PhilosopherJay

Hi Roland,

Irenaeus is only placed at 180 because Bishop Eusebius, writing in the 4th century, places him there. However, the anonymous work attributed to Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" contains an attack against Tatian. The author of this work attacks Tatian for his attack on Adam:

He invented a system of certain invisible Aeons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication. But his denial of Adam's salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself.

Now, Clement of Alexandria's Stromata (which can be put on internal evidence circa 208) also contains an attack on Tatian for his opinion of Adam (Book III:12):

81. I believe Tatian the Syrian made bold to teach these doctrines. At any rate he writes these words in his book On Perfection According to the Saviour: "While agreement to be continent makes prayer possible, intercourse of corruption destroys it. By the very disparaging way in which he allows it, he forbids it. For although he allowed them to come together again because of Satan and the temptation to incontinence, he indicated that the man who takes advantage of this permission will be serving two masters, God if there is 'agreement,' but, if there is no such agreement, incontinence, fornication, and the devil." This he says in expounding the apostle. But he falsifies the truth in that by means of what is true he tries to prove what is untrue. We too confess that incontinence and fornication are diabolical passions, but the agreement of a controlled marriage occupies a middle position. If the married couple agree to be .continent, it helps them to pray; if they agree with reverence to have sexual relations it leads them to beget children. In fact the right time to procreate is said in Scripture to be knowledge since it says: " And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore a son, and they called him by the name of Seth. For God has raised up for me other seed instead of Abel." You see who is the object of the blasphemy of those who abuse sober marriage and attribute birth to the devil?

It is clear that Clement is arguing that Tatian's attack against marriage may be construed as an attack against Adam and God. It seems apparent that the writer of "Against Heresies," had no first hand knowledge of Tatian's works. He has read Clement's attack on Tatian and he is echoing it. Having not read Tatian, but only Clement, he cannot attack Tatian in any different way than Clement. The attack in Against Heresies is simply a paraphrase of the Clement's deductive argument presented in Stromata.

From the fact that the author of "Against Heresies" has borrowed ideas from a work apparently written around 208, we cannot place that treatise as early as 180, as Eusebius does.

The first actual clearly datable reference to the four gospels is in Tertullian's Anti-Marcion, which can be dated to circa 206.

Thus our first three sources to mention the four canonical gospels together are all apparently from the first decade of the third century.

With these deductions, we now find no reason to believe that the existence of the canonical gospels as a set predates the year 200, or if they do probably not by more than a decade.

Personally, at the moment, I find no reason to put the compositions of Matthew and Luke before 180. Mark does contain some slight evidence which suggests a possible date around 100-110, while John contains some slight evidence pointing to around 60 for the first edition, so-to-speak. However, I would not be surprised if both turn out to be much later works.

I go into much of this in my book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (Xlibris, 2006)

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

buckshot23

Didn't Ignatius quote from Matthew? When did he die? 115?

Diogenes the Cynic

You are correct, sir. Count me as another who'd like to hear Philosopher Jay's response to some pretty strong Matthean allusions in the letters of Ignatius. Consensus puts Matthew at c. 80 CE.

Toto

The consensus date on Matthew is based on hardly any evidence. It is set at 10 years after the "consensus" date of Mark, which is set at 70 because it can't be set any earlier due to references to the destruction of the Temple, and because Christians want to date the gospels to as early a date as possible. The 10 year gap between Mark and Matthew represents presumed time for transition, based on pure speculation.

I suspect that the date for Ignatius is equally problematic, and later interpolations and forgeries a distinct possibility. If it were no so late, I would research it more.

Carin Nel

Hi all
I've looked at all your references, thanks. I've realised that we will never agree on anything, because the sources you quote are mostly, as I gather, from infidel references and Atheists. Even the Christian sources have traditional and liberal views, so obviously the dates of for istance Mathew, will vary then. Some of my sources also gives Mathew's date as about 90 AD, so maybe my original source was wrong concerning that particular book. However, the reason I started the topic of authorship of the NT, as you are well aware of, was to make a completely different point, and that was that I believe in the God of the Bible Who is an intelligent, personal Being. To try to prove the authenticity of the NT was thus my goal. For Fromdownunder to make statement like "You are really painting a hole for yourself here. Not one verse in the NT was written by an eye witness," is not fair critique. He cannot claim that his sources are the only correct ones and all mine must be false claims. As a matter of fact, some were indeed eye-witnesses. Anyhow...
I've read the book by Tim C. Leedom "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read" plus the testimonies on your forum, so I know what goes on in the mind of a free - thinker .
I've also looked at many other religious tolerant websites on the internet like
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
But I've prayed about my participation on this forum, and feel that I will stll follow the threads and where I feel lke making a comment, I will do so, but not spend so many hours trying to prove my case. God wants to meet individuals who come to Him with questions right where they are at the point of each individual's need, but not with any preconceived ideas or preroggatives, but in sincerity. Even if that individual says to God "God, I don't think you exist, but if you do, reveal Yourself to me" then He will. That is what happened to Sundar Singh, my sister, another friend of mine who was int Satanism, another friend of mine who grew up with different foster parents, and many, many others. That is the best evidence I can come up with. I've met the "Heavenly man" Read the book - you will think you've met a modern day Paul. The miracles that happened in his likfe and the healings that he saw are too many to write down. He is still a relatively young man and still doing missionary work. Go and argue with him if you like. You'll loose the argument.
You see, you can argue about the Bible, the origin of the universe, the purpose of mankind, the existence of God on a forum like this, but meet the living God and meet the people who have really encountered Him, nor the Christians who grew up in Christian home, or the fundamental Christians, or the people who say they are Christians. I'm talking about people who have encountered God and to whom He have revealed Himself as Jesus Christ, like Sundar Sing, like my friends, like Bilquis Sheik, like Mel Tari, like Brother Yun...etc, etc.

Peter Kirby

Can't we talk about stupid things like facts and arguments surrounding the issues of the New Testament (and particulars such as the time of production for these books) without being drawn into evangelism concerns? Can't you chat on this subject, as you might chat on other subjects, without an overriding concern for the state of your correspondent's soul? After all, as you note at the beginning, even Christians disagree on these matters. What's the harm, then, in letting go of your strategies for scoring conversions, and engaging in a human conversation? If the best evangelism is being authentically human (and I think I see you hinting at that), that can be extended to being authentically human in interacting on issues of NT criticism.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Boro Nut

They were too busy reading writing and translating the fictional life of the bogus messiah Jesus, that's why. The deluded fools. Never mind though. I’m sure Our Lord Jessus will forgive them.

Boro Nut

tdcanam

Approx. date it was written is said to be around A.D. 58-68.

Some evidence it was originally written in Hebrew or that Matthew made one copy in hebrew and one in Greek.

gregor

td
We'd appreciate either evidence or a reference to a publication.

tdcanam

Oh, sorry, I just picked up a few bible com. off the shelf, and a bible .... ummmm..... Key Word Study Bible I think, I put'em back. I got a lot lol.The bible is by AMG Publications.

Sorry for lack of publications, I just grabbed, read a few, took the average, put back and went back to the "Proof" thread. Sidetracked really.