I think you’ll have to explain why oral tradition would be more likely than a common written source, especially since this tradition is not in its original language and would call for independent identical translations not only of the sayings but of the framing narratives.
You can think of these pericopes as being sort of like jokes. Everybody tells them a little bit differently. The punch lines are the same, the stories are essentially the same but you aren’t going to find two people who independently of each other will write compilations of the same jokes, using the identical wording in every case purely from both hearing the jokes in an oral tradition. You especially wouldn’t see a compilation of jokes from, say, Russian, independently translated into English in precisely the same way by two writers who are completely unaware of each other.
And as tom said, you would have to expalin why that would constitute a substantive difference anyway. A common source is a common source.
There is no evidence that Luke was an eyewitness; niether was Mark. Mark (John Mark) was the nephew of Barnabas, who was Paul’s companion up until their split(over whether Mark should go with them) in Acts 15. Most scholars believe Mark got the information for his gospel from Peter. In the final analysis, if “all scripture is by inspiration of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16), does it really matter, one way or the other?
There is not a shred of evidence that the author of Mark talked to Peter, that he was named Mark or that he was a companion of Paul’s. More 2nd century tradition is all that is and no, most scholars do not believe that Mark’s author spoke to Peter. That’s an article of religious faith and tradition, not scholarship.
The quotation in 2 Timothy about scripture referred only to the OT. the NT didn’t exist yet.
Oh…and it’s circular anyway. There is no persuasive value in saying the Bible is “inspired” because it says so.
Do me a favor and look up, in a reputable scholarly source, the literal translation of II Timothy 3. I am so sick of that prooftext being used as self-validation of the Bible when it may not even literally mean what it appears to, especially out of context.
(I’m not arguing your doctrine, whatever it may be – just the idea that that particular quote means what you have clipped it to mean. It probably doesn’t. And that’s not theory; it’s straight exegesis from the original Greek.)
No, I guess it doesn’t, one way or the other. I thought the implication of the raindog’s post was that the Gospel of Luke couldn’t possibly be anything other than literal truth, though, because Luke would have been there to see it. Obviously, that’s not true, and I think that matters to this thread.
Raindogdid seem to be asserting that Luke was an eyewitness of Jesus but I have no idea what he based that on. Even by the most conservative Christian tradition, Luke is not alleged to have ever met Jesus.
Raindog didn’t seem to do anything. He directly asserted that Luke was an eyewitness. Eagle-eyed Jimmy Chitwood caught the gaffe and 17 minutes later Raindog noted it and corrected the error.
There is nothing in the texts that show Paul’s companion was the author of Luke/Acts. (I would appreciate it if your cites were cited. i.e. “we” texts or references to Paul’s physician companion)
I would appreciate it if you would show me why a date of mid 90’s makes it unlikely. In fact, many scholars estimate the writings earlier than the 90’s, but even then, I’m at a loss to understand why that date makes Luke an unlikely author, especially since he wasn’t an eyewitness.
I think we’ve established this already. Luke was not an eyewitness, and never claimed to be. Move along folks…there’s nothing to see here…
Ok, ok, we’ve established that the author of Luke/Acts was NOT an eyewitness. But as to b.)…
There is evidence that Luke travelled with Paul. ** (2 Tim 4:11, Philem 24, Col 4:14)** However the times Paul mentions Luke he doesn’t reference Luke as an author, simple a traveling companion.
The “evidence” that Luke is the author of Luke’s Gospel comes from previously cited sources. Quite a few 2nd century authors cite Luke as the author, and if the mid 90’s is the actual date, the first reference to Luke as author is a mere 90 years after that date. There is also nothing in this account that would contradict the belief among those writers that Luke wasn’t the author.
Please correct me if I’m wrong Diogenes As it relates to Luke’s Gospel specifically, you seem to assert that he couldn’t have authored them because it was written in the 90’s, and; in the wrong language.
I’m confused. Why could Luke not have known Greek? And, why would an authorship date of mid 90’s be impossible, especially for a non-eyewitness?
As to the assertion that Jesus couldn’t have been born in Bethelem, there is simply no evidence to flatly say that the account is a myth because Luke coudn’t have written Luke’s Gospel. The best evidence suggests that it was Luke.
It’s a cut and paste thing. The word came that way…
Please show me this. Colossians begins with “1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, and Timothy [our] brother 2 to the holy ones and faithful brothers in union with Christ at Co·los´sae…” (Col 1:1) and ends with , “18 [Here is] my greeting, Paul’s, in my own hand. Continue bearing my [prison] bonds in mind. The undeserved kindness be with YOU.” (Col 4:18) Other than you, who else no longer regards it as Pauline? How widespread is this foolishness?
Don’t know the book and haven’t read it.
True. How many books of the bible however do not, within the text, directly identify the author? The Gospels are not a figment of our collection imaginations. They were written by someone. Our challenge is to indentify the author with the best evidence. The fact that Luke/Acts doesn’t directly identify Luke is not a basis to infer it couldn’t have been Luke.
Maybe the numerous people who cited both Matthew and Luke didn’t explain it because it didn’t happen. Maybe they were disposessed of the prophetic powers necessary to envision that 1600 years or so later a Brit would hypothesize about the importance of Papias’s writings, and that would evolve into the “Q” debate. C’mon Diogenes. First you presume, for both us and them, the existence, widespread distribution and acceptance, (as a Gospel source) of Papias’s writings, and then call us to task for not affirming your hypothesis.
One one hand, we have numerous credible sources from the 2nd century who identify Luke and Matthew. On the other, we have 19th and 20th century scholars debating about authorship, and chronology. Even now there is NOT universal agreement, despite the implication that is is universally understood/accepted. There are numerous competing theories—The Traditional Augustinian Theory, The Two-Gospel Hypothesis (Griesbach Theory), Two-Source Theory, Three-Source Theory, Four-Source Theory and The Farrer Theory (Mark without Q). If there is credible history that points to the “Q”, in substance and in widespread acceptance, as to answer a) the true authorship of the Gospels, b) the birthplace of the Christ I’d be interested in hearing it.
Show me where the Gospel of Matthew knew about the destruction of Jerusalem. Not in prophetic terms. Show me where he knew, after the fact.
The bible is the only acceptable source for this assertion.
That is NOT universally accepted, and there are many scholars who place several books in that period and before. I’m not sure how hard their ribs are. In any event, even if we accept the latest dates cited in this thread, it matters not. None of those dates preclude the possibility that Matthew and Luke wrote Matthew and Luke.
Universally? How’d I miss this? Most of the books I have here, and the web sites I’ve looked at for this thread don’t support this universally. Heck, most of them don’t even supprt it generally!
That’s probably worth a thread of it’s own. But you and I have gotten so far off the “Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?” trail we’re going to need GPS trackers to find our way home.
2 Tim 4:11, Philem 24, Col 4:14 kinda did it for me, and it would appear that many other scholars came to the same conclusion.
Which theory did they subscribe to?
We’ve talked about anonymity. We’ve talked about dates. Neither are germaine to the authorship issue, and the underlying issue as to whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And you are speculating as to whether he was proficient in Greek or Hebrew.
Not only possible, but likely. Fortunately, it’s irrelevent! Even if it’s 85 CE it doesn’t rule out Matthew as either the author or an eyewitness, and is not relevent to the question of Jesus’s birthplace.
I think we’re both getting redundant.
Freeze! That’s exactly right. Exactly. And since it shares no commonality or purpose with your other points it is not germaine to “the other factors.” The issue of the dates of authorship are not germaine to the question of authorship, UNLESS the date of authorship would likely be outside the reasonable expected lifespan for an eyewitness author. So… if Matthew was an eyewitness he could not reasonably author an account in 133 CE–100 years after a crucifixion he allegedly witnessed. Luke, never an eyewitness, wouldn’t be constrained in this way.
The issue of dates of authorship do not add to the substance of your other points, and their existence doesn’t offer “weight” to the overall point. (But to some it sure looks good…) The issue of dates is a red herring and gets the ‘line item veto.’ It is not pertinent at all.
Diogenes that is hogwash. Our discussion started with your assertion that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. The source of your assertion is that neither Matthew or Luke wrote their Gospels. That is your assertion. Your burden is no less than mine.
I’m glad it’s not limited to the dates of authorship as they are irrelevent red herrings. But I suspect we’re running out of bandwidth. (and energy/time)
Right! Is Papias pointing to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew specifically? Or is he pointing to other writings? It would certainly appear that Canonical Matthew was written in Hebrew. Many (most?) scholars believe that Matthew was written in Hebrew and then translated, perhaps by Matthew himself.
Well…I read the bible from time to time. And, I’ve read Papias’s writings and many of the current theories. Does that count? And I’ve noted the similarities. I do not finf compelling evidence to support conclusively the Q theories. I don’t doubt that there was some influence—it’s apparent. As to chronology, and influence there are other, just as compelling, explanations.
Well, that’s another thread. And a worthy discussion. But my time is limited. In fact, so much so that I think my days here at SDMB are limited.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. You said,* “There is no tradition prior to Matthew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.” * To which I replied, *“Before Matthew there is no tradition about Jesus of any kind! It’s the first book of the Greek Scrpitures/NT, and the first account written after Jesus’s birth!” *
I was referring to the Gospels—those books that represent themselves as chronicles/acounts of Jesus’s life. The other NT books were not written as a history of Christ’s life. The other NT books would not likely have bothered with the place of Jesus’s birth. Only the Gospels would have endeavored to record his birth.
I would like to address his post, but lack for the time, particularly the geneology of Joseph.
I see now… Matthew wasn’t an individual Palestinian Jew capable of learning Hebrew or Greek, He was The Vast Majority of Palestinian Jews. It’s all clear now.
So I know… Is Any Jew the same as The Vast Majority of [Palestinian] Jews? And is it unfair to point out that sweeping generalizations are at their most vulnerable when appied to a single individual?
That does it! Jerome and the others who claim Matthew authorship can go to the non-biblical burning hell. How’d they miss that?
Truth be told, I will probably post something that addresses this. It really is, finally, the question I was interested in posting an answer to.
Many or most scholars? From where? I can think of no school of thought that favors that interpretation and I can find only a couple of recognized scholars who supported it as long as 40 years ago: Gaechter in 1938, (who modified his theory around 1962 to claim that the three synoptics were all copying Greek transltions of earlier Aramaic notes) and Mariani in 1962. Robert Gundry has made a bit of a cottage industry of defending an Aramaic Matthean authorship, but he has failed to persuade a single serious scholar of his position and appears to have focused on writing for a popular audience who accepts that scenario a priori.
Once one has recognized that the extant Matthew has copied extensively from Mark (clearly written in Greek) and from the source of sayings that Luke used (also written in Greek, whether one chooses to call them Q or not), there is rather little left for some Aramaic Matthew to have written–and that tends to be short narrative sections that could not reasonably be described as Papias’s logia.
(And how did “Aramaic” Matthew suddenly become a Hebrew work (unless that was a typo?))
The so-called “we passages” are those passages in Acts which shift to a first person plural perspective in the narrative (16:10-17; 20:5-15,
21:1-8; 27:1-28:16). These “we” passages is what gave rise to the idea that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul’s. The first person plural is only found in descriptions of sea voyages. This is is readily explained by the fact that it was a common Greek literary convention to describe sea voyages in the first persn plural (this was most notably argued by Vernon Robbins. I would provide a link to his essay on this but the page containing it seems to be down).
You cited the passge from Collosians yourself which mentions a physician named Luke. I would only reiterate that a.) there is nothing inthat text which states that this physician, Luke is the author of that Gospel containing his name or that he is the author of anything at all or that he is a writer and b.) Colossians is not believed to be an authentic Pauline letter.
There is evidence that Paul had a companion named Luke. There is no evidence that this companion was the author of Luke-Acts.
That’s what I keep saying.
IOW, it comes from 2nd century tradition and inference, not from any real knowledge on the part of those you cite.
I said that about Matthew, not Luke.
There is no good evidence which would identify the author of Luke-Acts.
I didn’t say the Bethlehem story was a myth because “Luke didn’t write Luke,” but because all of the evidence indicates that the authors (neither of whom were eywitnesses) were deliberately creating fictional accounts in order to further specific religious agendas. Not only are the two accounts mutually contradictory on many accounts, but both of them contain demonstrably ahistorical assertions (that is, they both contain historical assertions which can be proven not to have occurred). Also, as I’ve said already, there is no evidence of a Bethlehem birth in any Christian literary tradition (or by inference, oral tradition) prior to Matthew.
Yes, it’s a pseudoepigraphical work. A very common practice at the time. But its styly, doctrine and vocabulary are quite different from the letters which are not disputed as authentic,
I will not belabor the point because I don’t think it matters much. Even if I were not to dispute authenticity, there is still no reason to believe that the Luke in this book was the author of Luke-Acts.
There is no basis to infer anything. The author is simply unknown and there is no texyual nexxus between the “Luke” of the Epistles and the autor of Luke-Acts.
The only real scholarly debate is whether Matthew and Luke used a common written source (which would be Q no matter what its form) or Luke copied Matthew. The former is by far the most accepted.
Mark, not Matthew. Chapter 13. And Matthew copied Mark which means that Matthew had to come after Mark which means that Matthew had to have been written after the destruction of the Temple.
I’m not sure what you mean when you ask me to show you that Mark/Matthew knew “after the fact” about the destruction of Jersusalem. Of course they knew after the fact. When else would they know it? What’s your point? Are you asking me to prove that it was not genuine predictive prophecy? That would be the default presumption of scholarship. If you want to assert the supernatural it’s up to you to prove it.
Trust me, it’s the overwhelming consensus of all serious scholarship.
Both Matthew and Luke are anonymous. We can say that neither was written by an apostle or eyewitness of Jesus, though, for reasons I’ve stated repeatedly in this thread.
Universally, mate. I don’t know what websites you’re looking at but they do not represent real scholarship on this issue. Markan priority is all but unanimously accepted.
Once again, there is nothing in those texts which would identify this character, “Luke” as the author of Luke-Acts.
I don’t understand this question.
We’ve talked about anonymity. We’ve talked about dates. Neither are germaine to the authorship issue, and the underlying issue as to whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And you are speculating as to whether he was proficient in Greek or Hebrew.
[/quote]
Not speculating, concluding. I am concluding that the author of Matthew did not know Hebrew.
Impossible. Matthew was dependent on Mark and Mark knew about the Jewish-Roman War.
The dating, in itself, just makes apostolic authorship implausible. What makes it impossible is the dependence on secondary sources, the obviously fictionalized Nativity and the author’s lack of knowledge of Hebrew.
To be clear, my assertion is that the Nativities are fictions, that they are mutually contradictory, that they were not written by eyewitnesses and that they are not supported by any prior traditions of a Bethlehem birth (in fact they are contradicted by prior tradition).
Right! Is Papias pointing to the Canonical Gospel of Matthew specifically? Or is he pointing to other writings? It would certainly appear that Canonical Matthew was written in Hebrew. Many (most?) scholars believe that Matthew was written in Hebrew and then translated, perhaps by Matthew himself.
[/quote]
Tom a;ready addressed this.
Such as…?
I was referring to the Gospels—those books that represent themselves as chronicles/acounts of Jesus’s life. The other NT books were not written as a history of Christ’s life. The other NT books would not likely have bothered with the place of Jesus’s birth. Only the Gospels would have endeavored to record his birth.
[/quote]
It’s wrong in any case. It’s not the first Gospel written. It’s at least the fourth (prior gospels being Mark, Q and Thomas). Not counting sayings gospels, it’s at least the second.
That’s ok, I’m familiar with the defenses and I’ll spare you my rebuttals.
Just to make this clear, whether an illiterate Palestian Jew could write in liteary Greek only goes to plausibility, it’s not dispositive. It’s also rendered moot by the evidence that the author of Matthew did not know Hebrew or Aramaic. Did he simply forget his own languages when he learned Greek?
Jerome didn’t miss it. He said in his Confession that he knew almah did not mean “virgin” but that he had deliberately preserved the error anyway in his Vulgate translation.
Well, actually, Church tradition has always held that it should say “virgin”, but then the Church has held the Septuagint and the Peshitta to be the primary texts of the Old Testament. What the Hebrew says doesn’t really matter. The fact that the Western Church wound up using the Hebrew as the base for the Latin translation had less to do with its supposed accuracy and more to do with the fact that that’s what Jerome chose to translate from. This relates to a deeper philosophical difference, I think, in that the Church has held that the Bible is true because it corresponds with what the Church teaches; hence there is no great problem in the fact that the Hebrew text says “almah”, because the Church teaches that Isaiah did in fact prophesy that a virgin would give birth, and so if there is an error, it is with the Hebrew text.
Well, there are some weak spots in the arguments on both sides, IMO. First is the exaggerated credence paid to every word of the Bible by those who believe it to be inerrantly inspired. (I think it was “inspired” but my definition of “inspired” is substantially more subtle than the Moses-and-Paul-took-dictation approach.)
But on the other hand, some rather flagrant assumptions are made by the critical scholars and held up as, well, “Gospel truth.” Included there is that no predictive prophecy is possible; the datings of the Gospels after 70 are in part due to their “prediction” of Jerusalem’s fall, which is deemed about equivalent to my “predicting” the destruction of the World Trade Center and Bush’s reelection today and claiming that I said it in 1970.
On the other hand, the Synoptic Problem is totally dismissed by many conservatives – apparently, God just happened to have three different men write essentially the same narrative, often verbatim or nearly so, completely independent of each other, in their view. The one kind word I have for the Q hypothesis is that it’s vastly more probable than that bit of purblindness.
As for the dismissiveness extended the traditional attributions by scholars, I have no particular axe to grind there – but it strikes me that anyone who says that the Fourth Gospel could not have been written by John bar Zebedee needs to bring his skills to the authorship of “Heart of Darkness” and “Lolita,” since it’s clear that the traditional attributions to Conrad and Nabokov are ruled out – no Pole or Russian could write that good English!
Ephratha is the name for the broader area where Bethlehem was located. “Bethlehem of Ephratha” is purely a geographical designation (it’s kind of like Bethelem being the town and Ephratha being the county). Sometimes the names were interchangeable (see Gen. 35:19)
Thanks, Diogenes. I honestly thought I wouldn’t be able to continue posting here. I’ve read some not very convincing arguments that Ephrata (because of a 1 Chronicles ref I believe) refers to a person. As in “first born of Ephrata”. Do you suppose that the Micah 5:2 ref refers to David?
Look, this discussion is interesting but is kinda gone off from the original Micah quote. I’m therefore changing the thread title, assuming that’s OK with y’all.
At the beginning of 1 Chronicles, somebody named Ephrath is mentioned as the wife of Caleb, who was a grandson of Judah. A lot of the people in the bible are eponymous. So, all of the people of Israel are (supposedly) descended from Israel, all of the Ammonites are descended from Ben-Ammi, the tribe of Judah is decended from Judah, etc. Each tribal grouping is named after it’s founder. So, to follow that idea, the people of Ephratha were supposedly descended from Caleb and his second wife Ephrath.
And based on the eponymous relationships, you can see how the people at the time viewed themselves. Our hypothetical Bethlehemite considers himself descended from Ephrath, so he’s part of the sub-clan of Ephratha. Ephraph is the second wife of Caleb, so he’s of the Calebite clan. Caleb was one of the grandsons of Judah, so he’s part of the tribe of Judah. Judah was the son of Israel, so he’s an Israelite, and Israel was a decendant of Eber, so he’s a Hebrew.
When you real all the X begat Y in the bible, you’re seeing the way the tribes viewed their relationships with each other.
