We should keep in mind the historical way the gospels and indeed, the entire New Testament came about. There is an unbroken chain of custody of the material written by the Apostles and their direct students (the requirement for authoritative canon, of which the Christian community was well aware). The official canon declaration at Nicea, in AD 325 was a formality only. I still wait for someone to explain to me how a forger could have snuck his material into acceptance by foundational or subsequent Christian leadership and community. Why was the work of the Apostles accepted? They were empowered by the Holy Spirit, which Jesus sent to work miracles and speak with power. No wonder written work was not accepted from just anyone.
Note that while the oldest New Testament manuscript (P52, the John Rylands fragment of the gospel of John) is dated to ca. 125 AD (somewhere between sixty years and a couple of months after the gospel was written), it's just a fragment; if the author was identified, the identification has been lost. Manuscripts complete enough to include a title date, at the earliest, from the end of the second century, a couple of lifetimes after the dates conservatives would prefer for the authorship of most New Testament books. That's close to the source, compared to most ancient works, but it's not so close as to preclude the possibility that the gospels were originally anonymous and that various disciples' names were attached to them a generation or two later.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that, the titles aside, the authors never name themselves. The author of Matthew never refers to himself in the first person, nor does the text focus on Matthew's role in the circle of disciples. The book seems to draw heavily on Mark; both conservatives and skeptics have noted that it would be odd for an eyewitness and disciple to depend so heavily on someone who was neither, though they draw different inferences from that point.
Mark says nothing about its authorship or sources. Tradition ascribes it to John Mark, based on information from Peter, but the gospel itself does not say this.
The ending of John implies that the author relied on an eyewitness (the disciple whom Jesus loved), but distinguishes between that disciple and the actual writer. And of course it nowhere names either the disciple or the author.
The gospel of Luke mentions but does not name sources, including eyewitnesses. The author appears to be the same as the author of Acts, who does not name himself but does refer to himself in the first person in places.
Sorry, this is not related to the current post but I wanted to comment on your profile's description that states you are a Young Earth Creationist.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction is pretty simple: how can you deny reality and then pretend to be a Christian?
You need to embrace reality first to understand the complex world we live in and try to come close to an understanding of what God is. By denying what scientific means can tell us about the world, you throw away part of what being a human means, and I find this terrible.
God bless
Hi Steven J,
ReplyDeleteSorry I get so sucked into Ray's blog, I neglect this one.
Now let's suppose that person X claims to have found the gospel of Thomas, conveniently, after the latter was dead. He brings it to one of the Christian churches and reports it to one of the church fathers. Bear in mind that forgery attempts were not uncommon, just as heretics who verbally preached contrary doctrine were apparently not hard to find.
X: "I found this."
CF: "Where?"
X: "In a cave, by my grandma's house."
CF: "Thomas wouldn't have left his work in a cave. He would have given it to someone he could trust to bring it hither. You'd have gotten further at least starting with that."
X: "Maybe his life was in jeopardy and he hid it in haste."
CF: "Maybe my flatulence is fragrant. We don't just leave scriptural chain of custody to the winds, ya know. C'mon kid. Do you have any corroboration or witnesses who saw him writing it?"
X: "No."
CF: "On top of that, the doctrine in this drivel is FAR removed from what Apostles taught which we constantly reference. C'mon, 'If a woman become male, she can be saved?' You don't think we recognize Gnostic nonsense when we read it?"
X: "Maybe gnostics did write it, but I found it in a cave. Maybe they were waiting to try to slip it in at the right time.
CF: "Ok kid, thanks for bringing it in."
So even if the manuscripts weren't titled (still unfounded conjecture, and how you manage a bundle of scrolls in your library without such is beyond me), the chain of custody of the majority of sacred documents would be very unlikely to be broken. Is there any evidence of the early church using non-canonicals to a significant extent? Ever?
But at least if you are going to attack Christianity, you are going about it the right way, since it stands or falls on the reliability of the New Testament.
Glad to hear you're seeking purity, PS.
ReplyDeleteNow about my YECness (not to be confused with yuckiness, although that may pertain to me as well); what specifically would you like to discuss?