FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-24-2006, 02:46 PM   #41
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The latter.
Thanks for clearing that up. The Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, but by "somebody else". Interesting.

Your view of the document is clearly more accurate given your place in human history then Papias, Irenaeus, Origen or Ignatius.
Patriot7 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 02:49 PM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot7
Thanks for clearing that up. The Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, but by "somebody else". Interesting.

Your view of the document is clearly more accurate given your place in human history then Papias, Irenaeus, Origen or Ignatius.
And why not, as we've developed systems, mechanisms, and techniques to research such historical documents that were not dreamed of by those ancients?
Mageth is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 02:49 PM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It means you don't have to know who DID write something in able to determine that someone else did NOT. I don't know who wrote Homer's epics, but I know it wasn't Abraham Lincoln.


I love it!! Not only do you know ancient history better then those who wrote it and lived it, but you now know greyline's mind! :notworthy:
Patriot7 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 02:51 PM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot7


I love it!! Not only do you know ancient history better then those who wrote it and lived it, but you now know greyline's mind! :notworthy:
I'm just curious, do you realize that you're talking nonsense?

Anyone today can easily learn far more about ancient history, and far more accurate information as well, than any of those ancients that you mentioned.
Mageth is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 02:56 PM   #45
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot7 #43
Not only do you know ancient history better then those who wrote it and lived it, but you now know greyline's mind!
Knowing what greyline meant is more a matter of reading comprehension and less a matter of textual criticism.
kais is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 02:59 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
I doubt you will find many here who will agree to that. The canonical gospels were anonymous with their names attached to them much later in the 2nd century.
I would be interested to know what evidence demands this conclusion. After all, I'm sure we all known that all the patristic sources that discuss authorship say different, so what positive evidence exists to the contrary? (That is a question, btw).

Just guessing, if the argument is "our first now extant witness to discuss the subject is Irenaeus, therefore before then they must have been anonymous" then this seems very weak to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 03:01 PM   #47
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mageth
I'm just curious, do you realize that you're talking nonsense?

Anyone today can easily learn far more about ancient history, and far more accurate information as well, than any of those ancients that you mentioned.

I'm sure you're right. I mean in 4006 human beings will have a far more accurate view of the vietnam war then we do.
Patriot7 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 03:03 PM   #48
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot7
Thanks for clearing that up. The Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, but by "somebody else". Interesting.

Your view of the document is clearly more accurate given your place in human history then Papias, Irenaeus, Origen or Ignatius.
Now who's making an argument from authority?

From Early Christian Writings
Quote:
It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.
I recommend that you click on the link and read the whole page.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 03:07 PM   #49
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kais
Knowing what greyline meant is more a matter of reading comprehension and less a matter of textual criticism.
I know kais. It was a joke. If it's not funny, then it's tragic. I'm attempting to make light of the dogmaticsm held by some and you're right it's probably not very funny in this instance. I retract my attempt at humor.
Patriot7 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 03:08 PM   #50
Iasion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greetings,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
I would be interested to know what evidence demands this conclusion. After all, I'm sure we all known that all the patristic sources that discuss authorship say different, so what positive evidence exists to the contrary? (That is a question, btw).
Roger Pearse

The earliest references are to 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 argue that the Gospels became known as writings in early-mid 2nd century, but were not named till late 2nd century, probably by Irenaeus.


Iasion
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.