SaintCog

You asked for a Catholic source that supports the modern historical-critical perspective on the Gospels' authorship and I provided it. At this point, you are arguing with a position sanctioned by your own Church. I'll let you work that out with the Ecclesiastical authorities.

From what I've seen of your extensive use of this website, you quote it as an authority in the field of Biblical study. But you are not getting the primary source information you allege when you quote outdated authorities.

If what were true? I'm not sure what you're asking here, nor have I a clear idea what you're referring to. How am I to respond to this when I myself know nothing about the debate in question? What about Crossan are you criticizing here - his overall credentials as a scholar? His performance in one debate? His past scholarship? His current scholarship? How much do you know about his past and current scholarship? Have you ever read any of the articles he's published in academic journals? Or is your knowledge of him limited to what you hear of the Jesus Seminar and this debate with him and Craig that you are obviously so fond of?

In any case, what does bashing Crossan have to do with anything? Even if he completely blew the debate and Craig ripped him a new one. All that would prove is that he's not a competent debater. The significance of this escapes me.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church but the Orthodox Church.
As far as I've seen, the authorship of the Gospels is uncontested in the Orthodoxy. The reason is quite simple - We place the testimony of those closest to the original authors as more authoritative than the speculations of modern secular scholars.
Furthermore, not every Catholic Bible will be in line with the official position of the Catholic Ecclesia given that there are diverse opinions in the Catholic Church on Biblical scholarship.

As the earliest authories, the church fathers are the most reliable and important. Please refer to my analogy from Origin of Species.

I am fairly placing into question his ability to support his assertions with hard evidence and refute those who hold to the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Crossan believes that Jesus was a leftist radical and not God incarnate ultimately because it makes him feel more comfortable to think that way.

Peac.e

Iasion

Greetings Orthodox_Freethinker,

Really?
How come you can't cite any original sources when asked?
How come the only "evidence" you adduce is Christian opinions?
How come you don't know anything about modern NT scholarship?
How come you didn't know what Justin wrote?
How come you didn't know what Aristides wrote?
How come you didn't know all the early references to anonymous Gospels.


Glad you agree that the Gospels are anonymous works.

Not so.
The earliest evidence, as I showed above, is for ANONYMOUS Gospels.


Not true.
The internal evidence shows no direct proof of authorship at all, as others have shown here.

Hardly,
considering both your prior premises were wrong.



Pardon?
You claimed to have researched this for years and you don't even know what Justin said?
Even after I quoted it for you?
Twice ?
Obviously, you didn't read my first post at all.

Here is the key passage again

Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE,
Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them

Here Justin tells us these memoirs of the apostles are called "Gospels" and fails to mention any - this could surely only be because he knew of no actual author's names. If he knew these books were by specific named apostles, he would have named them.

This is clear evidence he knew of no authors.
Evidence the Gospels were ANONYMOUS even as late as mid 2nd century.



You didn't read my first post, so you completely missed the point.

Here it the reference again :

Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :
And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the Gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

Aristides is clearly and unambiguously referring to a WRITTEN GOSPEL - see the words "if you will READ therein", and the "Hebrew virgin" episode mentioned is clearly a key part of the Gospel story.

But note -
Aristides specifically tells us what it is called : "the Gospel, as it is called"

If Aristides had known of an author, he would have mentioned him.

This is clear evidence he knew of no authors.
Evidence of an ANONYMOUS Gospel even as late 138-161.

Furthermore,
he even tells us the Gospel was only recently preached by the Christians.

Clear evidence the Gospels were late productions.


Indeed,
I noted this in my first post - but you didn't even read it.


Not so.
Aristides specifically refers to preaching from a singular written Gospel about a Hebrew virgin giving birth to a Son of God.

Are you really arguing Jesus preached from a written Gospel about a Hebrew virgin giving birth to a Son of God ?

Nonsense.
this obviously means the Christians preached from a written Gospel, as yet un-named.


It is rather telling that you made a fool of yourself by not reading what I posted, then tried to lecture me what I had ALREADY said, and then went on to totally missed the point of my argument.

In fact it is YOU who cannot tell the difference between "Gospel" meaning the Christian message and "Gospel" meaning a written Christian work.

You get Aristides 180 degrees backwards -
He wrote " which you may READ therein ".
Yet you seem to be arguing he merely means the "Christian message" - nonsense.

You ignored the words " READ therein " - because it proves you wrong.

Just like you ignored my lengthy post listing all the early references to anonymous Gospels - because it proves you wrong.

Sadly OF - you aren't debating - you are preaching.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Orthodox_Freethinker,

Perhaps my first post was too large,
perhaps you don't like to go back...

So, here is a concise selection of early references to the "the Gospel(s)" as WRITTEN but anonymous works :


The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

See the word "book" ?
See the phrase "we .. have written it for the whole world" ?

This is obviously referring to a singular written Gospel, but gives NO NAME(S).



Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.


See the words "if you will READ there-in" ?
See the words "in the Gospel AS IT IS CALLED" ?

This is obvious evidence of a singular written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.




Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...

See the word "composed" ?
See the words "called Gospels" ?


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

See the words "in the Gospel it is WRITTEN" ?

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - NO NAMES given.




The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

See the words : "being read" ?
See the words : "rolled up the BOOK" ?
(This book being a scroll.)

This is obvious evidence of a singular WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAME(S) given.




The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

See the words : " reading in the Gospel" ?

This is obvious evidence of a singular WRITTEN Gospel - NO NAME given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

See the words : "the Scripture of the Gospels" ?

This is obvious evidence of WRITTEN Gospels - NO NAMES given.


All of which goes to show the earliest references to the Gospels were as ANONYMOUS works.

For someone who claims to have spent years researching this, it's strange you don't seem to know the actual early evidence does not support your beliefs.



Iasion

SaintCog

Hmm...following your logic we should accept the Iliad and the Odyssey at face value because people who commented on these stories much closer in time than our modern historians held them to be true accounts of history. Listen OF, no historian of antiquity takes any author at face value. Not Homer, not Josephus, not Herodotus, not Tacitus, none of the historians or fablists. History was simply written differently than it is now. Likewise, biographies were more hagiographies than actual dispassionate reports of a person's life.

Imagine Rush Limbaugh chronicling the presidency of George W. Bush, or Al Franken chronicling the presidency of Bill Clinton. Do you think either of these would simply be concerned to report the facts? Of course not. These are partisans with an ideological agenda and their writings would reflect a concern to exhault their hero for the purpose of advancing their own respective ideologies. And this is at a time when the scientific method is supposed to guide our understanding of history.

Ancient biographies were not concerned to report the facts dispassionately. They were written to exhault a person and lend credence to their teachings and/or politics. Thus kings and philosophers were deified or alleged to have been conceived through divine means. Miracles and magic were imputed to popular teachers and charismatic itinerants. Everything we find in the gospels are stock details that one would expect from an ancient biography. The fact that the early church fathers read these and lived by them simply means that they were devotees of Jesus. This fact does not lend any more credence to the historical accuracy of the gospels than the earliest commentators of Homer.

Please refer to my comments on Homer.


Now you are just being unfair. I'm sure you've been accused of believing the things you do ultimately because it makes you more comfortable to think that way. That is equally as wrong. It's just rude and presumptuous to assume a person's motive for holding one belief or another. You are not inside Crossan's head any more than anyone on this board is inside yours. You are in no position to claim to know why Crossan believes the things he does.

Furthermore you have yet to offer any explanation as to why Crossan's performance at a debate is at all relevant to this discussion, as though J.D. Crossan is the King of historical-criticism and by dethroning this one man you may conquer the entire discipline. Incidentally, most historical critics do not agree with Crossan's assessment of the Historical Jesus. You are offering a false dichotomy here - either J.D. Crossan's account of the historical Jesus is correct or the Gospels are historically accurate. Crossan is wrong, therefore....

As far as I can tell, Crossan is irrelevant to this entire discussion.

Amaleq13

I agree they have not changed. Neither is sufficient to establish the conclusion of specific authorship.

The claims of 2nd century church fathers are not evidence, in and of themselves, of the reliability of those claims and you have produced no evidence (of your own or that they provided) to support their claims.

We've also already seen that the internal evidence for Matthean authorship falls far short of actually establishing that identification. The majority of the examples offered do not indicate any specific individual but are only consistent with a conclusion already accepted. IOW, they do not lead one to the conclusion. The last example was simply a reinterpretation of certain Gospel passages to conform with the conclusion.

Do you really not see that this is entirely circular? Assuming a conclusion and then looking for evidence consistent with that conclusion or interpreting passages to be consistent with that conclusion do absolutely nothing to establish the conclusion as true.

Matthew didn't work out for you but maybe you'll do better with a different author.

Amaleq13

I think it is pretty obvious that his debate with Craig was introduced as a way to short-cut the discussion. IOW, Craig won that debate so we should give up.

It is an attempt to make a hasty generalization.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Illiad was never intended to be a historical biography. The testimony of the church fathers refers to who wrote the Gospels, where they were written, and how they were composed for the purpose of recording history.
Furthermore, just read the first chapter of Luke's Gospel and then tell me it is of the same genre as the Illiad.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

This is exactly what secular scholars do.

"This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html


Please notice how the scholar gives no justification for the "standpoint" he has adopted. Furthermore, it is entirely unprovable that an eye-witness would not have relied on the testimony of others. If Matthew was writing decades after the fact, it makes sense that he would check out the testimony of others just to verify the quality of his memory.
Furthermore, the fact that Matthew wrote with less "vividness" from the other Gospel writers does not rule out his authorship either.
What we are given is assumption on top of assumption.
I would rather trust those who were closest in time to the original authors than those who doubted 2,000 years later.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Justin Martyr's Apology provides evidence that "The Gospels" were, in fact, written by the Apostles.

Peace.