Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

by wobble 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  designs

  Much credit for modern (1600-1700AD) scholarly criticism goes to French Roman Catholic Jean Astruc and his hypothesis of the 2 Genesis story line. Discovery of what apparently Ezra and possibly another scribe had compiled in the Yahveh story (translated as Jehovah by Peter Gallatin in 1518) and the Elohim story, see the footnotes in the NJB. Five different sets of codes and narratives were eventually identifed by German scholars in the 19th century.

  Layering, as it is sometimes called, is the way cultures add to their history and memory. Going back and trying to smooth over rough spots and gaps.

  Voila! the Gospels and the writers who touched them up over several centuries drew from centuries of narratives and even Josephus.

  Millar Burrows wrote in 'What Mean These Stones' 'choose the best authorities and trust them, but not to far, having more confidence in a general consensus than in one author'.
• 

  GromitSK

  Hi PS

  I don't think we are far apart in our view on this matter. I would however respectfully point out that your answer seems to sidestep the point I made about the divine-inspiration claimed for the Bible and the apparent ease with which it can be twisted to support the aims of others. Why wouldn't God make his wishes known less ambiguously if the Bible really was meant to be a guide to life? The answer I would say is because the Bible isn't from God (and neither is any other religious document that I know of, at least not in any sense that is of practical value). I would be interested to hear your own view.

  I don't think this is discussion anything to do with God intervening or not in individual acts of atrocity (and I agree many such acts have been committed with no religious basis - tribe/nation/politics often feature, though politics and religious belief often go hand in hand it seems to me).

  Paul
• 

  metatron

  I think an unstated problem within this thread is that you need to come up with a huge amount of editing within a fairly short period of time - and then have the multiple results to be considered authoritative (mostly) by the early second century.

  In addition, it is difficult for me to ignore what appears to be a sort of crafting that others have spoken about: Mark looks like it was written for Romans, Matthew for Jews, Luke for Greeks and John for mystics. I also think that John needs to be written last as its viewpoint looks VERY Gnostic ( or proto-Gnostic?) and otherwise distant from the original events in Palestine, as in the way it refers to "the Jews" collectively.

  There is a philosophical defect in these analyses, I believe. On the one hand, scholars take a 'naturalist' approach in which the Gospels must be dated after 70 AD on the presumption that prophecy is impossible. In contrast, the faithful accept it all as history and date them much earlier.

  As with evolution vs creation, it is difficult to create a 'middle' viewpoint, in society at large!

  I can't see Matthew as a clever fake, as Ray Franz's arguments still hold water. If editing or collusion is true, they should have fixed or cleaned up a lot of apparent errors and that goes for the other Gospels as well.

  Contrarywise, Leolaia makes a solid point about the Gospels as 'midrashim'. The Watchtower, in particular, keeps asserting this fallacy that ancient people thought or spoke about their world in the same way that we do today. We are deeply influenced by a technological and legalistic culture that these folks didn't have. This is also why ancient languages fall by the wayside and why one Japanese researcher told his comrades that their results needed to be communicated in English. Their traditional tongue was not exact enough.

  In the end, you also have the apparent fact that, for quite awhile, the written Gospels were superfluous because Christian churches had multiple living witnesses to Jesus' being alive after his execution, as Paul notes.

  And you thought the solution was easy?

  metatron
• 

  PSacramento

  I don't think we are far apart in our view on this matter. I would however respectfully point out that your answer seems to sidestep the point I made about the divine-inspiration claimed for the Bible and the apparent ease with which it can be twisted to support the aims of others.

  Well, divine-inspiration does NOT mean without error or controversy, people forget that.

  One is insipired by God to write THEIR views about God, some are more straightforward at times about what is THIER view and what they THINK God inspired them to say, Like Paul was at times, whiel others don't say anything of the sort.

  Besides Jesus, anything written or said, is the word of man. Inspired men, yes, but men nevertheless.

  Now, of course what we have written as "Jesus's sayings" were written by men and NOT Jesus so where does that leave us?

  Well, IF one choose to put much stock in the Bible then one MUST truly research it, the good, the bad and the ugly and then decided FOR THEMSEVES what to believe and WHY they believe.
• 

  GromitSK

  If it is as you say, and I don't disagree, that the Bible is the thoughts of men (whether inspired or not), then I cannot see how it is any kind of authority. Since the majority of people are unlikely to have the time, commitment and wherewithal to do the type of research that you say would be necessary to reach a definite conclusion, it occurs to me that such folks will naturally rely on the opinions of others who have, or claim to have, done the research already. This is clearly what happens in practice in religions all round the world with obvious results. This seems compounded by the apparent fact that none of the original writings exist and the process of assembling the NT was directed by Constantine and his cronies in the Church.

  We are still left with the imprecision I originally referred to: there is no way to be sure that 'God' has played any part in the construction of this collection of documents. Worse than that, if He did, His influence was so weak as to be indistinguishable from human thought. Any appeal to divine authority is thus weakened or, some might say, rendered valueless.

  I agree the 'words of Jesus' you refer to were themselves written by men. If the other writings in the books are subject to doubt then so too must it be so with these words. It seems to me there is some doubt that those who committed the words to paper ever heard 'Jesus' speak - if in fact the 'Jesus' as mentioned in the writings existed at all in the form described in the Gospels.

  The term 'divine inspiration' is an interesting one. It appears to me to be vague enough to mean almost anything and easy to introduce to make a saying authoritative for the believer without being susceptible to proper analysis. Referring to sayings as 'inspired' without any frame of reference for the degree to which this is true renders them of no more value than anyone else's 'wise sayings' and equally prone to error.

  Your final remark is I think quite correct. If a person wants to place "much stock" in the Bible they should research it. Unfortunately as far as I can see, years of study by those with the time and intellect so to do have not resulted in much more than widespread disagreement about the meaning of it. The Church itself has spent centuries in research. I wonder exactly how much more research can be done? if such intense research is required to understand it or determine its validity one wonders why God bothered in the first place as it does not seem a very efficient or accurate way to get His thoughts across. He would appear to have used far more explicit methods in the past: angels, burning bushes, tablets from mountains etc etc.

  As a final thought, the original documents (even if they exist any more) were not written in English. I presume that to be sure of what one is researching, one ought to learn Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew too. After all, studying the Bible in English is studying the meaning as ascribed by those who translated it into English, most, if not all of whom would have their own agenda.
• 

  PSacramento

  If it is as you say, and I don't disagree, that the Bible is the thoughts of men (whether inspired or not), then I cannot see how it is any kind of authority.

  A thing has no authority, unless we give it that.

  Since the majority of people are unlikely to have the time, commitment and wherewithal to do the type of research that you say would be necessary to reach a definite conclusion, it occurs to me that such folks will naturally rely on the opinions of others who have, or claim to have, done the research already. This is clearly what happens in practice in religions all round the world with obvious results. This seems compounded by the apparent fact that none of the original writings exist and the process of assembling the NT was directed by Constantine and his cronies in the Church.

  Most people tend to not care that much about their faith, this is true.

  I knwo I didn't untill the JW's came a knocking, as it were.

  Your final remark is I think quite correct. If a person wants place "much stock" in the Bible they should research it. Unfortunately as far as I can see, years of study by those with the time and intellect so to do have not resulted in much more than widespread disagreement about the meaning of it. The Church itself has spent centuries in research. I wonder exactly how much more research can be done? if such intense research is required to understand it or determine its validity one wonders why God bothered in the first place as it does not seem a very efficient or accurate way to get His thoughts across. He would appear to have used for me explicit methods in the past: angels, burning bushes, tablets from mountains etc etc.

  We research to come to OUR conclusions, we just have to do it honestly that's all, what others come up with is what THEY come up with.

  It's not as complex as you make it sound, it's not easy no, but not that complex at all.

  It's easy for us the sit here and Judge God, why not? he doesn't really exist does he?

  God should have doen this, made it that way, take this into his hands, made this clear,etc, etc and al are valid criticisims.

  Of course it would be easier for God just to take control of all our lives and dictate to us what to do, what to believe, what to wear, what to eat, what to say, what job to have, etc, etc.

  So much easier that way.
• 

  GromitSK

  To say a thing has no authority unless we give it is true to an extent, but the Bible claims authority and to be inspired by God. It doesn't say 'take it or leave it' or 'make your own mind up' as far as I know. It is reasonable to ask why one should accept this. I would say given the information above, I do not see how any rational person would accept it is an authoritative presentation of the will of God.

  If one decides one is satisfied that the Bible is authoritative that is a personal decision and that's fine. If one tries to convince someone else it is authoritative then one is obliged to explain one's rational and expose it to analysis.

  I disagree that I have made the process of study more complex than necessary. If you start with an English translation of the Bible you are starting with a number of assumptions that may or may not be true. You are trusting the foundation of your study is correct without knowing for sure. I do not think the Bible is easy for the ordinary person to research yet the consequences for accepting it as an authority may be vastly more important than if we form an opinion about purely historical writings.

  This is not about God taking control of our lives. This is about God (if there is one) making his laws and advice (if he has any) known clearly. He has apparently not baulked at interfering directly in the past if the Bible is to be believed. The choice is then whether folks decide to accept it or not. In the past apparently direct intervention (eg Egypt) didn't make people mindlessly comply did it? Why would it now?

  Anyway I think we are straying from the point rather. In a nutshell I think Matthew is a politico/religious document like the rest of the book and we would be no worse of it it didn't exist at all.
• 

  PSacramento

  Anyway I think we are straying from the point rather. In a nutshell I think Matthew is a politico/religious document like the rest of the book and we would be no worse of it it didn't exist at all.

  To go back on track, I agree that Matt's stuff is a poltical and eligious document, probably edited over a few times, I believe the writer and editors beleived they were inspired by God and by what they witness first hand ( Matthew and Jesus) and I do believe that it is quite pertanent to US and we would be worse off without it ( to a minor degree nowadays and a greater one in the past), why?

  Matthew has the first mentions of many things that people were taught in terms of morals: love they neighbour for example, it has the sermon on the mound and I am sure more stuff that I can't think of right now because, well, I am hungry and need to get something toeat, LOL !

  For US, NOW, perhaps the GOM is irrelevant for we get alot of "that stuff" from other sources, but in the past, perhaps not so much, certainly it was written for a reason, there was a "need" for it for at least a praticular group of people.

  It is quite easy for us with our superiour 21st century morals to look back and say, "irrelevant".

  We shall see if what we write today will be as relevant in 3010.
• 

  GromitSK

  We shall see if what we write today will be as relevant in 3010

  I fully expect what is written today on religious matters to be equally worthless :)

  Enjoy your meal :)
• 

  PSacramento

  LMAO !!!

  Well put !

  Indeed I shall try.

  :)