Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[Quantum Weirdness]

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


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.

Okkkkkkk...................

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.

Which is why I have my own. BTW, why not bring this up in the tektonics forum and see if JPH defends it well there?

Yeah he doesn't agree with me. But I do think the argument is valid. Even if his other arguments are wrong. I think this argument is valid because different people tend to write things in their varied writing styles. And Sanders (and Davies) do support the idea that "Mark messing up Matt's Grammar" is not a good way to show Markan priority.
What evidence do you have against their position though?

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

Ok then.
He mischaracterizes the argument from order and completely misses the point.[/QUOTE]


What is the argument from order then?

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.

But he can read and use scholarship to compare the arguments and arrive at a conclusion.

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.

This is in reference to Shem Tov's text (which I agree wasn't the original Matthew due to blatant corruptions of the text). If I ever implied that I thought Shem Tov's Hebrew was the original, then I am sorry. The puns hold because they appear to not be interpolations but to be parallel with the Greek text that we have.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Actually, yes--because your sources are older (or are relying on older sources themselves), they are using outdated information.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

Thanks. One more question. Do you think that major shifts in scholarly thinking exist?

[Quantum Weirdness]

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


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

I think the reason they hold to this position is that they see no evidence of Matthew being translated into Greek. But others (e.g. Josephus' Wars of the Jews also show no signs of translation yet Josephus says that he translated the Aramaic into Greek see the first paragraph here.

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

Ok then.

[Outis]

Thanks. One more question. Do you think that major shifts in scholarly thinking exist?

Just on a general basis, or for this issue specifically? Yes in both cases, preferrably driven by the evidence.

[robrecht]

Okkkkkkk...................

Which is why I have my own. BTW, why not bring this up in the tektonics forum and see if JPH defends it well there?

I don't get involved in many apologetic debates

Yeah he doesn't agree with me. But I do think the argument is valid. Even if his other arguments are wrong. I think this argument is valid because different people tend to write things in their varied writing styles. And Sanders (and Davies) do support the idea that "Mark messing up Matt's Grammar" is not a good way to show Markan priority.
What evidence do you have against their position though?

I do not oppose their position because they both hold to Markan priority so while they may value some arguments more or less than other arguments, they arrive at the same place. It is not just a matter of grammar. I defend Mark's grammar and style as effective and not as bad as is sometimes claimed, but presuming Markan priority allows one to very frequently see how Matthew and Luke made sensible and understandable improvements to make Mark's text less problematic. The changes just do not work as well in the other direction. Allison clearly believes in the overall pattern of Matthew improving upon Mark.

What is the argument from order then?

The argument from order as it is used by contemporary exegetes, at least those that are competent does not prove Markan priority. But assuming Markan priority, it is one indication that Matthew and Luke may have redacted Mark independently. Thus, none of Matthew's changes of Mark's order are found in Luke, so one cannot easily say that Luke must have relied on Matthew in this respect. Likewise, none of Luke's changes to Mark's order are also found in Matthew. One could just as easily assume Matthean priority and say that Luke may have also known Mark (in addition to Luke) because he includes apparent changes in order made by Mark. Or one could assume Lukan priority and assert the liklihood that Matthew was dependent upon Mark (in addition to Luke) because Matthew includes Markan changes to Luke's order.

But he can read and use scholarship to compare the arguments and arrive at a conclusion.

It is difficult to evaluate for oneself the quality of an argument without familiarity with the actual data.

This is in reference to Shem Tov's text (which I agree wasn't the original Matthew due to blatant corruptions of the text). If I ever implied that I thought Shem Tov's Hebrew was the original, then I am sorry. The puns hold because they appear to not be interpolations but to be parallel with the Greek text that we have.

Not quite. Howard also agrees that the corruptions in the text make it certain that Shem Tov's text is not the original, but he tries to uncover indications that it dates back to an older independent Hebrew exemplar. And having uncovered those indications, he nonetheless does not assert that they demonstrate that that original Hebrew exemplar to the extent that it can be reconstructed was a basis for translation into Greek Matthew. The puns and aliteration simply do not carry the weight that you give them. They might indicate a certain style of the author or translator but they rarely make a strong case for translation. For example, one of his examples of aliteration in Hebrew actually contains a greater degree of aliteration in the Greek. One looks for interference of the source language with the target language, but even when that is hypothesized, it is rarely decisive. Thus, Carmignac can argue that Mark was translated from Hebrew and Casey, using different examples, can argue that extensive sections of Mark were translated from Aramaic. They never rise beyond the level of hypotheses and neither of these hypothetical reconstructions have convinced many scholars.

[Outis]

But others (e.g. Josephus' Wars of the Jews also show no signs of translation yet Josephus says that he translated the Aramaic into Greek see the first paragraph here.

Joseph is here seems to be referring to works that he originally translated to Greek, but that have not survived. His three surviving works (Antiquities, Jewish War, and Against Apion) were all written after he went to Rome.

[The Pixie]

I think the reason they hold to this position is that they see no evidence of Matthew being translated into Greek. But others (e.g. Josephus' Wars of the Jews also show no signs of translation yet Josephus says that he translated the Aramaic into Greek see the first paragraph here.

I am going to guess that Biblical scholars have thought about it a bit more deeply than you give them credit for.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I don't get involved in many apologetic debates

Ok

I do not oppose their position because they both hold to Markan priority so while they may value some arguments more or less than other arguments, they arrive at the same place. It is not just a matter of grammar. I defend Mark's grammar and style as effective and not as bad as is sometimes claimed, but presuming Markan priority allows one to very frequently see how Matthew and Luke made sensible and understandable improvements to make Mark's text less problematic. The changes just do not work as well in the other direction. Allison clearly believes in the overall pattern of Matthew improving upon Mark.

They seem to think that it is a weak argument (which I agree with). Other arguments need to be provided to show Markan priority.

The argument from order as it is used by contemporary exegetes, at least those that are competent does not prove Markan priority. But assuming Markan priority, it is one indication that Matthew and Luke may have redacted Mark independently. Thus, none of Matthew's changes of Mark's order are found in Luke, so one cannot easily say that Luke must have relied on Matthew in this respect. Likewise, none of Luke's changes to Mark's order are also found in Matthew. One could just as easily assume Matthean priority and say that Luke may have also known Mark (in addition to Luke) because he includes apparent changes in order made by Mark. Or one could assume Lukan priority and assert the liklihood that Matthew was dependent upon Mark (in addition to Luke) because Matthew includes Markan changes to Luke's order.

Or you could go with my theory.

It is difficult to evaluate for oneself the quality of an argument without familiarity with the actual data.

But you can evaluate their arguments and see which are the best. Usually, bad arguments are called out by other scholars and it appears that JPH has read a lot of scholars.

Not quite. Howard also agrees that the corruptions in the text make it certain that Shem Tov's text is not the original, but he tries to uncover indications that it dates back to an older independent Hebrew exemplar. And having uncovered those indications, he nonetheless does not assert that they demonstrate that that original Hebrew exemplar to the extent that it can be reconstructed was a basis for translation into Greek Matthew. The puns and aliteration simply do not carry the weight that you give them. They might indicate a certain style of the author or translator but they rarely make a strong case for translation.

Some like 11:8,10 , 12:13,15 and 12:24 suppose a one to one correspondence and not translators (King and messenger are very similar in Hebrew). There is also the fact that Matt 2:23 make more sense to a Hebrew reader (as an allusion to Isaiah 11:1) and the external testimony of Irenaeus etc who asserts that he wrote the gospel in Hebrew and adds some information about Rome. These combined with the fact that Matthew was likely bilingual (could a Jewish tax-collector not speak Greek and work?) and others left left no trace of Semitism when translating their material (though from Aramaic) eg Josephus suggest that the traditional idea of Matthew authoring the Gospel in Hebrew should not be abandoned.

For example, one of his examples of aliteration in Hebrew actually contains a greater degree of aliteration in the Greek.

Which one?

One looks for interference of the source language with the target language, but even when that is hypothesized, it is rarely decisive. Thus, Carmignac can argue that Mark was translated from Hebrew and Casey, using different examples, can argue that extensive sections of Mark were translated from Aramaic. They never rise beyond the level of hypotheses and neither of these hypothetical reconstructions have convinced many scholars.

It could be due to external evidence (Mark wasn't traditionally said to be written in Hebrew or Aramaic) but I do think Mark shows sign of Aramaic sources in his gospel.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I am going to guess that Biblical scholars have thought about it a bit more deeply than you give them credit for.

Well what reasons do they cite besides that one?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Joseph is here seems to be referring to works that he originally translated to Greek, but that have not survived. His three surviving works (Antiquities, Jewish War, and Against Apion) were all written after he went to Rome.

Yep he translated them to Greek yet, (according to Blomberg) left no linguistic clues of using Aramaic

[Outis]

Yep he translated them to Greek yet, (according to Blomberg) left no linguistic clues of using Aramaic

Josephus did not translate _The Jewish War_ by himself: see http://books.google.com/books?id=YVB...nts%22&f=false

[Quantum Weirdness]

Josephus did not translate _The Jewish War_ by himself: see http://books.google.com/books?id=YVB...nts%22&f=false

Cant read much on that book (Pg unavailable) Can you quote the relevant parts? What kind of help would he have received regarding the Aramaic?

In any case, Matt (according to his own gospel) was a tax collector and as Wallace notes:

Quote
"There are relatively few Semitic traces in Matthew, though one might note the heavy use of τότε (89 times), as compared with Mark (6) and Luke (15), perhaps harking back to the Hebrew אז.12 Beyond this, there is the occasional asyndeton (a mark of Aramaic influence), use of the indefinite plural it does betray traces of Semitisms at times If Matthew did write this gospel, one might not expect many Semitisms since Matthew was a tax-collector and would therefore have to be conversant in Greek as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. But the fact of some Semitisms suggests either that the writer was a Jew or that his sources were Semitic. Yet, some of these are so much a part of the fabric of his gospel (e.g., τότε) that it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew.
https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew...nt-and-outline

NB Wallace agrees with Q and Markan Priority and thus, disagrees with my theory but I think this is relevant since it suggests that there is some Semitic touch in the Gospel. There is also Matt 2:23 which is better explained by the Hebrew wordplay or Nazareth and branch (in Hebrew)

[Outis]

Cant read much on that book (Pg unavailable) Can you quote the relevant parts?

"And yet, so thorough was the aid given by Josephus' assistants that few Aramaisms or Hebraisms are evident behind the text of the 'War'. After composing the work in his ancestral language, Josephus then, with the help of his assistants, as he himself admits (Against Apion 1.50), translated it into Greek."

What kind of help would he have received regarding the Aramaic?

From _Contra Apion_ 1.8: "Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions." (In this case, "those transactions" refers to the assault and destruction of Judea and Jerusalem.)

So Josephus' assistants were language teachers--not just proficient in the regular usage of the language, but rhetoreticians (because, from other sources, we know that rhetoreticians commanded high prices, and Josephus was a member of the Emperor's household).

[Quantum Weirdness]

"And yet, so thorough was the aid given by Josephus' assistants that few Aramaisms or Hebraisms are evident behind the text of the 'War'. After composing the work in his ancestral language, Josephus then, with the help of his assistants, as he himself admits (Against Apion 1.50), translated it into Greek."

Do they give any examples of these Aramaisms or Hebraisms behind Josephus?

From _Contra Apion_ 1.8: "Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions." (In this case, "those transactions" refers to the assault and destruction of Judea and Jerusalem.)

So Josephus' assistants were language teachers--not just proficient in the regular usage of the language, but rhetoreticians (because, from other sources, we know that rhetoreticians commanded high prices, and Josephus was a member of the Emperor's household).

So Josephus learned Greek and translated them?

[Outis]

Do they give any examples of these Aramaisms or Hebraisms behind Josephus?

Not in that source.

So Josephus learned Greek and translated them?

According to the text, the assistants also helped translate. As they were teachers and "professional" speakers, one can safely assume that Hebraisms or Aramaicisms were greatly reduced. There's a reason for that: Josephus was writing to persuade a Greek-speaking audience, and at that time "barbarian" or "provincial" speech was looked down upon. Having more eyes (especially from people who make their living by their use of the language) would mean a far more professional translation than normal.