"Second-century testimony is unanimous...

[robto]

J. P. Holding challenges (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/masoud01.html) anyone to respond to his articles here, so here I am. Most of the site seems to be restricted to "Christian only" or "Theist only", though, so I'm already skeptical of his claim that "Our people WANT some serious interactions and challenges." But for what it's worth...

On this page (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html) Holding writes If the Gospels are anonymous, why is there no other surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name.

This is just wrong. First of all, most 2nd-century writers simply refer to "the gospels" without names, or even "the gospel", as if there was only one they knew of (for instance the Apology of Aristides (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html) ). That is, the gospels are unattributed throughout most of this period. This is why scholars say the gospels were anonymous.

Papias is the exception. He mentions only Mark and Matthew, though. Why didn't he mention Luke? Why didn't he mention John, whom he supposedly knew (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4)?

Justin provides another disproof of Holding. In his DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html) Justin writes And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder...

Here he attributes the gospel of Mark (the only gospel to mention the "sons of thunder") as the "memoirs" of either Jesus (as the capitalization in this translation implies) or of Peter (the more likely option).

It isn't until Irenaeus (writing around 170 AD) that the traditional attributions show up.

Finally, the gospel of John is attributed to the gnostic Cerinthus by Caius (Gaius), writing around 200 AD. (W. Kuemmel, Intro. to the New Testament, p.196) This attribution is still around in the 4th century (Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3)

So, in contradiction to Holding's claim, most 2nd century authors don't attribute the gospels to anyone, and those that do are by no means unanimous.

[Adam]

J. P. Holding challenges (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/masoud01.html) anyone to respond to his articles here, so here I am. Most of the site seems to be restricted to "Christian only" or "Theist only", though, so I'm already skeptical of his claim that "Our people WANT some serious interactions and challenges." But for what it's worth...

On this page (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html) Holding writes If the Gospels are anonymous, why is there no other surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name.

This is just wrong. First of all, most 2nd-century writers simply refer to "the gospels" without names, or even "the gospel", as if there was only one they knew of (for instance the Apology of Aristides ). That is, the gospels are unattributed throughout most of this period. This is why scholars say the gospels were anonymous.
Right, I noticed the error when JPH said it. The Muratorian Canon is dated to 170 A. D. and it says that the primary author of The Gospel of John was Andrew, who wrote it in conjunction with other apostles. I have written extensively on the writing of John, and I have shown that the Murarorian Canon is correct. I show that Andrew wrote the Signs Gospel part, the Apostle John edited it together with the Discourses that Nicodemus had recorded, and John Mark added the final touches in what we have now.
Yes, Mark was written by Mark from Peter's recollections. Matthew did not write the gospel of that name, but did write the Q document underlying Matthew and Luke as well as Mark somewhat.
Adam

[James Peter]

How, pray, do you demonstrate that Adam and if you have actually done more than simply make unproven assertions why aren't your theories accepted in the academic mainstream?

[jpholding]

This is just wrong. First of all, most 2nd-century writers simply refer to "the gospels" without names,

You missed the point, stupid. :doh:

The argument is that we don't have eg, Matthew's gospel being referred to as by Jerry, or Luke's gospel referred to as by Fred. In other words, no other name is tacked on to them than those we now have. Look, THIS is what I say:

If the Gospels are anonymous, why is there no other surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels?

Comments that give no names for the authors have nothing to do with my argument -- which by the way, comes from Martin Hengel, a NT scholar you couldn't touch with a 500 foot pole.

That is, the gospels are unattributed throughout most of this period. This is why scholars say the gospels were anonymous.

Big whoop anyway. As I noted elsewhere in the article, but you didn't mention, there are examples of documents like the works of Tacitus being mentioned without attribution, yet no one uses this to argue that his works were anonymous at the time that the mention was made. :duh: That's just a plain stupid argument, to claim that lack of mention of attribution means the author was unknown. It would mean that any time the NT cites the OT and doesn't name an author (which is nearly all the time), the Jews of the first century thought those works were anonymous or didn't know who the author was.

I mean, come on, do some HOMEWORK for a change! Get into some real data, don't just skiddle over the latest Robert Ingersoll tripe and think that's all there is to it!

Papias is the exception. He mentions only Mark and Matthew, though. Why didn't he mention Luke? Why didn't he mention John, whom he supposedly knew (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4)?

Whether he did or not is unknown, since Eusebius doesn't quote him one way or the other about Luke or John. Eusebius quoted him on Matthew and Mark to make a specific point about Matthew and Mark, not to inform your ignorance on the authorship of all 4 Gospels.

Justin provides another disproof of Holding.

Here he attributes the gospel of Mark (the only gospel to mention the "sons of thunder") as the "memoirs" of either Jesus (as the capitalization in this translation implies) or of Peter (the more likely option).

Good night you are stupid. You got this from Acharya S, didn't you?

Justin's reference to "Memoirs of the Apostles" is recognized by everyone except unqualified sources as reference to the Gospels. They would not be called "gospels" when they were written, or for quite some time, because the word "gospel" was used originally to signify the kerygmatic message of the church, and to refer to four "gospels" would imply four entirely different messages. Justin's term "memoirs" is the same term used to refer to the "memoirs" or reminisces of Socrates, compiled in four books by Xeneophon.


It isn't until Irenaeus (writing around 170 AD) that the traditional attributions show up.

I guess Papias was after 170 huh. Either way, still better evidence than Tacitus has, which you want to ignore.

Finally, the gospel of John is attributed to the gnostic Cerinthus by Caius (Gaius), writing around 200 AD. (W. Kuemmel, Intro. to the New Testament, p.196) This attribution is still around in the 4th century (Epiphanius, Panarion 51.3)

Oops. I mention that in my article on John:

The anti-Montanists attributed John's Gospel to Cerinthus. However, the anti-Montanists disliked John's Gospel. To attribute it to a heretic was certainly the fastest way for them to discredit it! But this is also related to our next objection:

The Gnostic language of John would not have been used by an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. This is a patently incorrect assertion in two ways. First, it assumes that the language in John is Gnostic, which it is not. Although as recently as 1957, F. C. Grant called John a "Hellenistic" Gospel, and called all such suppositions of connections to Qumranite ideas a "wish fathering the thought" [Gran.GOG, 175], it is now recognized that John is perhaps the most Jewish of the Gospels, and that a better connection than Hellenism is made with similar thought processes found in the documents at Qumran (see Chars.JDSS]). Furthermore, at every crucial point, the Gospel of John is in tension with, and even repudiates, a Gnostic point of view [Pric.INP, 588n] - though of course, the Gnostics were such syncretists that this would be no barrier to them! (Hmmm, do you suppose they suggested that the anti-Gnostic stuff was an interpolation?) At best, some similarities may be noted with the Jewish-Hellenist Philo of Alexandria, but no one would call Philo a Gnostic.

Second, this puts the cart before the horse: It assumes a late date for John, who uses Gnostic language, where it would be better to see that Gnostics took over the language of John (and, we add, that of the Qumranites). The "Gnostic John" thesis, at any rate, receives no respect among the scholarly community today.

And besides all that, LOOK at what I say:

Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name.

200 AD is the third century. :doh:

Try reading a little more carefully and thoroughly next time, and see about responding to ALL that I say on a subject, not just 2% of what I say that you pick out of your hat because you think it is an easy hit.

[Adam]

How, pray, do you demonstrate that, Adam, and if you have actually done more than simply make unproven assertions, why aren't your theories accepted in the academic mainstream?
Good question, JP.
I only have two Master's Degrees, so without a doctorate in the particular field I had no chance of being published in the best journals. One second-tier journal showed interest, but Biblical Theology Bulletin insisted that I must use their very idiosyncratic style sheet. When I submitted my article on John, it happened that the former editor had a turgid review of the Johannine literature that he wanted published, and my article was pushed aside so the current editor could suck up to his Roman Catholic superiors.
The article was eventually published nine years later in 1989 in the Cincinnatus Society Journal, but the relevant scholars do not read the house-organ of an ultra-high-IQ society.
As for my book on John, I never submitted it for publication because it required a reader with an IQ as high as mine, a thorough knowledge of all the Higher Criticism on John, and an open mind. I could count the number of such people on one hand.
As for re-writing my original article, my manic period in which I could support my family full-time and write full-time soon passed, and a propitious time to write a learned article never presented itself again.
As they say, a prophet is without honor in his own time (or something like that).
Adam

[jpholding]

By the way Adam,

I would have no objection to your thesis in and of itself. But our
"guest" wouldn't be happy with it so it's fine with me.

[robto]

You missed the point, stupid. :doh:

Ad hominem right off the bat. So much for reasoned debate.

The argument is that we don't have eg, Matthew's gospel being referred to as by Jerry, or Luke's gospel referred to as by Fred. In other words, no other name is tacked on to them than those we now have. Look, THIS is what I say:

If the Gospels are anonymous, why is there no other surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels?

Yeah, I got that point. I was making another one, which you seem to have missed: lack of attribution (except for Papias - I thought that ought to have been clear from the context) for about 140 years after Jesus's death is an important fact in itself. And as for "another author", the statement is simply wrong, as you implicitly admit below.

Comments that give no names for the authors have nothing to do with my argument -- which by the way, comes from Martin Hengel, a NT scholar you couldn't touch with a 500 foot pole.

Not an NT scholar, never said I was.

Big whoop anyway. As I noted elsewhere in the article, but you didn't mention, there are examples of documents like the works of Tacitus being mentioned without attribution, yet no one uses this to argue that his works were anonymous at the time that the mention was made. :duh: That's just a plain stupid argument, to claim that lack of mention of attribution means the author was unknown. It would mean that any time the NT cites the OT and doesn't name an author (which is nearly all the time), the Jews of the first century thought those works were anonymous or didn't know who the author was.

And the reason attribution is lacking for 140 years would be...?

I mean, come on, do some HOMEWORK for a change! Get into some real data, don't just skiddle over the latest Robert Ingersoll tripe and think that's all there is to it!

Never heard of the man.

Whether he did or not is unknown, since Eusebius doesn't quote him one way or the other about Luke or John. Eusebius quoted him on Matthew and Mark to make a specific point about Matthew and Mark, not to inform your ignorance on the authorship of all 4 Gospels.

Eusebius is very thorough. He mentions earlier writers who mention the gospels (and other NT books) whenever possible. Why would he omit quoting Papias on John and Luke?

Good night you are stupid. You got this from Acharya S, didn't you?

Ad hominem again. Never read Ms. S. My, aren't you the one for jumping to conclusions based on no data whatsoever!

Justin's reference to "Memoirs of the Apostles" is recognized by everyone except unqualified sources as reference to the Gospels. They would not be called "gospels" when they were written, or for quite some time, because the word "gospel" was used originally to signify the kerygmatic message of the church, and to refer to four "gospels" would imply four entirely different messages. Justin's term "memoirs" is the same term used to refer to the "memoirs" or reminisces of Socrates, compiled in four books by Xeneophon.

This was exactly my point. It IS a reference to a gospel (most likely the one we call Mark) - but he attributes it to Peter, or, possibly Jesus. This is exactly what makes your claim of "unanimity" wrong. Got it yet?


I guess Papias was after 170 huh. Either way, still better evidence than Tacitus has, which you want to ignore.

Oops. I mention that in my article on John:

The anti-Montanists attributed John's Gospel to Cerinthus. However, the anti-Montanists disliked John's Gospel. To attribute it to a heretic was certainly the fastest way for them to discredit it!
Regardless, it is still an attribution to someone other than the apostle John, hence disproves your claim of unanimity.

But this is also related to our next objection:

The Gnostic language of John would not have been used by an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. This is a patently incorrect assertion in two ways. First, it assumes that the language in John is Gnostic, which it is not. Although as recently as 1957, F. C. Grant called John a "Hellenistic" Gospel, and called all such suppositions of connections to Qumranite ideas a "wish fathering the thought" [Gran.GOG, 175], it is now recognized that John is perhaps the most Jewish of the Gospels, and that a better connection than Hellenism is made with similar thought processes found in the documents at Qumran (see Chars.JDSS]). Furthermore, at every crucial point, the Gospel of John is in tension with, and even repudiates, a Gnostic point of view [Pric.INP, 588n] - though of course, the Gnostics were such syncretists that this would be no barrier to them! (Hmmm, do you suppose they suggested that the anti-Gnostic stuff was an interpolation?) At best, some similarities may be noted with the Jewish-Hellenist Philo of Alexandria, but no one would call Philo a Gnostic.


Just to pull two references that are handy, Kuemmel discusses the relationship of John to Qumran and Gnosticism on pp. 221-228:
...it has thus been shown to be overwhelmingly probable that that Jn relies extensively for his thought-world...on a Jewish-Gnostic milieu...
And John Painter, in The Quest for the Messiah

It is argued in Quest that Gnostic tendencies, present within some streams of sectarian Judaism, contributed to the development of the distinctive Johannine language and symbolism.


Second, this puts the cart before the horse: It assumes a late date for John, who uses Gnostic language, where it would be better to see that Gnostics took over the language of John (and, we add, that of the Qumranites). The "Gnostic John" thesis, at any rate, receives no respect among the scholarly community today.
You may be right about this - I make no claim to know what's the latest among the scholarly community today. You don't seem to have such a high regard yourself for scholarly consensus elsewhere on your site.

At any rate, this has no bearing on the original issue - attribution of authorship.

And besides all that, LOOK at what I say:

Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name.

200 AD is the third century. :doh:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "about 200 AD" would include, say, 199 AD, wouldn't it? And (please, by all means, don't hesitate to tell me if I'm being stupid here) that would be second-century, wouldn't it?

Try reading a little more carefully and thoroughly next time, and see about responding to ALL that I say on a subject, not just 2% of what I say that you pick out of your hat because you think it is an easy hit.
So I can't respond to anything unless I respond to everything on the whole site? Uh, OK....

Given the level of courtesy and the level of intelligent response I've gotten so far, I don't think I'll be wasting much time here.

[Adam]

Dear robto,
Don't judge us all by JPHolding.
He has earned his reputation on this list by no-holds-barred apologia for Fundamentalist positions.
Adam

[jpholding]

Ad hominem right off the bat. So much for reasoned debate.

Like that screed addressing a mere 2% of what I wrote, while ignoring the majority of it, was an indication you were after anything like that in the first place? :lmbo:

Get real!


Yeah, I got that point. I was making another one, which you seem to have missed:

No, you missed what I said and are now rushing to cover your embarrassing error with a contrived excuse. In any event, it still falls to the point that if "lack of attribution" is allowed to be a factor then it is arguable for the same thing for innumerable works of classical lit as well as for the OT during the NT period. It is simply meaningless, because ancient writers felt no obligation to provide attributions. PERIOD.

Not an NT scholar, never said I was.

That's quite clear!


And the reason attribution is lacking for 140 years would be...?

Write it 500 times:

Ancient authors felt no obligation to name their sources.

They may have done so when they wished, but it was not typical. Got it?


Never heard of the man.

Picked it up second hand then. That's even worse.


Eusebius is very thorough. He mentions earlier writers who mention the gospels (and other NT books) whenever possible.

Vague nonsense that evinces desperation. Show that he is thorough in all respects to the effect that it aids your case.

This was exactly my point. It IS a reference to a gospel (most likely the one we call Mark) - but he attributes it to Peter, or, possibly Jesus. This is exactly what makes your claim of "unanimity" wrong. Got it yet?

Oops. You forget that the tradition holds that Peter was the true "author" of Mark's Gospel -- he spoke the words, Mark wrote them down as a scribe. Better try again.



Regardless, it is still an attribution to someone other than the apostle John, hence disproves your claim of unanimity.

Regardless, it is later than the date I set, and so worthless against my (Hengel's) argument. Not to mention made in desperation by heresy fighters.




Just to pull two references that are handy, Kuemmel discusses the relationship of John to Qumran and Gnosticism on pp. 221-228:

Pffft. Kummel is years out of date, and Painter is hanging on to a long disproven thesis. If you're brave enough to argue for specifics rather than sound bites, try it.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but "about 200 AD" would include, say, 199 AD, wouldn't it?

Doesn't matter. 200 is the benchline date. Third century.


So I can't respond to anything unless I respond to everything on the whole site? Uh, OK....

Now you're starting to learn how it is. You don't just flip open a few books from your school library and think you can argue intelligently about complex topics like the dating of ancient documents.

Given the level of courtesy and the level of intelligent response I've gotten so far, I don't think I'll be wasting much time here.

The OP was a waste of time to begin with. I won't miss dealing with yet another person who thinks skimming amounts to serious argumentation.

[robto]

Dear robto,
Don't judge us all by JPHolding.
I realize that one poster is not representative of the community as a whole. Thanks for your reminder, though.

He has earned his reputation on this list by no-holds-barred apologia for Fundamentalist positions.
Adam
He's certainly not hampered by either politeness or logic.

Adam, the Muratorian canon only says that Andrew had a vision that John would write a gospel. How do you get from that that he was the "primary author"?

[robto]

JP: My OP made a specific criticism of a specific claim on your website. Your response was
You missed the point, stupid. :doh:

This is a level of "debate" worthy of the kindergarden playground.

You followed this with a laundry list of logical fallacies: (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) ad hominems, appeals to ridicule, appeals to authority, red herrings, and guilt by association. I suggest you read what it says up there at the top of the page right under the word "theologyweb".

[jpholding]

This is a level of "debate" worthy of the kindergarden playground.

What do you expect from your reading level and level of argumentation?

You're not a serious opponent of any sort. You're a careless hack looking to score cheap points. That's why you got and will continue to get what you deserve.

[Adam]

I realize that one poster is not representative of the community as a whole. Thanks for your reminder, though.
He's certainly not hampered by either politeness or logic.
Adam, the Muratorian canon only says that Andrew had a vision that John would write a gospel. How do you get from that that he was the "primary author"?
Yes, robto,
Maybe I was allowing myself too much poetic license,
But I had long ago (1964) by my own Higher Criticism of the gospels determined to my satisfaction that Andrew wrote John (my position in 1964) or the prime source (1969 and thereafter), known to scholars as the Signs Gospel.
I have had an article published presenting my analysis, and I have also written it up for TWeb in postings in several threads. They go over the heads of everyone here, so I have given up providing routine pointers to them. If you're interested I will look back to what I wrote in the months after I joined TWeb, basically in the last half of 2005 in Apologetics 301.
Adam