Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Richbee · 03-22-2006, 09:04 PM

Recently I encountered some puzzling questions doubting who the authors of the gospel accounts were?

I will kick off the debate with this quote:

Irenaeus, around 180 on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John:

"Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast [John 13:25;21:20], himself produced his gospel, when he was living in Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4)

Does anyone have any evidence to doubt the authors of the gospel accounts? I admit that I don't have signed first addition copies, but really, is there even one skeptic here with some credible reason(s) to doubt the gospel accounts?

Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes about the nature and quality of evidence, and burden of proof required by "skeptics" who wish to impeach the New Testament evidence.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

snip

It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy."

Hotlink: Simon Greenleaf

Chris Weimer · 03-22-2006, 09:23 PM

Yes, actually. Matthew is most assuredly not written in Hebrew, and either way Matthew uses Mark directly, which means that it had to have been after Peter dictated his sermons to Mark, long enough for the gospel to be credible enough that another disciple would plagiarize it. Furthermore, Mark is nothing near formatted as a sermon from Peter. It's an actual literary creation. Furthermore, Paul did not know the living Jesus, so how could Luke copy Paul if Paul didn't know any of Luke's gospel? Where did Luke get it from? Matthew and Mark? If so, why does he take so much of it and twist it (noting especially how he took Matthew's sermon and butchered it into many phrases spread across Jesus' ministry) and why did he leave out so much? I'll let the Johannine experts deal with the problems of John.

WishboneDawn · 03-22-2006, 09:33 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

That has some good basic information to follow up on.

Quote:

Liberals believe that the name of the author is unknown. It was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, because it describes the event in Matthew 24. Various authorities date Matthew about 85 CE.

I think the fact that it mentions the destruction of Jerusalem is sort of a slam dunk in the face of claims that it was written earlier.

Doug Shaver · 03-22-2006, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes about the nature and quality of evidence, and burden of proof required by "skeptics" who wish to impeach the New Testament evidence.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

With all due respect to Dr. Greenleaf, he is mistaken. We would all have to believe innumerable contradictions if we accepted his opinion.

In a courtroom, some version of presumed credibility might be necessary, but there are reasons for that which are irrelevant to historical investigations. Although our legal system is concerned about determining truth, that is not its only concern, and the truth may well be sacrificed on occasion for the sake of those other concerns.

Doug Shaver · 03-22-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Does anyone have any evidence to doubt the authors of the gospel accounts?

You're assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that the authors were who Irenaeus said they were. Why should we take Irenaeus's word for it?

Even in a courtroom, a witness's competence has to be established. It is not assumed that he knows what he is talking about just because whoever called him to the stand says he does. If he claims to know something, it's up to him to prove that he does in fact know it.

And so, how did Irenaeus come to find out who wrote the gospels?

Roger Pearse · 03-23-2006, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

And so, how did Irenaeus come to find out who wrote the gospels?

Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus.

Quote:

These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse-his going out, too, and his coming in-his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: "O good God, for what times hast Thou reserved me, that I should endure these things? "And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.

Quoted by Eusebius in the HE, book 5.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 03-23-2006, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

[size=2]
Does anyone have any evidence to doubt the authors of the gospel accounts? I admit that I don't have signed first addition copies, but really, is there even one skeptic here with some credible reason(s) to doubt the gospel accounts?

Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes about the nature and quality of evidence, and burden of proof required by "skeptics" who wish to impeach the New Testament evidence.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

The same must be presumed generally in ancient history, and not just of the gospels: let the data speak. Only when we have the full corpus of data before us, can we see what it says. It may be that some witnesses will say one thing and some another. Then research can begin to explain the disagreement. Of course there may be a tendency to short-circuit this process, but we should try to resist. Otherwise we will tend to state as facts things which are in fact only our deductions from the data; or worse yet, things that we think the data ought to say.

I have never heard a convincing reason to rejecting the patristic testimony to authorship, myself. Isn't it more or less what would be expected?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

fta · 03-23-2006, 02:19 AM

Irenaeus -- who is described in Davidson's Canon of the Bible as "credulous and blundering" -- was writing 150 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion. His testimony to the authorship of the gospels is clearly late hearsay. As far as I'm aware no church father prior to Irenaeus specifies that there are four gospels, or names authors for all four. If the Four Gospels were actually written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first century and recognised by the Church as such, then why is Irenaeus the first person to mention them?

michael wellenberg · 03-23-2006, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Furthermore, Mark is nothing near formatted as a sermon from Peter.

I take it that you do not assume that Mark wrote following and according to Peter´s preaching. I agree with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Furthermore, Paul did not know the living Jesus, so how could Luke copy Paul if Paul didn't know any of Luke's gospel? Where did Luke get it from? Matthew and Mark?

I think that Luke is likely to have had Mark as a source since the latter was most probably the first one to write a gospel.

With regards
MW

03-23-2006, 03:19 AM

Greetings,

The DiaTessaron

Quote:

Originally Posted by fta

As far as I'm aware no church father prior to Irenaeus specifies that there are four gospels,

I was always fascinated by the DiaTessaron (attributed to Tatian, but this may not be certain.)

This harmony of the Gospels was specifically named as "(harmony) from FOUR."

It seems Tatian knew there were four Gospels, but did not apparently name the authors. This may be a clue that the number of Gospels was known before the names were decided. Perhaps Tatian inherited the four un-named "memoirs of the apostles" from Justin.

Un-named Gospels

I grepped for mentions of "Gospel" in the early writings in an attempt to see how their names developed. Initially of course, the word "Gospel" simply refers to Christian teachings, e.g.

" 1 Corinthians : 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel--not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn't be made void. "

But from about the early-mid 2nd century we start to see the word used to refer to writing. There are several of these mentions which do not give any author's name, suggesting they were still un-named. Some early references are singular, some plural :

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. "

Written Gospel, singular, un-named.

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. "

Written Gospel, singular, un-named.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel had only been preached a short time in the period 138-161.

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

" Ch. 10 : ... Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them.
...
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.' "

Written Gospel, singular, un-named.

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; ... "

Written Gospels, plural, un-named.

Fragments from Theodotus, 150-180CE :

" He cited as a proof to all, how, when the angels give glad tidings to the barren, they introduce souls before conception. And in the Gospel 'the babe leapt' as a living thing. "

Quotes a Gospel, singular, un-named.

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 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. "

Written Gospel, singular, un-named.

The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE :

" 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. "

Written Gospel, singular, un-named.

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. "

Gospel as scripture, singular, un-named.

Melito of Sardis, c. 170CE, 3 references :

" The finger of the Lord-the Holy Spirit, by whose operation the tables of the law in Exodus are said to have been written; and in the Gospel: 'If I by the finger of God cast out demons' The fingers of the Lord-The lawgiver Moses, or the prophets. "

Written Gospel, singular, un-named.

Theophilus to Autolycus, c.180CE :

" Ch. 12 : Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.
...
And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: 'Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'
...
And the Gospel says: 'Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans.' "

Quotes a Gospel, singular, un-named.

This all goes to suggest that the Gospels became known as writings in early-mid 2nd century, but were not named till late 2nd century with Irenaeus.

Iasion

03-22-2006, 09:04 PM	#1
Richbee Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Falls Church, Virginia Posts: 264	Who wrote the Gospel accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Recently I encountered some puzzling questions doubting who the authors of the gospel accounts were? I will kick off the debate with this quote: Irenaeus, around 180 on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: "Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast [John 13:25;21:20], himself produced his gospel, when he was living in Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4) Does anyone have any evidence to doubt the authors of the gospel accounts? I admit that I don't have signed first addition copies, but really, is there even one skeptic here with some credible reason(s) to doubt the gospel accounts? Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes about the nature and quality of evidence, and burden of proof required by "skeptics" who wish to impeach the New Testament evidence. In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. snip It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy." Hotlink: Simon Greenleaf

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2006, 09:23 PM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Yes, actually. Matthew is most assuredly not written in Hebrew, and either way Matthew uses Mark directly, which means that it had to have been after Peter dictated his sermons to Mark, long enough for the gospel to be credible enough that another disciple would plagiarize it. Furthermore, Mark is nothing near formatted as a sermon from Peter. It's an actual literary creation. Furthermore, Paul did not know the living Jesus, so how could Luke copy Paul if Paul didn't know any of Luke's gospel? Where did Luke get it from? Matthew and Mark? If so, why does he take so much of it and twist it (noting especially how he took Matthew's sermon and butchered it into many phrases spread across Jesus' ministry) and why did he leave out so much? I'll let the Johannine experts deal with the problems of John.

03-23-2006, 02:19 AM	#8
fta Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oceania Posts: 334	Irenaeus -- who is described in Davidson's Canon of the Bible as "credulous and blundering" -- was writing 150 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion. His testimony to the authorship of the gospels is clearly late hearsay. As far as I'm aware no church father prior to Irenaeus specifies that there are four gospels, or names authors for all four. If the Four Gospels were actually written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first century and recognised by the Church as such, then why is Irenaeus the first person to mention them?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.