The Canonical Gospels Have No Authority

[FallentoReason]

Hey everyone, it's me again! I know last time I disappeared yet again, and I can't guarantee that this time it won't be any different... but anyways, I'm writing up this thread because I've recently started reading a book which has essentially given me the broader picture of this whole New Testament business, and what the ancients have to tell us about it. So, I'll get right into it:

What would it mean for the Canonical Gospels to have no authority? Well, there a number of things:

• That we don't know who wrote them
  
• That they're not eye-witness accounts
  
• That they were not the prime material of the early Church
  

This list is obviously by no means exhaustive.

In this thread, I want to focus on the last point.

The most direct way to show this, is simply by noting that no Church Father before Ireaneus (who wrote around 180 C.E.) makes even the slightest mention of any Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or makes the slightest quotation about a passage found in what are now the Canonical Gospels. They do however, quote plenty from other gospels that were about the place during their time. Some of these gospels are still extant, while others are unfortunately not, but it's clear enough that what they quoted isn't to be found in our four Canonical Gospels.

Since I can't directly show evidence of a negative (that they don't mention our four gospels) all I can really do is provide a list of Church Fathers/apologists who apparently had no knowledge of the most important writings available to them - the witness accounts of their Lord and Saviour.

Here they are:

• Clement of Rome (?-99 C.E.)
  
• Ignatius of Antioch (35 - 107 C.E.)
  
• Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 155 C.E.)
  
• Papias of Hierapolis (100 - 200 C.E.) ~ wrote 5 volumes regarding the sayings of Christ
  
• Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.) ~ wrote the "Memoirs of the Apostles" which never once refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John
  

Let the Christian decide how plausible this is, that the most important writings of the first century went completely unnoticed until ~180 C.E.

The more reasonable conclusion is that our Canonical Gospels aren't the works of eye witnesses, but rather late gospels which simply recount what the Christian thought had evolved to be by then. This of course, gives us no justification to be calling our Canonical Gospels "authoritative", let alone "history".

[Alex K]

Hi!

What's the book you're reading?

[FallentoReason]

Hi!

What's the book you're reading?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that!

It's called Christianity: Its Evidences, Its Origin, Its Morality, Its History written by Annie Besant.

I really like the format because it's practically a study on various topics that draw on numerous sources, both Christian and secular, to paint an honest picture about what we know of its evidences, its morality etc etc.

[robvalue]

Very nice, sounds like a good read.

[Godscreated]

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[16]
This from Wiki

GC

[FallentoReason]

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[16]
This from Wiki

GC

What was your search query? If I don't know that, then I'm not sure what the above quote is in relation to...

[Tonus]

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[16]
This from Wiki

GC

As far as I can tell, the OP does not dispute the info from the Wiki. It claims that the specific apostles (and their works?) to which the four Biblical gospels are attributed may not have been known to the early Christian communities. Or at the least, that they were fairly obscure and did not stand out from the rest.

[FallentoReason]

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[16]
This from Wiki

GC

As far as I can tell, the OP does not dispute the info from the Wiki. It claims that the specific apostles (and their works?) to which the four Biblical gospels are attributed may not have been known to the early Christian communities. Or at the least, that they were fairly obscure and did not stand out from the rest.

Precisely!

[FallentoReason]

Also, a quick note on Justin Martyr and the Memoirs of the Apostles:

It would be unlike Justin to not mention who wrote what, since whenever he quotes the Old Testament he consistently mentions the author of the book he's quoting. And the one time he does mention the author of something he quoted from the Memoirs (from what supposedly would become the NT later on) it was Peter. Yet he fails to mention the four authors we all know today.

On the note of Justin allegedly having called the Memoirs "the Gospels":

The plural use of the word only happens once: "for the Apostles, in the 'Memoirs' composed by them, which are called Gospels." and this is thought to be initially a note on the margins of an old manuscript that later got added into the text. Reason being that Justin doesn't use the plural ever again, but rather just "Gospel" e.g. Justin quotes passages that are written 'in the Gospel'. Quite obviously, it seems like Justin fails to demonstrate that he's aware of 4 distinct Gospels during his time.

[Drich]

their is a big gapping hole in this line of reasoning. The assumption being because we only have a written record of 2nd century involvement with the gospels that they must have orginated in the second century. This would be a valid conclusion IF our records of the first and second century church were any where near complete. They are not. It would be like someone 100 years from now going through all my posts, and proclaim that I never owned a 1967 Mustang or a 64 ranchero because in all my posting I never mention the mustang or ranchero.

Again this would be a logical conclusion if my threads here were a complete chronical of my life. However my work here does not center around my life, (even though I have shared personal experiences) and the work here does not include my two cars, which doesn't mean I never owned them. Like wise to point to a hole in a incomplete historical record is in this case an Arguement from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Which produces fallacious reasoning/Faulty conclusions.