The Authorship of Matthew (Bud versus Holding) commentary

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between Bud and Holding on the authorship of Matthew located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...8745#post88745

Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[Jason Gastrich]

This is a compelling resolution! I'm looking forward to the arguments.

It may be wise to check out "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict", "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" and even "Jesus Under Fire."

God bless and good luck,
JG

P.S. "Excellent" can be a subjective word. However, the "winner" will probably be determined by subjective criteria, anyway, so . . . . yeah!

[Jaltus]

JP needs to note that all of Bud's stuff is OLD! Gibbons wrote 100 years ago, and Lightfoot as well. Just get some recent stuff and you will see that Eusebius is getting more credit.

Good grief, quoting Gibbons!

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I find it hilarious that Bud doesnt even know that Eusebius of Nicodemia was Arian, and Eusebius of Caesarea was Trinitarian, and that they were two different persons!

[roger_pearse]

I read Bud's article with interest, and perhaps I can make a comment or two.

1. Eusebius.

It is a little strange that the authorities cited are all very elderly. Gibbon is a classic of English literature, but pre-scientific as a historian; Tillemont's work is much superior, and more balanced, but likewise elderly.

Lightfoot is misrepresented in the citation as supporting Gibbon's view. In fact he held the opposite view. A few years ago I scanned a chunk of that article, which is available online at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...lightfoot.htm. Since then, the comments you repeated have started to appear online. I can only conclude that some malicious person read my page and extracted what served his purpose, disregarding the plain statements of approbation.

No-one sensible supposes Eusebius to have written as a modern would have done. He created the idea of a history based on citations of documents, but naturally looks back to the older tradition of history as a branch of rhetoric. It is idle to complain that Eusebius writes as people of his time wrote, when our objection is solely that he does not write as people of *our* time write!

The comment about HE 8 ignores the fact that the text in question is not part of the HE, but the short recension of the Martyrs of Palestine appended to book 8 of the HE. In a martyrology, the purpose of writing is to edify. Far from being dishonest, Eusebius introduces it so. Again Lightfoot notes that, far from concealing things, he tells us what he has not included. Gibbon's malice was aroused, perhaps, by disappointment that Eusebius did not dish the dirt in enough detail!

Rather than dealing with words, perhaps we should ask whether any of these writers act as they suggest (or are supposed to suggest), and simply ignore Eusebius' testimony? The answer is immediate -- one and all, including Gibbon, treat Eusebius as an authority of the highest value, and base their narrative on him.

There seems to be some confusion in the text between Eusebius of Caesarea, who was a semi-Arian, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the prime mover in the Arian party. Incidentally, the invective of Byzantine times against heretics, stereotyped as it is, should not be mistaken for anything but rhetoric. A look at Evagrius Scholasticus or John of Ephesus will illustrate how Greek culture degenerated in this area.

2. Papias.

The comments about Papias are rather extraordinary, if you read the text in Irenaeus and Eusebius from and about him. The comment by Mr. Smith, "Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts," suggests that this writer has not read either text. Papias value is that he is sufficiently early to consult the oral tradition, and to speak to people who knew the apostles personally. And he says as much, that written stuff would not be as useful as a living voice. To call this 'hearsay' is a curious activity.

The comment about Marcion is misguided -- Papias predates him by quite a bit, as is obvious if he is consulting Aristion and John. While it is often said that 'Marcion had a canon', I believe the statement to be an anachronism, found in no ancient writer. Which books were considered canonical in a Marcionite conventicle it might be hard to say.

I was unclear why the repetition of sayings attributed to Jesus invalidates his testimony as to the activity of Matthew. That he had little judgement we learn from Eusebius. But that is surely a positive, not a negative -- he is repeating what he has heard, not creating it.

3. Irenaeus and Eusebius.

This section is unhelpful. The facts are that two witnesses to a lost work say somewhat different things about it.

1. The preface says he knew the apostles' disciples.
2. Irenaeus tells us he was a hearer of John, and a contemporary of Polycarp.

These are not the same, but seem fairly compatible to me, given that we know that John lived on much later than the other apostles whom Papias discusses. Obviously he was not a contemporary of Matthew, Mark, etc; and John lingered long enough that Polycarp knew him, and Papias heard him preach. Irenaeus knows this, not from Papias' book, but because he knew Polycarp himself, and so has other sources of information. But Papias derived his real information about Matthew etc from Aristion, etc.

Unless we are determined that the two writers should disagree, isn't this reasonable?

4. Irenaeus and '50-year old Jesus'

I am aware this is a standard of atheist polemic, but I don't think such an issue should be presumed in passing. Perhaps Bud would quote, rather than allude here?

Irenaeus wrote that work around 180. He did, of course, have access to all sorts of material not now extant.

5. Matthew.

The patristic citations given do not establish that these fathers considered the gospel of Matthew to be inauthentic. They do show that Aramaic recensions of Matthew were extant in various fringe groups, and that the fathers were interested in them.

6. Is it really asserted that in 100 AD, the church did not know who wrote its scriptures? Despite apostles being alive? At what point was knowledge lost, then?

In short, the article contains many statements, some dubious, some fair, but none of which add up to the conclusion required. There is no evidence that the GoM we have is other than that known to the earliest to use it. Using standard methodologies, this would seem to be adequate evidence of authorship.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Robyn Banks]

ghbearman:
I find it hilarious that Bud doesnt even know that Eusebius of Nicodemia was Arian, and Eusebius of Caesarea was Trinitarian, and that they were two different persons!

You are incorrect. Eusebius of Caesarea, although he professed to be 'orthodox', was widely regarded as supporting the Aryan viewpoint. The quote from Jerome's letter (84.2) refers to Eusebius of Caesarea, the Church Historian.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
JP needs to note that all of Bud's stuff is OLD! Gibbons wrote 100 years ago, and Lightfoot as well. Just get some recent stuff and you will see that Eusebius is getting more credit.

Good grief, quoting Gibbons!

I agree. Bud needs to present modern scholarship on Matthew. There is plenty of material available which has not yet been touched upon.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

The proposition should not have been a negative one. Surely the affirmative should have defended the notion that there are "excellent reasons" for attributing authorship of Matthew to the disciple? When a debate is staged in the negative, it can become quite artificial. It could only be improved if 'Holding' had set out "excellent" reasons for 'Matthew' to be considered as written by Matthew, which in turn were to be rebutted by 'Bud'. But on the existing negative proposition, the opening affirmative must rebut what he guesses are "excellent" reasons. This is quite unusual.

Robyn

[stevencarrwork]

05-08-2003 @ 05:10 PM
Jaltus:

JP needs to note that all of Bud's stuff is OLD! Gibbons wrote 100 years ago, and Lightfoot as well. Just get some recent stuff and you will see that Eusebius is getting more credit.

Good grief, quoting Gibbons!

Should we disregard the work of people who quote Lightfoot as support?

Why, JP Holding himself does so very often......

[stevencarrwork]

05-09-2003 @ 08:58 PM
roger_pearse:


2. Papias.

Papias value is that he is sufficiently early to consult the oral tradition, and to speak to people who knew the apostles personally. And he says as much, that written stuff would not be as useful as a living voice. To call this 'hearsay' is a curious activity.

Of course it is hearsay. For one thing, you do not have what Papias wrote. You only have later statements of what he wrote.

[i]05-09-2003 @ 08:58 PM

6. Is it really asserted that in 100 AD, the church did not know who wrote its scriptures? Despite apostles being alive? At what point was knowledge lost, then?

The apostles were alive in AD 100?

Perhaps there never was any knowledge to begin with. All the Gospels are anonymous - none name the author.

I note Holding's ludicrous attempt to get around the hearsay nature of Eusebius reporting a lost work of Papias who reported that Matthew wrote something , the exact nature of which is unclear. Holding says it is an ancient document , so must be accepted. What nonsense. It is still hearsay.

Holding quotes Rule 803, but , as always, he does not like to give 'the fuller context'

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2...x-rule803.html

'The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: '

I wonder why Holding never told his readers that his exception would only be the case if Eusebius was available as a witness. (Tricky, as I believe that he died some time ago)


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2...x-rule804.html

'Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable' is the rule Holding should have used, if he was honest.

[stevencarrwork]

I should point out that hearsay can be considered by historians as evidence, even if it does not always get into American courts, so Holding is guilty of no more than overstating his case.

Eusebius cannot be ruled out without looking more closely.

The fact that Eusebius misquotes Josephus to make it seem Josephus supports Acts, says Tertullian and Trajan used phrases they never did, includes forged letters supposedly by Jesus himself does not say much for his reliability.

And he is writing 200 years after Papias...

[The Laughing Man]

Whither Skepticbud?

[The Laughing Man]

Did Bud take off? Is the debate forfeit for him?

[stevencarrwork]

Holding appears to be doing selective quoting again.

He quotes Kennedy as supporting him on Papias, but forgets to tell his readers that he does not agree with what Kennedy wrote about Papias.

Holding says that Kennedy says Papias wrote a reference to 'hypomnema', although that word never appears in what Eusebius quoted of Papias.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/002494.html

Apparently Kenedy proposed merely that the Greek of Matthew was written in a Hebraic style of Greek, which Holding violently disagrees with.

Now if Holding is going to do no more than argue from authority 'Kennedy says this, so there!', then Holding should explain to his readers that he thinks his authority is wrong on the very subject Holding is quoting him as an authority on.

If Holding was actually producing evidence, instead of just name-dropping, his disagree with Kennedy about something would not matter.

But as Holding is just saying 'Kennedy says this', then he is duty-bound (if honest) to tell his readers that he thinks Kennedy is wrong.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Robyn


[post#6 ]

“ ghbearman:
I find it hilarious that Bud doesnt even know that Eusebius of Nicodemia was Arian, and Eusebius of Caesarea was Trinitarian, and that they were two different persons! ”


You are incorrect. Eusebius of Caesarea, although he professed to be 'orthodox', was widely regarded as supporting the Aryan viewpoint. The quote from Jerome's letter (84.2) refers to Eusebius of Caesarea, the Church Historian.

Hope that helps.

Guy> OK I admit I got it wrong. My point was though, that there were two guys called Eusebius not one. Also can you answer Roger Pearse's points, thank you