Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

rakovsky wrote:Please say which one you think is probably correct,

There is no credible case Markan priority is simply not the case.

There are some decent arguments out there but most tend to be "out there" and often given to promote further agenda.

The early Christian writings on the topic say that Matthew was written first, or else use Matthew more.

It was used more, it was the most popular text.

But there is no credibility by early fathers in their claims of primacy as they were far far to removed from the topic, and had their own apologetic bias.

2. Matthew's semitisms

This is a fallacy from the get go.

Different Hellenistic communities were known to adhere to Judaism differently.

3. Farmer's argument:

There is no credible evidence for the community attributed to Mark as redacting anything



Dating

Most scholar date mark earlier and Matthew later

Layered

Both Luke and Matthew look to possess layered theology and mythology as the movement grew and the Christology evolved over what Mark posits. Different communities found value in Mark but found it incomplete and missing what was important to said communities with different values.

Prime example is how the resurrection mythology evolved into a physical one with time. And Matthew fits the later mythology. Mark also was later redacted to fit this later mythology.


Plausibility

Its easy to understand Mark being a product of the fall of the temple, as the communities were forced into a new way of sharing the valuable information they had shared at Passovers yearly in these illiterate societies, combined with the growing popularity and widespread use of these traditions.

Placing Matthew later as a piece influenced by Marks compilation leaves no weird pieces of the puzzle that do not fit anthropologically speaking. Nothing is out of place, so to speak.

The opposite brings many more jagged pieces of the puzzle one cannot place without the use of force.

Secret Alias wrote:The likelihood is that all the pre-Catholic gospels were "Jewish."

You mean Hellenistic Diaspora Proselyte Judaism with no dispute of its Koine origins?

Jewish is a almost a meaningless title here.

Irenaeus is just saying Matthew was Jewish because he alleges it to be first.

I think it was quite obvious this community held on to Jewish traditions tighter then other communities.

We know by Pauls writing these communities all had different adherence to traditions despite being 100% Hellenistic in nature. The ANTI Semitism in Matthew leaves little doubt of an Aramaic primacy of a cultural Jew. as well as a later date of the movement that was divorcing Judaism now that with the fall of the temple, cultural "real" Jews were looked down upon and these Hellenist did not want to be identified with such in any way.

Ben C. Smith wrote: a Hebrew original is the subject of much debate.


Ben.

I think you may overstating the case in that statement.

In apologetic circles it may be debated, but not accepted or even addressed its such a weak guess.


There is almost a consensus of its Koine origins, with no detection of Aramaic or Hebrew primacy.

Adam wrote: The reason we still have GMatthew and GMark is because by the time they were written the translation to Greek was complete.

This is so unsupported it sad. If it was not sad it would just be laughable it so absurd.

Neither was first.

You have the possibility of being correct and wrong at the same time. But not one or the other.


We know these were compilations, every last one, and we guess all of the communities started about the same "ish" time frame in he first part of the century. This is where you have the possibility of being correct. But we cannot say for sure due to lack of complete knowledge.

BUT

By all rights your wrong because Marks text was finished first by our current understanding which seems to be the most plausible.

And what was written often does not reflect what was taking place in illiterate cultures.

Proto-Matthew was a stage of the Evolving Proto-Gospel that was preceded by an earlier version used in the creation of Proto-Luke. Proto-Matthew was later enlarged to become the Gospel of the Hebrews by adding in to it the L (Lucan) additions taken from comparison with Proto-Luke.

You fail here due to your certainty, of what amounts to wild unsupported guesses

You know you've learned this one concept 'Hellenistic Judaism' and pretend that it is somehow 'fake' when compared to 'real' Judaism. It's not necessarily so and as they say a little knowledge is dangerous.

Ezra was an asskissing courtier. The idea that there was some 'idealized' or 'true' form of Judaism which 'had to have' been different from what was manifest in the Hellenistic period merely because it was expressed in the Greek language is downright silly.

Secret Alias wrote:The idea that there was some 'idealized' or 'true' form of Judaism which 'had to have' been different from what was manifest in the Hellenistic period merely because it was expressed in the Greek language is downright silly.

What if this presumption was your Achilles heel to understanding how the movement originated?


Of course I make no claim of single true Judaism, and ONLY propose the difference between religious Hellenist who would divorce cultural Judaism while perverting the Jewish religion for their own needs.

I also understand the old method proposed by Hengel of not using a lens that separates the two. Sorry I'm beyond his weakness and proposing the evolution forward of the concept to better understand the past.

Stop assuming, it has always been your shortcoming.

outhouse wrote: Of course I make no claim of single true Judaism, and ONLY propose the difference between religious Hellenist who would divorce cultural Judaism while perverting the Jewish religion for their own needs.

difference ... between ... who/what??

or, are you referring to difference among 'Hellenists' ?

outhouse wrote:

Adam wrote: The reason we still have GMatthew and GMark is because by the time they were written the translation to Greek was complete.

This is so unsupported it sad. If it was not sad it would just be laughable it so absurd.

'
I'm almost necessarily true just by inspection. Scholars for 2000 years have assumed completely Aramaic texts vs. completely Greek texts. By such assumptions the Synoptic Problem has remained unsolved. So the solution MUST be something else. And here on BC&H SA, Ben, and I are finding it.

You fail here due to your certainty, of what amounts to wild unsupported guesses

I'm basically stating BC&H consensus against the failed "Consensus" you're trapped in.

You know what does give me pause tho? The John eating honeycakes vs locusts business. Seems to be an Aramaic to Greek slip there.

MrMacSon wrote:
or, are you referring to difference among 'Hellenists' ?

The widespread diversity in pre fall of temple Judaism.

Which would include Hellenist as well as what I will call oppressed Jews.