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.
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.
Yes, I know, Mystic, especially after reading Mike slamming Bart Ehrman, one of the most distinguished Biblical historians in the world today. If anybody would know who or who didn't write the gospels it would be Bart, but Mike wouldn't admit he was wrong regardless of the evidence I or anyone else presented. I think in the end it's a matter of pride, having to admit one is wrong after all these years. To grow up believing something for, I don't know, maybe half a century assuming Mike is my age, to have to throw all that way is an impossible thing to do, despite the fact I managed to do it.
I fully agree with you. I was wondering if Mike 555 would come to realization of what this meant.
Why don't you tell me what you think it means. I already pointed out to you in post #44 that I had already posted Papias' statement about Matthew writing his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Refer to post #32.
Concerning Papias' statement, Craig Blomberg points out in 'Jesus and the Gospels', p. 154, that his testimony allows for several variables including the fact that the Greek word logia in Papias' statement is a term which normally refers to ''sayings'' or ''oracles'' and is not naturally attached to an entire narrative Gospel. Blomberg further notes that some people assume that Papias was referring to the entire Gospel because of his earlier testimony about Mark where he also used the term logia.
Blomberg goes on to point out the possibility that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew something along the lines of a Q source, a first draft on which the final draft of the Gospel in Greek was based.
He then notes that the testimony of the early church fathers that Matthew first wrote something in Hebrew is widespread and mentions Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; Eusbius, Hist. eccl. 5.10.3.
And so, just what is it you think I need to come to a realization? And if it is true that Hebrews was written by Paul, and in Hebrew, so what?
Yes, I know, Mystic, especially after reading Mike slamming Bart Ehrman, one of the most distinguished Biblical historians in the world today. If anybody would know who or who didn't write the gospels it would be Bart, but Mike wouldn't admit he was wrong regardless of the evidence I or anyone else presented. I think in the end it's a matter of pride, having to admit one is wrong after all these years. To grow up believing something for, I don't know, maybe half a century assuming Mike is my age, to have to throw all that way is an impossible thing to do, despite the fact I managed to do it.
No, it would not be Bart. And I have already told you that other scholars who are every bit as qualified as Ehrman do not agree with a lot of Ehrman's views. And it is a fact that Ehrman slants the facts in favor of his arguments. And I have already told you that many scholars hold to the traditional view of the early church that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels.
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.
Oh, I would love to see your proof on that...
Quote:
It is irrelevant that Justin Martyr didn't refer to the gospels by name.
How is it irrelevant?...Because you say so???...
Quote:
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.
How well educated were Matthew and Mark?...Do you have proof that they could read and write?...
Quote:
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?
Well, "According to" is different from "written by"...
I can say, "According to George Washington", but it does not mean that he wrote it himself, it merely means that I am quoting something that he said..,.
Quote:
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]
You know, I really don't care who says what about them being and expert or whatever, If they cannot make logical sense, then their PhD doesn't amount to a hill of beans...I've met plenty of idiots with Doctorates....It really means nothing unless you present things in a reasonable and logical manner and have an open mind to criticism of your work...
Quote:
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.
Yea, let's put Einstein's name on one of the Gospels, that would lend greater authority than those who actually walked with Jesus...
It is amazing that, while you toss about scholars and their credentials, who dismiss those that have similar or even greater credentials because they do not say what you want them to say...
Quote:
But you just go on believing whatever you want. I won't lose any sleep over 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...
Richard, I know more than you and I have no idea why other than to be
the jerk as is your schtick that you equate posting articles for people to
read to be representative of a deficiency in knowledge of the poster.
Like I said, other than your own abrasive personality and the fact
that you side with nonbelievers, being a Jew that believes as he was told
by generations of Christ deniers.
Yes, I know, Mystic, especially after reading Mike slamming Bart Ehrman, one of the most distinguished Biblical historians in the world today.
LMAO. The only reason why you elevate a hack like Ehrman who has not a shred
of respect among historians is that he espouses your own antchrist agenda.
Eusebius, you doing what Mike does--throwing that word "ALL" around carelessly. We simply don't know that "ALL" the apostles vouched for him. If Paul had problems with James as we know he did, then "ALL" the apostles didn't vouch for him, did they?
In Acts chapters 15 and 21, James and Paul came to a good understanding. In Galatians 2:9 James gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship.
If Paul was insane, you can best bet the apostles would have distanced themselves from him.
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.
RESPONSE:
Mike posted >>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<<
"fact"???? that Mark got his information from Peter" Please present the evidence for your claim or we can dismiss it as an assertion without evidence,
Mark was a common name. The Mark said to be the secretary of Peter is not the source of the anonymously written Gospel of Mark. That Mark was a Hellenistic Jew from Syria. This is easly demonstrated by his lack of knowledge of the geography of where Jesus lived.
References:
Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70. (New American Bible – Introduction to Mark)
Much has been said about Mark’s poor knowledge of the geography of Palestine. A classic case is his bizarre itinerary for Jesus leaving Tyre to go north, then south-east, then back east again, to reach is final destination. On the map here, locate Tyre, run your finger north to Sidon, than let it wander to the right and downwards till it reaches Decapolis, then zero up to the “lake” of Galilee.
Mike posted>>>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.<<
RESPONSE: It would only take one recorded sentence by the writer of Matthew if he were really present. There are none at all.
Mike posted: 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.
RESPONSE:
Papias isn't reliable. Lets take a look at how he was evaluated by Eusebius. Eusebius describd Papias thus in his Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.13. "For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views."
Yep. Papias isn't known for accuracy but some believed him when it was in their best interest to do so, in spite of the evidence that he is wrong. Lets look at some evidence that proves otherwise.
“The long ending does not appear in several of our earliest and best manuscripts, most notably Sinaiticus [ 4th century] and Vaticanus [4th century] (although it does appear in Alexandrinus [5th century]).”
“The existence of manuscripts containing a different ending entirely (the "short ending") also suggests that the original contained no ending.”
It's unfortunate that some bible fundmentalists don't review the evidence before posting what someone (perhaps another fundametalist) tell them.
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 01-18-2016 at 10:06 AM..
Reason: typos
In Acts chapters 15 and 21, James and Paul came to a good understanding. In Galatians 2:9 James gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship.
If Paul was insane, you can best bet the apostles would have distanced themselves from him.
But the problem is we haven't a word about what the other apostles by name thought of Paul. If we had, "But Matthew averred to supporting Paul until Bartholomew spoke for Paul" or something similar then we'd have some inkling of what the others thought of Paul. But to just jump to the conclusion that "ALL the apostles supported Paul" in absence of any details is a huge leap of faith.
In post #47 I made the following statement; ''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, you have made yet another unfounded and refuted statement, namely your claim that the Gospels hadn't been named yet.''
How accurate the bolded part is depends on how accurate Eusebius' statement in Hist. 3.39.7. (copied below) is. According to Eusebius, Papias said that he was a hearer of both Aristion and of the presbyter or at least that he frequently mentioned them by name but that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them. If what Eusebius said is accurate, this would mean that the presbyter was someone other than the apostle John.
Papias either received his information directly from the presbyter, or from one of his followers. In either case, the tradition that Mark and Matthew wrote their respective Gospels goes back to at least the beginning of the 2nd century, and perhaps even to the late 1st century.
In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p.15, Richard Bauckham cites Bartlet who in ''Papias's 'Exposition,' '' p.17, writes concerning Papias,
Hierapolis, of which he became ''bishop'' or chief local pastor, stood at the meeting-point of two great roads: one running east and west, between Antioch in Syria and Ephesus, the chief city of ''Asia,'' the other south-east to Attalia in Pamphylia, and north-west to Smyrna. There Papias was almost uniquely placed for collecting traditions coming direct from the original home of the gospel both before his own day and during it, as well as from Palestinian [Christian] leaders settled in Asia (a great centre of the Jewish Dispersion).
Papias according to Eusebius states that he received his information, not from the apostles themselves but from any of their followers who came his way (in Hierapolis).
Eusebius Hist, 3.39.2-4
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.942
3. He says: “But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations943 whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders944 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver945 the commandments given by the Lord to faith,946 and springing from the truth itself.
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion947 and the presbyter John,948 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books949 would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.” NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
This then is what Papias states that the presbyter said concerning Matthew and Mark.
Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14-16
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 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. NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
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.
