Finntrasan

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah Whether he left out an important piece of information or not would depend on the context of his statement. Either way I think it’s safe to say we are all on the same page now.

Would you be able to address this next?

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah No, I said a yes or no would suffice. If you have a more elaborate reply, even better.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@realRobertArmel Yes, and meanwhile no clarification regarding whether aMatthew was an eyewitness or not.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah So saying “water contains hydrogen” is not accurate, as it makes no mention of oxygen?

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah I still don’t know which of his tweets you are objecting to, but stating that gMatthew is dependent on gMark is not just half-accurate, it’s completely accurate. It’s not a complete synoptic solution, but it does not have to be.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah No, I said a yes or no would suffice. If you have a more elaborate reply, even better.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah Can you show where he suggested that gMatthew was dependent exclusively on gMark? Because I know that is not his position.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah Of course. gMark is much shorter than Matthew. So while 90-95% of gMark is used by aMatthew, it only makes up about half of gMatthew. More interestingly, do you agree that gMatthew is unlikely to be composed by an eyewitness? A simple yes or no would suffice.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah Obviously. Where did anyone claim something else?

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah Point being that Matthew’s calling in gMt can be well explained by a model where the author copies gMark, makes a few grammatical improvement and adds an appropriate citation from Hosea. Nothing here suggests aMatthew was an eyewitness (arguably rather the opposite.)

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@realRobertArmel @Apollo_3H @mchooyah Surely it couldn’t be from the OT? (And liked so much by aMatthew he used it twice, see also Mt 12:7)

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@realRobertArmel @Apollo_3H @mchooyah Maybe aMatthew knows a Jewish gospel tradition where the repenting tax collector is named Matthew/Matthias and thus changes gMarks “Levi” to “Matthew”. Hard to say exactly how, but Levi, Matthew, Matthias and Zacchaeus are all intertwined imo.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@realRobertArmel @Apollo_3H @mchooyah The name change is highly peculiar, and the entire passage appears to be a doublet to the story of Zacchaeus in Lk 19. Clement of Alexandria might provide a puzzle piece which could explain both observations (Matthias and Matthew being the same Hebrew name):

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah This is particularly peculiar since the calling of Levi in gMark (imo) demonstrates some traces of literary redaction, rather than a reading like a realistic eyewitness account.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@Apollo_3H @realRobertArmel @mchooyah …how this makes sense if aMatthew was an eyewitness. Why would he rely on a second hand narrative from Mark to retell events he himself was present at, like his own calling?

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@JWS846893322695 @JoelMCurzon Matthew’s parable of the wedding banquet certainly seems like a thinly veiled allegory for God punishing the Jews for rejecting Jesus by destroying Jerusalem (22:7).

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@JoelMCurzon @realRobertArmel @ArminiusFan As a contrasting view to Carrier’s, Litwa argues 1 Clement is mid-second century at best. He discusses the dating about 9m into this video https://t.co/EPXdUpZHWD

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@JoelMCurzon @realRobertArmel @ArminiusFan Perhaps (and Carrier uses this to argue for mythicism). Though the same can arguably be said about Paul’s letters, which were written in even closer temporal, social and geographical proximity to a historical Jesus. Ultimately Jesus is not the subject matter of 1 Clement.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@JoelMCurzon @realRobertArmel @ArminiusFan Note also that 1 Clement is notoriously hard to date. It’s been placed (by secular scholars) anywhere from the 60ies to 130CE. The mainstream dating around Domitian is pretty weak.

[Finntrasan @finntrasan]

@JoelMCurzon @realRobertArmel @ArminiusFan Iirc, I think a pretty good case can be made that aLuke may have depended on gMatthew for the temptation and the baptism. Beyond that, there is not much except perhaps a word here or there. (It may or may not be relevant, but gMarcion had neither temptation or baptism)