Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
52 online now:
jar, kjsimons, Pollux (3 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,695 Year: 9,443/23,288 Month: 458/1,544 Week: 172/561 Day: 12/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Authorship of the Gospels
GDR
Member
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1 of 28 (877419)
06-15-2020 3:05 PM


In a coffee house forum I posted this. Ramoss then posted this which is in line with ringo's response.
ramoss writes:

That is the claim. I do not see any evidence that claim is actually true. If fact, the internal evidence shows the first is not true, and shows it is highly unlikely for the second.

It isn't actually Bible Study as such but that is the only forum that I can see that fits this subject.

The individual who has done the greatest amount of research into the authorship of the Gospels is Richard Bauckham. I have read his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses where with extensive research Bauckham provides a detailed account of his conclusions as to who wrote the 4 Gospels.
One of the sources that he uses is Papius born 70AD was a contemporary of the surviving disciples in their later lives as well as with Polycarp. Here is one of the remaining pieces of what Papius wrote.

quote:
I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Papius wrote this about the authorship of Mark.

quote:
The Elder [John the Elder]used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Papius also wrote the following.
quote:
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. 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, 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.

So, Mark was written by a disciple of Peter with Peter as the source of his material and of course quite possibly other disciples as well.
The author who wrote both Luke and Acts starts off his Gospel this way.
Luke 1 writes:

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


We learn from the book of Acts, 2nd Timothy etc, that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. As such, he would not only have the accounts of Paul, but would in all likelihood have had contact with other disciples. Luke was a gentile and Theophilus was likely a rich patron of Luke. In the third century Eusbius wrote this”
quote:
“But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.”
When that was written Esuebius would have still had all the writings of both Papius, Polycorp and Irenaius to refer to concerning the source of the Gospels.
Of the 4 Gospels, Matthew is the one that is the least clear as to authorship. Tradition was from very early on that it was done by the apostle Matthew the tax collector but there is nothing in the Gospel itself that gives any indication of authorship.
Papius writes this:
quote:
So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. 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.
As shown in a previous quote Papius was careful to use the attestations of only the eyewitnesses so although not conclusive it is reasonable evidence that it was Matthew the tax collector who wrote the Gospel attributed to him. Although the fact that it was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek would also lend itself to attributing it to Matthew the tax collector. However Matthew was a fairly common name.
The book of John ends this way.
John 21 writes:

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.


The author is declaring the fact that he was a disciple. It has traditionally been assumed from fairly early on that John is the brother of James the sons of Zebedee. Recent scholarship, (particularly that of Richard Bauckham) has not ruled that out but shows that it is quite likely wrong. Bauckham with considerable scholarship behind it believes that the disciple is “John the Elder” that is referred to by Papius. Here is a piece of Papius’ writing that I quoted earlier.
Papius writes:

And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.

There are 2 Johns mentioned who were both disciples although only John son of Zebedee was one of the 12. In addition to the 12, there were a number of disciples who travelled with Jesus. John the Elder would have been one of those. Evidence shows (using Bauckham as my source) that it is very likely that John the Elder was a Judean Jew and would have had a slightly different experience of Jesus than the Galilean disciples would have had.
Also the Johannine epistles believed to have been written by the same author are identified in the opening of both the 2nd and 3rd epistle as being written by John the Elder.

So, I hold to my statement that the Gospels were written by an eyewitness in the case of John or from authors using eyewitnesses as the source for the synoptic Gospels.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2020 12:41 AM GDR has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3920
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 28 (877421)
06-15-2020 11:06 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Authorship of the Gospels thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 3 of 28 (877422)
06-16-2020 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
06-15-2020 3:05 PM


A few notes
Not a complete reply at all, but.

Papias claims to have talked with people who talked to the Disciples, but with the probable exception of John, doesn’t claim to have talked with the Disciples themselves.

The two quotes concerning Mark you present from Papias seen to be different renditions of the same material so I have no idea why you think they are distinct. You give no source for either.

While the author of Luke talks of investigation he never cites sources - unlike the better ancient historians. This part may also be boiler-plate text and not really truthful. The differences with Matthew are also quite serious and call into question the reliability of both Gospels.

There is also the question of whether the author used a common source with Matthew (called “Q”) or simply took material from Matthew and rewrote it. One of the major arguments for Q is that the author of Luke would not do such rewriting, but since he appears to have done so in the case of the Olivet Discourse - despite it’s appearance in Mark - I don’t think that argument is tenable.

Papias explicitly sought out second-hand accounts and apparently did not speak to many eye witnesses at all.

Note also that the document he ascribes to Matthew is written in “the Hebrew tongue” which is a serious problem since the Gospel according to Matthew we have is written in Greek. Moreover the literary dependency between Mark and Matthew mean that it is not possible that the two are independent creations. Either Matthew was always written in Greek, and derives large amounts of its material from Mark - or if you want Papias account of Matthew to be accurate Mark is almost completely derived from a translation of Matthew, and not Peter’s teaching at all. If Bauckmann did not deal with this issue I cannot see that his book can be trusted at all - however I believe in this case the fault is yours.

The bolded material from John clearly continues “ We know that his testimony is true“ - people do not generally speak of themselves in the third person so it seems that this part is an insertion by another writer. That this writer believed that some of the text came from the Beloved Disciple is not the same thing as the author himself claiming to be the Beloved Disciple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 06-15-2020 3:05 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 06-16-2020 8:43 PM PaulK has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 4 of 28 (877497)
06-16-2020 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
06-16-2020 12:41 AM


Re: A few notes
PaulK writes:

Not a complete reply at all, but, Papias claims to have talked with people who talked to the Disciples, but with the probable exception of John, doesn’t claim to have talked with the Disciples themselves.

This is taken out of the quote I used earlier.
quote:
And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.
You are largely correct. He did speak directly to two of the disciples who were with Jesus, John the Elder and Ariston. The others were those who had had direct contact with several of the apostles.

PaulK writes:

The two quotes concerning Mark you present from Papias seen to be different renditions of the same material so I have no idea why you think they are distinct. You give no source for either.

The quotes are from the works of Eusebius. I simply thought that one would help to confirm the other.
Irenaeus wrote the following in a letter.
quote:
For I distinctly recall the events of that time better than those of recent years, (for what we learn in childhood keeps pace with the growing mind and becomes part of it), so that I can tell the very place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed, his goings out and his comings in, the character of his life, his bodily appearance, the discourses he would address to the multitude, how he would tell of his conversations with John, [probably Papias’ John the Elder] and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he would relate their words from memory; and what the things which he had heard from them concerning the Lord, his might works and his teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from the eyewitnesses of the life of the Logos, would declare in accordance with the scriptures.

That is probably the longest run-on sentence I have ever encountered. Polycarp was a companion of Papias and so would have had similar contact with the disciples and with others who were the disciples of the disciples.
It is interesting that in 1 Peter 5, Peter writes the following.

quote:
12 With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. 13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
If he needed Silas’ help to write this epistle it would make sense that he would need someone to write His Gospel as well. Maybe in his son Mark, (whether or not that is a literal son or not is unknown), we have a candidate for the one who with Peter’s testimony wrote the Gospel of Mark.

PaulK writes:

While the author of Luke talks of investigation he never cites sources - unlike the better ancient historians. This part may also be boiler-plate text and not really truthful. The differences with Matthew are also quite serious and call into question the reliability of both Gospels.


Luke is writing to a specific individual, Theophilus, who he is obviously well acquainted with, and who would know what the sources were. Also, of course he denotes the sources as “eyewitnesses and servants of the Word”.

Luke is also mentioned by Paul in 3 different epistles as being his companion on his journey.

There is also the question of whether the author used a common source with Matthew (called “Q”) or simply took material from Matthew and rewrote it. One of the major arguments for Q is that the author of Luke would not do such rewriting, but since he appears to have done so in the case of the Olivet Discourse - despite it’s appearance in Mark - I don’t think that argument is tenable.
It isn’t really known which was written first, Matthew or Luke. However, Richard Bauckham who is considered the world’s leading scholar on the subject postulates that Matthew used Luke as a resource which in essence would make Luke the much speculated on “Q” and would also deal with your point. Bauckham writes this:

quote:
To me Matthew’s use of Luke had the obvious advantage of avoiding what I found incredible in the Farrer hypothesis. Though Matthew’s compositional procedures, if he took the “Q” material from Luke, would involve often conflating Luke with Mark (in the way that advocates of Q envisage him conflating Q with Mark), his procedures would be much less complex and difficult than those of Luke according to the Farrer hypothesis. A further consideration is that Q scholars, when judging whether Matthew or Luke preserved the more “primitive” form of a saying of Jesus, tend in a large majority of cases to decide for Luke. While the criteria for making these judgments are often not very secure, the overall impression that Luke has the earlier form of sayings he shares with Matthew should surely make it worth considering the hypothesis that Matthew took the “double tradition” material from Luke, rather than vice versa. (Since B. H. Streeter, the case for Q has standardly included the “alternating primitivity” of the “double tradition” material. In other words, sometimes Matthew, sometimes Luke preserves the more primitive form. This assertion seems to have obscured the fact that actually most scholars working with the Q hypothesis judge Luke to be more primitive far more often than they judge Matthew to be.)

PaulK writes:

Papias explicitly sought out second-hand accounts and apparently did not speak to many eye witnesses at all.

Well we know that he spoke to at least two as noted above. When we read Polycarp it sounds as if there were likely more but that is speculative. We do know that he spoke to numerous people who had had direct contact with the eyewitnesses.

PaulK writes:

Note also that the document he ascribes to Matthew is written in “the Hebrew tongue” which is a serious problem since the Gospel according to Matthew we have is written in Greek. Moreover the literary dependency between Mark and Matthew mean that it is not possible that the two are independent creations. Either Matthew was always written in Greek, and derives large amounts of its material from Mark - or if you want Papias account of Matthew to be accurate Mark is almost completely derived from a translation of Matthew, and not Peter’s teaching at all. If Bauckmann did not deal with this issue I cannot see that his book can be trusted at all - however I believe in this case the fault is yours.


I’d suggest that this isn’t a problem. Matthew was probably written by the disciple in Hebrew, and then when it was translated into Greek the translator would have used Markan material, and if Bauckham is correct Lukan material as well, to put together the Gospel as we have it now.
Irenaius who was a disciple of Polythorpe wrote this in the 2nd century, concerning the authorship of the Gospels. This draws a fairly straight line from Polycorp who had direct contact with at least 2 of the disciples and probably more, to Irenaius his disciple.
quote:
…or, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

PaulK writes:

The bolded material from John clearly continues “ We know that his testimony is true“ - people do not generally speak of themselves in the third person so it seems that this part is an insertion by another writer. That this writer believed that some of the text came from the Beloved Disciple is not the same thing as the author himself claiming to be the Beloved Disciple.

Bauckham writes this about that.
quote:
The narrative, [John’s Gospel], has previously spoken of this disciple in the third person and this was standard practice for authors portraying themselves as a character in their narrative.
Bauckham then goes on to say that the “we” in the quote is likely being used in the same way so that we would normally write “I’ instead of “we”.

Edited by GDR, : fixed small error in quote


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2020 12:41 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 12:46 AM GDR has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 5 of 28 (877502)
06-17-2020 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
06-16-2020 8:43 PM


Re: A few notes
quote:
You are largely correct. He did speak directly to two of the disciples who were with Jesus, John the Elder and Ariston. The others were those who had had direct contact with several of the apostles.

Aristion is obscure, not mentioned in the Gospels or any other source (excepting a late 10th Century Armenian version of Mark) so we have to question if he actually was a disciple.

quote:
The quotes are from the works of Eusebius. I simply thought that one would help to confirm the other

How can it possibly confirm it? And why do you try to present them as two different texts when they are obviously versions of the same one? Moreover your source is not Eusebius, since Eusebius did not write in English and I do not believe you did the translation.

quote:
It is interesting that in 1 Peter 5, Peter writes the following.

It is very unlikely that Peter wrote 1 Peter.

quote:
Luke is also mentioned by Paul in 3 different epistles as being his companion on his journey.

One or two, more likely since 2 Timothy is unlikely to be Pauline and Colossians is doubted.

quote:
argument is tenable.
It isn’t really known which was written first, Matthew or Luke. However, Richard Bauckham who is considered the world’s leading scholar on the subject postulates that Matthew used Luke as a resource which in essence would make Luke the much speculated on “Q” and would also deal with your point

Then you have Matthew intentionally disagreeing with Luke - and even more certainly writing in Greek, and even more certainly not an eye witness. Even if you insist that an eye witness would copy someone else’s account - someone who wasn’t even a witness - we still can’t count that copying as eye witness material.

quote:
Well we know that he spoke to at least two as noted above. When we read Polycarp it sounds as if there were likely more but that is speculative. We do know that he spoke to numerous people who had had direct contact with the eyewitnesses.
.

We don’t know that Aristion is an eyewitness and I don’t think that we should trust an impression you get from Polycarp over Papias’ own words.

quote:
I’d suggest that this isn’t a problem. Matthew was probably written by the disciple in Hebrew, and then when it was translated into Greek the translator would have used Markan material, and if Bauckham is correct Lukan material as well, to put together the Gospel as we have it now.

Which means that Matthew’s work is largely lost. Moreover the idea that an eye-witness would construct his account by copying - and translating! - two second-hand (at best!) sources is bizarre indeed.

So, no, your “solution” only created more problems. If you want to say that Matthew was an eye-witness account, the author cannot copy material from Mark or Luke. And no translator can either because copying material from another work entirely isn’t translation.

quote:
Irenaius who was a disciple of Polythorpe wrote this in the 2nd century, concerning the authorship of the Gospels. This draws a fairly straight line from Polycorp who had direct contact with at least 2 of the disciples and probably more, to Irenaius his disciple.

The claim about Matthew probably came from Papias and probably isn’t referring to the book we call the Gospel according to Matthew. The claim about Mark likely has the same source (and may be true). The claims about Luke and John came from somewhere.

quote:
Bauckham then goes on to say that the “we” in the quote is likely being used in the same way so that we would normally write “I’ instead of “we”.

That is a speculation. And a rather questionable one. The use of the third person in most places distinguishes between the author of the main text and the beloved disciples. In this place - by your reading - it affirms that those two are the same person but conceals the fact that the writer of that piece is the author of the main text. That is somewhat bizarre, compared to taking it at face value.

That is bad apologetics not scholarship.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 06-16-2020 8:43 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 3:45 PM PaulK has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 6 of 28 (877519)
06-17-2020 10:44 AM


Authorship
The Book of Matthew is likely the oldest gospel, possibly dating to around 1-100 years of Jesus’ death and supposed resurrection. But it is obscure as to whether this Mattisyahu (Matthew) is the same mentioned as the Jewish tax collector who taxed his own people on behalf of Caesar. If so, he speaks of himself in the 3rd person. John the Elder or John the Revelator is assumed for the Book of John. Luke is likely a second hand account from Paul of Tarsus. Mark, however, is a third hand and far removed source. In fact, the gospels are so similar grammatically and contextually it would seem that all of them used the same source — probably the Gospel of Matthew. Why would God need four versions of essentially the exact same story if it was “divinely inspired?” Why the need for such redundancy? Same parables, same histrionic tensing, etc regurgitated four times.

Matthew was always my favorite gospel and Mark cannot be trusted as authentic at all. The last sentence in the book is a dead giveaway that it was tampered with as the mentioning of handling snakes appears out of nowhere with no context or corroboration from earlier accounts. Hell, when Paul was exiled he suffered a snake bite that nearly killed him. That hardly sounds as if you can safely handle snakes if you have the Holy Ghost in dwelt in you. And if it’s been tampered with then how can you trust any of it?

We also know there were other contemporaneous gospels that didn’t make the cut hundreds of years after the fact. Who chose them? People inside of the early papacy. Seems if it were so obviously authored by almighty god that their preservation and authorship would be unambiguous and there would be no need to cast a vote as to which books were canonized and which weren’t. Also seems evident that other gospels, like Judas, which is curiously carbon dated very early, would not exist.

As I have found, the more you know about the Bible the less confidence you have in it. The most diehard believers are those that, to quote Paul, are still on milk — they’re feel good Christians.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 10:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 5:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 7 of 28 (877520)
06-17-2020 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
06-17-2020 10:44 AM


Re: Authorship
quote:
The Book of Matthew is likely the oldest gospel, possibly dating to around 1-100 years of Jesus’ death and supposed resurrection.

Mark is usually considered the oldest.

Paul of Tarsus never knew Jesus, so if Luke is based on his words it would be third-hand at best.

quote:
Matthew was always my favorite gospel and Mark cannot be trusted as authentic at all. The last sentence in the book is a dead giveaway that it was tampered with as the mentioning of handling snakes appears out of nowhere with no context or corroboration from earlier accounts.

That last is well known as a late addition to the text, and not much of a reason to doubt the bulk of it.

Oh, and the earliest copy of the Gospel of Judas seems to be carbon-dated to 280 AD +/- 60 years. In comparison, the earliest Gospel fragment is dated at 125 AD (the Rylands Papyrus). The Egerton Gospel would be a better comparison as it is a similar age - and completely unknown before the fragments were discovered in the early 20th Century.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-17-2020 10:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 8 of 28 (877534)
06-17-2020 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
06-17-2020 12:46 AM


Re: A few notes
PaulK writes:

Aristion is obscure, not mentioned in the Gospels or any other source (excepting a late 10th Century Armenian version of Mark) so we have to question if he actually was a disciple.

This is from Luke 10:
quote:
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.
Jesus had many disciples that don’t get mentioned anywhere. In general the 12 were a specific group of disciples designated as apostles.

PaulK writes:

How can it possibly confirm it? And why do you try to present them as two different texts when they are obviously versions of the same one? Moreover your source is not Eusebius, since Eusebius did not write in English and I do not believe you did the transla tion.

I gave two quotes as it confirms a consistent message from Papias. As for the translation I simply copied it off the internet. It was consistent with Richard Bauckham’s translation in his tome “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”. If you really want I can copy that out for you.

PaulK writes:

It is very unlikely that Peter wrote 1 Peter.

Well it can’t be proven but the author does identify himself as Peter whether or not he used a scribe to record it or not. Also it is interesting to note that it is addressed to 5 colonies established by the Romans which would in all likelihood include a large number of members of the Jewish Diaspora. This would indicate that Peter wrote this letter while in Rome which is consistent with what we know of his ministry.
PaulK writes:

One or two, more likely since 2 Timothy is unlikely to be Pauline and Colossians is doubted.

Well even if they aren’t Pauline, Luke is still recorded in the 3 books as a companion of Paul.
PaulK writes:

The n you have Matthew intentionally disagreeing with Luke - and even more certainly writing in Greek, and even more certainly not an eye witness. Even if you insist that an eye witness would copy someone else’s account - someone who wasn’t even a witness - we still can’t count that copying as eye witness material.

It isn’t a matter of copying, but of using the earlier material as a resource along with your own experiences of the eyewitnesses.
We also know that the writer of Matthew was probably an eye witness, (Matthew the tax collector), and that Luke not only travelled with Paul but also had direct contact with the first apostles. This is from Acts 21, as written by Luke.
quote:
17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.

As we can tell by how Luke opens his book that he is writing putting together a Gospel from a variety of sources of oral accounts from the eye witnesses would be used, knowledge passed on by Paul as well as from Mark and possibly Matthew.

PaulK writes:

We don’t know that Aristion is an eyewitness and I don’t think that we should trust an impression you get from Polycarp over Papias’ own words.

It isn’t just what Polycarp writes but information that is directly copied from the works of Papias.
PaulK writes:

Which means that Matthew’s work is largely lost. Moreover the idea that an eye-witness would construct his account by copying - and translating! - two second-hand (at best!) sources is bizarre indeed.
So, no, your’ solution only created more problems. If you want to say that Matthew was an eye-witness account, the author cannot copy material from Mark or Luke. And no translator can either because copying material from another work entirely isn’t translation.


I’m agnostic on whether Luke or Matthew came first. However, there is no reason to suppose that Matthew couldn’t have used Mark and/or Luke in addition to his own eye witness experience. They would have been with Jesus at different times and would have had different experiences. The difference would come as Matthew was first written in the Hebrew language and intended primarily for a Jewish audience, whereas Mark and Luke were written for a broader audience. When Matthew writes in, what was probably Aramiaic, using his own eye witness experience and using the Greek of the Mark and possibly Luke, he would have as N T Wright puts it:

PaulK writes:

The claim about Matthew probably came from Papias and probably isn’t referring to the book we call the Gospel according to Matthew. The claim about Mark likely has the same source (and may be true). The claims about Luke and John came from somewhere.

The source was directly from Polycarp not Papias, although they were contemporaries. There is no reason at all to think that he was referring to anything other than the Gospel of Matthew.
PaulK writes:

That is a speculation. And a rather questionable one. The use of the third person in most places distinguishes between the author of the main text and the beloved disciples. In this place - by your reading - it affirms that those two are the same person but conceals the fact that the writer of that piece is the author of the main text. That is somew hat bizarre, compared to taking it at face value.

That is bad apologetics not scholarship.

So you are prepared to put your scholarship up against a scholar with this background.
quote:
He was born in London in 1946, and educated at Downhills and Merryhills primary schools and Enfield Grammar School. He then studied at Cambridge, where he read history at Clare College (gaining a B.A. Honours degree, first class, and a Ph.D.), and was a Fellow of St John's College for three years.

After teaching theology for one year at the University of Leeds, he taught historical and contemporary theology for fifteen years at the University of Manchester, before moving to St Andrews in 1992.

He is a Fellow of the British Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He is also a Visiting Professor at St Mellitus College, London. From 1996 to 2002 he was General Editor of the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series.



He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 12:46 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 4:21 PM GDR has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 9 of 28 (877535)
06-17-2020 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by GDR
06-17-2020 3:45 PM


Re: A few notes
quote:
Jesus had many disciples that don’t get mentioned anywhere. In general the 12 were a specific group of disciples designated as apostles.

So, not one of those usually counted as the disciples. Maybe a follower, but not an important one.

quote:
I gave two quotes as it confirms a consistent message from Papias.

No you didn’t and it doesn’t. You gave two translations of the same text. They are far too close to be anything else.

quote:
Well it can’t be proven but the author does identify himself as Peter whether or not he used a scribe to record it or not. Also it is interesting to note that it is addressed to 5 colonies established by the Romans which would in all likelihood include a large number of members of the Jewish Diaspora. This would indicate that Peter wrote this letter while in Rome which is consistent with what we know of his ministry.

And in all likelihood it was written by someone else entirely. Despite the text’s claim to the contrary.

quote:
Well even if they aren’t Pauline, Luke is still recorded in the 3 books as a companion of Pau

Which doesn’t help much, since for all you know the name was attached to the Gospel because of those references.

quote:
It isn’t a matter of copying, but of using the earlier material as a resource along with your own experiences of the eyewitnesses

Unfortunately for you it is a matter of copying.

quote:
We also know that the writer of Matthew was probably an eye witness, (Matthew the tax collector), and that Luke not only travelled with Paul but also had direct contact with the first apostles. This is from Acts 21, as written by Luke

We know that it is highly unlikely that the author of Matthew was either an eye witness or Matthew the tax collector.

There are also questions of whether the “we” passages of Acts reflect actual experience. Not that a brief meeting years before writing would be of much use anyway.

quote:
As we can tell by how Luke opens his book that he is writing putting together a Gospel from a variety of sources of oral accounts from the eye witnesses would be used, knowledge passed on by Paul as well as from Mark and possibly Matthew

That’s what it says, whether it is true is another matter. Again the fact that the author never tells us which source his claims come from is a count against him. We only know that Mark is a source because the copying can be detected by literary analysis.

quote:
It isn’t just what Polycarp writes but information that is directly copied from the works of Papias.

So where does Papias claim to have met disciples other than Aristion and John (if John the Elder really is the Disciple)? If you are going to claim that comes directly from Papias you have to back it up. I think that the omission of any others is a strong indication that he didn’t meet them.

quote:
I’m agnostic on whether Luke or Matthew came first. However, there is no reason to suppose that Matthew couldn’t have used Mark and/or Luke in addition to his own eye witness experience.

It’s rather clear that he would have to use Mark instead of his alleged “eye witness experience” which makes far less sense.

quote:
The difference would come as Matthew was first written in the Hebrew language and intended primarily for a Jewish audience, whereas Mark and Luke were written for a broader audience. When Matthew writes in, what was probably Aramiaic, using his own eye witness experience and using the Greek of the Mark and possibly Luke...

If he did, that document is lost to us. It’s not our Gospel of Matthew.

quote:
The source was directly from Polycarp not Papias, although they were contemporaries. There is no reason at all to think that he was referring to anything other than the Gospel of Matthew.

Sure there is - the Gospel of Matthew is not an eye-witness account and it was written in Greek.

quote:
So you are prepared to put your scholarship up against a scholar with this background.

Then let us see some actual scholarship saying why that text should not be taken at face value. If all I can see is an opinion that doesn’t make much sense to me I am not about to prefer it to an obvious and simple alternative.

So far as I can see it is nothing more than a lame excuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 3:45 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 5:56 PM PaulK has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 10 of 28 (877539)
06-17-2020 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
06-17-2020 10:44 AM


Re: Authorship
Hyroglyphx writes:

The Book of Matthew is likely the oldest gospel, possibly dating to around 1-100 years of Jesus’ death and supposed resurrection.

As PaulK points out there is a strong consensus that Mark is the the oldest. Matthew is likely either the second or possibly the third one written.
Hyroglyphx writes:

But it is obscure as to whether this Mattisyahu (Matthew) is the same mentioned as the Jewish tax collector who taxed his own people on behalf of Caesar. If so, he speaks of himself in the 3rd person.

Here is a quote from Papias who was a contemporary of the disciples who didn't die young. Incidentally many did have long lives. Polycarp was executed by the Romans at age 86.
quote:
Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best they could.
Matthew was a common name so you are right that it isn't clear. However, it is likely that Papias and others who attributed it to Matthew would have, if it had not been the apostle have designated it as a different Matthew. That would be consistent with Papias designating John the Elder as having compiled the Gospel of John instead of just saying John which would denote the apostle.

Also, the fact that Matthew in the Gospel is referred to in the third person is actually additional evidence that it was Matthew the tax collector and apostle. Josephus in the "War of the Jews" refers to himself in the 3rd person to indicate that he is an active participant in the accounts. The fact that Matthew uses the third person in self reference would in the same way be writing it as being personally involved.

Hyroglyphz writes:

John the Elder or John the Revelator is assumed for the Book of John.

Agreed but I would note that Papias refers to John the Elder as someone who was an eyewitness.
Hyroglphx writes:

Luke is likely a second hand account from Paul of Tarsus.

Only partly true. As is accepted Luke is also the author of Acts. However, as we can see in Acts 21 Luke met with the apostles in Jerusalem and so would have had their first hand testimony.
Hyroglyphx writes:

Mark, however, is a third hand and far removed source.

Papias quotes John the Elder when he says that Mark was essentially a disciple of Peter.
quote:
The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord.

Hyroglyphx writes:

In fact, the gospels are so similar grammatically and contextually it would seem that all of them used the same source — probably the Gospel of Matthew.

I'd say that none of that is correct. Can you give me a source?

Hyroglyphx writes:

Why would God need four versions of essentially the exact same story if it was “divinely inspired?” Why the need for such redundancy? Same parables, same histrionic tensing, etc regurgitated four times.

You are using a fundamentalist understanding of the Gospels. They were inspired as Churchill was inspired when he wrote on the history of world war II. They had a narrative that they wanted to record.

Hyroglyphx writes:

As I have found, the more you know about the Bible the less confidence you have in it. The most diehard believers are those that, to quote Paul, are still on milk — they’re feel good Christians.

I have found the opposite. In reading the Bible as a collection of 66 books written by human authors and forming a somewhat coherent account of the human understanding of God, maturing within the Jewish culture, with the Biblical account climaxing in Jesus, my confidence in my Christian faith has been nothing but strengthened.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-17-2020 10:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 5:50 PM GDR has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 11 of 28 (877540)
06-17-2020 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
06-17-2020 5:17 PM


Re: Authorship
quote:
Also, the fact that Matthew in the Gospel is referred to in the third person is actually additional evidence that it was Matthew the tax collector and apostle. Josephus in the "War of the Jews" refers to himself in the 3rd person to indicate that he is an active participant in the accounts. The fact that Matthew uses the third person in self reference would in the same way be writing it as being personally involved.

This is literally insane. Plenty of people are referred to in the third person, including Jesus, Judas and Pontius Pilate. The most you can say is that it doesn’t prove that Matthew wasn’t the author.

quote:
I have found the opposite. In reading the Bible as a collection of 66 books written by human authors and forming a somewhat coherent account of the human understanding of God, maturing within the Jewish culture, with the Biblical account climaxing in Jesus, my confidence in my Christian faith has been nothing but strengthened.

And the above shows how that happened. And it wasn’t because of the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 5:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 6:01 PM PaulK has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 12 of 28 (877542)
06-17-2020 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
06-17-2020 4:21 PM


Re: A few notes
PaulK writes:

So, not one of those usually counted as the disciples. Maybe a follower, but not an important one.

He wasn't an apostle. We have no idea of how important he was as a disciple but he did become a bishop in the early church.
PaulK writes:

No you didn’t and it doesn’t. You gave two translations of the same text. They are far too close to be anything else.

You are right. I kinda missed your point.

PaulK writes:

And in all likelihood it was written by someone else entirely. Despite the text’s claim to the contrary.

What evidence do you have for that or is it just your opinion.

PaulK writes:

Which doesn’t help much, since for all you know the name was attached to the Gospel because of those references.

In numerous cases he talks about his being a travelling companion of Paul's. He then in the first verse indicates that the writer is the same person who refers to himself as a companion of Paul.

PaulK writes:

Unfortunately for you it is a matter of copying.

No, it is a matter of using it as source material.

PaulK writes:

We know that it is highly unlikely that the author of Matthew was either an eye witness or Matthew the tax collector.

From my research I would say that it is most likely that it was the apostle Matthew as I've written to Hyroglyphx above.

PaulK writes:

There are also questions of whether the “we” passages of Acts reflect actual experience. Not that a brief meeting years before writing would be of much use anyway.

The "we" passages are consistent with the entirety of Luke and Acts.

PaulK writes:

That’s what it says, whether it is true is another matter. Again the fact that the author never tells us which source his claims come from is a count against him. We only know that Mark is a source because the copying can be detected by literary analysis.

Essentially then you are saying that he is lying. In that case you can throw out the whole Gospel. He is giving a rationale for trusting in what he has written.

Papias writes:

So where does Papias claim to have met disciples other than Aristion and John (if John the Elder really is the Disciple)? If you are going to claim that comes directly from Papias you have to back it up. I think that the omission of any others is a strong indication that he didn’t meet them.

You may be right. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp interacted with several eye witnesses. Polycarp and Papias were friends and so it seems likely that if Polycarp met several disciples then Papias did as well. There is no evidence beyond that however.

PaulK writes:

Sure there is - the Gospel of Matthew is not an eye-witness account and it was written in Greek.

It is generally accepted that Matthew was first written in a Hebrew language and translated into Greek very early.

As I said earlier I think that there is good evidence that it was written by an apostle.

PaulK writes:

Then let us see some actual scholarship saying why that text should not be taken at face value. If all I can see is an opinion that doesn’t make much sense to me I am not about to prefer it to an obvious and simple alternative.

I already presented some where we can see Josephus writing in the "War of the Jews" referring to himself in the 3rd person to indicate that he is an an active part of the narrative and not simply giving a second hand account.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 4:21 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 11:53 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 13 of 28 (877543)
06-17-2020 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
06-17-2020 5:50 PM


Re: Authorship
PaulK writes:

And the above shows how that happened. And it wasn’t because of the evidence.

Yes and no. I had accepted Christianity primarily because of reading CS Lewis, but in actually studying further the works of Lewis and then N T Wright, John Polkinghorne and more recently Richard Bauckham, it fleshed out my understanding and actually strengthened my faith in the basic Christian message.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 5:50 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2020 11:56 PM GDR has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 14 of 28 (877548)
06-17-2020 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
06-17-2020 5:56 PM


Re: A few notes
quote:
He wasn't an apostle. We have no idea of how important he was as a disciple but he did become a bishop in the early church.

All I can find easily is the assertion that Aristion was likely Bishop of Smyrna. And it is entirely possible to be a bishop without being a disciple.

quote:
What evidence do you have for that or is it just your opinion.

Scholars argue that the author was not only fluent in Greek, but clearly had an education in Greek which is unlikely for Peter. The usual answer is that it was largely written by someone else for Peter, but even that means that it was largely the creation of another. And of course the evidence is entirely inadequate to show that.

quote:
In numerous cases he talks about his being a travelling companion of Paul's. He then in the first verse indicates that the writer is the same person who refers to himself as a companion of Paul.

Let us note that it is use of the first person, not third that you claim as evidence of authorship here. However, as I have already mentioned it is not as sure as you think.

quote:
No, it is a matter of using it as source material.

It is a matter of copying. This is agreed amongst scholars.

quote:
From my research I would say that it is most likely that it was the apostle Matthew as I've written to Hyroglyphx above.

It is a product of your prejudice and irrationality as is absolutely clear.

quote:
The "we" passages are consistent with the entirety of Luke and Acts.

This is a massive non-sequitur. I did not suggest that the passages were later additions, I suggested that the use of the first person might not indicate that the author was actually present.

quote:
Essentially then you are saying that he is lying. In that case you can throw out the whole Gospel. He is giving a rationale for trusting in what he has written

Or he was using a boilerplate dedication that happened not to be literally true.

quote:
You may be right. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp interacted with several eye witnesses. Polycarp and Papias were friends and so it seems likely that if Polycarp met several disciples then Papias did as well. There is no evidence beyond that however.

While it is possible that Papias may have met disciples and forgotten it, it would be unlikely if there was significant interaction between them. And it is entirely possible for Polycarp to meet people that Papias did not.

quote:
It is generally accepted that Matthew was first written in a Hebrew language and translated into Greek very early.

As I said earlier I think that there is good evidence that it was written by an apostle.


No, it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek and you don’t have good evidence that it was written by an apostle.

quote:
I already presented some where we can see Josephus writing in the "War of the Jews" referring to himself in the 3rd person to indicate that he is an an active part of the narrative and not simply giving a second hand account.

It is not that he writes about himself in the third person that does that. It is the fact that he writes about himself (I.e. it relies on us knowing that the Josephus of the text IS the author).

The use of the third person is NOT evidence of authorship - because the use of the third person applies to everyone but the author or the reader and it is insane to suggest otherwise,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 5:56 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 28 (877549)
06-17-2020 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
06-17-2020 6:01 PM


Re: Authorship
quote:
Yes and no.

Your willingness to write ridiculous falsehoods - as well as your rejection of evidence contrary to your views - is proof that your belief is not at all based on the evidence.

And Lewis’ awful apologetics shouldn’t convince any rational person. (Yes, I did read Mere Christianity and yes it is really, really bad)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 06-17-2020 6:01 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by GDR, posted 06-18-2020 2:01 AM PaulK has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020