Honor and Shame culture and the Bible?

[psstein]

He visited Palestine at least once and traveled around Rome during his in the period during or shortly after the life of Jesus, and he knowledgable about the affairs of Rome. Why would he not have knowledge of Jesus?

Itinerant preachers and Messianic claimants were a dime a dozen. Josephus relates at least 4 I can think of.

True, I do not believe in recent years this order has any credibility.

You're joking, right? Markan priority is as close to a consensus as NT scholarship has. All the other options have terrible consequences.

[psstein]

I've heard various answers to this, including that Matthew wrote two Gospels (one in Hebrew, and one in Greek); That Papias was thinking of another Matthew; Or that Papias simply got the account of the Hebrew sayings gospel wrong, but that he was correct in saying that Matthew did write a gospel. Markan dependency on Matthew rather than the other way around would solve the other problem, but I realize that's an unpopular position (to say the least). While authorship may not be considered an important issue among most scholars, it still comes up all the time (Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses only came out 8 years ago, and stirred the pot a bit).

Still, I again accept that the general consensus is anonymity.

I've read Bauckham's book; it's actually sitting on my shelf in front of me right now. Papias could've simply guessed and gotten it wrong. It seems clear that Matthew is referring to a gospel though, not a sayings source, which is why that argument is no longer in vogue. Maurice Casey thought that Papias confused Matthew the apostle with another Matthew, which I guess could be possible.

I'm not totally closed to Matthean priority, though I've never read a particularly convincing argument for it. Both the Two-Gospel and Augustinian Hypotheses have a small minority of supporters. If you posit Markan dependence on Matthew, then I think there are far too many difficult issues to discuss. For example, why does Mark make errors that Matthew then corrects?

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately this thread has drifted off target. There are important points that have not been addressed concerning the nature of the ancient Middle Eastern culture, and the claim that its honor/shame characteristic excludes the possibility of adding to, editing and redacting the scripture, because for some odd reason it is shameful and embarrassing.

Problems: (1) Throughout the history of the ancient Middle East and the surrounding Mediterranean world it is common for the biographies of the famous and powerful to embellish them with with miracles such as virgin birth and Divine powers such as healing. There is no apparent shame nor embarrassment noted. (2) As per references there is no significant differences between the ancient Middle Eastern Culture and other ancient cultures. They all embellished the biographies with Divine powers and miracles like everyone else.

This is in reality not an argument concerning whether the gospels were changed edited, and redacted over time, nor exactly who the authors or editors were. It is an argument whether the nature of the culture has anything to do with whether it happened or not.

[shunyadragon]

Itinerant preachers and Messianic claimants were a dime a dozen. Josephus relates at least 4 I can think of.

Than you support the argument that there was nothing miraculously significant about Jesus's Ministry that anyone of significance would notice, and all the miraculous stuff was added later.

You're joking, right? Markan priority is as close to a consensus as NT scholarship has. All the other options have terrible consequences.

Sorry it is late, I got it backwards.

[shunyadragon]

True, I do not believe in recent years this order has any credibility.

apologies, it is late and I got it backwards.

[Adrift]

I've read Bauckham's book; it's actually sitting on my shelf in front of me right now.

Oh, I need another shelf. I have a ton of books (including that one) on my floor right now.

Papias could've simply guessed and gotten it wrong. It seems clear that Matthew is referring to a gospel though, not a sayings source, which is why that argument is no longer in vogue.

Matthew is referring to a gospel and not a sayings source, or Papias is? But yes, if I recall, one of brojangles favorite talking points is that Papias had in mind a sayings source and not a Gospel. Guess he hasn't gotten the memo.

Maurice Casey thought that Papias confused Matthew the apostle with another Matthew, which I guess could be possible.

I'm not totally closed to Matthean priority, though I've never read a particularly convincing argument for it. Both the Two-Gospel and Augustinian Hypotheses have a small minority of supporters. If you posit Markan dependence on Matthew, then I think there are far too many difficult issues to discuss. For example, why does Mark make errors that Matthew then corrects?

I'm certain someone's got a workaround for issues like that.

[Roy]

It would be great if you addressed my entire post instead of a single sentence. And if you can't figure out how the source I quoted applies to establishing authorship, well, that's on you. As the saying goes, you can lead a fool to facts, but you can't make him think.

[cite omitted]
Yeah, so like I said in the paragraph you excised, if there is good reason to doubt the authorship and authenticity of the gospels then there is good reason to doubt the authorship and authenticity of every single thing written in antiquity.

More insults and irrelevancies. A consequence of the gospels lacking evidence of their provenance is obviously not evidence of their provenance. You clearly have nothing to back up your claim that we have evidence for the identity of the gospel authors.

And if you had bothered to check you might have learnt that historians always question the authorship of ancient documents - cf Plato's dialogues, Aesop, Homer, the Romance of Alexander, and even Shakespeare's plays.

[Mountain Man]

As I think Martin Hengel rather persuasively argued, the gospels may not have originally been anonymous (in terms of untitled).

To play devil's advocate, largely because this is an interesting topic, how do you know that everybody attached the same name to the gospels? The gospels aren't formally given names until Irenaeus in the 180s. Justin Martyr refers to the "memoirs of Peter," which could either mean Mark or the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.

Because the gospel writings have never been associated with any other name indicating a widespread consensus among early Christians. If the names were assigned arbitrarily then you would expect to find a variety of names attached to them depending on local traditions.

[Mountain Man]

More insults and irrelevancies. A consequence of the gospels lacking evidence of their provenance is obviously not evidence of their provenance. You clearly have nothing to back up your claim that we have evidence for the identity of the gospel authors.

And if you had bothered to check you might have learnt that historians always question the authorship of ancient documents - cf Plato's dialogues, Aesop, Homer, the Romance of Alexander, and even Shakespeare's plays.

Insults and irrelevancies? I gave you a direct answer! Do you think being disingenuous somehow gives you a leg up in the debate?

People might dispute ancient authorship as an intellectual exercise, but no scholar would consider it controversial to say that Plato wrote the Dialogs, or that Tacitus wrote the Annuls. As for Shakespeare, I love how one expert put it: "If Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him then it was somebody exactly like Shakespeare."

[shunyadragon]

Because the gospel writings have never been associated with any other name indicating a widespread consensus among early Christians. If the names were assigned arbitrarily then you would expect to find a variety of names attached to them depending on local traditions.

There has never been the view by the scholars nor I that the names were assigned arbitrarily to the gospels. The church fathers assigned the names to gospels based on what they believe the authors should be. There is clear evidence that the gospels were added to, evolved through editing, and redacting from previous sources like possibly Q, and Mark as a basis for Matthew and Luke, which were written independently after Mark existed.

[Roy]

Insults and irrelevancies?

Yes, insults and irrelevancies.

I gave you a direct answer!

No you didn't. Nowhere have you referenced any evidence for the identity of the author of Matthew.

Do you think being disingenuous somehow gives you a leg up in the debate?

More insults. You are a waste of time.

People might dispute ancient authorship as an intellectual exercise, but no scholar would consider it controversial to say that Plato wrote the Dialogs, or that Tacitus wrote the Annuls. As for Shakespeare, I love how one expert put it: "If Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him then it was somebody exactly like Shakespeare."

Again, if you had bothered to check you would have learnt that some of the dialogues, e.g. Epinomis, may not have been written by Plato. But if you were the kind of person who bothered to check the facts you would have retracted your claim that we know who wrote 'Matthew' long ago.

P.S. There is a difference between it being controversial to say that Plato wrote the dialogues or Matthew wrote 'Matthew', and there being evidence for the authorship of the dialogues or 'Matthew'. If anyone here is being disingenuous, it's you.

[shunyadragon]

Again . . .

Unfortunately this thread has drifted off target. There are important points that have not been addressed concerning the nature of the ancient Middle Eastern culture, and the claim that its honor/shame characteristic excludes the possibility of adding to, editing and redacting the scripture, because for some odd reason it is shameful and embarrassing.

Problems: (1) Throughout the history of the ancient Middle East and the surrounding Mediterranean world it is common for the biographies of the famous and powerful to embellish them with with miracles such as virgin birth and Divine powers such as healing. There is no apparent shame nor embarrassment noted. (2) As per references there is no significant differences between the ancient Middle Eastern Culture and other ancient cultures. They all embellished the biographies with Divine powers and miracles like everyone else.

This is in reality not an argument concerning whether the gospels were changed edited, and redacted over time, nor exactly who the authors or editors were. It is an argument whether the nature of the culture has anything to do with whether it happened or not.

[psstein]

Than you support the argument that there was nothing miraculously significant about Jesus's Ministry that anyone of significance would notice,
and all the miraculous stuff was added later.

That Jesus' ministry was much like other Jewish itinerant preachers I readily grant. Among NT scholars, it's nearly a consensus position that Jesus performed healings and exorcisms that were thought miracles. In order to determine whether or not those are actually miraculous, you have to argue for the occurrence of miracles.

[psstein]

Because the gospel writings have never been associated with any other name indicating a widespread consensus among early Christians. If the names were assigned arbitrarily then you would expect to find a variety of names attached to them depending on local traditions.

Which can easily be attributed to Church traditions coming from Papias and others. The proto-orthodox faction usually (there are exceptions) didn't go against the word of people who allegedly had contact with eyewitnesses.

[psstein]

Matthew is referring to a gospel and not a sayings source, or Papias is? But yes, if I recall, one of brojangles favorite talking points is that Papias had in mind a sayings source and not a Gospel. Guess he hasn't gotten the memo.

Papias is referring to a gospel, not a sayings source. That's been a pretty standard view for at least the last 50+ years. Joachim Jeremias' New Testament Theology (which is a fantastic book, in my opinion) states that Q cannot be supported by Papias' cryptic reference to the logia. I really don't care what brojangles thinks, when he has a thought beyond what Crossan and Carrier think, I'll pay some attention to him.

I'm certain someone's got a workaround for issues like that.

I'm sure that Farmer's disciples thought of one... though I see little evidence for Matthean priority beyond that. If Mark is a digest of Matthew and Luke, why doesn't Mark have any indication of the Beatitudes or the Resurrection appearance?