Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Following your logic, any historical documents the anti-Paul crowd uses is also useless because no one here actually witnessed them being written, right? We have almost no original texts, so if you're unwilling to trust copies most ancient history--for which little or no primary evidence exists--is no better than a fairy tale.
If a secular text is riddled with errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions then the text is no good and all historians discard it. The problem with the gospels is they are riddled with errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions so we discard them as worthless to build a theology on, on the premise they were not God-breathed. The fundamental rule is:
God cannot inspire errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions because He is perfect, therefore whatever He produces is perfect. If the New Testament is not perfect--faultless like God--it cannot be inspired by God. It therefore is the product of uninspired men each telling their own biased story of events they were not witness to.
Your claim that no serious Biblical scholar believes that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them is demonstrably not true as even a little bit of actual research easily shows. The fact is that most conservative Biblical scholars, and yes, conservative Biblical scholars are serious Biblical scholars, are of the opinion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual writers, or at the very least certainly do not reject the possibility of their authorship.
For instance, Biblical scholar, Charles H. Dyer who received his Ph.D from Dallas Theological Seminary, in the revised and expanded commentary on Matthew by John F. Walvoord states with regard to the Gospel of Matthew that
Conservative scholarship has agreed that whether or not there was an earlier Hebrew version, the present Greek version was Matthew's own work . . .''
[Matthew, John F. Walvoord and Charles H. Dyer, p. 13]
Craig L. Blomberg, distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminar, holds a Ph.D in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland. In his book Jesus and the Gospels, An Introduction and Survey, Blomberg, after providing the objections to Matthean authorship concludes
In short, there is no compelling reason to overturn the unanimous testimony of antiquity that Matthew/Levi was the author of the Gospel attributed to him. Even though Matthew was an apostle, he came from a disreputable background. No apocryphal works are attributed to him as they are to apostles like Peter, James, John, Thomas, Andrew or Bartholomew. He seems an unlikely candidate, even among the apostles, for later Christian to have selected in an attempt to give this Gospel greater authority, if indeed he were not the author. On the other hand, as with Mark, little of our ability to interpret the Gospel' historical context or exegetical detail hangs on this decision. [p. 156]
Blomberg also holds to the traditional authorship of Mark, Luke, and John.
D. A. Carson, Ph.D. University of Cambridge and research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D University of St. Andrew and professor of New Testament, Wheaton College Graduate School, in their book, An Introduction to the New Testament discuss the authorship of the four Gospels. Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, after providing both the pro's and con's, Carson and Moo state
Yet as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papias's claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papias's claim, we see no reason not to accept it. [pp. 175-76]
Darrell L. Bock received his PhD from Scotland's University of Aberdeen. He is New Testament scholar and research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. In the following interview, Dr. Bock discusses his views on the authorship of the four Gospels and agrees with the traditional view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors.
Dr. Michael J. Kruger (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is President and the Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. He is one of the leading scholars today in the study of the origins of the New Testament, particularly the development of the New Testament canon and the transmission of the New Testament text. Dr. Michael J. Kruger | Reformed Theological Seminary [bolding mine]
Here are Dr. Kruger's comments on the authorship of the Gospels.
More than sufficient documentation has been provided to refute your stated claim that no serious Biblical scholar believes the traditional views of the authorship of the four Gospels. Quite simply, your claim is not valid.
And neither is the claim you made in the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Yes. You demonstrated that a FEW militant fundamentalist Christian leaders, some Presidents of large fundamentalist theological seminaries where such propaganda flourishes hold that the names attached to the gospels were the original apostles. But the vast majority of unbiased scholars hold that Irenaeus attached the four names to the gospels 100 after they were alleged to have been written.
Sorry, Mike. Evidence trumps blind faith any day of the week.
No, that is not what I demonstrated. Conservative scholarship generally holds to the traditional view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. There are far more than a few conservative scholars. Furthermore, I provided the names of the Universities where the scholars I quoted received their Ph.Ds. Nor does being conservative or a fundamentalist automatically make one 'militant.' Furthermore, bias exists to varying degrees across the spectrum of scholarship. Many of the views of scholarship are based largely on the presuppositions held by the scholars in question.
And why would, to use your own words, ''the vast majority of unbiased scholars hold that Irenaeus attached the four names to the gospels 100 after they were alleged to have been written. '' when the primary and earliest source attesting to Matthean and Markan authorship is Papias who lived c. A.D. 70-163 and who stated that he received his information regarding the authorship of the Gospels from John the presbyter (elder) who may or may not have been the apostle John himself. Eusebius held to the latter view, but there are those who hold to one or the other opinion. Regardless, The traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels goes all the way to the early second century at the latest, and as is likely, back to the first century. And that is particularly the case if indeed John the presbyter was the apostle John.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine Chapter XXXIX.—The Writings of Papias.
14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
15. “This also the presbyter960 said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.961
173
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses,962 so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then963 Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”964 And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John965 and from that of Peter likewise.966 And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.967 These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
To make it clear, since Papias, who lived c. A.D. 70-163 stated that he received his information concerning the authorship of the Gospels from the man he refers to as John the presbyter, then obviously the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels did not originate with Irenaeus as you are claiming.
Once again, you have made a wild and unsupported claim, as you have a long track record of doing, and once again, the claim is easily refuted and shown to be false. Look. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't do any serious or honest research, and your extreme bias and agenda is obvious in your posts. You seem incapable of any objectivity at all and instead simply post anything which you think and hope will discredit Christianity. Quite frankly, your constant diatribe is a bore. I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously.
But Paul wasn't insane. He had interactions with the other apostles and they all vouched for his apostleship. If he was insane, they surely would not have done so.
RESPONSE:
Where do you find that written in the New Testament? Other than that of Paul or his recorder, Luke(Acts)
No, that is not what I demonstrated. Conservative scholarship generally holds to the traditional view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels.
As for the Gospel of John, he was not the author of it and you do not have proof that he did...
Your claim that no serious Biblical scholar believes that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them is demonstrably not true as even a little bit of actual research easily shows. The fact is that most conservative Biblical scholars, and yes, conservative Biblical scholars are serious Biblical scholars, are of the opinion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual writers, or at the very least certainly do not reject the possibility of their authorship.
For instance, Biblical scholar, Charles H. Dyer who received his Ph.D from Dallas Theological Seminary, in the revised and expanded commentary on Matthew by John F. Walvoord states with regard to the Gospel of Matthew that
Conservative scholarship has agreed that whether or not there was an earlier Hebrew version, the present Greek version was Matthew's own work . . .''
[Matthew, John F. Walvoord and Charles H. Dyer, p. 13]
Craig L. Blomberg, distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminar, holds a Ph.D in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland. In his book Jesus and the Gospels, An Introduction and Survey, Blomberg, after providing the objections to Matthean authorship concludes
In short, there is no compelling reason to overturn the unanimous testimony of antiquity that Matthew/Levi was the author of the Gospel attributed to him. Even though Matthew was an apostle, he came from a disreputable background. No apocryphal works are attributed to him as they are to apostles like Peter, James, John, Thomas, Andrew or Bartholomew. He seems an unlikely candidate, even among the apostles, for later Christian to have selected in an attempt to give this Gospel greater authority, if indeed he were not the author. On the other hand, as with Mark, little of our ability to interpret the Gospel' historical context or exegetical detail hangs on this decision. [p. 156]
Blomberg also holds to the traditional authorship of Mark, Luke, and John.
D. A. Carson, Ph.D. University of Cambridge and research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D University of St. Andrew and professor of New Testament, Wheaton College Graduate School, in their book, An Introduction to the New Testament discuss the authorship of the four Gospels. Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, after providing both the pro's and con's, Carson and Moo state
Yet as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papias's claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papias's claim, we see no reason not to accept it. [pp. 175-76]
Darrell L. Bock received his PhD from Scotland's University of Aberdeen. He is New Testament scholar and research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. In the following interview, Dr. Bock discusses his views on the authorship of the four Gospels and agrees with the traditional view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors.
Dr. Michael J. Kruger (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is President and the Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. He is one of the leading scholars today in the study of the origins of the New Testament, particularly the development of the New Testament canon and the transmission of the New Testament text. Dr. Michael J. Kruger | Reformed Theological Seminary [bolding mine]
Here are Dr. Kruger's comments on the authorship of the Gospels.
More than sufficient documentation has been provided to refute your stated claim that no serious Biblical scholar believes the traditional views of the authorship of the four Gospels. Quite simply, your claim is not valid.
And neither is the claim you made in the OP.
RESPONSE:
When do we find the gospel of Matthew first attributed to Matthew and who did it? When do we find the gospel of Mark attributed to Mark and who did it?
When do we find the gospel of Matthew first attributed to Matthew and who did it? When do we find the gospel of Mark attributed to Mark and who did it?
When do we find the gospel of Matthew first attributed to Matthew and who did it? When do we find the gospel of Mark attributed to Mark and who did it?
And have you tried to figure all this out by yourself or did you just go running to your nearest "book of other's opinions"?...I mean really, try some backward engineering...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
