Orthodox_Freethinker

The claims are collaborated with the internal evidence of the Gospels and the inscriptions of all the available manuscripts. Furthermore, if it took a half-century for the Gospels to become widely circulated, it would make sense that the earliest written testimony on them is from that time. One should not discount the early Church's reliance on oral tradition.

How much time have you seriously taken researching the side opposite of yours with an open mind?

A majority of the world's Biblical scholars would contend that the Gospels provide a fairly accurate account of the teachings and deeds of Christ. This does not mean that the Gospels are accurate in every possible detail but they are in the details that matter.
Only a minority of the world's Biblical scholars, mostly located in the United States, rule out the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

This is something what I have personally researched for years, from both sides of the debate. The first book I read on the historicity of the Gospels was Josh McDowell's More than a Carpenter. The second was Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. Since that time, I have paid careful attention to both sides.

The Gospels are essentially anonymous given that their authors do not straightforwardly identify themselves. However, the earliest testimony of their authorship coupled with the internal evidence of the texts points to the authenticity of the attributed authors being very likely.

Justin Martyr did not refer to any specific Gospel but merely the Gospels as a whole. Am I correct?

There is a difference in meaning between the singular "Gospel" and the plural "Gospels":

The singular:
Gospel - The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.

"Preach The Gospel at all times and if necessary, use words." - St. Francis of Assisi

The plural:
Gospel - One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching.


Furthermore, please read Aristides in context:

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. 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. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous."


It is true that the Gospel was preached for a short time by Christ given that His ministry was no more than three years long. The relatively early date of this apology, the early second century, only collaborates the historicity of the New Testament.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Iasion, it is rather telling if you do not know that difference between "The Gospel" and "Gospels". Even Jesus Christ, a man who supposedly never existed, seems to understand the difference:

Luke 7
20
When the men came to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?'"
21
At that time he cured many of their diseases, sufferings, and evil spirits; he also granted sight to many who were blind.
22
And he said to them in reply, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have The Gospel proclaimed to them.


Think of it this way - There is only one Evangelion and each Evangelist provided his own account of its truth.

Peace.

Amaleq13

That would certainly correspond with your stated position and that which is found in The Catholic Study Bible. Though it doesn't actually appear relevant to the discussion, I would be interested in your understanding of the difference between the two.

It means this individual won this debate against that opponent. Your use of the plural seems a bit misleading since you were referring to a single debate between two individuals.

How many of them declared that they accepted Craig's conclusions as their own as a result?

This claim has already been addressed. It clearly offers nothing to support the reliability of the tradition. An unchallenged claim is an unproven claim.

No, you are wrong. The burden is always upon the claimant. That multiple claimants agree on their claim does not, in any way, shift the burden.

The question was specifically about evidence identifying Matthew as the actual author of that version of the story so that is all I'm going to address. There are only four offered and two include concessions that they are really only consistent with rather than requiring Matthean authorship. That sort of evidence is very impressive to folks who have already decided on a conclusion and are only interested in looking for things that are "consistent" with it but I'm more interested in evidence that requires the conclusion.

Agreed.

Agreed. See previous explanation about the difference between "consistent with" and "requiring".

I can easily grant you this hypothesis but it does absolutely nothing more to indicate that Matthew was the author than the others. All of them are merely consistent with a conclusion that has already been accepted.

Mark describes a scene where a tax collector named "Levi" is called to follow Jesus. According to the story, he joined many other "tax collectors and sinners" who were eating with "Jesus and his disciples". There are two different groups with Jesus here. There is a group of tax collectors and sinners and there are the disciples. There are followers and there are disciples. Levi is presumably part of the former while the disciple named "Matthew" is part of the latter. There is absolutely no indication in Mark that Levi became a disciple and a fairly clear implication that he was but one of multiple tax collectors Jesus called to follow him. The author of Luke preserves the story but the author of Matthew apparently decided to change this character from a mere follower into one of the disciples.

As should be obvious, there is nothing remarkable about it when understood as a deliberate decision by the author.

Agreed but they also clearly have no cumulative weight either.

Even accepting all this fails to identify the author.

This isn't quite right. This is a more accurate description of what one should conclude from this discussion:

The internal evidence does nothing to create the impression of Matthean authorship but the "external testimony" later claims Matthew as the author. There does not appear to be any evidence to support those later claims so there appears to be little reason to accept traditional assertions of Matthean authorship.

The claims, in and of themselves, are not evidence of the claims. You see the circularity of that, right? You are back to where you started and in need of evidence to support 2nd century assertions.

How old is the oldest manuscript bearing the inscription?

Amaleq13

One should also not attempt to found weighty conclusions on such an intangible base.

At least a decade not that it is relevant.

I don't believe this is true. Can you support it?

I think this one is incorrect as well (especially if you replace "rule out" with "question") but it is also irrelevant to our discussion.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Amaleq, the ultimate difference between traditionalism and modernism is how much one allows himself to be influenced by secular thought.
I agree that the internal evidence of Matthew is not sufficient on its own but what matters is that it corroborates with the external testimony.
Consider this - If all the earliest testimony pointed to Charles Darwin as the author of Origin of Species, the burden of proof would be on the one who claims otherwise. Even if Darwin did not straightforwardly identify himself as the author within the text, the external testimony of his authorship would be good enough.

"Magdelene Manuscript:

"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive."
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/documents.htm

Amaleq13

Or how much one allows one's self to be influenced by one's faith.

Evidence that does not require a specific author cannot corroborate assertions of a specific author.

If there is any connection between the two, it seems more likely that the former inspired the assumption of the latter.

Using Darwin in an example of the same flawed effort to shift the burden fails to eliminate the flaw.

The "Magdalene Manuscript" does not appear relevant to establishing the identity of the author but I suggest you reconsider accepting Thiede's conclusions as reliable.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Doesn't it at all occur to you that those who doubt the historiticy of the Gospels are as much guided by 'faith' as those who believe them?

Consider this example:

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html


It is an unprovable assertion that if Matthew were an eye-witness that he would not have relied upon sources other than his own memory for the purpose of writing his Gospel. If Mark truly was dependent upon the testimony of Peter, then Matthew would more or less be seeking the testimony of a fellow Apostle.
As a journalist, I may be a witness to an event but that doesn't mean I won't ask to look over the notes of a fellow journalist who was there before I place the story into writing. If Matthew was writing decades after the departure of Christ, it makes sense that he would look for other testimony in order to be assured of the quality of his memory.
What the skeptic has done is falsely throw the baby out with the bath water.
Furthermore, the similarities between Matthew and Mark could show that Mark relied upon Matthew and not the other way around with Mark being an abridged version of Matthew. This would make sense, after all, if Matthew was an eye-witness to the Lord.

Peace.

SaintCog

Sorry I'm jumping into this discussion rather late, but earlier on Orthodox Freethinker had requested the following,

"Name a Catholic source which contends that none of the Gospels were written by either an Apostle or disciple of an Apostle."

It immediately occurred to me that just about every single Catholic University that I can think of in the United States is populated by New Testament scholars whom I imagine OF would label "modernist" as opposed to "traditionalist." Catholic University, Notre Dame, and Fordham immediately come to mind.

But more importantly the Vatican has given its seal of approval to the Sacra Pagina Commentary series, which has received contributions from New Testament scholars from all over the world. Below is an excerpt from the Sacra Pagina Gospel of Mark commentary:

A. The Identity of "Mark"

"What we call the Gospel of Mark is technically an anonymous composition. At no point does the evangelist identify himself by name or claim to be a participant in or an eyewitness to the events described in the work. The heading "According to Mark" was not a part of the original text; rather, it was a later addition reflecting the early church's custom of ascribing the gospel to Mark" (p. 38).

OF, I notice that you have frequently referred to NewAdvent.org in your posts. It is important to note that the information contained in this website has been drawn from a pre-Vatican II Catholic encyclopedia. It's about 100 years old. The Church has since shifted its stance on many issues, including critical scholarship (what you disparagingly call "liberal scholarship"). The number of Catholic scholars whom you would identify as "traditional" are in the minority.

Regarding Crossan, I agree the guy is a flake. Well, not entirely. His more recent stuff is sort of crazy. But at his core (before he went nuts) he is a serious scholar who has built a solid reputation for excellent work in the field - and then he went insane once he discovered he could make money publishing books to a popular audience (that's just my opinion). In any case, using Crossan as a straw man to represent everything you disagree with in New Testament scholarship is pretty disingenuous.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Given that we do not have the original autograph of Mark, it's impossible to know whether or not it bore his name. All we can do is turn to the oldest manuscripts which all agree to Mark's authorship.

That may be true but the internal evidence within the Gospels and the testimony of the church fathers hasn't changed, which is the reason why I have quoted the encyclopedia.

If that were true, why didn't he even bother to provide evidence for his claims while Craig did? Why was Craig able to defend himself against Crossan while Crossan didn't even attempt to defend anything?

Peace.