Protestantism

» Migisi - Matthew

In response to Matthew posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You've assumed that the author of Matthew was indeed the ~apostle~ Matthew, and therefore an eyewitness to Jesus. That's what's in question.
.
If Matthew was an eyewitness, he wouldn't have NEEDED to copy Mark or any other documents (Q, ABCDEF, whatever). He would've written his OWN account as he had observed it first-hand. By using Mark, he's actually relying on the first-hand witnessing of Peter. And even that's questionable, because Mark wrote down ~~~what he could remember~~~ of Peter's preaching. Memories fade, and accuracy suffers.
.
We know there are certain books and letters which have been attributed to an author who couldn't have written them (Moses, Paul) - given a timeline or event contained within them. This may also be the case where one or more disciples (Hebrew and Greek) of Matthew took it upon themselves to commit oral tradition to paper later, and attribute it to Matthew to give it credibility. It's feasible, isn't it?

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - Follow up on Matthew

In response to Follow up on Matthew posted by BrianTubbs:

"...Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there..." according to 'The Case For Christ' author Lee Strobel's interview of a "foremost authority" Dr Craig Blomberg where the above quote apparently directly cites Irenaeus's recorded words circa AD 180. In AD 125, Papias said Mark had accurately recorded Peter and that Matthew "had preserved the teachings of Jesus as well."

Mark, the interpreter for Peter wrote the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down the Gospel of his teacher. John's last verses may have been edited by someone else...according to the above book. Who knows the discipline applied for lesser or more obscure Biblical authors or Books.

Also, it may make sense for Matthew ("in his quest for accuracy") to rely on Peter who was in the inner circle, privy to more info.

There was a totally different style and purpose to what went into a biography (eg Jesus' bio) AND that the story did not have to be verbatim "as long as the essence of what they said was preserved." and of course M, M, L & J all came from different theological perspectives.

The skill of passing scripture etc by word of mouth, rather than print and email, involved tricks of memorisation we've long since lost. This doesn't even rise to the question of 'memory' posed by Migisi so who knows what happened re more obscure books or authors.

Greek unlike English is an inflected language so later translations may have suffered.

I guess there are literalists who feel others can only be totally undisciplined in their take on the Bible. In the Case for Christ, none of the conceded "flaws" seem to have weakened the scholars' resolve.

-- posted by redback

» Brian Tubbs - Matthew

In response to Matthew posted by Migisi:

If Matthew was an eyewitness, he wouldn't have NEEDED to copy Mark or any other documents (Q, ABCDEF, whatever).

Migisi, that's not a decisive argument against Matthew's authorship. I see your point and am familiar with it. It IS the leading argument against Matthew's authorship, but it is NOT a 'case closed' argument.

Matthew was probably up in years when he wrote his finished Gospel - the one that was published and circulated. I don't find it at all implausible that he would turn to Mark's Gospel, especially if he knew Peter was the authority behind it.

Consider all the "kiss and tell" memoirs that presidential advisors write. They usually STILL go back and interview people, check official records, etc. even though they (the authors) were eyewitnesses to most of the events.

This of course assumes Markan priority. I'm not necessarily challenging that assumption, but we ALL need to recognize that it is a literary theory. There's no hard evidence to prove that Mark came first. I see the logic behind the theory, and am not challenging it, but let's remember to retain an open and humble mind with respect to the theory. I CERTAINLY don't think it's conclusive enough to reject Matthew as the author of his Gospel.

» Brian Tubbs - Clarification

One clarification....the Gospel of Matthew (as well as Mark and John) is formally anonymous. The doctrines of divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy are not at all threatened if Matthew the disciple can't be firmly established as the Gospel's author. So, I'm not emotionally invested in this discussion. If I'm wrong and Matthew isn't the author, the Gospel of Matthew still stands as a credible ancient source for the life of Jesus.

» Migisi - Clarification

In response to Clarification posted by BrianTubbs:
.
the Gospel of Matthew (as well as Mark and John) is formally anonymous.
.
Hmm. You're okay with that? That authorship can't be confirmed, which means that first-hand witnessing can't be confirmed either? Makes me wonder why these four were selected, while other manuscripts were rejected as fraudulent simply because authorship and date couldn't be officially authenticated.
.
doctrines of divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy are not at all threatened if Matthew the disciple can't be firmly established as the Gospel's author
.
I would say the inerrancy doctrine and credibility suffers quite a bit. Then again, maybe it's all about finding divine inspiration in the material, and authentication and legitimacy just don't matter all that much.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Clarification

In response to Clarification posted by Migisi:
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Canon

In response to Clarification posted by Migisi:

Respectfully, it seems you see the early church in a cynical light. The testimony of the early church - and I mean the 1st and 2nd century early church - is that the four Gospels we have in our canon were the ones that were in circulation and wide acceptance. That's just a fact. The other "Gospels" (Thomas, Peter, etc) came later. The 4th century councils which confirmed the canon were not exercising some arbitrary "We like these...we don't like those" kind of selective methodology. They were codifying what was ALREADY largely accepted by the congregations throughout the Christian world.

In the case of the four Gospels, the FACT is that they were in wide circulation by the dawn of the 2nd century (at the latest). Whether we are able to TODAY conclusively prove apostolic authorship doesn't change the fact that they were apparently APPROVED by the apostles! THAT is significant. In other words, the early church - and, again, I'm talking the 1st century and 2nd century church - accepted these four Gospels as having apostolic authority, meaning that apostles were to some degree INVOLVED in and APPROVED of their content.

This CONFIDENCE that the early church placed in the Gospels - uniquely so above the other "Gospels" - is historically verifiable. So....

Your arguments and Pink's smiley face notwithstanding, the credibility of the Gospels remain even if we can't prove beyond all doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. (Of course, I believe they did).

» pink101 - Canon

In response to Canon posted by BrianTubbs:
.
If your conviction is that God wrote the Bible in long hand, you have every right to believe that no matter what anyone else says or believes.
.
That seems to be what's going on here. Your religious conviction is that God either inspirited or specifically caused his unalterable truths to be expressed in the Bible. You can call it the Revealed Word of God or what ever else you care to call it.
.
And, as you say, nevertheless, that doesn't make it so.
.
It's strictly a matter of opinion at this time in history. We can argue about its specific human sources such as was it written by a team of writers or what.
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Canon

In response to Canon posted by BrianTubbs:

.
it seems you see the early church in a cynical light.
.
Heh heh, you noticed. (wink)
.
the credibility of the Gospels remain even if we can't prove beyond all doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. (Of course, I believe they did).
.
Is it even all that important that you know beyond all doubt? I think not. As I see it, the book is a sacred text. It's about religious BELIEFS. If you believe in its inerrancy (despite the contradictions), I'm okay with that. I only challenge you when you attempt to make a belief into a fact.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Flashing back to 2004

In response to Canon posted by pink101:
.
Do you remember this 2004 thread called FAITH
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/m...
.
and this link?
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

-- posted by Migisi