Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[Outis]

Point is that there is dependency and the one with the better Greek is considered to be the one used. That's all I was saying.

In this case, however, you are comparing apples with coconuts.

Really? It supposes a good authority behind it.

That's one of the classical fallacies: argumentum ab auctoritate, or "Argument by authority." To just say "So and so is an authority, therefore the argument is true." Wikipedia has a good introductory article on why it's a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

If I think an argument isn't good, even if it is by a scholar, I would reject it.

Here's an important question: what criteria do you use to evaluate an argument? What makes an argument "bad" or "good"?

I look at things from how they argue it (eg Wallace) and see if the logic holds. If it doesn't, then I reject it. I look more at the arguments and how they are presented. Although I will say that the scholarly consensus is by far towards Markan Priority and Q and against Matthean priority, I don't think that my position has ever been represented in debate and I don't think its because the theory is silly (I think it at least explains the data)

On a different note, Where does Miller misrepresent data?

One huge area: he makes much of the disintegration of the JEPD hypothesis, and thus argues for a unity of authorship[ for the Tanakh, while deliberately omitting that the reason the JEDP hypothesis has fallen apart is because the Tanakh has _far more_ than four sources. All of the scholarly sources that he uses clearly state the reason for the rejection of the JEDP hypothesis is that it was overly simplistic, yet he selectively cherry-picks the quotes to argue a completely different conclusion.

Were a gun put to my head, and were I then asked to evaluate Miller's honesty as an apologist, I could not in good conscience say that I felt he was anything but blatantly dishonest. As it is, I cannot tell if he is deliberately distorting the information from the sources he cites, or if he simply cannot accept the information that they present, or if he does not understand the information and thus grabs the "shiny bits" that sound like "good arguments" to him.

Why is that? I would think this is more the case regarding things like grammar, semantics etc.?

Because you don't understand Greek grammar or semantics, and therefore cannot evaluate if the argument is valid, or hogwash.

When it comes to QM, I (vaguely) understand that on the quantum scale, you cannot measure both the speed and the location of a quantum particle. I don't know why that is true, but somebody says it, so I have to just shrug and go on. QW, I say this with absolutely no insult to you, but you are even less qualified to discuss textual criticism than I am to discuss QM.

[shunyadragon]

Still doing well, all things considered. Thanks for asking.


One thing I like about TWEB, compared with most other apologetics forums I have seen, is how many of its Christian members give serious credence to real scholarship.

I agree and threads like this I read more then write. I have a lot of respect for robrecht, and follow him closely. I am often surprised at his patience and articulate responses with most posters. It is like attended a great class.

[robrecht]

Well if they are weak then..........
And I don't think that every argument from a historical or literary is necessarily weak.

Weak compared with physical sciences or axiomatic logical systems. But, yes, it's true, also in the humanities, that some things are more easily known than other things so there is a continuum. In the more difficult cases, informed judgment and reasonable speculation cannot be verified by replicated experimental method nor is it pure deductive reasoning. It oftentimes works something like this. A scholar weighs ambiguous evidence, humbly (sometimes) makes a judgment call based on experience, intuition, and common sense, and presents an informed opinion to be considered as one option among many other proposals. Then along comes a would be expert who takes one element of the scholar's reasoning and says, well that's not necessarily or always true, so I'm going to reject his whole opinion because I have found a gaping hole in his logic. But the scholar was not doing a geometry proof and never would have claimed that one element in his approach was axiomatic.

One thing again. Don't critical scholars suppose that 2 Peter (bad greek) is dependent on Jude (better Greek)?
If so, then I don't think it can be argued that Bad greek is a reason to suppose priority.

In and of itself, no. It is not an axiom upon which one can proceed with pure deductive reasoning. And, recall that I do not think Mark has 'bad Greek'. Some of the improvements that Matthew and Luke make are grammatical in nature or, in the case of Luke, more sophisticated vocabulary and syntax, but the more convincing improvements have to do with fixing something in the text that might seem problematic to them, eg, why would Jesus be baptized by John the Baptizer? Matthew creates a dialogue to deal with this issue. Luke and John even moreso minimize the focus of the narrative on the actual baptism. Or, Mark ends the narrative without a resurrection appearance, but all the subsequent gospels focus progressively more attention on actually narrating resurrection appearances. Mark has Jesus sit down in the Lake, meaning he sits down (in the boat which is) in the lake. Matthew makes it just a little bit clearer that Jesus sits down in the boat. In Mark, Jesus performs a healing with spittle in successive stages, others omit some such details or the whole story that some might find a little embarrassing or distracting. The disciples are incredibly dense at times in Mark, but rehabilitated somewhat in later accounts. Matthew makes a point of mentioning Jesus' healing ministry before people are brought to Jesus for him to heal them at the end of first Sabbath, spent at Peter's house in Capernaum, as in Mark. Contrast Mk 1,32.34 with Mt 4,23 8,14. There's so many little examples like these where the improvements always seems to make more sense in the direction of Matthew and/or Luke ameliorating Mark's presentation here or there. It's not just grammar, 'though sometimes it is, but more a matter of making things a little clearer or better that otherwise might be misunderstood or distracting.

Well Miller quotes Linnemann who is a scholar as far as I am aware.

But I am trying to encourage you to focus your attention on a comprehensive approach of a single scholar to make sure that you really understand their position and its strengths and weaknesses and then move to other positions, likewise with their own strengths and weaknesses. Don't just jump into the fray thinking you can find a logical error here or there, take arguments out of context, and come up with a supposedly better theory without first understanding who has gone down those roads before.

Well the positions that have been advanced so far for Matthean priority all have some good arguments against them. Wallace critiques the Neo-Griesbach hypothesis for instance.

Good, so accept that there are indeed weaknesses in Matthean priority positions. There are also better ways to investigate the strengths of some types of primitive Matthean material. Howard's approach is much more convincing than yours. It also has a fundamental weakness, as well as merits, but he is clearly aware of the weaknesses and therefore makes a good contribution by respecting the weakness. Mark Goodacre's approach to 'Matthean Q' also has very persuasive strengths. Maurice Casey as well has a good approach to hypothetical primitive Aramaic source material in Mark. He has a disciplined methodology to try and minimize the weaknesses of his approach.

ok then

The verbal agreement may have to do with the sayings of Jesus being preached in a consistent manner in Greek when the Church was evangelizing people and otherwise. I would also think that Peter would have had influence.

But one must account for agreement and disagreement in the way that Matthew and Luke deal with the double tradition.

Yeah but I think it is easier to learn about literary criticism than go into QM (Which is very weird, hence my name)

And it is even easier to do it well if you learn the languages of the literature you would like to study.

Ok it doesn't appear to him to be a translation but a rewriting of the text (Similar to that of Josephus according to him). This does make sense, however. The texts seem related and Matt would have taken the structure of the Hebrew and reworked it. Some of the puns in George Howard's text seem to correspond to the Greek which is why I thought it to be a translation.

A more plausible approach that takes into account the strengths of the two source consensus would go something like this. 'Matthew's community inherited logia material which it translated into Greek and added it to Mark's Greek text, which was revised in the process. At some point a Hebrew translation was made of this combination. Which came first, the Hebrew version of Matthew or the Greek version? Both, in some sense, but the Hebrew text continued to be modified within the first few centuries, which accounts for the clearly secondary character of patristic quotes from the Gospel Matthew in Hebrew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Nazoreans, and of the Ebionites. Howard draws attention to some of the primitive elements of the Shem Tov's Medieval version, but there are also primitive elements that are not well accounted for by the continuing assimilation to the standard Greek and Latin texts of Matthew. I noted a couple of Greek loan words in Hebrew script that also could point toward the Hebrew being a translation from the Greek text. Howard may not draw attention to these, but I'm sure he saw them as well, which well explains his reserve.

Yep his source would have the pun. Ok but I do think that it makes more sense for him to write it in Hebrew (because it makes more sense in the Hebrew language) although I will say that the argument is a bit weaker.

It only implies he (and at least some in his community) were aware of the Hebrew text of Isaiah. It does not necessarily imply that Mt 2,23 was originally composed in Hebrew.

Eusebius however, would have known the context of Papias' statements. Irenaeus apparently heard Papias preach as well (although he was a child to be fair). If Matthew was originally written in Greek, then it is indeed strange that there was no alternate tradition that survived about Matthew and all that we have supposes that Matt wrote something in Hebrew. The later authors identify this with the Gospel and Papias is ambiguous. Given that Eusebius would have known the context of Papias' statements and Irenaeus heard Papias preach (though he was a child) and no alternative tradition survived in the church, I think that it is likely that Papias was referencing the Gospel.

Many scholars do not agree with you. You should wonder why.

[robrecht]

I couldn't transliterate it. And yeah, it was an alliteration. This pun certainly isn't evidence of much (although the Hebrew seems to connect measured and judged while the Greek doesn't)

Learn Greek and you will see the Greek alliteration that you missed.

The Markan Aramaic would have come from Peter.

It could have come from many sources. Learn the method that Casey employs for a disciplined approach to this.

[robrecht]

I agree and threads like this I read more then write. I have a lot of respect for robrecht, and follow him closely. I am often surprised at his patience and articulate responses with most posters. It is like attended a great class.

Thanks for the kind words, Frank!

[OingoBoingo]

In this case, however, you are comparing apples with coconuts.

You're nitpicking. QW's overall point that poor text does not necessarily precede better text gets across.

That's one of the classical fallacies: argumentum ab auctoritate, or "Argument by authority." To just say "So and so is an authority, therefore the argument is true." Wikipedia has a good introductory article on why it's a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

The Wikipedia article doesn't appear to be very good. Here, check out the peer reviewed academic resource, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority

One huge area: he makes much of the disintegration of the JEPD hypothesis, and thus argues for a unity of authorship[ for the Tanakh, while deliberately omitting that the reason the JEDP hypothesis has fallen apart is because the Tanakh has _far more_ than four sources. All of the scholarly sources that he uses clearly state the reason for the rejection of the JEDP hypothesis is that it was overly simplistic, yet he selectively cherry-picks the quotes to argue a completely different conclusion.

Were a gun put to my head, and were I then asked to evaluate Miller's honesty as an apologist, I could not in good conscience say that I felt he was anything but blatantly dishonest. As it is, I cannot tell if he is deliberately distorting the information from the sources he cites, or if he simply cannot accept the information that they present, or if he does not understand the information and thus grabs the "shiny bits" that sound like "good arguments" to him.

I haven't read the article in question, but its not uncommon for even professionals to utilize other expert's arguments to come to different conclusions. For example, Mark Goodacre doesn't believe in Q, but it wouldn't be odd for him to use some of the arguments of those who do believe in Q to support certain aspects of his own theory.

Because you don't understand Greek grammar or semantics, and therefore cannot evaluate if the argument is valid, or hogwash.

Couldn't a little leeway be given for a discussion forum for laymen?

[Outis]

You're nitpicking. QW's overall point that poor text does not necessarily precede better text is decent.

His point is along the lines of "a broken clock can be right, but only twice a day." Arguments _must_ be evaluated by looking at the foundational logic for the arguments. If the argument is correct, but the foundational logic is wrong, then the argument, though technically correct, is bogus. (More to the point, he's trying to use the foundational logic to apply to other issues.)

The Wikipedia article doesn't appear to be very good.

It gets the point across, which was sufficient.

I haven't read the article in question, but its not uncommon for even professionals to utilize other expert's arguments to come to different conclusions.

There's a radical (and rather obvious) difference between "coming to different conclusions" and cherry-picking.

Couldn't a little leeway be given for a discussion forum for laymen.

If the argument depends upon technical knowledge, you must possess that technical knowledge. I cannot critique arguments regarding quantum physics based on my gut feeling that it doesn't make sense. I have to address the arguments that are already there--and if I don't have the fundamental knowledge required to do so, I don't have the ability to address the argument.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Weak compared with physical sciences or axiomatic logical systems. But, yes, it's true, also in the humanities, that some things are more easily known than other things so there is a continuum. In the more difficult cases, informed judgment and reasonable speculation cannot be verified by replicated experimental method nor is it pure deductive reasoning. It oftentimes works something like this. A scholar weighs ambiguous evidence, humbly (sometimes) makes a judgment call based on experience, intuition, and common sense, and presents an informed opinion to be considered as one option among many other proposals. Then along comes a would be expert who takes one element of the scholar's reasoning and says, well that's not necessarily or always true, so I'm going to reject his whole opinion because I have found a gaping hole in his logic. But the scholar was not doing a geometry proof and never would have claimed that one element in his approach was axiomatic.

Ok but it is somewhat subjective?

In and of itself, no. It is not an axiom upon which one can proceed with pure deductive reasoning. And, recall that I do not think Mark has 'bad Greek'. Some of the improvements that Matthew and Luke make are grammatical in nature or, in the case of Luke, more sophisticated vocabulary and syntax, but the more convincing improvements have to do with fixing something in the text that might seem problematic to them, eg, why would Jesus be baptized by John the Baptizer? Matthew creates a dialogue to deal with this issue. Luke and John even moreso minimize the focus of the narrative on the actual baptism. Or, Mark ends the narrative without a resurrection appearance, but all the subsequent gospels focus progressively more attention on actually narrating resurrection appearances. Mark has Jesus sit down in the Lake, meaning he sits down (in the boat which is) in the lake. Matthew makes it just a little bit clearer that Jesus sits down in the boat. In Mark, Jesus performs a healing with spittle in successive stages, others omit some such details or the whole story that some might find a little embarrassing or distracting. The disciples are incredibly dense at times in Mark, but rehabilitated somewhat in later accounts. Matthew makes a point of mentioning Jesus' healing ministry before people are brought to Jesus for him to heal them at the end of first Sabbath, spent at Peter's house in Capernaum, as in Mark. Contrast Mk 1,32.34 with Mt 4,23 8,14. There's so many little examples like these where the improvements always seems to make more sense in the direction of Matthew and/or Luke ameliorating Mark's presentation here or there. It's not just grammar, 'though sometimes it is, but more a matter of making things a little clearer or better that otherwise might be misunderstood or distracting.

So why did Mark write these things? I ask because I want to see if your explanation is compatible with my theory.

But I am trying to encourage you to focus your attention on a comprehensive approach of a single scholar to make sure that you really understand their position and its strengths and weaknesses and then move to other positions, likewise with their own strengths and weaknesses. Don't just jump into the fray thinking you can find a logical error here or there, take arguments out of context, and come up with a supposedly better theory without first understanding who has gone down those roads before.

Linnemann's argument is that there isn't a synoptic problem (see here http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/q_linnemann.pdf)

There is also this paper.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8h.pdf

While Yarborough sides with Cervin on the issue of stats, there is some data that supports Lindemann.
Read from pg 31-33 Although there is a critique of her methodology as well as that of other scholars. (For some reason, I cant copy and paste it)

Good, so accept that there are indeed weaknesses in Matthean priority positions. There are also better ways to investigate the strengths of some types of primitive Matthean material. Howard's approach is much more convincing than yours. It also has a fundamental weakness, as well as merits, but he is clearly aware of the weaknesses and therefore makes a good contribution by respecting the weakness. Mark Goodacre's approach to 'Matthean Q' also has very persuasive strengths. Maurice Casey as well has a good approach to hypothetical primitive Aramaic source material in Mark. He has a disciplined methodology to try and minimize the weaknesses of his approach.

I accept that there are weaknesses in those proposed but I don't think mine has been. The closest to mine is the Augustinian hypothesis but it's weakness is that Mark would have used Matthew more directly than I argue (Mark may have read Matt in my view a couple of times being Peter's assistant and would have taken some things from it but mainly depended on Peter's preaching)

But one must account for agreement and disagreement in the way that Matthew and Luke deal with the double tradition.

Luke used different sources?

And it is even easier to do it well if you learn the languages of the literature you would like to study.

Yeah

A more plausible approach that takes into account the strengths of the two source consensus would go something like this. 'Matthew's community inherited logia material which it translated into Greek and added it to Mark's Greek text, which was revised in the process. At some point a Hebrew translation was made of this combination. Which came first, the Hebrew version of Matthew or the Greek version? Both, in some sense, but the Hebrew text continued to be modified within the first few centuries, which accounts for the clearly secondary character of patristic quotes from the Gospel Matthew in Hebrew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Nazoreans, and of the Ebionites. Howard draws attention to some of the primitive elements of the Shem Tov's Medieval version, but there are also primitive elements that are not well accounted for by the continuing assimilation to the standard Greek and Latin texts of Matthew. I noted a couple of Greek loan words in Hebrew script that also could point toward the Hebrew being a translation from the Greek text. Howard may not draw attention to these, but I'm sure he saw them as well, which well explains his reserve.

Are they technical terminology?
I think that Matthew was written by Matthew, not a Matthean community.

It only implies he (and at least some in his community) were aware of the Hebrew text of Isaiah. It does not necessarily imply that Mt 2,23 was originally composed in Hebrew.

It makes more sense if it was written in Hebrew though ( I consider this argument to be much weaker now). On the (modified) hypothesis anyways, you wouldn't expect much evidence from Matthew himself that he wrote it in Hebrew (like Josephus with Aramaic). You could get some puns but beyond that, not much. Only external testimony (or testimony from the author himself) would be expected.

Many scholars do not agree with you. You should wonder why.

I do. I think because it hasn't been proposed in the way that I do propose it.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Learn Greek and you will see the Greek alliteration that you missed.

It could have come from many sources. Learn the method that Casey employs for a disciplined approach to this.

[robrecht]

Learn Aramaic and read his books. It's that simple.

[Quantum Weirdness]

His point is along the lines of "a broken clock can be right, but only twice a day." Arguments _must_ be evaluated by looking at the foundational logic for the arguments. If the argument is correct, but the foundational logic is wrong, then the argument, though technically correct, is bogus. (More to the point, he's trying to use the foundational logic to apply to other issues.)

I don't dispute Wallace's technical data. What I dispute is the conclusion of Markan priority. For example, I don't dispute that redundancies exist in Mark. What I dispute is the conclusion he gets from them.

It gets the point across, which was sufficient.

An argument from authority is where the authority is not relevant. Linnemann is.

There's a radical (and rather obvious) difference between "coming to different conclusions" and cherry-picking.

Miller doesn't exactly say that. He, after all, quotes their views better by showing more of what they say (although he doesn't bold them). He's just saying that the documentary hypothesis is more or less, dying out.

If the argument depends upon technical knowledge, you must possess that technical knowledge. I cannot critique arguments regarding quantum physics based on my gut feeling that it doesn't make sense. I have to address the arguments that are already there--and if I don't have the fundamental knowledge required to do so, I don't have the ability to address the argument.

It doesn't depend on technical knowledge.

[robrecht]

Ok but it is somewhat subjective?

Yes.

So why did Mark write these things? I ask because I want to see if your explanation is compatible with my theory.

Mark was a very gifted writer, with wonderful material. He probably had a fair amount of literary training. His grammar was competent and his vocabulary vast, probably a native Greek speaker or Greek was at least an early second language. He thought about the plan of his narrative before he started writing and executed it according to his plan. Minor issues that Matthew and Luke address are typically the kinds of things that a writer himself would correct, if he noticed them, in a second or third draft. And copyists some of these changes probably as soon as the work began to be copied. No writer is perfect. Sometimes I look at something I've written and I think--who wrote that! Whenever I take the time to rethink and rearrange the most important ideas and build upon ideas, my second draft is always much, much better. A third draft would be better still if I had enough patience to do so, but I usually do not have the patience for even a second draft.

Linnemann's argument is that there isn't a synoptic problem

Most every scholar would disagree! I'll take a look at your links when time permits, but right now my wife is preparing a special Valentine's Day Dinner.

Luke used different sources?

Yes.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Learn Aramaic and read his books. It's that simple.

And how am I supposed to get his books? I don't have a job or anything so I cant buy them and I doubt my parents would buy me them now. (if they are available)

[Outis]

I don't dispute Wallace's technical data. What I dispute is the conclusion of Markan priority. For example, I don't dispute that redundancies exist in Mark. What I dispute is the conclusion he gets from them.

You dispute them--well and good. But to refute them, you must construct a hypothesis that has equal or better explanatory power for ALL the evidence--including the double and triple tradition. To do so without any knowledge of the Greek would be, in my estimation, about as difficult as refuting QM without the math.

An argument from authority is where the authority is not relevant. Linnemann is.

Not in this case. Linnemann rejects the synoptic problem without solving it by stating that it doesn't exist, a position that (as robrecht notes) is nearly universally rejected. Her rejection is not based in evidence, but in faith and a rejection of evidence-based scholarship, which she largely demonizes.

Miller doesn't exactly say that. He, after all, quotes their views better by showing more of what they say (although he doesn't bold them). He's just saying that the documentary hypothesis is more or less, dying out.

Miller makes clear in other articles (using this information as "evidence") that the documentary hypothesis is dying out because Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That is ... well, it's not honest.

It doesn't depend on technical knowledge.

The synoptic problem does not depend upon technical knowledge? QW, That's not a rebuttal--that's nothing more than handwaving the problem away.

At this point, in all reality, the simplest thing for you to do is to put these questions from your mind completely. I do not mean that as an insult. Once you start digging into the evidence, you will be forced to deny or ignore the evidence that does not support your views (one form of intellectual dishonesty), or you will shatter your own faith once you finally understand what the evidence is, and what it actually indicates.

There's nothing wrong with refusing to delve into a situation that requires scholarly inquiry, especially when you lack the specialized knowledge that is quite necessary. If you do so, you will most likely live a long, happy life as a Christian. But I beg you, with all sincerity, to simply take your views as a statement of faith, and do not attempt to persuade people that your views are supported by the evidence.

As for me, I will not discuss this question with you any further. Again, I do not mean that as an insult, but I will not take part in you destroying your faith.

[robrecht]

Linnemann's argument is that there isn't a synoptic problem (see here http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/q_linnemann.pdf)

As I said above, the overwhelming majority of scholars would disagree. In your link, Eta merely mentions her view that there is no synoptic problem and footnotes her earlier book. If you want to understand her argument, you should read that book. With respect to this article on Q, Eta is not quite right about Papias using the words τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα in parallel with τὰ λόγια

There is also this paper.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj8h.pdf

While Yarborough sides with Cervin on the issue of stats, there is some data that supports Lindemann.

Linnemann.

Read from pg 31-33 Although there is a critique of her methodology as well as that of other scholars. (For some reason, I cant copy and paste it)

I accept that there are weaknesses in those proposed but I don't think mine has been. The closest to mine is the Augustinian hypothesis but it's weakness is that Mark would have used Matthew more directly than I argue (Mark may have read Matt in my view a couple of times being Peter's assistant and would have taken some things from it but mainly depended on Peter's preaching)

That would probably not account for the extent of verbal agreement between Mark and Matthew. Are you assuming that Peter also knew Greek well or do you think he could only read aloud what Matthew had written? Why do you suppose that Peter and then Mark left out so much material from Jesus' long discourses in Matthew? Was Peter less interested in what Jesus taught? For example, did he not care for the beatitudes or the Lord's prayer?

Are they technical terminology?

Yes, eg, קריסטוס for Χριστός and מאוונגיילייו for εὐαγγέλιον.

I think that Matthew was written by Matthew, not a Matthean community.

I don't think the gospel was written by a community, but nor do I think it was the Apostle Matthew. An early version of a Q sayings source in Aramaic or Hebrew could date back to Matthew, which is what Papias seems to say. Matthew might have founded or visited the community where the Q source was first written down or where it was eventually translated into Greek. This is all wildly hypothetical, and therefore not the subject of disciplined scholarship, but such would also account for the tradition quoted by Papias sometime in the early 2nd century. And note that Eusebius did not consider Papias to be that reliable but rather gullible for mythical material. There's just no way of knowing these things in this life, but I look forward to some very interesting conversations in the world to come. I will ask all the evangelists for their autographs.

It makes more sense if it was written in Hebrew though ( I consider this argument to be much weaker now). On the (modified) hypothesis anyways, you wouldn't expect much evidence from Matthew himself that he wrote it in Hebrew (like Josephus with Aramaic). You could get some puns but beyond that, not much. Only external testimony (or testimony from the author himself) would be expected.

I do. I think because it hasn't been proposed in the way that I do propose it.

There are very good reasons why it has not been proposed in the way you propose it. And you have not made a good case for why anyone should believe your theories. I do not mean any offense by this, but do you seriously believe that the worldwide body of New Testament scholars have been waiting for the past few centuries for you to come up with your theory?