RE: If theists understood "evidence"
October 8, 2018 at 7:41 pm
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2018 at 9:09 pm by Angrboda.)
(October 8, 2018 at 7:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: In the first place, the late dating of the Gospel of Peter seems to be based on nothing more than speculation. If you have reason to think otherwise, please present it. Ignoring the internal evidence, which doesn't really lead us to Matthew, the article you quote implies that the gospel of Matthew was written by the same author as that of the work Papias cites solely by virtue of the fact that the gospel of Matthew was later attributed to Matthew. It gives no other justification for the assumption. We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today, and it's unclear whether Ignatius is alluding to events in the work that Papias is referencing, or to the gospel of Matthew that we have today; it could be either. So the best we can say is that there is evidence to indicate that a work attributed to Matthew existed by the first half of the second century, and an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century. According to Wikipedia, the gospel of Peter is also believed to date to the first half of the second century. There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses. How any of this shows that the gospel of Matthew should be privileged above the gospel of Peter is a mystery to me (and doctrinal positions don't count as that argument leads nowhere). So what exactly are you basing your preference for Matthew over Peter upon?
See above....I think I answer some of your questions.
No, not really. Paul presumably predates all the Gospels. I don't see where you went from there as your post didn't make much sense.
(October 8, 2018 at 7:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.
1. ) We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today
Because the gospel that Papias refers to was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek.
(October 8, 2018 at 7:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 2.) an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
A book without a clear attribution has an unknown or anonymous author. The text itself doesn't indicate the author and we have only second hand, late attribution of it to Matthew. The consensus opinion of scholars is that it was anonymous. As to it likely being dependent upon earlier sources, that seems rather obvious given the tradition, examples of such as in the reuse of Mark and the Thomas Sayings, as well as the fact that its composition is rather late to be the testimony of an eye witness. Additionally there are textual dependencies between Matthew and the other gospels which indicate that Matthew drew upon other sources. I don't know why you consider suggesting that something likely drew on earlier sources is using words with force, but whatever.
(October 8, 2018 at 7:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.
Both are rather late for them to be eye witnesses, and, as to the gospel we do have, there is no claim of authorship; both the lateness and lack of authorial attribution argue against the author of the later work being Matthew. Additionally, it seems rather unlikely that an eye witness would depend upon another source other than himself. That doesn't fit with the theory that the gospel of Matthew is the product of an eye witness.
(October 8, 2018 at 7:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.
And I'd like to know if you're doing more than dicking the dog with these questions. I asked you a question which you don't seem to have answered with anything but some nonsense theory about Paul.