Jesus was Myth

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You thought wrong.

That's unfortunate, though can you provide links that show that Matthew was not written by the Apostle Matthew??

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm pleased to see that you are immune to the misinformation provided by the "church fathers."

I don't have church fathers.

 

[steeltoes]

That's unfortunate, though can you provide links that show that Matthew was not written by the Apostle Matthew??

Better still, provide links that show Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Better still, provide links that show Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew.

Authorship[edit]
Although the Gospel of Matthew does not name its author, some of the early MSS have the following citation: "Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language." [5] The record of the tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63 A.D.), who testified: "Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialektōi—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability.[6][7][8][9]
On the surface this implies that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek, but some scholars believe the passage is ambiguous. Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[10] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[9]
Today, modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic.[11] Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect,[12] and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” [13][14]

From wikipedia

here's the full link

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While it's certainly not 100%, it is widely accepted even by modern scholars it would appear.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really?

I thought it was accepted that Matthew was written by well Matthew the apostle, Mark and Luke are the Evangelist and John is up in the air?

You thought wrong.

Authorship[edit]
Although the Gospel of Matthew does not name its author, some of the early MSS have the following citation: "Here ends the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew. He wrote it in the land of Palestine, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Hebrew language." [5] The record of the tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63 A.D.), who testified: "Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialektōi—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability.[6][7][8][9]
On the surface this implies that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek, but some scholars believe the passage is ambiguous. Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[10] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[9]
Today, modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic.[11] Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect,[12] and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” [13][14]

From wikipedia

here's the full link

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While it's certainly not 100%, it is widely accepted even by modern scholars it would appear.

It helps to read the whole piece ...

Therefore the majority of modern scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and the use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Gospel of Matthew was written originally redacted in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy). If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome referred to a Hebrew document distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. For many reasons scholars today believe in composite authorship They theorize that the composite Greek Gospel of Matthew was completed between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values. The disciple Matthew was probably honored within the author's circle as the fountainhead or source of much of the tradition.

This theory holds that the redactor drew on three primary sources, each representing a distinct community: a hypothetical collection, or several collections, of sayings (called "Q", and shared with Luke); the Gospel of Mark; and material unique to Matthew (called "M", some of which may have originated with Matthew himself). The Jewish redactor wrote for a Jewish audience: like "Q" and "M", he stresses the continuing relevance of the Jewish law; unlike Mark he never bothers to explain Jewish customs; and unlike Luke, who traces Jesus's ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews. The content of "M" suggests that this community was stricter than the others in its attitude to keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in "righteousness" (adherence to Jewish law); and of the three only "M" refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order. [ibid]

See, also, Schnelle's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It helps to read the whole piece ...

​

See, also, Schnelle's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings.

Ah thank you.

That's interesting, I wonder if these things are taught in theological schools?

And if not, why not?

 

[steeltoes]

I don't have church fathers.

Regardless, that's where the BS originates.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Speaking of BS ...

 

[steeltoes]

Speaking of BS ...

I'm sorry, you believe that stuff.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah thank you.

That's interesting, I wonder if these things are taught in theological schools?

And if not, why not?

Depends on who owns the school, I would guess. I've heard about professors who were kicked out of schools for doubting the historical Jesus, though I don't know if it's true. I'm sure there is pressure in many schools to toe whatever doctrinal line the owner insists upon.

Or theological schools can be owned by liberals who have a hand's-off attitude toward their professors. I prefer those.

 

[steeltoes]

Depends on who owns the school, I would guess. I've heard about professors who were kicked out of schools for doubting the historical Jesus, though I don't know if it's true. I'm sure there is pressure in many schools to toe whatever doctrinal line the owner insists upon.

It's true, Thomas Brodie case in point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry, you believe that stuff.

You have no clue as to what I believe. :no:

 

[outhouse]

It's true, Thomas Brodie case in point.

Brodies case doesnt apply.

He was hired at a apologetic schools to teach apologetics, it is exactly what he was hired to do.

He was welcome to seek employment in a more scholarly setting, but chose to work at a apologetic school to begin with.



You take this out of context, and it doesnt apply.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's true, Thomas Brodie case in point.

Searching for him, I stumbled upon a Wiki page about the Christ Myth Theory, only to find that it's written by a hard-nosed historicist. The usual appeals to authority. The disdainful dismissal of any scholars who question Jesus.

It's curious -- the whole cultural struggle right now.

Anyway, every time a historicist calls me 'dogmatic' in my opinion of a non-historical Jesus, I hear projection on his part. I doubt any mythicist professor ever lost his job for swinging over to the historicist side.

People love and cling desperately to their historical Jesus.

 

[steeltoes]

Brodies case doesnt apply.

He was hired at a apologetic schools to teach apologetics, it is exactly what he was hired to do.

He was welcome to seek employment in a more scholarly setting, but chose to work at a apologetic school to begin with.



You take this out of context, and it doesnt apply.

Sources.

 

[steeltoes]

Searching for him, I stumbled upon a Wiki page about the Christ Myth Theory, only to find that it's written by a hard-nosed historicist. The usual appeals to authority. The disdainful dismissal of any scholars who question Jesus.

That's OK, the historical Jesus article in wiki makes up for it.

It's curious -- the whole cultural struggle right now.

Anyway, every time a historicist calls me 'dogmatic' in my opinion of a non-historical Jesus, I hear projection on his part. I doubt any mythicist professor ever lost his job for swinging over to the historicist side.

People love and cling desperately to their historical Jesus.

I don't have a problem with an historical Jesus, but I would be hesitant to stand firm on any given theory, the same goes with the mythicist theories. However the responses by HJers on this board don't do anything to help their cause, whatever that cause may be.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't have a problem with an historical Jesus, but I would be hesitant to stand firm on any given theory, the same goes with the mythicist theories.

As I said earlier, anyone who is certain about 2,000-year-old truth is just not being thoughtful about historicity.

However the responses by HJers on this board don't do anything to help their cause, whatever that cause may be.

Yeah. It ain't straight, dispassionate, calm-and-steady rationality. That's for sure.

 

[outhouse]

Unless you two can explain away a martyred man at Passover that Hellenists wrote about for hundreds of years afterwards, A HJ stands.

MJ does not stand because it doesnt make any sense at all.

 

[steeltoes]

Unless you two can explain away a martyred man at Passover that Hellenists wrote about for hundreds of years afterwards, A HJ stands.

MJ does not stand because it doesnt make any sense at all.

I have no interest in disputing religious beliefs.


Actually, you make a point for mythicists. We have a story and you along with a billion or two others believe it. It's all that is required. The mythicists have a point that religious literature is all that is necessary, but as I stated earlier, I am not interested in standing firm on any given theory about Jesus, I'm just sayin' that you really have nothing to offer that is any better than a mythicist can offer.

 

[outhouse]

I have no interest in disputing religious beliefs..

I never posited such

, I am not interested in standing firm on any given theory about Jesus,

Because you cant, we understand.