Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

[redleghunter]

Critical scholarship agrees that the writer of mark is the one that is saying this.

Yet they never offer evidence why.

But whatever, there are many more examples showing that one copied the other.

All theories ignoring the historical scholarship of those closest to the apostles.

 

[redleghunter]

So far you have not offered one iota of evidence that the four gospels were widely recognized as scripture in the first century, that they were widely known, or that they were copied by anybody other than a few barely literate people here and there in the first century.

Who was barely literate?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who was barely literate?

Many of the early Christians, and even the people who were copying texts.

 

[redleghunter]

Many of the early Christians, and even the people who were copying texts.

Matthew was a tax collector. He would have to be literate at least in Greek, his native language and most likely Latin.

John Mark was a Levite so he would not be illiterate. Paul was a Pharisee and Scribe. Luke was a doctor and historian.

There were many Pharisees and Scribes who became Christians as we know from the Judaizer conflicts in Galatians and Acts 15.

The textual skepticism does not support your claims based on a 98% reliable rating. You have to also consider in the period you have issue with 70-140 AD many of the autographs were most likely still in established churches like Ephesus, Philadelphia, Galatia, Jerusalem and many others.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Perhaps I posited on the other thread we are on. Doctor of the Church, bishop and historian St Augustine addressed Matthew as the first Gospel.

Augustine Harmony of the Gospels:

Chapter 2. On the Order of the Evangelists, and the Principles on Which They Wrote.
3. Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four — it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ — are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these had one order determined among them with regard to the matters of their personal knowledge and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different order in reference to the task of giving the written narrative. As far, indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own knowledge and the charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and who heard Him speak and saw Him act;

[...]

4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions.
CHURCH FATHERS: Harmony of the Gospels, Book I, Chapter 2 (Augustine)

St Jerome schloar, doctor and translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible.

“Jerome Preface to the Four Gospels - original Latin Text with English translation”

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters.

Jerome Preface to the Four Gospels

Church Historian Eusebius speaking of the works of Papias (early 2nd century AD):

On the Composition of Mark and Matthew, citing Papias [Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor; lived ca. 60-130 AD]:Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise.

Papias lived 60-130 AD. Eusebius had his works available to quote.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3 - On the Gospel Authorship

The witness of Clement opining on the early Presbyters witness of the Gospels and mention of Papias as well (60-130AD):

On the Composition of Mark, citing Clement of Alexandria [Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt; lived ca. 150-215]:And thus when the divine word had made its home among them [the Christians in Rome], the power of Simon [the magician] was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER'S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13). And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-2, 2.16.1)

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3 - On the Gospel Authorship

On the Composition and Order of all Four Gospels, again citing Clement of Alexandria:Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposes], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e. Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7).

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3 - On the Gospel Authorship

Eusebius was even a textual critic in his time:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to Carpianus on the gospel canons: English translation


Ok how deep do you want to go? There’s more and the actual works of the cited bishops and theologians.

Wait, you list men from the third and fourth centuries? How could they have known who wrote first and what language they wrote in? All they could do is repeat what they heard from tradition.

 

[redleghunter]

Wait, you list men from the third and fourth centuries? How could they have known who wrote first and what language they wrote in? All they could do is repeat what they heard from tradition.

Please read what they wrote and who they quoted and when those quoted lived. Also take note two are historians.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Please read what they wrote and who they quoted and when those quoted lived. Also take note two are historians.

The earliest I see is Clement of Alexandria in the late second century.

Eusebius is notoriously unreliable.

300 years is a long time. When they wrote of what had happened 300 years earlier, what could they do but tell us what church tradition told them?

 

[redleghunter]

The earliest I see is Clement of Alexandria in the late second century.

Eusebius is notoriously unreliable.

300 years is a long time. When they wrote of what had happened 300 years earlier, what could they do but tell us what church tradition told them?

They all quote Papias. That’s clearly in what I wrote. They were quoting the earlier works in their possession.

Why is Eusebius unreliable?

 

[mark kennedy]

The earliest I see is Clement of Alexandria in the late second century.

Eusebius is notoriously unreliable.

300 years is a long time. When they wrote of what had happened 300 years earlier, what could they do but tell us what church tradition told them?

So you think they are pulling quotes out of the air? Like I keep telling you, the churches had the Scriptures in their possession, the quotes from the ECF is just an indication of that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They all quote Papias. That’s clearly in what I wrote. They were quoting the earlier works in their possession.

Why is Eusebius unreliable?

Papias does not say who was first.

Papias describes Matthew as a book of sayings. that seems to be describing some other book than the book we call matthew.

Pappas shows a disdain for all written sources, and indicates he never read these books, and did not care to. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of these books. See Papias (Roberts-Donaldson)
.

 

[redleghunter]

Papias does not say who was first.

Papias describes Matthew as a book of sayings. that seems to be describing some other book than the book we call matthew.

Pappas shows a disdain for all written sources, and indicates he never read these books, and did not care to. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of these books. See Papias (Roberts-Donaldson)
.

Your inquiry here was the circulation of the Gospels. The testimony of Papias shows the circulation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So you think they are pulling quotes out of the air?

No, they told us what they found in church tradition. They often had no way of verifying that what they reported from ancient sources was true. They sometimes reported odd things, such as that the head of Judas became bigger than an oxcart, without showing any skeptism.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your inquiry here was the circulation of the Gospels. The testimony of Papias shows the circulation.

Papias describes a book written by Matthew and one by mark. His description does not seem to match the books that go by those names, so we don't know what he was referring to. Palias never saw the books, and saw no value in reading them. All this from a man who wrote a book on the sayings of jesus. The fact that he had no interest in reading these books, whatever they were, shows how marginalized any books about Jesus were in the church.

 

[redleghunter]

Papias describes a book written by Matthew and one by mark. His description does not seem to match the books that go by those names, so we don't know what he was referring to. Palias never saw the books, and saw no value in reading them. All this from a man who wrote a book on the sayings of jesus. The fact that he had no interest in reading these books, whatever they were, shows how marginalized any books about Jesus were in the church.

Regardless of whether he likes books or not he confirms the Gospels are in circulation.

The dismissal of Jerome, Eusebius and Augustine is quite absurd. What sources are you using which dismiss their scholarship of the early church period?

The Judas head comment is the normal skeptic internet rubbish we see a lot here.

Please start ponying up some credible sources instead of skeptic site snippets.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Regardless of whether he likes books or not he confirms the Gospels are in circulation.

No he does not. He confirms books by those names that were apparently something other than the gospels of Matthew and mark.

 

[redleghunter]

No Papias gave accounts on how Mark and Matthew composed their Gospel accounts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No Papias gave accounts on how Mark and Matthew composed their Gospel accounts.

How do you know he is describing the books we now call Matthew and Mark? He seems to be describing some other books.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Judas head comment is the normal skeptic internet rubbish we see a lot here.

Please start ponying up some credible sources instead of skeptic site snippets.

I gave you the link where eusebius quotes Papias as an authority that the body of Judas grew as large as an oxcart and a person named Matthew wrote sayings in Hebrew. You accept the Matthew statement as history but not the Judas statement. How did you decide what to believe?

 

[mark kennedy]

No, they told us what they found in church tradition. They often had no way of verifying that what they reported from ancient sources was true. They sometimes reported odd things, such as that the head of Judas became bigger than an oxcart, without showing any skeptism.

You have a real problem with equivocation and Rome isn't responsible for the Scriptures. Virtually all Christian communities had them, the ministry of the church is building up the body of believers. The foundation of Christian teaching is the Apostolic doctrine, that's why the New Testament is so important. If your going to ask questions regarding the evidence involved with the New Testament witness you should understand the New Testament witness is a primary source document.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have a real problem with equivocation and Rome isn't responsible for the Scriptures. Virtually all Christian communities had them, the ministry of the church is building up the body of believers. The foundation of Christian teaching is the Apostolic doctrine, that's why the New Testament is so important. If your going to ask questions regarding the evidence involved with the New Testament witness you should understand the New Testament witness is a primary source document.

May I suggest you have a cup of coffee, and then come back and explain how the above has anything to do with what I said?