by jimwalton » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:42 pm
> And so has spiderman.
The writer of Spiderman used NYC as a setting, but he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing.
> It's not hard evidence, it's weak evidence.
It's almost too much to talk about in one post, but arguing over generalities doesn't get us very far. As far as Mark's Gospel...
- the Church Fathers attribute Mark to Mark
- If you're looking for a "credible founder," Mark is not your guy. He wasn't a disciple, he was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas, and he was not viewed as a significant character in the 1st century. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
- The writing of the first Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Nobody. If they were going to slap a name on it, they would choose a recognized teacher who would give the account appeal and credibility. Mark is not that guy.
- It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark. Therefore Matthew and Luke considered Mark to be an authoritative, reliable source.
- We have no evidence that Mark's authorship was ever in contention.
As far as Matthew's Gospel...
The superscription "According to Matthew" is on every edition that has been found, from the earliest (starting around AD 200) and through the centuries. There is no copy of Matthew without his name on it. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew, as did Irenaeus, also in the second century. For that matter, the early church fathers were unanimous in attributing it to Matthew. There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
- The author seems to have been a highly educated Jew.
- The author was familiar with technical aspects of the Jewish law.
- The author was a conservative-minded Jew.
- The gospel uses material that details Messianic titles (such as "The Prophet," and "the Righteous One") that were already archaic in the time of Jesus. This would give credence to an early writing date by a close follower.
- The interest of the Gospel in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, would come most readily from a man trained in the legal disciplines, or from one who had been in constant touch with men so trained. Matthew the Jew, who was also a tax collector, fits that profile.
- The preservation of sayings of Jesus about the Law, and about some of its interpreters and interpretations, would be precisely the kind of interest we might expect from someone who was probably a Levite.
- The gospel’s parables reflect interest in the spiritual history of Israel as God’s chosen people.
- Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark. Though Matthew is often accused of stealing much of his content from Mark, the contrast between Matthew and Mark is characteristic of their stories from start to finish.
- The archaic expressions, interest in ecclesiastical matters, carefully recorded statements of Jesus about the Law, a conservative type of eschatology, together with an already dying method of commentary, all serve to convince us that we are dealing with an author very similar to what we would expect Matthew to be like.
The evidence is heavily in Matthew's favor.
> Okay, now do it without referring to internet, newsprint, or any other mass media.
One doesn't need the Internet to know the truth. One doesn't need newsprint to know the truth about a story. Why, even newsprint can be FAKE NEWS! If two of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, which I believe they were based on the evidence, then they didn't need mass media to know what happened. And since Matthew and Mark both lived in Jerusalem, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess they may have known each other. There's even some speculation that Mark knew Jesus. You don't need mass media to get at the truth.
> The nativity stories
Joseph Fitzmyer lists where the two infancy narrative agree:
Where Luke and Matthew’s infancy narratives agree:
1. Jesus’ birth is related to the reign of Herod (Lk. 1.5; Mt. 2.1).
2. Mary, his mother to be, is a virgin engaged to Joseph, but they have not yet come to live together (Lk. 1.27, 34; 2.5; Mt. 1.18)
3. Joseph is of the house and lineage of David (Lk. 1.27; 2.4; Mt. 1.16, 20)
4. An angel from heaven announces the coming birth of Jesus (Lk. 1.28-30; Mt. 1.20-21).
5. Jesus is recognized himself to be a son of David (Lk. 1.32; Mt. 1.1).
6. Jesus’ conception is to take place through the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1.35; Mt. 1.18, 20).
7. Joseph is not involved in the conception (Lk. 1.34; Mt. 1.18-25).
8. The name Jesus is imposed by heaven prior to his birth (Lk. 1.31; Mt. 1.21).
9. The angel identifies Jesus as Savior (Lk. 2.11; Mt. 1.21).
10. Jesus is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 1.24-25).
11. Jesus is born at Bethlehem (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 2.1).
12. Jesus settles, with Mary and Joseph, in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk. 2.39, 51; Mt. 2.22-23).
So I beg to differ that "there is almost zero overlap."
> Randomly chosen references
No, an abundance of references. For instance, in just the first 15 verses of Luke...
-1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
- 1.5 It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholars. "King" was a title decreed to Herod by the Roman Senate in 40 BC on the recommendation of Antony and Octavius. So the title is true also.
- 1.5 There were priests in Judea at the time, so this notation is true.
- 1.5, 8 There was a priestly division of Abijah (1 Chr. 24.10). The college of priests was divided into 24 courses. Each of these did duty for 8 days, from one Sabbath to another, once every 6 months. The service of the week was subdivided among the various families, which constituted a course. On Sabbaths the whole course was on duty. On feast days any priest might come up and join in the ministrations of the sanctuary, and at the Feast of Tabernacles all the 24 courses were bound to be present and officiate. The course of Abijah was the 8th of the 24. So this is historical.
- 1.8 "Once when Zechariah's division was on duty..." Daily service (Neh. 13.30; 1 Chr. 25.8) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1 Chr. 23.6; 28.13). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the 8th (1 Chr. 24.10; 2 Chr. 8.14). Only 4 of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into 24 with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for 8 days, Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. On Sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were present. So this is historical.
- 1.9 "he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood..." The regulations for the lot are given in m. Tamid 5.2-6.3. So this is historical. Four lots were drawn to determine the order of the ministry of the day: the first, before daybreak, to designate the priests who were to cleanse the altar and prepare its fires; the second for the priest who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense; the third for the priest who should burn incense; and the fourth appointing those who were to lay the sacrifice and meat offering on the altar and pour out the drink offering. There are said to have been 20,000 priests in Christ's time, so that no priest would ever offer incense more than once.
- 1.9 Of course the 2nd temple was in existence at this time, so this is historical.
- 1.9 Incense offerings (Ex. 30.7-8) has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "And when the time for the burning of incense came..." According to Exodus 30.7-8 and the parallels with Daniel 9.21m it is the time of the evening offering that is understood here. It's about 3 in the afternoon, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "All the assembled worshippers were praying outside." The hours of morning and evening sacrifices were also the major public hours of prayer in the temple (cf. Acts 3.1). Except during a feast, most of the people praying there would be from Jerusalem; unable to enter the priestly sanctuary, they were presumably men in the Court of Israel, and some women outside that in the Court of the Women.
- 1.11 The angel stood on the right side of the altar. This makes sense, since the right side is the favorable side. It shows the angel wasn't bringing bad news or judgment. We can't prove this, of course, but it makes sense given their traditions and understandings.
- 1.15. It's true that not taking wine or other fermented drink was a sign of special dedication to the Lord (Num. 6.3). So this makes sense.
We've only done 15 verses of one Gospel! There's plenty of evidence of historical reliability, and so much is corroborated by extrabibilical sources.