by Noble One » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:35 pm
> As I said, just because the name is on it doesn't make it trustworthy,
Sure. They could be lying.
> just because it's anonymous doesn't make it untrustworthy
That's not true. Especially, historical records you must know the author's identity. If the document does not identify the author, it is fine, I will take contemporary attribution (Pliny the younger and Tacitus). If you do not even have that but people making that claim centuries later, it is useless.
> but corroborating ancient sources are unanimous and without challenge in their traditional attributions.
Correct, by unanimous, you really mean 3 Christians writing finally agreeing with one another 120 years later assuming the gospels were written around the turn of the first century.
And you commit an argument from silence in the latter part.
> The earliest attributions of authorship come within decades, not centuries. Ignatius and Clement of Rome, in the 1st century, quote from the Gospels. Hermas, in The Shepherd (AD 97) mentions that there are four Gospels. Tatian, in about 170, 1 century after the Gospels, writes a harmony of the 4.
Um...? None of these people make any claims whatsoever about who authored the gospels, they only acknowledge their existence. None of the people you quoted help you since none of them tell us who wrote the gospels. They only quote its content with the exception of Ignatius and Clement who are quoting oral tradition. Here are all the quotations made by Ignatius. All of them are vague and are not even claiming to be Quotations (he does not claim to be quoting material in other sources) and he does not indicate that the source is written rather than just quoting oral tradition of the stories at the time. Here are Polycarp's quotations which suffer from the same issue.
Again, I reiterate, none of the sources you just mentioned make any claims whatsoever about the identity of the gospel authors. They only quote the content.
> He claims to be an eyewitness in 1.14 and here in 21.24.
21:24 is a claim by someone else in the postscript and 1:14 is a claim by the collective Christian community.
> The statement about his having written the book is a definite statement that the Beloved Disciple wrote the book.
That's not his statement. That's someone LATER making that statement about the author who wrote these things.
The we is making a claim about the his and we have no idea who the we are nor do we have any idea about when they made that claim.
> We don't know the identity of the authors of most ancient documents and written artifacts.
That's not true. Many sources have the identification of the author within them. The gospel authors do not identify themselves. This is unlike many other ancient literary works in which the author’s name is included within the body of the text (most often in the prologue), such as Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (1:1), which states at the beginning: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, as they fought against each other.” The historians Herodotus (1:1), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.8.4), and Josephus (BJ 1.3) all likewise include their names in prologues. Sometimes an author’s name can also appear later in the text. In his Life of Otho (10.1), for example, the biographer Suetonius Tranquillus refers to “my father, Suetonius Laetus,” which thus identifies his own family name.
> Irenaeus lived from about 130-202: definitely 2nd century. His writings were in about 180, 2nd century.
> Clement of Alexandria was from 150-215. His books were probably written between 195-203. 2nd c. to the very beginning of the 3rd.
> Tertullian was around 160-220 or so. His writings date from 196-212. He is more possibly 3rd c., but not necessarily.
Ok well now you are the one disputing the scholarly consensus so you have to provide evidence for that. And Again, Irenaeus is writing in 180 CE and the consensus does not emerge until the third century writings.
> Clement circulated books throughout the churches. Irenaeus claims Clement knew the apostles. Tertullian says Clement was ordained by Peter. Ignatius mentions a Clement who is a helper of Peter. In his writings he acknowledges the authority of the Gospels by quoting from them, references Paul as a historical figure, writes of Peter's martyrdom, and tells us that the apostles fully believed in the resurrection of Christ. He nowhere contests the authorship of the Gospels (argument from silence, I know, but notable).
This is all unsubstantiated red herring. You made a claim that Clement tells us who wrote the gospels.
and here it is: "And you have completely neglected to mention Clement of Rome and Ignatius from the end of the 1st century."
None of what you said substantiates your original claim.
> Ignatius is said to have been a disciple of the apostle John. Theodoret reports that Peter appointed him to his position.
You provided no substantiation for the former and your latter is a 5th century source. Is it just me or are your arguments getting worse?
> We have a fragment of John from about 125.
No. Recent research puts it at 200 CE
> No one, but no one, says that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written that late.
There are a few proponents, but I would personally say that the evidence is not the most direct in both position with the later dating having the little bit more weight.
> The Church Fathers consistently and reliably quote from the Gospels as authoritative Scripture, starting at Clement (AD 90), continuing through the 2nd century (Ignatius, Barnabas of Alexandria,
Again, none of these people make any claims about the authorship of the gospels nor the identity of the authors and I would contest that they are quoting written sources. Scroll up for their "quotations".
> the Diatessaron, Justin Martyr—all 1st & 2nd century.) The Diatessaron all by itself proves my point.
Again, none of these people make any claims about the authorship of the gospels nor the identity of the authors. JM says that the apostles and disciples were illiterate.
> P104 (AD 150) has 7 verses of Matthew. Plus we have 9 fragments from the 3rd c. (P21, 64, 77, 103, 1, 45, 53, 70, and 101)
None have a title. Why did you bring this up?
> I have given you evidence of Matthean authorship. Where is your evidence of other authorship?
I do not know who wrote it. That's the scholarly consensus. It is really simple. The gospels do not tell us who wrote them nor the earliest Christians. It is Christians who come centuries later who tell us that. That solves two issues at once.
> As was elaborated, his concern was the Jewish law, Jewish ecclesiastical matters, Jewish prophecies, Jewish religious customs, the place of Moses, David, and Abraham, the history of Israel, and Jewish eschatology.
That does not mean that he himself was Jewish. That means that he had an interest in Jewish studies or Jewish proselytizing Jews. According to you white Egyptologists are Arab all of sudden because they have an interest in Egypt.
> and an Corinthian or Egyptian author don't fit anything else in the book. Palestinian is the most logical inference.
Palestinian is the best conclusion for an author who is fluent of Greek? You realize that we only have one example of one Palestinian Jew writing in Greek right? It is Josephus and even he himself says that he struggled. The most logical inference for a text written in Greek is and I hope this is not a surprise is a well-educated Greek Christian.
> Remember that part of your "evidence" for your point was writings written from 180 -1600.
Not sure what you are referring to? If you are referring to the extra-biblical writings then, I want evidence for that claim that they are from 180-1600.
> Of course you did, but that doesn't mean you're right. Because you say it doesn't make it so.
> And I agreed that it was an argument from silence, but the accumulation of silences is deafening.
You contradicted yourself there and I just told you that Several Extra-biblical writings do not record the same key events (like the Destruction of the temple) that are also not recorded in the gospels. I explained to you that an argument from silence is a fallacy and so you tried to salvage yourself by committing the fallacy several more times.
> Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Dionysius and Origen write of Peter's martyrdom. Polycarp, Origen, Eusebius, and Chrysostom confirm Ignatius’s martyrdom.
I will need some citations. The thing is that you keep making claims and claims without any evidence. Provide me the citation. Origen and Dionysus and Tertullian are writing too late that you might as well accept the extra-biblical accounts of the martyrdom of the other disciples like the martyrdom of Thomas in India in the Acts of Thomas, it is late unreliable evidence. Ignatius says nothing as far as I am aware and Clement only affirms that Peter died not that he was martyred. There is a huge difference. He died but did he die for his beliefs??
> 4th century?
I am giving you a range. You implied that it was written in the 16th century. I told you it was quoted before. You are the one claiming it is late. I am asking you why I should trust the canonicals over the extra-biblical accounts.
> Mark is quoted by Clement, Ignatius, Polykarp, the Didache, and Justin.
Oral tradition that later got recorded in Mark. Scroll up and you will realize that none of those people say that they were quoting anything let alone that they were quoting anything written let alone gMark.
Those "Quotations" are literally something like Ignatius saying that "Jesus came from Nazareth" and then claimed to be quoting Mark 1:9.
> As I said, just because the name is on it doesn't make it trustworthy,
Sure. They could be lying.
> just because it's anonymous doesn't make it untrustworthy
That's not true. Especially, historical records you must know the author's identity. If the document does not identify the author, it is fine, I will take contemporary attribution (Pliny the younger and Tacitus). If you do not even have that but people making that claim centuries later, it is useless.
> but corroborating ancient sources are unanimous and without challenge in their traditional attributions.
Correct, by unanimous, you really mean 3 Christians writing finally agreeing with one another 120 years later assuming the gospels were written around the turn of the first century.
And you commit an argument from silence in the latter part.
> The earliest attributions of authorship come within decades, not centuries. Ignatius and Clement of Rome, in the 1st century, quote from the Gospels. Hermas, in The Shepherd (AD 97) mentions that there are four Gospels. Tatian, in about 170, 1 century after the Gospels, writes a harmony of the 4.
Um...? None of these people make any claims whatsoever about who authored the gospels, they only acknowledge their existence. None of the people you quoted help you since none of them tell us who wrote the gospels. They only quote its content with the exception of Ignatius and Clement who are quoting oral tradition. Here are all the quotations made by Ignatius. All of them are vague and are not even claiming to be Quotations (he does not claim to be quoting material in other sources) and he does not indicate that the source is written rather than just quoting oral tradition of the stories at the time. Here are Polycarp's quotations which suffer from the same issue.
Again, I reiterate, none of the sources you just mentioned make any claims whatsoever about the identity of the gospel authors. They only quote the content.
> He claims to be an eyewitness in 1.14 and here in 21.24.
21:24 is a claim by someone else in the postscript and 1:14 is a claim by the collective Christian community.
> The statement about his having written the book is a definite statement that the Beloved Disciple wrote the book.
That's not his statement. That's someone LATER making that statement about the author who wrote these things.
The we is making a claim about the his and we have no idea who the we are nor do we have any idea about when they made that claim.
> We don't know the identity of the authors of most ancient documents and written artifacts.
That's not true. Many sources have the identification of the author within them. The gospel authors do not identify themselves. This is unlike many other ancient literary works in which the author’s name is included within the body of the text (most often in the prologue), such as Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (1:1), which states at the beginning: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, as they fought against each other.” The historians Herodotus (1:1), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.8.4), and Josephus (BJ 1.3) all likewise include their names in prologues. Sometimes an author’s name can also appear later in the text. In his Life of Otho (10.1), for example, the biographer Suetonius Tranquillus refers to “my father, Suetonius Laetus,” which thus identifies his own family name.
> Irenaeus lived from about 130-202: definitely 2nd century. His writings were in about 180, 2nd century.
> Clement of Alexandria was from 150-215. His books were probably written between 195-203. 2nd c. to the very beginning of the 3rd.
> Tertullian was around 160-220 or so. His writings date from 196-212. He is more possibly 3rd c., but not necessarily.
Ok well now you are the one disputing the scholarly consensus so you have to provide evidence for that. And Again, Irenaeus is writing in 180 CE and the consensus does not emerge until the third century writings.
> Clement circulated books throughout the churches. Irenaeus claims Clement knew the apostles. Tertullian says Clement was ordained by Peter. Ignatius mentions a Clement who is a helper of Peter. In his writings he acknowledges the authority of the Gospels by quoting from them, references Paul as a historical figure, writes of Peter's martyrdom, and tells us that the apostles fully believed in the resurrection of Christ. He nowhere contests the authorship of the Gospels (argument from silence, I know, but notable).
This is all unsubstantiated red herring. You made a claim that Clement tells us who wrote the gospels.
and here it is: "And you have completely neglected to mention Clement of Rome and Ignatius from the end of the 1st century."
None of what you said substantiates your original claim.
> Ignatius is said to have been a disciple of the apostle John. Theodoret reports that Peter appointed him to his position.
You provided no substantiation for the former and your latter is a 5th century source. Is it just me or are your arguments getting worse?
> We have a fragment of John from about 125.
No. Recent research puts it at 200 CE
> No one, but no one, says that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written that late.
There are a few proponents, but I would personally say that the evidence is not the most direct in both position with the later dating having the little bit more weight.
> The Church Fathers consistently and reliably quote from the Gospels as authoritative Scripture, starting at Clement (AD 90), continuing through the 2nd century (Ignatius, Barnabas of Alexandria,
Again, none of these people make any claims about the authorship of the gospels nor the identity of the authors and I would contest that they are quoting written sources. Scroll up for their "quotations".
> the Diatessaron, Justin Martyr—all 1st & 2nd century.) The Diatessaron all by itself proves my point.
Again, none of these people make any claims about the authorship of the gospels nor the identity of the authors. JM says that the apostles and disciples were illiterate.
> P104 (AD 150) has 7 verses of Matthew. Plus we have 9 fragments from the 3rd c. (P21, 64, 77, 103, 1, 45, 53, 70, and 101)
None have a title. Why did you bring this up?
> I have given you evidence of Matthean authorship. Where is your evidence of other authorship?
I do not know who wrote it. That's the scholarly consensus. It is really simple. The gospels do not tell us who wrote them nor the earliest Christians. It is Christians who come centuries later who tell us that. That solves two issues at once.
> As was elaborated, his concern was the Jewish law, Jewish ecclesiastical matters, Jewish prophecies, Jewish religious customs, the place of Moses, David, and Abraham, the history of Israel, and Jewish eschatology.
That does not mean that he himself was Jewish. That means that he had an interest in Jewish studies or Jewish proselytizing Jews. According to you white Egyptologists are Arab all of sudden because they have an interest in Egypt.
> and an Corinthian or Egyptian author don't fit anything else in the book. Palestinian is the most logical inference.
Palestinian is the best conclusion for an author who is fluent of Greek? You realize that we only have one example of one Palestinian Jew writing in Greek right? It is Josephus and even he himself says that he struggled. The most logical inference for a text written in Greek is and I hope this is not a surprise is a well-educated Greek Christian.
> Remember that part of your "evidence" for your point was writings written from 180 -1600.
Not sure what you are referring to? If you are referring to the extra-biblical writings then, I want evidence for that claim that they are from 180-1600.
> Of course you did, but that doesn't mean you're right. Because you say it doesn't make it so.
> And I agreed that it was an argument from silence, but the accumulation of silences is deafening.
You contradicted yourself there and I just told you that Several Extra-biblical writings do not record the same key events (like the Destruction of the temple) that are also not recorded in the gospels. I explained to you that an argument from silence is a fallacy and so you tried to salvage yourself by committing the fallacy several more times.
> Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Dionysius and Origen write of Peter's martyrdom. Polycarp, Origen, Eusebius, and Chrysostom confirm Ignatius’s martyrdom.
I will need some citations. The thing is that you keep making claims and claims without any evidence. Provide me the citation. Origen and Dionysus and Tertullian are writing too late that you might as well accept the extra-biblical accounts of the martyrdom of the other disciples like the martyrdom of Thomas in India in the Acts of Thomas, it is late unreliable evidence. Ignatius says nothing as far as I am aware and Clement only affirms that Peter died not that he was martyred. There is a huge difference. He died but did he die for his beliefs??
> 4th century?
I am giving you a range. You implied that it was written in the 16th century. I told you it was quoted before. You are the one claiming it is late. I am asking you why I should trust the canonicals over the extra-biblical accounts.
> Mark is quoted by Clement, Ignatius, Polykarp, the Didache, and Justin.
Oral tradition that later got recorded in Mark. Scroll up and you will realize that none of those people say that they were quoting anything let alone that they were quoting anything written let alone gMark.
Those "Quotations" are literally something like Ignatius saying that "Jesus came from Nazareth" and then claimed to be quoting Mark 1:9.