FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Biblical Criticism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I had an argument with a cathecumen yesterday about BIblical criticism.
He is a religious studies major, who was once a Jew, but now by the grace of God, is joining the Catholic Church.

He believes in the JEPD hypothesis of Genesis, and Mark being written first.
I told him tradition states that MAtthew was written first, and he says that it was put first in the Bible because it started with the geneology,
not because it was written first.

I know Church tradition does state that Matthew was written first,
but who (in the Church) said it, when was it written, and in what context was it written.

I heard that MAtthew was written right after the Council of Jerusalem in Aramaic/ Hebrew first, Mark was written some time in the 60s AD,
and is sourced from an interview with St. Peter, Lukes came next from interviewing the apostles, and John might have been written on Patmos.
I don't know, but this is relevant and may help you some: http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/02/who-...t-one.html
(12-09-2012, 12:50 PM)Miles Christi Wrote: [ -> ]I had an argument with a cathecumen yesterday about BIblical criticism.
He is a religious studies major, who was once a Jew, but now by the grace of God, is joining the Catholic Church.

He believes in the JEPD hypothesis of Genesis, and Mark being written first.
I told him tradition states that MAtthew was written first, and he says that it was put first in the Bible because it started with the geneology,
not because it was written first.

I know Church tradition does state that Matthew was written first,
but who (in the Church) said it, when was it written, and in what context was it written.

I heard that MAtthew was written right after the Council of Jerusalem in Aramaic/ Hebrew first, Mark was written some time in the 60s AD,
and is sourced from an interview with St. Peter, Lukes came next from interviewing the apostles, and John might have been written on Patmos.
You forgot the Blessed Mother for a source on Luke. And why does it matter? and what is JEPD
Here is the response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (19 June 1911), an organ of the Magisterium, on the question of when St. Matthew wrote his Gospel:

"Whether the opinion should be considered as sufficiently supported by the assent of tradition, which holds that Matthew preceded the other evangelists in his writing, and that he composed the first Gospel in the native language then employed by the Jews of Palestine, to whom that work was directed? -- Reply: In the affirmative to both parts" (Denz. 2149).
(12-09-2012, 02:15 PM)JoeVoxxPop Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2012, 12:50 PM)Miles Christi Wrote: [ -> ]I had an argument with a cathecumen yesterday about BIblical criticism.
He is a religious studies major, who was once a Jew, but now by the grace of God, is joining the Catholic Church.

He believes in the JEPD hypothesis of Genesis, and Mark being written first.
I told him tradition states that MAtthew was written first, and he says that it was put first in the Bible because it started with the geneology,
not because it was written first.

I know Church tradition does state that Matthew was written first,
but who (in the Church) said it, when was it written, and in what context was it written.

I heard that MAtthew was written right after the Council of Jerusalem in Aramaic/ Hebrew first, Mark was written some time in the 60s AD,
and is sourced from an interview with St. Peter, Lukes came next from interviewing the apostles, and John might have been written on Patmos.
You forgot the Blessed Mother for a source on Luke. And why does it matter? and what is JEPD

It matters to refute a man on a false belief. I want to convince that tradition says that Matthew wrote the first gospel

JEPD is the Biblical criticism answer to who wrote Genesis, (I told him Moses compiled Genesis, he saws it comes from the JEPD hypothesis.
In a nutshell, this is the documentary hypothesis, brought to you by the same people, who believe that the Gospels come from some mythical Q document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEPD
Matthew makes sense to be first, historically and in the order of the canon, since the Jews were preached to first and the Gentiles came in later. Matthew, after all, emphasizes Hebraic necessities for the Messias.

Eusebius' history, written between 300 and 325, is where we see the evidence of Matthew as first and in Aramaic. He cites Papias (circa 130). The citations are 3.24, 3.29. Irenaeus through Eusebius reports that Matthew published his sayings when Peter and Paul were preaching to the Romans, and Mark after they had died. That's 5.8. It's a difficult debate. One argument is based on the historical records, whereas the other is based on textual criticism. I don't understand why they feel compelled to arrange them in that manner against the historical witness. If they're all going off of oral tradition at first, then that really leaves the situation up for grabs. I haven't read in depth into the theories. It may be easier to just cite the historical record and to respect each other's views, as long as he is not discounting the tradition completely, such as Matthew was not involved at all but tacked on to give the text authority (thus our title is a lie). Some think the whole thing about Matthew being in Aramaic at first is completely unfounded, others not. It is also acceptable to Catholic teaching that "Matthew" simply had its origin with Matthew, even if he did not pen it or arrange it directly. It could be that that is the gospel which originates with Matthew. Now Mark is said to originate with Peter, Luke with Paul. These latter admit they aren't apostolic in direct authorship. So I don't think it is something to really argue as a dogmatic thing. Same goes with Genesis. Genesis is definitely a composite. Whether it was Moses who did the final redaction or others is up for debate. But it is clearly a composite text. I would argue your point, listen to what he has to say, and maybe agree to not discount each other completely. What becomes really problematic is when people lose faith in their authenticity and canonicity when they realize that the real history may not be so clear cut as some of the tradition has made it out. Like there is this vision of Moses penning Genesis front to back in one stroke, like a modern author writes a book. Most scholars, including orthodox Catholics, reject this pious belief. For instance, there is the Toledoth theory out there which attempts to reconcile the composite nature with a single redactor such as Moses. I think the essential point is that Moses was decisive in its formation. Whether he was the originator of the text tradition, or final redactor. Also we cann't be too sycophantic with our "newfangled" theories. We're coming in centuries after the fact, and really sometimes being quite fanciful with our theories. So don't discount the historical witness and tradition, but also keep open to the recent theories. They are still theories. We certainly don't have final knowledge of these matters.
Yep, some good comes from modern investigations. It was thought the OT was an oral history handed down at one time. Today we know from excavations in Aegypt that the Israelis left messages for each other in the mines in Hebrew, often invoking "El" to save them. So the Israelis were a litterate people from the get go. I remember a Lutheran friend I worked with and he believed the OT was just fanciful rememberances handed down by an illiterate tribe around the campfires. Our knowledge can expand.

tim
(12-10-2012, 09:47 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Eusebius' history, written between 300 and 325, is where we see the evidence of Matthew as first and in Aramaic. He cites Papias (circa 130). The citations are 3.24, 3.29. Irenaeus through Eusebius reports that Matthew published his sayings when Peter and Paul were preaching to the Romans, and Mark after they had died. That's 5.8. It's a difficult debate. One argument is based on the historical records, whereas the other is based on textual criticism. I don't understand why they feel compelled to arrange them in that manner against the historical witness. If they're all going off of oral tradition at first, then that really leaves the situation up for grabs. I haven't read in depth into the theories. It may be easier to just cite the historical record and to respect each other's views, as long as he is not discounting the tradition completely, such as Matthew was not involved at all but tacked on to give the text authority (thus our title is a lie). Some think the whole thing about Matthew being in Aramaic at first is completely unfounded, others not. It is also acceptable to Catholic teaching that "Matthew" simply had its origin with Matthew, even if he did not pen it or arrange it directly. It could be that that is the gospel which originates with Matthew. Now Mark is said to originate with Peter, Luke with Paul. These latter admit they aren't apostolic in direct authorship. So I don't think it is something to really argue as a dogmatic thing. Same goes with Genesis. Genesis is definitely a composite. Whether it was Moses who did the final redaction or others is up for debate. But it is clearly a composite text. I would argue your point, listen to what he has to say, and maybe agree to not discount each other completely. What becomes really problematic is when people lose faith in their authenticity and canonicity when they realize that the real history may not be so clear cut as some of the tradition has made it out. Like there is this vision of Moses penning Genesis front to back in one stroke, like a modern author writes a book. Most scholars, including orthodox Catholics, reject this pious belief. For instance, there is the Toledoth theory out there which attempts to reconcile the composite nature with a single redactor such as Moses. I think the essential point is that Moses was decisive in its formation. Whether he was the originator of the text tradition, or final redactor. Also we cann't be too sycophantic with our "newfangled" theories. We're coming in centuries after the fact, and really sometimes being quite fanciful with our theories. So don't discount the historical witness and tradition, but also keep open to the recent theories. They are still theories. We certainly don't have final knowledge of these matters.

My theory is that people, including scholars, tend to telescope things that happened in the distant past.  The farther in the past the event is, the more this tendency presents.  It is easy to forget that the Hebrews had been in Egypt for generations, long enough to become an integral part of the society.  The society, as its extant monuments testify, was strong.  Imagine if all the Americans of German descent suddenly had to return to Germany and aculturize immediately.  Imagine further if there was a leader tasked with re-acquainting them with the half-forgotten society to which they were about to return.  He would be the point of origin for the returning people, and they would henceforth ascribe to him the "authorship" of the information that he would impart.  That is how I imagine Moses.