Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Marcan Priority a Protestant Thing, acc. to Duncan Graham Reid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marcan Priority a Protestant Thing, acc. to Duncan Graham Reid

    psstein has claimed that Farmer was wrong, back in 1870's there were Catholics quite independently of Prussian pressure who were for Marcan priority.

    Now, I checked, Miracle Tradition, Rhetoric, and the Synoptic Problem, By Duncan Graham Reid actually has a kind of overview of the history.

    I checked name after name in the fairly short chapters on the early history of the controversy.

    And - thanks to wikipedia - all I find is Protestants:

    1.2.1 Origins of the Modern Debate in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
    1.2.2 Early Twentieth Century Developments

    Hermann Samuel Reimarus - Protestant
    Johann Jakob Griesbach - P
    Ferdinand Christian Baur - P
    Christian Gottlob Wilke - P
    Gotthold Ephraim Lessing - P
    Johann Gottfried Eichhorn - P
    Johann Benjamin Koppe - P
    Herbert Marsh - P
    Karl Lachmann - P
    Johann Gottfried von Herder - P
    Karl August Credner - P
    Heinrich Ewald - P
    Heinrich Julius Holtzmann - P
    Paul Wernle - P
    William Sanday (theologian) - P*
    Willoughby Allen - P
    J. Vernon Bartlet - P**
    Burnett Hillman Streeter - P
    John C. Hawkins - ? - P***
    Philipp Vielhauer - P
    Willi Marxsen - P

    * Since: He was Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis of Holy Scripture at Oxford between 1883 and 1895
    and since: The position of Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture was established at the University of Oxford in 1847. This professorship in the critical interpretation or explanation of biblical texts, a field known as exegesis, was instituted by John Ireland, who was Dean of Westminster from 1816 until his death in 1842.
    Dean of Westminster is not a RC position

    ** Since his work "The apostolic age; its life, doctrine, worship and polity" has no Imprimatur or Imprimi potest, an impossibility for a Catholic work back then. If published, that is.

    *** Since in a seminar under the leadership of Sanday.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  • #2
    Yes, I admit that I was wrong about Catholics supporting Markan priority in the 1870s. I'd have to look at Baird's History of New Testament Research, which I don't have with me. I still don't see the evidence for Markan priority being pushed as an anti-Catholic measure.

    Look, I'm sympathetic to the Griesbach Hypothesis. It answers some questions that Two-Source has trouble with.

    Comment


    • #3
      I am favourable to these answers:

      Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew

      June 19, 1911 (AAS 3 [1911] 294ff; EB 401ff; Dz 2148 ff)

      I: Having regard to the universal and unwavering agreement of the Church ever since the first centuries, an agreement clearly attested by the express witness of the Fathers, by the titles of the Gospel manuscripts, the most ancient versions of the sacred books and the lists handed on by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by Popes and Councils, and finally by the liturgical use of the Church in the East and in the West, may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name?
      Answer: In the affirmative.

      II: Should the verdict of tradition be considered to give adequate support to the statement that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then used by the Jews of Palestine for whom the work was intended?
      Answer: In the affirmative to both parts.

      III: Can the composition of this original text be postponed till after the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it contains about that destruction were written after the event ; or should the oft-quoted text of Irenaeus (Ads. Haer. Lib. 3, cap. 1, n. 2), of uncertain and controverted interpretation, be considered to have such weight as to impose the rejection of the opinion more in harmony with tradition according to which the composition of the Gospel was completed even before the arrival of Paul in Rome?
      Answer: In the negative to both parts.

      IV: Can even probable arguments be given in support of that opinion of certain recent writers according to which Matthew did not write a Gospel properly and strictly so-called, such as has been handed down to us, but merely a collection of the sayings or discourses of Christ which were drawn on by another anonymous author, whom they make the editor of the Gospel itself?
      Answer: In the negative.

      V: Can the fact that all the Fathers and ecclesiastical Writers and even the Church itself from its very cradle have used as canonical only the Greek text of the Gospel known under the name of Matthew, not even those being excepted who explicitly taught that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, provide certain proof that the Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the Gospel written by that Apostle in his native tongue?
      Answer: In the affirmative.

      VI: Do the facts that the aim of the author of the first Gospel is chiefly dogmatic and apologetic, namely, to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the lineage of David, and that moreover in the arrangement of the facts and discourses which he narrates and reports, he does not always follow chronological order, justify the deduction that they ought not to be accepted as true? Or may it also be affirmed that the accounts of the deeds and discourses of Christ, which are read in that Gospel, underwent a certain alteration and adaptation under the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the more mature condition of the Church and are consequently not in conformity with historical truth?
      Answer: In the negative to both parts.

      VII: In particular ought it to be held that there is no solid foundation to the opinions of those who call in doubt the historical authenticity of the first two chapters, in which an account is given of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, as also of certain passages of great dogmatic importance, such as are those which concern the primacy of Peter (16:17-19), the form of baptism entrusted to the Apostles together with the mission of preaching everywhere (28:19f), the Apostles' profession of faith in the divinity of Christ (14:33), and other similar matters which are found in a special form in Matthew?
      Answer: In the affirmative.
      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        Yes, I admit that I was wrong about Catholics supporting Markan priority in the 1870s.
        Thank you for that. This is one point in favour of Farmer, right?

        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        I'd have to look at Baird's History of New Testament Research, which I don't have with me.
        Neither have I, sorry.

        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        I still don't see the evidence for Markan priority being pushed as an anti-Catholic measure.
        I don't think he actually said "pushed" in a very open way.

        More like Catholic scholars in Germany bending to a very ... subtle ... hint that opposing Marcan priority might just be a little bit unhealthy to the academic carreer. Such a thing, if true, doesn't exactly leave the kind of traces you are demanding.

        But one hint this was in fact so (at least on part of Catholic academians bending to an imaginary pressure) would be that the answers of 1911* were felt as obviously Catholic, while Loisy was felt as a kind of traitor.

        * Giving source is of course good form:

        http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...commission.htm
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          Thank you for that. This is one point in favour of Farmer, right?
          I would suppose. Farmer does claim that Catholic modernists supported Markan priority, whereas traditionalists supported Matthean priority. That's not true, a number of traditionalists supported the priority of Mark.

          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          I don't think he actually said "pushed" in a very open way.

          More like Catholic scholars in Germany bending to a very ... subtle ... hint that opposing Marcan priority might just be a little bit unhealthy to the academic carreer. Such a thing, if true, doesn't exactly leave the kind of traces you are demanding.
          Perhaps and perhaps not. The issue is that, as far as I've seen in literature written at the time, Markan priority was not used as an anti-Catholic tool. Certainly many German scholars were anti-Catholic and imported those assumptions into their scholarship (e.g. seeing the Jews as a religion of "The Law" opposed to Christianity as a religion of grace).

          As I said, I'm sympathetic to the Griesbach Hypothesis. The issue with it is that it doesn't really give a reason for the existence of Mark.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            Farmer does claim that Catholic modernists supported Markan priority, whereas traditionalists supported Matthean priority. That's not true, a number of traditionalists supported the priority of Mark.
            You have not named one*. Loisy whom you named was a modernist, as well as being later than the 1870's.

            If you are speaking of Germans after the year 1870 itself, you are using material he took for his case - the cowtowing to what he presumes was Prussian pressure.

            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            Perhaps and perhaps not. The issue is that, as far as I've seen in literature written at the time, Markan priority was not used as an anti-Catholic tool.
            If it had been too openly used as such, it would have been resented by Catholics and opposed by them very promptly, even under Bismarck.

            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            Certainly many German scholars were anti-Catholic and imported those assumptions into their scholarship (e.g. seeing the Jews as a religion of "The Law" opposed to Christianity as a religion of grace).
            Oh, that one is well and alive to at least back when I was a Lutheran and when I had decided to convert. Those are the guys Bergoglio visited in Lund.

            Do you not get a subtle feeling that this one is easier to support with Marcan than with Matthean priority, since Matthew is more concerned with Jewish law (like the house of David)?

            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            As I said, I'm sympathetic to the Griesbach Hypothesis. The issue with it is that it doesn't really give a reason for the existence of Mark.
            The traditional one, or ones (Augustinian, perhaps also Clementinian) does or do.

            * Nor, obviously, has Reid, since I looked through those two sections and found only Protestants.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              You have not named one*. Loisy whom you named was a modernist, as well as being later than the 1870's.
              Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, for example.
              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              If you are speaking of Germans after the year 1870 itself, you are using material he took for his case - the cowtowing to what he presumes was Prussian pressure.

              If it had been too openly used as such, it would have been resented by Catholics and opposed by them very promptly, even under Bismarck.
              Not really, there were plenty of clear anti-Catholic references in scholarship at the time, even into the twentieth century. You have to read these works, but if you substitute "Jewish" with "Catholic," then it's pretty obvious who's being attacked.


              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              Oh, that one is well and alive to at least back when I was a Lutheran and when I had decided to convert. Those are the guys Bergoglio visited in Lund.

              Do you not get a subtle feeling that this one is easier to support with Marcan than with Matthean priority, since Matthew is more concerned with Jewish law (like the house of David)?
              It's slightly easier to support on Markan priority, yes. I think it has its roots in Lutheran interpretations of Paul, though. Until the mid-1970s, Paul was generally isolated from his Jewish context.

              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              The traditional one, or ones (Augustinian, perhaps also Clementinian) does or do.
              Not really, I think the Augustinian Hypothesis actually makes the issue worse. The Augustinian Hypothesis fails to explain Luke's structure. I can't see why Luke would change both Matthew and Mark's structure. On the Griesbach Hypothesis, it makes sense that Mark would change between Matthew and Luke's order. The "Clementian" Hypothesis, as you put it, is even more problematic. It's indisputable that the three Synoptic gospels (and perhaps even John) stand in some sort of literary relationship to one another. I don't see the evidence for the independence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by psstein View Post
                Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, for example.
                Don't confuse Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP (1855–1938), founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, with Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, OP (1877–1964), who taught at the Angelicum in Rome. I have the former's commentary on Mark. If I recall correctly, he considered the Greek gospel of Mark to be a source for the Greek translation of the gospel of Matthew, originally written in Aramaic by the disciple prior to the gospel of Mark. The latter was more known for his reputation as a Thomist, especially for his spiritual theology and a proponent of contemplative prayer by lay people. By the way, there are also Greek fragments of the gospel of Thomas.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, for example.
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Don't confuse Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP (1855–1938), founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, with Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, OP (1877–1964), who taught at the Angelicum in Rome. I have the former's commentary on Mark. If I recall correctly, he considered the Greek gospel of Mark to be a source for the Greek translation of the gospel of Matthew, originally written in Aramaic by the disciple prior to the gospel of Mark. The latter was more known for his reputation as a Thomist, especially for his spiritual theology and a proponent of contemplative prayer by lay people. By the way, there are also Greek fragments of the gospel of Thomas.
                  I take it, you mean Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP (who presumably was in Heaven celebrating an anniversary of Dominicans yesterday, 800 years of Religiosae Vitae), and he was then born in 1855.

                  This means he was 25 in 1870.

                  This means that Marie-Joseph Lagrange was not yet writing back when the time Farmer speaks of. Look at chronology:

                  "L’École fut fondée en 1890 sous le nom d’École pratique d’études bibliques par Marie-Joseph Lagrange, membre de l’Ordre des Prêcheurs. En 1920, elle prit son nom actuel, à la suite de sa reconnaissance comme école archéologique nationale française par l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres."

                  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...J%C3%A9rusalem

                  This is about École biblique.

                  Shall I take a wild guess, that Lagrange's commentary was written after the foundation of that school?

                  Even more:

                  "Le Père Lagrange applique la méthode historico-critique à l'étude de la Bible. Plusieurs ordres et instances religieuses s'en émeuvent. Soupçonné de modernisme et de rationalisme, il reçoit des interdictions de publication et des blâmes, en 1907 et 1911. Il demeure humblement soumis1. Sa méthode est condamnée par l'encyclique Spiritus Paraclitus du pape Benoît XV en 1920."*

                  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Joseph_Lagrange

                  Even before that, he had been a modernist Thomist, one could fear:

                  "Il passe une année au séminaire d'Issy-les-Moulineaux, en 1878-1879, chez les sulpiciens, où il se passionne surtout pour la parole de DieuS 1. Il étudie aussi avec émotion Thomas d'Aquin ; à cette époque, le thomisme est en plein renouveau et Lagrange soutiendra la création de la Revue thomiste de son ami Antonin Sertillanges (en 1893) pour écarter le thomisme des écueils de l'intégralisme."

                  He wanted to avoid for Thomism the sunken reef of integralism ... no, does not sound quite traditional to me.

                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Not really, there were plenty of clear anti-Catholic references in scholarship at the time, even into the twentieth century. You have to read these works, but if you substitute "Jewish" with "Catholic," then it's pretty obvious who's being attacked.
                  Sure. But a silent assumption of Marcan priority seems a fair guess about what is silently going on in certain minds when reading this. Like them supposing Matthew (not identified with the disciple) was part of the Judaisation of what "later became" Catholicism.

                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  It's slightly easier to support on Markan priority, yes. I think it has its roots in Lutheran interpretations of Paul, though. Until the mid-1970s, Paul was generally isolated from his Jewish context.
                  I have no problem in seeing here the issue of Luther's comments on Romans and Galatians, I just feel, at a certain point of study, this would have been ruined for some if adhering to Matthean priority.

                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Not really, I think the Augustinian Hypothesis actually makes the issue worse. The Augustinian Hypothesis fails to explain Luke's structure. I can't see why Luke would change both Matthew and Mark's structure. On the Griesbach Hypothesis, it makes sense that Mark would change between Matthew and Luke's order. The "Clementian" Hypothesis, as you put it, is even more problematic. It's indisputable that the three Synoptic gospels (and perhaps even John) stand in some sort of literary relationship to one another. I don't see the evidence for the independence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
                  I do not see any implication of the Ausgutinian hypothesis which contradicts the actual and incontrovertible structure of St Luke. If you do, please be more specific.

                  As to Clementine, are you aware of what it is?

                  1) Matthew. Written and published in Aramaic. Translated (by author) and published in Greek.
                  2) Luke writes but does not publish his Gospel. He discovers Matthew has already written one.
                  3) He brings his Gospel to St Peter, who is enthusiastic and starts reading Matthew and Luke both scrolls opened, as a cento, adding only little of own memory, which is taken down by St Mark.
                  4) Luke and Mark are both published.
                  5) As usual, John is last.

                  * A link to its actual text is not amiss:

                  https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...araclitus.html
                  Last edited by hansgeorg; 12-23-2016, 04:08 AM.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    I take it, you mean Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP (who presumably was in Heaven celebrating an anniversary of Dominicans yesterday, 800 years of Religiosae Vitae), and he was then born in 1855.

                    This means he was 25 in 1870. ...
                    Actually, he was 15 years old in 1870, unless perhaps you're defending some very outmoded mathematical system.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Actually, he was 15 years old in 1870, unless perhaps you're defending some very outmoded mathematical system.
                      The outmoded mathematical system I defend is agreeing with you, 25 was lack of sleep when doing the operation.
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        Don't confuse Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP (1855–1938), founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, with Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, OP (1877–1964), who taught at the Angelicum in Rome. I have the former's commentary on Mark. If I recall correctly, he considered the Greek gospel of Mark to be a source for the Greek translation of the gospel of Matthew, originally written in Aramaic by the disciple prior to the gospel of Mark. The latter was more known for his reputation as a Thomist, especially for his spiritual theology and a proponent of contemplative prayer by lay people. By the way, there are also Greek fragments of the gospel of Thomas.

                        Oops, yes, you're correct. Yeah, I know that there are Greek fragments from Thomas. My point is that we'd still know it was written in Greek even without those fragments.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          Sure. But a silent assumption of Marcan priority seems a fair guess about what is silently going on in certain minds when reading this. Like them supposing Matthew (not identified with the disciple) was part of the Judaisation of what "later became" Catholicism.
                          I don't really agree. I think if you hold to Markan priority, it becomes easier to deny Jesus' statements to Peter. Matthew is largely writing to a Jewish Christian community, but I don't see why Jewish Christians would've been particularly relevant once Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles. To that end, Matthean priority may make better sense in the context of Christian origins.

                          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          I have no problem in seeing here the issue of Luther's comments on Romans and Galatians, I just feel, at a certain point of study, this would have been ruined for some if adhering to Matthean priority.
                          I don't think so. Outside of possibly John, Matthew is the most anti-Jewish gospel. On Matthew, you can easily set up "the religion of works" vs. "the religion of grace." That may be a bit more difficult on Markan priority. But, I still believe that the majority of the "religion of works vs. one of grace." is based on Lutheran exegesis of Paul.

                          I do not see any implication of the Ausgutinian hypothesis which contradicts the actual and incontrovertible structure of St Luke. If you do, please be more specific.
                          I do. Why would Luke break up both Matthew and Mark's order? Why would Luke have "the Great Omission," where he vastly differs from Matthew and Mark's order? On the Augustinian Hypothesis, I don't know why Luke would've been written. After all, Mark was already the gospel for the Gentiles.

                          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          As to Clementine, are you aware of what it is?

                          1) Matthew. Written and published in Aramaic. Translated (by author) and published in Greek.
                          2) Luke writes but does not publish his Gospel. He discovers Matthew has already written one.
                          3) He brings his Gospel to St Peter, who is enthusiastic and starts reading Matthew and Luke both scrolls opened, as a cento, adding only little of own memory, which is taken down by St Mark.
                          4) Luke and Mark are both published.
                          5) As usual, John is last.
                          First, I've never heard of that before now; I thought you were referring to Clement of Alexandria's cryptic remarks about the gospels. The first issue is that Matthew was probably not written in Aramaic. Translations generally show signs of their original languages, and Matthew does not. Luke writing but not publishing doesn't make much sense. Writing a work the length of Luke-Acts would've been extremely expensive. If Luke's introduction can be taken as trustworthy (I think it can!), then he wrote for a patron named Theophilus.

                          You're assuming that Peter could read Greek. While Peter was likely somewhat familiar with Greek, he probably couldn't read or write. Acts refers to Peter as "agrammatos," uneducated (lit. "without letters"). Additionally, that idea is against the testimony of the early Church, which held that Mark is a collection of Peter's memoirs. I also think that Mark may have signs of being a product of late in the first century.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            I don't really agree. I think if you hold to Markan priority, it becomes easier to deny Jesus' statements to Peter. Matthew is largely writing to a Jewish Christian community, but I don't see why Jewish Christians would've been particularly relevant once Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles. To that end, Matthean priority may make better sense in the context of Christian origins.
                            "I think if you hold to Markan priority, it becomes easier to deny Jesus' statements to Peter."

                            So far, you are on Farmer's line precisely.

                            "Matthew is largely writing to a Jewish Christian community, but I don't see why Jewish Christians would've been particularly relevant once Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles."

                            Because the Gentiles were included into the Christian community which had previously been predominantly Jewish. They did not get sees or parishes totally on their own.

                            Rome did not have one Jewish Christian community under Peter and one Gentile Christian community under Paul.

                            "To that end, Matthean priority may make better sense in the context of Christian origins"

                            This I totally agree with.

                            Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            I don't think so. Outside of possibly John, Matthew is the most anti-Jewish gospel. On Matthew, you can easily set up "the religion of works" vs. "the religion of grace." That may be a bit more difficult on Markan priority. But, I still believe that the majority of the "religion of works vs. one of grace." is based on Lutheran exegesis of Paul.
                            But the point is, Marcan priority is more of a Prussian than a Lutheran thing.

                            Prussia was fairly neutral on the works vs grace debate.

                            Prussia's interest was to downplay precisely papacy.

                            Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            I do. Why would Luke break up both Matthew and Mark's order? Why would Luke have "the Great Omission," where he vastly differs from Matthew and Mark's order? On the Augustinian Hypothesis, I don't know why Luke would've been written. After all, Mark was already the gospel for the Gentiles.
                            I think the order of Theophilus and the latter not knowing about Matthew and Mark (Augustinian) or not knowing about Matthew while Mark had not yet been written (Clementine) would account for that.

                            Also, Luke writing without consulting either, or only consulting the other Gospels marginally, would certainly account for Luke not following their order, and thus also for the great omission, whatever that is.

                            Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            First, I've never heard of that before now; I thought you were referring to Clement of Alexandria's cryptic remarks about the gospels. The first issue is that Matthew was probably not written in Aramaic. Translations generally show signs of their original languages, and Matthew does not. Luke writing but not publishing doesn't make much sense. Writing a work the length of Luke-Acts would've been extremely expensive. If Luke's introduction can be taken as trustworthy (I think it can!), then he wrote for a patron named Theophilus.
                            "Writing a work the length of Luke-Acts would've been extremely expensive."

                            If Luke was paid for his time, yes.

                            "If Luke's introduction can be taken as trustworthy (I think it can!), then he wrote for a patron named Theophilus."

                            For one thing, I am not sure Theophilus was exactly a patron. He could have heard sth about "500, most of whom are still alive" and wanted St Luke to go there and check that. If so, a man who knew St Luke before the latter became a Christian and knew he could trust him, both judgement and honesty.

                            And this also answers the point about:

                            "Luke writing but not publishing doesn't make much sense"

                            Yes, it does, if "not publishing" involves already showing or sending it to Theophilus in private.

                            Before Luke could be a Gospel with canonic status in the Church, it had to be publihshed in the Church, which is a further step beyond Theophilus getting private access, as an advice on his becoming a Christian.

                            "Translations generally show signs of their original languages"

                            I think I somewhere did tell you about Chapman's translation of Homer and ask you to provide an example of where Chapman's English shows any sign of depending on Homer's Greek, apart from the sense being the same, except where Chapman misunderstood.

                            I haven't seen any reply on that challenge.

                            "I thought you were referring to Clement of Alexandria's cryptic remarks about the gospels."

                            According to wikipedia, the scenario I gave is what precisely Clement of Alexandria had said.

                            Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            You're assuming that Peter could read Greek. While Peter was likely somewhat familiar with Greek, he probably couldn't read or write. Acts refers to Peter as "agrammatos," uneducated (lit. "without letters"). Additionally, that idea is against the testimony of the early Church, which held that Mark is a collection of Peter's memoirs. I also think that Mark may have signs of being a product of late in the first century.
                            I think the relevant passage in Acts for agrammatos is in the view of the Kohanim. It does not mean he could not read or write, it means he was not a scribe, had not received training as received by Levites or Pharisees in reading the Old Testament.

                            Probably means he did not master Hebrew grammar. If so, it says strictly nothing, zilch, nada on his capacity of reading and writing Aramaic, of communicating orally or in writing in Greek. It just means, if anything, his knowledge of OT was via Aramaic Targums, he was not reading in the original.

                            Or, could mean ONLY that he had no formal exam like approval, since studying under Jesus didn't count, since he was no longer called Rabbi after the Sanhedrin.

                            Or it could mean that he could read but not write, like Charlemagne, who had put his hands to the pen too late.

                            And between his early carreer in Acts and the arrival in Antioch or Rome, he can have had plenty of opportunities to learn Greek.

                            "Additionally, that idea is against the testimony of the early Church, which held that Mark is a collection of Peter's memoirs."

                            Not totally, since according to this scenario, St Peter not only read both Gospels in a cento, but here and there chimed in with own remarks, while both the reading and the own remarks would be part of his memoirs.

                            "I also think that Mark may have signs of being a product of late in the first century."

                            The classic Bibelwissenschaftlich case for Mark being late is "it predicts destruction of Jerusalem, but real predictions don't occur, therefore it is a vaticinium post eventu, after AD 70".

                            That is of course pure Infidel Hogwash.

                            I would say it is necessary to have all synoptics prior to 70-80-90, for the simple reason that Jews in synoptics is not yet a designation for enemies of Christ.

                            In St John's Gospel it is more complicated. Authorial narration consistently uses "Jews" as "oremus et pro perfidis Iudaeis" does. The words of Christ however uses it as an ethnonym, as the nation and part of Israel which Christ belonged to. Except, perhaps, before Pilate.

                            I would say St Matthew wrote to people very familiar with the events, and with Jewish things, he could cite the psalm quote and not translate to Greek (this is perhaps also one indication he originally wrote in Aramaic, an Aramaic reader or listener while this was recited could not in any way have missed what the words meant), St Mark had to translate the psalm quote to Greek, to Theophilus that scene would have made no sense, and St John writes for people either Gentile or, if Jewish by origin, cutting the ties to the other Jews, those now so called.

                            Where a Synoptic has the formula:

                            Jesus said "woe ye Pharisees and Sadducees, for ..."

                            There St John has the formula:

                            Jesus said to the Jews "woe ye, for ..."

                            Why? Because once "Jew" had become the accepted word for those rejecting Christ, once the nation as ethnicity (but no longer people of God!) had rejected Christ, specifying which anti-Christian faction of the Jewish not yet anti-Christian nation Christ was talking to became superfluous.
                            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post

                              But the point is, Marcan priority is more of a Prussian than a Lutheran thing. Prussia's interest was to downplay precisely papacy.
                              But still, you don't have Prussian theologians using Markan priority as an anti-Catholic tool. I keep using Von Harnack as an example, but there are other ones. Basically, the various "lives of Jesus" attacked Catholicism as untrue to the historical Jesus' message. Those "lives" were largely dependent on Markan priority, but I think the issue is also tied to the idea that Mark is not a particularly Jewish gospel.

                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              I think the order of Theophilus and the latter not knowing about Matthew and Mark (Augustinian) or not knowing about Matthew while Mark had not yet been written (Clementine) would account for that.

                              Also, Luke writing without consulting either, or only consulting the other Gospels marginally, would certainly account for Luke not following their order, and thus also for the great omission, whatever that is.
                              The Great Omission is that Luke excludes Mark 6:45-8:26, whereas Matthew largely doesn't. So let's say that Luke is ignorant of Matthew (which I think very unlikely, by the way). How do you explain that Luke makes reference to accounts written by others?


                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              For one thing, I am not sure Theophilus was exactly a patron. He could have heard sth about "500, most of whom are still alive" and wanted St Luke to go there and check that. If so, a man who knew St Luke before the latter became a Christian and knew he could trust him, both judgement and honesty.

                              And this also answers the point about:

                              Yes, it does, if "not publishing" involves already showing or sending it to Theophilus in private.

                              Before Luke could be a Gospel with canonic status in the Church, it had to be publihshed in the Church, which is a further step beyond Theophilus getting private access, as an advice on his becoming a Christian.
                              That's not how writing and reading worked in the ancient Mediterranean. You'd be commissioned to write a work and then you'd have it read at a gathering of some sort. You wouldn't be commissioned to write a work for someone's own edification. It seems that Theophilus was the patron of a Christian community of some type, or otherwise a catch-all name for a community of believers.

                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              I think I somewhere did tell you about Chapman's translation of Homer and ask you to provide an example of where Chapman's English shows any sign of depending on Homer's Greek, apart from the sense being the same, except where Chapman misunderstood.

                              I haven't seen any reply on that challenge.
                              I must've missed it. Generally, translations do a poor job of idiomatic expressions or puns, which were fairly common in Second Temple literature (esp. in the Qumran community).

                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post

                              According to wikipedia, the scenario I gave is what precisely Clement of Alexandria had said.
                              This is what Clement says, according to Eusebius:
                              Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:- Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter's knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.
                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              I think the relevant passage in Acts for agrammatos is in the view of the Kohanim. It does not mean he could not read or write, it means he was not a scribe, had not received training as received by Levites or Pharisees in reading the Old Testament.

                              Probably means he did not master Hebrew grammar. If so, it says strictly nothing, zilch, nada on his capacity of reading and writing Aramaic, of communicating orally or in writing in Greek. It just means, if anything, his knowledge of OT was via Aramaic Targums, he was not reading in the original.

                              Or, could mean ONLY that he had no formal exam like approval, since studying under Jesus didn't count, since he was no longer called Rabbi after the Sanhedrin.
                              Agrammatos generally means unlearned or illiterate, so it's generally meant to mean that Peter was illiterate. The other issue is that the vast majority of people were in fact illiterate (somewhere from 3%-10% were literate, most of whom were probably not Galilean fisherman). Knowledge of the Hebrew Bible was primarily through hearing it preached, not direct reading. That fact makes sense of the errors made in the gospels with regard to Hebrew prophecy.

                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              The classic Bibelwissenschaftlich case for Mark being late is "it predicts destruction of Jerusalem, but real predictions don't occur, therefore it is a vaticinium post eventu, after AD 70".

                              That is of course pure Infidel Hogwash.
                              .
                              I think the dates of the gospels are more or less arbitrary. They could've been written at any point between the 40s/50s and the early second century. There's been an increasing tendency to date Luke-Acts to the late first/early second century, which I don't see the evidence for. Anyway, to address your point, the reason I say that Mark could be linked to the late first century is that some elements of Mark seem more closely tied to apocryphal literature than the other Synoptic gospels.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X