I will answer honest questions - if they're honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
I will answer honest questions - if they're honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'll honestly discuss biblical topics with you but no pinning me to the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.Quote:
The real question is this. Why would you, a confessing Christian, hesitate for even a millisecond to agree WITH ENTHUSIASM that Jesus was raised from the dead? Very, very suspicious.
I might be talking to someone who denies the resurrection. I like to say "Yeah, there are a few questions" and then proceed to enumerate some of them.
And then answer them. It's fun to watch the faces.
But I'm a troll.
Be sure to use "I" statements. "I've often wondered..." and "I really might question..." and "I have doubts about..."Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Give us your top three of the "few questions" and then the answers. That's a really interesting approach. I'd love to see how it works.Quote:
I might be playing "devil's advocate" to see how much a person actually knows about the resurrection.
I might be talking to someone who denies the resurrection. I like to say "Yeah, there are a few questions" and then proceed to enumerate some of them.
And then answer them. It's fun to watch the faces.
Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first.
Are you wanting us to answer?
--Matthew 28:1 says that there were two women who went to the sepulchre, in Mark 16:1 three women went, Luke 24:10 said there was one, and John 20:1 says five or more. Every single Gospel differs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
--According to Matthew 28:1 it was at dawn that the women went to the Sepulchre, but in John 20:1 they went before dawn, when it was still dark.
--Again, we encounter another subject on which none of the Gospels agree. Who was at the tomb when the women got there? Matthew 28:2 says there was an angel, Mark 16:5 says a young man, Luke 24:4 says there were two men, and finally John 20:12 says there were two angels.
--And just how did these people get into the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says that the angel rolled the stone from the entrance, but Luke 24:4 says the stone was already moved.
--The Gospels don't agree on where the angel(s) and/or men were. Matthew 28:2 says that he was outside to open the tomb... but the other Gospels they are found inside the tomb.
--In Matthew 28:8 the women run to tell the disciples about what they found at the tomb. But Mark 16:8 says they were too scared to tell anyone.
--Mary Magdaline saw Jesus and knew it was him in Matthew 28:9, but she didn't know it was him in John 20:14, and never saw him, but was told by angels that he was alive in Luke 24:23.
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm
There are several replies to that.Quote:
you'd think they'd put their heads together first.
1. The accounts differ but don't seem to contradict. That being the case, the differences can be seen as providing a fuller, more detailed account than any one Gospel would have provided. So if one account says there were two women, another account saying there were five simply adds a fuller version, but there is no contradiction. It is true that there were two women, and it is true that there were five women. BTW, Luke did not say there was only one woman.
2. They would have been as aware of the differences in the late first century as we are now. That no effort was made to harmonize them speaks volumes for the perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals. That is, for me, enormously important.
3. If all four authors were writing the accounts either as they personally remembered them (Matthew and John) or in the manner in which it was reported to them (Luke and Mark), then there would have been no need in their minds to get together and make sure they all wrote exactly the same thing. They all felt they were writing the truth.
4. The similarities far outweigh the differences.
For what it's worth, I thought WG's post on this topic was informative.
This implies that the differences don't matter since they are “far outweighed” by the similarities. Not at all true. It's like saying lies don't matter since the person has made other statements that are not lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The rest of the numbered statements have similar conditions that fail the test of logic. For example, he states that the differences are “fuller”. As proof, the example provided is that 5 is “fuller” than 2. That avoids the fact that 5 is not 2. That is a major disparity between eyewitnesses or copyists.
The reference to the first century neatly avoids the further fact that there are no complete copies of the Gospels from that time period. The earliest complete copies (not fragments) date from the 4th century – centuries later.
The number 3 statement claims that all four authors felt no need to get together to ensure all wrote the same thing. That assumes all 4 authors knew each other, which is highly doubtful since most scholars agree that the names of the authors are not the actual Apostles but writers using their names for its recognition value.
WG's points are good ones and they cast doubt on the accuracy of Gospels copied after centuries of copying.
These are more than mere “differences”.
2 women vs. 5 women,
dawn vs. dusk,
angels vs. men,
inside the tomb vs. outside the tomb,
stone is moved vs. stone not moved,
women tell the disciples vs. the women do not tell the disciples,
Mary Magdalene knew it was Jesus vs. Mary Magdalene never saw Jesus.
Far better answers are needed to deal with a denier of the resurrection.
There are no complete copies of any ancient documents for centuries after the original autographs. No one suggests that is a major problem. If you count the hundreds of direct quotes by the early church fathers of the second century and combine that with the dozen or so manuscript fragments (most manuscripts are incomplete...not unusual) from the second century, then it is plainly apparent that the NT books existed and were being copied and widely distributed in the second century. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that just as there is no reason to believe that the NT documents were substantially changed at any point. If you know of evidence to the contrary, then I encourage you to post it.Quote:
The reference to the first century neatly avoids the further fact that there are no complete copies of the Gospels from that time period. The earliest complete copies (not fragments) date from the 4th century – centuries later.
"Most scholars" don't believe any such thing. The second century church fathers wrote that the authors we know the Gospels by were, indeed, the authors. And we don't assume they knew each other, we KNOW they knew each other. It is beyond dispute that Matthew, John, and Mark would have known each other very well. Luke, at the beginning of his Gospel, made it very clear that he had researched his material well and would likely have known many people still alive at the time who had accompanied Jesus. He was in Jerusalem for the two years of Paul's imprisonment there. He also would have known Mark from his travels with Paul.Quote:
The number 3 statement claims that all four authors felt no need to get together to ensure all wrote the same thing. That assumes all 4 authors knew each other, which is highly doubtful since most scholars agree that the names of the authors are not the actual Apostles but writers using their names for its recognition value.
As to the rest of your post, there is a HUUGGGEEEE difference between texts that differ in detail (number of women) versus texts that contradict. I would not deny that some of the differences are difficult, but most are not such as the number of women or this one. "Mary Magdaline saw Jesus and knew it was him in Matthew 28:9, but she didn't know it was him in John 20:14, and never saw him, but was told by angels that he was alive in Luke 24:23." The Luke passage does not say they "never saw Him." The John passage says she did not immediately recognize Him but then very quickly did. The Matthew passage also says the women saw Him. So they do not contradict. They differ, but do not contradict.
At any rate, I'd love to see DW's answer to that question.
Here's an interesting site that tries to clear up all those differences among the Gospel writers:
https://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus...ict-each-other
E.g., "One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb, the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure [from where they were staying]."
That was a good site. McDowell has been around a long time. I remember reading his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, when I was in Bible College back before the Civil War.
As to the authors of the Gospels, this site has a good discussion. https://www.joydigitalmag.com/burnin...wrote-gospels/
It includes this. "By contrast, we have evidence (via church historian Eusebius) that Papias named Matthew and Mark as the author of those Gospels by AD 120. This is at most 50 years after Mark was written, and 30 years after John was written, according to the most accepted dating of the Gospels. About 60 years after Papias in c 180 AD, Irenaeus names each of the evangelists as the authors of their works. This is followed by Tertullian in about 207 AD and Origen in approximately 245 AD."
I would add this. Polycarp actually knew John and would have been alive when John wrote his Gospel and certainly would have been intimately familiar with the other Gospels. Irenaeus was very familiar with Polycarp and heard him preach on many occasions. Irenaeus, as we read above, identified the Gospels as coming from the named authors. It is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have heard Polycarp proclaim otherwise.
You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.
https://people.engr.tamu.edu/davis/O...2010-01-05.pdf
The condition of other ancient documents is irrelevant. The "major" problem consists in determining the original autographs from copies made centuries after the originals.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No one denies that the books existed and were widely copied during the second century. Again, the difficulty is that those books are no longer available.The complete extant books are from the 4th century - a long time afterwards. Any extensive editing, copying and changes cannot be proven SINCE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST.
You missed my meaning. I am not saying that Matthew, Mark and John did not know each other. Obviously they did. I am saying the writers used those names to provide credibility to what they wrote. This is not disputed by scholars.
I took the Mary Magdalene citation from WG's post. I see now that further along in that Gospel, she does recognize Jesus. I stand by the others.
The differences certainly belie the claim that they all saw the same thing. It is much more likely that the story got muddled over the centuries being passed down over such an extensive period of time.
As you are wont to say, this is all hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have a lot of "would-have-beens" in there. Then, as now, the traditional authors are accepted as such, especially today by the ordinary reader. The scholars no longer hold that belief - at least since the 19th century.Quote:
Polycarp actually knew John and would have been alive when John wrote his Gospel and certainly would have been intimately familiar with the other Gospels. Irenaeus was very familiar with Polycarp and heard him preach on many occasions. Irenaeus, as we read above, identified the Gospels as coming from the named authors. It is virtually impossible to imagine that he would have heard Polycarp proclaim otherwise.
To repeat, the issue is NOT that the books existed or that they were read and were considered authoritative. The issue is the authorship.Quote:
You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.
But reliable copies and quotations from the second century, which for ancient documents is incredibly close, show no changes of any consequence.Quote:
Any extensive editing, copying and changes cannot be proven SINCE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST.
To say it is not disputed is incredible. That Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels attributed to them is WIDELY accepted.Quote:
You missed my meaning. I am not saying that Matthew, Mark and John did not know each other. Obviously they did. I am saying the writers used those names to provide credibility to what they wrote. This is not disputed by scholars.
Quotes from the founding fathers of the church is hearsay??? Well...believe that if you wish. The bottom line is that you have presented not a shred of evidence to the contrary. So in a court of law, your case would be summarily dismissed.Quote:
As you are wont to say, this is all hearsay and would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.
The woods are full of scholars such as, for instance, F. F. Bruce, who would have (He's dead now) completely rejected your idea. Honestly, when the founding fathers of of the church testify against you, and I have no idea who would have known better than them, and when there is not an ounce of ancient testimony to the contrary, then I just don't know how you can hold to that position other than mere, unsubstantiated conjecture. And contending that "the scholars" no longer hold to that position is just silliness. Some scholars, to be sure, would agree with you, but to suggest that it is all or even a majority is just flat wrong.Quote:
You have a lot of "would-have-beens" in there. Then, as now, the traditional authors are accepted as such, especially today by the ordinary reader. The scholars no longer hold that belief - at least since the 19th century.
I'm sorry but that argument is off base. NO ancient autographs survive from ANY works of the ancient world other than those carved in stone or written on clay tablets, so to take your approach, practically all of ancient history would have to be tossed aside. Textual critics are well able to determine within a small margin of error what the originals said. This site gives a pretty good summary of the process.Quote:
The "major" problem consists in determining the original autographs from copies made centuries after the originals.
https://ryanleasure.com/the-number-o...doesnt-matter/
But if you want to maintain your position, then you should abandon quoting any text from the Bible at all. It is either reliable or it's not.
The second century copies are too fragmentary to be of any real value in the debate. Ancient extra-Biblical documents are frequently mentioned as though they constitutes some sort of proof. They don't, and are irrelevant comparing them to the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Incredible only to fundamentalists.Quote:
To say it is not disputed is incredible.
From the Oxford Annotated Bible, Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.
Not by most scholars.Quote:
That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels attributed to them is WIDELY accepted.
In a court of law, "founding fathers" do not get special privileges. So their testimony would be hearsay.Quote:
Quotes from the founding fathers of the church is hearsay??? ........ in a court of law, your case would be summarily dismissed.
Bruce was an evangelical fundamentalist. No doubt many would reject my idea, but more would accept it.Quote:
The woods are full of scholars such as, for instance, F. F. Bruce, who would have (He's dead now) completely rejected your idea.
It was not the intent of the Church Fathers (not "founding fathers") to examine the issue. See the Oxford Bible paragraph above. Also, some of the early fathers had ideas that are very weird and certainly not held by anyone today.Quote:
Honestly, when the founding fathers of of the church testify against you, and I have no idea who would have known better than them,
See the Oxford Bible quote above. There are dozens more saying the same thing. It's only the fundies that hold to the traditional view.Quote:
And contending that "the scholars" no longer hold to that position is just silliness. Some scholars, to be sure, would agree with you, but to suggest that it is all or even a majority is just flat wrong.
You're missing the point again. If Homer didn't write The Iliad, would we toss aside The Iliad? That's what you're saying with the gospels. As though questioning the gospel authorship results in tossing aside all of them. It doesn't work that way. This is the second time I have tried to explain that to you.Quote:
I'm sorry but that argument is off base. NO ancient autographs survive from ANY works of the ancient world other than those carved in stone or written on clay tablets, so to take your approach, practically all of ancient history would have to be tossed aside.
If the textual critic is an evangelical, he comes with a bias toward the subject. Surely you will admit that.Quote:
Textual critics are well able to determine within a small margin of error what the originals said.
It is from the point of view of a Southern Baptist. Few, if any, Southern Baptists are objective or neutral on the issue.Quote:
This site gives a pretty good summary of the process.
https://ryanleasure.com/the-number-o...doesnt-matter/
No, this is a major error of yours. An all-or-nothing approach is the mark of fundamentalism. Your own admission of believing in talking reptiles is proof positive of the error of your ways.Quote:
But if you want to maintain your position, then you should abandon quoting any text from the Bible at all. It is either reliable or it's not.
Only to you. No one who knows anything about textual criticism would make such a statement. First you complain about not having the autographs, and then you dismiss the existence of copies very close in time to the autographs. I think you are simply not familiar enough with the process. Might add that the vast majority of NT manuscripts, in particular in the first five centuries, are fragmentary. To dismiss them as of "no real value" is just amazing.Quote:
The second century copies are too fragmentary to be of any real value in the debate. Ancient extra-Biblical documents are frequently mentioned as though they constitutes some sort of proof. They don't, and are irrelevant comparing them to the Bible.
The rest of your comments just concern more of your ad hominem attacks. "Oh my gosh! He's a fundamentalist! He's Southern Baptist! He's evangelical!! They have to be wrong." (Note: Quotation marks are only there for sarcasm.) Unbelievable. Who is more biased in this discussion that you are? Your bias against conservative scholarship is plainly apparent.
You are basically claiming the evangelical critics are dishonest. No, I do not accept that. Could they be affected by bias? Of course. Tell me your liberal critics are not. Can you really suggest that?Quote:
If the textual critic is an evangelical, he comes with a bias toward the subject. Surely you will admit that.
As to the Oxford Annotated Bible Quote, there are no named individuals. Even worse, his only real objection is that the evangelicals are biased, as though liberal scholars are not. That's laughable.
In the court of historical research, there are no better witnesses than those individuals close in time to the writing of the Gospels.
I will ask again. What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do.
Not at all absurd. The second century fragments consist of a few lines, none of which discuss the possibility of authors different than the traditional ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have never complained about not having the autographs. I have stated a fact. I have not dismissed the existence of fragments. I have said they do not matter in the discussion. The fact that they are close in time to the autographs has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.Quote:
First you complain about not having the autographs, and then you dismiss the existence of copies very close in time to the autographs.
Ah, the real Jl has emerged. When losing the argument, attack, and attack again.Quote:
You have no idea of what you're talking about.
No, I said they are biased. Do you deny that?Quote:
The rest of your comments just concern more of your ad hominem attacks. "Oh my gosh! He's a fundamentalist! He's Southern Baptist! He's evangelical!! They have to be wrong.
No, I am claiming they put their faith ahead of their objectivity. You do the same thing and, if memory serves, you have even bragged about doing that. Do you do that? Put your faith ahead of your objectivity?Quote:
You are basically claiming the evangelical critics are dishonest.
I don't have liberal critics. (You seem to be obsessed with "liberal".)Quote:
Tell me your liberal critics are not.
That is true. The only problem is we have no records - excluding tiny fragments - from witnesses close in time to the events.Quote:
In the court of historical research, there are no better witnesses than those individuals close in time to the writing of the Gospels.
My sources are those scholars who examine the Bible from many different angles. They include text criticism, form criticism, archeology, and history, to name a few. Here is an excellent description of the methods used.Quote:
What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels?
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/b...testament.aspx
I have given you more than enough for you to chew on. But, as usual, you have succumbed to nastiness, your go-to position when you feel lost and overwhelmed.Quote:
Do you have any evidence whatsoever?
Your anger is very obvious. It's not my intention to make you like that, but it seems to arise when you feel defeated. It would be better for you if you just calmly tried to read and learn.
You have provided nothing other than the plainly false claim that all the scholars believe the Gospel accounts were written by other writers than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Other than that fake news you have nothing.Quote:
I have given you more than enough for you to chew on.
Which is really the entire point. You have nothing at all to support your claim.Quote:
none of which discuss the possibility of authors different than the traditional ones.
I can only say again, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Polycarp dates to the writing of John as did Papias. They could have both seen Matthew in their childhood for that matter based on their birth dates. They both attributed Matthew to Matthew. Iranaeus lived a century afterwards as did Clement, and they said the same. You just don't know the material.Quote:
The only problem is we have no records - excluding tiny fragments - from witnesses close in time to the events
So I will ask again, again. What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do.
BTW, there are legit reasons to question the authorship of Matthew, but none of them seem to appeal at all to ancient sources. I don't find them compelling, but they are out there. That you don't know them seems plainly apparent. Do you have anything at all????? Anything, anything, anything at all??? (I have to repeat frequently due to your hesitancy to answer questions.)
I understand how angry you are. That is apparent when you start repeating what I have already replied to, replies which showed your claims to be in error. When you project that anger elsewhere on this website, that is not good for your mental health and I worry about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Here's a quick summary for you to refer to:
Post 331 – where I gave you seven examples (from WG's post) of the different gospel accounts which are definitive in showing that they cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of the details being handed down from generation to generation. The Mary Magdalene account is also here which you called into question. However, you were wrong. In John, Mary does not immediately recognize Jesus as she does in the other gospels. The author of John embellishes the account for spiritual faith-based reasons. You ignored the remaining six examples which I take to be your tacit agreement or, at a minimum, your inability to challenge them.
Post 335 – where the authorship question came up and which you totally missed my meaning. Also mentioned in this post is the impossibility of comparing the original gospels because they no longer exist. All we have are copies (of copies). This critical observation seemed to have gone right over your head.
Post 336 – here you cited a number of ancient writers, most of whom were not contemporary and none of whom provided anything germane to the authorship identity question. Their use of traditional names was received, not personal knowledge.
Post 338 – a citation from a recognized authority that modern scholars do not accept the traditional authorship of the gospels. Of course, the fundie “scholars” are not included in this. Homer's Iliad was cited to help you understand, but this too went over your head. To further show you your error I mentioned your belief in talking reptiles to solidify the point. No reply to that either.
Post 340 – I told you why the second century fragments don't figure in the discussion. And I corrected some statements of mine that you misquoted – a familiar tactic of yours when you're out of your depth. I made note of the nastiness starting when you run out of ideas – another common tactic of yours. Even gave you a link describing how modern Biblical study is carried out, but it is unclear whether you took advantage of that.
Now you have reverted to insults and false comments which is the best indication of your lack of understanding, not only of how the Bible is interpreted, but of the bible itself and how you and other fundies rely on selected verses and read the book only at its surface meaning.
I've done my best to help you, but your refusal to accept help is a major obstacle in dealing with you.
More details as time allows, including your revealing comment about "ancient sources".
You've done a wonderful job of answering questions that no one has asked. This is what I asked you to reply to, and have asked it a number of times. So far you've had nothing, so I will ask again, again and yet again. "What ancient source do you appeal to in order to cast doubt on the authorship of the Gospels? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Anything? Anything at all? Please don't respond again until you do." Well, it is plain by now that you don't know of any, nor are you aware of any justification used by scholars to question the authorship of the Gospels. You seem to be walking in the dark.
Not angry, but weary from waiting on an answer. Anyone following this thread can see easily why I also wrote, "I have to repeat frequently due to your hesitancy to answer questions." It's the same pattern as when you were repeatedly asked the very simple and yet profound question of whether or not you believe in the resurrection. Still no answer to that one, either, assuming, of course, that you rise to the challenge.
Actually, your post 331 did no such thing. But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection, then rather than throwing up my hands in despair, let's try a different approach. 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." Considering that none of the Gospel authors claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events at the tomb and would logically have received their information from the women who were there and were eyewitnesses (a common practice among historians), your statement seems to be an odd one. Still, I'd like to see one. The claim that you can clearly tell that they were handed down from generation to generation appeals to me. I would be interested to see an example of that specifically.Quote:
Post 331 – where I gave you seven examples (from WG's post) of the different gospel accounts which are definitive in showing that they cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of the details being handed down from generation to generation.
The waiting game begins.
Then please explain the Eusebian Sections, The Diatessaron, and the writings of numerous church fathers on the subject. And by the way, our manuscripts include all kinds of variant readings in which scribes tried to harmonize things. There was no "perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals". Especially in the first two centuries, scribes felt free to make alterations to the text as they saw fit.Quote:
2. They would have been as aware of the differences in the late first century as we are now. That no effort was made to harmonize them speaks volumes for the perceived need to keep the copied manuscripts true to the originals. That is, for me, enormously important.
A good, though somewhat dated, introduction to the subject is Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. I recommend you read it before commenting on the manuscripts again.
The Diatessaron was a true harmony of the Gospels and is clearly understood as being so. There was no effort there to change the text of any of the individual Gospel account manuscripts as they then existed. The Eusebian Canons were simply an attempt to organize the Gospels as to where they agreed or differed and were seen as useful for the purposes of reference and comparison. As I understand it, there was no attempt to alter the texts of the Gospels so I don't really know why you would even mention them. Besides, wasn't that late fourth century?
As to the early church fathers, if you have read the posts above, I have quoted several of them so I am familiar with them. Nothing of your post gives evidence that scribes were willing to alter the texts of the Gospels.
My reference to attempts to "harmonize" the Gospel accounts was in reference to attempts to change the text so as to remove, for instance, any appearance of differences in the visits to the tomb by the women. That there are differences is a testimony to the dedication of scribes NOT to alter the text. You say scribes felt free to, "make alterations as they saw fit" in the first two centuries. What evidence is there of that in any sense of scribes altering the accounts in any meaningful way other than such things as changes in spelling?
I am presently reading William Paley's A View of the Evidences of Christianity and New Testament Documents by F. F. Bruce. When I finish those I'll begin Sermons Preached at Boyle's Lecture by Richard Bentley and Alexander Dyce since I just received it. At that point I will consider your suggestion, but I will certainly not back away from commenting on the NT manuscripts. If something wrong is said, then point it out with evidence. You are welcome to do so.
That's exactly what happened in the earliest manuscripts, and beyond. It was especially prevalent during the Byzantine period. The Diatessaron harmonizes the different gospels in hundreds of places, and the Eusebian sections are a cross-reference tool but they also happen to mark the places where the most common harmonizing alterations to the text were made.Quote:
My reference to attempts to "harmonize" the Gospel accounts was in reference to attempts to change the text so as to remove, for instance, any appearance of differences in the visits to the tomb by the women.
That's easy. Mark 16:9-16.Quote:
What evidence is there of that in any sense of scribes altering the accounts in any meaningful way other than such things as changes in spelling?
That's true, but it did so as a separate document. Tatian made no effort to alter the 4 independent Gospel accounts, and they were the topic of discussion. By way of comparison, there are many summaries of the Constitution floating around, but no one suggests their existence in any way indicates that the Constitution has been altered. It is two separate issues.Quote:
The Diatessaron harmonizes the different gospels in hundreds of places,
They mark the places where the accounts are similar or different in an attempt at cross-referencing to assist the reader. Are you saying that they actually indicate "harmonizing alterations"? How so?Quote:
The Eusebian sections are a cross-reference tool but they also happen to mark the places where the most common harmonizing alterations to the text were made.
The Byzantine period started late fourth century, did it not? The manuscript evidence for that time is pretty good. You have evidence of wholesale changes to the texts in an effort to "harmonize" them post fourth century? I'd love to hear about that. And if they did (I don't think that's true on a level even approaching anything beyond a small scale), why wouldn't they have "cleaned up" the post-resurrection accounts? That's probably the most difficult Gospel details to harmonize, and so should have been high up on the list for correction. Why didn't that happen?
That's true. It's also true that everyone knows it and it is clearly recognized as being so. There are a handful of other instances such as the account of the woman caught in adultery, but those are additions to the texts that are obvious BECAUSE there are so many manuscripts available for comparison. If you want to contend for that handful of additions then that's fine, but that's a far cry from suggesting that, "Especially in the first two centuries, scribes felt free to make alterations to the text as they saw fit." You make it sound as if wholesale changes were made, and I don't think you can establish that. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intent?Quote:
That's easy. Mark 16:9-16.
All that aside, how do you answer this question you mentioned? "Okay, here's one: why to the accounts in the gospels differ about who got there first, who saw what, etc.? If they're reporting an inspired event, you'd think they'd put their heads together first." That's really how this all got started to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
A better question would be - “What ancient source do you appeal to in order to support the authorship of the Gospels?”
I will answer both below.
“None of the synoptic gospels name their author or authors. In each case authorial attribution dates from the second century CE. “Dr. Ian Bond, Pastor, Missionary, Evangelical
The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second century. All four Gospels were originally anonymous, none claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and all contain giveaways that they were written generations later, by well-educated Greek-speaking theologians.
There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. Early Christian scholar Henry Dodwell wrote in the 1600s:
“We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”
(Dissertations upon Irenaeus, Henry Bodwell, 1689).
In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ would have demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He 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. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).
Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.
Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).
Your attribution of Papias citing the Gospel in 120 AD was disingenuous. The implication is that we actually have that from 120 AD. The truth, as you know, is that it only occurs in the 4th century in the writings of Eusubius.
Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus,the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written OR compiled.
Quote:
From Athos
Post 331 – where I gave you seven examples (from WG's post) of the different gospel accounts which are definitive in showing that they cannot be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and are clearly the result of the details being handed down from generation to generation.
Noted that you cannot answer my contention in Post 331. Rather, you decide to “try a different approach”.Quote:
From jlsenbe
Actually, your post 331 did no such thing. But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection, then rather than throwing up my hands in despair, let's try a different approach.
It's already in Post 331 – specifically. Read it again. Hint: the disparity between the retelling of the accounts.Quote:
The claim that you can clearly tell that they were handed down from generation to generation appeals to me. I would be interested to see an example of that specifically.
Here's a good piece of advice from DW - “A good, though somewhat dated, introduction to the subject is Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. I recommend you read it before commenting on the manuscripts again.”
If that is so, then how did Polycarp know who wrote the 4 Gospels?Quote:
The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second century
Not true. It's already been demonstrated here that Polycarp mentioned them as did Papias. Look at post 334. You are quoting a source from 1689. A little dated, yes?Quote:
There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels.
Just flatly wrong. If that is true, then how did Tatian mange to write a harmony of the Gospels in the second century? The contention is just foolish. Polycarp quoted Matthew. You even contradict this yourself when you write, "Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them." So how on earth could he have quoted from Gospels which were unknown to him?Quote:
In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.
Truth is, even if all of the currently existing Greek manuscripts were destroyed, scholars would still be able to reconstruct 99% of the New Testament simply by using quotes from the second and third century church fathers. Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels.
This is my reply to your post 331. You see that I have asked you to defend your questionable claim by giving just one example. Clearly you can't. "Actually, your post 331 did no such thing. But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection, then rather than throwing up my hands in despair, let's try a different approach. 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.' Considering that none of the Gospel authors claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events at the tomb and would logically have received their information from the women who were there and were eyewitnesses (a common practice among historians), your statement seems to be an odd one. Still, I'd like to see one. The claim that you can clearly tell that they were handed down from generation to generation appeals to me. I would be interested to see an example of that specifically."
So you have no ancient source to contradict the authorship of the four Gospels. You will not give your belief on the resurrection. You can cite no accounts from the Gospels that you can CLEARLY tell were handed down from generation to generation. You are just devoid of answers. Sad.
Eusebius, whose name you misspelled, made reference to Papias. Papias lived in the late first, early second century. And he was mentioned and quoted by second century Irenaeus, two centuries before Eusebius. So there was nothing disingenuous at all in my statement about Papias.Quote:
Your attribution of Papias citing the Gospel in 120 AD was disingenuous. The implication is that we actually have that from 120 AD. The truth, as you know, is that it only occurs in the 4th century in the writings of Eusubius.
They "appeared"? They were certainly acknowledged in the second century, as well they would have been if the very simple and common sense explanation that they were written by those four authors is accepted.Quote:
Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these names first appeared in the second century
One more point. If you are going to quote others as you did above, you really should acknowledge that. Plagiarism is a bad habit.
OK. Can't let that one go. John claimed his account was based on eyewitness testimony.Quote:
none claim to be written by eyewitnesses
Might add that Luke, while not an eyewitness, claimed to have interviewed eyewitnesses in his first chapter.Quote:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14). “He who saw it has borne witness” (19:35). “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (21:24).
We don't have the actual writings of Polycarp or Papias. We have Eusebius saying they wrote these things, but Eusebius is well known for adding stuff that didn't come along until later, plus some very late manuscripts, the best ones in Latin, not Greek.
Tatian was late second century at best and we don't have proof that he wrote the Diatessaron. The earliest copies we have are late 4th century.
You're not making your case. You're using flawed approaches to fragmentary, questionable sources.
Incidentally, to the other person in this thread (I lost track of who's doing what), Luke also claims to be based on eyewitness accounts. He indicates that he interviewed the people involved, examined records, and otherwise sought out all the eyewitness testimony he could. There's no reason not to assume he did a good job of it.
I wouldn't think that anyone of note seriously questions Tatian's authorship of the Diatessaron. It seems to be widely accepted. Now granted that is not "proof", so fair enough. Polycarp's letter to the Philippian church has, as ancient documents go, survived somewhat well, and in it he quotes from a number of NT books including Matthew. As you well know, with many ancient sources, what often survives is another person quoting them and that person's writings surviving. It is not unusual at all. Irenaeus quotes Papias, for instance, so we're not solely dependent on Eusebius for information concerning Papias.
But it all seems to illustrate the skeptical approach to TC. Even if a manuscript was found today written by Papias stating that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it would then be heard that, after all, it is only a copy of a copy of a copy, and we can't be certain that Papias wrote it, and it might date a hundred years after his life, and on and on it goes. So perhaps it can only be said that the great weight of evidence seems to favor the traditional authorship of those four books.
But even if a person wants to question those documents, it still seems true that, at least so far as I'm aware, there are no ancient sources which take the position that the Gospels were written by someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. There seems to be no serious case to be made for questioning their authorship other than a supposed shortage of second century attestations. That seems weak to me. It's basing a negative on negatives. Even worse, we are asked to assume that the early church used Gospels which they knew were written by persons other than the names attached to the Gospels. That seems to be an enormous stretch to me. Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, and others were early enough to have known this. It's hard to imagine how it could have been kept secret in an early church where honesty was valued. So if I go on what seems to be overwhelmingly likely, I would go with the traditional authors of the Gospel. There seems to be but little reason not to.
Polycarp never names the any of the 4 evangelists. Me 1, You 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I looked at your #334. You are wrong. You assume that since Polycarp knew the Gospels, he therefore knew the authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As I said above, Polycarp never names the 4 evangelists. Me 2, You 0.Quote:
Not true. It's already been demonstrated here that Polycarp mentioned them as did Papias. Look at post 334. You are quoting a source from 1689. A little dated, yes?
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.
I read Polycarp many years ago, and was surprised to see the Philippian letter on the net. So I read it again, remembering almost nothing about it. The letter NOWHERE mentions any of the 4 evangelists by name. Me 3, You 0.Quote:
You can also read Polycarp's letter to the Philippian Church, dated sometime prior to A.D. 150. It is interesting the many, many times he quotes from several of the NT books including Matthew, thus demonstrating that the books were well known by that time and that he considered them to be authoritative.
Quote:
from Athos
In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.
My comment that you said is “just flatly wrong” is within the context of the second century according to our discussion.Quote:
Just flatly wrong. If that is true, then how did Tatian mange to write a harmony of the Gospels in the second century?
Tatian's “harmony” (the Diatessaron) of the Gospels was written without naming the titles or the author names. We have this from Irenaeus through the 6th century Bishop, Victor. Me 4, You 0.
There is no contradiction. My contention is that the authors – the AUTHORS – were not known in the early second century. The Gospels were in circulation without attribution. By the latter part of the second century, the traditional authors had been added to the Gospels.Quote:
You even contradict this yourself when you write, "Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them." So how on earth could he have quoted from Gospels which were unknown to him?
Nowhere have I said the gospels were unknown at the beginning of the second century. I have said the AUTHORS were unknown at that time.
Please carefully read what I write. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.
This one gets 2 points. Me 6, You 0.
Jl, Jl, Jl. This is really getting ridiculous. I never said scholars knew very little of the Gospels. Changing the discussion does you no good. Me 7, You 0.Quote:
Truth is, even if all of the currently existing Greek manuscripts were destroyed, scholars would still be able to reconstruct 99% of the New Testament simply by using quotes from the second and third century church fathers. Not too bad considering that, according to you, they knew very little of the Gospels.
Of course I can, and have. Here it is again:Quote:
This is my reply to your post 331. You see that I have asked you to defend your questionable claim by giving just one example. Clearly you can't.
The titles “According to Matthew,” etc., were not added until late in the second century. All four Gospels were originally anonymous, none claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and all contain giveaways that they were written generations later, by well-educated Greek-speaking theologians.
There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. You will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament,nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”
In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. 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. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings”
These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority.
They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.
Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John. Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus,the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written ORcompiled.
Ancient sources has been answered. It is not my fault you cannot grasp the evidence. I did answer the resurrection question.Quote:
But since you cannot answer my question about ancient sources, and since you will not answer about the resurrection
Here it is again :
“What is your reason for asking?”
You refused to reply to my question.
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.Quote:
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.'
What is REALLY sad is your inability to understand that all three questions have been answered. Just not the answers you wanted.Quote:
So you have no ancient source to contradict the authorship of the four Gospels. You will not give your belief on the resurrection. You can cite no accounts from the Gospels that you can CLEARLY tell were handed down from generation to generation. You are just devoid of answers. Sad.
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.
2. You stated, "There is no contradiction. My contention is that the authors – the AUTHORS – were not known in the early second century...Nowhere have I said the gospels were unknown at the beginning of the second century." But earlier you said, "In other words, the four gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers." Are you confused? You are saying you did not do what you clearly did. Well, Tatian, Polycarp, and Papias all quoted from the Gospels. Irenaeus named them as you can see below. And you certainly have no way of knowing what the early church fathers such as Papias and Polycarp DIDN'T know. You can only state that, in your view, they did not mention it in the surviving fragments of what they wrote.
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.Quote:
Probably relying on Papias, Irenaeus writes: ``Matthew published a written Gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church.'' Eusebius quotes Papias as writing that ``Matthew compiled the Oracles [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.'' In addition to this quotation from Papias, Eusebius also wrote the following about Matthew (probably depending upon Papias as his main source): ``Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.''
http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html
You can also go here. This site says not only Irenaeus, but also Justin, Clement and Tertullian mentioned the Gospel authors. https://isjesusalive.com/who-wrote-the-gospels/
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.
4. "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.
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.
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. That's rather puzzling.
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.
Irenaeus wrote, “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ... having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.” (Against Heresies, Book III, 3.4)
This discussion is going too far afield with too many components. Perhaps we can boil it down to one area. Do you know of any ancient source who contested the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Not a "failure to affirm", but a statement in which he said the Gospels were authored by someone else.
OR
Can you explain why second century figures would have quoted the Gospels if they knew the accounts were written by merely an unknown figure? Doesn't that sound wildly implausible?
OR
Would you agree that the fact that the post-resurrection accounts do glaringly differ in some respects to be evidence of the high regard in which the early church held these documents and attests to the seeming fact that they did not alter the accounts in any dramatic way, not even to correct what some would consider to be errors?
Take your pick, OR you can pose a question yourself.
Why is the Bible considered the Greatest Book ever written?
Could it be because it tells you more about yourself than you could ever know?
Or because it tells us more about God than we could ever know?Quote:
Could it be because it tells you more about yourself than you could ever know?
It's called science. I've been involved in textual criticism of both testaments since about 1972. I've published on the subject multiple times.Quote:
But it all seems to illustrate the skeptical approach to TC. Even if a manuscript was found today written by Papias stating that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it would then be heard that, after all, it is only a copy of a copy of a copy, and we can't be certain that Papias wrote it, and it might date a hundred years after his life, and on and on it goes.
This is exactly how we approach any new discovery. Step one would be to verify what it says. Step two would be to date it. There are several ways to do this, the most common being handwriting style. We can follow the trail of writing styles through the manuscripts back almost to the first century, so it's a pretty reliable method. In some cases carbon dating might also be done. From there we would put it in its place in the manuscript tradition of the purported writer, if there is a manuscript tradition. If there isn't, we look at other sources to see if the dates of the purported author and the date of the document jive. If the suggested author lived after the date of the manuscript, then s/he didn't write it, obviously. If the author is supposed to have lived in the second century and the document references something from the third century, we know it's not authentic. If we have any citations of this author in other sources, we compare the vocabulary, grammar, and style to see if they match. From there we'll draw a "yea" or "nay" conclusion based on what evidence we have.
That's how the process works. It's also why the conclusions we've reached about things like date, authorship, etc. are so reliable.
In the first two centuries, they didn't care. Many important documents were anonymous, including the letter we call Hebrews.Quote:
This discussion is going too far afield with too many components. Perhaps we can boil it down to one area. Do you know of any ancient source who contested the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Not a "failure to affirm", but a statement in which he said the Gospels were authored by someone else.
Not if you do some research into the second century mindset. You're trying to apply 21st century principles to a thoroughly different age. Again, who wrote it wasn't important to them. What mattered to them was what it said.Quote:
OR
Can you explain why second century figures would have quoted the Gospels if they knew the accounts were written by merely an unknown figure? Doesn't that sound wildly implausible?
In the first and second centuries? No. Many Christians only knew of one or two books, and there were lots of other gospels circulating out there. The Didache is anonymous and it nearly made it into the canon. Likewise Shepherd of Hermas. One of our most important manuscripts includes it as part of the New Testament, and that manuscript is from the fourth century.Quote:
OR
Would you agree that the fact that the post-resurrection accounts do glaringly differ in some respects to be evidence of the high regard in which the early church held these documents and attests to the seeming fact that they did not alter the accounts in any dramatic way, not even to correct what some would consider to be errors?
It wasn't until Nicea that anybody worried about who wrote what. Authorship became the criterion for inclusion in the canon. But in the couple of centuries before that, the church at large didn't have such a big stick up their collective goozyx.
I think you would have a difficult time trying to establish that the early church didn't care who wrote the Gospel accounts that they were risking their lives for. This is not like works of fiction or even historical accounts. They would have regarded it as the greatest event of history, and yet you want me to believe they would have just casually accepted a Gospel account written by whoever? That's pretty difficult to imagine.Quote:
In the first two centuries, they didn't care. Many important documents were anonymous, including the letter we call Hebrews.
At any rate, Irenaeus seemed to care a great deal.
Are you suggesting that in the second century, church leaders only knew of one or two NT books?Quote:
No. Many Christians only knew of one or two books
That's true, but only four ever received widespread acceptance, and that continued for several centuries.Quote:
and there were lots of other gospels circulating out there
I just don't think that's accurate. Paul's writings were recognized as his work from the word go. The same was true of 1 Peter and 1 John. If my memory serves me correctly, in his letter to the Philippian church, Polycarp even attributed his quotes to Paul, Peter, and John, and even made reference to the letter Paul wrote to that same Philippian church. That was mid second century.Quote:
It wasn't until Nicea that anybody worried about who wrote what
But that leaves an important question still unanswered. Do you know of anyone in the first several centuries who questioned the traditional authorships of the four Gospels?
I understand the general working of TC, though I am far from being a professional. I also know that many people apply a level of skepticism to the NT that is not applied to other ancient works.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 PM. |