This is my reply to an article by "Cerebral Faith" entitled
Non-Christian scholars and laypeople alike have argued that
we don't know or can't know who wrote the gospels.
Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg admits that Matthew's authorship is not demanded by the historical evidence, the best arguments do not amount to proof, and his own conclusion that Matthew is the best candidate, is presented "tentatively":
All of the evidence surveyed so far (“Structure,”
“Theology,” etc.) allows for authorship by the apostle Matthew, but none of
that evidence demands it…When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no
conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent
reason to deny this uniform early church tradition…But again we present these
conclusions tentatively.
Blomberg, C. (2001,
c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 40).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
The gospels are written
anonymously, they say, and the names attached to them as we find them in our
English Bibles were given to them as a scheme to make their content more
credible.
Some skeptic opinion are too skeptical, yes.
After all, if the people writing these things were actually there,
that boosts their credibility, doesn't it?
Not unless you think "eyewitness testimony" equals "truth". But common experience tells us that not only do eyewitnesses lie or get facts wrong, they are willing to lie for their friends and spin facts to make the cause for which they testify appear more justified.
The Non-Christian charge that
Matthew didn't really write Matthew,
You give a false impression that only non-Christians denigrate Matthew's authorship. Craig Keener is hailed by apologists as having written a Christian-miracle book that is a game changer in the debate about naturalism v. supernaturalism. This obviously conservative inerrantist scholar admits the tradition of Matthew's authorship is not as reliable as in the case of other gospel authors:
Authorship. In contrast to, say, Paul’s letters, attributions of
authorship in the Gospels are generally based on church tradition rather than
evidence in the biblical text itself. Although this tradition is usually
trustworthy, in the case of Matthew it may be less reliable (since the same
tradition also claims that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in
Hebrew, which is not true of our First Gospel). The authorship of the First
Gospel is thus debated, but we will speak of “Matthew” for convenience’s sake
and lack of a better designation.
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press.
(1993).
The IVP Bible background
commentary : New Testament.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
that John didn't really write John, etc.
These were written by people whose identities remain unknown and they attached
the names to the gospels to make their claims about Jesus seem legit.
Again, some skeptical opinions are too skeptical. I'm an atheist, but I don't say whatever Matthew originally wrote is entirely lost. Perhaps much of what he originally wrote is present in modern canonical Matthew. But that hardly justifies pretending that his resurrection-testimony is beefed up thereby.
However, I think there are some good reasons to believe that
the names attached to these gospels really are the people who wrote them and
that the skeptics are wrong.
Again, you misrepresent the issue as if skeptics are the only ones who deny Matthean authorship. Roman Catholics are big on tradition, yet their scholars call Matthean authorship "untenable":
The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and
apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mat 10:3) is untenable because the gospel
is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses
of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a
companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from
one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own
memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been
due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but
that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew
for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark
but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in
Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel
according to Luke.
The New American Bible
Confraternity of
Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees,
Catholic Church.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
& United States
Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986)
This will not be an exhaustive treatment of the
gospel authorship issue, but let me briefly mention three reasons we can
believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels.
Reason 1: If people wanted to make up names for the authors
of the 4 canonical gospels, they would most likely have chosen weightier names
for them.
I have a question for people who say that the canonical
gospels are forgeries with the names of the apostles attached to give their
content credibility. If people wanted to make up names for the authors of the 4
canonical gospels, then why didn't they choose weightier names for them?
Did you ever notice the names Christians of the 2nd century and afterwardascribed to the apocryphal works? Thomas, Andrew, Nicodemus, Bartholomew "Acts of Matthias"...neither the bible nor history say much about these figures either, yet for some reason the Christians who created these lies apparently thought ascribing them to such names would increase their popularity. Consider that perhaps history doesn't tell you how awesome Matthew, Mark and Luke really were.
Names
like Peter, Phillip, Mary, James, these names carry a lot of weight. But Mark
and Luke weren't even part of the original 12 disciples, nor were they
apostles.
I don't see any reason why a forger would have to have an extremist mindset and assume the best way to popularize his works is to ascribe only the most popular apostles to them.
Matthew was, but he was a hated tax collector and therefore would
have been a less likely candidate.
No, tax-collectors were not hated by Christians, and the gospel of Matthew is a Christian production.
I mean, you're writing a document to
convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah
Christian scholars are very divided on who the canonical gospel authors' originally intended audiences were. Matthew is the only one for whom a predominantly Jewish audience is plausible.
and you're going to make the author a
person from a group of people the Jews were known to have an intense hatred
for?
There is very little historical evidence that the gospel authors intended to write for outsiders. Their failure to clearly identify themselves sounds more like they were writing to those who already knew of and approved of them, than it sounds like they were trying to impress unbelievers. John's theology is too high to take seriously his comment that he writes so that others will come to salvation (John 20:31), he is clearly writing to edify those who already embrace the faith and need to start being fed spiritual meat.
I don't think so. John was one of Jesus' "inner three", so he's
the exception. I'll grant that John's name carries a lot of weight, but this
"they-gave-them-names-to-make-the-documents-more-credible argument just
simply doesn't work for the other three gospels.
If I were trying to make the canonical gospels more credible
by attaching false authors to them, I would have named them things like
"The Gospel of Peter", "The Gospel Of Mary", "The
Gospel Of Thomas", or if you really wanted to induce credibility,
"The Gospel Of Jesus". After all, who could be a better eyewitness to
Jesus' life and teachings than Jesus Himself?
You are assuming that a forger in the 1st century would always "go for broke" given the fact that he was lying about everything and wanting to lend his writings apostolic authority. I've shown above that there is no reason to suppose such a forger would only opt for the most popular names. A forger would have been just as happy to publish under the name of a
follower of an apostle. I'm not arguing the canonical gospels are forgeries, I'm only demonstrating that your attempts to get rid of the forgery hypothesis are based on a misunderstanding of the way things were in the first and 2nd centuries.
. The canonical gospels don't bare
these extremely weighty names.
"bear".
However, it's interesting that the apocryphal
gospels do.
Yeah, you would find it interesting that the authors of the apocryphal gospels prioritize those among the original Christians that weren't the most popular.
And everyone knew these were forgeries because they were written
until long after the apostles died (i.e into the late second, third, fourth,
and even fifth centuries). That's one of the primary reasons they didn't make
it into the canon.
You speak as if the early church was confident of which books were apostolic and which weren't. You might wish to consult 4th century Eusebius, the church historian, who, even more than 200 years after the apostles died, was admitting many books remained "disputed":
BOOK III, CHAPTER
3
The Epistles of the Apostles
One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged
as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an
undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not
belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been
used with the other Scriptures. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the
Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are
called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical
writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. But in
the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the
official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made
use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the
canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of
this class. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one
of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. Paul's
fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to
overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying
that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not
written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those
who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the
so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.
But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the
book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has
been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the
acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable,
especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence,
as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some
of the most ancient writers used it. This will serve to show the divine
writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally
acknowledged.
BOOK III, CHAPTER
25
The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not
Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up
the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then
must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the
Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the
extant final former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be
maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the
Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at
the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the
disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the
so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter,
and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to
the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected
writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd,
and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of
Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said,
the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but
which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed
also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that
have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned
among the disputed books. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a
catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to
ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those
others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time
known to most ecclesiastical writers -- we have felt compelled to give this
catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those
that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for
instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any
others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles,
which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed
worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is
at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the
things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true
orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.
Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are
all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. Let us now proceed with our
history.
Eusebius is writing in the 4th century. Let's just say your confident language about how "everybody knew", overstates the case.
Reason 2: The early church is unanimous in their testimony
that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, etc.
The early church is also unanimous that Matthew and Luke were written first, an opinion now rejected by the majority of Christian scholars, who adopt Marcan priority. They are also unanimous that Matthew wrote his original in Hebrew, and most Christian scholars reject this as mistaken given that canonical Matthew derives solely from Greek and doesn't appear to be translation-Greek.
Papias (ca. AD 70-ca. 163) said that St. Pete was Mark's
scribe.
I think you meant that Mark was St. Pete's scribe?
He said; "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down
accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things
said or done by Christ."
But you don't consider the date of Papias nor the dispute between Eusebius and Irenaeus about exactly how close to the apostles Papias was in history.
1 Irenaeus (ca. 115-ca. 202), a student of
Ignatius and Polycarp (who were themselves students of the apostle John) wrote:
"Mark, the disciple, and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in
writing what had been preached by Peter"
If we are to believe Irenaeus on this point because he was only one-generation removed from John the apostle, then wouldn't you have to, on the same basis, conclude that Irenaeus was being accurate in saying Jesus lived into his 50's? From his Against Heresies, Book 2:
Chapter XXII.—The Thirty Aeons are
Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did
Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism,
But Was More Than Fifty Years Old
When He Died.
4. Being thirty years old when He
came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,145
He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged146 by all as a
Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who
describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also
appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a
Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside
in Himself that law which He had147 appointed for the human race, but
sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to
Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who
through Him are born again to God148 —infants,149 and children, and boys,
and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an
infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying
those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of
piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example
to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect
Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also
as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an
example to them likewise.
Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born
from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,”150 the
Prince of life,151 existing before all, and going before all.152
5. They, however, that they may
establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and
then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to
their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that
age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others.
For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He
have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to
be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to
be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has
expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years
old,”153 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He
preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth
year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means
attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces
thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one
will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline
towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel
and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the
disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155
And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles
also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the
[validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?
Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who
never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very
Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated
the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced
to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not
yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? ”157 Now, such language is
fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without
having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter
period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be
said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him
of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the
age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real
age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public
register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above
forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.For
it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty
years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For
what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere
phantasm, but an actual being158 of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;159 and, in
accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast Thou seen Abraham? ”He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor
did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between
the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year…
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., &
Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers
down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Oak Harbor:
Logos Research Systems. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6, ANF
2 Clement of Alexandria likewise
wrote that those who heard Peter's teachings "were not satisfied with
merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel,
hence suggesting they were not true converts, since those filled by the Spirit already have what would be supplied by written words.
but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of
Peter and whose Gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record
of the teaching passed on to them orally."
What you don't tell the reader is that Eusebius presented Mark as writing only after buckling under pressure, it was not his initial desire to fulfill this church request:
BOOK II, CHAPTER
15
The Gospel according to Mark
And thus when the divine word had made its home
among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together
with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the
minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only,
and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with
all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one
whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the
doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until
they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the
written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
that's bad news for modern day idiots who think the gospel authors intended to write as they did. Eusebius also says Matthew and John likewise wrote "only under pressure of necessity"
BOOK III, CHAPTER 24 The Order of the Gospels
And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the
seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these
things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John
have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write
only under the pressure of necessity.
3 These earlier church leaders
and students of the apostles were in a position to know whether or not Mark
authored the gospel of Mark and whether or not he got his information from
Peter.
The author of the gospel of Peter likely knew whether or not Peter authored it.
Time and time again, they affirm that the Gospel of Mark is indeed
written by Mark and that Mark was acting as Peter's scribe.
Even assuming apostolic authorship is correct, I don't see the gain. You may as well say everything written by Jews who were in Hitler camps, is true. Well...do you believe the Nazi's made lampshades out of Jewish skin?
Regarding Matthew's gospel, In his Ecclesiastical History,
the church historian Eusebius (A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (A.D. 185-254),
stating,
“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable
ones in the Church
of God under heaven, I
have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a
publician, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for
the converts from Judaism.”
that's right, he learned "by tradition", which is likely something a bit more fuzzy than critical investigation.
Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200), who was a student of Polycarp (A.D.
70-160), who in turn was a student of the apostle John, testifies that John
wrote John.
He also said Jesus wasn't crucified until he became an old man. Still impressed by how close Irenaeus was to John?
Furthermore, he asserts that it was written when John was in Ephesus and when he was
well on in years. Irenaeus, for example, said "Further, they teach that
John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing
themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth
the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole,
lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God,
which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the
Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things." 4
Polycarp was a student of John, and Irenaeus was a student
of Polycarp. This means they were in the best position of all to comment on
whether John wrote the gospel of John.
And the best friend of the gang member on trial for murder, who was there during the shooting, is also in the best position to know what really happened. Therefore, if he says his friend didn't do it, the prosecutor has no choice except to drop charges.
I can imagine Polycarp sitting at John's
feet listening to John telling him all about what Jesus said and did, and then
at the end John says "By the way, Polycarp. I'm currently writing a book
on this. You'll be able to get it at Barnes and Noble in a few weeks".
I can also imagine the gang member, just before committing a murder, telling his friend "if the cops as you about it, just say I was with you the whole night drinking and watching tv!"
Reason 3: Forensic Statement Analysis
J. Warner Wallace
Oh fuck, are you kidding?
talks about this procedure in chapter 5 of
his book Cold Case Christianity. Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA) is "the
careful study and analysis of the words (both written and spoken) provided by a
suspect, witness, or victim. The purpose of Forensic Statement Analysis is to
determine truthfulness or deception on the part of the person making the
statement." 5 FSA is the art of hanging on every word that a person says.
In the work of a homicide detective like Wallace, when they are interviewing
witnesses about the events of a crime, detectives carefully scrutinize and
dissect every word the witness includes in his or her statement to see if it
provides them with any clues about their involvement or lack thereof in the
crime. In Wallace' book, he provides two examples of this. In the first example,
Wallace recalls interviewing a man whom he called "Scott" about the
murder of a young woman in his city in 1981. His question, the same as it was
to the other witnesses he interviewed, was "How did you feel about this
woman's death?" Scott's response was surprising. "Well, I was sorry
to see her dead, you know. We didn't always get along, but it's never good to
see anyone die". The detectives knew that the killers stood over the
victim's body and made sure she was dead by nudging her. So, Wallace wrote,
"it could be reasonably inferred that the killer 'saw her dead'". Of
course, this isn't enough to convict someone of murder. But it is a clue that
pointed them in the right direction. The statement was only one piece in a
large collection of evidence that ended up indicting him.
In J. Warner Wallace's investigation of the gospels'
reliability as eyewitness testimony, he applied Forensic Statement Analysis to
the text to determine whether the gospels were really written by the people
whose names are attached to them. And the amount of FSA clues actually make for
a pretty powerful cumulative case for the traditional gospel authorship. Let's
look at some of Wallace's findings with regards to...
THE GOSPEL OF MARK --
The way the gospel of Mark is worded strongly hints at Peter
being the source of the information.
Gee, that conclusion wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that church history has been telling you your whole life that Mark is a written record of Peter's preaching, would it?
As we've seen above, the early church's
testimony was unanimous that Mark's gospel was actually Peter's gospel.
Thank you for your honesty.
1: Mark mentioned Peter with prominence.
Peter is featured frequently in Mark's gospel. He referred
to him 26 times in his gospel.
And when Matthew quoted Mark about wthat Peter said, he apparently wasn't satisfied with Mark's inerrant text:
“Messiah”? or “Messiah, Son of the living God”?
|
Mark
8
|
Matthew
16
|
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to
the villages of Caesarea Philippi;
and on the way He questioned His disciples,
saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"
28 They
told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others,
one of the prophets."
29 And He
continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and said to Him, "You are
the Christ."
30 And He
warned them to tell no one about Him.
31 And He
began to teach them that the Son of Man must
suffer many things and be rejected by the elders
and the chief priests and the scribes,
|
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of
Caesarea Philippi,
He was asking His disciples, "Who do people
say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And
they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still
others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15 He said
to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon
Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And
Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and
blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "I
also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church;
and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19 "I
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on
earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall
have been loosed in heaven."
20 Then He
warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
21 From that time Jesus began to show His
disciples that He must go to Jerusalem,
and
suffer many things from the elders and chief
priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.
|
Sorry, but if Mark was based on Peter's preaching, we'd expect the opposite, that Mark's record of Peter's speech would be more inclusive of content. No speculation on your part about "well maybe Mark was running out of paper, or felt the shortened form was appropriate" is going to change the fact the historical improbability here.
Matthew referred to Peter only 3 additional
times in his much longer gospel.
Mark's 16 chapter mention Peter 21 times, an average of 1.31 times per chapter.
Matthew's 28 chapters mention Peter 23 times, an average of 1.2 times per chapter.
Sorry, but the difference between "1.2" and "1.3" would only be considered significant by inerrantists.
2: Mark Identified Peter with the most familiarity
Mark is the only writer who never once used the term
"Simon Peter".
Suggesting the author wasn't a Christian, since he himself admits Jesus assigned Simon the new name of Peter, and a Christian would rather do things Jesus' way than any other: 16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), (Mk. 3:16 NAU)
He uses the words "Simon" and
"Peter" but never "Simon Peter". This may seem like a silly
and frivolous thing to point out, but not when you consider that
"Simon" and "Peter" were the most popular male names in 1st-century
Palestine.
No can do: Mark was likely writing for a Roman church.
Mark
never makes an effort to distinguish between the Apostle Simon with the
boatloads of other Simons running around. Compare this to John's referring of
the apostle as "Simon Peter" 17 times.
post-biblical history doesn't say shit about Apostle Simon either, suggesting the number of Jesus' original disciples has more theological than historical significance.
3: Mark Used Peter As a Set Of "Bookends"
In Cold Case Christianity, Wallace points out that out of
the 12 disciples, Mark identifies Peter first (Mark 1:16) and he mentions him
last at the very end of his gospel (Mark 16:7). Wallace said that scholars
describe this as "inclusio" and noticed this same thing occurring in
other ancient writings where the document is attributed to an individual. In
these other ancient writings, it was the individual being "bookended"
that was also the one who wrote the thing.
But a true Christian would have started and ended with Jesus, making himself fade into the background.
4: Mark Omitted Peter's Embarrassments
If you're writing a biography of someone and you're heavily
involved in their life, you'd probably have a tendency to leave unflattering
and embarrassing details about yourself out, right?
Not if you are inspired by an inerrant God who is incapable of giving a false impression of the facts.
You would paint yourself in
a much gentler light than someone else would. We find Peter painted in the
kindest possible way in Mark's gospel, far more kinder than the other 3 gospels
which recount the same events. For example, while Matthew 14:22-23 calls Peter
a doubter and a "man of little faith", Mark 6:45-52, which records
the same event, omits Peter's involvement altogether.
No, Mark 6:52 is including Peter in saying the disciples prior witnessing of Jesus' miracles still gave them no insight into Jesus' true nature. Mark is therefore saying Peter's level of obstinate stupidity was the same as that of the other disciples.
Luke 5 records Jesus'
miracle of the catching of the fish in which Peter doubts Jesus' wisdom. Yet
Mark's parallel account omits Peter's cynicism altogether.
And for those who originally read Mark (i.e., at a time when access to other gospels was impossible) they would have gotten a more favorable impression of Peter than could be historically justified. In this case Mark being Peter's disciple gets you in trouble. The buddy is lying by omission to make his hero look better.
5: Mark mentions details that can best be attributed to
Peter
J. Warner Wallace explains that "Mark alone included a
number of seemingly unimportant details that point to Peter's involvement in
the shaping of the text. Mark alone told us that 'Simon and his companions'
were the ones who went looking for Jesus when He was praying in a solitary
place (Mark 1:35-37). Mark is also the only gospel to tell us that it was Peter
who first drew Jesus' attention to the withered fig tree (compare Matt 21:18-19
with Mark 11:20-21). Mark alone seemed to be able to identify the specific
disciples (including Peter) who asked Jesus about the timing of the destruction
of the temple (compare Matt 24:1-3 with Mark 13:1-4)." 6
Even assuming Mark's gospel pays more attention to Peter than the others, I fail to see how you justify the jump over to "Mark must have been an eyewitness!". It is to Wallace's shame that serious NT scholars who actually know what the fuck they are talking about, NEVER use these arguments to justify being dogmatic about Peter's influence over Mark's gospel:
"Petrine influence cannot be proved or disproved, but it should be acknowledged as a possibility."
Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 27). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Given this cumulative set of FSA pieces of evidence, the
best explanation is that Mark really did write Mark and that he really did get
his information from Peter.
Then the fact that Matthew often corrects Mark constitutes Matthew's correcting Peter.
Was Jesus incapable, or merely unwilling?
Why didn’t Matthew want others to know
that Jesus marveled at sinners lacking faith?
|
Mark
6
|
Matthew
13
|
NAU Mark 6:1 Jesus went out from there and came
into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him.
2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach
in the synagogue;
and the many listeners
were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what
is this wisdom given to Him,
and such miracles as
these performed by His hands?
3 "Is not this the
carpenter,
the son of Mary, and
brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?
Are not His sisters
here with us?"
And they took offense
at Him.
4 Jesus said to them,
"A prophet is not
without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and
in his own household."
5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on
a few sick people and healed them.
6 And He wondered at their unbelief. And He
was going around the villages teaching.
|
54 He came to His
hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue,
so that they were
astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom
and these miraculous
powers?
55 "Is not this the
carpenter's son?
Is not His mother
called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all
with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus
said to them,
"A prophet is not
without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.
|
First, there will
be inerrantists who are so zealous to pretend everything has fast easy answers,
that they don’t stop to notice that inerrantists and non-inerrantist Christian
scholars don’t find things so obvious:
Mark 6:1-6…The
statement in v. 5 about the inability of Jesus is also difficult. Whether
Mark’s source was Peter is much less certain.
NAC, Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark, p. 97
Geisler also has much
difficulty explaining Mark 5:8 (where Jesus more than once commanded some
demons to leave) and Mark 6:5 (where the text says that Jesus was not able to
do any miracles in Nazareth
because of the unbelief of the people there) (see pp. 149, 152).
It is a strange
expression, as if unbelief tied the hands of omnipotence itself
Barclay knows
what’s up:
Matthew shrinks from
saying that Jesus could not do any mighty works; and changes the form of the
expression accordingly.
This conclusion from Forensic Statement Analysis is
only made stronger by the testimonies of the early church fathers, and the fact
that Mark isn't a likely name you'd make up if you wanted to forge a gospel.
You don't know to what extent Mark was hailed as an authority in the early church, so you cannot pontificate on how a forger "would never" ascribe his gospel to the name of Mark.
Forensic Statement Analysis can actually be used to confirm
the authorship of the other three gospels, but for brevity's sake, I've chosen
to only highlight how it helps the case for Mark's gospel.
And the fact that Wallace cannot cite any actual scholars of the NT that find his FSA credible, sort of sucks for him.
This Is Irrelevant To The Minimal Facts Approach
I'd like to point out that while establishing the authorship
of the traditional gospels may be important to their overall reliability and
trustworthiness, in The Minimal Facts approach, the issue of gospel authorship
is totally irrelevant. It can be set aside.
I accuse Habermas of taking the minimal facts approach precisely because he knew that doing things the standard way (i.e., establishing the identities and credibility of the alleged Jesus-resurrection eyewitnesses) constituted mission impossible.
How so?
First of all, Dr. Gary Habermas says that the minimal facts
approach only uses data that meet two criteria: (1) the fact must have a lot of
evidence in its favor, and (2) it must be nearly universally excepted by all
scholars who study the subject, even the skeptical non-Christian scholars.
If J. Warner Wallace wants to apply modern American notions of evidence to the bible, then he needs to reject Habermas' shortcut approach and stick with establishing the eyewitnesses' identities and their respective levels of credibility.
While I do think the traditional authorship meets criteria
1, it's obvious that it doesn't meet criteria 2.
Secondly, the principles of historical authenticity or
"The criterion of authenticity" can still be applied to all of the
New Testament documents (epistle and gospel alike) to cough up the 5 facts
which undergird the inference to Jesus' bodily resurrection (i.e Jesus died by
crucifixion, His tomb was empty the following Sunday morning, that church
persecutor Saul was converted on the basis of what he perceived as an
appearance of the risen Jesus, and that the skeptic James was converted on the
basis of what he perceived as an appearance of the risen Jesus), see here and
here.
For example, one argument for the historicity of Jesus'
unoccupied tomb is that all 4 gospels mention women as the chief witnesses to
the tomb, and given their low rung on the 1st century Jewish social latter and
the fact that they weren't permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of
law, the gospel authors would never have made women the first on the scene if
they were just making stuff up.
I think you and Wallace and Habermas have missed the boat: the gospels were not written to convince unbelievers, the consistent testimony of the patristic sources is that the gospels were written to edify the church, and since the church elevated women higher than their own culture did, a church forger, creating gospels, would see much benefit to having women be the first eyewitnesses.
If they were making up the empty tomb
narrative, they would have made males the first on the scene (far more credible
witnesses). Now, does it matter whether you find this in the gospels of (A)
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or (B) The gospels of Bob, Tim, Suzan, and
Randy? No. The criterion would still apply. Group A or Group B would probably
have avoided making women the chief witnesses of the empty tomb for the reasons
given above if they were simply making it up
then apparently apostle Paul was making stuff up, because in his own chronological list of resurrection appearances, he mentions no women...despite his theological belief that they are equal with men in every way, thus leaving him no culturally ingrained reason to view the witness of women as less reliable or unworthy of preservation:
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3-8 NAU)
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 NAU)
. The Jerusalem Factor argument
would also be unaffected (i.e that the empty tomb is the best explanation for
the opponents of Christianity didn't just produce Jesus' body to squash the
whole thing).
Sorry, but a) you are assuming unbelievers hearing the original Christian message gave enough of a shit about the message to bother with the legal mess of opening the grave and following Christians around with a display of the Jesus' corpse, which is fucking stupid; b) you are assuming no such thing happened, when in fact by your own admission, some gospel authors felt it best to omit things they felt would hinder their case. If anybody did use Jesus' corpse to disprove the original resurrection preaching, we have good reason to think Christians would have made sure to do what Mark did in the case of Peter, and "omit" details that would make the movement look foolish, and c) Acts makes it clear that the disciples didn't publicly preach the resurrection of Jesus until at least 40 days after he died (Acts 1:3), during which time the corpse would have decomposed sufficiently to make it difficult or impossible to use it to discredit the resurrection preaching.
And I think Acts is bullshit anyway, the consensus of Christian scholars is that Mark is the earliest gospel and ends at 16:8, meaning the earliest written form of Christian preaching leaves you no historical evidence that the risen Christ ever made any resurrection appearances. So if Acts has the apostle going all over hell and back screaming their heads off about the bodily resurrection of Jesus, it's a good story...and that's all.
You can still make The Jerusalem Factor argument without knowing
who authored the gospels.
But proper identification of the alleged eyewitnesses and independent evaluation of their testimony and credibility is still the more responsible method of establishing history. For example, the unanimity of the early church fathers on Matthew's authorship of gospel is rejected by most scholars who think all the Fathers are doing is merely repeating what Papias had to say. In other words, there can be legitimate scholarly concern that what looks so "multiply attested" is actually a single false testimony that was picked up and echoed by subsequent authors.
Or, does it matter in establishing that Jesus died by
crucifixion? No, both the canonical gospels and John mention Jesus'
crucifixion, and therefore they can be included in the list of ancient
documents that record it along with Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar
Sarapian, and the epistles of Paul. We can still include the gospels as being
additional sources in our claim that Jesus' death by crucifixion is multiply
attested, no matter who wrote them.
Now, whether or not Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, 2nd
Corinthians, Galatians, and the other epistles would have a bearing on the
potency of the minimal facts approach, but virtually no skeptical historian of
ancient history doubts that Paul wrote the epistles that bare his name (save
for the pastoral epistles), so we apologists don't have to worry about that.
Correct, Paul can be impeached by his own statements and errors, no need to invoke German theologians of the 19th century who are skeptical of everything except their own skepticism.
I bring this up because gospel authorship is one of the
things I hear in my debates against skeptics about the minimal facts case for
the resurrection of Jesus, and it's just not relevant.
on the contrary, establishing the identity and credibility of the alleged resurrection eyewitnesses is the more justified historiographical procedure.
------------------
I informed "Cerebral faith" of this reply:
