|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Authorship of the Gospels | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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: Papius wrote this about the authorship of Mark. quote:Papius also wrote the following. quote: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:
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 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.quote: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: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:
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. 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.Papius writes: 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. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elderswhat 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Authorship of the Gospels thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: This is taken out of the quote I used earlier. 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.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. PaulK writes: The quotes are from the works of Eusebius. I simply thought that one would help to confirm the other. 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.Irenaeus wrote the following in a letter. quote: 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: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:
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. 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 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: PaulK writes: 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.
Papias explicitly sought out second-hand accounts and apparently did not speak to many eye witnesses at all. PaulK writes:
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. 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.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: PaulK writes: Bauckham writes this about that. 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.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. Edited by GDR, : fixed small error in quoteHe 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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 very unlikely that Peter wrote 1 Peter.
quote: One or two, more likely since 2 Timothy is unlikely to be Pauline and Colossians is doubted.
quote: 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:. 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: This is from Luke 10: 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: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: 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.
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. PaulK writes: 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.
It is very unlikely that Peter wrote 1 Peter.PaulK writes: Well even if they aren’t Pauline, Luke is still recorded in the 3 books as a companion of Paul.
One or two, more likely since 2 Timothy is unlikely to be Pauline and Colossians is doubted.PaulK writes: It isn’t a matter of copying, but of using the earlier material as a resource along with your own experiences of the eyewitnesses. 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.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: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: It isn’t just what Polycarp writes but information that is directly copied from the works of Papias.
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.PaulK writes:
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:
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. PaulK writes: 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.
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.PaulK writes: So you are prepared to put your scholarship up against a scholar with this background. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So, not one of those usually counted as the disciples. Maybe a follower, but not an important one.
quote: 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: And in all likelihood it was written by someone else entirely. Despite the text’s claim to the contrary.
quote: Which doesn’t help much, since for all you know the name was attached to the Gospel because of those references.
quote: Unfortunately for you it is a matter of copying.
quote: 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: 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: 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: It’s rather clear that he would have to use Mark instead of his alleged eye witness experience which makes far less sense.
quote: If he did, that document is lost to us. It’s not our Gospel of Matthew.
quote: Sure there is - the Gospel of Matthew is not an eye-witness account and it was written in Greek.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hyroglyphx writes: 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. The Book of Matthew is likely the oldest gospel, possibly dating to around 1-100 years of Jesus’ death and supposed resurrection.Hyroglyphx writes: 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. 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.quote: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: Agreed but I would note that Papias refers to John the Elder as someone who was an eyewitness.
John the Elder or John the Revelator is assumed for the Book of John.Hyroglphx writes: 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.
Luke is likely a second hand account from Paul of Tarsus.Hyroglyphx writes: Papias quotes John the Elder when he says that Mark was essentially a disciple of Peter. Mark, however, is a third hand and far removed source.quote: Hyroglyphx writes: I'd say that none of that is correct. Can you give me a 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. Hyroglyphx writes: 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.
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. Hyroglyphx writes: 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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: And the above shows how that happened. And it wasn’t because of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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.
So, not one of those usually counted as the disciples. Maybe a follower, but not an important one.PaulK writes: You are right. I kinda missed your point.
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. PaulK writes: What evidence do you have for that or is it just your opinion.
And in all likelihood it was written by someone else entirely. Despite the text’s claim to the contrary. PaulK writes: 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.
Which doesn’t help much, since for all you know the name was attached to the Gospel because of those references. PaulK writes: No, it is a matter of using it as source material.
Unfortunately for you it is a matter of copying. PaulK writes: From my research I would say that it is most likely that it was the apostle Matthew as I've written to Hyroglyphx above.
We know that it is highly unlikely that the author of Matthew was either an eye witness or Matthew the tax collector. PaulK writes: The "we" passages are consistent with the entirety of Luke and Acts.
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. PaulK writes: 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.
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. Papias writes: 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.
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. PaulK writes: It is generally accepted that Matthew was first written in a Hebrew language and translated into Greek very early. Sure there is - the Gospel of Matthew is not an eye-witness account and it was written in Greek. As I said earlier I think that there is good evidence that it was written by an apostle.
PaulK writes: 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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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. And the above shows how that happened. And it wasn’t because of the evidence.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: It is a matter of copying. This is agreed amongst scholars.
quote: It is a product of your prejudice and irrationality as is absolutely clear.
quote: 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: Or he was using a boilerplate dedication that happened not to be literally true.
quote: 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: 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: 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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024