Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ? (page 7)

jaguarbass

yah I do have a retirement home to play at. It beats working at Mcdonalds or 7-11

and those old cougars still flash there boobies at me.

And so do the young ones.

I could sell books just like I could sell music.

jaguarbass

Dont the JW's have there meetings at night anymore?

wobble

So the consensus seems to be that the G.of M was written around 80 C.E I have seen this for Lukes , and later for his, perhaps Mark wrote his before 70 CE and maybe even John ?

So we are left with a possible prophecy in Mark 13 for the temple destruction, but of course as Terry points out, not having a manuscript of Mark that is dated before 70 C.E (the earliest we have is much much later) we cannot know how much the text has been tampered with .

What seems certain is that the motive of the writers of Matthew and Luke is to make the new faith in Jesus acceptable to the whole world, along with the desire to provide something for the churches to study.

So really, the whole JW argument and flip-flop on the generation saying is a waste of time, we cannot know it was ever uttered.

notverylikely

yah I do have a retirement home to play at. It beats working at Mcdonalds or 7-11

and those old cougars still flash there boobies at me.

And so do the young ones.

That shows exactly how much you know about the business of...well, anything. The answer is nothing. And 65 isn't young, even if she is the hottest one at the home. That hip replacement just makes her more flexible, though.

I could sell books just like I could sell music.

The discussion was about writing, publishing and distributing books with royalties and payments to the author, not hawking books off a MySpace page. Which again just shows that you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Dont the JW's have there meetings at night anymore?

Just one night a week now.

tec

I think writers get payment for the book, but the publishing company gets the royalites, typically.

If you publish with a publishing house (as opposed to self-publishing) a writer typically gets an advance against their royalties. So you get money up front; then you earn a percentage of royalties (average 8%) from each book sold. Your advance comes out of that.

Advances may work a bit differently with extremely successful writers like Stephen King, etc. (like different houses bidding on individual books), but royalties are the percentage that every writer receives from the house for each book sold.

Tammy

Sorry, this is completely off-topic.

not a captive

It may be off-topic, Tammy, but someone had to put it out of its misery. Thanks.

not a captive

Leolaia, Thank you for such very cool and even-handed information.

Leolaia

wobble....The gospel of Luke probably dates closer to AD 100, considering its probable dependence on Josephus. This also allows time for dependence on Matthew (unlike Mark and Matthew, the author of Luke is explicit that others had already produced written accounts before him). We know that it was widely distributed by c. 130-140 when it was promoted by Marcion as the only legitimate gospel. John at least in some form could date prior to AD 70 but its lengthy discourses, realized eschatology, and high christology fits better with a date towards the end of the first century AD, and the appendix certainly recommends a date after the passing of the generation contemporaneous with Jesus (ch. 21 however is probably a later addition to the gospel).

So we are left with a possible prophecy in Mark 13 for the temple destruction, but of course as Terry points out, not having a manuscript of Mark that is dated before 70 C.E (the earliest we have is much much later) we cannot know how much the text has been tampered with

Well, although we cannot know how much this text or any text has changed from the "original," we do have a very early witness to Mark, namely, Matthew. The evidence from Matthew and Luke (and possibly the much-contested longer version of Mark currently embroiled in controversy) indeed shows that the edition of Mark they used is not the same version we have today. The redactions seem to be quite heavy in ch. 9-10. But there is no similar evidence for ch. 13. And it should be borne in mind that nothing in the Markan apocalypse requires a composition after AD 70, or even during the Jewish revolt (although the application made of it by Mark is likely secondary); a feasible hypothesis is that it is pre-Christian in origin, composed as a midrash of Daniel (this would account for the many literary parallels with certain sections of 4 Ezra). Some have suggested that its original setting was the Caligula controversy of AD 40; this better fits the features of the apocalypse than the situation in AD 66-70. So it is noteworthy that the redactions that make it better fit with the situation in AD 70 are to be found in a later gospel dependent on Mark, namely Luke, and not in the Markan text as we have it.

What seems certain is that the motive of the writers of Matthew and Luke is to make the new faith in Jesus acceptable to the whole world, along with the desire to provide something for the churches to study.

Indeed, the purpose of the gospels was didactic in terms of spreading the "good news of Jesus Christ"; this means that they were more interested in explaining the meaning of Jesus in theological and soteriological terms than they were in relating a biographical narrative. The didactic concerns may shape the narrative itself, inasmuch as OT interpretation is involved in the composition of narratives.

So really, the whole JW argument and flip-flop on the generation saying is a waste of time, we cannot know it was ever uttered.

Well the flip-flop itself is a waste of time for sure; talking about it however is very useful in getting those JWs to see the arbitrariness in the ideas advanced by the GB as "new light". As for the possibility that it wasn't uttered by Jesus (which has to recommend it the fact that it is oriented more to the advancement in age of the generation contemporaneous with Jesus, which reflects the situation at the time Mark was written), this ultimately doesn't matter to a JW who takes the "Bible" as a whole as an authority, as opposed to only the statements attributed to Jesus Christ.

Terry

If you step way back and take a look at the question of Gospel authenticity you must ask yourself at least one important question:

How do honest thinkers decide to accept controversial authority simply on faith without due diligence? At best, such a surrender of personal responsibility indicates a devaluing of "noble-minded" Berean investigative duty. At worst, an intellectual sloth indicative of a passive mindset.

The majority of inerrantists I've met are rather vibrant, enthusiastic believers often over-eager to persuade others that the whole lump of Gospel messages is 100% pure and healthy.

Just how do you get there and have a brain cell intact?

It isn't stupidity.

It isn't laziness.

I can only guess it is merely IRRATIONALITY. Once you accept things on "faith" you disable your ability to see the need for investigation and prudent skepticism.

wobble

I agree Terry, it is also indicative of a closed mind, they do not look at the evidence and then refute it, they just ignore it.

The excellent posts above from Leo for example, where are the Apologists showing that she is wrong ?

If she is right then their faith is based on documents that cannot be trusted to have given us true stories or true sayings, there may be a lot of truth in there, but you cannot be certain what it is.

Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

Share this