An argument for the first gospel being written by Judaizers

[Giuseppe]

Richard Carrier has listed in order of preference his list of solutions to the Synoptical problem:

As you probably know, I actually think neither. Mark appears the earliest. There is no evidence of any earlier one. I am sympathetic to a Matthew-first model, but the balance of evidence doesn’t support it, so I’d put that second on the forced-rank list (whereby Matthew did it first, Mark is a “rewrite,” and Luke a revision of both).

Then, third on that list, I’d put the MacDonald thesis, except I don’t accept his dating of it. He is simply wrong about the Sermon on the Mount being pre-war. It is most definitely post-war. But with that change, MacDonald’s thesis can survive as the third most likely, wherein Q-Plus is first, then Mark/Matthew, then Luke-Acts.

I am not persuaded by any argument yet that Marcion’s Luke was a proto-gospel. I am fairly certain it was his own redaction of Luke, scrubbed to clear it of anything too damning of his theology.

In whiletime, I have found the following argument (by a mythicist I would like not mention) supporting the priority of a proto-Matthew, or how you would like to call a first gospel written by Judaizers:

Un tel écrit basé sur des textes prophétiques, ou censés tels, ne pouvait voir le jour que chez des chrétiens de vieille observance très attachés au judaïsme traditionnel.

Thoughts?

[mlinssen]

Yes, that Dick only cares about causing confusion, exactly like Fart. Where people disagree and cry wolf, there is money in the making

These people stopped contributing to the field ages ago

[davidmartin]

This is dumb and ass backwards.
Matthew is clearly very late and exactly what you'd expect the early proto-orthodox to come up with, so they had their own damn gospel
Matthew is the only gospel to consistently preach the doctrine of hell, an early proto-orthodox belief - but not found in the others (I would argue)

The evidence points to a "Judaizing" perspective being useful to proto-orthadoxy, in the fight against Marcion and where they held similar beliefs. They would happily encourage this version of events because it suited them (Acts is the case in point where magically the Judaizing James and Peter turn into proto-orthodox supporters) and it fools scholars like Carrier into thinking they were original - why should anyone believe this?

The Clementine literature had the one chance to prove the Judaizers were originals and it turns out to be a damp squib

[Gd1234]

Unfortunately the jewish christians and the judiasm did not preserve much. And the burning of the library of caeseria lost much also.

As jesus was jewish, it makes sense that a primary source for the gospels would include interviewing jewish christians.

[schillingklaus]

The Jewish Jesus only exists in the fantasy of apologists like Ehrman. Others know that Jesus is purely fictional and invented in order to pretend that the anti-Jewish sacrament of the Euchariost was fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

[Steven Avery]

If Luke was the first Gospel, written by a former priest (Acts 6:7) to the High Priest Theophilus, would that add a sufficiently Jewish motif to the analysis?

[davidmartin]

the problem is - what is Jewish?
there was a wide spectrum of types of Judaism from one extreme to another
i think what we see of Jewish Christians presented in the NT, especially Acts, is a projection back of an 'idealised' type of imagined Judaism, eg of say James and Peter.
So what the real roots were isn't really clear, a certain Jewish influence, ideas, beliefs, whatever they were has been obscured by the later accounts presenting things to perfectly fit their own contemporary ideas. So with Matthews gospel, this to me is part of this later trend and doesn't shed much light on any earlier phase, more like it obscures it
What I mean is, its possible using similar 'materials' to have very different philosophies and worldviews emerge, unless the traditions were perfectly preserved (sorry, I doubt this!) there's every chance of things being quite different originally even with superficial similarities. How to quantify that and talk about it without using hammers and blunt tools? I just think the idea that Matthew is accurate about an earlier phase and isn't influenced by the 2nd century developments in Christianity, i think that is naive. I'm not throwing the 'Jewish baby' out with the bathwater, just not wanting to be tied down to whatever some church fathers imagined they thought the earlier Christians 'must have' been like

[MrMacSon]

Richard Carrier has listed in order of preference his list of solutions to the Synoptical problem:

As you probably know, I actually think neither. Mark appears the earliest. There is no evidence of any earlier one. I am sympathetic to a Matthew-first model, but the balance of evidence doesn’t support it, so I’d put that second on the forced-rank list (whereby Matthew did it first, Mark is a “rewrite,” and Luke a revision of both).

Then, third on that list, I’d put the MacDonald thesis, except I don’t accept his dating of it. He is simply wrong about the Sermon on the Mount being pre-war. It is most definitely post-war. But with that change, MacDonald’s thesis can survive as the third most likely, wherein Q-Plus is first, then Mark/Matthew, then Luke-Acts.

I am not persuaded by any argument yet that Marcion’s Luke was a proto-gospel. I am fairly certain it was his own redaction of Luke, scrubbed to clear it of anything too damning of his theology.

In whiletime, I have found the following argument (by a mythicist I would like not mention) supporting the priority of a proto-Matthew, or, how you [might] like to call, a first gospel written by Judaizers:

Un tel écrit basé sur des textes prophétiques, ou censés tels, ne pouvait voir le jour que chez des chrétiens de vieille observance très attachés au judaïsme traditionnel.

Thoughts?

translated:

Such a writing based on prophetic texts, or supposed to be such, could only see the light of day among Christians of ‘old observance’ who were very attached to traditional Judaism.

or by a Christian —or even by a nonaligned philosopher, a rhetorician, or simply a novelist— contemplating ‘Judaism’

ie. each first draft of a synoptic gospel doesn’t have to reflect or imply group-think