Gd1234 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:49 pm
Maybe i misunderstood. My interpretation was that neil meant the gospel writers did no research and wrote creatively, implying what they knew was common news knowledge.
My response was that if things were known to such a high degree of common knowledge , then it says something. We're basically talking within a century of Jesus.
I do not think Neil meant to imply that the agreements among the synoptics are due to common knowledge. (I hesitate to speak for someone else, but I've been corresponding with Neil for about two decades now. I don't know what solution to the synoptic problem he currently favors, but I think he accepts the theory (as do 99% of New Testament scholars) that there is a literary relationship among the synoptic gospels).
The vast majority of scholars accept the theory of Markan priority - Mark wrote before Matthew and Luke and they used his gospel. Most scholars accept that then either thy both had a hypothetical common source called Q or that Luke knew Matthew or Matthew knew Luke. I favor the Farrer theory that Luke used Matthew (as does Mark Goodacre).
Goodacre's introduction to the Synoptic Problem is available free online here:
http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/
So yes, it says something. But why do you think it says more than the synoptic gospels were written in some particular order and each knew the work of his predecessors and borrowed from them? Or is that what you meant by research. On my own theory, Mark wrote first and I don't really have much idea what his sources were, and then Matthew used Mark and added to it and then Luke used Mark and Matthew and added to it. I could be wrong, but how do you know that, or a similar theory, is not what happened?
To imply this level of correlation occurs without research does not appear probable to me.
That's why I, and the vast majority of scholars, think there is a literary solution tot he synoptic problem. But I'm not calling Matthew's rewriting of Mark 'research".
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
You are confusing religion and language here..... Egypt had a large number of Greek speaking Jews and there were some Jews living throughout the eastern Roman empire.
The proposition i thought was the gospels were written by greeks, not Greek speaking Jews. I used to understand as you did. Recently i read after the dss discovery, 1st century Jews likely spoke Hebrew.
I can't tell whether any of the evangelists was born a Jew or a Gentile (I think Matthew practiced the mosaic Law at the time he wrote his gospel, but whether he was born Jew or not I could not say). I don't think you can either. So, first, I think you don't have a good reason to exclude the possibility that any of the gospels could have been written by a diaspora Jew (or, rather, Christian Jew). Second, what would exclude the possibility that the author of Luke, for instance, was born to one of Paul's early converts in the 50's and wrote his gospel when he was 30? Could he not have learned the LXX (and hence Judaism) really well in that time?
Second, while the Jerusalem Perspective School and a few others have argued, based primarily on the DSS, that Hebrew was the common spoken language in Palestine at the time, this is not the majority opinion. Hebrew was the liturgical language for Jews. If you found a bunch of books from tenth century England they'd probably be in Latin, because that was he language of the church and literature. People who were literate were literate in Latin, which they knew as a second language. It's not what people commonly spoke. The gospels present Jesus as speaking in Aramaic on a few occasions. Why?
Also, you should check your source on whether the theory that Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew in the first century applies also to Diaspora Jews. I don't think that's what they are claiming. They're claiming Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew rather than, as is most commonly thought, Aramaic.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
Could you distinguish the work of a first century Jew living in the Diaspora (outside Judea) from one who lived in Palestine? Or one writing before 70 CE from one writing after? How?
My assumption is they do it from analysis.
The video i watched implied Greek and Hebrew had different writing styles. For example, if one said "ya'all", there is high likelihood from the south
.
They meaning the Jerusalem Perspective folks? Why do you find them more credible than other scholars?
Based on recent readings, it implied that jesus words were similar to hebraic writing style and a very high level 1st century Judaism knowledge.(Two different issues)One could definitely be one or the other. My current readings implied jesus words correlate to both butI'm open minded . I kept open to Bivin and open to considering other responses also.
You are making an argument from authority based on appeal to what you've read recently. It seems like you're currently persuaded thee Jerusalem Perspective is correct but are open to the possibility it's not. But why that initial presumption in favor of the JP?
You're juxtaposing Hebrew style with Greek style as if both of those were monolithic things. Septuganitnal style Greek will sound like a translation of Hebrew because the LXX *is* a translation of the Hebrew. I pointed out how this could happen in the case of the ring/hand thing in Luke's Parable of the Prodigal Son. How are you able to tell Septuagintal Greek from a Greek translation of Hebrew? Or do you just have faith that the Jerusalem Perspectibe folks are right when they claim they can?
My current thoughts are the evangelists/paul were Greek speaking but they used as research jesus words in Hebrew from the Jewish Christians. This could explain both Hebrew and llx similarities and could correlate with papias.
Is the basis for your current thought that you presume the claims of the JP are correct? How did you determine that they are?
My point was there appears more involved to the gospels than creativity.
How about plagiarism + creativity? (Yes, I know the term plagiarism is anachronistic because it implies the modern concept of intellectual property).
Best,
Ken