Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Adding to my post above--
The Scholars are SO bad that the usual argument is between the Greek experts who will have it that there are only original texts in Greek vs. the Aramaists who insist some or all of the original texts were in Aramaic (or in Hebrew according to some).
Most of them are not THAT ridiculously polarized, but they proceed as if there were texts cleanly all in Greek as against others all in Aramaic. How unrealistic this is. Modern scholars present their scholarly works even now with sections (sometimes huge) in a foreign language. Was that never done in antiquity? As precious as writing material was, I can't believe it wasn't. It must have been cut-and-paste adjoining sections in different languages. My Thesis allows for this--does anyone else's hypothesis?

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

Might be.

Since these people were Koine feeding from Aramaic and Koine oral traditions that evolved, regardless of a historical man, all while plagiarizing Hebrew and Koine text.

I expect this. I think we should see more. Since there is so little, it is evidence for me how far removed from actual events and Israel the Diaspora text actually were.


The actual context of this may never be fully understood. Despite 3 modern interpretations. Tabor offers “manna” plagiarized from moses similar to what you suggest. Locusts are kosher and starving people would probably not pass these up if living "outdoors" or ascetically lifestyle. Plus the pods and beans of the locust tree, but not many were in that area.

An excellent article for the priority of Mark by our own Peter Kirby: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html
I exposed a different point in favor of the priority of gMark over gLuke and gMatthew here:
http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html#gosdating
"Mark" had Jesus predicting the advent of the Kingdom very soon after the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD).
"Matthew" very carefully rephrased what "Mark" wrote and have the Kingdom coming well after the fall of Jerusalem, that is when the Jews will not be distressed any more about the destruction of Jerusalem.
"Luke" was indefinite and vague, but did make use of Josephus' Wars (published 77-78 AD).

Cordially, Bernard

The patristic testimony isn't as helpful as it could be, however it does paint a picture (even if it is vague) -- there are 2nd century assertions to the effect that "Matthew wrote first in the Hebrew dialect", and there are 2nd century quotations from our Greek Matthew. Doesn't it make sense to consider these references as being to the same author (even if not the same document)? The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong. I haven't heard of any serious alternative argumentation as to how these names became associated with them, other than that they were significantly involved as authors of the document(s) and / or tradition contained within.

gmx wrote:The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong.

No, it is not. As you mention all 4, you can only refer to Irenaeus, shortly before the year 200. Regarding earlier mentions of some of these, basically all depend on specific interpretations of some less than convincing snippets by an author whose work the church decided to lose. All other mentions are just quotes of quotes. Which means the testimony is rather weak and depends on a single, lost source.

Ulan wrote:

gmx wrote:The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong.

No, it is not. As you mention all 4, you can only refer to Irenaeus, shortly before the year 200. Regarding earlier mentions of some of these, basically all depend on specific interpretations of some less than convincing snippets by an author whose work the church decided to lose. All other mentions are just quotes of quotes. Which means the testimony is rather weak and depends on a single, lost source.

Well 180 CE isn't "shortly before the year 200"... it's clearly 2nd century, which is indeed "very early" from a Christian historical perspective. Your assumption that the ancient church had the capability to preserve any document it wanted to is absurd. The extant gospels date from the 4th century, and they are the most important books in Christianity, and the existence of those copies today is considered somewhat miraculous. If there were copies of Irenaeus or Papias from the 12th century, you'd probably say they were heavily interpolated or falsified, or historically unreliable for whatever other reason. At some point, bias infects absolutely everything.

gmx wrote:The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong


.

No it Is not.


Most scholars finds that position laughable if it was just not so sad that bias wins over reason and logic.

outhouse wrote:

gmx wrote:The traditional attribution of the gospels to Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn is obviously very early and very strong


.

No it Is not.


Most scholars finds that position laughable if it was just not so sad that bias wins over reason and logic.

That opinion is demonstrably false. I think you're confused as to what I'm asserting. I am making no statements about who wrote the Gospels. But they came to be known / associated with the four evangelists, they came to be known that way by the second century, and as far as we know there was never any alternative attribution offered for any of them. I'd say that ranks as a strong and early tradition. What's your counterargument look like?

gmx wrote: ... the Gospels ...came to be known / associated with the four evangelists, they came to be known that way by the second century, and as far as we know there was never any alternative attribution offered for any of them.

Good point.

But I wouldn't say that's "a strong and early tradition ..."

gmx wrote:I am making no statements about who wrote the Gospels. But they came to be known / associated with the four evangelists, they came to be known that way by the second century, and as far as we know there was never any alternative attribution offered for any of them. I'd say that ranks as a strong and early tradition. What's your counterargument look like?

My counter is that we see the later communities falsely attributing the text.

What you claim as earl tradition needed to be clarified by you.


What we claim as early may be considered the Jewish Christian era before these gospel authors were attributed.


And actually we do know about "some" alternative attribution, such as the passion narrative as a possible written source compiled into mark, I believe Crossan goes into detail on this as well.