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.
The Gospel of Matthew is unsigned. Papias, writing about 30-40 years after Matthew's Gospel, refers to a Hebrew version which was never found and is a "sayings book" not a gospel.
From the New American Bible's introduction to Matthew:
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 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."
I'm sorry if I gave offense, I didn't mean to reduce Jesus to a feeling. I am instead speaking of "knowing" Jesus (and God) as opposed to merely reading about Him. I'm speaking in reverent terms, believe me, but perhaps that did not come across.
When I say "knowing" God, I am contrasting that with "believing" in Him. I once heard something that really stayed with me, illustrating the differences. A priest brought this up. He said, "If you hold up the pencil and you drop it . . .do you BELIEVE it is going to fall? Or do you KNOW it is going to fall? . . . We don't 'believe' in gravity -- we know there is such a force as gravity. Yet when we speak of God we say we 'believe' in God, instead of saying we 'know' God." He went on to say that that is understandable and forgivable, and it might take a tragedy for us to feel we have come to "know" God, but hopefully each believer can move from "belief" and into "knowing." It is in this beautiful spirit that I speak of the "feeling" of Jesus and/or Jacob.
As far as Pliny the Elder, I was told by my professor in the class "Bible as Literature" (which attempts to discuss the Bible as a piece of literature in addition to an account of religious beliefs) that scholars have disproved the writings of Pliny -- I am forgetting the details, but perhaps it was that it had been decided that writings ascribed to him were in fact written by someone else? On the level of some claiming that there was no one named "Shakespeare" who wrote all those great works but instead a group of men who shared authorship and who then invented the name "Shakespeare" to make it appear as though one, brilliant man authored the whole thing. I thought that was what that professor had said . . .that some of the works ascribed to Pliny have since been proven to be inauthentic. Sorry for the lack of a clear memory!
RESPONSE:
Perhaps what you were told is that the Pliny was thought to be merely repeating what he heard from Christian sources, not that his history itself was not authentic.
Actually, the Testamonium of Flavus was interpolated:
"The passage in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (Bk. XVIII.III.3, written in 93 C.E.)concerning Jesus is generally considered by scholars either as a Christian interpolation in its entirety or at least as containing an interpolation. It is found in all extant copies of the manuscripts, but all of them are relatively recent, not earlier than eleventh century. The
paragraph is inserted between a story of how Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator between the years 26 and 36 C.E., suppressed a Jewish riot against the construction of an aqueduct with the templetax money and the story of a subterfuge used by a citizen in Rome to seduce a Roman matronthrough the intermediary of the priests of the Isis temple."
There is the Syrian version which seem to be less interpolated or not interpolated at all. I think you can find it on the web.
The debate is open. It was either as I quoted or the text was modified from its origional. I doubt it was changed. This is not scripture, but just a reference from another historian. In "The Histories of the Early Brittons" we find a similar type reference to Jesus and then saying: "After this Peter became bishop in Rome". Or something to that effect as I can remember. So, I think that these older documents note the life of Christ because of it's significance.
You are right, I am not sure I remember precisely. All I remember is that "scholars" no longer uphold his writings as strictly accurate . . . I can try an online search to see what comes up. Such things are tricky to search for however! I do seem to remember something like what you suggested -- that what he reported was second-hand, as opposed to something he directly witnessed. When scholars step in and "disqualify" something they have all kinds of criteria they use . . and I can't remember why Pliny was stricken from the record, so to speak.
The Gospel of Matthew is unsigned. Papias, writing about 30-40 years after Matthew's Gospel, refers to a Hebrew version which was never found and is a "sayings book" not a gospel.
From the New American Bible's introduction to Matthew:
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 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."
I disagreee, since there are many references to the Book of Matthew being written by Matthew. The book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. The Jerusalm School is studying Matthew on this very fact now. They claim that Matthew is a poor Greek copy of a Hebrew original. Further, the quote I gave refers to Matthew and not a "sayings book".
Further:
Pantaenus (d.c.200 AD) quoted by Eusebius (c. 263–339 AD) “Pantaenus, a philosopher of the stoic school, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the time of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, was of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, on the request of the legates of that nation, he was sent to India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, where he found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the advent of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew, and on his return to Alexandria he brought this with him written in Hebrew characters.”
Or:
Epiphanius (c.320- 403AD) “For Matthew was the first to become an evangelist. He was directed to issue the Gospel first. (I have spoken largely of this in another sect; however I shall not mind dealing with the same things again, as proof of the truth and in refutation of the erring.) As I said, Matthew, was privileged to be the first Gospel, and this was absolutely right. Because he had repented of many sins, and had risen from the receipt of custom and followed him who came for man’s salvation and said, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, it was Matthew’s duty to present the message of salvation first as an example for us, who would be saved like this man who was restored in the tax office and turned from his iniquity. From him men would learn the graciousness of Christ’s advent.”
Or:
Augustine (354AD-430AD) “Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life of men.”
Or:
Jerome (342-420 AD) “Matthew also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed…” This quote speaks for itself. Matthew was a real person who composed this document of Christ, first published in Hebrew.
I disagreee, since there are many references to the Book of Matthew being written by Matthew. The book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. The Jerusalm School is studying Matthew on this very fact now. They claim that Matthew is a poor Greek copy of a Hebrew original. Further, the quote I gave refers to Matthew and not a "sayings book".
Further:
Pantaenus (d.c.200 AD) quoted by Eusebius (c. 263–339 AD) “Pantaenus, a philosopher of the stoic school, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the time of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, was of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, on the request of the legates of that nation, he was sent to India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, where he found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the advent of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew, and on his return to Alexandria he brought this with him written in Hebrew characters.”
Or:
Epiphanius (c.320- 403AD) “For Matthew was the first to become an evangelist. He was directed to issue the Gospel first. (I have spoken largely of this in another sect; however I shall not mind dealing with the same things again, as proof of the truth and in refutation of the erring.) As I said, Matthew, was privileged to be the first Gospel, and this was absolutely right. Because he had repented of many sins, and had risen from the receipt of custom and followed him who came for man’s salvation and said, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, it was Matthew’s duty to present the message of salvation first as an example for us, who would be saved like this man who was restored in the tax office and turned from his iniquity. From him men would learn the graciousness of Christ’s advent.”
Or:
Augustine (354AD-430AD) “Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life of men.”
Or:
Jerome (342-420 AD) “Matthew also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed…” This quote speaks for itself. Matthew was a real person who composed this document of Christ, first published in Hebrew.
RESPONSE:
Note the dates of the writings you cited. Merely repeating an error again and again by later historians is no proof.
The debate is open. It was either as I quoted or the text was modified from its origional. I doubt it was changed. This is not scripture, but just a reference from another historian. In "The Histories of the Early Brittons" we find a similar type reference to Jesus and then saying: "After this Peter became bishop in Rome". Or something to that effect as I can remember. So, I think that these older documents note the life of Christ because of it's significance.
RESPONSE:
What is the date of the earliest purported copy of the Testimony of (Josephus) Flavius?
Was it first quoted hundreds of years after Josephus' death?
If so, why was it so completely overlooked by the early Church fathers?
Could it be that it was added much later?
From Wikipedia:
In his surviving works Origen does not mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews
Last edited by ancient warrior; 09-20-2010 at 02:21 PM..
Reason: Addition
The disciples are eye witnesses, we know that they are the writters of the gospels, for their are many accounts written to confirm this. For example:
Papias (100-120 AD)“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
Lil Nikk....you are going to have to do way better than that. It is correct that there is mention of a....now get this.....HEBREW MATTHEW.....but we do not have it nor has anyone ever seen it. It is posited that this gospel was used by the Essenes...which would make it a Gnostic gospel. We can in no way relate this HEBREW gospel to the GREEK one in the septuagint which did not have an actual author but was assigned the Matthew title as author.
The current gospels that are contained in our current bibles were AUTHORLESS....AND WERE ASSINED AUTHORS.....those are the FACTS....for we have no idea who ACTUALLY WROTE THEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Yes, you are right, there is none that are from the exact time of Jesus Christ other then the histories given by the disciples.
Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37-100) was born after Christ died and rose from the grave wrote this:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day." (Jewish Antiquities, Chapter 3:63)
Lil Nikk....surely you don't think you can patronize us all by trotting out this known interpolation in Josephus? You can't....for we are all WELL AWARE....as well as any reputable scholar around is....that this is an interpolation that was added well after the fact.
Face it Nikk.....there is NO CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIRST HAND EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS....NONE....you have been defeated soundly....accept that defeat humbly.
What is the date of the earliest purported copy of the Testimony of (Josephus) Flavius?
Was it first quoted hundreds of years after Josephus' death?
If so, why was it so completely overlooked by the early Church fathers?
Could it be that it was added much later?
From Wikipedia:
In his surviving works Origen does not mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews
The early church fathers were concerned with the church and not what historians were saying of the church. You are forgetting the context of the early church!
Lil Nikk....you are going to have to do way better than that. It is correct that there is mention of a....now get this.....HEBREW MATTHEW.....but we do not have it nor has anyone ever seen it. It is posited that this gospel was used by the Essenes...which would make it a Gnostic gospel. We can in no way relate this HEBREW gospel to the GREEK one in the septuagint which did not have an actual author but was assigned the Matthew title as author.
The current gospels that are contained in our current bibles were AUTHORLESS....AND WERE ASSINED AUTHORS.....those are the FACTS....for we have no idea who ACTUALLY WROTE THEM.
Lil Nikk....surely you don't think you can patronize us all by trotting out this known interpolation in Josephus? You can't....for we are all WELL AWARE....as well as any reputable scholar around is....that this is an interpolation that was added well after the fact.
Face it Nikk.....there is NO CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL FIRST HAND EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS....NONE....you have been defeated soundly....accept that defeat humbly.
I am sorry that you reject the words of men who had no reason to lie. Even of Josephus, it is not known whether it is an interpolation. But since people have rejected the Christ, they reject this secular historians account as well.
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.
Pliny
