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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
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.
What language does Papias say they were written in?
Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictonary4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545.
M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To" Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew2. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. 955–6.
Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk
Go To 1:28 of the Video Ehrman: "I became convinced the gospels were NOT Written by Eyewitnesses" Matthew Mark Luke and John Did NOT Write The Gospels!
You are wasting your time, Thrill. The authorship issue is part of unquestioned dogma, as is the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. They are foundational "truths" that can never be questioned. Everything is tested against them. Any bible scholarship is twisted to support them in the fundie conclaves, period.
The following Catholic (Church) founders wrote that some, if not all of (Sha-ul) [Paul’s] letters, were originally written in the Hebrew language.
Eusebius wrote that Clement of Alexandria (150-212 C.E.) wrote that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Sha-ul to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue but translated by Luke [Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2].
Eusebius also said, “For as Sha-ul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle [Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3].”
Jerome (382 C.E.) wrote, “He [Sha-ul] being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek [Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5].”
Jerome is clearly stating that Sha-ul wrote all of his Epistles in Hebrew, not just one of them. He is further stating that the language of the Y’-hu-dim in the time of Sha-ul was Hebrew.
Epiphanius maintained that only the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3). However, he does mention that the (Y’-hu-dim) [Jews] had Hebrew copies of the books of John and Acts in Tiberius (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6). Epiphanius’ account shows us that the Y’-hu-dim believed their copies to be authentic though he believed them to be translations.
ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:
All the coins struck by the (Y’-hu-dim) [Jews] during the (bar—kokh-va) revolt in 132 C.E. bore Hebrew inscriptions. Almost all the letters written by bar—kokh-va during the revolt were written in Hebrew, only two were written in Greek. One of the Greek letters contains an apology because it was written in Greek.
In addition, approximately ninety percent of the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls was written in Hebrew. That’s more than five hundred scrolls and over forty thousand fragments that date from 250 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
What language does Papias say they were written in?
Hint: I gave the answer earlier in this thread.
Who do you ask me this when I already posted the statement by Papias in which he says that Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language? Simply refer to the bolded above.
Who do you ask me this when I already posted the statement by Papias in which he says that Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language? Simply refer to the bolded above.
Do you know what the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" is?...
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.
Mike, first of all not one gospel mentions the disciples, i.e. "I, Matthew, a disciple of the Lord Jesus" purported to have written the gospels. Don't you find that a little strange, since the custom then (and even now) is to have the author identify himself somewhere in the text?
Second, the most respected Christian scholar of his time was Justin Martyr and he NEVER refers to the gospels as Matthew's Gospel or Luke's Gospel. He quotes passage from them in embryonic form i.e. "You must be born again to enter heaven" but he always address his references as "Memoirs of the Apostles" collectively, not individually. Quite simply Martyr didn't know the names of the gospels because they hadn't been named yet.
Quote:
The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).
Third, you skipped over entirely my reference to Bart Ehrman, considered one of the most respected Biblical historians of the present age and he states emphatically "I don't believe the gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. They were written anonymously." Do you really believe Ehrman is going to lay his reputation on the line by making such a statement if he didn't have unquestionable and irrefutable evidence to back up such a claim.
Please, please admit it---admit the gospels were not written by the people titled "According To...." instead of "Written By..." so we can put this matter to bed. The titles alone should tell you that the person(s) writing the gospels intended them to be a reference to memoirs of those apostles as the writers either recalled themselves (unlikely) or people who told them (more likely) or (most likely of all) the names were just picked willy-nilly to add more authority to the texts.
Quote:
These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are “according” to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.” Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).
Mike, first of all not one gospel mentions the disciples, i.e. "I, Matthew, a disciple of the Lord Jesus" purported to have written the gospels. Don't you find that a little strange, since the custom then (and even now) is to have the author identify himself somewhere in the text?
No, I don't find that strange at all. The Book of Hebrews doesn't name it's author either.
Quote:
Second, the most respected Christian scholar of his time was Justin Martyr and he NEVER refers to the gospels as Matthew's Gospel or Luke's Gospel. He quotes passage from them in embryonic form i.e. "You must be born again to enter heaven" but he always address his references as "Memoirs of the Apostles" collectively, not individually. Quite simply Martyr didn't know the names of the gospels because they hadn't been named yet.
Since Papias who lived roughly in the same time frame as Justin Martyr, and was in fact born about 30 years earlier, states that he was told by John the presbyter that Matthew and Mark wrote those Gospel accounts, your have made yet another unfounded and refuted statement, namely your claim that the Gospels hadn't been named yet.
It is irrelevant that Justin Martyr didn't refer to the gospels by name.
Quote:
Third, you skipped over entirely my reference to Bart Ehrman, considered one of the most respected Biblical historians of the present age and he states emphatically "I don't believe the gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. They were written anonymously." Do you really believe Ehrman is going to lay his reputation on the line by making such a statement if he didn't have unquestionable and irrefutable evidence to back up such a claim.
Bart Ehrman is a good scholar and has a popular following among the general public because he appeals to those, of which there are many, who want a reason not to believe the Bible. But many of his views are not sound. Also, Ehrman is good at slanting the facts in order to give his views more authority then they deserve and so he tends to be misleading. A number of scholars have voiced their opinions about Ehrman's views. For example, though I doubt you will even read it, here is Dan Wallace's review of Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus.' - https://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
Quote:
Please, please admit it---admit the gospels were not written by the people titled "According To...." instead of "Written By..." so we can put this matter to bed. The titles alone should tell you that the person(s) writing the gospels intended them to be a reference to memoirs of those apostles as the writers either recalled themselves (unlikely) or people who told them (more likely) or (most likely of all) the names were just picked willy-nilly to add more authority to the texts.
I most certainly will not 'admit' to any such thing either to please you or for any other reason short of absolute proof that the traditional view of the authorship of the Gospels is not valid. The traditional view of the early church is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels and there are no competing or alternative claims in the early church. Again, Papias stated that John the presbyter who quite likely is the apostle John stated that Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels. And there are many scholars who hold to the traditional view. I already posted in post #23 what a few of those scholars say on the matter.
And as for your suggestion that the names were picked 'willy-nilly' to add more authority to the texts, that was also addressed in post #23 in the quote of Craig Blomberg. Here it is again. Why don't you actually read it this time?
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]
What Blomberg says about Matthew also applies to Mark and Luke. There were better choices regarding names to attach to the gospels in order to give them greater authority if indeed Mark and Luke didn't actually write them.
But you just go on believing whatever you want. I won't lose any sleep over it.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-17-2016 at 06:22 PM..
While I hold to the view that they did write the Gospels to which their names are attached, I am not even going to waste my time with you arguing about it. I simply refuted your foolish claim that no serious scholars believe that they wrote the Gospels which bear their names. Which I did.
RESPONSE: You are prudent not "wasting time arguimg" with him since he is correct. Tell me, starting with the unnamed written Matthew that only got its name for Papias in abut 135 AD, how come about 95% is taken from Mark sometimes verbatim, and why is there absolutely no dialogue between Matthew and Jesus or any of the apostles? Could it be that the author of the anonymously written Matthew was not there?
From the Introduction to Matthew, New American Bible
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."
Now, tell us who was Mark and where did Mark wrote his gospel and who gave it the name "Mark"?
"The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]"
And who wrote the longer ending to mark in the second century?
Now lets let you tell us who really wrote Luke and John.
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 01-17-2016 at 06:36 PM..
RESPONSE: You are prudent not "wasting time arguimg" with him since he is correct. Tell me, starting with the anonomoymoously written Matthew that got its name for Papias in abut 135 AD, how come about 95% is taken from Mark sometimes verbatim, and why is there absolutely no dialogue between Matthew and Jesus or any of the apostles? Could it be that the author of the anonymously written Matthew was not there?
From the Introduction to Matthew, New American Bible
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."
No, he is not correct. And the authorship of the Gospels has nothing to do with the order in which they were written. If Mark was written first, the fact that Mark got his information from Peter who was one of the innermost circle of the twelve apostles would be reason enough for Matthew who was not one of the inner circle to use it in compiling his own Gospel account.
Nor does a lack of recorded dialog between Jesus and Matthew, or between Matthew and the rest of the apostles have any significance. There is little recorded dialog between Jesus and most of the other disciples or between disciples among themselves.
Nor am I going to go down side trails such as who wrote the longer ending to Mark. You have already been told that Papias stated that John the presbyter, who very will could have been the apostle John said that both Matthew and Mark wrote those Gospels. There are no competing traditions to the contrary.
The following Catholic (Church) founders wrote that some, if not all of (Sha-ul) [Paul’s] letters, were originally written in the Hebrew language.
Eusebius wrote that Clement of Alexandria (150-212 C.E.) wrote that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Sha-ul to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue but translated by Luke [Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2].
Eusebius also said, “For as Sha-ul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle [Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3].”
Jerome (382 C.E.) wrote, “He [Sha-ul] being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek [Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5].”
Jerome is clearly stating that Sha-ul wrote all of his Epistles in Hebrew, not just one of them. He is further stating that the language of the Y’-hu-dim in the time of Sha-ul was Hebrew.
Epiphanius maintained that only the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3). However, he does mention that the (Y’-hu-dim) [Jews] had Hebrew copies of the books of John and Acts in Tiberius (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6). Epiphanius’ account shows us that the Y’-hu-dim believed their copies to be authentic though he believed them to be translations.
ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:
All the coins struck by the (Y’-hu-dim) [Jews] during the (bar—kokh-va) revolt in 132 C.E. bore Hebrew inscriptions. Almost all the letters written by bar—kokh-va during the revolt were written in Hebrew, only two were written in Greek. One of the Greek letters contains an apology because it was written in Greek.
In addition, approximately ninety percent of the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls was written in Hebrew. That’s more than five hundred scrolls and over forty thousand fragments that date from 250 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.
I fully agree with you. I was wondering if Mike 555 would come to realization of what this meant.
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.
'' 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.
