Protestantism

» Migisi - The Matthew argument...

In response to the writing of the Gospels posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Well, if Matthew the author of the Gospel of Matthew is indeed the disciple Matthew - then he too would be an eyewitness.
If we accept traditional attribution...
.
Yes, that's IF we accept tradition without question.
.
Just for discussion:
.
===============
.
Gospel of Matthew
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ma...
.
ALL QUOTES from subsection "Information on Gospel of Matthew"...
.
"It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.
.
"It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus...
.
Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):
"Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry."
.
J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):
"It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still."
.
Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):
"But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience." (end quotes)
.
=================================
.
Now, if Matthew relied on Mark's memory ("whatsoever he remembered") for his information, Matthew's gospel is actually a 3rd-hand recording. Oral tradition from Peter passed to Mark, Mark's recollections to Matthew. (Has anyone ever played the parlor game 'Telephone'? A sentence is passed from one person to the next in line, and it gets corrupted along the way.)
.
Gospel of Mark:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ma...
.
(QUOTE) Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark." (end)

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - The John argument...

In response to The Matthew argument... posted by Migisi:

.
And alas, there appears to be historical support for the idea that the John that 'Jesus loved' had already been martyred before the Gospel of John was written. Whoever is interested:
.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jo...

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - The John argument...

In response to The John argument... posted by Migisi:
.
It would be interesting to see highly skilled scholars of the origins and development of the Bible argue the legal aspects of the cannonization of Scripture. I don't think we can learn much from persons are come here convinced of one way or another regarding the validity of the origings and authorship. Do you?
.
I know the Vatican employs an academy of legal scholars to research any questions of doctrine and church history and tradition.
.
Sometimes there are good programs on the History Channel about such subjects.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - What's that Pink?

In response to The John argument... posted by pink101:

I don't think we can learn much from persons are come here convinced of one way or another regarding the validity of the origings and authorship. Do you?

So, a person needs to be perpetually uncertain in order to have anything of value or note to offer.

Or...if an individual went through a period of soul-searching AND scholarly examination and yet came away further confirmed in the faith of his childhood, such a person has little to contribute to these discussions. Only a person who went the OTHER way is credible. Is that what you're saying, Pink?

» Brian Tubbs - The John argument...

In response to The John argument... posted by Migisi:

Let's set the Gospel of John aside for the moment, if that's okay. I just wrote an article on the Synoptics. There's enough to keep us busy just on those, methinks.

» pink101 - What's that Pink?

In response to What's that Pink? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, a person needs to be perpetually uncertain in order to have anything of value or note to offer.
.
I didn't mean to put that idea over. In fact, I think people who have made strong choices based on solid evidence would make expert witnesses in a court room scene where the subject could be tried.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Matthew

In response to The Matthew argument... posted by Migisi:

Migisi,

Pink has already ruled me out as a credible source for anything of value on this subject, but I'll continue on anyway, in case there are a few other souls with a bit more of an open mind.

The leading argument against the disciple Matthew (i.e., Levi) being the author of the Gospel of Matthew is indeed (as you pointed out) the implication of Markan priority. If Mark was indeed written first (and most scholars believe this), why would Matthew (an eyewitness) utilize Mark so extensively? And it seems pretty clear that the author of Matthew did utilize Mark.

First (as I said in my article), Thomas Jefferson utilized George Mason, John Locke, and others in writing the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean that he (Jefferson) didn't write the Declaration - that he somehow wasn't capable of doing it on his own. It IS possible that Matthew, an eyewitness, did in fact utilize Mark's work. I understand the logical argument to the contrary, but it's not a decisive one.

Second, Mark's primary source was Peter. Peter was an eyewitness. If Matthew utilized Mark, he probably did so in the knowledge that he was referring to PETER (not really John Mark). Peter was closer to Jesus than Matthew, so it's not AT ALL unlikely that Matthew would have consulted with a written record that he KNEW was shaped largely by Peter.

Third, what was Mark's source? Liberal and mainstream scholars universally agree that there was some kind of "Q" source - and probably an "L" or "M" source as well. Where did those sources stem from? I believe MATTHEW was the person behind "Q" and probably behind much of "L" and "M" - if indeed those sources are real. I base this belief on two things...

a) Jesus was treated as a rabbi in the first century. Rabbis had followers who were CHARGED with accurately recording their teachings. And Jewish culture held accuracy to a very high standard when it came to such teachings. Matthew, the tax collector, would've been literate and detail-oriented enough to perform this function.

b) The early church (via Papias and Irenaeus) was fairly emphatic that the disciple Matthew (Levi) wrote the Gospel which bore his name - and did so first in Hebrew. Well, the earliest copies of Matthew are in Greek. How to reconcile this? I can't prove it, but I'm not the first to suggest that Matthew probably wrote "Q" or at least a proto-Matthew which Mark and Luke utilized. It's a logical theory.

TAKING ALL THE ABOVE into consideration...I'm not at all ready to jettison Matthew the disciple as the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Modern scholarship has made some good points to call it into question, but they have NOT disproven Matthew as the author. In light of that, I think it's best to give the early church the benefit of the doubt.

» Brian Tubbs - Follow up on Matthew

To follow up my last point on Matthew...

I think it's MORE logical, in the face of the mainstream position of Markan priority (and the liberal scholar charge that Matthew would not have utilized Mark), to embrace the following potential scenario:

1. Matthew was the primary or one of the primary rabbinical scribes to Jesus - recording his teachings and key moments in his life. These notes were most likely "Q."

2. As the years went on following Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, Matthew probably edited his notes to produce a proto-Matthew in HEBREW. This fits with what Papias and Irenaeus say. Being as they were second-century church leaders, there HAS to be something to what they're saying. They would've known.

3. Matthew probably did not widely circulate his manuscript(s) however, since he along with the other disciples seemed to be expecting a more imminent return of Jesus.

4. When Jesus didn't come back and some of the apostles and early church leaders were dying and/or being martyred, there was a push to put Christianity into writing. This move was taking place, scholars believe, in the 50s and 60s - it was spurred on in part by Paul's letters and the success he was seeing with those.

5. Peter and John Mark, at this point, probably wrote and began to circulate the Gospel of Mark.

6. Peter was then martyred in ca. 64

7. Matthew no longer could go to Peter directly, and he himself was getting up in years. We don't know what his health was like, but I would imagine that he felt some urgency to get his Gospel into circulation. I can very easily see him taking the Gospel of Mark along with his (Matthew's) in-progress work - and producing what we NOW have as the Gospel of Matthew.

8. Luke then follows with his Gospel

I'm NOT suggesting that the above scenario is factual or that I somehow got it from God. But it DOES reconcile mainstream scholarship with what the early church said. For that reason alone, I think it deserves to be categorized as possible.

» pink101 - Matthew

In response to Matthew posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Pink has already ruled me out as a credible source for anything of value on this subject
.
Brian! That's the kind of statement that discounts your credibility. I just got through posting that persons with strong evidence make expert witnesses.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - The John argument...

In response to The John argument... posted by pink101:

It would be interesting to see highly skilled scholars of the origins and development of the Bible argue the legal aspects of the cannonization of Scripture.
.
There's a lot of scholarly input offered on a variety of websites. Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, Short Papers on Church History, Internet Sacred Texts Archives, and the like. Depending on the issue, I think they do a decent job presenting both sides of a debate, and what conclusion the early church (or the Vatican) came to.
.
I don't think we can learn much from persons are come here convinced of one way or another regarding the validity of the origings and authorship. Do you?
.
Well, ~I~ don't learn much from anyone who simply says "that's what the bible (or church) says, and that's that!"

-- posted by Migisi