Generally, the less independent corroboration, the weaker the case for traditional authorship of Matthew, but the more independent corroboration, the stronger such a case would be (barring discussion of the credibility of the sources for the independent corroboration).
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our
salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which
they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our
faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed
“perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as
improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the
apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down
[upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they
departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good
things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who
indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew
also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while
Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the
Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did
also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the
companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards,
John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did
himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus
in Asia.
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
Irenaeus
elsewhere admits that he also got things not just from Papias, but
specifically from the same Papias-authored 5-volume “Expositions of the
Oracles of the Lord” that Eusebius
depended on for crediting Papias with the earliest post-apostolic
statement of Matthew’s authorship. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33.
Therefore, it remains a possibility that Irenaeus’ statement about
Matthew authoring a gospel constitutes nothing more than him simply
repeating what Papias said. If that is the case, Irenaeus wouldn't qualify as an independent corroboration, for the same reason that witness B is not independently corroborating the testimony of witness A, if all witness B is doing is depending on witness A's statement and giving it her own interpretation.
For obvious reasons, the more conservative or fundamentalist the Christian, the more they will view the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew's authorship, since they are already low on resurrection eyewitness testimony, they cannot afford for any of their alleged witnesses to call in sick the day of trial.
Scholar Donald Guthrie, whose "NT Introduction" is "widely acclaimed" and "a benchmark evangelical work", says Irenaeus here was depending on Papias to assert Matthew authored a gospel:
This testimony is clearly identical with Papias’
statement only if λογία is interpreted as the gospel. Since Irenaeus was acquainted
with Papias’ work it may reasonably be assumed that he is here giving his own
interpretation of Papias’ statement…
Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). “Matthew,
Authorship”, New Testament introduction.
Series taken from jacket.
(4th rev. ed.).
[The master reference
collection]. Downers Grove,
Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.
The question to be answered in this blog is; Is Irenaeus corroborating, or merely repeating, what Papias said?
If he was merely repeating, then he does not qualify as independent corroboration of Papias' statement, and as such, the case for Matthew's authorship is a bit weaker than it might have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment