Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on September 03, 2024, 07:22:47 PM
-
The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.
I came across this comment somewhere:
Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?
-
The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.
I came across this comment somewhere:
Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?
We don't know.
-
We don't know.
I agree. And it is more complicated than the question implies as the text we now have available to us is undoubtedly the result of many authors.
While we tend to consider there to be a single author and a single point in time (usually about 80-90CE), this is simplistic. Firstly scholarly analysis suggests that there may be multiple sources for the gospels prior to their 'writing'. But as significant is the timeline from their original version (which we do not have) to the versions we do have, typically from hundreds of years after their claimed original date. These later version is what we know as the gospel and will have had many 'hands' involved - for example in accurate or inaccurate copying, and more active editing through the decades that may have resulted in chunks being changed, added or deleted.
So what we actually have - and what we would now consider to be orthodox gospel text - is in fact the product of writing, editing, curating etc etc by many people over hundreds of years. And importantly what was considered to be 'orthodox' or otherwise is effectively a political decision by the early church in about the 4thC.
-
The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.
I came across this comment somewhere:
Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?
The person who wrote the gospel of Matthew displays a lack of knowledge of the culture of 1st century Judea. He also talks about the disciple in the third person and his account does not read like an eye witness account. The disciple Matthew did not write the gospel. The chain of "reasoning" that led to the traditional attribution is flimsy at best.
-
We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."
It's surprising that 'John' could reference himself in writing at all when described as 'an uneducated and common man' in Acts 4:13
-
It's surprising that 'John' could reference himself in writing at all when described as 'an uneducated and common man' in Acts 4:13
There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.
-
I agree. And it is more complicated than the question implies as the text we now have available to us is undoubtedly the result of many authors.
While we tend to consider there to be a single author and a single point in time (usually about 80-90CE), this is simplistic. Firstly scholarly analysis suggests that there may be multiple sources for the gospels prior to their 'writing'.
I agree. Harold Riley has found within the text of Canonical Matthew, what he calls 'proto Matthew', to which has been added other material, which he identifies by looking for signs of interruption in the narrative. For example, Matthew 9:27-34 has the healing of two blind men, and then a mute spirit is driven out from another man. Riley says that these two incidents are doublets of Matthew 20:29-34 and 12:22-24, the latter two being embedded in the original narrative.
So it looks like 9:27-34 is a later addition. (There is more evidence for this. The section in chapter 9 before the miracles involving blindness and demon possession, which is the raising of Jairus' daughter, makes a fitting climax for a larger section, 4:12-9:26, which expounds the author's quote from Isaiah 9 in Mt 4:14-16. The quote finishes with "on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned").
But as significant is the timeline from their original version (which we do not have) to the versions we do have, typically from hundreds of years after their claimed original date. These later version is what we know as the gospel and will have had many 'hands' involved - for example in accurate or inaccurate copying, and more active editing through the decades that may have resulted in chunks being changed, added or deleted.
In the context of the sections containing the call of Matthew and the list of the disciples, the three Synoptics are similar in format and wording, indicating a degree of copying between them. But as you say, alterations have been made by later copyists. For example, Matthew 9:13 has "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners". Textus Receptus and Byzantine have "but sinners, to repentance" which is in Luke's version but not Mark's. It looks as if "to repentance" has been added into Matthew by TR and Byz due to a recollection of Luke.
So what we actually have - and what we would now consider to be orthodox gospel text - is in fact the product of writing, editing, curating etc etc by many people over hundreds of years. And importantly what was considered to be 'orthodox' or otherwise is effectively a political decision by the early church in about the 4thC.
Equally the original texts can to a large extent, it seems, be deduced through analysis.
-
There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.
The author of John clearly states that the beloved disciple was the one who wrote everything down.
Mark's 'young man who fled' is an incidental detail, which is why it was suggested he was the source or author.
-
The author of John clearly states that the beloved disciple was the one who wrote everything down.
But it doesn't say he wrote the Gospel of John. In fact, he refers to the beloved disciple in the third person, so definitely not the author.
Mark's 'young man who fled' is an incidental detail, which is why it was suggested he was the source or author.
So every character who appears in an incidental detail is the author of the work. Can you support that assertion?
-
But it doesn't say he wrote the Gospel of John. In fact, he refers to the beloved disciple in the third person, so definitely not the author.
So every character who appears in an incidental detail is the author of the work. Can you support that assertion?
Sure, but whoever the final author is ('we'), says that the beloved disciple wrote it all down.
I can't think of any other incidental details in Mark in which a character appears, but will have a look.
-
There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.
I think the point was that for one particular character to flee naked is a very memorable detail, more so than something like 'they were fishermen'.
'Matthew the tax collector' is quite memorable, but my idea was that it is enhanced as a self identifier if Luke and Mark deliberately obscured Matthew's previous profession, in order to not interfere with his self-identification. Maybe Mt and Lk do not mention the young man who fled naked because they had no reason to, whereas Mark did.
-
Sure, but whoever the final author is ('we'), says that the beloved disciple wrote it all down.
I can't think of any other incidental details in Mark in which a character appears, but will have a look.
Yes but the point is that "we" is not the beloved disciple, if it was, they would say "I" and they wouldn't refer to the beloved disciple in the third person.
-
Yes but the point is that "we" is not the beloved disciple, if it was, they would say "I" and they wouldn't refer to the beloved disciple in the third person.
I'm not disagreeing with that, and it still means that the source was an eyewitness. But the beloved disciple could also behave been using the pronoun 'we' to refer to himself.
The person who wrote the gospel of Matthew displays a lack of knowledge of the culture of 1st century Judea.
Any examples of this?
He also talks about the disciple in the third person and his account does not read like an eye witness account.
This must be the most convincing argument that
The disciple Matthew did not write the gospel.
-
I'm not disagreeing with that, and it still means that the source was an eyewitness.
No it doesn't. It could just be that the author of John wanted to give his version of events some legitimacy.
But the beloved disciple could also behave been using the pronoun 'we' to refer to himself.
Read the text. It's clearly referring to the beloved disciple in the third person.
Any examples of this?
A particularly egregious one would be the account of the events following the arrest of Jesus. These all take place on the first day of Passover (according to Matthew). Clearly this writer has no real understanding of Passover because there is no way the priests and Sanhedrin would have bee prosecuting Jesus on a holiday which has the same restrictions as an ordinary sabbath.
-
No it doesn't. It could just be that the author of John wanted to give his version of events some legitimacy.
I doubt it. The narrative flows too smoothly for that. The final verse about writing all the other things Jesus did, is continuous with the idea in the verse before of writing them down. To you that may not seem difficult to make up but to me it looks genuine.
Read the text. It's clearly referring to the beloved disciple in the third person.
I think you are right but wouldn't rule out it's refering to himself.
A particularly egregious one would be the account of the events following the arrest of Jesus. These all take place on the first day of Passover (according to Matthew). Clearly this writer has no real understanding of Passover because there is no way the priests and Sanhedrin would have bee prosecuting Jesus on a holiday which has the same restrictions as an ordinary sabbath.
According to Matthew it was the first day of the unleavened when they ate the Passover. Luke interprets this as the day when the passover lamb was sacrificed; Mark copies this from Luke. However, the context of Matthew's version points to the last supper being on 13th Nisan.
In 26:2 Jesus says "the passover is two days away, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified".
If 'the passover' here means the day of the passover meal, then it means 14th Nisan. Jesus is saying he will die in two days time, at passover, which was on 14th. So he must have said this on 12th. If 27:1 marks the begining of 14th, then when 26:17 says "on the first of the unleavened" this is referring to the day in between when he said it's two days away, and the actual day. So according to Matthew the last supper was on 13th.
Luke and Mark misinterpret the phrasing in Matthew and as a result give the impression that Jesus died on the day after Passover.
-
I doubt it. The narrative flows too smoothly for that. The final verse about writing all the other things Jesus did, is continuous with the idea in the verse before of writing them down. To you that may not seem difficult to make up but to me it looks genuine.
The narrative in the Lord of the Rings flows smoothly. You can write fiction in a smooth style, you know.
I think you are right but wouldn't rule out it's refering to himself.According to Matthew it was the first day of the unleavened when they ate the Passover. Luke interprets this as the day when the passover lamb was sacrificed; Mark copies this from Luke. However, the context of Matthew's version points to the last supper being on 13th Nisan.
In 26:2 Jesus says "the passover is two days away, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified".
If 'the passover' here means the day of the passover meal, then it means 14th Nisan. Jesus is saying he will die in two days time, at passover, which was on 14th. So he must have said this on 12th. If 27:1 marks the begining of 14th, then when 26:17 says "on the first of the unleavened" this is referring to the day in between when he said it's two days away, and the actual day. So according to Matthew the last supper was on 13th.
Luke and Mark misinterpret the phrasing in Matthew and as a result give the impression that Jesus died on the day after Passover.
Are you serious? Matthew explicitly states that the Last Supper is the Passover meal. The Passover meal always happens in the evening of the first day of Passover which is 15 Nisan (the day starts in the evening). From the Passover meal for the whole of 15 Nisan, the same restrictions apply as on a normal Sabbath. There is absolutely no way the members of the Sanhedrin would congregate at the high priest’s house for a trial on that day.
-
There is absolutely no way the members of the Sanhedrin would congregate at the high priest’s house for a trial on that day.
So for 26:17 to refer to Nisan 13 is consistent with verse 5 where the Jewish leaders resolve not to kill him during the feast.
-
So for 26:17 to refer to Nisan 13 is consistent with verse 5 where the Jewish leaders resolve not to kill him during the feast.
No!
This is what it says:
On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”’
See. It explicitly talks about the Passover meal. This is the meal that unambiguously happens at the beginning of 15th Nisan. According to Matthew Jesus ate the meal, went out to Gethsemene, got betrayed and then was put on trial and executed all on the 15th Nisan. This is simply not how it would have been done which means that writer of Matthew cannot have been a disciple of Jesus because he obviously wasn't there and displays a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs.
-
Is it possible to know?
Does it matter?
"Il n'y a pas de hors-texte."
-
No!
This is what it says:
See. It explicitly talks about the Passover meal. This is the meal that unambiguously happens at the beginning of 15th Nisan. According to Matthew Jesus ate the meal, went out to Gethsemene, got betrayed and then was put on trial and executed all on the 15th Nisan. This is simply not how it would have been done which means that writer of Matthew cannot have been a disciple of Jesus because he obviously wasn't there and displays a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs.
Do you think the writer of Matthew could record this, “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” and not be aware that what he recorded them as saying was the reality?
Can we not infer that Jesus himself also knew that they wouldn't try him and have him killed during the festival, and therefore that when he said “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” he actually meant that he would be killed on the day of passover, the 14th.
Bear in mind also that the actual first day of unleavened bread was the 15th. So Matthew was not using the phrase "the first of the unleavened" in its literal sense. He could have chosen it to describe the day in between his prediction of his death and his actual death on the 14th. If so, he then has a series of five consecutive days, begining in 26:2 and ending with the day of his resurrection.
-
Do you think the writer of Matthew could record this, “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” and not be aware that what he recorded them as saying was the reality?
That was clearly made up. There's no way that anybody not in the Sanhedrin had access to the private meetings of the Sanhedrin.
Can we not infer that Jesus himself also knew that they wouldn't try him and have him killed during the festival, and therefore that when he said “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” he actually meant that he would be killed on the day of passover, the 14th.
That is plausible. You are suggesting that John got the date right and all of the synoptics got it wrong.
Bear in mind also that the actual first day of unleavened bread was the 15th. So Matthew was not using the phrase "the first of the unleavened" in its literal sense. He could have chosen it to describe the day in between his prediction of his death and his actual death on the 14th. If so, he then has a series of five consecutive days, begining in 26:2 and ending with the day of his resurrection.
What you are saying is that the writer of Matthew had no clue how Passover works. It is more plausible that the events of Jesus' arrest and trial happened before the Passover meal but that is not what Matthew says. Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.
Other things you should know about trials before the Sanhedrin: they never held the trial and had the sentencing on the same day according to the Talmud and Josephus and neither could be on a Sabbath.
-
That is plausible. You are suggesting that John got the date right and all of the synoptics got it wrong.
I think that this is one of the very few occasions when John's gospel is more likely to be historically accurate. Not that there is much verifiable historical truth in any gospel, and practically none in John, but in this instance the details stack up. The dates also (conveniently) support John's idea of presenting Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb. Of course, in this gospel, the Last Supper is not a passover meal.
What you are saying is that the writer of Matthew had no clue how Passover works. It is more plausible that the events of Jesus' arrest and trial happened before the Passover meal but that is not what Matthew says. Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.
There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.
-
There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.
Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.
Matthew saying it was the passover meal doesn't prove that he thought of it as being eaten at the official time.
Imagine you were working on Christmas day: would you have Christmas dinner the day before or the day after?
-
I think that this is one of the very few occasions when John's gospel is more likely to be historically accurate. Not that there is much verifiable historical truth in any gospel, and practically none in John, but in this instance the details stack up. The dates also (conveniently) support John's idea of presenting Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb. Of course, in this gospel, the Last Supper is not a passover meal.
There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.
There are other examples where John is the accurate version. For example, in Matthew, the cleansing of the temple and the annointing at Bethany both interrupt the flow of the narrative, suggesting that they are insertions at convenient points in the narrative. According to John, the annointing at Bethany was six days before the passover. This means that Matthew's account moves from 2 days before passover, straight to the day of the last supper, and then to the day of passover when Jesus dies.
The statement of the Jewish leaders about not arresting Jesus during the feast controls the subsequent actions of the people in the narrative. Judas would not have led them to Gethsemane during the official Passover night after what they are quoted as having said.
-
Matthew saying it was the passover meal doesn't prove that he thought of it as being eaten at the official time.
If he didn't think of it being at the official time, he could not have been a first century Jew and could not have been the eponymous disciple of Jesus.
Imagine you were working on Christmas day: would you have Christmas dinner the day before or the day after?
Christmas dinner is not the Passover Seder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder). The latter is an integral part of the Jewish holiday of Passover and is a religious ritual.
-
If he didn't think of it being at the official time, he could not have been a first century Jew and could not have been the eponymous disciple of Jesus.
Christmas dinner is not the Passover Seder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder). The latter is an integral part of the Jewish holiday of Passover and is a religious ritual.
Unless he was there when it happened, and was writing down what he remembered?
True, passover is a more rigidly kept festival.
-
Unless he was there when it happened, and was writing down what he remembered?
True, passover is a more rigidly kept festival.
If it was some meal other than the Passover Seder, a practising first century Jew would not have described it as such. The author of Matthew is not a practising first century Jew.
-
If it was some meal other than the Passover Seder, a practising first century Jew would not have described it as such. The author of Matthew is not a practising first century Jew.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
Whereas the disciple called Matthew clearly was a first century Jew. Hence the author of the gospel is not the disciple.
-
Whereas the disciple called Matthew clearly was a first century Jew. Hence the author of the gospel is not the disciple.
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
-
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
So he forgot about Jewish traditions?
-
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
Yet this same Matthew felt it important to record Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".
You presumably think that this same Matthew (the one you think is the disciple) was around to attend the great Jerusalem debate, centred on whether to retain certain Jewish traditions in the emerging Christian church. That debate did not take place, so it has been argued, till ten years after the events you're discussing here, so early Christian practices were by no means clearly distinguished from Jewish ones, apart from belief in the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. I believe that applies to dietary practices too. "Peter's Dream" had not yet occurred, and the glib insertion of "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7: 18-20 is surely a gloss added as an afterthought.
-
By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.
So you are saying he forgot the traditions he grew up with and that he practised whilst he was following Jesus. If he can forget things like that, why would you describe his account of the ministry of Jesus as reliable?
-
Yet this same Matthew felt it important to record Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".
But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.
You presumably think that this same Matthew (the one you think is the disciple) was around to attend the great Jerusalem debate, centred on whether to retain certain Jewish traditions in the emerging Christian church. That debate did not take place, so it has been argued, till ten years after the events you're discussing here, so early Christian practices were by no means clearly distinguished from Jewish ones, apart from belief in the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. I believe that applies to dietary practices too. "Peter's Dream" had not yet occurred, and the glib insertion of "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7: 18-20 is surely a gloss added as an afterthought.
A look at the sermon on the mount or Matthew 15 shows that at the time of writing, the author of Matthew understood that the rituals and observances had been superseded.
-
But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.
That's exactly what he is saying.
A look at the sermon on the mount or Matthew 15 shows that at the time of writing, the author of Matthew understood that the rituals and observances had been superseded.
Quotes please.
-
But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.
I don't think he could have made it clearer, since the text says "till heaven and earth pass away.... and all things are fulfilled".
As far as I'm aware, the earth at least has not passed away, and the Last Judgment has not occurred.
-
That's exactly what he is saying.
Interesting, I had never looked at it that way. While he is illustrating how he has come to fulfill the law he does mention making an offering at the temple (Mt 5:18). This suggests that at the time of writing, the temple was still in use and that practicing the rituals associated with it was considered acceptable among Christians.
Quotes please.
Not sure why I mentioned the sermon on the mount. But in Mt 15 I was thinking of the section where he is accused of not obeying the traditions of the elders, such as hand washing before eating. But of course this was a ritual that was taught by the elders and wasn't, as far as I know, commanded by Moses.
So I retract my comment about the writer of Matthew understanding that observance of Passover, in the way that the Mosaic law instructed, had been superseded. As Dicky said, this seems to have taken years (and would also point to a very early date for the writing of this part of Matthew). I would point out though that Jesus' criticism of the Jewish leaders in Mt 15:3-9, how they set aside the commands of God in order to follow their own teachings, shows that 'Matthew' had a good understanding of the culture of first century Judea.
Regarding the last supper, I had a thought. When Matthew says "On the first day of Unleavened Bread" did he mean 14th of Nisan or what? If he was talking about the 14th, wouldn't he have called it the day of Passover? Apparently there is a tradition that on the evening of the 13th, they hunt for leaven in the house. So perhaps this is what 'Matthew' means by the first day of unleavened bread?
-
Regarding the last supper, I had a thought. When Matthew says "On the first day of Unleavened Bread" did he mean 14th of Nisan or what? If he was talking about the 14th, wouldn't he have called it the day of Passover? Apparently there is a tradition that on the evening of the 13th, they have a tradition where they hunt for leaven in the house. So perhaps this is what 'Matthew' means by the first day of unleavened bread?
The author of Matthew is clearly confused about how Passover works. The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. This is the day of the Passover meal (remember, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins in the evening, not at midnight). Matthew also explicitly claims they were organising the Passover meal on "the first day of unleavened bread". This is utter nonsense. The author didn't know how Passover works. Hence he not the disciple Matthew.
-
The author of Matthew is clearly confused about how Passover works. The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. This is the day of the Passover meal (remember, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins in the evening, not at midnight). Matthew also explicitly claims they were organising the Passover meal on "the first day of unleavened bread". This is utter nonsense. The author didn't know how Passover works. Hence he not the disciple Matthew.
Apparently it's said in the Mishna that in Galilee people would not work on 14th Nisan. This is all I can find in terms of actual evidence, but some articles about the last supper say that they would prepare for passover on the 13th. This was apparently to do with a fast which was held by firstborn males during the day of 14th. They would have a meal, the evening before, similar to the night before the Day of Atonement which was a fast day.
This could explain why Matthew, who was from Galilee, described the events the way he did.
-
Another piece of evidence is that Matthew, Mark and Luke all use the word artom for bread in their accounts of the last supper. This word always refers to leavened bread. If it had been the official passover meal they would have been eating unleavened bread.
-
Apparently it's said in the Mishna that in Galilee people would not work on 14th Nisan. This is all I can find in terms of actual evidence, but some articles about the last supper say that they would prepare for passover on the 13th. This was apparently to do with a fast which was held by firstborn males during the day of 14th. They would have a meal, the evening before, similar to the night before the Day of Atonement which was a fast day.
This could explain why Matthew, who was from Galilee, described the events the way he did.
You cannot get around the fact that Matthew had Jesus' disciples organising the Passover meal on the first day of unleavened bread which is after the date it should have happened.
There is no evidence that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel and there's plenty of evidence that he did not.
-
You cannot get around the fact that Matthew had Jesus' disciples organising the Passover meal on the first day of unleavened bread which is after the date it should have happened.
There is no evidence that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel and there's plenty of evidence that he did not.
Riley's theory in The Making of Mark is that Matthew seems to be dividing his narrative into consecutive days, starting two days before the Passover. He needs to call day 2, the day in between, something, so he calls it "the first day of unleavened bread". Day 3 ("when morning came" - 27:1) he has already named the Passover. Day 4 he calls "the next day, the one after Preparation Day". Day 5 he calls "in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (kjv).
He doesn't say "the first day of the festival of unleavened bread", as Luke does, which would have been even less accurate, as that is what Exodus 12 refers to. The phrase "first day of unleavened bread" isn't found elsewhere, so Matthew may have used it loosely for convenience.
-
starting two days before the Passover.
The author explicitly calls that the "first day of unleavened bread". That is factually incorrect. Game over.
-
The author explicitly calls that the "first day of unleavened bread". That is factually incorrect. Game over.
Not sure you got my meaning. The sequence is:
Day 1: Two days before Passover and death of Jesus (12 Nisan)
Day 2: First day of unleavened bread (Preparation for Passover, 13 Nisan)
Day 3: The Passover and death of Jesus (14 Nisan)
Day 4: Day after the Preparation, that is, the Sabbath (guards posted, 15 Nisan)
Day 5: First day of the week (16 Nisan)
Still factually incorrect, but explains the chronological discrepancy with John, and doesn't mean the author wasn't Matthew the disciple.
-
Not sure you got my meaning. The sequence is:
Day 1: Two days before Passover and death of Jesus (12 Nisan)
Day 2: First day of unleavened bread (Preparation for Passover, 13 Nisan)
The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. Game over.
Day 3: The Passover and death of Jesus (14 Nisan)
The Passover meal always happens in the evening when 14th Nisan changes to 15th Nisan. This fixes the Last Supper (according to Matthew) and the subsequent trial and execution as all being on the 15th (remember the date changes at sunset, not at midnight).
Day 4: Day after the Preparation, that is, the Sabbath (guards posted, 15 Nisan)
Day 5: First day of the week (16 Nisan)
Still factually incorrect, but explains the chronological discrepancy with John, and doesn't mean the author wasn't Matthew the disciple.
Matthew gets in a terrible mess about Passover. Would a Jew from the 1st century do this? No.
There are other reasons to refute the traditional authorship. The first is that Matthew clearly uses Mark as his source and repeats many of tMark's errors.
Against that, the reasoning behind the traditional attribution is extremely weak.
-
The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. Game over.
I haven't quite finished. The following is with the help of The Making of Mark:
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, agreed. Matthew isn't referring to that. How do we work out what he was referring to? First, he doesn't use the word Feast. Second, we look at the context. Jesus has said that "the Passover" is coming after two days, which read naturally means the day after tomorrow, in the evening. Then Matthew describes a day on which preparation was made for the Passover. If he meant the day on which they sacrificed the Passover lamb, as Mark states, we might expect Matthew to have called it, as he did to start with, "the Passover". But he does not; so it is possible that he meant the day before that, the 13th. This day was not part of the feast, but as the day when leaven was removed from the house, it wouldn't be unnatural to describe it as the first day of unleavened bread.
A further consideration is that in 26:1-5 Jesus is explaining what will happen in two days' time, and at the same time the chief priests and elders are conspiring to do this, saying "but not during the feast".
On the morning following the last supper, the chief priests and elders conspire to put Jesus to death, and Jesus is delivered up to be crucified. The description of this day contains content and wording first used in 26:1-5. We can assume therefore that this is still "not during the feast", that the Passover was on the evening of that day.
The Passover meal always happens in the evening when 14th Nisan changes to 15th Nisan. This fixes the Last Supper (according to Matthew) and the subsequent trial and execution as all being on the 15th (remember the date changes at sunset, not at midnight).
Matthew gets in a terrible mess about Passover. Would a Jew from the 1st century do this? No.
There are other reasons to refute the traditional authorship. The first is that Matthew clearly uses Mark as his source and repeats many of tMark's errors.
Against that, the reasoning behind the traditional attribution is extremely weak.
Once we get out of the mindset that Matthew was using Mark, it is possible to see his chronology agreeing with John's.
There are two incidental details that suggest a recollection by an eyewitness source: Go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says, "My time is near. I will keep the Passover with My disciples at your house."
-
I haven't quite finished. The following is with the help of The Making of Mark:
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, agreed. Matthew isn't referring to that. How do we work out what he was referring to? First, he doesn't use the word Feast. Second, we look at the context. Jesus has said that "the Passover" is coming after two days
He says that at the beginning of Chapter 26. Between then and the preparation stuff, there are several events. When we get to the preparation stuff it is introduced thus:
17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ 18 He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”’ 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.
20 When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;[c] 21 and while they were eating...
This passage naturally introduces a new day ("on the first day of...)), which Matthew calls "the first day of Unleavened Bread". He gets this wrong, because that would be 15th Nisan and he is now talking about preparations for the Passover meal. Verse 20 onwards are clearly describing events that Matthew thinks occur during the Passover meal.
Incidentally, all that stuff about preparations? The 14th is called the "Day of Preparation".
Once we get out of the mindset that Matthew was using Mark
Why would we when he did use Mark
it is possible to see his chronology agreeing with John's.
No because, in John, Jesus was already dead when it was time to eat the Passover Meal. In Matthew he was very much alive.
There are two incidental details that suggest a recollection by an eyewitness source: Go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says, "My time is near. I will keep the Passover with My disciples at your house."
Why do you think those suggest a recollection of an eye witness source?
-
He says that at the beginning of Chapter 26. Between then and the preparation stuff, there are several events.
John tells us that the anointing at Bethany happened six days before the Passover. The plot to kill Jesus had been underway since the raising of Lazarus (John 11:45-57). So over those two days all that happens is Judas agrees to betray Jesus, which Luke confirms. Matthew has pictured the conspiracy of the Jewish leaders as occurring at the same time. The anointing at Bethany, in Matthew, is an insertion.
When we get to the preparation stuff it is introduced thus:
This passage naturally introduces a new day ("on the first day of...)), which Matthew calls "the first day of Unleavened Bread". He gets this wrong, because that would be 15th Nisan and he is now talking about preparations for the Passover meal. Verse 20 onwards are clearly describing events that Matthew thinks occur during the Passover meal.
I agree, but this doesn't prove that Matthew thought of the last supper as taking place on the official date of Passover. That Matthew time stamps each day suggests that he is thinking of five consecutive days.
Incidentally, all that stuff about preparations? The 14th is called the "Day of Preparation".
We don't know that. The word Paraskeue was definitely used for Friday. Mark explains this. Would the disciples have left the Passover preparations until the 14th, especially if they were required to prepare for the Sabbath as well?
Why would we when he did use Mark
I've explained why I would. From my perspective, Luke and Mark have incorrectly interpreted Matthew's version to mean they ate the Passover on the 14th, and so they define the first day of unleavened bread more specifically, for their readers, as the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed.
No because, in John, Jesus was already dead when it was time to eat the Passover Meal. In Matthew he was very much alive.
Why do you think those suggest a recollection of an eye witness source?
Riley thinks that the phrase, "My time is at hand" would not carry any meaning for the householder, if it was said on the 14th. But it does if it was said on the 13th, as Jesus would be implying that he cannot wait until the official time because he knows he is about to be betrayed. "A certain man" implies that the man was not to be identified in order to keep the location secret.
-
That was clearly made up. There's no way that anybody not in the Sanhedrin had access to the private meetings of the Sanhedrin.
According to Luke, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Council, and had not consented to Jesus' conviction.
-
Sorry to come back to the issue of the relationship between the Synoptics again, but it does affect whether Matthew's source was an eyewitness of Jesus or someone from a later generation.
One particular evidence sometimes cited for Mark's dependence on Matthew and Luke is his use of dualisms: in particular, sentences or phrases in which Matthew has one half and Luke has the other half. A well known example is Mark 1:32, "And evening having come, when the sun had set" (cf Mt 8:16, "And evening having come"; Lk 4:40, "Now when the sun was setting"). If Luke and Matthew were copying from Mark, it would be less likely that on many occasions one of them copied one half while the other of them copied the other half of Mark's sentence than that Mark was conflating the phrases he found in Matthew and Luke.
While reading The Making of Mark I've come across many examples like these, and in Mark 14 we have a few:
Mk 14:1, "Now it would be the Passover and unleavened bread after two days"
Mt 26:1, "You know that after two days the Passover takes place"
Lk 22:1, "Now the feast of unleavened bread, called Passover, was drawing near".
Mk 14:1, "and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how, by stealth..."
Lk 22:2, "and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how..."
Mt 26:4, "...by stealth...
Mk 14:12, "And on the first day of unleavened, when they were to sacrifice the passover lamb"
Mt 26:17, "Now on the first of the unleavened"
Lk 22:7, "Then came the day of the unleavened, on which it was necessary for the passover lamb to be sacrificed"
This happens throughout Mark's gospel, so frequently that it points strongly to Mark conflating Matthew and Luke.
Matthew, then, was the first to write about the Last Supper. And John gives us the correct chronology with regard to its date.
Whether or not Matthew meant that the last supper happened on the evening of the official Passover, his account is the earliest.
-
John tells us that the anointing at Bethany happened six days before the Passover. The plot to kill Jesus had been underway since the raising of Lazarus (John 11:45-57). So over those two days all that happens is Judas agrees to betray Jesus, which Luke confirms. Matthew has pictured the conspiracy of the Jewish leaders as occurring at the same time. The anointing at Bethany, in Matthew, is an insertion.
I agree, but this doesn't prove that Matthew thought of the last supper as taking place on the official date of Passover. That Matthew time stamps each day suggests that he is thinking of five consecutive days.
We don't know that. The word Paraskeue was definitely used for Friday. Mark explains this. Would the disciples have left the Passover preparations until the 14th, especially if they were required to prepare for the Sabbath as well?
I've explained why I would. From my perspective, Luke and Mark have incorrectly interpreted Matthew's version to mean they ate the Passover on the 14th, and so they define the first day of unleavened bread more specifically, for their readers, as the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed.
Riley thinks that the phrase, "My time is at hand" would not carry any meaning for the householder, if it was said on the 14th. But it does if it was said on the 13th, as Jesus would be implying that he cannot wait until the official time because he knows he is about to be betrayed. "A certain man" implies that the man was not to be identified in order to keep the location secret.
Just accept that the author of Matthew referred to the Last Supper as The Passover Meal. Either he was wrong about that or he was wrong about the subsequent events. Either way, He is not a first century Jew who knew Jesus.
Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?
-
Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?
The tradition of the early church, and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark or any other known source. If Luke and Mark both used Matthew, and other editors added material to it, they considered it a reliable account.
-
The tradition of the early church, and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark or any other known source. If Luke and Mark both used Matthew, and other editors added material to it, they considered it a reliable account.
The names were assigned in the second century, so nearly 100 years without names being attached. Doesn't sound like great supporting evidence to me. Do you think they would really know for certain who wrote them 100 years later? Do you think they might have had other reasons for assigning names of people close to Jesus and his time frame such as to strengthen the claims made in those gospels?
-
The names were assigned in the second century, so nearly 100 years without names being attached. Doesn't sound like great supporting evidence to me. Do you think they would really know for certain who wrote them 100 years later? Do you think they might have had other reasons for assigning names of people close to Jesus and his time frame such as to strengthen the claims made in those gospels?
The names are found in writings from the second century, yes, but that doesn't mean they were not attached before that.
-
The tradition of the early church,
Would you like to expand on what that tradition is and how it came about? "Because people in the second century thought so" is not a compelling argument.
and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark
You are still in fantasy land. It's almost certain that Matthew relied on Mark, rather than the other way around.
-
The names are found in writings from the second century, yes, but that doesn't mean they were not attached before that.
There is no evidence that they were and there is some evidence they weren't, Justin Martyr for example seems very familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke but never refers to them by those names.
-
Would you like to expand on what that tradition is and how it came about? "Because people in the second century thought so" is not a compelling argument.
You are still in fantasy land. It's almost certain that Matthew relied on Mark, rather than the other way around.
There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.
-
There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.
No, there isn't
-
There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.
Evidence please.
-
Evidence please.
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
-
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.
-
If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.
As a chain of custody, it isn't even close. It's a chain of assertedy
-
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
No they don't.
I've read stuff from cold case Christianity before and am not convinced. Lots of assertions in there but no actual evidence, which is what I asked for.
-
I have this image of a small group of anoraks, and no doubt Spud is among them, who think that 'who wrote what' in unprovenanced anecdotes from antiquity has relevance currently - it doesn't.
-
Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/
I'm afraid that article is complete drivel. J Warner Wallace seems totally clueless which means I worry about the criminal cases he was involved in.
For a start, he doesn't know what an eye witness account is. John's gospel does not read like eye witness testimony (not that we are talking about John's gospel in this thread). I would be interested to have a separate thread where we take this article apart though.
-
I'm afraid that article is complete drivel. J Warner Wallace seems totally clueless which means I worry about the criminal cases he was involved in.
For a start, he doesn't know what an eye witness account is. John's gospel does not read like eye witness testimony (not that we are talking about John's gospel in this thread). I would be interested to have a separate thread where we take this article apart though.
Not its first appearance on the board
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg636401#msg636401
-
Not its first appearance on the board
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg636401#msg636401
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
-
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The website is almost funny in its lack of understanding about what it's claiming.
-
If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.
I had a read of one of the article's links: The Circumstantial Case For John’s Authorship (https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-circumstantial-case-for-johns-authorship/). He sets out the reasoning of Max Andrews on who wrote John.
It starts with 1:14 "we have seen his glory", then 2:11 "[by turning water into wine] he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". So the "we" is his disciples: as the reference to 'his glory' shows.
He then continues to identify John as the probable author by a process of elimination of the other disciples, using references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.
-
I had a read of one of the article's links: The Circumstantial Case For John’s Authorship (https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-circumstantial-case-for-johns-authorship/). He sets out the reasoning of Max Andrews on who wrote John.
It starts with 1:14 "we have seen his glory", then 2:11 "[by turning water into wine] he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". So the "we" is his disciples: as the reference to 'his glory' shows.
No.
It talks about the disciples in the third person. Clearly "we" are not the disciples.
He then continues to identify John as the probable author by a process of elimination of the other disciples, using references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.
Since we know it wasn't a disciple that wrote John, this step is erroneous.
-
No.
It talks about the disciples in the third person. Clearly "we" are not the disciples.
Since we know it wasn't a disciple that wrote John, this step is erroneous.
"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.
-
"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.
Where does it say that?
-
Where does it say that?
John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV
-
John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV
Thanks.
-
"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
Christians. You keep banging on about it all the time.
The first line of the Battle Hymn of the Republic "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". Do you think Julia Ward Howe was one of the disciples?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
Yes he does and that is perfectly natural, given that he is not the disciple whom Jesus loved.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.
Nonsense.
-
John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV
Disciples referred to in the third person again. Not the author.
-
Christians. You keep banging on about it all the time.
The first line of the Battle Hymn of the Republic "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". Do you think Julia Ward Howe was one of the disciples?
Meyer says,
It [his glory] presented itself to the recognition of believers as a reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it[98] (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognised by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1 John 1:1; comp. chap. John 2:11)
Which seems to be saying that beholding his glory is the result of the Word becoming flesh, and being seen by them. You're probably right that the 'we' is not just the disciples; it is the community of believers who saw Jesus in the flesh.
This implies the writer was an eyewitness, as per the first point in the list. Note that Meyer says "comp. Chap. John 2:11"
-
Disciples referred to in the third person again. Not the author.
That doesn't preclude the author being one of the disciples.
-
Meyer says, Which seems to be saying that beholding his glory is the result of the Word becoming flesh, and being seen by them. You're probably right that the 'we' is not just the disciples; it is the community of believers who saw Jesus in the flesh.
This implies the writer was an eyewitness, as per the first point in the list. Note that Meyer says "comp. Chap. John 2:11"
No it doesn’t imply the writer is an eye witness nor does it imply the “we” is the group who saw Jesus before he died. Furthermore, there’s still the problem that the key people, if John is the author, are described in the third person.
-
No it doesn’t imply the writer is an eye witness nor does it imply the “we” is the group who saw Jesus before he died.
In the context of the incarnation (1:14) and of people believing in Jesus because of his miraculous signs (2:23), which revealed his glory (2:11, 11:40), which is the glory of God (11:40), yes it does imply that the writer is an eyewitness and the we is him and the others who saw Jesus in the flesh.
Furthermore, there’s still the problem that the key people, if John is the author, are described in the third person.
Why is it a problem?
-
In the context of the incarnation (1:14) and of people believing in Jesus because of his miraculous signs (2:23), which revealed his glory (2:11, 11:40), which is the glory of God (11:40), yes it does imply that the writer is an eyewitness and the we is him and the others who saw Jesus in the flesh.Why is it a problem?
You are cherry picking verses. You jump from 1:14 to 2:23 to 2:11 to 11:40 whilst ignoring all the context.
There is nowhere where the author is implied as an eye witness to the life and death of Jesus. Furthermore, the people who are said in the gospel to be eye witnesses are referred to in the third person.
-
You are cherry picking verses. You jump from 1:14 to 2:23 to 2:11 to 11:40 whilst ignoring all the context.
I'm not cherry picking. The whole book is about how Jesus revealed his glory through miraculous signs (as well as his 'grace and truth'). Those particular verses are consistent with that.
The statement, "we beheld his glory" follows the statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, to paraphrase Don Carson, "we" can only refer to people who physically saw Jesus.
There is nowhere where the author is implied as an eye witness to the life and death of Jesus. Furthermore, the people who are said in the gospel to be eye witnesses are referred to in the third person.
Isn't "we" inclusive of the first person?
-
I'm not cherry picking. The whole book is about how Jesus revealed his glory through miraculous signs (as well as his 'grace and truth'). Those particular verses are consistent with that.
You picked out three verses in isolation and put them together with no thought about the context in which they appear and whether they should go together.
The statement, "we beheld his glory" follows the statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, to paraphrase Don Carson, "we" can only refer to people who physically saw Jesus.
Isn't "we" inclusive of the first person?
But as we have discussed, "we beheld his glory" does not mean "we" literally saw him while he was alive. And you still haven't addressed the fact that the disciples are always discussed in the third person.
-
But as we have discussed, "we beheld his glory" does not mean "we" literally saw him while he was alive.
Yes it does. It's linked with the statement that God became man and lived among us, so it can't be interpreted otherwise.
Regarding the other verses, they define what it means to behold his glory, and nothing about their contexts disproves that, as far as I can tell.
-
Yes it does. It's linked with the statement that God became man and lived among us, so it can't be interpreted otherwise.
Regarding the other verses, they define what it means to behold his glory, and nothing about their contexts disproves that, as far as I can tell.
Nonsense. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the disciples are referred to in the third person.
-
Nonsense. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the disciples are referred to in the third person.
I'll quote Don Carson word for word on John 1:14,
"In the context of incarnation, the we who saw the Word's glory must refer to the Evangelist and other Christians who actually saw Jesus in the days of his earthly life". (D. Carson, The Gospel according to John, p 128). Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. That is the natural way to understand it.
Are you saying, why would the author refer to himself and other eyewitnesses as 'we' in one place, but then use the third person, "his disciples", instead of 'we', in another (eg 2:11)? If so, then interpreting 'his disciples' as indicating that he isn't one of the Twelve or the 'we' of 1:14, would thus lead you to interpret 'beholding his glory' in 1:14 in the sense of contemplating his glory instead of seeing it physically.
One reason why I would disagree with you is that John's gospel was written before the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Interpretation of John 1:14 is not dependent on that hymn, but should be based on the immediate context, as Carson indicates.
If the author meant that he witnessed Jesus physically, would it really be unnatural for him to refer to the disciples in the third person, or could there be another reason? Especially if 2:11 is set the day after the calling of Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathaniel. At that point he has only mentioned those disciples, so it is appropriate to use the third person.
I think it is Meyer who says that the 'us' and 'we' in 1:14 refers to "all who did receive him, who believed in his name" in verse 12. I don't think the author would have used both 'us' and 'we' if he wasn't in that category.
-
I'll quote Don Carson word for word on John 1:14,
Who is he?
"In the context of incarnation, the we who saw the Word's glory must refer to the Evangelist and other Christians who actually saw Jesus in the days of his earthly life".
Nonsense. What's his evidence.
Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. That is the natural way to understand it.
No it isn't. Especially if John is a very late first century / early second century document as most scholars believe. Christians today still claim to have witnessed Christ's glory.
Are you saying, why would the author refer to himself and other eyewitnesses as 'we' in one place, but then use the third person, "his disciples", instead of 'we', in another (eg 2:11)?
No. I'm saying that the author always refers to the disciples and other people around Jesus when he alive in the third person. He clearly wasn't one of them.
Interpretation of John 1:14 is not dependent on that hymn
You want to have your cake and eat it.
Sorry but the evidence against the disciple John or any other eye witness writing the gospel is pretty strong.
-
Christians today still claim to have witnessed Christ's glory.
This argument is unnecessary. The 'we' in the verse is talking about the 'us' among whom Jesus lived. They beheld his glory as a result of him living among them, not as a result of hearing about him from others.
That the disciples are in the third person doesn't rule out that the author was one of them. The author(s) said "we know that his testimony is true" which points to them having having been eyewitnesses themselves.
What do you think of the statement in 19:35, "35The one who saw it has testified to this, and his testimony is true. He knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe." which reads as if it was the author speaking?
-
This argument is unnecessary. The 'we' in the verse is talking about the 'us' among whom Jesus lived.
But there is no evidence. Your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
-
But there is no evidence. Your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
As I understand it, you are saying there is no evidence that the author is included in the 'we' of John 1:14. But when we see a statement with 'we' in it, it's natural to assume the 'we' includes the person speaking, unless there is reason to think otherwise. So really, you need to show your evidence that 'we' doesn't include the author. A hymn about the second coming doesn't influence how we interpret a statement about Jesus' first coming.
-
As I understand it, you are saying there is no evidence that the author is included in the 'we' of John 1:14.
No. I'm saying that the "we" in John 1:14 is the body of Christianity as a whole and there is no expectation that any or all of them actually saw Jesus alive. By the time that the gospel was written, it is entirely possible that all of Jesus' companions were dead.
-
No. I'm saying that the "we" in John 1:14 is the body of Christianity as a whole and there is no expectation that any or all of them actually saw Jesus alive. By the time that the gospel was written, it is entirely possible that all of Jesus' companions were dead.
I agree with you that it means believers, on the basis of its reference back to John 1:12-13, which determines who the 'us' and 'we' are (those who believed).
But what they beheld was his glory, and the rest of the book defines what that means: his miracles, his grace and truth, and his glorification through his death and resurrection. This suggests that the author is speaking of the believers who had seen Jesus physically.
Edit: I was chewing this over a lot yesterday, and concluded that perhaps Carson's view that I quoted was not correct. But having gone back to it this morning I think he is right. The incarnation gives a physical manifestation of God's glory, so the beholding in 1:14 is explained by that.
However, I agree that Christians who have not seen Jesus physically can still see his glory, by reading the accounts of his miraculous signs or through encountering him in prayer
-
I agree with you that it means believers, on the basis of its reference back to John 1:12-13, which determines who the 'us' and 'we' are (those who believed).
But what they beheld was his glory, and the rest of the book defines what that means: his miracles, his grace and truth, and his glorification through his death and resurrection. This suggests that the author is speaking of the believers who had seen Jesus physically.
Edit: I was chewing this over a lot yesterday, and concluded that perhaps Carson's view that I quoted was not correct. But having gone back to it this morning I think he is right. The incarnation gives a physical manifestation of God's glory, so the beholding in 1:14 is explained by that.
However, I agree that Christians who have not seen Jesus physically can still see his glory, by reading the accounts of his miraculous signs or through encountering him in prayer
Off on a tangent, who do you think the 'we' is referring to in Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians, 4:15?
I mention this because I know that there are many Christians who do not want this to refer to contemporaries of Paul, or to Paul himself. Confirmation bias rules, okay.
-
Off on a tangent, who do you think the 'we' is referring to in Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians, 4:15?
I mention this because I know that there are many Christians who do not want this to refer to contemporaries of Paul, or to Paul himself. Confirmation bias rules, okay.
There Paul is saying that according to the word of the Lord, those who are alive at the advent will not precede those who have died. His statement that he would be among those in the former group is not part of the information that he says is from the Lord, and so must be a subjective supposition or hope. He is also aware that people are 'falling asleep' all the time, and so when saying 'we' he must still be open to his own death happening before the advent.
-
There Paul is saying that according to the word of the Lord, those who are alive at the advent will not precede those who have died. His statement that he would be among those in the former group is not part of the information that he says is from the Lord, and so must be a subjective supposition or hope. He is also aware that people are 'falling asleep' all the time, and so when saying 'we' he must still be open to his own death happening before the advent.
So "we" means what you want it to mean.
-
So "we" means what you want it to mean.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it includes the writer, but isn't he saying that if the advent were to occur now (he is aware of the unknowableness of its timing, see ch 5), he and those believers still living would not be better off than those believers who are dead? Nothing to do with what I want it to mean.
-
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it includes the writer, but isn't he saying that if the advent were to occur now (he is aware of the unknowableness of its timing, see ch 5), he and those believers still living would not be better off than those believers who are dead? Nothing to do with what I want it to mean.
Well the gospel of John was written quite a while after 1 Thessalonians, so we can assume that "we" is used in a similar sense. i.e. it's is talking about the Christian church in general, including the author. "we are the witnesses" says John and it's said by Christians to this day.
-
There is no evidence that they were and there is some evidence they weren't, Justin Martyr for example seems very familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke but never refers to them by those names.
But he calls them gospels, and also says they were written by the apostles, iirc?
-
There is no evidence that they were
Among the manuscripts that contain the begining of a gospel account, I think there is one manuscript that is untitled, the rest are all titled 'According to Matthew/Mark etc.' If they were not assigned names until that later time, we would expect at least some of those earliest manuscripts to be untitled.
-
Among the manuscripts that contain the begining of a gospel account, I think there is one manuscript that is untitled, the rest are all titled 'According to Matthew/Mark etc.' If they were not assigned names until that later time, we would expect at least some of those earliest manuscripts to be untitled.
They are untitled
-
But he calls them gospels, and also says they were written by the apostles, iirc?
But he doesn't give names to the authors of any of the gospels and he was writing between 155 and 160, which is roughly 50 years after the last gospel was written (and the evidence that he was aware of the Gospel of John is sketchy).
-
They are untitled
They are all anonymous, you mean?
-
But he doesn't give names to the authors of any of the gospels and he was writing between 155 and 160, which is roughly 50 years after the last gospel was written (and the evidence that he was aware of the Gospel of John is sketchy).
He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.
-
Well the gospel of John was written quite a while after 1 Thessalonians, so we can assume that "we" is used in a similar sense. i.e. it's is talking about the Christian church in general, including the author. "we are the witnesses" says John and it's said by Christians to this day.
'Quite a while' - if you mean after the eyewitnesses died, what's the evidence for this, and how do you explain the author identifying himself as one of the twelve disciples towards the end of the book?
-
He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.
No, it doesn't.
-
They are all anonymous, you mean?
You used the term 'untitled'. Seems a bit odd you asking me what you meant. The earliest manuscripts are scraps with no attribution.
-
He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.
No it doesn't. Just because he says they were written by the apostles doesn't mean they were. He was writing perhaps a hundred years later and may have had bad information. Furthermore, the world "apostle" didn't necessarily mean one of the Twelve to the early Christians. Justin Martyr was writing in Greek and in Greek, "apostle" just means "emissary".
-
'Quite a while' - if you mean after the eyewitnesses died, what's the evidence for this,
There's quite a lot of evidence for the late authorship of John (~90CE or a bit later). The theology is quite well developed and there are anachronisms which can only mean a late date.
and how do you explain the author identifying himself as one of the twelve disciples towards the end of the book?
No he doesn't.
-
You used the term 'untitled'. Seems a bit odd you asking me what you meant. The earliest manuscripts are scraps with no attribution.
The title would be "The Gospel According to X" where X is the alleged author. These titles were not originally on the manuscripts as far as we know.
-
No it doesn't. Just because he says they were written by the apostles doesn't mean they were. He was writing perhaps a hundred years later and may have had bad information. Furthermore, the world "apostle" didn't necessarily mean one of the Twelve to the early Christians. Justin Martyr was writing in Greek and in Greek, "apostle" just means "emissary".
The point is that Justin not naming the authors is not evidence that the names were not attached to the gospels before his time. That he says they were the memoirs of the apostles is evidence for them being attributed to them.
-
The title would be "The Gospel According to X" where X is the alleged author. These titles were not originally on the manuscripts as far as we know.
How do we know these titles were not originally on the manuacripts?
-
How do we know these titles were not originally on the manuacripts?
We din't but your claim was that they were there. So do you accept that you were wrong?
-
We don't
So why does Jeremy think they weren't originally on the manuscripts? Is the handwriting in the title different from that in the main account, or something?
but your claim was that they were there.
That would be the logical conclusion unless they look like they've been added afterwards.
-
The point is that Justin not naming the authors is not evidence that the names were not attached to the gospels before his time.
Wouldn't he have named them if he knew the names?
That he says they were the memoirs of the apostles is evidence for them being attributed to them.
Except of course, even in tradition, two of the authors were not apostles.
-
Please note, the point here is that the manuscripts we have that contain the beginning of a gospel all (but one) have a title, which is always, in essence, 'the gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John'. And I'm assuming those titles were put there by the same copyists that wrote the manuscripts.
If these titles had been made up, why do they all have one, and why is it always the same? If the original copies were untitled, and the titles added a century later, we would expect to have some extant copies (or copies of copies) of those originals which were still untitled, or have a different title.
We also have statements from second century church leaders about who wrote the gospels. These leaders were separated geographically and temporally yet all give the same names for the authors.
-
You might find the Jesus Seminar site interesting ..... https://virtualreligion.net/forum/complete.html
-
We also have statements from first century church leaders about who wrote the gospels.
No we don't. This is completely false.
-
No we don't. This is completely false.
Just keeping you on your toes
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
In the second century or later.
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later.
Yes but it is third century (or possibly late second). Nobody is disputing that the traditional names had been ascribed by then.
I'm not sure if the text includes "The Gospel According to John" or if it just starts. In any case, since this is part of a compilation (maybe there is a lost first volume consisting of Matthew and Mark) it would be natural for the scribe to put "Gospel of John" at the start to differentiate it from the end of Luke.
The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
What? How do you know Irenaeus ascribes the text that we now have to John? Who is the other source? If you are going to say "Papias", you need to think again.
-
Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.
Spud
Some questions.
1. Why are you content with suppositions?
2. Do you realise that little of this is verifiable, since it is largely indistinguishable from fiction?
3. Why does this matter at all in the 21st Century?
4. These days, who the fuck actually cares anyway?
-
There's quite a lot of evidence for the late authorship of John (~90CE or a bit later). The theology is quite well developed and there are anachronisms which can only mean a late date.
I looked up 'anachronisms in John's gospel '. One supposed one is 9:22, about a healed blind man's parents' fear of being expelled from the synagogue. Here's a rebuttal (https://isjesusalive.com/is-the-blind-mans-expulsion-from-the-synagogue-in-john-922-anachronistic/).
No he doesn't.
Here is John 19:35:
35He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
If the author was not this disciple, how could he know that the disciple knows he is telling the truth?
-
In the second century or later.
The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."
-
The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."
Are the gospels actually named in Papyrus 75?
-
The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."
Bart Ehrman says that he thinks the gospels were anonymous until 'there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it.'
-
I looked up 'anachronisms in John's gospel '. One supposed one is 9:22, about a healed blind man's parents' fear of being expelled from the synagogue. Here's a rebuttal (https://isjesusalive.com/is-the-blind-mans-expulsion-from-the-synagogue-in-john-922-anachronistic/).
That's really weak sauce. We have external corroboration that heretical sects were banned from the synagogues much later. Of course, synagogues in Israel in the first century are something of an anachronism just by themselves. The claim that Luke referred to them in Acts isn't worth much since Acts itself is also late first century.
Here is John 19:35:
35He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
If the author was not this disciple, how could he know that the disciple knows he is telling the truth?
If the author is this disciple why is he referred to in the third person? Why do you do all these contortions of logic and ignore the obvious basic stuff?
-
Are the gospels actually named in Papyrus 75?
Yes, it contains Luke 3-24, then, after the ending of Luke, "The gospel according to John", followed by John 1-15.
-
Bart Ehrman says that he thinks the gospels were anonymous until 'there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it.'
When you say anonymous, do you mean untitled? They are all anonymous.
If Bart is correct, then that information didn't have long to be distributed to France, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.
The screenshot is from
this video (https://youtu.be/wHFLUIU4mps?si=QNRVf-RwlUQEq3tf)
-
If the author is this disciple why is he referred to in the third person? Why do you do all these contortions of logic and ignore the obvious basic stuff?
The most likely reason that I have come across is that the author wanted to make the focus on Jesus.
Other ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person, such as Josephus.
-
When you say anonymous, do you mean untitled? They are all anonymous.
If Bart is correct, then that information didn't have long to be distributed to France, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.
The screenshot is from
this video (https://youtu.be/wHFLUIU4mps?si=QNRVf-RwlUQEq3tf)
Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.
Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!
-
Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.
Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!
I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.
-
I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.
In the colloquial use of the word theory maybe.
-
The most likely reason that I have come across is that the author wanted to make the focus on Jesus.
Don't be silly. The most likely reason is that the author is not the disciple.
Other ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person, such as Josephus.
So what? Don't forget that the author of the gospel is not afraid to use first person pronouns at other times.
-
I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church
Evidence?
, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.
Just a load of confirmation bias.
-
Don't be silly. The most likely reason is that the author is not the disciple.
You said "if the author is the disciple why is he referred to in the third person?" "The author is not the disciple" is not a reason why the disciple is referred to in the third person.
-
So what? Don't forget that the author of the gospel is not afraid to use first person pronouns at other times.
Meyer says of the use of the third person in John 19:35 that it's a "solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon" (the outflow of blood and water). Likewise of 9:37, Meyer says that using the third person is a way of introducing himself (to the man he cured of blindness) as the Son of Man with special emphasis.
-
You said "if the author is the disciple why is he referred to in the third person?" "The author is not the disciple" is not a reason why the disciple is referred to in the third person.
Yes it is. It's the obvious reason. It's how language works: you talk about somebody in the third person, you mean somebody who is not you and is not me. In fact the clue is in the name "third person". The first person is me. The second person is you. The third person is somebody else.
Seriously, Spud, this just makes you look desperate.
-
Meyer says of the use of the third person in John 19:35 that it's a "solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon" (the outflow of blood and water). Likewise of 9:37, Meyer says that using the third person is a way of introducing himself (to the man he cured of blindness) as the Son of Man with special emphasis.
No.
This is just more apologetics. You want the author to be John, so you desperately contort everything the way you want it. Try getting some intellectual honesty.
-
Yes it is. It's the obvious reason. It's how language works: you talk about somebody in the third person, you mean somebody who is not you and is not me. In fact the clue is in the name "third person". The first person is me. The second person is you. The third person is somebody else.
Seriously, Spud, this just makes you look desperate.
How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?
-
No.
This is just more apologetics. You want the author to be John, so you desperately contort everything the way you want it. Try getting some intellectual honesty.
No, it's answering the question you raised, which was if the author is the disciple, why does he use the third person. We have an example within the narrative where Jesus substitutes a title for the pronoun 'I', so it's not unnatural for the author to do the same thing.
-
How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?
I would say this is an actual example of begging the question... but it is dead, the great fallacy is dead.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22239.msg896602;boardseen#new
-
How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?
The author is not the disciple. That should be obvious to you by now.
-
Watched an interesting lecture on YouTube from Centreplace about the authorship of John - talking about John 1 (author of the bulk of John) and John 2 (author of the last chapter and editor of John 1). It said how the last chapter seems to be an addition and the writer of that is referring to the writer of the rest of John - and said why John 1 couldn't really be John the apostle. It talks of how John 1 believes in a spiritual interpretation of Jesus's words but John 2 was a literalist. There was more to it than that and was a good watch.
-
Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.
Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!
If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias says that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.
-
Watched an interesting lecture on YouTube from Centreplace about the authorship of John - talking about John 1 (author of the bulk of John) and John 2 (author of the last chapter and editor of John 1). It said how the last chapter seems to be an addition and the writer of that is referring to the writer of the rest of John - and said why John 1 couldn't really be John the apostle. It talks of how John 1 believes in a spiritual interpretation of Jesus's words but John 2 was a literalist. There was more to it than that and was a good watch.
The last chapter could well be a supplement, given that the last verse of the preceding chapter reads like a conclusion to chs. 1-20. Why would ch 21 not be written by the same author as 1-20? The last verse of ch.21 may be from an editor, being somewhat fantastical in nature.
There are lots of indicators that John was written by an eyewitness - in particular, details that only an eyewitness would know, such as who spoke when; which disciples went fishing with Peter, etc. There is no reason not to believe the tradition of the early church regarding who the author was.
-
If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias days that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.
I'm sure Bart Ehrman is aware of those points. I could go and look up what he says about it but of course so can you. I'm not saying Ehrman is right but pointing out that respected scholars have a different view or views on this. As i say, I'm not a respected scholar so any post I would make would be based on looking up what respected scholars say.
-
The last chapter could well be a supplement, given that the last verse of the preceding chapter reads like a conclusion to chs. 1-20. Why would ch 21 not be written by the same author as 1-20? The last verse of ch.21 may be from an editor, being somewhat fantastical in nature.
There are lots of indicators that John was written by an eyewitness - in particular, details that only an eyewitness would know, such as who spoke when; which disciples went fishing with Peter, etc. There is no reason not to believe the tradition of the early church regarding who the author was.
Scholars give plenty of reasons why. Have you watched the Youtube clip I referred to? I'll find a link if not.
-
If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias
Well we can't. His writing has only survived as quotations in Eusebius' work.
, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Yes, but the gospel that has survived to the present day was written in Greek. If Papias is being reported correctly, then he is saying that the gospel we call "Matthew" is not the one written by Matthew.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias days that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.
We clearly do not have three independent traditions. We only know Papias through Eusebius. How can you possibly claim them as independent?
-
Yes, but the gospel that has survived to the present day was written in Greek. If Papias is being reported correctly, then he is saying that the gospel we call "Matthew" is not the one written by Matthew.
Hebrew versions of Matthew from around the 14th century have also survived. Do you know of any internal evidence for Matthew being composed in Greek? Peter Williams did a talk on this, citing the Beatitudes as being sort of poetic (in Greek). Apparently the Hebrew versions contain puns, word connections and alliterations (https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-the-gospel-of-matthew-originally-written-in-hebrew/) (scroll down for examples) that must be part of an original composition, not a translation. This would suggest that the extant manuscripts are copies of a now lost Hebrew original.
We clearly do not have three independent traditions. We only know Papias through Eusebius. How can you possibly claim them as independent?
By assuming Eusebius' quote from Papias is accurate.
-
Hebrew versions of Matthew from around the 14th century have also survived.
This is totally irrelevant. English versions of the gospelalso started appearing around that time. It doesn't mean the gospel was written in English.
Do you know of any internal evidence for Matthew being composed in Greek?
Experts say it appears to have been written in Greek. A lot of the evidence is very technical but two pieces are easy to understand:
1. The early Greek manuscripts are remarkably consistent. If they are translations of an earlier Hebrew document, we would expect huge variation (think of all the different English language translations)
2. Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament. When he does, it is invariably from the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. There are variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text and Matthew always uses the Septuagint variation.
Nobody, not even most apologists believes Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
-
By assuming Eusebius' quote from Papias is accurate.
You clearly do not understand the meaning of "independent". If Eusebius agrees with Papias on something, you cannot claim they are independent because Eusebius may have formed his own opinion by reading Papias.
-
You clearly do not understand the meaning of "independent". If Eusebius agrees with Papias on something, you cannot claim they are independent because Eusebius may have formed his own opinion by reading Papias.
Here's Papias' quote according to Eusebius:
"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
From reading Eusebius' statement does it really look as though that is what he did?
"Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel in his own native tongue for those he was leaving".
Here is what Riley says, in a section in which he discusses the language in which Matthew was written:
"Eusebius knew Papias' writings, but there is no reason to assume that it was only the words of Papias that made him so write. Like the detail in Irenaeus that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church," that of Eusebius about the apostle's decision 'to go to others' appears to be an independent item of tradition." (from the concluding chapter of The First Gospel).
-
This is totally irrelevant. English versions of the gospelalso started appearing around that time. It doesn't mean the gospel was written in English.
Experts say it appears to have been written in Greek. A lot of the evidence is very technical but two pieces are easy to understand:
1. The early Greek manuscripts are remarkably consistent. If they are translations of an earlier Hebrew document, we would expect huge variation (think of all the different English language translations)
2. Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament. When he does, it is invariably from the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. There are variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text and Matthew always uses the Septuagint variation.
Nobody, not even most apologists believes Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
If the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew, couldn't Greek Matthew be also? If Hebrew translations exist, we should try to work out whether they are direct translations from Greek Matthew or not.
This is new to me. Notwithstanding evidence that parts of Greek Matthew suggest composition in Greek, here's an example of possible evidence for a Hebrew original.
Matthew 7:16
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
ESV
The two types of plant mentioned here are the thorns and thistles of Genesis 3:18, and the same words are used as in the Septuagint.
In one Hebrew Matthew manuscript, (https://www.hebrewgospels.com/matthew?srsltid=AfmBOop4cz6CWz4yJi5xLO2JCTHtNJr5V8amL2H4Hp1ihcpN9JeFEYfc) the verse reads,
"By their deeds you will recognize them– for a man is not able to gather
grapes from a bramble, neither figs from thorn bushes."
Here, the word for the first of the two plants is the same as the word for the burning bush that Moses saw. It is literally translated, "bush". The second is the same word for thistle as in Genesis 3:18.
So the question is, which is closer to the original saying by Jesus? Does one version lead to a deeper understanding of the saying than the other?
-
Here's Papias' quote according to Eusebius:
"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
Does that seem like a description of the current Gospel of Matthew? Try being honest with yourself. Is Matthew a list of oracles?
From reading Eusebius' statement does it really look as though that is what he did?
"Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel in his own native tongue for those he was leaving".
No. For a start his native tongue would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew and not Greek.
Here is what Riley says, in a section in which he discusses the language in which Matthew was written:
"Eusebius knew Papias' writings, but there is no reason to assume that it was only the words of Papias that made him so write. Like the detail in Irenaeus that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church," that of Eusebius about the apostle's decision 'to go to others' appears to be an independent item of tradition." (from the concluding chapter of The First Gospel).
So he's handwaving other sources into existence. How do we know he had an independent item of tradition? How can we say how reliable it is?
-
If the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew, couldn't Greek Matthew be also? If Hebrew translations exist, we should try to work out whether they are direct translations from Greek Matthew or not.
No.
It is beyond doubt that Matthew quotes the Septuagint and not the Hebrew version of the OT.
This is new to me. Notwithstanding evidence that parts of Greek Matthew suggest composition in Greek, here's an example of possible evidence for a Hebrew original.
-
Does that seem like a description of the current Gospel of Matthew? Try being honest with yourself. Is Matthew a list of oracles?
Not a list; but Papias doesn't say they are. What is evident is that the parables and instruction in Matthew are integrated into a narrative, without which the oracles would be just a list. Is it likely that the apostle Matthew would have written nothing about when and where the 'oracles' were spoken, or about things that Jesus did?
No. For a start his native tongue would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew and not Greek.
The key point being, not Greek.
So he's handwaving other sources into existence.
He's saying there is no reason to assume that it was only Papias' words that made Eusebius mention Matthew's native tongue.
How do we know he had an independent item of tradition? How can we say how reliable it is?
For the reason given by Riley: that the detail given by Eusebius that Matthew decided "to go to others" appears to be an independent item of tradition. Eusebius would have to have added the words, 'in his own native tongue' to the statement, "and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel for those he was leaving", if indeed he did get that detail from Papias only.
-
Not a list; but Papias doesn't say they are.
"Oracles". What do you think that is?
What is evident is that the parables and instruction in Matthew are integrated into a narrative, without which the oracles would be just a list. Is it likely that the apostle Matthew would have written nothing about when and where the 'oracles' were spoken, or about things that Jesus did?
The key point being, not Greek.
The key point being that this does not describe the document we call "The Gospel According to Matthew".
He's saying there is no reason to assume that it was only Papias' words that made Eusebius mention Matthew's native tongue.
Matthew's (as in the disciple) native tongue would most likely be neither Greek nor Hebrew, but Aramaic. The person who wrote the gospel was very proficient in Greek.
For the reason given by Riley: that the detail given by Eusebius that Matthew decided "to go to others" appears to be an independent item of tradition. Eusebius would have to have added the words, 'in his own native tongue' to the statement, "and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel for those he was leaving", if indeed he did get that detail from Papias only.
You don't understand what "independent" means when talking about historical sources.
-
"Oracles". What do you think that is?
The 'to teach' component of what Luke describes in Acts 1:1. "All that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven"
Papias mentioning only Jesus' teaching doesn't preclude Matthew also writing about what Jesus did. I mean, try extracting the teaching from the rest of Matthew. You can't really, because it is an integral part of the narrative.
-
The 'to teach' component of what Luke describes in Acts 1:1. "All that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven"
OK. So that's not really what we've got now is it.
Papias mentioning only Jesus' teaching doesn't preclude Matthew also writing about what Jesus did. I mean, try extracting the teaching from the rest of Matthew. You can't really, because it is an integral part of the narrative.
Papias is the linchpin of your argument. You can't just pretend he said stuff of which we have no evidence.
-
OK. So that's not really what we've got now is it.
Papias is the linchpin of your argument. You can't just pretend he said stuff of which we have no evidence.
Papias' book which Eusebius is quoting from is called "Expositions of oracles of the Lord", and Papias seems to be primarily concerned with the true or accurate doctrine taught by the apostles and those who had been in direct contact with them. He is mainly concerned with what Jesus taught, although he mentions 'the things said or done by the Lord' in speaking of Mark. So we can conclude that when Papias mentions with regard to Matthew only the logia, this does not mean that Matthew only wrote down what Jesus said. It's more likely that he mentioned only the logia because they were the subject of his book. Here is the full chapter containing the quotes by Papias:
https://bkv.unifr.ch/de/works/cpg-3495/versions/the-church-history-of-eusebius/divisions/83
-
Papias' book which Eusebius is quoting from is called "Explanation of the sayings of the Lord", and Papias seems to be primarily concerned with the true or accurate doctrine taught by the apostles and those who had been in direct contact with them.
But it's important to understand that we do not have this book. It is no longer extant. The only way we know anything about Papias at all and his writings is through Eusebius. Saying anything about the bits Eusebius hasn't told us about is guesswork. Relying on there bits that Eusebius has told us about is dangerous because, Eusebius is likely to have put his own spin on them.
He is mainly concerned with what Jesus taught, although he mentions 'the things said or done by the Lord' in speaking of Mark. So we can conclude that when Papias mentions with regard to Matthew only the logia, this does not mean that Matthew only wrote down what Jesus said.
"Mark wrote about the things Jesus said and did. Matthew wrote about the things Jesus said" ~ Papias (according to Eusebius).
On what planet is this evidence that Matthew wrote about what Jesus did?
You are inferring facts not in evidence and you are doing it through the lens of your beliefs.
-
"Mark wrote about the things Jesus said and did. Matthew wrote about the things Jesus said" ~ Papias (according to Eusebius).
This would be a possible interpretation if Papias's original statement about Matthew followed directly on from that about Mark. But it seems fairly clear that the words translated 'so too' do not refer back to the quote about Mark. The contrast you have suggested doesn't exist. Furthermore, the word order in the extract about Mark doesn't support the idea of a contrast.
For more information see towards the end of this link (where it talks about the oracles):
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/lightfoot/supernatural/6.htm
(Health warning: the above link is a bit brain bending)
-
This would be a possible interpretation if Papias's original statement about Matthew followed directly on from that about Mark. But it seems fairly clear that the words translated 'so too' do not refer back to the quote about Mark. The contrast you have suggested doesn't exist.
It wasn't my contrast, it was yours.
Papias says (according to Eusebius) "and so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability." You cannot infer from that that Matthew also wrote about the things Jesus did.
-
It wasn't my contrast, it was yours.
Papias says (according to Eusebius) "and so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability." You cannot infer from that that Matthew also wrote about the things Jesus did.
I said Papias was concerned with the oracles, not Matthew. You inferred the latter.
Lightfoot, in the link, gives several examples of the word logia being used where it refers to teaching incorporated into narrative.
-
I said Papias was concerned with the oracles, not Matthew. You inferred the latter.
No I didn't. I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.
Lightfoot, in the link, gives several examples of the word logia being used where it refers to teaching incorporated into narrative.
So what? You are still inferring facts not in evidence.
-
No I didn't.
OK.
I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.
OK.
So what? You are still inferring facts not in evidence.
So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.
We will also find evidence that the oracles of the Lord that Papias says Matthew wrote down, must include narrative, by the fact that Jesus's sayings in Greek Matthew* emerge out of the course of events in the narrative. For example, Mt 12:46 says,
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
King James Bible
* That Papias knew Greek Matthew is shown by the way he says that "each translated (past tense) the sayings as he was able", not "translates"; here the past tense shows that it was no longer necessary for each person to translate the Hebrew, which must mean that a Greek translation had been accepted at that point
Papias' book was called, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord'. That Papias meant the written gospels is suggested in his preface where he says, "But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing their truth."
"Along with my interpretations" suggests that he is expounding written work, and supporting this exposition with oral tradition he has received from the Elders.
It's difficult not to think of this written work as being the four gospels as we know them.
-
OK.OK.So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.
Here's an English translation of Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm
It certainly says Papias bore witness to a lot of things. But your quote is right at the front of the chapter and Papias bearing witness is in fourth paragraph. It certainly doesn't say Papias quoted any of those scriptures nor any of the other alleged sayings of Jesus mentioned that do not appear in any of the current gospels.
You're still cherry picking.
-
Here's an English translation of Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm
It certainly says Papias bore witness to a lot of things. But your quote is right at the front of the chapter and Papias bearing witness is in fourth paragraph. It certainly doesn't say Papias quoted any of those scriptures nor any of the other alleged sayings of Jesus mentioned that do not appear in any of the current gospels.
Agreed.
-
A little piece of evidence that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew:
In 1:21 the angel says to Joseph, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
The word Jesus is the English form of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.
Joshua means 'Yahweh saves'.
Someone reading Greek Matthew who doesn't speak Hebrew would not understand the reason given by the angel for naming him Jesus.
If the verse was originally written in Hebrew, it would be understood by a Hebrew reader.
Moreover, apparently the Hebrew word translated as "he will save" is 'yoshia', so this is a pun, indicating again that the original was in Hebrew.
-
A little piece of evidence that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew:
In 1:21 the angel says to Joseph, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
The word Jesus is the English form of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.
Joshua means 'Yahweh saves'.
Someone reading Greek Matthew who doesn't speak Hebrew would not understand the reason given by the angel for naming him Jesus.
If the verse was originally written in Hebrew, it would be understood by a Hebrew reader.
Moreover, apparently the Hebrew word translated as "he will save" is 'yoshia', so this is a pun, indicating again that the original was in Hebrew.
Yeshua was a very common name in 1st century Palestine. There's no need to attach any underlying significance to is use where Jesus was concerned and "Jesus" is merely a Greek rendering of the name, much like "Peter" is the English version of "Pierre".
-
Yeshua was a very common name in 1st century Palestine. There's no need to attach any underlying significance to is use where Jesus was concerned and "Jesus" is merely a Greek rendering of the name, much like "Peter" is the English version of "Pierre".
Right, but what do you think about the pun in Mt 1:21 "for he will save" which only makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew?
Genesis 3:20 is similar:
The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Or, Genesis 19:22
Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. (See verse 20)
-
Right, but what do you think about the pun in Mt 1:21 "for he will save" which only makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew?
Why would it not make sense if it was composed in Greek and everybody knew what it meant.
The whole thing is a little bit embarrassing anyway because the very next verses say
All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’
There are multiple problems here. This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14. Leaving aside that this is not a Messianic prophecy and "Jesus" ≠ "Emmanuel", the use of the word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint. Can you explain why Matthew writing in Hebrew would quote from the Greek version of the Bible?
-
Why would it not make sense if it was composed in Greek and everybody knew what it meant.
It would still make sense as a Hebrew pun, but it would not make sense for an author to compose it in Greek without explaining it. He wouldn't assume that everyone would understand it.
-
It would still make sense as a Hebrew pun, but it would not make sense for an author to compose it in Greek without explaining it.
Absolutely right. That's probably why the author explained it.
-
Absolutely right. That's probably why the author explained it.
But the explanation (and the pun that reinforces the explanation) only makes sense if the reader speaks Hebrew. So according to you, the author assumed his readers were bilingual.
-
You understand that the word 'Joshua 'means 'Yahweh saves', does this mean that you are fluent in Hebrew?
-
You understand that the word 'Joshua 'means 'Yahweh saves', does this mean that you are fluent in Hebrew?
I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.
-
But the explanation (and the pun that reinforces the explanation) only makes sense if the reader speaks Hebrew.
No it doesn't, not if the reader also knew a little Hebrew or where the name comes from. In fact, if the gospel had been written in Hebrew, no explanation would have been necessary.
So according to you, the author assumed his readers were bilingual.
Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at that time. Hebrew was the language of much of the Old Testament. The ordinary people living in Galilee and Judea would have been native speakers of Aramaic. It's not unreasonable to expect an educated person in the region at the time to speak both Greek and their native language.
Furthermore, puns in other languages are not unheard of. Consider:
I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church
That's a pun in Greek and you probably had it explained to you as a child. There's no need to be able to speak Greek to understand that "Peter" means "rock".
-
I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.
And of course it was totally impossible for anybody to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek in the First Century /s
-
I only understand that it means that because someone who is fluent in Hebrew told me.
I learned this from the Jehovah's Witnesses when I was twelve. The JWs are notoriously not fluent in Hebrew (and certainly the translators of their bible weren't). However, their translation of the instance in question was correct.
-
Furthermore, puns in other languages are not unheard of. Consider:
That's a pun in Greek and you probably had it explained to you as a child. There's no need to be able to speak Greek to understand that "Peter" means "rock".
Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.
-
There are multiple problems here. This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14. Leaving aside that this is not a Messianic prophecy and "Jesus" ≠ "Emmanuel", the use of the word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint. Can you explain why Matthew writing in Hebrew would quote from the Greek version of the Bible?
The word translated 'virgin' by the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. The same word occurs in Genesis 24:43, where the Septuagint translates it as 'virgin' (parthenos). According to an AI comment I read, the meaning of 'almah' is twofold: a young adolescent woman who is unmarried and therefore assumed to be virgin. This is clear from its use in Song 6:8, where it is distinct from queens and concubines (who would not be virgins). All 6 usages outside Isaiah 7:14 have this twofold meaning; the AI says that the Jews started to deny that it meant virgin after Matthew was written.
So if Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew text, then either 'virgin' or 'young woman' would be accurate.
Hebrewgospels.com renders it 'virgin' also.
-
Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
Why? Whoever wrote John is a different person.
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.
You are fixating on the Peter example. I only brought that up to point out to you that you do not need to speak the language to understand the pun, if somebody explains the meaning of the name to you. All it means is that your Yeshua argument does not hold water.
-
The word translated 'virgin' by the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 is almah. The same word occurs in Genesis 24:43, where the Septuagint translates it as 'virgin' (parthenos).
So the Septuagint gets it wrong twice.
According to an AI comment I read, the meaning of 'almah' is twofold: a young adolescent woman who is unmarried and therefore assumed to be virgin. This is clear from its use in Song 6:8, where it is distinct from queens and concubines (who would not be virgins). All 6 usages outside Isaiah 7:14 have this twofold meaning; the AI says that the Jews started to deny that it meant virgin after Matthew was written.
Almah means young woman which could clearly encompass "virgin". However, Hebrew also has bethulah which does mean explicitly "virgin". Isaiah 7:14 was clearly talking about a young woman, a pregnant one at that, so not a virgin. The septuagint is a mistranslation.
So if Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew text
He wasn't. That's the point. The point is Matthew was using the Septuagint and he was writing in Greek.
-
You are fixating on the Peter example. I only brought that up to point out to you that you do not need to speak the language to understand the pun, if somebody explains the meaning of the name to you. All it means is that your Yeshua argument does not hold water.
But would the author leave it to someone else to explain to the reader what Yeshua means?
His explanation as to why he would be called Yeshua ('for he will save etc) assumes the reader already knows what it means.
-
Why? Whoever wrote John is a different person.
Because if John and Paul called him Cephas, that was his name at the time. Peter is a pun on the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for 'stone'.
-
Because if John and Paul called him Cephas, that was his name at the time. Peter is a pun on the Greek translation of the Aramaic word for 'stone'.
Thought his name was Simon/Shimon.
-
But would the author leave it to someone else to explain to the reader what Yeshua means?
He didn't. He tells you what it means right there in the text.
His explanation as to why he would be called Yeshua ('for he will save etc) assumes the reader already knows what it means.
Why did he explain it then?
-
So the Septuagint gets it wrong twice.
Almah means young woman which could clearly encompass "virgin". However, Hebrew also has bethulah which does mean explicitly "virgin". Isaiah 7:14 was clearly talking about a young woman, a pregnant one at that, so not a virgin. The septuagint is a mistranslation.
He wasn't. That's the point. The point is Matthew was using the Septuagint and he was writing in Greek.
Perhaps the emphasis conveyed by 'almah' is on her unmarried status? Matthew sees this as fulfilled by the events he describes: an unmarried young woman was to conceive and give birth. The assumption that the unmarried woman is a virgin is not explicit in Isaiah, but is in Matthew, because he is recording the event as it happened.
The Hebrew Matthew manuscript I linked to earlier, when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Mt. 1:23, uses the word 'almah'.
-
Thought his name was Simon/Shimon.
Not sure but I think this is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Sim'on.
-
Not sure but I think this is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Sim'on.
Not Cephas then.
-
Perhaps the emphasis conveyed by 'almah' is on her unmarried status?
No. It just means young woman. The woman in Isaiah is not explicitly unmarried. She's just a woman who will give birth in the near future.
Matthew sees this as fulfilled by the events he describes: an unmarried young woman was to conceive and give birth. The assumption that the unmarried woman is a virgin is not explicit in Isaiah, but is in Matthew, because he is recording the event as it happened.
It is explicit in the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. And Matthew did not record the event as it happens, but decades later. Except it didn't happen. The whole of Matthew's nativity is almost certainly fiction.
The Hebrew Matthew manuscript I linked to earlier, when quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Mt. 1:23, uses the word 'almah'.
That's a translation back into Hebrew from the Greek. It's not relevant to whether Matthew originally wrote in Greek (he did).
-
Not Cephas then.
His former name was the Hebrew version of Simon and his new name was Cephas, meaning rock in Aramaic. Our gospels have translated this to Simon Peter.
-
No. It just means young woman. The woman in Isaiah is not explicitly unmarried. She's just a woman who will give birth in the near future.
So why does the Septuagint call her a virgin?
It is explicit in the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. And Matthew did not record the event as it happens, but decades later.
I meant "as it happened" as in, "in the way that it happened" not "while it was happening".
Except it didn't happen. The whole of Matthew's nativity is almost certainly fiction.
That's a translation back into Hebrew from the Greek.
That's an assumption.
It's not relevant to whether Matthew originally wrote in Greek (he did).
It's consistent with him originally writing in Hebrew, even if it doesn't prove that he did.
-
He didn't. He tells you what it means right there in the text.
No, he assumes you know what Yeshua means.
Why did he explain it then?
He didn't. He explained why he would be called Yeshua, not what Yeshua means. The pun involving "yoshia" ("he will save") also helps a Hebrew reader understand. The angel was basically saying, "you will call his name 'Salvation', because he will save his people" - but in Hebrew.
-
So why does the Septuagint call her a virgin?
Because it is a mistranslation.
It's consistent with him originally writing in Hebrew, even if it doesn't prove that he did.
It's consistent with Matthew originally writing in Swahili. So what?
-
No, he assumes you know what Yeshua means.
People assume we know what Peter means or Cephas. We don't need to speak the language to understand the meaning of a name in that language.
He didn't. He explained why he would be called Yeshua, not what Yeshua means.
If he'd been writing in Hebrew, he wouldn't have needed to do that. It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. I wouldn't need to say "I named him Arsenalarerthebest because Arsenal are the best".
* Everybody will be relieved to know I have no children.
-
It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. .
Might that be because Jesus plays for them and Gabriel is also in the team?
-
Might that be because Jesus plays for them and Gabriel is also in the team?
Well, signing Jesus from Man City was one of their best signings for a long time. And Man City appears to need miracles now.
-
Because it is a mistranslation.
The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages. The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.
It's consistent with Matthew originally writing in Swahili. So what?
No it isn't.
-
The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages. The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.
Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.
Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.
-
If he'd been writing in Hebrew, he wouldn't have needed to do that. It would have been obvious. It would be like me naming my child Arsenalarerthebest*. It would be obvious what I was doing to any speaker of English. I wouldn't need to say "I named him Arsenalarerthebest because Arsenal are the best".
That's not analogous to Matthew 1:21. Better: "I named him Aresenalarethebest because Arsenal were top of the league."
-
It's like Genesis 2:5 - "And there was no man to cultivate the ground" doesn't appear to have any wordplay, but in Hebrew there's a pun with adam (man) and adamah (ground).
-
Genesis 2:25 "the man and his wife were naked"
Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was the most clever"
No pun in English.
But in Hebrew, 'naked' = 'arumim', 'clever' = 'arum'
-
According to Nehemiah Gordon, the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew says at Matthew 16:18,
"You are a stone (Heb: 'even') and I will build (Heb: evneh) my house of prayer upon you."
-
The Jewish LXX translators interpreted the passage to mean that the almah was a virgin, and we can assume they were correct because the word consistently involves virginity in its 6 other OT usages.
Not only is that false, but the word Bethula is the one used when Isaiah really wants to mean "virgin".
The plain interpretation of the Hebrew text is that the young woman is a virgin and pregnant.
This is false and the context tells us that. The pregnant young woman is there to give a timescale to a prophecy about the enemies of Ahaz. It's nothing whatever to do with the Messiah.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
-
It's like Genesis 2:5 - "And there was no man to cultivate the ground" doesn't appear to have any wordplay, but in Hebrew there's a pun with adam (man) and adamah (ground).
Nobody disputes that Genesis was written in Hebrew.
Nobody seriously disputes that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.
-
the word Bethula is the one used when Isaiah really wants to mean "virgin".
Given that hinnēh ("look", "behold") is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence (Keil & Delitsch), then Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young virgin who at the time wasn't pregnant but would soon become so in the usual way. But this also allows for its 'greater fulfillment' later when Mary conceived without Joseph's help.
-
Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.
Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.
It's off-topic though: jeremy was originally citing Mt 1:21 as evidence that Matthew was composing in Greek, since he quotes the Septuagint. I've linked to a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which quotes the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, so by the same logic, Matthew was composing in Hebrew.
-
Nobody disputes that Genesis was written in Hebrew.
Nobody seriously disputes that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.
More examples:
See #205 and:
Mt 18:23-35. In the parable of the debt, Hebrew Matthew uses the word for "to pay" (shalem) five times. The same word means "complete", and the parable concludes, "So shall my father in heaven do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a complete heart".
Hebrew Matthew 12:13,15. Then he said to the man, "stretch out your hand, and he stretched out (vayet) his hand.
And it was after this that Yeshua knew and he turned (vayet) from there and many sick people went after him.
Hebrew Matthew 9:8 And the crowds saw (vayir'u) and they feared (vayir'u) very much.
From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y&t=6225s)
-
It's off-topic though: jeremy was originally citing Mt 1:21 as evidence that Matthew was composing in Greek, since he quotes the Septuagint. I've linked to a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which quotes the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, so by the same logic, Matthew was composing in Hebrew.
Nope. Your Hebrew manuscript is an attempted translation of the Greek. It is not relevant.
Whenever Matthew quotes the OT he always uses the Septuagint. 1:21 is just one example.
Together with plenty of other evidence including the fact that there are no significantly different Greek versions of Matthew, it's as close to certain as it is possible to say that Matthew was written in Greek. That, together with the fact that Papias says Matthew wrote a sayings gospel not a narrative shows that the document we have today is not the one he was talking about which means you cannot use Papias as an authority to claim the author of the gospel is Matthew the Apostle.
We do not know who wrote that gospel and your posturing on the subject is just wishful thinking.
-
More examples:
See #205 and:
Mt 18:23-35. In the parable of the debt, Hebrew Matthew uses the word for "to pay" (shalem) five times. The same word means "complete", and the parable concludes, "So shall my father in heaven do if you do not forgive each man his brother with a complete heart".
Hebrew Matthew 12:13,15. Then he said to the man, "stretch out your hand, and he stretched out (vayet) his hand.
And it was after this that Yeshua knew and he turned (vayet) from there and many sick people went after him.
Hebrew Matthew 9:8 And the crowds saw (vayir'u) and they feared (vayir'u) very much.
From this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y&t=6225s)
Matthew was not written in Hebrew. End of story.
-
Spud - I do love how you portray conjecture as some kind of accepted fact!! Well actually I don't - I think it is wish-casting.
Realistically, we have no idea how translators from 2000 years ago interpreted texts - indeed we don't know who those people even were. This is all very flimsy conjecture based on pretty well zero actual evidence.
This is quite interesting:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/15pcrwa/what_is_this_dr_jones_found_early_hebrew_gospels/&ved=2ahUKEwi1xfH8lJuKAxWhaEEAHfXsAHgQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1q7OgfH95T35fzxyW5D07d
Seems that not everyone thinks that Spud's sources are truly scholarly.
-
Given that hinnēh ("look", "behold") is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence (Keil & Delitsch), then Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young virgin who at the time wasn't pregnant but would soon become so in the usual way. But this also allows for its 'greater fulfillment' later when Mary conceived without Joseph's help.
These supposed 'greater fulfillments' of Old Testament texts are nearly always Christian misinterpretations of OT texts, often glaringly inaccurate as to what the gospel writers thought the original text was, and in some cases referring back to Old Testament texts which do not exist (e.g. 'He would be called a Nazarene').
And of course, in the Isaiah text which you are presently arguing over, the "young woman" was supposed to call the child "Immanuel - God with us". Not 'Yeshua - Yahweh saves'.
-
These supposed 'greater fulfillments' of Old Testament texts are nearly always Christian misinterpretations of OT texts, often glaringly inaccurate as to what the gospel writers thought the original text was, and in some cases referring back to Old Testament texts which do not exist (e.g. 'He would be called a Nazarene').
And of course, in the Isaiah text which you are presently arguing over, the "young woman" was supposed to call the child "Immanuel - God with us". Not 'Yeshua - Yahweh saves'.
Note that the 'greater fulfillment' is salvation from sins, as the angel says.
-
It's off-topic though:
It isn't off topic Spud - you are making completely unevidenced claims about the intentions and motivation of translators and, potentially, original authors. It is not off-topic to point out that we have no idea who these people were and we have no evidence whatsoever to support your conjecture.
-
Nope. Your Hebrew manuscript is an attempted translation of the Greek. It is not relevant.
Whenever Matthew quotes the OT he always uses the Septuagint. 1:21 is just one example.
This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.
Together with plenty of other evidence including the fact that there are no significantly different Greek versions of Matthew, it's as close to certain as it is possible to say that Matthew was written in Greek.
Actually, certain inconsistencies in the Greek version are absent in the Hebrew version. Unfortunately, there isn't an interlinear version of the latter yet, so unless someone reads Hebrew they can't study it. But people who can read Hebrew are claiming that that version gives a deeper understanding of the text.
That, together with the fact that Papias says Matthew wrote a sayings gospel not a narrative shows that the document we have today is not the one he was talking about which means you cannot use Papias as an authority to claim the author of the gospel is Matthew the Apostle.
We do not know who wrote that gospel and your posturing on the subject is just wishful thinking.
What Papias said doesn't mean that the sayings were not integrated into a narrative. Moreover, Jerome stated that the original Matthew was in Hebrew and that it was then in the library in Caesarea.
-
Compare this with John 1:42 "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter)"
The Geneva Study Bible says that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus would have used the word Cephas, the Aramaic form of Peter. Paul also refers to Peter as Cephas.
Hebrewgospels.com, in their translation of the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which they claim derives from the original Hebrew Matthew, add a note at 4:18. The verse reads, "And it happened when Yeshua went to the sea of Gelilah, that he saw two brothers - and they were: Shimon who is called Keipha..."
The note says, "[Keipha is] the Aramaic name for 'Peter', Greek transliteration 'Cephas'. A number of Aramaic nouns were used post-exilic Hebrew."
So if the Aramaic word Keipha was used in Hebrew at that time, the pun you quoted from Matthew 16:18 makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew, with Peter's name in Aramaic.
Spud, I'm rather struggling to understand exactly what you mean by "the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew", as no doubt a few others have been if they've shown any interest in this thread.
I just like to outline a few points to attempt clarification.
Firstly, we have the assertions from Papias and Eusebius that a certain Matthew wrote 'something' in Hebrew, which may have been a prototype to the gospel of Matthew we have today.
Then we do have a version of Matthew, translated in the mediaeval period from the Greek by Shem-Tob ben Isaac. This version is purported by some Christian devotees to indicate that there was an original Hebrew version, but not liked by Christians, since the purpose of this Jewish version was to deny Jesus' divine Sonship and the claims that he was the Messiah. Besides which, it avoided any mention of the divine name. For a refutation that this might indicate an original Hebrew version, see what David Bivin has written here:
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4067/
The apologists for an original Hebrew version were delighted when the Vatican fairly recently released certain manuscripts which purported to relate back to a faithful Christian version of Matthew's gospel in Hebrew. This unfortunately bore all the signs of having been translated back into Hebrew from Catalan !
Honestly, Spud, with all this back and forth translating, tergiversations and people attempting to include confirmation bias into these mediaeval versions of Matthew's gospel, do you honestly think they give a modern reader any confidence that there ever was such an original gospel in Hebrew? This despite your worthy attempts to show how puns work in Hebrew, for which claim to esoteric scholarship we have only your word to rely on.
-
This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.
And is it not possible that these mediaeval translators, knowing that the Septuagint version that Matthew was using (or badly remembering) was skewed, tried to go back to the original version of the Hebrew scriptures (which certainly Shem-Tob ben Isaac would have known)?
-
This doesn't prove your point, because whenever Hebrew Matthew quotes the OT he is closer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint.
Hebrew Matthew is a figment of your imagination. The Hebrew gospels that you seem to love so much are later translations of Matthew into Hebrew from (I note from Dicky's link) Catalan - so not even Greek.
How can you possibly bring them up as evidence?
Actually, certain inconsistencies in the Greek version are absent in the Hebrew version. Unfortunately, there isn't an interlinear version of the latter yet, so unless someone reads Hebrew they can't study it. But people who can read Hebrew are claiming that that version gives a deeper understanding of the text.
So the person who translated them into Hebrew smoothed out some of the problems. It means nothing.
What Papias said doesn't mean that the sayings were not integrated into a narrative.
The argument from possibility. This is a dishonest argument. It's possible that the entire canon of early Christian literature was fabricated by Eusebius. Yes, some people do believe that. That doesn't mean it's probable or worthy of serious study.
It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but clever people have studied the possibility and concluded it is extremely unlikely.
Moreover, Jerome stated that the original Matthew was in Hebrew and that it was then in the library in Caesarea.
This is St Jerome who lived in the second half of the fourth century, who, as far as I can tell, never went to Caesarea and who translated the Bible into Latin using only Greek texts from the New Testament?
-
And is it not possible that these mediaeval translators, knowing that the Septuagint version that Matthew was using (or badly remembering) was skewed, tried to go back to the original version of the Hebrew scriptures (which certainly Shem-Tob ben Isaac would have known)?
Yes, and likewise a person who translated an original Hebrew version into Greek might have quoted the Septuagint.
What language was the Catalan version translated from?
-
Yes, and likewise a person who translated an original Hebrew version into Greek might have quoted the Septuagint.
There wasn't an original Hebrew version. Matthew was written in Greek.
What language was the Catalan version translated from?
Who cares? It's not relevant.
-
The argument from possibility. This is a dishonest argument.
It's not, because it's a fact that the oracles attributed to Matthew were integrated into the narrative. The sermon on the mount happened when Jesus went up a hill because great crowds were following him, because he was healing people and had become famous. For every 'oracle' we are told what the occasion was that led to him saying it. This is why Papias had to be referring to the gospel we know as Matthew - unless the sayings he is talking about were a completely different set of sayings.
-
It's not, because it's a fact that the oracles attributed to Matthew were integrated into the narrative.
Really? What's the evidence?
The sermon on the mount happened when Jesus went up a hill because great crowds were following him, because he was healing people and had become famous.
The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Q material. I'm not averse to you claiming that Q was originally written by Matthew the Apostle, but by the time it was incorporated into the gospel, it was in Greek and similar arguments apply to Q as to Mark and the rest of Matthew's gospel.
For every 'oracle' we are told what the occasion was that led to him saying it. This is why Papias had to be referring to the gospel we know as Matthew - unless the sayings he is talking about were a completely different set of sayings.
I do not see how your conclusion follows.
-
Really? What's the evidence?
Okay let's take a shorter saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
If you separate this from it's context, it's meaningless.
Then little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them. And the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.
-
Okay let's take a shorter saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
If you separate this from it's context, it's meaningless.
I don't think so. And even if so, you can't show that Matthew the Apostle wrote that or the context in which it appears.
-
What language was the Catalan version translated from?
On further investigation, it seems probable that the Catalan version and Shem-Tob ben Isaac's version were both translated from Jerome's Latin version, which in turn was translated from the Greek. And by all accounts, the Catalan version is an appallingly bad translation.
Have you heard of Chinese whispers, Spud?
-
I don't think so.
Maybe not meaningless, but it's difficult to imagine it originating outside the context of people bringing their kids to Jesus, and the disciples rebuking them.
And even if so, you can't show that Matthew the Apostle wrote that or the context in which it appears.
Papias' statement suggests it.
Of course you could argue that it originated in Mark's account, along with many other sayings, but that brings us back to the relationship between the Synoptics again.
-
Maybe not meaningless, but it's difficult to imagine it originating outside the context of people bringing their kids to Jesus, and the disciples rebuking them.
But that doesn't mean anything in terms of who wrote it down. Even if it refers to a real event, it doesn't mean that it was written by a witness.
Papias' statement suggests it.
There's nothing that has survived from Papias that suggests the gospel he refers to is the one we have. There's not even anything in there to suggest that what he referred to is Q, although Q fits the description a little better - ignoring the fact it was written in Greek.
If you want Papias's testimony to be relevant, you have to show he was talking about the gospel we have. You haven't done that and all the evidence from Papias suggests he is talking about a different document - a sayings gospel written in Hebrew.
-
But that doesn't mean anything in terms of who wrote it down. Even if it refers to a real event, it doesn't mean that it was written by a witness.
There's nothing that has survived from Papias that suggests the gospel he refers to is the one we have. There's not even anything in there to suggest that what he referred to is Q, although Q fits the description a little better - ignoring the fact it was written in Greek.
If you want Papias's testimony to be relevant, you have to show he was talking about the gospel we have. You haven't done that and all the evidence from Papias suggests he is talking about a different document - a sayings gospel written in Hebrew.
A sayings gospel does describe our Matthew quite well, and yes, reading the quotes from Papias it appears that he hadn't read our Matthew. But he says he got information by word of mouth from the disciples of the apostles, so perhaps they described it to him as a book containing Jesus' oracles, and that's why he doesn't mention things Jesus did along with what Jesus said?
-
A sayings gospel does describe our Matthew quite well,
No it doesn't. There's quite a bit of narrative in the gospel.
and yes, reading the quotes from Papias it appears that he hadn't read our Matthew. But he says he got information by word of mouth from the disciples of the apostles,
Third hand at least then.
And, of course, we have only got Papias at second hand.
so perhaps they described it to him as a book containing Jesus' oracles
Speculation
-
There's quite a bit of narrative in the gospel.
The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?
-
The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?
Matthew concise? As in an angel being seen to descend and roll away the stone, and zombies wandering through Jerusalem after the Resurrection?
-
The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
No it isn't. Consider that about 90% of Mark is in Matthew.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?
You wouldn't call it a sayings gospel if it had lots of narrative.
-
Matthew concise? As in an angel being seen to descend and roll away the stone, and zombies wandering through Jerusalem after the Resurrection?
Those events may be later additions to Matthew's first edition. They appear to have been absent from Luke and Mark's copies of Matthew. If we assume, based on general evidence, that Luke used Matthew and then Mark used both Mt and Lk, then when we find a section in Matthew which Luke and Mark omit, we should consider the possibility that it was added to Matthew's original text. An example is Peter walking on the water, or the parables of Mt 25. Much of the material which appears to have been added, relates to the Gentiles, while the original narrative is concerned with Jesus' ministry to Israel. A very good example is in Mt 10, where Jesus sends out the twelve, instructing them not to go to the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel. Half way through the chapter, he begins to warn them that they will face persecution; this didn't happen until after the ascension; therefore it must have been added to the original account of the sending out of the twelve.
I was referring to material like the accounts of the paralytic and the synagogue ruler's daughter, which are less detailed than Mark and Luke.
There are five discourses in Matthew, each of which concludes with "after Jesus had finished instructing his disciples". Luke only has this statement in one place, which suggests (see above) that its use after the Sermon on the Mount was adapted as a formula for the second to fifth discourses, which were expanded by the editor.
-
No it isn't. Consider that about 90% of Mark is in Matthew.You wouldn't call it a sayings gospel if it had lots of narrative.
We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?
-
We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?
You could use John 1:1 as well. As can be seen, the Greek 'logos' has multiple meanings. I've seen it translated as 'expression', 'creative energy' etc as well as 'word'. Not something to make a mathematically precise argument with.
-
Those events may be later additions to Matthew's first edition. They appear to have been absent from Luke and Mark's copies of Matthew.
And yet nobody who has studied the subject critically and honestly thinks Mark could possibly have had a copy of Matthew because Matthew copied Mark, not the other way around.
If we assume, based on general evidence, that Luke used Matthew and then Mark used both Mt and Lk,
The "general evidence" refutes this.
-
We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?
Which translation are you using?
NRSV has "oracles". But so what?
-
You could use John 1:1 as well. As can be seen, the Greek 'logos' has multiple meanings. I've seen it translated as 'expression', 'creative energy' etc as well as 'word'. Not something to make a mathematically precise argument with.
And of course means that God is Grease
-
Which translation are you using?
NRSV has "oracles". But so what?
The word logia is used four times (https://biblehub.com/greek/3051.htm) in the NT, as well as by other writers. The 10 commandments are referred to by Philo as the Decalogue (Ten words). I agree that logia means divine oracles, but you are saying that we should assume Papias is talking about them in isolation from any narrative. We could say that the Ten Commandments are logia. But they are embedded in the story of the Exodus, and Moses on Mount Sinai. To say that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) means that they preserved them in writing, within the story of how they came to receive them. This fits Papias' description of what Matthew did with Jesus' oracles, exactly.
-
The word logia is used four times (https://biblehub.com/greek/3051.htm) in the NT, as well as by other writers. The 10 commandments are referred to by Philo as the Decalogue (Ten words). I agree that logia means divine oracles, but you are saying that we should assume Papias is talking about them in isolation from any narrative.
No. I'm saying you should not assume that Papias is talking about a narrative just because you can twist the facts to pretend it is a narrative to shore up a failed argument.
This is what Papias says
And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.
He is talking a bout a document that is a "sayings" gospel and is written in Hebrew. The first gospel we have is a narrative written in Greek. No reasonable person would conclude that Papias is referring to the first gospel here. Instead of discarding this as evidence for your assertion (which you would do if you were intellectually honest), you try to find ways to massage it to fit your purpose.
-
The first gospel we have is a narrative written in Greek.
Presumably you're referring to Mark. Yes the earliest copies we have are of a Greek narrative. But we don't have the originals, so it would be unreasonable to discard Papias as evidence that Matthew was written by the apostle.
No reasonable person would conclude that Papias is referring to the first gospel here
Eusebius must have concluded that he was, since he says elsewhere: "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence."
Link (https://hebrewgospel.com/matthewtwogospelsmain.php#:~:text=For%20Matthew%2C%20who%20had%20at,the%20loss%20of%20his%20presence.)
And Irenaeus would also have thought Papias was referring to a gospel: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome"
So Eusebius and Irenaeus were not reasonable people?