Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[Outis]

One more thing I would like to note Outis. There was still a translation of Aramaic material (War) to Greek which left little linguistic evidence of translation regardless of whether or not it was translated by more than one person.

Translated, as I noted before, by professional users of the language--folks who made their living by being eloquent in an environment where a provincial accent or vocabulary would destroy any attempt to persuade. I simply cannot accept it as a straight translation without re-working.

On the other hand, it must be noted that _if_ there was an Aramaic original, it was lost after only one translation--ALL texts that are dependent upon Matthew (which includes a considerable body of the work of the "early fathers") use the Greek as a source. None used any putative Aramaic source.

But as I said, I'm not attempting to persuade. Simply noting the evidence.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Translated, as I noted before, by professional users of the language--folks who made their living by being eloquent in an environment where a provincial accent or vocabulary would destroy any attempt to persuade. I simply cannot accept it as a straight translation without re-working.

Point remains that there is a translation from Aramaic to Greek with little linguistic clues as to the origin. And Matthew probably had good Greek as well according to Wallace:
Quote
"The high quality of the Greek is hardly an argument against Matthean authorship, for Matthew would have to have known both Aramaic and Greek in order to collect taxes from the Jews and work for the Romans. Further, there is a growing consensus that Galilee of the first century was thoroughly bilingual—so much so that Greek was probably the native tongue of most Jews.
https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew...nt-and-outline
So I don't see this argument as having much weight since Matt was likely a bilingual and would be able to translate quite well.

On the other hand, it must be noted that _if_ there was an Aramaic original, it was lost after only one translation--ALL texts that are dependent upon Matthew (which includes a considerable body of the work of the "early fathers") use the Greek as a source. None used any putative Aramaic source.

I don't know about lost (Jerome claims to have translated Hebrew Matthew and Eusebius claims that someone around 180C.E went to India and people there knew about Hebrew Matthew) but this is to be expected somewhat. Greek was more or less, the language of the Empire. Once a translation was made, this was more likely to be copied for usage as compared to the Hebrew.

[Doug Shaver]

This has been covered numerous times in the old Tweb.

Evidently, it has not been covered persuasively.

The Christians here were not persuaded, if that's what you mean.

[Outis]

The Christians here were not persuaded, if that's what you mean.

Seems to be quite a bit of that on both sides around here. Both parties are thoroughly entrenched. Neither side listens to the other. Many in both parties seem to have a great deal of disrespect for those they do not agree with. I wonder if I've entered the internet equivalent of Congress.

[Doug Shaver]

Seems to be quite a bit of that on both sides around here. Both parties are thoroughly entrenched.

I have no argument with that.

Neither side listens to the other. Many in both parties seem to have a great deal of disrespect for those they do not agree with.

In general, yes, but I think I've noticed an occasional exception.

I wonder if I've entered the internet equivalent of Congress

There does seem to be a current similarity. I've been hanging around the Internet for almost 15 years, and forums like this seem to have always been this way. Congress has not always been this way, or so I've heard from people who have been there a long time.

[robrecht]

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

Pretty much all arguments used in the humanities are weak. History and literary analysis are not hard science, nor are they axiomatic disciplines that follow pure logic or deductive reasoning. That's just the way it is. It takes experience and judgment to fallibly weigh evidence, hypotheses, arguments, and interpretations. The more experience and mature judgment, the better. If you want to know which arguments Sanders and Davies personally consider stronger, simply read their book and report back. Otherwise, you’re just picking one statement out of context and ignoring the scholarly context that you do not want to agree with.

Or you could go with my theory.

Please do not take offense, but you have not made a good case. That's not your fault, of course. If there were a strong case to be made for your position, it would have been made and more scholars would be convinced and adopt this position.

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.

He has not read some of the most important scholars in this area. And he does not seem to have the training, skills, and experience to develop the necessary judgment to evaluate the arguments properly. For example, he 'parts ways with Kloppenborg in his assertion that Q had to be in Greek because he offers no justification for this.' Anyone who can read a synopsis in Greek would already know that Kloppenborg need not present a justification for this assertion. If I were to review many scientific articles on quantum mechanics or genetics and attempt to formulate arguments for a position or theory of my own or defend a discredited theory it would be so obvious to anyone trained in this area that I was way out of my depth, that I was obviously not properly grasping nuances and ignoring fundamentals in which I did not have proper training.

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).

You are still missing the point. You think these are strong arguments for your position, but they are not. You're taking these arguments from someone else who knows full well that they do not prove what you think they prove and therefore does not hold your position. Again, taking arguments out of context is not advised unless you present truly good reasons for why you reject the conclusions of the person who made the arguments in the first place. Mt 11,8.12 12,24 are irrelevant to the question of Matthean priority and translation because it is part of the double tradition. Mt 12,13.15 are irrelevant to the question of Matthean priority and translation because the verb in question is identical in Matthew and Mark. Obviously, this is, in part, why Howard does not feel his findings can have an impact on the synoptic problem.

There is also the fact that Matt 2:23 make more sense to a Hebrew reader (as an allusion to Isaiah 11:1) ...

Yes, this could be a pun based on a (purposeful?) misunderstanding of the Hebrew text, but does it prove Matthew wrote in Hebrew or merely that he was able to read some Hebrew? Was this play on words original to Matthew? We know that prior to Matthew Paul had already applied this verse to Jesus (Rom 15,12) and other Christian groups also used this verse (Rev 5,5). Was the Greek version of Matthew a translation of this lost Hebrew version, vice versa, or did one merely serve as a literary model for the other, and which one? Howard wisely does not believe that his arguments can answer these questions. But all of these suppositions are completely irrelevant to the synoptic problem because this is special Matthean material and not double or triple tradition.

… and the external testimony of Irenaeus etc who asserts that he wrote the gospel in Hebrew and adds some information about Rome.

Irenaeus is merely dependent upon Papias, who very well may have been referring to a sayings source and not the gospel of Matthew that we have now.

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.

I have no objection to the idea that ‘Matthew’ might have been bilingual. The rest of your argument here seems somewhat confused. You seem to argue that the presence of Hebraisms argue for Matthew Greek being a translation from Matthew Hebrew but then also bring in the lack of Aramaiisms in the Greek version the Jewish War by Josephus.

Which one?

Mt 7,2

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.

So now you add yet another hypothetical element into your theory. Mark was indirectly (through Peter) dependent on Matthew Greek but Mark also relied on Aramaic sources. What parts of Mark do you think were dependent upon Aramaic sources?

[robrecht]

The Christians here were not persuaded, if that's what you mean.

Hey, Doug. How have you been? Plenty of Christians embrace historico-critical and literary methods in studying the bible and have no difficulty whatsoever dating the gospels post 70 CE. But plenty do not, that's true too.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Hi, Quantum Weirdness. I’m travelling on business and I will not have time to address all your verse examples for several days, but I can give you some initial thoughts.

Pretty much all arguments used in the humanities are weak. It is not hard science, nor is it axiomatic following pure logic. That's just the way it is. It takes experience and judgment to fallibly weigh evidence, hypotheses, arguments, and interpretations. The more experience and mature judgment, the better. If you want to know which arguments they personally consider stronger arguments, simply read their book and report back. Otherwise, you’re just picking one statement out of context and ignoring the scholarly context that you do not want to agree with.

It will be nice talking with you when you are ready.
So they why bother with them if they are weak? I'm not so sure I can get the book. But from what I've seen from Wallace:

-The argument from shortness is also explained by Mark remembering some of the Gospel of Matt and information from Peter
-colloquialisms and poor grammar are explained by literary style and Petrine influence. The Petrine influence accounts for the Aramaisms in Mark.
-Harder readings are explained by literary style (are they really harder?)
-The Lack of Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark is explained by Mark using Matt (though Peter) and Luke using Mark as one of his sources.
-I'll refer to Linnemann here
Quote:
"In sum, for the entire Gospel of Matthew, the common narrative sequence-according to the actual count of sections-is less than half."

""Anyone who champions the view that Mathew and Luke used Mark's narrative thread as their basis must answer the questions: why did the original authors not follow Mark's account in between 25 percent and 30 percent of the sections of the original narrative order? Is it possible to maintain that Mark furnished the framework for Matthew and Luke when in Matthew the sections reflecting common narrative sequence with Mark amount to only 48.88 percent, in Luke only 43.55 percent?"
http://www.christianthinktank.com/litdep2.html
The order is also explained by Mark using Matt (though Peter) and Luke using Mark as one of his sources. (as above)
-Can you explain the argument from Literary agreements? I cant make it out from the little Wallace says from it.
-Matthew uses the term "Son of David" because his is a gospel primarily to the Jews (who would have valued the title more). Mark uses it less because he is writing to more Gentile Christians than Jews
For fulfillment motif, Mark uses different formulae because people write things in their own style.
For the words "Immediately" and "For", this is explained by Mark being influenced by Matthew and his own literary style
For the Historical present argument, this is explained by literary style.
-Primitive theology? Really? Isnt it likely that literary style and audience played a part here?

You do not make a good case. If there were a strong case for your position, more scholars would be convinced and adopt this position.

Have they ever heard of my position (specifically my way of Matthew being the first gospel)

He has not read some of the most important scholars in this area. And he does not seem to have the training, skills, and experience to develop the necessary judgment to evaluate the arguments properly. For example, he 'parts ways with Kloppenborg in his assertion that Q had to be in Greek because he offers no justification for this.' Anyone who can read a synopsis in Greek would already know that Kloppenborg need not present a justification for this assertion. If I were to review scientific articles on quantum mechanics or genetics and attempt to formulate arguments for a position or theory of my own, or defend a discredited theory it would be so obvious to anyone trained in this area that I was way out of my depth, that I was obviously not properly grasping nuances and ignoring fundamentals in which I did not have any training.

You should probably talk over this with JPH. He would probably defend himself better than I can. Anyways, why does Q have to be Greek? (if it existed) Isnt it just a sayings list that Matt and Luke (supposedly) used? Orality was important and that would have influenced translation as well.
Is this as complicated as QM or genetics?

You are still missing the point. You think these are strong arguments for your position, but they are not. You're taking these arguments from someone else who knows full well that they do not prove what you think they prove and therefore does not hold your position. Again, taking arguments out of context is not advised unless you present truly good reasons for why you reject the conclusions of the person who made the arguments in the first place. I will take a look at these verses when time permits.

I'm making an inference from his data. He thinks that one served as a model for the other and in light of direct correspondence (a fair bit) of the Hebrew to the Greek, I think Matt freely translated the Hebrew into the Greek and added some editorial material (perhaps non-direct translations but I am not so sure about this)

Yes, this could be a pun based on a (purposeful?) misunderstanding of the Hebrew text, but does it prove Matthew wrote in Hebrew or merely that he was able to read some Hebrew? Was this play on words original to Matthew? We know that prior to Matthew Paul had already applied this verse to Jesus (Rom 15,12) and other Christian groups also used this verse (Rev 5,5). Was the Greek version of Matthew a translation of this lost Hebrew version, vice versa, or did one merely serve as a literary model for the other, and which one? Howard wisely does not believe that his arguments can answer these questions. But all of these suppositions are completely irrelevant to the synoptic problem because this is special Matthean material and not double or triple tradition.

What's the point for his intended audience who wouldn't catch the pun in Greek? Yeah we know that St. Paul and St. John applied the concept of the branch to him but there is no pun to catch in those verses and it isn't required for it to be in Hebrew for a person to catch the allusion there. To catch the pun, it would have to be written in Hebrew.
I'm discussing authorship of Matthew, not the double or triple tradition.

Irenaeus is merely dependent upon Papias, who very well may have been referring to a sayings source and not the gospel of Matthew that we have now.

Irenaeus adds extra information (such as the time period of the writing) and leaves out the part about the "oracles" so I don't think he is "merely dependent on Papias". Besides, this seems to assert that Irenaeus operated in something akin to a vacuum without input from others. And Eusebius cites Papias in the context of the origin of Matt's gospel. I think Eusebius would have known the context better than us.

I have no objection to the idea that ‘Matthew’ might have been bilingual. The rest of your argument here seems somewhat confused. You seem to argue that the presence of Hebraisms argue for Matthew Greek being a translation from Matthew Hebrew but then also bring in the lack of Aramaiisms in the Greek version the Jewish War by Josephus.

The argument was that even if Matt showed no signs of being translated into Greek, it would still not be conclusive that it was originally written in Greek

Mt 7,2

I checked the Hebrew version and the Greek. You're right about there being a pun in the Greek but I don't think it is stronger than the Hebrew

Transliteration of Hebrew
din tidonu uv'eze midah tamodu y moded lakhem (from his text)
din and tidonu sound similar
tidonu and tamodu sound similar
midah and tamodu and moded sound similar

Greek

Matthew 7:2 - WH – εν ω γαρ κριματι κρινετε (5719) κριθησεσθε (5701) και εν ω μετρω μετρειτε (5719) μετρηθησεται (5701) υμιν
(Sorry I couldn't transliterate)

The way Matt 7:2 is structured, it would be a pun in most languages. (By the judgment you judge you will be judged and by the measure you measure you will be measured?). What's interesting is that the Hebrew connects tidonu (judged) and tamodo (measured) while the Greek doesn't have this connection (krino and meteros or variants thereof). I don't think the Greek is stronger than the Hebrew.

So now you add yet another hypothetical element into your theory. Mark was indirectly (through Peter) dependent on Matthew Greek but Mark also relied on Aramaic sources. What parts of Mark do you think were dependent upon Aramaic sources?

The parts where Jesus talked I think.

[robrecht]

It will be nice talking with you when you are ready.

Unfortunately for me, but lucky for you, my flight was canceled and I had some extra time and already completed my response to you before you responded so you should take a look at my augmented response above.

So they why bother with them if they are weak?

Why not? The alternative would be not to engage in any historical or literary enquiry at all. I think God gave us intelligence for us to use it for his glory.

I'm not so sure I can get the book. But from what I've seen from Wallace:

-The argument from shortness is also explained by Mark remembering some of the Gospel of Matt and information from Peter
-colloquialisms and poor grammar are explained by literary style and Petrine influence. The Petrine influence accounts for the Aramaisms in Mark.
-Harder readings are explained by literary style (are they really harder?)
-The Lack of Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark is explained by Mark using Matt (though Peter) and Luke using Mark as one of his sources.
-I'll refer to Linnemann here
Quote:
"In sum, for the entire Gospel of Matthew, the common narrative sequence-according to the actual count of sections-is less than half."

""Anyone who champions the view that Mathew and Luke used Mark's narrative thread as their basis must answer the questions: why did the original authors not follow Mark's account in between 25 percent and 30 percent of the sections of the original narrative order? Is it possible to maintain that Mark furnished the framework for Matthew and Luke when in Matthew the sections reflecting common narrative sequence with Mark amount to only 48.88 percent, in Luke only 43.55 percent?"
http://www.christianthinktank.com/litdep2.html
The order is also explained by Mark using Matt (though Peter) and Luke using Mark as one of his sources. (as above)
-Can you explain the argument from Literary agreements? I cant make it out from the little Wallace says from it.
-Matthew uses the term "Son of David" because his is a gospel primarily to the Jews (who would have valued the title more). Mark uses it less because he is writing to more Gentile Christians than Jews
For fulfillment motif, Mark uses different formulae because people write things in their own style.
For the words "Immediately" and "For", this is explained by Mark being influenced by Matthew and his own literary style
For the Historical present argument, this is explained by literary style.
-Primitive theology? Really? Isnt it likely that literary style and audience played a part here?

It seems like you've misunderstood the point Wallace was making. Do you have a link to his treatment so I can verify. I suggest we start there. The jumble of quotes from Glenn Miller is confusing and he is not a NT scholar, but an IT executive. If you want to discuss one issue at a time from him, I would be willing to do so, but I strongly suggest that you start with one good scholar, learn what you need to really understand his or her position, and only then begin to weigh the criticisms. The very best, relatively brief treatment of the synoptic problem is an entry by Frans Neirynck in the 2nd edition of the Jerome Biblical Commentary. If there is an academic or theology library near you, they should have it. It might be a little bit too advanced for you at first, but I am willing to help you master it first and that would be my recommendation.

Have they ever heard of my position (specifically my way of Matthew being the first gospel)

The basic position of Matthew or Matthew Hebrew being the first gospel is known, was once mandated by the Catholic church, but has not been successful in gaining adherence from scholars. Your particular twist on this basic position is a more implausible in my opinion and I have never heard of anyone who defends it exactly.

You should probably talk over this with JPH. He would probably defend himself better than I can.

From the very little I've seen of his interactions, he does not seem to be a very pleasant person. If he wants to engage me, I will try to help in Christian charity, but I really have no need to understand his position better.

Anyways, why does Q have to be Greek? (if it existed) Isnt it just a sayings list that Matt and Luke (supposedly) used? Orality was important and that would have influenced translation as well.

Parts of Q have extreme Greek verbal agreement that cannot be explained by independent translations of Aramaic or Hebrew. Such extreme verbal agreement of a common oral tradition is also very unlikely. If you posit an oral culture maintaining such extreme verbal agreement of an authoritative tradition, then it becomes very difficult to understand why other parts of Q were used very differently by Matthew and Luke with very little verbal agreement. [/quote]

Is this as complicated as QM or genetics?

Yes and no. Personally, I don't think it is as difficult but I've studied and read Greek for some 35 years, not to mention Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and a smattering of a few other ancient languages. All of the best scholars who discuss these issues on a scholarly level have comparable training and even more intense experience studying and debating these specialized issues. If you were to ask Werner Heisenberg to interact in this scholarly discipline, he would be the first to recognize the need for some training and experience.

I'm making an inference from his data. He thinks that one served as a model for the other and in light of direct correspondence (a fair bit) of the Hebrew to the Greek, I think Matt freely translated the Hebrew into the Greek and added some editorial material (perhaps non-direct translations but I am not so sure about this)

While you feel justified in making this inference, he knows that he cannot defend such an inference.

What's the point for his intended audience who wouldn't catch the pun in Greek? Yeah we know that St. Paul and St. John applied the concept of the branch to him but there is no pun to catch in those verses and it isn't required for it to be in Hebrew for a person to catch the allusion there. To catch the pun, it would have to be written in Hebrew.
I'm discussing authorship of Matthew, not the double or triple tradition.

Most pepole would assume that within 'Matthew's' community, there would be accumulated tradition and experience so that the background of this allusion would be understood, at least by some. Certainly 'Matthew' would be able to explain it to anyone who wanted to understand it better. But first it would be true for Matthew or his source(s) and that is all that is required for such a pun to originate. You don't realize it but you are indeed discussing double, triple, and special traditions, not to mention redaction. This is one of the reasons why it would be helpful for you to first master an introductory approach to these issues.

Irenaeus adds extra information (such as the time period of the writing) and leaves out the part about the "oracles" so I don't think he is "merely dependent on Papias". Besides, this seems to assert that Irenaeus operated in something akin to a vacuum without input from others. And Eusebius cites Papias in the context of the origin of Matt's gospel. I think Eusebius would have known the context better than us.

I am not saying that Irenaeus was isolated in a vacuum, but Irenaeus got his knowledge of Matthew's authorship from Papias. His use of the word 'gospel' instead of 'oracles' merely means that he knew the gospel of Matthew, whereas we cannot be sure that Papias knew the gospel of Matthew. Likewise Eusebius.

[robrecht]

The argument was that even if Matt showed no signs of being translated into Greek, it would still not be conclusive that it was originally written in Greek.

Yes, of course not. An argument for that position is not necessary.

I checked the Hebrew version and the Greek. You're right about there being a pun in the Greek but I don't think it is stronger than the Hebrew

Transliteration of Hebrew
din tidonu uv'eze midah tamodu y moded lakhem (from his text)
din and tidonu sound similar
tidonu and tamodu sound similar
midah and tamodu and moded sound similar

Greek

Matthew 7:2 - WH – εν ω γαρ κριματι κρινετε (5719) κριθησεσθε (5701) και εν ω μετρω μετρειτε (5719) μετρηθησεται (5701) υμιν
(Sorry I couldn't transliterate)

The way Matt 7:2 is structured, it would be a pun in most languages. (By the judgment you judge you will be judged and by the measure you measure you will be measured?). What's interesting is that the Hebrew connects tidonu (judged) and tamodo (measured) while the Greek doesn't have this connection (krino and meteros or variants thereof). I don't think the Greek is stronger than the Hebrew.

Howard does not present this as a possible pun, but rather as an example of alliteration and there is more alliteration in the Greek. You left out part of the Greek alliteration. But yes, there would be alliteration in any language, which is why this is evidence of nothing.

The parts where Jesus talked I think.

Oh my, this is where your theory goes kaboom. Your best case is for some form of Matthean priority is with elements of an Aramaic (perhaps even Hebrew) substratum in the sayings of Jesus. You may look for this in Mark as well, of course, but then, whether you realize it or not, you're essentially capitulating to the mainstream two source theory of Mark and Q.

QED, no pun intended.

[Doug Shaver]

Hey, Doug. How have you been?

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

Plenty of Christians embrace historico-critical and literary methods in studying the bible and have no difficulty whatsoever dating the gospels post 70 CE. But plenty do not, that's true too.

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.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Unfortunately for me, but lucky for you, my flight was canceled and I had some extra time and already completed my response to you before you responded so you should take a look at my augmented response above.

Why not? The alternative would be not to engage in any historical or literary enquiry at all. I think God gave us intelligence for us to use it for his glory.

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

It seems like you've misunderstood the point Wallace was making. Do you have a link to his treatment so I can verify. I suggest we start there. The jumble of quotes from Glenn Miller is confusing and he is not a NT scholar, but an IT executive. If you want to discuss one issue at a time from him, I would be willing to do so, but I strongly suggest that you start with one good scholar, learn what you need to really understand his or her position, and only then begin to weigh the criticisms. The very best, relatively brief treatment of the synoptic problem is an entry by Frans Neirynck in the 2nd edition of the Jerome Biblical Commentary. If there is an academic or theology library near you, they should have it. It might be a little bit too advanced for you at first, but I am willing to help you master it first and that would be my recommendation.

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

The basic position of Matthew or Matthew Hebrew being the first gospel is known, was once mandated by the Catholic church, but has not been successful in gaining adherence from scholars. Your particular twist on this basic position is a more implausible in my opinion and I have never heard of anyone who defends it exactly.

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.

From the very little I've seen of his interactions, he does not seem to be a very pleasant person. If he wants to engage me, I will try to help in Christian charity, but I really have no need to understand his position better.

ok then

Parts of Q have extreme Greek verbal agreement that cannot be explained by independent translations of Aramaic or Hebrew. Such extreme verbal agreement of a common oral tradition is also very unlikely. If you posit an oral culture maintaining such extreme verbal agreement of an authoritative tradition, then it becomes very difficult to understand why other parts of Q were used very differently by Matthew and Luke with very little verbal agreement.

[/QUOTE]


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.

Yes and no. Personally, I don't think it is as difficult but I've studied and read Greek for some 35 years, not to mention Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and a smattering of a few other ancient languages. All of the best scholars who discuss these issues on a scholarly level have comparable training and even more intense experience studying and debating these specialized issues. If you were to ask Werner Heisenberg to interact in this scholarly discipline, he would be the first to recognize the need for some training and experience.

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

While you feel justified in making this inference, he knows that he cannot defend such an inference.

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.

Most pepole would assume that within 'Matthew's' community, there would be accumulated tradition and experience so that the background of this allusion would be understood, at least by some. Certainly 'Matthew' would be able to explain it to anyone who wanted to understand it better. But first it would be true for Matthew or his source(s) and that is all that is required for such a pun to originate. You don't realize it but you are indeed discussing double, triple, and special traditions, not to mention redaction. This is one of the reasons why it would be helpful for you to first master an introductory approach to these issues.

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.

I am not saying that Irenaeus was isolated in a vacuum, but Irenaeus got his knowledge of Matthew's authorship from Papias. His use of the word 'gospel' instead of 'oracles' merely means that he knew the gospel of Matthew, whereas we cannot be sure that Papias knew the gospel of Matthew. Likewise Eusebius.

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.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Yes, of course not. An argument for that position is not necessary.

Howard does not present this as a possible pun, but rather as an example of alliteration and there is more alliteration in the Greek. You left out part of the Greek alliteration. But yes, there would be alliteration in any language, which is why this is evidence of nothing.

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)

Oh my, this is where your theory goes kaboom. Your best case is for some form of Matthean priority is with elements of an Aramaic (perhaps even Hebrew) substratum in the sayings of Jesus. You may look for this in Mark as well, of course, but then, whether you realize it or not, you're essentially capitulating to the mainstream two source theory of Mark and Q.


QED, no pun intended.

The Markan Aramaic would have come from Peter.

[Outis]

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 the dependency between Jude and 2 Peter, dependency is not argued based on the quality of the Greek. Problem is, the arguments for dependency are intricate, technical, and absolutely require knowledge of the original language. With the limited Greek I have, I have some ability to evaluate the merits of the argument, but most of it goes well over my understanding.

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

QW, this is an important point: the _presence_ of a scholar in an argument does nothing to validate the _strength_ of the argument.

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, in your opinion, or good because you have evaluated them?

QW, the above question is rhetorical, for I already know the answer. You have neither the training, the tools, nor a sufficient understanding of the question to evaluate the arguments Miller represents (and occasionally misrepresents). This would be just like me criticizing quantum mechanics because I like the phrase "God does not play dice." I don't have the training, the tools, or even a sufficient understanding of the issues to offer an opinion, much less to evaluate the arguments.

If you want to cone right down to it, the basic, and brutal, fact of the matter is this: with you and NT scholarship, or with me and quantum mechanics, you can pretty much bet that any argument that we can understand is _already wrong_.

[Quantum Weirdness]

In the dependency between Jude and 2 Peter, dependency is not argued based on the quality of the Greek. Problem is, the arguments for dependency are intricate, technical, and absolutely require knowledge of the original language. With the limited Greek I have, I have some ability to evaluate the merits of the argument, but most of it goes well over my understanding.

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.

QW, this is an important point: the _presence_ of a scholar in an argument does nothing to validate the _strength_ of the argument.

Really? It supposes a good authority behind it. I know that my own authority isn't enough to convince others here (since I have none). All I do is look at the data and see where it leads me. If I think an argument isn't good, even if it is by a scholar, I would reject it. It does seem, however, that Linnemann is correct in at least a couple of respects.

Good, in your opinion, or good because you have evaluated them?

QW, the above question is rhetorical, for I already know the answer. You have neither the training, the tools, nor a sufficient understanding of the question to evaluate the arguments Miller represents (and occasionally misrepresents). This would be just like me criticizing quantum mechanics because I like the phrase "God does not play dice." I don't have the training, the tools, or even a sufficient understanding of the issues to offer an opinion, much less to evaluate the arguments.

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?

If you want to cone right down to it, the basic, and brutal, fact of the matter is this: with you and NT scholarship, or with me and quantum mechanics, you can pretty much bet that any argument that we can understand is _already wrong_.

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