Vorkosigan

What would those be?

Michael

rodahi

Maybe you should stop laughing and take the site more seriously. I can't find a single instance of "gross misrepresentation" or examples of "misinformation" in the timeline, and, yet, you state the site has a "vast array" of these. Does the truth scare you, Polycarp?

Why don't you answer Michael's question?

rodahi

Polycarp

I could list mistakes for days and we still wouldn’t get to all of them. Here are a couple that jumped out at me right away from the top of the page Turton listed.

Mistake #1: The names of Evangelists are not given to the Gospels until late 2nd century.

Papias gives the names of some of the evangelists. He is from the early 2nd century, most scholars date his work to around 120-130 C.E.


Mistake #2: No-one quotes the Gospels, or refer (sic) to them in the first century.

Anyone who has a cursory understanding of biblical scholarship recognizes the issues related to the synoptic problem. The overwhelming majority of scholars (including such mega-scholars as Earl Doherty, Burton Mack, and John Dominic Crossan) recognize that Mark was the first gospel written, and also that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their primary sources. Virtually half of those two gospels (Matt & Luke) are quotations to or references from the gospel of Mark. Matt and Luke are from the first century.


Peace,

Polycarp

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:
Mistake #1: The names of Evangelists are not given to the Gospels until late 2nd century.

Papias gives the names of some of the evangelists. He is from the early 2nd century, most scholars date his work to around 120-130 C.E.

Papias lists only two names, Matthew and Mark, does not cite those documents, and gives us no evidence that the gospels we have today have any relationship to anything he mentioned. In any case, he assigned primacy to oral transmission, and did not mention the Gospels of John or Luke. The very word "gospel" is not used in that passage, AFAIK.

There is no evidence from Papias that tells us anything about the gospels we have today. In any case, the quote is in Eusebius, and not directly from Papius.

Mistake #2: No-one quotes the Gospels, or refer (sic) to them in the first century.

Anyone who has a cursory understanding of biblical scholarship recognizes the issues related to the synoptic problem. The overwhelming majority of scholars (including such mega-scholars as Earl Doherty, Burton Mack, and John Dominic Crossan) recognize that Mark was the first gospel written, and also that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their primary sources. Virtually half of those two gospels (Matt & Luke) are quotations to or references from the gospel of Mark. Matt and Luke are from the first century.

Polycarp, please put forward your evidence that Luke and Matthew date from the 1st century. Note that I said "evidence" not "appeals to authority" (don't tell me what Meier or Crossan or Wells or Wright claim). As far as I know, regarding Mark in isolation, on internal evidence we have to date it after 70, and on external before 180. Can you pin it down some more? ? Even if we accept Papias as referring to our Mark, a highly problematic claim, we are still only at 130, and not yet before 100. All you can say, based on evidence is that Mark was written before 180 (certainly) and probably before 150.

This article makes basically the same point in its review of the dating issue.

Also, if you know of any first century quotes or references to the gospels -- the author says there are none -- please post. That is the only claim the author made.

The author does not directly address the whether the gospels date from the first century in this passage. In fact, if you read carefully, which you obviously did not, you would find that the author refrains from assigning a date to the canonical gospels, being more interested in compiling evidence bearing on when they can be dated.

So far you are 0 for 2 on the alleged "problems" of this site. You said you can go on all day about them. Finding six or seven more should be no problem.

Also, give us the many first century references and quotes from outside the canonical gospels.

Michael

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

TollHouse

Excellent! Then it will take little effort on your part to display a couple more of them here, no?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: Papias lists only two names, Matthew and Mark, does not cite those documents, and gives us no evidence that the gospels we have today have any relationship to anything he mentioned. In any case, he assigned primacy to oral transmission, and did not mention the Gospels of John or Luke. The very word "gospel" is not used in that passage, AFAIK.

Oh geez, Michael. Just read things a little closer and we’ll save a lot of time. The first mistake I pointed out was the one where the writer at the website you gave said that the NAMES of the evangelists were not given until late in the 2nd century. I didn't say Papias quoted either gospel. Here’s the quote:

Mistake #1: The names of Evangelists are not given to the Gospels until late 2nd century.

Papias gives the names of two evangelists. Papias is from the early second century. You can try an end-around by claiming that Papias is talking about a different writing than the gospel of Mark when he refers to a writing of Mark’s, but you have absolutely no evidence to support the view that there were different versions of Mark floating around. His reference to Matthew is cryptic, I’ll grant that much. However, he is clearly referring to the authors of two well-known writings within Christianity. Common sense tells us that he is talking about the gospels of Matthew and Mark. Are the names of ALL evangelists given before the mid to late 2nd century? No. Are some? Yes.

Quote:

Polycarp, please put forward your evidence that Luke and Matthew date from the 1st century. Note that I said "evidence" not "appeals to authority" (don't tell me what Meier or Crossan or Wells or Wright claim). As far as I know, regarding Mark in isolation, on internal evidence we have to date it after 70, and on external before 180. Can you pin it down some more? ? Even if we accept Papias as referring to our Mark, a highly problematic claim, we are still only at 130, and not yet before 100. All you can say, based on evidence is that Mark was written before 180 (certainly) and probably before 150.

I can’t present a very good argument on this issue in a few paragraphs. People have written entire books on the topic. Here’s how I’d lay it out in a nutshell…

Mark was the first gospel written. It is clear that there is some literary relationship between Mark, Matt, and Luke. You can’t examine Mark “in isolation”. Anybody with any literary skills can see that the three synoptic gospels are related in a literary sense. They didn’t just randomly end up being so similar to one another. In my opinion, the statistical analysis in comparing Mark, Matthew, and Luke is overwhelming in its indication that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Mark is far shorter than Matthew and Luke, yet when individual pericopes within each gospel are examined Mark’s are usually the longest in parallel passages. If Mark was making an abridged version of Luke and Matt why would he lengthen scenes when he was writing an abridged gospel?

Mark focuses on Jesus as a great teacher, but omits the Sermon on the Mount, massive amounts of “Q” material, and much more. The agreements in wording between Luke and Matt against Mark are very rare in comparison to the agreements between Mark and Matt against Luke, and Mark and Luke against Matt. In terms of the order of sayings or events, Matt and Luke NEVER agree against Mark. This is exactly what we would expect to find if Mark was the source for Matt and Luke. Mark also gives no resurrection appearances or birth narratives. Why omit all of this if he were using Matt or Luke as his source? Mark’s grammar is poorer than both Matt and Luke. It makes far more sense to say that Matt and Luke improved Mark’s grammar than to say that Mark intentionally used poorer grammar in using Matt and/or Luke. Mark’s theology is more primitive than Matt’s or Luke’s. Again, it makes more sense to say that this fits with Markan priority. It seems pretty clear that Mark was written before Matt and Luke. Moving on now…

Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven authentic letters and he was martyred in 110 C.E. Hence, his writings can probably be dated to between 105-110 C.E. at the very beginning of the second century since he wrote his letters on his journey to his martyrdom. He has quotes from both the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp (2:2) quotes Matthew 10:16 in reference to being “wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove”. There are several other quotes from or allusions to Matthew throughout the letters of Ignatius.

In addition, his letter to Smyrna (3:1-2) refers to Luke 24:39 in quoting Jesus as saying, “Take hold of me, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost.”

I’ll throw in a little on the Gospel of John at no extra charge. Ignatius obviously refers to John 8:28-29 in his letter to the Magnesians 7:2 when he says concerning God: “He manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his word that proceeded from silence, who in all respects was well-pleasing to him that sent him.”

Using deductive logic and relying on rather high probabilities (certainty is impossible in this realm) we come up with this scenario from the above: Igantius quoted Matt and Luke (and John) at the very beginning of the second century. Matt and Luke must have been written NO LATER THAN the very end of the first century since we must account for at least a few years for both gospels of Matt and Luke to circulate to Ignatius. Since Matt and Luke used Mark as a source we need to push Mark earlier to account for Mark’s circulation needed for both Matt and Luke to acquire it.

There are other arguments to date Mark to the first century, but I think once its been established that Mark was written before Matt and Luke we are safe to say that Mark was written in the first century. Narrowing it down further would require a lot more time and effort of which I’m lacking. For further citations of the New Testament in the early church Fathers, you can go here:
http://shell5.ba.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/tablex.htm


Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TollHouse: Excellent! Then it will take little effort on your part to display a couple more of them here, no?

You are correct, TollHouse. Very little effort indeed is required for such a task.

Mistake #3: The key other papyri are a few pages dated c.200 with only 2 whole chapters known before the manuscripts of c.300 and later.

Depending on which textual critic you ask, there are between 40-80 New Testament manuscripts (including books other than the gospels) dating from circa 300 C.E. or earlier, some of the manuscripts include copies of multiple New Testament books. For example, manuscript P45 has sections of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts. It is dated to the third century. P66 dates to around 200 C.E. (or earlier) and contains almost the complete gospel of John. P75 dates to around 200 C.E. and includes major portions of Luke and John. I could go on with further examples, but it is a blatant error to claim that there are only 2 whole chapters from the gospel papyri that date to pre-300 C.E. If you’ll provide me with a name of a reputable textual critic that will support the claim made by the creator of the website under discussion, then I’m afraid I’ll have to tell you that you’re mistaken. You won’t find one. Please prove me wrong.

Mistake #4: No historical evidence for the events in the Gospel exists, Some of the background events and persons in the NT are historical.

Either the writer of this statement is unfamiliar with the laws of logic, or else they must form their historical beliefs without regard to “historical evidence”. Read their statement closely… No evidence exists for Gospel events, BUT yet “some of the background events and persons in the NT are historical.” Huh?

So now background events are not “events”? Somebody needs to help the author of this statement with their logic or grammar. Or maybe they’re one of those people who doesn’t need evidence to believe things. They just decree which events are historical and which are not.

Mistake #5: Ignatius wrote eight letters showing no knowledge of the Gospels, but mentioning some of the Gospel events.

Somebody help this guy. First of all, Ignatius only wrote seven letters, but that’s a minor issue. This guy’s saying that Ignatius showed “no knowledge of the Gospels”, but mentioned “some of the Gospel events”. Hello? He is having is cake and trying to eat it, too. So we’re supposed to believe that the events in the gospels are mythical and they never happened. Somehow, Ignatius mentions some of the gospel events, but he has NO knowledge of the Gospels. If the events were mythical and the only source we have for the myths are the gospels, then how does this guy think Ignatius knew some of the gospel events? Gimme a break. This guy’s talkin’ out of both sides of his mouth. It’s hilarious.


Peace,

Polycarp

James Still

Not to nitpick but your confidence should be tempered with appropriate qualifications. It is far from clear that Papias' use of logion in reference to Matthew or his reference to Mark as Peter's interpreter refer to our canonical Matthew and Mark, respectively. The gospel message (both oral and later written) was fluid and dynamic well into the second century.

Peter Kirby

Although Massaux tends to be a little over-zealous in finding literary contacts, he does not see fit to argue for a use of Luke by Ignatius of Antioch (_The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint irenaeus_, pp. 98-9):

----
Looking into literary contacts between Ignatius of Antioch and Lk., Smyrn.
3:2 holds a special place: "For, when He came to those who were with Peter
(/pros tous peri petron/), He said to them (/efh autois/): "Take hold on me
and handle me (xhlafhsate me/) and see (/cai idete/) that I am not a spirit
without a body (/daimonion aswmaton/).' And, as soon as they touched Him
and felt His flesh and pulse, they believed." A striking parallel to this
narrative is found in Lk. 24:39; "See my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself; handle me and see (/xhlafhsate me cai idete/); for a spirit has not
flesh and bones (/oti pneuma sarca cai ostea ouc ecei/), as you see that I
have."

At first reading, a literary influence from the Lukan text can hardly be
excluded. Indeed, in Ignatius as in Lk., it is an apparition of Christ to
the apostles that is reported: (Smyr. /tous peri petron/ and Lk. 24:36
/autwn lalountwn/). Christ's invitation is similar, and both authors use
the same expression /xhlafhsate me cai idete/. Let me add that this twist
in the gospel story is peculiar to Luke.

Yet, the hypothesis of a literary contact raises serious objections.
Eusebius says that he does not know from what source Ignatius has drawn.
St. Jerome states that this passage is drawn from the gospel "quad
appellatur secundum Hebraeos," which he translated into Greek, then into
Latin, and which he was inclined at the time to consider as the original
Mt., although he later speaks less assuredly on this point. In his
commentary on Isaiah, he states again that "incorporale daemonium"
(/daimonion aswmaton/) comes from this source. Finally, Origin, who, just
like Eusebius, knew the gospel in question, relates these words to another
apocrypha, the Doctrina Petri.

Agreement is, therefore, far from unanimous among the ancient authors.
Lightfoot explains this divergence by assuming that Jerome had in his
possession a poor copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, while
Eusebius and Origin had the authentic text. However, the nonliteral manner
in which Ignatius uses the texts to which he refers might, perhaps, explain
Eusebius' doubts. All the same, the parallelism between the text of
Ignatius and that of Lk. is striking. Let me note, however, that Ignatius's
typical expression, /daimonion aswmaton/, is absent from Lk. and that the
bishop of Antioch, contrary to his modus operandi, cits a saying of Christ
in direct style. These different remarks make a literary dependency very
doubtful.
----

So it is doubtful whether Ignatius knew Luke.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:
[QB][b]

[snipped]

I know all this, Polycarp. You know I know it. Why are you lecturing me?


Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven authentic letters and he was martyred in 110 C.E. Hence, his writings can probably be dated to between 105-110 C.E. at the very beginning of the second century since he wrote his letters on his journey to his martyrdom. He has quotes from both the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp (2:2) quotes Matthew 10:16 in reference to being “wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove”. There are several other quotes from or allusions to Matthew throughout the letters of Ignatius.

Problem: Ignatius never refers to the Gospels either by name or attribution, and never cites these as references to Jesus. At all times he writes as if he had thought of these phrases.

Ignatius is also the first to give us some details about Jesus' life. We are introduced to his mother Mary, for example. However, Ignatius DOES NOT cite any gospel for this story, he simply states it as a fact without known source. For all we know, HE is the source of the story. Ignatius also gives us Pilate -- again without a cite -- but without mentioning that he had any part in Jesus' death.

Also, when arguing for Jesus' story, he says "For me the inviolable ancient records are his cross, his death, and his resurrection." (Phil 8-9). If he knew of any ancient records, such as gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, why did he not name them? His argument would have been much more devastating.

Thus, by "deductive logic" -- a nice phrase, that -- we have no way of knowing which came first. Ignatius may have borrowed from the Gospels, or, may have been a source for them, or may have been quoting from some other source also known to the canonical gospels. Logically there is no way to settle the matter without external reference. Do you have one?

The conclusion you came to is based on the ASSUMPTION that Ignatius is citing the gospels. In fact, Ignatius DOES talk about the "gospel" but seems to mean the OT in many passages.

Michael