CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

[PILGRIMSHOST]

Hi all, Im looking for a specific piece of evidence at this time and would like if anybody could point me in the right direction.

I have been involved in the christian evangelical field for some years now and have gained much insight into the subject.

In the last few days I have desided to look for historical evidence that PETER (from the new testament) was actually crucified. Im seeking this evidence to support the claim ''they didnt die for a lie!''

Thank you and I look forward to your replies

[Easyrider]

I take it you don't understand the concept of fiction.

I think you needed to be grounded in the truth first, Cathar, and Jesus IS the way and the truth and the life.

[Flail]

It is all a story...there is no 'evidence' for any of it...so stop searching and start thinking.

[Easyrider]

It is all a story...there is no 'evidence' for any of it...so stop searching and start thinking.

Please give that rhetoric a rest, especially the "thinking" part. You man not like the evidence, but it's there nevertheless.

[Goose]

You don't like me using Caesar, Tacitus or other works from the same time frame as the Gospels as a baseline for establishing authorship, that much is obvious from your last post. One must wonder why you object so strongly. Are you afraid the the traditional Gospel authorship will be vindicated and a bias exposed? (I will keep coming back to this in this post, it is important that we establish a baseline and expose those biases and faulty methodologies, which is all I really want to do).

I'm not talking about writings by Julius Caesar, why do you bring him up here and all over your post? You are trying to borrow credibility from other sources and carry it over to the Gospels. The credibility of the evidence for the Gospel names is either substantial or not, and this has NOTHING to do with any writings by Julius Caesar. You are right to bring up the notion that even if an author puts a name on it doesn't mean that person actually wrote it. Does this mean we should trust the supposed authorship of the Gospels more? I fail to see the logic.

The logic is very simple. You have asserted the Gospels are anonymous. I asked for your methodology in establishing that assertion. You provided it. Using your methodology, Caesar's Gallic/Civil War commentary and Tacitus Annals, as examples, were rendered "anonymous" as well. Therefore, the Gospels are either just as anonymous as other secular works, which would imply that the writers of that time frame were sloppy by our standards, an anachronism on our part. Or, your methodology is suspect if it renders "anonymous" the authorship of works scholars rarely, if ever, question (i.e. Annals, Gallic/Civil Wars, etc.).

So you are saying that if the author of 1st and 2nd Peter had mentioned that his companion Mark penned another book (Peter was written after Mark) that this wouldn't help confirm the authorship of Mark? Strange position to take.

You made the assertion

No works in the New Testament corroborate the authorships of the other works, example: The author of "John" doesn't Identify the author of "Matthew", the author of "Matthew" despite having 90% of "Mark's" Gospel doesn't give credit to an eyewitness named "Mark" for this material.

Aside from begging the question that Matthew borrowed 90% of Mark's work, your assertion implies that the Books in the NT must identify one another in some way to confirm authorship. I responded, "This is irrelevant to authorship. In your mind it might reduce the authors credibility, but this has absolutely nothing to do with determining authorship..."

However, if you are saying, that a writer mentioning the works of another author, is good evidence the person mentioned did write something, then yes I agree. The more detail given the better of course. If an author denies that a claimed author was the real author we would have good reason to doubt the authorship.

Regarding Peter not mentioning Mark as an author of a Gospel. All you are really doing is employing an Argument from Silence - a fallacy. Actually, you've been doing that a lot come to think of it. It seems to be the crux of your argument. The burden of proof is now upon you to establish WHY we should have expected Peter to mention Mark as an author of a Gospel in his letters. Anyone can request evidence they already know does not exist in an effort to make it look like they have proven a point. I could do the same thing and say Peter does not deny that Mark wrote a Gospel, therefore Peter confirms Mark's authorship by his silence. See? It works both ways.

Can you cite a verse in Mark or any other part of the Bible that confirms that the book of "Mark" was written by someone named Mark who was a companion of Peter? Didn't think so

Argument from silence. So, now it must come from the Bible? I'ven given you evidence from church fathers that Mark was an author and companion of Peter. You haven't shown us WHY we must have this from the Bible. This is known as circular reasoning. You already know what you are asking for doesn't exist in the Bible. Then, when you ask for it and it can't be produced you say, "Didn't think so." Text book begging the question.

However, Acts ch. 12 does tell us that Peter retreated to Mark's house and spoke with people there.

[1]Bringing up Caesar yet again.....[2]My "false" expectations are simply different items that would lend credibility to the authorship of the Gospels. [3]I don't demand that a work passes all my points before being credible, yet the Gospels don't pass any of my tests. [4]The difference between yourself and me is I actually have some expectations in regards to credibility, and you do not seem to have any.

1. I informed you at the start, I wanted your methodology for determining the Gospels as "anonymous" so I could apply it to secular works as well. You should've declined if you didn't want to play my little game. Do I detect a hint of whining?
2. The problem is your expectations when applied to other works rarely questioned to determine their authorship renders them anonymous as well.
3. That's because you've examined the Gospels in a vacuum. This is proven by the fact that some very important historical works, which most scholars don't question as far as authorship is concerned, have failed your criteria as well. Perhaps your criteria is faulty.
4. The real difference between us, is I do not employ a "special" methodology used to examine the Bible, you do. One of us has a painfully obvious bias.

[1]What verses from the works of John or Luke, or Acts point to someone named John and Luke penning these books? [2]Do any other books in the Bible confirm or lead us to believe someone named John or Luke wrote these books? Do you not have any expectations of internal evidence or do you simply trust fully what Church fathers say decades and centuries later?

1. Are you asking for the point where it specifically names the authors? We've been over this already.
2. Lets review your assertion that I responded to. You asserted in your last post

We don't have ANY other writings from the writers of the Gospel's to compare with each other to corroborate their authorship.

To which I responded

Wrong. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John to compare to the Gospel of John. We have Acts to compare to Luke.

Scholars believe these books are written by the same authors. I'll quote wiki. Not always the most reliable source, but it's at least no friend to Christianity

"The book of Acts, also occasionally termed Acts of the Apostles or Acts of the Holy Spirit, is a narrative of the Apostles' ministry after Christ's death, which is also a sequel to the third Gospel. Examining style, phraseology, and other evidence, modern scholarship generally concludes that Acts and Luke share the same author."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament

"The First Epistle of John is a book of the Bible New Testament, the fourth of the catholic or "general" epistles. It was written in Ephesus about 90-110 AD, apparently by the same author or authors who wrote the Gospel of John and the other two epistles of John..."

"The [first] epistle [of John] is traditionally held to have been written by John the Evangelist, and probably also at Ephesus, and when the writer was in advanced age. The Epistle's content, language and conceptual style is an indication that a common authorship existed between this letter, the two other letters attributed to the Apostle John, as well as the Gospel of John. Whether the author was the Apostle John himself, someone who wrote under his name and spoke "for him", or whether a body of authors contributed to the writing of all four Johannine texts is an open question. However, "The three Epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof lies with the person who would deny their common authorship" (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, rev. ed. (London: Macmillan, 1930) 460). Some modern scholars believe that the common author or authors did not include John himself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John

We also have something just as good if not better. We have early manuscript evidence with titles. Perhaps you know of early extant manuscripts of one of the Gospels with the title Gospel of Judas or no name at all. That would help your case. The problem for you is all the early manuscript evidence we have for the Gospels comes with titles attributed to Matthew, Mark Luke and John. There are NO other contenders. There was no confusion in the early Church as to who authored which Gospel as we now have them. So your theory depends upon church fathers arbitrarily assigning random titles to works in the hopes they got it right somewhere between their initial composition and the earliest manuscripts we have. Yet, there is little to no evidence at all to support that position. How do we know other secular works aren't victim to the same fate?

[1]Actually your point helps to show the lack of credibility with the Gospels. [2]We only have manuscripts with titles on them because the remaining pieces we have from the Gospels are so far removed from the originals. [3] We don't have copies of the originals, we don't have copies of copies of the originals, we don't even have copies, of copies, of copies. [4]The point remains the original works did not have any authors names attached to them.

You aren't addressing this argument I've put forth. It's no wonder you are side stepping it by throwing in the Red Herring "copies of copies of copies." You are battling against the weight of evidence.
1. You're confusing authorship with credibility again.
2. Speculation unsupported by evidence. How do you know the titles weren't there from the beginning?
3. "We don't have copies of the originals, we don't have copies of copies of the originals, we don't even have copies, of copies, of copies..." for Julius Caesar or Tacitus either. The problem is what exactly?
4. How do you KNOW this?

[1]Really? Objectively speaking it wouldn't lend more credibility for something being an eyewitness account if it is written in the first person? If "Matthew" was written in the first person do you think it would make it LESS likely that it was penned by an eyewitness? Strange....

1. We are now going in circles. Gallic/Civil Wars weren't written in the first person either, but they are considered first person reports by Caesar. Do you consider these works strange as well?

[1]You are rely too much on Caesar, [2]but again the Gospels need to show credibility on their own, [3]you can't simply rely on what people think of writings by Caesar to some how say we should trust the authorship of the Gospels. [4]Caesar wrote more than one thing, his writing style can surely be observed in some of his writings and compared to others. [5]Would you care to site any other writings by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that we can compare to the Gospel accounts? That's right, we don't have any!

1. You're whining too much about me using Caesar to expose the faults in your methodology.
2. And they do. Compared against secular works, they fare just as well for establishing authorship.
3. That's not my intention. My intention is to demonstrate that your methodology for establishing authorship of an ancient work is flawed.
4. Now you're catching on. If we can establish the authorship of one book and another has similar style, technique, terminology, etc. we are justified in concluding they are the same author.
5. You're repeating yourself, now. Remember you said this in your last post, "We don't have ANY other writings from the writers of the Gospel's to compare with each other to corroborate their authorship." And I answered it.

[1]Your methodology puts out various "possibilities" and concludes that since it is possible for it to be one of these things it somehow gives credibility to your position. [2]For myself, I look for probability, not just possibility, as I can come up with hundreds of possibilities for writers of the Gospels aside from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, that wouldn't advance my argument, and your similar technique fails to advance yours.

1. That's the pot calling the kettle black. But, yes I often respond with "possibilities" to your speculations and Arguments from Silence. How else does one respond to an Argument from Silence and speculation?
2. Why don't you name a few of those "hundreds" of possibe authors. Let's see if there is even a scrap of evidence for one of them. Would you agree that the more probable position is the one with the weight of direct evidence in it's corner and not the one that relies primarily on an argument from silence and other fallacies?

[1]Yet again you simply throw out possibilities without backing them up with evidence. [2]Sure, your conclusions are possible, [3]but please use the text to show why your ideas are probable. Absent of this and your argument fails to be convincing.

1. You're kidding right? Pot calling the kettle...
2. Hey, that seems to be enough for sceptics. Who cares about direct evidence when we think our theory is more probable and it supports our position, right?
3. That's amusing. I've actually been providing a fair amount of direct evidence and references from primary texts. Have you even provided a single reference from a primary text in your posts? I don't think you have. But considering your reliance on arguments from silence, I understand why.

[1]I use words like "seem" because we are both talking about possibilies as neither of us can be certain of our conclusions as [2]we are talking about documents written 2000 years ago and for which we have no original copies and these works have been translated at least 3 times from their original language. [3]Our viewpoints are both based solely on our opinions and it is a matter of who's opinion is more probable of being true.

1. I agree with you. I use words such as seem, possible, likely for the same reason. It's less dogmatic.
2. You are changing the subject from authorship again and just throwing in more Red Herrings. Are you seriously questioning the manuscript evidence for the NT?I'd love to see the autograph for ANY work from 2000 years ago. The NT is the best attested work from antiquity as far as manuscripts go both in quantity and early extant copies. Translated "at least three times"? You're familiar with the Greek manuscripts we have, yes? Greek to English is ONE translation, not three. At most it may have been two for Matthew - Aramaic to Greek to English.
3. An opinion based on speculations and Arguments from Silence that has no direct evidence for support and is in opposition to existing direct evidence is not the most probable, agreed?

[1]Caesar yet again....[2]I not saying the Gospels have to line up on all my points of credibility for determining the authors, but when the Gospels do not line up on one of my points I have to seriously question how we can say with confidence who wrote them, or if they were indeed first hand accounts.

1. More whining.
2. Then case closed on authorship. I think we can say with confidence who the authors of the Gospels are - as much confidence as with most secular works. That's been the point of this exercise as well as establishing the faults in your methodology.

[1]Now you've added Tacitus to your Caesar arguments, [2]but I'm glad you are conceding that the church fathers may not have been objective. [3]Also, I'm dealing with the evidence, the problem for you is there isn't very much evidence in the Gospels that would lead an objective person to conclude who the authors are, or if they are first hand accounts. [4]You cited Caesar over and over again to somehow show that people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels, I really don't find this line of logic very compelling.

1. Don't tell me you are going to whine about Tacitus too?
2. Of course. Nobody is unbiased.
3. "...there isn't very much evidence in the Gospels..." So you're willing to concede there IS evidence in the Gospels to support traditional authorship. That's good to know.
4. More whining. You're missing the point of the exercise. It's to show your methodology is flawed and biased and that the Gospels are no more "anonymous" than other works.

[1]Once again, we are not talking about other historical works, we are talking about the Gospels. [2]However, I would like you to try and argue that we have the same amount of historical record for the supposed Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as we do for Caesar. Do you have any historical record of these Gospel writers? [3]Besides all this, there are not millions of people that argue that not correctly interpreting the works of Caesar will cause someone to be sent to an eternal torture, but millions will say that the Gospels point the way to salvation. [4]With this in mind, it is more important to me to study the credibility of the Gospels than it is for me to study the works of a long ago leader which has NO bearing on my life today.

1. This statement is very revealing. It sums everything up, really. You and other sceptics put on "special" glasses when you look at Christianity.
2. Red Herring. This request has nothing to do with authorship.
3. This statement is your personal philosophical position. It has nothing to do with determining authorship of an ancient work.
4. Studying works from the time around Christ can bring understanding, clarification and context. But, I'm glad you feel it is important to study the Gospels. I'm trying to help (though it may not seem like I am ).

Why is it a fallacy? Should we not use our modern methods of deduction to solve questions from long ago? If not, why not?

You are changing your tune. You said in your last post

I don't give any brownie points to a document being old. Just because the Gospels were written 2000 years ago does not mean I cannot use modern methods of credibility to determine who the author's might be.

"Modern methods of deduction" I don't have a problem with. I use them all time. Actually, logic has been around for centuries - it's not modern. "Modern methods of credibility" implies something different. Writers 2000 years ago did NOT write the same way we do... surprise, surprise. To expect a 1st century biography to be just like a 21st century one would be an anachronism. I hope you can understand this.

[1]I didn't construct my methodology to simply render the Gospels as "anonymous" writings, I just look at the Gospels themselves for evidence. The fact is they were written anonymously, you can't argue differently and be considered a reasonable person. The authors did not put their name on the books, do you think that makes the writings not anonymously written? [2]I don't look at the Gospels in a vacuum, I just look at the Gospels themselves and not works of Caesar to see if I can make a good guess as to who wrote these books. [3]From the Gospels themselves I do not see much to conclude persons name Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them.

1. I'll concede the Gospels are hopelessly anonymous if you concede that many other ancient works, we generally do not question regarding authorship, are hopelessly anonymous as well by the same methodology. Is that fair?
2. Pay close attention to your own words here. They are very informative. You contradict yourself in this sentence with, "I don't look at the Gospels in a vacuum, I just look at the Gospels themselves and not works of Caesar to see if I can make a good guess as to who wrote these books" That's looking t them in vacuum, I hate to break the news to you.
3. "Much"? So you do see some evidence then? That's good to know.

[1]How can something be a biography if the author doesn't put his name on it and writes in the third person? [2]Take a trip to Barnes and Noble this weekend and look under the biography section and see if you can find a biography that doesn't have the authors name on it, and is written in the third person. [3]Hard for a reader to learn much from a biography if the author doesn't identify himself, don't you think??

1. Caesar writes what is effectively an autobiography in his memoirs in the third person. Josephus and Xenophon also write in the third person. So we have several plausible explanations: a) Matthew, Caesar, Josephus, Xenophon were not the authors of their respected works b) It was an acceptable practice in that era to write in the third person c) Each writer dictated to a scribe. Option (a) would be in direct opposition to all existing data we have. Option (b) and (c) are both possible. But (b) is the most probable as it also accounts for ALL the evidence.
2. That's a non-sequitor and another anachronism. It proves what? That 21st century authors write in the first person? Well whoopdy-do! We are looking at writers from antiquity. Wouldn't it be more prudent to look at other works from that time? Surely you see the logic in this.
3. Why? Because you say so and it supports your position? If I were to buy a biography, it would be to learn about the subject, not the person writing the book.

Iraneus (ca. 180AD) said, " ...after their death[Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."

How would Iraneus know this over 120 years after the book of "Mark" was written? Does Iraneus mention how he discovered this?

You're free to question the evidence. But questioning it doesn't make it go away. How did Suetonius, 170 years after Caesar's death, know Caesar wrote the Gallic/Civil Wars? How did Tertullian, 100 years after, know Tacitus wrote the Annals? It would be reasonable to think these writings were correct in their authorship attributions as the reason no one questioned them.

You had no comment on the Papias quote. Are you ignoring it? More on Papias. He said of himself as quoted by Eusebius:

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

Iraneus said of Papias that he was,

a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time.

Obviously, Papias was in a good position to know who had authored which books. We have very early attestation from Papias.

[1]What is this internal evidence that confirms Mark's account was generally speaking based upon Peter's teaching? Simply saying it, does not make it so. [2]Also, where in the Bible are we told about someone named Mark traveling with Peter? [3]Peter apparently wrote two books of the Bible, does he mention someone named Mark ONCE in his two books? No he doesn't. [4]Do you not look for internal corroborative evidence from the Bible, it sure would help your case if some existed.

1. Peter's sermon's found in Acts (ch 2:24, 4:10 as examples) that focus on the passion and resurrection of Christ are very succinct, just like we would expect Mark's Gospel to be if he associated with Peter. There is little flare or additional information.
2. As noted earlier Acts ch. 12 places Peter in Mark's home.
3. Arguments from Silence. That's YOUR best evidence, huh? BTW, Peter's two letters have a total of eight chapters between them, that's it. Maybe you can show us where and why Peter should have mentioned Mark.
4. Yes, and I've provided some of it. You even inadvertently conceded there is SOME evidence remember? You said, "From the Gospels themselves I do not see much to conclude persons name Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them."

Learning by tradition is hardly overwhelming evidence, especially 120 plus years after "Matthew" was written.

However, it IS evidence. You have what? An argument from silence, at best. Are arguments from silence, refernces to Harry Potter, Barnes & Noble, and speculation supposed to be more compelling? The evidence we have from Iraneus is better than Suetonius learning by tradiotn 170 years after Caesar. But scholars don't have a problem with that. Why do you with Iraneus?

[1]You might want to look into Papias more, he said some interesting things about Jesus that you would probably take issue with. You cite Papias quite a bit so it is important to look at the credibility of your main source, [2]also Eusebius isn't the most credible person either. Even by his own admission. I only tell you this because you don't want to be caught off guard if you are ever debating with someone who knows a bit more about these sources than the quotes you provide.

1. That's right. If you don't like the evidence and you don't have counter evidence, just trash the source. I don't turn to Papias for my theology or doctrine anyway. However, in historical matters he serves a purpose. Suetonius is considered to be an unreliable historian, very biased, and occasionally a gossip. Yet scholars rely on his work greatly.
2. Yup, heard all the out of context stuff about Eusebius too. BTW, to quote you, "Simply saying it, does not make it so." Trashing a source doesn't make the evidence go away. If all you have is an attack on the character of Papias and Eusebius' that's a very weak position you're in. It demonstrates you have no counter evidence.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus (ca. 180AD)

Again, where does Irenaeus get this information 120 years after the fact? Does he cite any sources? I haven't found any that he used.

Argument from silence. If that makes him wrong, the burden of proof is upon you to show he was wrong.

Internal evidence can be found in Matthews subtle nuances that we would expect from a tax collector such as technical uses of monetary terms in Matthew 22:15-22 as compared to Mark or Luke. Increased awareness of monetary amounts 18:21-35, 25:14-30.

Is this really convincing to you?

Is that your best rebuttal?

[1]This isn't much deviation for someone who apparently is telling about being called to be a disciple by the God of the universe. [2]Do you really believe that the author of "Matthew" has personalized this account by changing a couple words? [3]Just use common sense, would you write your testimony in the third person and almost word for word like someone else described it? [4]Would you not add any personal touches or thoughts?

1. Please tell us how much deviation there should be in order for Matthew to be the author of Matthew. And show us why it must be written that way.
2. That's what the text suggests. Now you're just denying evidence.
3. You are begging the question. Your entire assumption here and elsewhere rests upon the notion that Matthew necessarily copied Mark. That is far from a certainty or the most probable solution. But let's assume Matthew copied Mark to make you happy. So, to answer your question, if the person had it right, sure, why not? Regarding the third person, I again refer you to Caesar's Civil/Gallic wars.
4. Hello? I've given personal touches and thoughts. You keep denying the evidence and expect me to believe your "common sense" over what the evidence tells us. Hey, if they were completely different we'd be debating the contradictions between them, wouldn't we.

[1]There is ample internal and external evidence in your opinion, not mine. [2]The authorship of the Gospels might be just as worse off as other ancient works, no disagreement there, but that doesn't make the authorship of the Gospels anymore credible to me. [3]Obviously my assertion that the Gospels are "anonymous" is not unfounded as there are many biblical scholars that share my opinion, if my view was unfounded then it would be much more of a universal opinion as to the authorship of the Gospels.

1. Why not? We've established the internal and certainly external evidence is no worse than it is for other works. You even agreed in your next sentence when you said, "The authorship of the Gospels might be just as worse off as other ancient works, no disagreement there..."
2. Perhaps, but it means my original assertion is true. The Gospels are no more "anonymous" than any other ancient work.
3. That's the fallacy known as appeal to popularity or majority. If your assertion rests on the evidence that some scholars believe the Gospels are hopelessly anonymous because they do not name the author in the text proper then, yes, your assertion has foundation. If your assertion rests on fair treatment of the evidence and an unbiased methodology and baseline using other works then, no, your assertion does not have foundation as I've shown (unless you are also willing to concede most other ancient works are just as "anonymous.")

Although I disagree with your conclusion I wouldn't say your position is unfounded,...

I appreciate your honesty. The real question is, will you adjust your position in accordance? Will you adjust that position and recognized we can be as confident about the authorship of the Gospels as we can be about other secular works we generally take for granted.

I do give you credit for obviously researching this issue as I can clearly see that you have spent a lot of time on it. While I disagree with your conclusions I do respect that you have at least attempted to back up your position with research and evidence. This is more than I can say for many that have the same conclusions that you do, but cannot give any detailed reason why.

Thanks, that's appreciated and gracious of you. I've had one goal here. That is to establish whether or not the methodology you use to conclude the gospels are "anonymous" is flawed or biased. In my opinion it is both. I think I've demonstrated that, at least in my mind. Unless you have anything more compelling than primarily arguments from silence and generally dismissing evidence I probably won't respond with much after this as we have begun to cover old ground anyway. Thanks for your thoughts and the time you've spent.

[Cathar1950]

I take it you don't understand the concept of fiction.

I think you needed to be grounded in the truth first, Cathar, and Jesus IS the way and the truth and the life.

Please give your "rhetoric a rest". Quoting the rhetoric of the work of the unknown author of "the Gospel of John" is not evidence. We already know what the bible tells you. Some of us went to Sunday school and some of us have read and studied the subject along with the anonymous works.

The names given to the gospel authors were second century guesses at best.

[Rayosun]

"I think the point you missed is the complete absence of any historical accounts from circa 62 AD on in the Gospels."

Easyrider, don't change the subject. The only point that I was addressing was a long quotation of yours from ONE source. I pointed out to the forum that this source is discredited. An honest response on your part might have been "I didn't know that. I'll have to look for better sources."
Sadly, all that your saying that I missed some other irrelevant point of yours does is show that YOU are missing my point (intentionally, I would guess).

[TruthSeeker1]

Goose Wrote:

Thanks, that's appreciated and gracious of you. I've had one goal here. That is to establish whether or not the methodology you use to conclude the gospels are "anonymous" is flawed or biased. In my opinion it is both. I think I've demonstrated that, at least in my mind. Unless you have anything more compelling than primarily arguments from silence and generally dismissing evidence I probably won't respond with much after this as we have begun to cover old ground anyway. Thanks for your thoughts and the time you've spent.

Don't bother with the "thanks" Goose. When you spend an entire post mixing childish digs and jabs with your responses it doesn't mean much to say "thanks" at the end. To reduce so much of my arguments to merely whining and questioning my abilities to understand logic doesn't do much to garner respect from someone attempting to have an intelligent dialogue.

As for the merits of your arguments, I simply don't find them compelling. If you look at "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John", there is nothing from the books, nor from the rest of the Bible, to lend credence to the notion that these individuals wrote the Gospels. There is no information in ANY of these books that we can compare with the historical record and conclude that the only people who could have penned the Gospels are the names that Church fathers put forth. In other words, we don't have a historical record of the apostle Matthew to compare with the book of "Matthew" and conclude that information contained in "Matthew" could only have been known by the apostle Matthew. With your favorite author Caesar, I think you would find the historical record for facts attributed to him is infinitely greater than the historical record for the supposed Gospel writers.

The authors of the Gospels left no record either in their books, or in other writings to give us an idea of who wrote the Gospels. Left to themselves, the books are indeed anonymous writings. Church fathers, Church tradition, and yourself, make the positive claim that individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. I make NO claims of authorship, my position is we do not know who wrote the books which again puts me in line with the authors themselves who also make NO claim of authorship. The burden of proof is on you to show specifically how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are indeed the authors of the Gospels. I have laid out many, many, ways in which we could have a better clue as to the authors of the Gospels and in each case I'm left with nothing to point me to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Your evidence seems to be:

*Other books in antiquity were written anonymously and historians have labeled specific authors to them, so we should accept what Church fathers say about the Gospels even though the Church fathers offer no specific proof as to how they gathered their information. Vague statements that are attributed to Church fathers such as Papias are far from convincing, and besides if the authorship of the Gospels was so clear in the time of Papias then he himself would have labeled the books, yet it wasn't until decades later that Ireneus was able to put names onto the Gospels.

*You offer virtually nothing from the Bible itself to show who the authors are, except to say that at some point (in Acts) Mark heard Peter talking. However, many people heard Peter talking, so why can't one of these other people be an author of a Gospel? You also try and attempt to argue that the author of "Matthew" personalized his account by changing a couple words while using virtually all the same words that the author of "Mark" used. As I said before, simple common sense deems this argument weak. You also conclude that the book of "Matthew" was written by a tax collector because the author used a few numbers that you somehow have determined only a tax collector could have written. To me, I don't see how using a few numbers proves that the author of "Matthew" was a tax collector. Are tax collectors the only people who use numbers?

*You rely on testimony from discredited people such as Papias. You mistakenly believe that the character of a witness has nothing to do with the testimony of the witness. Do me a favor and research court cases in our country and come back to the message boards and explain how the character of a witness doesn't affect the credibility of their testimony. Or, ask yourself if you were on trial for murder, would you want your one witness who backs up your alibi to be a convicted murder, or a school teacher with no criminal record? Based on your belittling of my points about Papias you would be perfectly happy to have the convicted murderer testifying on your behalf.

To clear up your misconceptions about any bias on my part, I honestly have no problem accepting things that are shown to be true. In fact, for a number of years I accepted as true the traditional claims of authorship for the Gospels, and when I went to research the subject in-depth I would have been very happy to conclude that the authors of the Gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Initially, it was very difficult for me to learn the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels is so weak, I was hoping for a different outcome.

At the end of the day though, the most damaging point against your argument is this: You believe the Gospels are divinely inspired by a perfect, all powerful, and all knowing God. Yet, your main argument is that we shouldn't expect the Gospels to display any more credibility in regards to authorship than other works of antiquity written by mere humans. I find it odd that on one hand you would put forth that the Gospels are divinely inspired by a perfect being, and then turn around and belittle and rail against a person who (at the very most) asks for some evidence for the authorship of the Gospels that goes beyond the words of Church leaders decades and centuries after the fact. It seems strange that a perfect being wouldn't anticipate the future examination of his divinely inspired works and make an effort to have the Gospels rise above the little evidence for authorship that yourself and other Christian apologists are able to provide. Even more curious is why you would have such low expectations of evidence from a perfect and all knowing God which would then lead you to argue that the credibility of Gospel authorship should only be compared with mere human works from antiquity, and to expect anything more from divinely inspired works in somehow unreasonable.

This is my last post to you on this subject. I think my arguments stand up quite well at this point and I don't feel the need to add anything else. Feel free to have the last word.

[Rayosun]

Truthseeker,
I'm sure that by now you appreciate the fact that your outstanding reasoning is lost on Goose, and that you have been aiming your comments on others who are hopefully reading this thread. Goose really let the cat out of the bag when he/she let slip:

"if you didn't want to play my little game."

I have tried to live all of my 70 long life by the gospels, but I could care less what the actual names of the authors were. You hit the nails square on when you say:

"Don't bother with the "thanks" Goose. When you spend an entire post mixing childish digs and jabs with your responses it doesn't mean much to say "thanks" at the end. To reduce so much of my arguments to merely whining and questioning my abilities to understand logic doesn't do much to garner respect from someone attempting to have an intelligent dialogue.

As for the merits of your arguments, I simply don't find them compelling. If you look at "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John", there is nothing from the books, nor from the rest of the Bible, to lend credence to the notion that these individuals wrote the Gospels. There is no information in ANY of these books that we can compare with the historical record and conclude that the only people who could have penned the Gospels are the names that Church fathers put forth. In other words, we don't have a historical record of the apostle Matthew to compare with the book of "Matthew" and conclude that information contained in "Matthew" could only have been known by the apostle Matthew.
The authors of the Gospels left no record either in their books, or in other writings to give us an idea of who wrote the Gospels. Left to themselves, the books are indeed anonymous writings. Church fathers, Church tradition, and yourself, make the positive claim that individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. I make NO claims of authorship, my position is we do not know who wrote the books which again puts me in line with the authors themselves who also make NO claim of authorship. The burden of proof is on you to show specifically how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are indeed the authors of the Gospels. I have laid out many, many, ways in which we could have a better clue as to the authors of the Gospels and in each case I'm left with nothing to point me to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[Rayosun]

Truthseeker,
I'm sure that by now you appreciate the fact that your outstanding reasoning is lost on Goose, and that you have been aiming your comments on others who are hopefully reading this thread. Goose really let the cat out of the bag when he/she let slip:

"if you didn't want to play my little game."

I have tried to live all of my 70 long life by the gospels, but I could care less what the actual names of the authors were. You hit the nails square on when you say:

"Don't bother with the "thanks" Goose. When you spend an entire post mixing childish digs and jabs with your responses it doesn't mean much to say "thanks" at the end. To reduce so much of my arguments to merely whining and questioning my abilities to understand logic doesn't do much to garner respect from someone attempting to have an intelligent dialogue.

As for the merits of your arguments, I simply don't find them compelling. If you look at "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John", there is nothing from the books, nor from the rest of the Bible, to lend credence to the notion that these individuals wrote the Gospels. There is no information in ANY of these books that we can compare with the historical record and conclude that the only people who could have penned the Gospels are the names that Church fathers put forth. In other words, we don't have a historical record of the apostle Matthew to compare with the book of "Matthew" and conclude that information contained in "Matthew" could only have been known by the apostle Matthew.
The authors of the Gospels left no record either in their books, or in other writings to give us an idea of who wrote the Gospels. Left to themselves, the books are indeed anonymous writings. Church fathers, Church tradition, and yourself, make the positive claim that individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. I make NO claims of authorship, my position is we do not know who wrote the books which again puts me in line with the authors themselves who also make NO claim of authorship. The burden of proof is on you to show specifically how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are indeed the authors of the Gospels. I have laid out many, many, ways in which we could have a better clue as to the authors of the Gospels and in each case I'm left with nothing to point me to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[TruthSeeker1]

Truthseeker,
I'm sure that by now you appreciate the fact that your outstanding reasoning is lost on Goose, and that you have been aiming your comments on others who are hopefully reading this thread. Goose really let the cat out of the bag when he/she let slip:

"if you didn't want to play my little game."

I have tried to live all of my 70 long life by the gospels, but I could care less what the actual names of the authors were.

Thanks for the encouragement, and I do respect your honesty in wanting to live a life by the teachings of the Gospels without the unnecessary need to attach names to the books. When discussing the merits of Gospel teachings people such as yourself will get much more of an audience as you are being intellectually honest about the anonymous authorship of the books.

If the authors of the Gospels were not concerned about leaving a trail for others to clearly see who wrote them, and if God did inspire the books and didn't make authorship a priority, then it is curious why so many Christians find the need to fight a battle that ultimately they would be better served to leave alone.