If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

---

Yes, I am aware, that the declaration of Canon was not perhaps as authoritative and clear cut as some might like.  I also no some who use information like this selectively and incompletly to suggest things that are not true.   Kind of like trying to surprise people that the manuscripts are filled with errors, but suggesting in silence something other than what the data indicates.

It is interesting that you bring up Marconianism, referred to early in the Church as being unorthodox, and given a fair amount of credit for the start of the focus on Apostolic succession by Irenaeus.  I understand that there where some groups (which we can see as isolated and having some growth in history) which did differ.  And it was the connection of the teaching of the apostles and those who knew Jesus, that was the answer which was traced back to; in order to resolve this.   But there where some who certainly had their own ideas which did not trace back to Christ.

You see this as well in Paul's letter to the Gallations;  which most scholars date back to the 40-50s or at latest 60's and which wikipedia states  has near universal consensus was written by the Apostle Paul (since I know such things of are great concern to you).   Even here, there are those who where trying to distort the Gospel for their own ends, and Paul gives a rather stiff warning that if they or another teach you any other Gospel, that they are  to be accursed. With this, I find it rather difficult to believe, given that we do have quite a few disputes in history over authorship and canon, that the authorship of the Gospels would go so unnoticed a century later in some conspiracy theory to attribute authorship to them. And then there is the question of why would they do this?   You don't see in the early writings, the challenges and discussions as to the historicity of these things, which largely arose in the 19th century.

---

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
2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

I don't believe Paul, for reasons that I have stated before, namely, I believe that Paul was a "storyteller" who told overt lies, in particular, his claim to have persecuted early Christians.  I think that this story was invented by Paul in order to give him credibility within the early Christian community, but within the known structure of the Roman Empire in Palestine, I think that his claims were impossible.  Neither the local nor the Roman authorities would have tolerated such behavior, either due to one of their citizens or one of their subjects.  Paul's claims are equivalent to someone claiming that Sheriff Joe Shapiro went to New York City, set up his own jail in a rented hotel room and started making his own arrests.  A few decades from now someone may write such a story, and while it may make for entertaining reading, it would be viewed as being an historical impossibility.  Ditto for Paul.

By the way, there is a principle of law at work here:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -- It means that when a defendant lies about one thing, it is proper to assume he lied about everything.

Paul is not a credible witness to history -- he likely suffered from epileptic seizures, which he interpreted as being of divine origin, he believed in a flat Earth, and he was a liar.

---

Do the majority of scholars support your view?  I never see this as a major argument articulated by scholars.

It seems to me, that during this time period, the Romans and the Jews had a complicated on again - off again relationship.   I also think that it is incorrect to compare modern practices to those of 1st century Rome (anachronistic fallacy).  During the time of Jesus (and Paul) they where trying to get along with the Jews,  shortly after, was the Jewish war.  There was a tension and power struggle between the two.   I don't think that the Romans had any problem with killing people, but the question is, would they have allowed the Jewish authorities to do so.  I'm certainly not any kind of authority or expert in this area, but given my knowledge of their relationship and the behavior of the Romans I think that the answer is it's complicated. It fluctuated and what they allowed or didn't allow depended on that complicated relationship which could change rapidly.

Here are some citations from a shortly before the time of Paul, showing that the Romans did grant authority to the Jewish leaders over their people

• Extradition from Egypt was granted for Simon the high priest by Ptolemy VII in 142 B.C. (1 Macc. 15:15-21)
  
• Julius Caesar formally acknowledged the sovereignty of the high priest in all matters of Jewish religion in a decree of 47 B.C. (Josephus, Ant. 14. 192-195)
  

http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/did-paul-have-the-authority-to-arrest-people-in-damascus/

I think it could depend on who and to what extent. That it largely depended on how much it effected the Romans.     I can agree, that Christians may at times overstate or over-extrapolate the persecution to be larger and more extreme than it was.  This is often the case (just look at min's threads on cops). However it seems that atheists at times want to understate it, or remove it from history all together. I don't think that your theory fits. Perhaps people incorrectly extrapolate it to a wider epidemic than what it was, but those who Paul was supposedly lying to, knew better than you or I, what the current conditions where, and what was or wasn't allowed. If it was as outlandish a thought as you suggest (comparing it to modern times) then I find that implausible. There has to at least be some truth to it. Also, I don't think that claiming to kill, people is a very plausible way to become their friend (in any time), especially if there is no persecution at all, to base this on. I don't see that history agree's with your thoughts here, and think you need to back it up with something more concrete.