Gooch's dad

Eusebius wrote several centuries after the fact--why should his report be considered even remotely reliable? There is no reason at all to consider his testimony on this matter to be anything but guesswork.

You claim that "history records that the disciples wrote the gospels", but history records no such thing at all. As you've already been told, a great may *Christian* historians admit that there is no solid evidence at all that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, and plenty of evidence that they are *not* eyewitness accounts.

You appear to have completely missed the pages of posts that have shown you this very thing.

aChristian

Although Eusebius doubted that he was, Irenaeus believed he was and Eusebius believed that he talked to many who knew the disciples. Neither of them doubted the traditional authorship of the gospels.

The oracles of the Lord could very well be the gospel of Matthew. Maybe he wrote it in Hebrew first and then a Greek version later. In any case, Matthew was the accepted author. As far as the mistake about Judas' death, Papias is not infallible, but he lived back then and from what I've read, accepted the traditional authorship of the gospels.

Why does he use the word eyewitness? Luke 1:1-4 sounds like Luke is claiming to have carefully examined eyewitness testimony and he lived during the days and was well acquainted with the eyewitnesses (according to Eusebius).
Clear as mud. The history says otherwise.

I agree that you shouldn't assume the answer before you research it.

When you read the history, this theory doesn't square with the facts. The early church considered the New Testament 100% accurate. That is what the history says of how the early Christians viewed the gospels.
I'm surprised that you haven't read the different explanations that have been given. The general guess is that it was one full day plus parts of two seperate days or there was a special Sabbath which would mean he was crucified on Thursday and rose early Sunday morning. Your theory that people were too stupid to count to three back then sounds rather absurd to me.

aChristian

Eusebius is considered the father of early church history. Much of what we know is from his history. He had access to a good library. To consider his work 'guesswork' is to just ignore the history. You can make up your own history, but Eusebius was in a much better position to know.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not only was John written too late and in the wrong language to have been written by a witness, it also has a glaring anachronism which it would be impossible for a witness to make. Plus it shows layered authorship and makes no claim to be an apostolic account.
Impossible. Matthew copies word for word from other Greek texts, most notably from Mark.
Irrelevant since the traditional authorships did not arise until the 2nd century and were based pretty much on nothing but rank speculation and folklore.
Papias was wrong in everything he said about both Matthew and Mark. He is not a legitmate source in this regard. Sorry.
Lukle makes no claim whatever that he had talked to any witnesses. What he says is that he examined the previously written accounts and made his own compilation.
No it doesn't.
Take those words to heart.
It could not make less difference how the early church viewed the gospels. They had no actual knowledge of their origins.


And FYI, NO serious historian thinks that Eusebius wrote anything close to accurate history. He is notorious for fanciful claims, spurious anecdotes and cheap propagandizing.

aChristian

According to the historical accounts I have read, John wrote it when he was an older man around 90 AD. He was probably a little younger than Jesus and so probably in his 80's at that time. How can that be too late for him to be an eyewitness?
I know of no anachronism and the layered authorship claim sounds bogus to me. As far as the claim to be an apostolic account, it doesn't have to say, "This was written by John" in order to have been written by him. The early church who was alive at the time knew he did and said he did. Besides that, it doesn't take too much deduction to realize that John was the disciple that Jesus loved. To me the evidence to John being the author is strong. I don't see anything that you have presented that contradicts the fact.

Impossible? Seems like you are making a rather wild claim with the word 'impossible'. Matthew or Mark may have used the other's gospel to write from and still both been eyewitnesses (or in Mark's case taking eyewitness testimony from Peter). They may also have written them completely independently. Two eyewitnesses can record the same thing, especially if God is helping them to write.

How do you know they arose in the second century. The history says people who knew them attributed the authorship to the apostles. What document do you have by someone living back them, who was in a position to know, that said they were based on speculation and folklore. It seems to me you are making up your own history here (the way you want it to be), in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

How do you know Papias was 'wrong in everything he said" about them. That is a rather bold claim you are making. Do you have some writing from someone alive them who knew Papias and knew what went on and knew Papias was wrong. From what I have read, Papias was respected and his close association with the apostles and elders was well known.

As I already stated, he claims to have closely examined the history. He uses the word eyewitness. Since he lived during the time the eyewitnesses were around and he was acquainted with some of them, it is really a stretch to say that when he uses the word eyewitness, he doesn't mean the eyewitnesses that he knew. You appear to be playing silly word games to avoid the obvious.

That seems like a silly statement. The early church was alive when everything happened and passed the history down. It is obvious to me from reading their writings they knew about the origins of the whole New Testament.

I have read serious historians who think Eusebius wrote accurate history. He had access to a much better library than you do. He is the father of church history. He was well respected. I don't imagine the emperor of the world has had you sit next to him at a major church council. He seems to have been respected for his wisdom. I think he is due much more respect that you are willing to give him. I have read his church history and it doesn't seem to be filled with the fanciful claims, spurious antedotes, and cheap propagandizing that you are accusing him of.

I am curious, do you have any sources from the time in question to support your version of what went on.

Diogenes the Cynic

There are no such historical accounts. What you have read is (at best) patristic tradition. There is no historical evidence whatever connecting GJohn to an apostle by that name or any other. The book wasn't published in its final form until probably around 100 CE, by the way (if not later). This was an era when the average life expectancy was maybe 40. The late dating for GJohn, while on the fringe of what could be expected for the lifetime of a contemporary of Jesus, is only one of the factors mitigating against its traditionally ascribed authorship and is not even the strongest one. Bear in mind that the book itself makes no claim to such authorship and anyone who wishes to attach authorship to a specific person has the burden to prove it. No one else has a burden to disprove it. You can start by proving the apostle John ever existed at all.
The anachronism is that the author of GJohn believed that the expulsion of Jewish Xhristians from synagogues occurred during the life of Jesus. It did not occur until the mid 80's. A contemporary of Jesus could not make that mistake.
Explain why it's bogus. What do you know about the textual and literary analysis in this area? What do you understand that current scholarship does not?
It doesn't have to say it was written by Dobby the Elf to have been written by him either. That's a meaningless argument.
The early church knew nothing of the sort.
There is nothing in the Gospel which claims that the "beloved disciple" is the author of the book, so your "deduction" is worthless in determing authorship. There isn't a shred of evidence connecting the authorship of the 4th Gospel to an apostle named John. The Gospel itself does not make this claim, and the evidence lies heavily against the possibility of the author being an eyewitness of Jesus.
Matthew copied Mark. Period. There is no longer any serious dispute about this among Bible scholars. Mark wrote in Greek and Matthew copied it in Greek virtually verbatim. Matthew also used other Greek sources like Q and the Septuagint. Matthew's gospel was composed in Greek. It is not a translation from Hebrew, It never existed in Hebrew. This means that whatever Papias was talking about when he mention a Hebrew logia having been written by Matthew was either not canonical Matthew (which is neither Hebrew nor a logia) or Papias was just wrong.

Also, Mark did not know Peter and was not based on any personal knowledge of witnesses. Nor does it claim to be.
Because that's when all the earliest references to these traditions arise. Show me something in the 1st century which makes these claims.
What do you mean by "the history says?" That's a meaningless construction. There are 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers who made these claims but they were not historians and they were not in possession of any actual facts. They were either making things up or basing things on legends and popular memes. They had no 1st hand knowledge for any of it.
There wasn't anybody in the 2nd or 3rd centuries who was in a position to know. That's why it can only be based on speculation and folklore (or plain old lying). Not only that but the traditional claims simply don't stand up to objective analysis.
Analysis of the books themselves shows that they could not have been written by the authors or under the circumstances that Papias claims for them. Matthew was not a sayings gospel and was not written in Hebrew. It also copies extensively from Mark who was not a witness and did not know any witness. The tradition about Mark being a secretary of Peter's is completely bogus. Papias' assertions simply don't hold up to analysis.
Then why does he get so much of his history wrong?
He doesn't say he spoke to any of them and the contebt if his books is proof enough that he didn't.
Luke wasn't written until the mid-90s and Luke was not acquainted with any witnesses nor does he claim that he spoke to any. What he did was round up all the previously written literature, mix it up with some Josephus and attempt to compile jis own definitive version of events (one which painfully conflicts with Matthew on many points).
No it wasn't.
It is obvious to historians that they did not.
I don't think you have much idea of what constitutes a "serious historian" then. No serious historian believes that Eusebius was an accurate historian. You are wrong.
[qute]He had access to a much better library than you do.[/quote]
No he didn't. I have access to millions of books and the benefit of of centuries of research and evidence that Eusebius had no clue about. Eusebius was writing about events which had occurred hundreds of years before he was born and for which he had no credible evidence of any sort.
That's his nickname. The reality is that he was Constantine's "court historian" meaning that he was a court propagandist.
What kind of lame special pleading is that? His job was to write "history" that his king approved of, not to write history that was accurate.
By who?
You should read it again, then. It's on pretty much every page.
I don't have a "version of what went on." I'm just telling you that your version has long been debunked by serious scholarship.

darstec

I know for a fact that there are some biggie apologists that if they aren't exactlly atheist, they are so far from the party line privately that they could fall over that edge.

The ideas/statements in their tomes with all those Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats afixed are surely different from what they said in the seminary. I remember one really embarrassing class in Greek when I was asked to translate some passages from Matthew. Being clever (or so I thought) I gave the automated response (just like found in the Jerusalem Bible) and was immediately chastised. Unfortunately the translation around one particular word as given by the party line was called into question. I was asked to demonstrate where in any classical writing the word was ever translated with that rendering or anything even remotely close, or for that matter, elsewhere in scripture.

Finally, I was asked how I translated those passages from Jerome's Vulgate a few days earlier. {That visiting professor was also an expert in Latin and taught my Latin classes too.}

It was during that time I learned of the dichotomy between what was taught as official party line to preserve the faith of the laity, and personal beliefs. If one does a Google on apologists'ideas this particular professor/priest will most likely appear with reference to one [or more] of his books. So too will some of the others.

darstec

One might also take into account that we really do not know what Papias said. We only know what Eusibius said that Papias said and perhaps what Iraeneus said that Papias said. And even then what comes down to us is fragmentary.

Or do we even know what Eusibius wrote? What are the earliest copies of his writing, and do they date within two centuries of his having written them? Or have they too had the chance to have been "orthodoxed"?

As far as the Friday --> Sunday goes, obviously one of those days must have had two nights. :Cheeky:

andrewcriddle

The surviving Greek copies of Eusebius' 'Ecclesiastical History' are late.

However it was translated into Latin and Syriac around 400 CE and the Latin and Syriac versions provide a check on the Greek.

(IIUC the oldest Syriac manuscript of the 'Ecclesiastical History' is dated 411 CE.)

Andrew Criddle

aChristian

The burden is on you to disprove the historical accounts. Ever heard of Papias and Polycarp? Your made up ‘history’ doesn’t hold water.

John 9:22 tells us the situation in the time of Jesus. You are mistaken about the history if you think that is an anachronism.

I have read enough of the liberal scholarship to reject it. In my opinion, it is not serious, it is a joke.

You miss the point.

John 21:20-24 says exactly that.

You need to read some conservative scholars. They would dispute your claim.



Oh!?! Do you have a historical document by someone who lived then that knew all about Mark and Peter and knew that they didn’t know each other? I doubt that you do. If there was such a document, I doubt that so many scholars would believe Papias’ claim that Mark took eyewitness testimony from Peter.
Papias probably knew John (or at least many people who knew the apostles) and Polycarp knew John who died in the first century. We have their writings.

No firsthand knowledge? Polycarp was John’s disciple! The only thing you can do to hold onto your made up ‘history’ is to deny all the accounts by the people who lived then and then tell it the way you want it to be.

There were people in the 2nd and 3rd century who were much closer to the events than you are as you claim to know what happened. They had many more documents from the time than you have and the 2nd century Christians who wrote knew people who lived during the times in question.
I have found the liberal 'analysis' to be anything but objective.
I have found the liberal 'analysis' to be anything but objective.

He is considered an accurate historian by objective scholars.

Objective historians disagree with you.

Serious, objective historians disagree with you.

So you have a better library than Eusebius? I am sure historians would love to have all the writings of the early Christians that they thought that only Eusebius had. You should publish them. It was a rather famous library I've read.

How do you think he got the nickname? Serious scholars have given him the title. Serious scholars would love to have a glimpse of his library.
I see. That’s how you get rid of all the history so you can substitute your own. I’ve read his history as have serious historians. His writings are where we learn a lot of the history from that time. Just because a king approved of it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t true. Your attempt to throw out the history is weak. Your characterization of his history is not supported by objective historical analysis.
By the church who elected him as bishop. By those who chose him to be seated next to the emperor at the council. There are other reasons if you care to look them up.


Don’t need to. I’ve read it enough to discount your opinion of it.
I think this sums it up. You have no evidence to support what you want the history to say. Serious scholarship confirms my version.