Quote:
Originally Posted by
jlisenbe
1. You have quoted no ancient sources who questioned the authorship of the four Gospels. That was the question. Lack of affirmation does not qualify in any way as an answer.
The stories describing the life of Jesus circulated during and after his life. They spread from person to person until, sometime after his death, they began to be written down. As is well-known, there were many written accounts of the life of Jesus. Centuries later, the four gospels as we now know them (Matthew, Mark, etc.) were selected as authentic.
Back in the latter part of the second century was when they first became attributed to the 4 traditional authors. Prior to that attribution the authors were unknown. We know this from several sources that were writing at the time but made no mention of the AUTHORS of the gospels. There were sections of these stories quoted but NONE OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE NAMED. This point has been previously made, but you call it “silence”.
In other words, questioning the authorship of the stories was not an issue in the beginning. It was not until a century or so after Jesus' death that the stories began to be attributed to apostolic times to give them a needed authenticity.
Quote:
But earlier you said, "In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.
The AUTHORS were unknown, not the contents of the gospels.
Quote:
In your view, they did not mention it in the surviving fragments of what they wrote.
It's not "my view", it's the considered view of modern scholars, and hardly from fragments. See the following:
Justin Martyr makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.
Quote:
If I am understanding you correctly, you are now agreeing that the four Gospels existed at the beginning of the second century. You are simply arguing that they were not mentioned by name in that century. Is that your contention? If so, then how do you explain this? There is similar evidence for Mark, Luke, and John. I'll let you take the link yourself.
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html
No. Not named until the latter part of the second century. Your link does nothing but repeat what you already wrote. The source is Irenaeus who wrote in the latter part of the second century.
Quote:
3. I asked, "Give just one reference from a Gospel account that cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of details being handed down from generation to generation." You responded, "Gladly. How can two eyewitnesses report two different oh-so-obvious details such as the number of people at the tomb? One reports two, the other reports 5. It couldn't be more clear that the two traditions, differing as they do, have been passed down over the generations. The theological difference is not affected, only the clear evidence for being passed down." But I have already explained that one saying five and one saying two is not a contradiction. If there were five, then there were certainly two. If it had said, "only two", then you would have a point. It does not, however, so you don't. It certainly is not a satisfactory answer to the question since there is no reason to believe that both accounts could not be based on eyewitness testimony.
This is an astounding piece of miscombobulation (if that isn't a word, it should be). There are five apples on the table. You come along and say there are two. Someone else says but there are five. You say 2 is included in the 5, so 2 does not contradict 5. Your stretch to prove any point you make, no matter how ridiculous, is breathtaking. In any case, it was never about contradiction - that was your word. It was about difference - the difference between two people at the tomb and five at the tomb.
Quote:
"I laughed out loud when you criticized me for citing an author from 1689. “A little dated, yes?”, you said. And you quoting authors from over a thousand years earlier! A little dated, yes? No points on this one – I enjoyed the comic relief." Surely you can understand the difference between quoting direct sources (me) versus quoting a theologian or historian (you) merely supplying opinions. I hope you can.
You commented on the date but not the content of what I wrote. Revealing, isn't it? In any case, your sources were writing far after the events in question. My modern sources have certain advantages over the ancient sources when both are writing after the events being described.
Quote:
5. "Jl, Jl, Jl. This is really getting ridiculous. I never said scholars knew very little of the Gospels." I agree. I never said you did. I have no idea where you got that from. Imagination? My comment of, "Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels," was referring, rather clearly I think, to the early church fathers, and certainly not to modern scholars.
What I meant was the early church fathers. Obviously they knew what they were reading. You should have seen the typo of scholars for early church fathers.
Quote:
6. I am pleased that you did not engage in plagiarism this time. That's progress. Regrettably, you did not see fit to explain your previous misstep.
Another astounding piece of discombob. First you whined that I didn't provide names, then when I did provide names, you call it plagiarism. It's really about deflection, isn't it? Your position is weak and you would rather accuse me of bad faith. Ok, two can play that game.
Please tell us more about your belief in talking reptiles. Do they speak in forked tongues? How about talking elephants? Do you believe in those, too? Or maybe a God who creates billions of people only to watch them burn forever in his private torture chamber for the sin of never having heard of him? If it's possible I have your beliefs wrong, here's your chance to set the record straight. I'll wait.
Quote:
7. You were correct in pointing out that Polycarp did not mention the Gospels by name. Good catch. Unhappily, it was your only one. Polycarp did indeed quote from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not by name, so fair enough. But do you really think Polycarp would have quoted from a written account set down by some unknown individual? Does that makes sense to you? And if he knew the authors were other than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then wouldn't that information have been passed on to Irenaeus? Your contention just doesn't make sense.
Polycarp, and the others, read the anonymous accounts and believed in the content and were not concerned about the name of the person or persons who wrote them. The crux of the matter was the LIFE of Jesus, not the writer of the life. When, after several generations, it became necessary to attribute the stories to famiiar names from the apostolic era, the stories were then prefaced with "According to...". Note that this is an attribution, not a claim of authorship. Yes, it makes perfect good sense to me, and others who study these things professionally.
