Originally Posted by
matthew94
Moonglow asked...
I'm not sure what a link to a quote would provide you with other than repetition. Perhaps you are interested in knowing a little more about the individuals quoted? Papias was an early 2nd century Christian. Irenaeus said this about Papias: "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." A simple search will tell you about the other individuals quoted.
I have a question for you too. It seems you are disappointed by the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have for the authorship of the gospels. My question is, what 'would' impress you? If the Gospels were signed, liberal scholars would just debate whether the signature was authentic (as they do with works that are signed). If you're simply looking for earlier references to authorship, we have to ask the question 'WHY would a bunch of people who knew they got an account from Matthew be interested in making sure that people 2000 years down the road knew it was Matthew? What would motivate someone who confirm authorship when they knew the author personally? Confirming authorship wasn't necessary until false stuff started floating around, and that's when we get the discussion going.
MarkedWard...
Again, historians wouldn't expect contemporaries of Matthew & Mark arguing (and therefore leaving evidence of) authorship. That no other authors were legitimately proposed speaks loudly in favor of the accepted tradition. If the same standards we are utilizing here were used on other ancient writings, we wouldn't know anything about history.
In my mind, your point doesn't have anything to do with authorship. We can appreciate that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John wrote those Gospels and still appreciate the fact that they had human memories, weren't all present for every event in Jesus' life, used different sources, etc. This has little to do with authorship. It has to do with humanity.
I don't think it's as complicated as a lot of liberal scholars have made it. Luke wrote acts before Paul died (obviously). Luke wrote Luke before he wrote acts. This places the date of Luke in the early 60's at the latest. Even liberal scholars agree that Luke was written after Mark, so that pushes Mark into the 50's. There is debate about whether Mark or Matthew were written first, so they are probably both in the 50's. Matthew, Mark & Luke had no reason (let alone time) to write their Gospels in the 30's or 40's. They were there to tell people the stories orally. But as they got older, the churches recognized that written records would be advantageous to possess. The 4-fold Gospel wouldn't have become so prominent if the authorship wasn't trusted. And that is why the last list of quotes I gave is so paramount to this discussion:
That's not a new statement of which Gospels were authoritative. It's a recognition of a well-established tradition in the year 180. This is only disappointing when we read 21st century speed of information into the 1st century context.
Reply With Quote
(though I really want to get into the doctor! then hide under the covers). 
Bookmarks