Febble

Actually, that's perfectly possible. There is a great deal we do not know about the Vietnam war that may yet come to light. It may well be that in the future, when we have peaceful world government, with full access to records, artefacts and bones, and no longer have a vested interest in a particular view, historians may be able to unravel what really happened in that war, and perhaps what its long term consequences were.

(Although I still have a hunch that someone who knew Jesus had a hand in John.)

Mageth

I'm sure I'm right as well. Your attempt at discrediting my assertion is just as pitifully weak as your fallacious "Origen etc. knew ancient history better than you can" argument, BTW.

We have a much more accurate and complete historical view of the Vietnam War available to us today, in 2006, than any one person did in 1975. Why? Because we've had time to work on it, time to research, time to compile information, etc etc etc. Just *being there* does not guarantee that one will have a more accurate historical view. That is fallacious.

Today, we have systems, tools and methods that can be applied to ancient history, ancient texts, etc. Using those, we can, and do, learn things about history that were not possible for ancients like Origen to learn. We can do research that it was not possible for them to do. We can, and do, know more about ancient history than it was possible for any one of them to know. We can learn that some things that they may have assumed were TRUE HISTORY are not accurate. E.g., that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew.

TomboyMom

Carin Nel:
Which gospel(s) do you believe was written by an eyewitness? By whom do you believe it was written, and when? On what evidence do you base this belief?

Diogenes the Cynic

Do they really? Does Papias ever explicitly say that Matthew's Logia should be identified Canonical Matthew? Does Papias quote from Canonical Matthew or show direct awareness of it? if Irenaeus was only drawing an inference from Papias then does that really represent evidence of a pre-2nd century authorship tradition explicitly identified with Canonical Matthew?
Well, two things we can say for sure.
1. We don't know the author's name now.
2. It wasn't the Apostle Matthew.

So even if the Gospel wasn't anonymous before the 2nd Century it's anonymous NOW and even if the "Matthew" tradition preceded Irenaeus it's still inauthentic and the author was still unknown to Irenaeus.

Patriot7

And that is also hilarious. Just a suggestion, but ease up on the dogmatism. I'm not looking for "guarantees" and "absolute certainty". I don't think history works that way. I think the only people who say things like:

two things we can say for sure.......are trying to talk themselves into something.

I apologize but I was just arguing on another thread here about how eyewitness accounts are more valuable then second hand accounts and here you are making the exact opposite point as it suits your case.

What do we know today about the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew that they did not know back then?

Diogenes the Cynic

Hardly. Neither of the two points you're alluding is in debate. That's why I chose them. I was using them to make another point entirely.
"Being there" was probably a bad choice of words. People who were literally "there" during the Vietnam War would be able to accurately record their own experiences but that wouldn't necessarily be able to pontificate about wider socio-political aspects of the war.

In any case, it doesn't he;p you because Patristic tradition does not represent the testimony of anyone who was "there" or who had any access to reliable information.
That it wasn't written by Matthew.

Toto

You realize that the comparison is not between what we know and what they knew, but between what historical researchers know now and what a few ideologically-driven, dogmatic church politicians claimed to be true back then.

Yes, a few church fathers claimed that the disciple Matthew wrote the first gospel. But none of them provided any good reasons to trust that statement, or to trust them.

Mageth

Your finding it "hilarious" is rather odd. It appears to me to be self-evident.

You're here today; do you think you know more about the "history" of today than an historian, say, 50 years from now will?

If I was actually being dogmatic, I might consider taking your advice. But since I'm not, I can safely ignore it for the pointless rhetoric it is.

What's been said on this thread: that the evidence strongly suggests that it was not actually written by the Matthew that is recorded as being one of the Disciples, and thus was written by someone else, at this time unknown. Modern historical techniques have led us to that revelation.

The ancients were wrong on that detail when they reported it as fact. Simply being closer to the event in time does not grant them credibility. What they may have recorded as "fact" is open to criticism by modern historical research.

Patriot7

The only evidence presented on this thread to support that conclusion was offerred by DTC:

I'm assuming you agree with this consensus. So correct me if I'm wrong, but your objection is in regards to the translation issue is it not? To the best of your knowledge are there any competing explanations for that, that you've considered and deemed less reasonable then the alternative you're arguing for now?

Due to the translation issue?

By virtue of them being closer in time, it is reasonable to grant them a degree of credibility unless other evidence demands a different conclusion. As I understand Papias was not considered a "smart man" by his peers, this does not mean he was immoral or prone to lie.

Completely agree. As do modern theorys of that criticism.

Patriot7

That's an interesting view of history. And it's even more interesting that you believe only one side is biased and it happens to be the side you disagree with. I know that's a popluar view these days.

So if the church fathers are really the ideologically-driven, dogmatic church politicians you claim they are, what did they have to gain from naming Matthew as the author?