Valid gospel authenticity/standard scholarship?

[MaxTresmond]

In a former debate, opponent Doug Kreuger raised the argument that most scholars do not agree with the traditional authors, and no scholar in Harvard, Boston U, Yale, Princeton, or any other major college takes this view.

Just out of curiosity, is this true?

[Jason Clark]

Depends who you ask, a skeptic will tell you it's true, other people will tell you it isn't.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

J P Holding does a good job here.

As for whether some scholars believe it, that depends on their worldview. The atheistic types propbably won't, any veracity in the Bible would spoil their religious beliefs. The Chrisitians may or may not depending on whether they subscribe to the "higher criticism" school. That basically turns theologians into atheists for all practical uses.

Other religions? Don't know, you'll have to ask them. Most aren't as antagonistic as atheists so they're more likely to give the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry I'm not more help, I'm suffering a bit of culture shock at the moment. Did you know there are people who expect you to justify every statement you make with at least a page of writing? Now I know why Glenn Miller writes so much.

[Vorkosigan]

The position that the names on the gospels are their actual writers is generally not held by serious scholars, conservative or liberal, Christian, atheistic, Buddhist or whatever. Check out any of the standard introductions to the NT, such as that of Bart Ehrman, Udo Schnelle or Raymond Brown. Schnelle in The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings -- a conservative and comprehensive introduction I highly recommend -- bluntly opens his discussion of the authorship of Luke with:

"The author of the Third Gospel is unknown." p. 240

Similarly, for Matthew, he writes:

The comment by Papias provides no basis for firm historical conclusions. p.219

and for John:

The different way in which the life of Jesus is portrayed, the independent theology, the numerous special traditions and the thought world explicitly oriented to the post-Easter perspective point to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel was not composed by an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. p. 474

Schnelle covers the arguments in detail. Ehrman's Intro text is the most introductory of the bunch, for that reason, it is probably the most accessible for you.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

<shrug> That's the consensus position, Solly. I referenced a standard work by a relatively conservative Christian scholar. The original poster asked what the consensus is. The overwhelming consensus is that the names on the gospels were placed there later. If this is not the consensus, can you show what is?

Just for FYI, what is Witherington's view on the authorship of the canonical gospels? Do you have some relevant cites?

Vorkosigan

[Solly]

Sorry Vork, I completely missed the point of the thread :frown:

As you were...

[ACFaith.Com]

Yeah, traditional authorship is rejected all across the board (a few would argue for Lucan authorship of Act and Luke though). Many conservatives like to use the Papias references without bothering to look at what scholars say about it. Most are convinced that it does NOT refer to canonical Matthew.

Papias mentions Matthew collecting the oracles written in Hebrew and translating them as best as he could.

Matthew is not just a sayings Gospel but includes narrative as we all know.

Further, it does not show signs of of being directly translatted from Hebrew or Aramaic.

Finally, "Papias' description of the 'sayings' recorded by matthew fails to correspond to the Gospel of Matthew in a third respect: a great deal of Matthew is identical with Mark, and most of it is in the same order. Since papias commented on Mark's order as being incorrect, one would expect him to say something about Matthew's agreement with Mark--if it were our Matthew which he had in mind." (Sanders & Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels).

Also, there are problems with this being the Mark most Christians think he is:

John mark was a (presumably aramaic-speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who became a Christian is hard to reconcile with the fact that his Gospel does not seem to be a translation from Aramaic (Hengel disagrees with this on the basis of the high number of Aramaic words).

Further, GMark seems dependent on tradition (perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greeek.

Finally GMark shows confused regarding Palestinian geeography (it could be contended that natives of a land sometimes fumble directions).

Maybe Papias is correct and that an earlier tradition did hold that Mark wrote Gmark but the Mark that did was probably amalgamated with John Mark. Some scholars do feel GMark contains a condensing of standard apostoilic preaching though.

Also, it seems slightly dubious that Papias gets the names rights when the rest of the Christian world as we can reconstruct it, seem not even to have been interested in the question. It is quite informative how the Gospels were quoted early 2d into late 2d.

Vinnie

[Jason Clark]

Fair's fair Vinnie.

Craig Blomberg doesn't agree with you. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

Greek was the most well know language of the world at that time, like English is today. [Jesus, Man or Myth] If Mark's gospel was written for a wider audience than just Jews then it would have to be written in Greek and the writer would have to speak it. The Palestinian geography may be slightly different today. We don't know exactly how it looked back then. Remeber also the church fathers claims that Mark copied down what Peter taught. What language would Peter have been teaching in, if he was not addressing a Jewish audience?

Yes the documents themselves are anonymous. There are however no other competitiors for the title of author.

Matthew is far more concerned with Jesus talking than his doing. Remove the talking from both and Mathew becomes shorter than Mark. (you can try this at home) The narrative seems to exist to link Jesus' speeches.

[ACFaith.Com]

I cringe when I hear Blomberg for some reason.

So Matthew is primarily a sayings gospel with some narrative elements just linking the thoughts together. Its all so perfectly clear now. Thank God for Papias and the conservative apologists who force-fit data to fit their conclusions! Matthew will not become a sayings document no matter how much you or anyone else tries to imagine it is one :bonk:

There are however no other competitiors for the title of author.

That is nonsense. That there are no other competitors does not prove the names we have are correct. I hope you are not implying this. The Gospels could have been purposefully written anonymously (Sanders & Davies Studying the Synoptic Gospels) so as to carry greater authority.

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

And do you deny marcan priotiy?

Vinnie

[jpholding]

I cringe when I hear Blomberg for some reason.

Fear tends to do that to a person. :rofl: I know already how frightened you are of any work that contradicts the point of view you prefer to believe.

Thank God for Papias and the conservative apologists who force-fit data to fit their conclusions!

Shall we cut the BS (baloney sandwiches), Vinnie? I'll put it simply:

Explain to me how we determine that Tacitus wrote the Annals.

Then explain to me why by the same degree of evidence, Matthew is not the authority behind the Gospel that bears his name.

Very simple. Shouldn't be too hard for a Master Genius like yourself who takes on the likes of me and Doherty to earn a name in the sun.

That there are no other competitors does not prove the names we have are correct. I hope you are not implying this.

Of course you hope this, because you have no answer to that argument (shades from Hengel, BTW, who you you perhaps regard as a raving fundy, but who knows). Universal attestation is a positive shoo-in for authorship in any other case, but for some reason you think your arguments are special. Why?

The Gospels could have been purposefully written anonymously (Sanders &amp; Davies Studying the Synoptic Gospels) so as to carry greater authority.

Why don't you just regurgitate the details of that little idea here for us?

[ACFaith.Com]

The trouble with arguing with idiots is that they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Vinnie

[Jaltus]

Actually, John is considered the author of the gospel, just not the final redactor. Read Brown for that. The reason is the relationship to I, II, and III John as well as Ockham's razor (the stupid "John the Elder" argument).

Most scholars today (contra Parson and Pervo) hold to a strong unity of Luke-Acts and accept Luke as the probable author, not that it really matters (it was somebody with Paul, as the navigation-log source and the non-participatory understandings of the "we" sections have been swept under the rug). This info comes from David Pao, just recently graduated from Harvard.

As for Matthew or Mark, Matthean authorship is the least dogmatically defended by anyone, and most just go with "author unknown, so let us just call him Matthew since there is no better candidate." Mark was probably written by someone who spoke Hebrew to some extent, or at least did not have very good Greek skills (the style is horribly unrefined). This is another one that really does not matter a ton.

[ACFaith.Com]

I don't have Brown's work on John (I plan to get it soon) but in his Intro to the NT he seems to favor the idea that a disciple of the "beloved disciple" (John) wrote the Gospel and the redactor, if there was one, may have been another disciple (see pp. 368-371). The internal evidenced and "advanced theological develpments" in GJohn seems to be explained easier if we posit a period of reflection.

And the strongest case for traditional authorship would have to, hands down, go to Luke-Acts. I have no major issues with Lucan authorship. I consider that position tenable though I have not dogmatically concluded Luke was the author.

Vinnie

[Jaltus]

The problem with Brown is that one tends to get lost in his discussion of the alleged communities (which frankly he makes up wholesale, since there is not a single shred of evidence for them), and then all of a sudden he talks about Johns version of the gospel versus te final redaction.

His discussion in his Epistles of John commentary seems to slightly go against his comments in his GJ commentary.

Ah, well, consistency is the defense of a small mind anyway.

[jpholding]

with idiots is that they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.



The delightful thing about intellectual cowards is that they find the most transparent excuses they can to avoid engaging direct questions that shatter their fantasies. :rofl: Why am I not surprised?

[Jaltus]

This is a question and answer forum. Please respect that.

In other words, leave the insults at the door when you enter the Liberal Arts Department.

Clear enough?

[ACFaith.Com]

I apologize for my earlier acts.

Vinnie

[jpholding]

Seeing as how Vinnie has declared that he won't answer me any more, it's just as well to address some of these arguments.

Matthew is not just a sayings Gospel but includes narrative as we all know.

Someone else here has addressed this point, so I will only add that the idea that logia means exclusively "sayings" is far from cut and dried.

Further, it does not show signs of of being directly translatted from Hebrew or Aramaic.

Whatever quality of Greek Mattew has, it remains that all of Jesus' words, and all descriptions of his deeds, would have originally been in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew, but not likely). Matthew therefore is a translation no matter how you cut it, and whether it is "direct" or not it is clear that there must have been certain steps to translate from Aramaic. The question is, how many quality steps were taken between the Aramaic original and the final Greek? We are able to detect translation primarily because a translator leaves certain linguistic hints in his translation, echoes if you will of the original language he translated from. Critics regularly argue that Matthew polished Mark's Greek. Well, if Matthew was so good at Greek, what prevented him from performing a polished translation to begin with? In short this is a non-argument that assumes what it needs to prove, here against the clear evidence of external attestation, which as noted is in most other cases a shoo-in for authroship determination, barring contrary evidence. The translation signs here are not direct evidence, but interpretive evidence, and therefore cannot trump external attestation or other factors. It also neglects the point that a person in Matthew's historical situation -- a tax collector -- would have been one of the most likely persons to be a competent bilingual, able to produce a decent Greek translation to begin with.

That said, it is also possible to agree with the classical scholar Kennedy that Greek Matthew is well seen as a post-Markan product that may well have been influenced by Mark. Either way this argument serves no purpose towards depriving Matthew of the authority behind the Gospel that bears his name.

Finally, "Papias' description of the 'sayings' recorded by matthew fails to correspond to the Gospel of Matthew in a third respect: a great deal of Matthew is identical with Mark, and most of it is in the same order. Since papias commented on Mark's order as being incorrect, one would expect him to say something about Matthew's agreement with Mark--if it were our Matthew which he had in mind." (Sanders & Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels).

Here again I refer to the classical scholar George Kennedy, who observed that contrary to what Vinnie implies here ("incorrect"), and in line with typical procedures of composition in ancient times, Papias' remark that Mark wrote "not in order" is not a criticism of Mark's gospel, but a reference to hypomnema, or what we might refer to as notes, on Peter's preaching. Papias is therefore actually stressing Mark's great care in composition: He did not simply grind out a narrative, but carefully wrote up notes based on Peter's preaching as he recalled it, and in the same order as Peter preached (which, being "individual sermons," would not reflect historical order, but the need of each audience and/or the occassion). The comment is therefore not saying that Mark's order is "incorrect" and there is also therefore no basis to claim that Papias would be expected to say something on the subject -- not that one could have said he didn't, since all we have is Eusebius' quote of Papias. In any event a situation arises again in which we may see, as Kennedy did, Greek Mark influencing the composition of Greek Matthew, and in no case at all giving us any reason to doubt external attestation and other evidences of Matthean authority.

John mark was a (presumably aramaic-speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who became a Christian is hard to reconcile with the fact that his Gospel does not seem to be a translation from Aramaic (Hengel disagrees with this on the basis of the high number of Aramaic words).

So does Casey, substantially, and Maloney showed that various "infelicities" of Mark's grammar and syntax reflect Semitic interference of the sort a translator would run into.

Further, GMark seems dependent on tradition (perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greeek.

From Peter, as has been pointed out.

Finally GMark shows confused regarding Palestinian geeography (it could be contended that natives of a land sometimes fumble directions).

All such cites of Markan mishaps in geography are bogus. Too bad Vinnie didn't give us examples to discuss.

Also, it seems slightly dubious that Papias gets the names rights when the rest of the Christian world as we can reconstruct it, seem not even to have been interested in the question.

Not interested presumably because it was not a question in the first place. Just goes to show how critics spin out the data to their purposes.

It is quite informative how the Gospels were quoted early 2d into late 2d.

But don't ask to be informed I suppose.

[Jaltus]

Actually Papias' remark about order (going off the top of my head) could refer to him NOT using Peter's order, but trying to get a bit more chronological.

[Xmansmommy]

Thank you Jaltus. I've been slacking. Sorry. :frown:

[jpholding]

Yo Jalt,

I think practically speaking, you and I would get the same result.

Aku says you one mean man. :smile:

[Jaltus]

JPH,

True, but to me method does matter. Not much, but a little (or so one of my readers tells me).

I also would like to see somewhere a discussion of the mix up in geography that allegedly occuers in Mark. I have done a lot of work on the theology of Mark and not paid a lot of attention to the narrative issues in Mark, so I could learn something from it.

[jpholding]

Jaltus,

I have a list at

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html#geo

I have four that are usually cited.

[Jaltus]

Ok, that is a good link.

Isn't Kummel a bit dated at this point in time anyway? I mean, I know people still refer to him, but honestly!

[jpholding]

Kummel probably is outdated, but certain people don't know that yet. Remember I still deal with people who cite 19th century writers as authorities! :smile:

[Vorkosigan]

Explain to me how we determine that Tacitus wrote the Annals.

Then explain to me why by the same degree of evidence, Matthew is not the authority behind the Gospel that bears his name.

1) JP, Tacitus is well attested to as the only author from the first century on, skipping a couple of centuries. The gospel attributed to "Matthew" appears to have been used but not named for quite some time. There is another thread on that here started by Iason who goes into some detail.

Roger Pearse's Tertullian Homepage gives the following data:
Mendell also gives an extensive list of witnesses to the text from the 1st century onwards. From this we can see that Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in every century down to and including the Sixth. The Seventh and Eighth centuries are the only ones that have left no trace of knowledge of our author4.

Around 400:

Ammianus Marcellinus publishes his history, starting where Tacitus left off.
Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine, Chronicorum Libri II, 29, uses Annals 15.37 and 15.44 as his source, for the marriage of Nero to Pythagoras and the punishment of the Christians. (I should add I don't know exactly what ties to what). English in ANF; Latin text is Sulpicius Severus. Sulpicii Severi libri qui supersunt. Ed. C. Halm. CSEL 1, Wien (1866). See also E.Laupot, Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000) 233-47
Jerome in his commentary on Zacchariah 14.1, 2 cites Tacitus as the author of a history from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, in 30 volumes.
Around 500:
Servius quotes a lost portion of the text in his commentary on the Aeneid 3.399.
Orosius used Tacitus, and quotes from now lost portions of the text. Cassiodorus quotes from the Germania 45. Jordanes quotes from the Agricola 10, and is the last author of antiquity to do so.


2) There is no comprehensible motive for attributing the Annals to a particular Roman senator, as opposed to any other person. Whereas there is powerful incentive for a later attribution to Matthew: to give historical weight to an anonymous document. <shrug> Where agendas exist, early data suggest that the gospel had no attribution, and in an environment where forgery was common and many documents redacted, interpolated, and edited and written in other's names, a conservative scholar might argue that there is no good reason to think that the gospel originally had Matthew's name appended to it.

Vorkosigan

[jpholding]

Howdy V,

JP, Tacitus is well attested to as the only author from the first century on, skipping a couple of centuries. The gospel attributed to &quot;Matthew&quot; appears to have been used but not named for quite some time.

I know of this argument, but do not see how it makes a difference. Quotations in antiquity did not consistently name authors. Even in the NT when the OT is cited, the name of the author is only rarely given. And were not attributions to Matthew likewise consistent through the centuries when they were given?

There is no comprehensible motive for attributing the Annals to a particular Roman senator, as opposed to any other person. Whereas there is powerful incentive for a later attribution to Matthew: to give historical weight to an anonymous document. &lt;shrug&gt;

Rather begs the question, doesn't it? :smile: It starts with the assumption of anonymity, then gives a reason for attribution, without showing why anonymity should be assumed in the first place. I can also think of a very comprehensible motive: the value of honor in the ancient Med. What would be better than a Roman senator, to apply honor to your work? And if not one in particular, why not another?

and in an environment where forgery was common and many documents redacted, interpolated, and edited and written in other's names

That's rather overarching and vague. I can see some arguing as well that the history of forgery makes for a good reason to apply attribution to a prestigious Roman senator and gives us reason to suspect all sorts of editing, interpolating, etc. I'd like to see a solid argument that can't be turned around based on a prior agenda by the commentator. That's what I seek, but I have yet to hear one. Any further suggestions?

[Jaltus]

I'd like to point out that the early Christian's immediately weeded out any forgeries or pseudonominus (sp?) materials that they could detect, and to be honest, I am much more likely to believe them than modern day scholars who are not fluent in the language and are getting copies from hundreds if not 1000 years after the fact of the original writing.

[Vorkosigan]

jpholding:
I know of this argument, but do not see how it makes a difference. Quotations in antiquity did not consistently name authors. Even in the NT when the OT is cited, the name of the author is only rarely given. And were not attributions to Matthew likewise consistent through the centuries when they were given?

Quite true. But we do know that the gospel attributed to Matthew did not have that name associated with it until long after it was written. Whereas there is no such known gap in Tacitus. Matthew first appears anonymously, as far as anyone can tell, Tacitus with his name attached.

Additionally, there are other good reasons to think that writer of "Matthew" was not an eyewitness, as I am sure you are aware from the shelf of references I know you possess. These also factor into thinking about the attribution.

Vork:There is no comprehensible motive for attributing the Annals to a particular Roman senator, as opposed to any other person. Whereas there is powerful incentive for a later attribution to Matthew: to give historical weight to an anonymous document. &amp;lt;shrug&amp;gt;

Rather begs the question, doesn't it? :smile: It starts with the assumption of anonymity, then gives a reason for attribution, without showing why anonymity should be assumed in the first place. I can also think of a very comprehensible motive: the value of honor in the ancient Med. What would be better than a Roman senator, to apply honor to your work? And if not one in particular, why not another?

We don't start with the assumption that the gospel is anonymous; we note in the historical record that the first mention of a name with that gospel occurs late in the record that we have even though the gospel is mentioned earlier.

Again, there is no reason to think otherwise about Tacitus. Even if it is not by Tacitus, it is no big deal so long as it is accurate to the extent that we know it is. On the other hand, for some it is vitally important that the gospel attributed to Matthew actually have been from the hand of the disciple of that name; supplying a powerful motive for attributing an anonymous writing to him. The addition of that name gives the document an authenticity it otherwise would not have.

and in an environment where forgery was common and many documents redacted, interpolated, and edited and written in other's names

That's rather overarching and vague.

Not really. The early Christian movement was, as we both know, a forgery mill. The NT itself preserves at least a half dozen letters attributed to Paul that are not by him. James and Jude are generally thought to be borrowed names, and so on. It was clearly a habit of early Christian writers to use the names of figures from earlier in the movement to add weight to their writing. So that habit has to be factored into any discussion about the authorship of Matthew. It doesn't prove anything, of course, but in conjuction with other arguments, such as Matthew's probable use of a sayings gospel, his use of Mark, etc, it strongly suggests that Matthew the apostle was not the author of the gospel that bears his name, as the consensus scholarly position avers.

I can see some arguing as well that the history of forgery makes for a good reason to apply attribution to a prestigious Roman senator and gives us reason to suspect all sorts of editing, interpolating, etc.

I am sure you know that in the 18th century there was a circle of scholars who claimed the Annals was a forgery.

I'd like to see a solid argument that can't be turned around based on a prior agenda by the commentator. That's what I seek, but I have yet to hear one. Any further suggestions?

How is Tacitus a "prestigious" Roman senator? He's just a name from history! Whereas Matthew is an important witness to Jesus, if the gospel was really written by him. And again, there are independent text-critical reasons to suspect the writer of Matthew was not an apostle, whereas there are no text-critical issues in Tacitus that suggest the writer was not a high-ranking Roman. I am reminded that of the old joke that recent scholarship has shown that the Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name. :smile:

Vorkosigan

[jpholding]

Howdy V,

I just got a note from Roger Pearse -- I think you may be misunderstanding his material, and I rather thought so, because my specific question was, "How do we know Tacitus wrote the Annals?" You replied with, "Mendell also gives an extensive list of witnesses to the text from the 1st century onwards." But the Annals were published in 116 -- the second century, as I remembered! How can there be a first century witness to a text published in the 2nd?!?

Anyway, Pearse sent me copies of the pages, and here is what Mendell says in full:

THE Annals were probably "published" in 116, the last of the works of Tacitus to appear. Only Pliny of Tacitus' contemporaries mentions him, and his writings and the evidence of subsequent use up to the time of Boccaccio is slight. It is not true, however, that Tacitus and his writings were practically unknown. They were neglected----possibly, in part at least, because of his strong republican bias on the one hand and because, on the other, the church fathers felt him to be unfair to Christianity. Vopiscus in his life of the emperor Tacitus (chapter 10) indicates the state of affairs in the third century: "Cornelium Tacitum, scriptorem historiae Augustae, quod parentem suum eundem diceret, in omnibus bibliothecis conlocari iussit neve lectorum incuria deperiret, librum per an-nos singulos decies scribi publicitus evicos archiis iussit et in bibliothecis poni" (the text is obviously corrupt in the reading evicos archiis).

Nevertheless, Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in each century down to and including the sixth. In fact, the seventh and eighth are the only centuries that have as yet furnished no evidence of knowing him. The following are the known references to Tacitus or use of Tacitean material after the day of Tacitus and Pliny until the time of Boccaccio. The material was well collected in 1888 and published at Wetzler by Emmerich Cornelius, but a considerable amount of new material has turned up from time to time since.
About the middle of the second century Ptolemy published his Gewgrafikh& 'Ufh&ghsij. In 2. 11. 12 (ed. C. Muller, Paris, 1883) he lists in succession along the northern shore of Germany the towns of Flhou&m, and Siatouta&nda. The latter name occurs nowhere else and has a dubious sound. The explanation is to be found in Tacitus, Ann. 4. 72, 73: "Rapti qui tributo aderant milites et patibulo adfixi; Olennius infensos fuga prae-venit, receptus castello, cui nomen Flevum; et haud spernendallic civium sociorumque manus litora Oceani praesidebat." The governor of lower Germany takes prompt action, the account of which winds up: "utrumque exercitum Rheno devectum Frisiis intulit, soluto iam castelli obsidio et ad sua tutanda degressis rebellibus." The source of Ptolemy's mistake is obvious.

So this is actually the first evidence that the Annals existed, but it isn't an attribution. Indeed it's an example of citation without attribution as I noted. I can bring more forward if you want, but it looks to me like you're not reading Pearse right. I asked for witnesses to attribution, not merely witnesses to the text.

But we do know that the gospel attributed to Matthew did not have that name associated with it until long after it was written.

Er, no we don't. All we "know" is that some persons cited Matthew's text without naming him. By that same standard as the above use of Tacitus, we could say, "the history attributed to Tacitus..."

Whereas there is no such known gap in Tacitus.

No? Ptolemy seems to offer such an (ahem) gap. The second cite Mendell offers is about the same:

It is hard to believe that Cassius Dio (who published shortly after A.D. 200) did not know at least the Agricola. In 38. 50 and 66. 20 he mentions Gnaeus Julius Agricola as having proved Britain to be an island and in the later instance tells the story of the fugitive Usipi. If we make allowance for the method of Tacitus, which leaves his account far from clear, and for the use of a different language by Dio, there can be little if any doubt that Tacitus is the source for Dio. We know also of no other possible source today. The last part of the section, dealing with Agricola's return and death, confirms the conclusion that Dio drew from Tacitus, and it sounds as though Tacitus had left the impression he desired.

IOW no mention of Tacitus by name.

Matthew first appears anonymously, as far as anyone can tell, Tacitus with his name attached.

Not according to what Mendell says above.

Additionally, there are other good reasons to think that writer of "Matthew" was not an eyewitness, as I am sure you are aware from the shelf of references I know you possess

I have a full list of the usual arguments. But I'd like to stick to external evidence for the present to keep things streamlined.

We don't start with the assumption that the gospel is anonymous; we note in the historical record that the first mention of a name with that gospel occurs late in the record that we have even though the gospel is mentioned earlier.

By that same standard then you will have to "note in the historical record" the same for the Annals, etc. I am looking over Mendell's list and the first clear statements to the effect, "Tacitus wrote the Annals" (or Histories) comes from the 3rd century where Tertullian alludes to a passage and names Tacitus. That's mixed in with a couple more "anonymous" cites.

Again, there is no reason to think otherwise about Tacitus. Even if it is not by Tacitus, it is no big deal so long as it is accurate to the extent that we know it is. On the other hand, for some it is vitally important that the gospel attributed to Matthew actually have been from the hand of the disciple of that name; supplying a powerful motive for attributing an anonymous writing to him.

I'd say it's no big deal if it's not by Matthew either as long as it is accurate. Why the 2x standard? :smile: The application of motive remains a begged question.

Jaltus has addressed the point about pseudox, and I am sure you know of Glenn Miller's huge article on this subject, and mine, on certain of Paul's letters and his one Peters/Jude. I don't know if you'd care to take a long tangent on this but I'd say you're supporting one weak reed with another.

Matthew's probable use of a sayings gospel, his use of Mark, etc, it strongly suggests that Matthew the apostle was not the author of the gospel that bears his name, as the consensus scholarly position avers.

Matthew's alleged use of Mark means very little. I do allow that Greek Matthew was influcned by Greek Mark, but there is nothing at all that forbids a Matthew from using a Mark.

I am sure you know that in the 18th century there was a circle of scholars who claimed the Annals was a forgery.

Yup. And unlike modern Biblical scholarship of certain respects, Tacitean scholarship caught on to the joke. :smile:

How is Tacitus a "prestigious" Roman senator? He's just a name from history!

Gragh...HOW is he...? I can't believe you asked a question that answers itself! Are you serious here?

And again, there are independent text-critical reasons to suspect the writer of Matthew was not an apostle,

Well, when we get through with external issues feel free to bring some of that to the fore. Take care.

[roger_pearse]

Today @ 05:54 AM
Jaltus:

I'd like to point out that the early Christians immediately weeded out any forgeries or pseudonymous materials that they could detect, and to be honest, I am much more likely to believe them than modern day scholars who are not fluent in the language and are getting copies from hundreds if not 1000 years after the fact of the original writing.

On this theme, we have the witness ca. 200 of Tertullian, De Baptismo 17, 5:

"But if certain Acts of Paul, which are falsely so named,
claim the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and
to baptize, let men know that in Asia the presbyter who com-
piled that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul's
reputation, was found out, and though he professed he had
done it for love of Paul, was deposed from his position." (Evans translation, 1964, p.37). http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_bapt/evans_bapt_text_trans.htm

The Acts of Paul are quite orthodox in doctrine. The section referred to circulated separately as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and is quite interesting all of itself. It includes a picture of Paul's appearance; people have argued whether it might reflect some real local tradition of what Paul looked like.

Tertullian has many more interesting things to say about scripture, but a free and easy attitude to interpolation and amendment is not one of them. His Adversus Marcionem attacks Marcion at enormous length for so doing.

I'm not sure, psychologically, that people can treat books they themselves regard as holy that way. If a book is holy to me, it's a grievous sin if I rewrite it, surely?

Perhaps I may be forgiven a quick plug for the Tertullian Project (http://www.tertullian.org)?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Jaltus]

The "physical description" of Paul is not really a physical description at all. In fact, I would recommend Richard Bauckham's "The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts" in The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: Volume 1, Ancient Literary Setting edited by Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke.

[Vorkosigan]

I'd like to point out that the early Christians immediately weeded out any forgeries or pseudonymous materials that they could detect, and to be honest, I am much more likely to believe them than modern day scholars who are not fluent in the language and are getting copies from hundreds if not 1000 years after the fact of the original writing.

Then how did they miss the half a dozen letters of Paul forged in his name later?

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

So this is actually the first evidence that the Annals existed, but it isn't an attribution. Indeed it's an example of citation without attribution as I noted. I can bring more forward if you want, but it looks to me like you're not reading Pearse right. I asked for witnesses to attribution, not merely witnesses to the text.

Yes, but the Annals were always attributed to Tacitus. Are they unattributed or attributed to another? Is there any reason to suspect that a Roman senator was not the author?

Er, no we don't. All we &quot;know&quot; is that some persons cited Matthew's text without naming him. By that same standard as the above use of Tacitus, we could say, &quot;the history attributed to Tacitus...&quot;

Why not? It is unimportant who wrote it so long as it is accurate.

IOW no mention of Tacitus by name.

Looks like you are right. <shrug>

Vork:Additionally, there are other good reasons to think that writer of &quot;Matthew&quot; was not an eyewitness, as I am sure you are aware from the shelf of references I know you possess

JP: I have a full list of the usual arguments. But I'd like to stick to external evidence for the present to keep things streamlined.

No problem. But readers should be aware that the consensus is based on the internal evidence, not the external.

By that same standard then you will have to &quot;note in the historical record&quot; the same for the Annals, etc. I am looking over Mendell's list and the first clear statements to the effect, &quot;Tacitus wrote the Annals&quot; (or Histories) comes from the 3rd century where Tertullian alludes to a passage and names Tacitus. That's mixed in with a couple more &quot;anonymous&quot; cites.

Like I said, I have no problem with that.

I'd say it's no big deal if it's not by Matthew either as long as it is accurate. Why the 2x standard? :smile: The application of motive remains a begged question.

No, it is not a begged question. The internal evidence suggests that the gospel is not by an apostle, which is why the consensus agrees that it is not. The application of motive then becomes an important question. The name must have been appended to the gospel to enhance its authenticity. That was not exactly uncommon in antiquity.

Jaltus has addressed the point about pseudox, and I am sure you know of Glenn Miller's huge article on this subject, and mine, on certain of Paul's letters and his one Peters/Jude. I don't know if you'd care to take a long tangent on this but I'd say you're supporting one weak reed with another.

No, I am supporting one scholarly concensus with another, long held, that some of the letters of Paul are forgeries written later in his name. The only people who do not hold this view are religious conservatives, by and large, and so the question of motive, always an issue in these discussions, asserts itself. The mainstream utterly rejects the position that the entire Pauline corpus is genuine.

Matthew's alleged use of Mark means very little. I do allow that Greek Matthew was influcned by Greek Mark, but there is nothing at all that forbids a Matthew from using a Mark.

No, but as you are aware, if Matthew really knew Jesus, he probably would not have found it necessary to copy Mark so closely, as well as rely on a sayings document to obtain the sayings of Jesus.

How is Tacitus a &quot;prestigious&quot; Roman senator? He's just a name from history!

Gragh...HOW is he...? I can't believe you asked a question that answers itself! Are you serious here?

Very. Tacitus is a Roman senator; there were thousands of them throughout Roman history. Why should a forger pick that name out of the hat? There were far more prestigious names than that. The only reason anyone knows his name is precisely because he wrote a history!

In any case, the point is moot. There is no reason to suspect the attribution of the Annals; there is in the case of Matthew. As the consensus of scholars suggests.

Vorkosigan

[undead]

Today @ 10:23 AM
Vorkosigan:
how did they miss the half a dozen letters of Paul forged in his name later?
Vorkosigan

The arguments of the sceptics will remain forever speculations without substantive evidence. That is the ultimate reality.

Not only that, but they are faced with making out various 2nd century believers to be liars (e.g. Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John), without any evidence at all.

I guess a thousand years from now, scepticism will have progressed no further, except that the tomes written by the sceptics will have increased 10,000 fold.

[jpholding]

Heya Vork,

Then how did they miss the half a dozen letters of Paul forged in his name later?

Explain -- what letters and who missed what? If you mean the canonical letters, ya still need to stop begging the question. :smile: We can get to why you think ya don't later.

Yes, but the Annals were always attributed to Tacitus. Are they unattributed or attributed to another? Is there any reason to suspect that a Roman senator was not the author?

Likewise the Gospels were always attributed to those named thereupon -- the one exception was a very late attribution of John to Cerinthius, and Roger tells me that that claim was greeted with a hail of edibles. As for suspicions, that of course gets into internal evidence, so feel free now to give me some internal reasons why (to start) Matthew is not behind Matthew.

Er, no we don't. All we "know" is that some persons cited Matthew's text without naming him. By that same standard as the above use of Tacitus, we could say, "the history attributed to Tacitus..."

Why not? It is unimportant who wrote it so long as it is accurate.

Just as I have said. :smile:

IOW no mention of Tacitus by name.

Looks like you are right. <shrug>

Well, you seemed very confident before. I hope you have not been using these arguments elsewhere without verification. Such would deserve more than a shrug, would it not? :smile:

No problem. But readers should be aware that the consensus is based on the internal evidence, not the external.

The material I have read places no more weight on one than the other, but go ahead and give us a list since you are now basing the argument of motive on this point.

No, I am supporting one scholarly concensus with another, long held, that some of the letters of Paul are forgeries written later in his name.

Then we will discuss details of that "consensus" in turn. I find (even as JAT Robinson did) that the consensus is more a case of academic laziness and incest.

No, but as you are aware, if Matthew really knew Jesus, he probably would not have found it necessary to copy Mark so closely, as well as rely on a sayings document to obtain the sayings of Jesus.

Other than that I don't see a need to have Matthew relying on Mark -- Albert Lord found oral tradition a sufficient explanation for the similarities, and George Kennedy, a classicist with no interest in the debate's outcome, favored a Griesbachian hypothesis -- you're assuming that the sayings doc was a source rather than a parallel document also authored by Matthew.

Tacitus is a Roman senator; there were thousands of them throughout Roman history. Why should a forger pick that name out of the hat?

1) The hypothetical forger needed someone who lived in the time up until the history he recorded. That limits his choices severely.

2) He may have found Tacitus mentioned by Pliny.

3) His credentials (great fame as an orator, being proconsul of Asia, one of two "jewels in the administrative cursus under senatorial control"; being part of a body of priests "who had charge of the Sibylline books and many of the special festivals of the Roman state," at a time when this priestly body was "of the utmost importance"; reaching the consulship, "Rome's highest office," in 97 A.D.; personal contacts (marrying a daughter of Julius Agricola, the governor of Britain).

I am of course being facetious in playing the role of a "Tacitean conspiratist". I don't believe any of this is reason to support an idea of forgery, any more than it is for the Gospels.

In any case, the point is moot. There is no reason to suspect the attribution of the Annals; there is in the case of Matthew. As the consensus of scholars suggests.

I see no reason to suspect Matthew as yet. Do tell. :smile:

[Jaltus]

Then how did they miss the half a dozen letters of Paul forged in his name later?
I take it you did not actually read my post. Let us try again:I'd like to point out that the early Christians immediately weeded out any forgeries or pseudonymous materials that they could detect, and to be honest, I am much more likely to believe them than modern day scholars who are not fluent in the language and are getting copies from hundreds if not 1000 years after the fact of the original writing.
Hmmm, who is more likely to be correct, scholars writing over 1000 years after the composition of said books who do not speak nor write the language fluently, or people who were there when the books were written, spoke, read, and wrote the language as their every day discourse, and who were actively putting false works off to the side? I'd go with the church over the "experts" of today. After all, who is going to know English better, a monk from Tibet who can read English, or someone from an English-speaking country?