Toto

Wrong. I think everyone has their biases. But this does not mean that the biases cancel out and each side is equally credible.

The purpose of these "orthodox" church politicians was to construct a claim of authenticity for their faction in the struggles of the early church. This required discovering or inventing a chain of transmission of that authority back to Jesus and his original disciples. The opponents of these church fathers, whom they labeled "heretics" and "gnostics," believed in looking within themselves, and had a harder time establishing their historic authority. But if the orthodox faction could claim that their version of scripture went back to someone who actually knew Jesus and was in his inner circle, that gave them a selling point.

This is pretty basic.

Peter Kirby

Hi Carin,

Thanks for the reply. Are you still following the thread? I could suggest to you some more reputable sources for your perusal and reflection, such as the introductions to the New Testament by Raymond Brown or Norman Perrin. It might help you get some perspective on what you've been reading thus far, and allow you to make a more informed decision for yourself! I respect your desire not to get dragged into interminable debate, but it's not necessary: if you detach yourself from these claims, positive and negative, as much as possible, you can join hands with other people in looking at them as honestly as possible. In this way, you can engage less in argument than in exploration, and the date of Matthew's gospel (or some other trivia) does not become an issue in which your faith and identity hangs in the balance.

Though, there might be less 'aggressive' forums to engage in such an endeavor than IIDB.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid it's an inference, not evidence. (I don't see any compelling reason to accept it, but that isn't the point of my query).

My query was specifically as to what the basis for the claim was. The answer seems to be (unless anyone objects) that references to the word 'Gospel' in earlier works do not have specific discussion of authorship of written texts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Thanks Iasion,

This is very helpful. Thanks for the work.

Three years ago, based on my studies of Tertullian's works, found on Roger's Pearse's wonderful Tertullian Project website, I came to the conclusion that the gospels were not brought together until around 206. Tertullian's works before this point show no knowledge of a gospel corpus and his works afterwards show full knowledge. There is the possibility that Tertullian was a slow learner and thus was not introduced to the corpus for seven to ten years after he started writing Christian treatises. However, even this line of thought would suggest that the four-gospel corpus was so new that novices were not instructed in it or felt the need to read it. So even on this possibility, it is hard to imagine the corpus existing much before approximately 190. This assumes it took fifteen years from the time it was put together to the time it took to become standard reading material. Given the threat and the number of heretical Churches, this seems to me an extraordinarily long time for any church to get around to showing their members the four main documents of their faith after putting them together. Would they not be afraid that novices would be seduced by heretics before discovering the truth of the four gospels?

On the other hand, Tertullian shows sure knowledge of the corpus around 206 so that is our later terminus. Your collection of quotes points again towards the 200 date. Based on your collection and my studies, I am quite happy to say that the best available evidence points to a date of 190-206 for the creation of the current four-gospel corpus, with the evidence tending more strongly toward the terminus ad quem

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
(author of the Evolution of Christs and Christianities)

Carin Nel

Hi Lucy,

Yes, the same one. After seeing all the miracles in Indonesia in the 1950-1960's, she thought he could do miracles with her money too! It shows greed and dishonesty doesn't pay! :wave:

Luci

Hi C

According to the article He was found guilty of fraud :huh:

The judge ruled: Now SHE is greedy and dishonest? He never even appealed.

Well, I guess you had to defend god's miracle worker.

edited coz I cannot spell.

Patriot7

emphasis mine.
Agreed. But one bias has an advantage over the other. J.P. Moreland has advanced this argument as Melinda Penner reference below:

emphasis mine.(Ref:http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2005/0...istians_h.html)



Why would they choose Matthew? The motive you're suggesting - that the early church fathers fabricated the authorship to lend credibility to the Gospels and intentionally mislead people who were dying for this stuff doesn't make sense given the culture. Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were even less popular in that time of history then they are now. Why not choose someone like Peter or Mary as was done with the Apocrypha?

Peter Kirby

Evan Powell has an idea as to why they chose a tax collector for the author of Matthew, and I post about that here. Powell holds the gospel to be pseudonymous, not anonymous, with its title.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings,

False.

Justin specifically mentions the "Gospels" and he explicitly describes them as memoirs "of the apostles". This is a clear and present reference to the authorship of the Gospels by the (un-named) apostles.

Also consider -
Aristides describes "the Gospel, as it is called" which (giving the title as only "The Gospel") implies no author was known in the title in his day.

And the Epistle of the Apostles seems to claim that the Apostles wrote the Gospel :
"...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."


Iasion

Toto

Wrong. Many skeptics will accept the possibility of supernatural events as a hypothesis, and look for evidence, even if they are just playing along. Many other skeptics started out believing in supernatural events, and finally had to fact up to the facts. In fact, there is no evidence for these extraordinary events.

Christians are not just open to the idea that god intervenes in the world, they often hold it as a matter of doctrine or faith that god has in the past intervened in the world, and may do so again. This leaves them insufficiently critical of claimed supernatural events.

Peter has given you one possible reason.

In addition, there already was an earlier gospel of Peter and a gospel of Mary, and a gospel of Andrew and John. . . so they were running out of names. Why not Matthew, which means "disciple"?