Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[The Pixie]

Wallace does list other arguments though as to why he thinks that Matthew wrote the Gospel. What's poor about the other evidence?

Wallace cites the folowing internal evidence:

Familiarity with the Nation

This is hardly unique to the apostle Matthew, indeed, Wallace concludes: " The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew."

Hints of Semitisms in his Language

All Wallace concludes is a Jewish author: "... it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew."

His Use of Scripture

He says: "If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures."

So far, all Wallace has shown was the author was Jewish. Nothing at all that point to Matthew.

Attack on Pharisees

As he says himself: "Not much can be made of this however."

Frequent Use of Numbers and His Mention of Money

Seriously? He is probably a tax collector because he uses numbers and mention money a lot?

The Calling of Levi

"The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally."

In reality the author of Matthew took a shed load of liberties with Mark, and fully a fifth of the gospel is unique to it. Wallace may assert this is the most logical reason (what does that even mean, either a reason is logical or not), but the reality is that other reasons are also possible.

And most damning of all, Wallace is not claiming it was Matthew, but someone who knew Matthew personally!

[Quantum Weirdness]

Wallace cites the folowing internal evidence:

Familiarity with the Nation

This is hardly unique to the apostle Matthew, indeed, Wallace concludes: " The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew."

Hints of Semitisms in his Language

All Wallace concludes is a Jewish author: "... it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew."

His Use of Scripture

He says: "If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures."

So far, all Wallace has shown was the author was Jewish. Nothing at all that point to Matthew.

Attack on Pharisees

As he says himself: "Not much can be made of this however."

Frequent Use of Numbers and His Mention of Money

Seriously? He is probably a tax collector because he uses numbers and mention money a lot?

He also uses technical terminology for money. I do agree with Wallace that this suggests someone familiar with money

The Calling of Levi

"The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally."

In reality the author of Matthew took a shed load of liberties with Mark, and fully a fifth of the gospel is unique to it. Wallace may assert this is the most logical reason (what does that even mean, either a reason is logical or not), but the reality is that other reasons are also possible.

Ok Wallace lists arguments for a Jew who knew about money from the internal evidence and since the external evidence suggests Matthew, I don't think we have good reasons for doubting Matthean authorship.

And most damning of all, Wallace is not claiming it was Matthew, but someone who knew Matthew personally!

Uhhh
Quote
"Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstaclesmakes the traditional view still the most plausible one."

[Outis]

That is not necessarily true (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/62926694/G...-George-Howard between pages 194-201).

George Howard's views represent a very small minority within scholarship. While he notes elements that do sound like they were translated from Aramaic or Hebrew, he ignores the evidence that the Gospel was originally written in Greek--selectively assessing the supporting evidence while ignoring the contradictory evidence is poor scholarship, at best. The mainstream view is that Matthew was written in Greek. (Cite)

I don't think Matt copied from Mark (I disagree with Wallace here)

Then you're in disagreement with not just scholarship, but the vast majority of scholarship. Matthew Williams "Two Gospels from One" gives a good analysis of the various theories.

I find the arguments suited better to a 60's date.

What arguments? You've thrown several links out, but as I've noted, you're picking minority viewpoints without telling me why, specifically, these viewpoints? I'm not concerned with what you "find better suited"--that's all very nice, but it doesn't explain anything. Tell me why it better explains the evidence.

[The Pixie]

He also uses technical terminology for money. I do agree with Wallace that this suggests someone familiar with money

Okay. But that is a long way short of a specific individual.

Ok Wallace lists arguments for a Jew who knew about money from the internal evidence and since the external evidence suggests Matthew, I don't think we have good reasons for doubting Matthean authorship.

Listen to yourself. It was a Jew who was familiar with money, therefore it was Matthew. How many Jews do you think there were in the ancient middle east who were familiar with money.

"Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstaclesmakes the traditional view still the most plausible one."

Sure, he has his axe to grind, and so concludes from the scant evidence that Matthew was the author. However, as I showed, that evidence merely points to a Jew who knew about money, not to Matthew.

[Quantum Weirdness]

George Howard's views represent a very small minority within scholarship. While he notes elements that do sound like they were translated from Aramaic or Hebrew, he ignores the evidence that the Gospel was originally written in Greek--selectively assessing the supporting evidence while ignoring the contradictory evidence is poor scholarship, at best. The mainstream view is that Matthew was written in Greek. (Cite)

Yes I know it is a minority viewpoint but I think that it is a quite good argument in favor of a Hebrew Matthew that hasn't been addressed adequately.

Then you're in disagreement with not just scholarship, but the vast majority of scholarship. Matthew Williams "Two Gospels from One" gives a good analysis of the various theories.

I know but once again, I don't think that this argument has been addressed.

What arguments? You've thrown several links out, but as I've noted, you're picking minority viewpoints without telling me why, specifically, these viewpoints? I'm not concerned with what you "find better suited"--that's all very nice, but it doesn't explain anything. Tell me why it better explains the evidence.

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/w...rior-to-ad-70/. In neither case does the verb in question have to be a historical present.)

The other arguments are good supporting data and there isn't as strong evidence for the 90's view.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Okay. But that is a long way short of a specific individual.

Listen to yourself. It was a Jew who was familiar with money, therefore it was Matthew.

I'm arguing what is in bold + the external testimony. They both converge on Matthew being the author.

How many Jews do you think there were in the ancient middle east who were familiar with money.

Many but Matthew satisfies both external and internal evidence better. BTW I think its Near east.

Sure, he has his axe to grind, and so concludes from the scant evidence that Matthew was the author. However, as I showed, that evidence merely points to a Jew who knew about money, not to Matthew.

I was responding to the claim that Wallace "was not claiming it was Matthew, but someone who knew Matthew personally."

[Outis]

Yes I know it is a minority viewpoint but I think that it is a quite good argument in favor of a Hebrew Matthew that hasn't been addressed adequately.

I need something more than "I think it's a good opinion." Why does that opinion only take into account the evidence that supports the argument, and not all the evidence? The puns in Greek don't work in Hebrew or Aramaic.

That's where it comes down to brass tacks. You are not looking at all the evidence ... just at the evidence that supports your views. You are ignoring the rest. Why?

[Quantum Weirdness]

I need something more than "I think it's a good opinion." Why does that opinion only take into account the evidence that supports the argument, and not all the evidence? The puns in Greek don't work in Hebrew or Aramaic.

That's where it comes down to brass tacks. You are not looking at all the evidence ... just at the evidence that supports your views. You are ignoring the rest. Why?

I know of one pun in the Greek Matthew (16:18) but this is pun repeated in the Hebrew. I don't think it is evidence either way. Any other puns in Greek?
As for the Aramaic, these seem to be limited to Jesus' sayings (unlike the Hebrew). And since Aramaic and Hebrew are related, couldn't the Aramaic puns be puns in Hebrew as well?

I honestly don't think I'm ignoring evidence. I knew about the Greek pun before hand and the Aramaic sayings of Jesus, I just didn't think that mentioning the Greek as necessary since Howard shows that there was a pun in the Hebrew of Shem Tov as well.

[robrecht]

The question is:
Why would anybody preserve this information after the generation had gone (and the apostles had died) in this format? Why not make it not so imminent?

Probably the majority opinion among critical scholars is that Mark still expected the end to occur in the not too distant future, within his own generation perhaps. A minority view is that the 'cosmological signs in the heavens' were understood figuratively, exactly how they were understood in the scriptures quoted and alluded to here by Mark. I think the answer may be somewhere in between these views, ie, that he believed the end may be near but was but also cautioned against those who pretended to know precise details and he was more focused on the need to first preach the gospel to the whole world.

[The Pixie]

Yes I know it is a minority viewpoint but I think that it is a quite good argument in favor of a Hebrew Matthew that hasn't been addressed adequately.

There is an argument for a Hebrew Matthew, such as mentioned by Papias, but the evidence points to the Matthew we have as being originally written in Greek. It is quite possible that our Matthew draws on the Hebrew Matthew, just as it draws on Mark, but they are two distinct texts.

I'm arguing what is in bold + the external testimony. They both converge on Matthew being the author.

But the external evidence is based on Papias (and tradition, which is in turn based on Papias), which we know is about a diferent text. Without the external evidence, the internal evidence does not add up to much at all. as I said originally.

Many but Matthew satisfies both external and internal evidence better. BTW I think its Near east.

An anonymous Jew drawing on Mark and a Hebrew Matthew satisfies the evidence rather better.

I was responding to the claim that Wallace "was not claiming it was Matthew, but someone who knew Matthew personally."

Sorry, rereadng it, yes Wallace is claiming it was Matthew, not someone who knew him. However, his argument can as readily be applied to an assocuiate of Matthew or a later family member. Wallace is directing his reader down a very closed road with little justification.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Probably the majority opinion among critical scholars is that Mark still expected the end to occur in the not too distant future, within his own generation perhaps. A minority view is that the 'cosmological signs in the heavens' were understood figuratively, exactly how they were understood in the scriptures quoted and alluded to here by Mark. I think the answer may be somewhere in between these views, ie, that he believed the end may be near but was but also cautioned against those who pretended to know more precise details and he was more focused on the nead to first preach the gospel to the whole world.

The generation referenced seems to be that of the wicked Jews (see http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=1074 for the uses of generation) and as far as I know, that passed away in 70 C.E.

[Outis]

And since Aramaic and Hebrew are related, couldn't the Aramaic puns be puns in Hebrew as well?

Not necessarily. There are two puns that work in Galilean Aramaic that don't work in Syriac Aramaic (used in the Peshitta) or in Hebrew. There are some puns that work in Syriac Aramaic that don't work in Hebrew or in Galilean. There are four puns in Hebrew that don't work in either form of Aramaic. There's one pun in Greek that works in the other languages. That's my point--the puns prove nothing. The arguments that rely on puns look at one small part of the available evidence, and ignore the rest of the book.

The major arguments against an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew are thus:
* Matthew Copies from Mark (Yes, I know you don't accept that.)
* OT quotes in Matthew are from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew or from Aramaic. (Yes, there are differences.)
* The assertion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew comes from Papias via Irenaeus and Eusebius, both of which are problematic.
* The text shows no signs of being translated--and a text written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated to Greek will have distinctive differences from texts written originally in Greek.

Quantum, do you read any Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic?

[The Pixie]

Probably the majority opinion among critical scholars is that Mark still expected the end to occur in the not too distant future, within his own generation perhaps. A minority view is that the 'cosmological signs in the heavens' were understood figuratively, exactly how they were understood in the scriptures quoted and alluded to here by Mark. I think the answer may be somewhere in between these views, ie, that he believed the end may be near but was but also cautioned against those who pretended to know precise details and he was more focused on the need to first preach the gospel to the whole world.

Can you support this claim? It seems to me that Mark was probably written when it was realised the apocolypse was not imminent. Why bother to write it all down if the world will end in a few years? If it looks like the world will still be here in a few decades, it is worthwhile writing things down for future generations.

[Outis]

It seems to me that Mark was probably written when it was realised the apocolypse was not imminent.

What leads you to that conclusion?

This was the entire purpose of apocalyptic literature in general, and of passages like the Little Apocalypse in particular. Mark had just heard of a terrible calamity, and was writing to people urging them to hold fast to the faith, because their reward was just around the corner if they held on. He clearly expects Jesus to come back quickly, before the generation in which his audience lives passes away. (Mk 13:30)

[Paprika]

* OT quotes in Matthew are from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew or from Aramaic. (Yes, there are differences.)

How is this a major argument? Assuming a translation of the Gospel from Hebrew to Greek, the two main choices are to either attempt one's own fresh translation of Holy Scripture - a task no Jew would casually undertake - or choose a translation already in use, and if the latter, the Septugaint is a natural choice, since it would likely be familiar to the audience.