How reliable is the scriptures we have?

[polonius]

Before we examine any religious belief system, lets consider it's writings.

Lets start with the Gospel of Matthew.

From Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Catholic) US Catholic Conference of Bishops.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."

What we call the Gospel of Matthew is unsigned and didn't have a name until the second century when if that named by Papius, not the brightest Church Father.

“Eusebius of Caesarea - On Papias - original Greek Text with English translation�
From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.
13. For he (Papius) appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 6 by polonius]


But Mathew isn't the oldest book. Mark is. And it was written about the year 70. So the temple may certainly have been destroyed when Mark was written

[Smythe]

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."

What we call the Gospel of Matthew is unsigned and didn't have a name until the second century when if that named by Papius, not the brightest Church Father.

“Eusebius of Caesarea - On Papias - original Greek Text with English translation�
From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.
13. For he (Papius) appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

Eusebius lived two centuries after Papias. If we are to be skeptical of Matthew's accounts 50 years after the fact I don't know why we are to give credence to Eusebius' opinions 200 years after the fact.

In any case, you are right that the disciple Matthew did not write (or compile) the current Gospel of that name.

Beyond that, we know little for certain. We do not know when the current Gospel names became attached to the writings. Papias' references are at best incomplete, since the bulk of his writings have not survived. We have exactly one sentence on Matthew:

"Concerning Matthew these other things were said (by John the Elder), 'Matthew set in order the sayings in a Hebrew dialect' "

Not much to go on. This cannot mean our current Matthew; but it certainly might refer to the origin of what is called "Q", non-Markan material contained in both Matthew and Luke. A possible chain of events is thus:

- A disciple named Matthew collected various sayings of Jesus in Aramaic
- These were later translated into Greek (by Matthew or someone unknown), as what we know as Q, but which at the time retained the Matthew attribution.
- An unknown author then combined this with Mark, added other unique elements, and gave it his prophecy-fulfilled spin. But it is at least plausible that it again retained the Matthew label, probably because Matthew had a clear tie to Jesus whereas Mark did not.

Then again, Papias might have been referring to some other document, or some other Matthew, or he might have been totally wrong, or partially wrong. Such is the downside of speculating based on one sentence at a distance of 1900 years.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. the disciple Matthew did not write (or compile) the current Gospel of that name.

Can you prove this negative?

[Smythe]

.. the disciple Matthew did not write (or compile) the current Gospel of that name.

Can you prove this negative?

No, there is no proof to be had in any of this; but the evidence strongly suggest that it is so. Polonius states one aspect, based on what is directly copied from Mark. But we can also look at what is unique to Matthew (i.e., not in Mark or Luke). Surely a 3 year ministry contained a lot more "Jesus went here and did thus and so" than Mark reports. Yet there is not much of this in Matthew. One would have expected much more, and more that is unique, from an eyewitness.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. the disciple Matthew did not write (or compile) the current Gospel of that name.

Can you prove this negative?

No, there is no proof to be had in any of this; ...

Thank you for your honesty, I am only interested in proof. The available evidence indicates that the gospel was indeed penned in the first century which would place it in the timeframe of a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. There is indeed nothing that proves it could not have been penned by one of his disciples.

JW

[Smythe]

.. the disciple Matthew did not write (or compile) the current Gospel of that name.

Can you prove this negative?

No, there is no proof to be had in any of this; ...

Thank you for your honesty, I am only interested in proof. The available evidence indicates that the gospel was indeed penned in the first century which would place it in the timeframe of a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. There is indeed nothing that proves it could not have been penned by one of his disciples.

JW

No argument there, but, if you are only interested in proof, neither is there anything which proves it was penned by one of the disciples.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 6 by polonius]


But Mathew isn't the oldest book. Mark is. And it was written about the year 70. So the temple may certainly have been destroyed when Mark was written

RESPONSE: I don't understand your comment. Mark (not an apostle) and the writer we call Matthew ( also not an apostle) copied from Mark. Both wrote 40 to 50 years after the death of Jesus. There is no evidence that either were witnesses to what they
claimed. And there is no ascension of Jesus in Mark's gospel. It was added in the second century.

[Red Wolf]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm
Quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia attesting to the Bible text being "Corrected."

The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the manuscripts were of the western type. (See Bible, Canon.) On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. This well-established fact as to the existence of a number of versions of the Bible in Africa does not imply, however, that there was no one version more widely used and more generally received than the rest, i.e. the version which is found nearly complete in the works of St. Cyprian. Yet even this version was not without rivals. Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations of the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other. No fewer than three different versions of Daniel are to be found in use in Africa during the third century; in the middle of the fourth, the Donatist Tychonius uses and collates two versions of the Apocalypse.

[onewithhim]

Jesus is quoted in Matthew's gospel, (written in 80 AD) as prophesizing that the temple would be destroyed which it was in 70 AD.

That's history, not prophecy!

Are you joking? Ha ha ha! Did you notice that Jesus mentioned the destruction of the temple BEFORE 70 A.D.? That is PROPHECY.

[onewithhim]

.. the disciple Matthew did not write (or compile) the current Gospel of that name.

Can you prove this negative?

No, there is no proof to be had in any of this;

Then why did you say, matter-of-factly, that "Matthew did not write that Gospel or even compile it?"