(July 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm)Marnie Wrote:"held to be false" on what grounds? Be careful not to fall into ad populum (appeal to the people) or ad verecundiam (authority). What are their grounds for rejecting authorship? Several early history writers claim authorship, and no history writer denies their claim.(July 20, 2012 at 9:24 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Marnie,
I'm still waiting for proof. Does your opinion triumph history writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD?
Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples.
You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.
Essentially, you are rejecting authorship not for lack of evidence but because "there is not enough evidence for me." Well, Marnie, that is a subjective argument. You are fine and dandy to reject the claims of 2nd century scholars in favor of 21st century scholars, but don't go stating your opinion as fact. "Mainstream biblical scholarship" timidly admits doubts about gospel authorship (mainly just Matthew), but they strongly agree to keep the status quo--that the name long affixed to the gospel should stay there. Their view is that 2nd century scholars were probably better informed, and that since they did not detach the author, we shouldn't either.
