Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[Quantum Weirdness]

There are numerous ways to interpret the time frame, none of which can be proven. Mk 13,19 refers to a future 'those days', and then 13,24 refers again to 'in those days, after that tribulation', and finally 13,30 refers to 'this generation'. Many scholars, and myself as well, think 'this generation' is the generation alive during and just after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, ie, Mark's generation. The apocalyptic discourse ends with Jesus speaking not only to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, but to all, 'stay awake'. I don't think Mark necessarily believed the end would come 'in a few years', and cautions against some claims, but there is no real indication that he was writing for far distant future generations either.

I know that there are numerous ways but it seems that it references the wicked Jews (or perhaps, Judeans) who lived at the time of Christ (Matt 23:36). As far as I know, they were pretty much dead by 71C.E.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Quantum Weirdness: What do you think of the possibility that Matthew collected the sayings in Aramaic and translated them into Greek while fashioning the narrative in Greek?

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

I think it is possible but in light of the puns, alliterations etc in Matt's Gospel where Jesus doesn't speak, I don't think it should be preferred to the idea of a Hebrew gospel.

[robrecht]

OK, Quantum Weirdness, is this the position you are defending? Matthew wrote his gospel first in Hebrew, then Matthew translated his gospel into Greek. Then Peter depended upon Matthew's Greek translation when preaching in Rome. Then Mark, Peter's translator, translated Peter's Greek usage of Matthew's Greek into a less refined Greek of his own gospel? This is worthy of your name. But how do you refute the almost universal impression of scholars that Matthew's Greek gospel is refining and 'improving' upon Mark's Greek gospel?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Ok robrecht,
Let me tell you what my theory is before we go further.
My theory is that:
-Matt composed a Gospel in Hebrew and then translated it into Greek (perhaps with input from Peter and the other apostles)
-Peter used Greek Matthew to help himself preach and to talk about the stories of Jesus in a consistent manner. If Mark wanted to know extra things about Jesus, he would ask Peter who would use Matthew to help him out.
-Mark later wrote down everything he remembered from Peter (so Mark would sound a lot like Matt) in his own style.

That being said,

If you're speaking of Bousset, that's way too simplistic. There were and are still differences of opinion. Johannes Weiss, a contemporary member of the same history of religions school, was practically diametrically opposed to Bousset. While Hurtado is both appreciative and critical of Bousset's work, there are still many who disagree fundamentally with Hurtado.

When I referenced the dying and rising gods thing, I meant this
Quote
"Still others suggest that Paul's conception is related to ideas of union with a dying and rising god that was popular in Hellenistic 'mystery religions.' ". The reason I bolded the other stuff is to show that this position is no longer held but once was. I'm sorry if confusion occurred.

Both are intimately related. If Matthew was largely dependent upon Mark's Greek, then he did not compose his text in Hebrew.

Ok then

Neither Mt 2,23 nor 11,8-10 is part of the triple tradition so they are both irrelevant to this discussion. You'll have to explain your view of how Mt 9,7 demonstrates dependence upon a Hebrew source rather than upon Mark's Greek text.

They are, however relevant to the language Matt wrote in. Matt 9:8 is an alliteration in Hebrew (see pg 200 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/62926694/G...-George-Howard)

I'm confused by what position you are trying to defend. You are no longer following Papias' view? Peter was dependent upon a Greek Matthew? Where do you get that?

Explained above

[Quantum Weirdness]

OK, Quantum Weirdness, is this the position you are defending? Matthew wrote his gospel first in Hebrew, then Matthew translated his gospel into Greek. Then Peter depended upon Matthew's Greek translation when preaching in Rome. Then Papias, Peter's translator, translated Peter's Greek usage of Matthew's Greek into a less refined Greek of his own gospel? This is worthy of your name. But how do you refute the almost universal impression of scholars that Matthew's Greek gospel is refining and 'improving' upon Mark's Greek gospel?

You have up to the bolded correct. But
-Papias wasn't Peter's translator in my view. (I assume you meant Mark?)
-The Greek is different due to the different communities being addressed

I don't think that the Greek of Mark being less refined amounts to Markan Priority
Quote
"Choppy writing style.

Let it be definitively said: Awkwardness and choppiness, in a literary view, is NOT reason to suppose priority, and if anything, is good reason to suppose a later writing, since it is usually the case that better forms of a work are issued first. Moreover, the brevity and choppiness are better explained by seeing Mark's Gospel as Papias did - as a record of the preaching of Peter. [Reic.Root, 46, 57]

Also, Mark's brevity can be considered a device of rhetorical style -- Mark was an Hellenistic Jew, and demonstrates a close affinity to Greek tragedy style in the gospel. Oral tradition specialist Albert Lord [Walk.ID, 42f.] also notes oral narrative parallels of texts that tell the same story in a longer and shorter variation, which show that "shorter" is not necessarily "earlier" and may in fact be the result of more practical constraints.

In addition, Sanders and Davies [Sand.SSG, 72] make a pertinent point about those who claim, "Mark would not have messed up Matthew's or Luke's good grammar" as a point to Marcan priority (though this would not affect our thesis of Marcan and Matthean independence):

In fact, however, the entire notion of 'improvement' or its reverse is very shaky. People who rewrote material rewrote it in their own style. If a later author liked elegance and knew how to achieve it, the product would be more elegant. But the reverse could and often did happen. Many of the apocryphal gospels of the second and subsequent centuries are written in 'worse' Greek than Mark -- that is, worse by the Attic standard. Many authors, and no dount many readers and hearers, preferred more colloquial and less elegant prose. One can imagine many modern analogies. A sermon or lecture directed to a university audience might not go down very well if given before another audience.


Thus a common argument for Markan priority is a failure in reality."
http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.php
End Quote

[Quantum Weirdness]

The Commentary is wrong. In the 1700s, you had Volney and Dupuis. In the 1800s, you had Bauer and the Radical Dutch school, which was basically four people. In the 20th century, you had half-a-dozen or so people, some of them owners of their own publishing houses (because they couldn't get their crap published anywhere reputable). In the 21st century, you've got a dozen or so. The Christ-Myth crowd is a tiny sliver of historical-critical Biblical scholarship, and most of them are laughingstocks.

as in Paul, until after Christianity became a widespread religious force in the Roman Empire that some other religious groups imitated. More important, the early Christian view of resurrection is certainly derived from the Jewish doctrine rather than from the seasonal revivification of Greek cults."
http://christianthinktank.com/copycat.html#dying

Are they wrong as well?
Could you provide some documentation for your claim? Thanks.

[Outis]

as in Paul, until after Christianity became a widespread religious force in the Roman Empire that some other religious groups imitated. More important, the early Christian view of resurrection is certainly derived from the Jewish doctrine rather than from the seasonal revivification of Greek cults."
http://christianthinktank.com/copycat.html#dying

Are they wrong as well?
Could you provide some documentation for your claim? Thanks.

Actually, yes--because your sources are older (or are relying on older sources themselves), they are using outdated information.

The concept of the "dying and reborn god" was frequently debated in the late 19th and through the 20th centuries, but was largely put down near the end of the 20th century. It's still a really popular idea on the Internet, so it's really easy to find on internet sites, but yes, it's wrong.

One good, introductory source to look at, which may be available near you if you have a good library, is "Archetypes and Motifs in Folklore and Literature," by Jane Garry. It came out in ... I want to say 2005 or there abouts. It is NOT an easy read, and most of it will be stuff that doesn't directly relate to this topic. The dismissal of the "dying and reborn god," and the reasons for that dismissal, are somewhere in the first ... fifty pages? I don't remember for sure ... as you can tell, it's been a while since I read it.

If you don't have access to a good library, or if your library doesn't have it, you may be able to preview it on Amazon or Google Books.

[robrecht]

You have up to the bolded correct. But
-Papias wasn't Peter's translator in my view. (I assume you meant Mark?)

Yes, sorry about that. I have corrected it above.

-The Greek is different due to the different communities being addressed

I don't think that the Greek of Mark being less refined amounts to Markan Priority
Quote
"Choppy writing style.

Let it be definitively said: Awkwardness and choppiness, in a literary view, is NOT reason to suppose priority, and if anything, is good reason to suppose a later writing, since it is usually the case that better forms of a work are issued first. Moreover, the brevity and choppiness are better explained by seeing Mark's Gospel as Papias did - as a record of the preaching of Peter. [Reic.Root, 46, 57]

Also, Mark's brevity can be considered a device of rhetorical style -- Mark was an Hellenistic Jew, and demonstrates a close affinity to Greek tragedy style in the gospel. Oral tradition specialist Albert Lord [Walk.ID, 42f.] also notes oral narrative parallels of texts that tell the same story in a longer and shorter variation, which show that "shorter" is not necessarily "earlier" and may in fact be the result of more practical constraints.

In addition, Sanders and Davies [Sand.SSG, 72] make a pertinent point about those who claim, "Mark would not have messed up Matthew's or Luke's good grammar" as a point to Marcan priority (though this would not affect our thesis of Marcan and Matthean independence):

In fact, however, the entire notion of 'improvement' or its reverse is very shaky. People who rewrote material rewrote it in their own style. If a later author liked elegance and knew how to achieve it, the product would be more elegant. But the reverse could and often did happen. Many of the apocryphal gospels of the second and subsequent centuries are written in 'worse' Greek than Mark -- that is, worse by the Attic standard. Many authors, and no dount many readers and hearers, preferred more colloquial and less elegant prose. One can imagine many modern analogies. A sermon or lecture directed to a university audience might not go down very well if given before another audience.


Thus a common argument for Markan priority is a failure in reality."
http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.php
End Quote

You are citing someone who does not actually agree with you. Case in point: "2.Greek Matthew is a post-Markan product" This is virtually impossible to deny, yet you deny it.

You are also citing someone who misunderstands Papias as claiming Matthew wrote prior to Mark. Papias speaks first of Mark translating Peter's preaching in an unordered manner and then of Mathew creating a well-ordered text.

Your source's theory, that Luke was dependent upon Aramaic Matthew, also cannot account for the Greek verbal agreement in much of the double tradition.

Accordingly, he is ignorant of the reason why scholars consider the hypothetical Q source to have been in Greek.

He mischaracterizes the argument from order and completely misses the point.

He does not appear to be conversant in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. You should use better sources for your information. Better yet, just learn the languages yourself.

[robrecht]

... They are, however relevant to the language Matt wrote in. Matt 9:8 is an alliteration in Hebrew (see pg 200 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/62926694/G...-George-Howard)

You're also misusing Howard's position. Note on p. 181 that he does not prefer the view that Matthew Greek is a translation of Matthew Hebrew. While he does prefer the view that one served as a literary model for the other, he does not take a position on which one served as the literary model of the other.

[Paprika]

I do not make the claim that it is a "major" argument under my own authority. I suggest you start by taking the issue up with the editors of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Unfortunately, the editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, passed away in 2009, but you can contact the Eerdman Publishing Company and see if anyone else has taken up the project.

[Outis]

Would you have me defend an argument I did not originate? Or is winning a debate more important than finding out the facts?

[Paprika]

Would you have me defend an argument I did not originate? Or is winning a debate more important than finding out the facts?

I would expect you to defend an argument you introduce, rather than trying to escape the burden of proof.

[Outis]

I would expect you to defend an argument you introduce, rather than trying to escape the burden of proof.

Fair enough. However, my best way of defending that argument is to refer you to the experts. I have the feeling that doing so will not satisfy you. I therefore withdraw the appellation of "major" from that argument.

[Paprika]

Fair enough. However, my best way of defending that argument is to refer you to the experts. I have the feeling that doing so will not satisfy you. I therefore withdraw the appellation of "major" from that argument.

Thank you.

[The Pixie]

What evidence is that?

Not exactly sure what you are refering to, but most scholars are agree the gospel we have was originally in Greek.

Some quotes and links (I believe these are all by Christian authors, by the way):

"Almost all scholars agree that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and is not a transated document. Matthew's Greek reveals none of the telltale marks of translation. Furthermore, Matthew's OT quotations are derived from the LXX rather than the Hebrew text..."
http://books.google.de/books?id=Zkla...page&q&f=false

"The main reason for this lies in the fact, now generally accepted, that the first gospel is not a translation from the Aramaic, but was composed originally in Greek on the basis of at least two written Greek sources, Mark and Q."
http://www.religion-online.org/showc...itle=531&C=552https://www.evidenceforchristianity....t-he-wrote-it/

"On the other hand, most scholars insist that Matthew was originally written in Greek because many parts of the Gospel are extremely (if not identically) similar to Mark's, which was indubitably written in Greek."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm

http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm
http://christianity.stackexchange.co...atthew-written
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVa...008/04-21.html

How do we know it is about a different text?

Well, the gospel we have was first written in Greek, the gospel Papias talks about was in Hebrew.

Except for the external testimony by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius etc.

These appear to all go back to the comment of Papias, which would seem to be another text.