Sven

How do you know?

Amaleq13

This is a false generalization and your example fails to even establish that the scholar quoted has engaged in the same flawed practice as yourself.

Please notice that this is a single paragraph taken from a book. It is utterly ridiculous to expect the author's entire argument to be reproduced in this excerpt. In addition is my understanding that his "standpoint" with regard to the original language of Matthew is the consensus view of modern scholarship (ie it was originally written in Greek). This does not establish that the position is correct but it certainly establishes it as a reasonable position to adopt.

I agree that this ultimately depends on subjective judgment of likelihood. I would point out, however, that this is generally accepted as a reasonable notion by the majority of scholars as well as, apparently, the modern Catholic Church.

I would not say that your suggestions for reasons why an eyewitness might consult another's story are impossible but they don't seem very credible to me.

I think you've made your faith quite clear so you really don't have to keep asserting it.

SaintCog

Your Honor, I would like to submit this post as Exhibit A that OF has, at best, been cherry picking and replying only to those parts of our posts that he has a rejoinder for. At worst he stops reading our posts after the first few lines.

Your Honor, if it pleases the court I would like to attach a remark in that very same post that OF responded to (the very next line in fact) that would have obviated his response about Luke's Gospel and history.

Even if his remark about the Iliad has any truth to it, the notion that Luke believed he was writing history does nothing to establish its historical validity. Historians of antiquity regularly and uncritically used both rumor and folklore, and would even invent details if it suited their purpose.

I would also like to submit to the court that OF has nothing to say about the fact that the Gospel accounts contain prety much the kinds of exaggerated details we should expect to see from an ancient biography.

Iasion

Greetings again,

Indeed.
But that is not the argument at all.
Did you think we would not notice you moved the goalposts?

I argued the earliest references to the Gospels as written documents did not NAME the authors.

I showed the evidence to support that.

I also showed that Justin also fails to NAME the Gospels' authors -
they are not named,
they have no name on them,
i.e. they are ANONYMOUS.

More clear evidence of the late naming of the originally anonymous Gospels.


You stopped responding about Aristides when I showed you were wrong there too.


Your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

I doubt I will be responding further.


Iasion

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Iliad was a compilation of oral tradition that over time, allowed legendary elements to creep in. However, the Gospel authors paid careful attention to preserving historical fact.
For example, consider the first chapter of Luke's Gospel:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

How would Justin know that the authors of the Gospels were Apostles unless they were named? You seriously need to consider that.
Furthermore, you've shown me evidence that you don't understand the difference between the singular "Gospel" and the plural "Gospels".

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

This is more a matter of common sense than faith. If there was reason to doubt the authorship of the Gospels, we would have early recorded testimony of at least a hint of such doubt. Given that the names attributed to the authorship of the Gospels were unanimously accepted in the early church, the burden of proof is on the one who claims otherwise. So far, you have presented no serious evidence to cast their authorship into doubt. Instead, you've falsely contended that relying on those who first read the Gospels and therefore would know their authorship is a matter of faith.
From the beginning of the Christian faith, there has been great debate on the reliability of Genesis and whether or not it is a "literal" or "allegorical" account of God's creative work. Similarly, there would have been such debate over the Gospels if there was reason to doubt the authenticity of their authorship.

Peace.

Amaleq13

This has already been addressed and you failed to respond. The claims of authorship are not "early". We do have, however, the author of 2 Peter defending Christianity against claims of believing "fables" which certainly doesn't suggest opponents who accepted "eyewitness authorship".

This has also already been addressed and you failed to respond. That many claimants "unanimously" agree on their claim in no way removes from them the burden of supporting their claim with evidence.

It is difficult to believe that your apparent inability to grasp the burden of proof is genuine. The lack of reliable support for the claim is all that is needed to cast doubt upon it.

You have done absolutely nothing to dispute my argument except deny it. Also, do you really want to claim that the 2nd century church fathers were the first to read the Gospels?

Unless you are willing to make an effort to defend your position, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. You have avoided several direct questions and completely ignored arguments that appeared to undermine what little you have offered to support your position. Please review the thread and address what you have ignored. Otherwise, I will not continue to waste time attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is only interested in asserting their beliefs.

Orthodox_Freethinker

What I've claimed is that these early to mid second century fathers merely recorded the truth which had been passed down to them through oral tradition. I've also demonstrated the imortance of oral tradition in the early Church.
If you do have hard evidence which casts the authorship of the Gospels into doubt, please provide it. Otherwise, what you've provided is pure sophistry.

Peace.

Amaleq13

Yes and the closest you've come to supporting this is an appeal to Papias but that was challenged earlier and you failed to reply. Ignoring suggested problems with your supportive evidence does not make those problems disappear.

In which post did you provide the evidence to demonstrate this?

Do you think if you attempt to shift the burden enough times it will suddenly become valid? You have offered no evidence to support either the 2nd century claims or your repetition of them. To all appearances, you have chosen to accept those claims based on your faith in their reliability.

This is just another unsubstantiated assertion. There is a significant difference between asserting that an argument is fallacious and demonstrating.

One can only assume that your persistent refusal to defend your claims means you are incapable of doing so. :wave: