels. The question of how it might be related, we will discuss shortly."


The above is about all there is regarding External evidence that Matthew wrote "Matthew" but what is the QUALITY of the above witness testimony that Matthew wrote "Matthew"? Holding makes no mention of the witness testimony quality issue above. The best quality witness testimony would be direct testimony from the author of "Matthew" that they were the author of "Matthew". We have nothing from the author of "Matthew" claiming or even implying that they were the author. We also have no other first hand testimony indicating explicitly or implicitly that Matthew wrote "Matthew". (First hand testimony would be someone who had direct and personal knowledge without having to rely on the testimony of someone else). So, exactly what hand or foot testimony do we have here that Matthew wrote "Matthew".


Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

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

lpetrich

A good example is the Mother Teresa miracle accepted by the Vatican. By the standards of Biblical miracles and medieval-saint miracles, it is TINY. Why couldn't she do anything even halfway big, like recharge some dead batteries or calm a storm or walk on water or strike someone blind for stealing from her or sic some stray dogs on some children who teased her about being a wrinkled old hag or ...

Doctor X

As with all miracles, they grow smaller with investigation.

I recall a test of a man who could "move people without touching them"--even deflect attacks. In his videos, people fly backwards from his power.

Come to time of testing, he states he may only get a little swaying. Quite a difference!

I have read some posts about how Mother Teresa was about as compassionate as Elsa She-Wolf of the SS . . . not to denegrate the old lady, I just wish to show there is some controversy. It was not all mindless polemic . . . basically she was more interested in conversion than comfort.

Whatever, the bottom line is Mother Teresa will be a saint because if someone with her reputation--valid or not--does not become a saint if makes the whole thing ridiculous! So, people will search until they find proof.

Returning to the topic, this is like apologists who claim the "hundreds of documents" that support the truth of the miracles of Junior. People who wantp to believe will find evidence no matter what.

--J.D.

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!).

I've previously indicated that in my opinion the Supernatural issue is the best reason why Matthew did not write "Matthew". As the Impossible is Impossible it would have been Impossible for Matthew to witness the Impossible. Therefore "Matthew" had to have been written by someone who Believed in the Supernatural as opposed to witnessed the Supernatural. This conclusion is consistent with how all of us think in the Real World, outside of religion. We assume a Natural explanation and not a Supernatural one. That the real author of "Matthew" did not witness any miracles also helps explain why "Matthew" ended up anonymous much better than an assumption that Matthew did witness miracles would.

Let's move on now to the category of evidence which is normally the most determinative for authorship in the Real World, External evidence.

I've previously indicated that I don't believe there is any first hand evidence that Matthew wrote "Matthew". Is there any second hand evidence? Second hand evidence here would be testimony from a person who had direct knowledge of the testimony of a different person who had direct knowledge that Matthew wrote "Matthew". The earliest known historical person who is clearly connected to a claim that Matthew wrote "Matthew" is Papias. Here is the relevant quote from Peter Kirby's (God bless him) website:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1-7,14-17 (c. 325):

16 "Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could."

Is this second hand evidence? Let's identify and evaluate what hand or foot testimony this is. The first question is WHO is the witness here? The answer is Eusebius. The next question is WHAT is his testimony based on?

Again, from Peter Kirby's website:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1-7,14-17 (c. 325):

1 "... And of Papias there are five treatises in circulation, and which were entitled, An Exposition of the Lord's Reports. Irenaeus also mentions these as his only writing, using the following words: And these things Papias, who has been a hearer of John and a colleague of Polycarp, an early man, corroborates in writing in the fourth of his books. For there were five books that he composed."

Eusebius reports that in his time the relevant writings of Papias were in circulation. Eusebius wrote approximately 200 years (very rough guess) after Papias did. I think it's safe to assume that Eusebius did not read the original writings of Papias but rather Copies (maybe others here could comment on this assumption). So in trying to establish the chain of witness testimony from Eusebius going back to superior hand witness testimony we have:

1) Eusebius says that he saw writings of Papias stating "Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech but each interpreted them as he could." There is no explicit statement that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew here but Christians of Papias time didn't generally use the word "Gospel" to refer to written reports. At the same time the "but each interpreted them as he could." would seem to indicate that whatever Matthew wrote according to Papias was not the organized Canonical Gospel. So we have doubt as to whether even Eusebius testified that Matthew wrote "Matthew".

2) My assumption here is that Eusebius' testimony is based on a copy of what Papias wrote. WHO made the copy? Unknown. Could it have been made by someone who changed what was originally written? Possibly. Was the original copied more than once when Eusebius read it? Possibly. What we have here is a failure in communication. A gap in the chain of witnesses. As Senior so aptly put it, "That's bad, that's bad." for the reliability of hand testimony.

3) What was Papias' testimony based on? There is no explicit answer in Eusebius' quote above.


Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

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