tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post7960199745553752499..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: On Bart Ehrman and the authorship of the gospelsLydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-57142730671708231972021-08-17T18:23:36.334-04:002021-08-17T18:23:36.334-04:00Hello Dr. Lydia,
Luke mentions a certain Theophil...Hello Dr. Lydia,<br /><br />Luke mentions a certain Theophilus (patron?) in his prologue, so it is hard to imagine that authorship was unknown from the beginning (at least for some people). Also, some skeptics NT scholars like to have it both ways with John. If it is true that there is a Johannine community behind John's gospel (the 'we' and 'I' in John 24:24-25), then it is even less likely that authorship (or the main source of authorship) was unknown. If Early Church fathers had it wrong about a John being the author (or the main source), we would expect a competing tradition (the Johannine community) to correct the authorship in some sort of extent writings (or quotations of such writings from Church Fathers). We have no such competing tradition. Or they have to admit that there is no specific "Johannine community" and one author wrote the entire gospel (or almost all of it). In this case they would have to deal with the problem of the "beloved disciple" and eyewitness testimony. Charbelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140927313044309728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-67100899557119329472021-08-13T09:09:25.429-04:002021-08-13T09:09:25.429-04:00That's an interesting point, but I suppose Ehr...That's an interesting point, but I suppose Ehrman could reply that they just thought of them as, "This one" and "that one" or something like that, or descriptive terms like "The Gospel with the genealogy back to David" and "The Gospel that says Jesus is the Word" and so forth.<br /><br />A more telling point is that they considered them authoritative. Ehrman persistently acts like this was just something that happened, we know not why. That makes no sense. They considered them authoritative, which is *why* they quote them, *because* they considered them to have apostolic backing.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-35863263445363979692021-08-13T01:24:16.057-04:002021-08-13T01:24:16.057-04:00Hello Dr. Lydia,
The fact that Early Church fathe...Hello Dr. Lydia,<br /><br />The fact that Early Church fathers quoted the gospels could be an argument that bolsters the claim for early authorship as opposed to what Prof. Ehrman believes. I think it is reasonable to assume that when someone had more than one gospel in his/her library (or wherever he/she would store the books), authorship (or any other kind of identification) would be necessary. Otherwise, how did Polycarp (for example) differentiate between Mark, Matthew and Luke? They had to be called something just for the sake of convenience (when talking to a friend, when addressing an audience, when preaching, …)! And so to come back to Prof. Ehrman's point, the fact that Polycarp quoted more than one gospel means that he knew more than one. And if he knew more than one, he must have had a method to differentiate between the different gospels. Hence, it is even less likely that authorship was "unknown" in the time when Polycarp wrote. Charbelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140927313044309728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-14847443082771118862018-05-30T07:09:20.976-04:002018-05-30T07:09:20.976-04:00It's most definitely not a "default posit...It's most definitely not a "default position". Logically, the only conclusion we can generally make is that "we don't know" - especially considering that we generally only have a couple of [relatively short] epistles from before the mid-2nd century.<br /><br />Nevermind "logical" Gary, that position is straight up illogical. There are countless examples of writers not naming the referenced materials' authors. Cassius Dio probably used Tacitus as one of his sources, yet doesn't attribute anything to him.<br />*How many times have we seen Jewish/Christian texts quote/cite the books of Moses & the prophets and not name the author?*<br /><br />"no one prior to the mid or late second century"<br />Please understand Gary, it seems like 'skeptics' are just narrowing the playing field or shifting the goalposts... <br />Much of the writings have been lost and what remains aren't all exactly exhaustive documentaries. Context matters as well. For example, Aristides wouldn't have done so because he was writing to the emperor Hadrian, so saying "Matthew said this" is hardly relevant.<br /><br />Oh, on a final note, Ptolemy (AD 140-150) does attribute John to his Gospel, but didn't attribute Tacitus to the Annals when Ptolemy used it as a source - does thins now warrant us to say that Ptolemy *did not* know Tacitus was the author? Or would it be more appropriate and commonsensical to say "we don't know"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02390301946553771416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-29696768703486093362018-05-30T01:18:56.301-04:002018-05-30T01:18:56.301-04:00"Later church fathers may be more explicit fo..."Later church fathers may be more explicit for the obvious reason that heretics like Marcion were challenging the received canon, so in response, it's necessary to be explicit about something that was tacitly understood and taken for granted prior to that challenge."<br /><br />This is certainly possible, but can you admit that it is also possible that the reason the earliest Church Fathers do not identify the authors of the Gospel passages they quoted was because at that time, their traditional apostolic authorship had not yet been ascribed by the Church.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-18597050717127179752018-05-30T01:15:52.409-04:002018-05-30T01:15:52.409-04:00Let me rephrase: Logic tells us that the "de...Let me rephrase: Logic tells us that the "default position" regarding an author's silence on an issue is to assume that the author did not know about that issue. We hold this default position until other evidence indicates otherwise.<br /><br />It is a tentative position. It is not a statement of fact, but it IS the default position. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-76289784755890399872018-05-30T00:50:23.948-04:002018-05-30T00:50:23.948-04:00By no means does logic tell us to assume that an a...By no means does logic tell us to assume that an author's omission indicates lack of knowledge. There are endless counterexamples. Authors rely on background knowledge shared in common between the author and the target audience. They often omit information because they rely on the implied reader to know that already. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-53498248935333441692018-05-30T00:46:39.358-04:002018-05-30T00:46:39.358-04:00Later church fathers may be more explicit for the ...Later church fathers may be more explicit for the obvious reason that heretics like Marcion were challenging the received canon, so in response, it's necessary to be explicit about something that was tacitly understood and taken for granted prior to that challenge. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-51102089167089483572018-05-30T00:44:58.479-04:002018-05-30T00:44:58.479-04:00Actually, the NT alternates between "the law&...Actually, the NT alternates between "the law" and the "law of Moses". There is no pattern. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-77302004873776507452018-05-30T00:38:21.054-04:002018-05-30T00:38:21.054-04:00I think you are missing the point. Later Church F...I think you are missing the point. Later Church Fathers quote passages in the Gospels and at the same time reference the alleged author of the Gospel quoted. If a tradition had developed (similar to your example of using "the law" in place of "Moses' law" then why did this tradition of leaving out the authors name die out so quickly?<br /><br />You are making a baseless assumption. <br /><br />Logic tells us to assume that an author's omission of information is due to his/her lack of knowledge about that information until other evidence indicates otherwise.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-53091345010278941702018-05-29T23:52:56.033-04:002018-05-29T23:52:56.033-04:00Why do NT writers or speakers in NT narratives so ...Why do NT writers or speakers in NT narratives so often refer to "the law" rather than "the law of Moses"? Because Mosaic authorship was so entrenched that everyone knew what the shorthand designation referred to. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-20777291950046031152018-02-18T23:42:24.405-05:002018-02-18T23:42:24.405-05:00I am a member of Bart Ehrman's blog. I can...I am a member of Bart Ehrman's blog. I can't talk for him, but I am pretty sure he would say the following:<br /><br />It is true that there are quotes from the canonical Gospels found in the writings of some of the early church fathers prior to Ireneaus and the Muratorian Fragment, but there is no specific quote from a passage of those gospels that is also attributed to any specific author. In other words, we don't find any of the earliest church fathers saying something like this:<br /><br />"As John son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve Apostles, says in the opening passages of his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."<br /><br />Why is it that no one prior to the mid or late second century quotes the gospels and identifies their authors?Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-90797623073861317022018-02-18T19:19:36.257-05:002018-02-18T19:19:36.257-05:00I don't know what Bart E. would say about *eac...I don't know what Bart E. would say about *each* of those, but I know that he regards Papias as a) unreliable and b) not talking about "our" Matthew and Mark in any event. He dates the Muratorian fragment to "around the same time as Irenaeus," so that in his book doesn't count as earlier. I believe what we have from Ptolemy is from something copied or passed down by Irenaeus, so I'd guess Ehrman would say that that doesn't count as independent anyway. And I'm sure he'd go with one of the much later dates for the Anti-Marcionite prologues. The only one I don't have much of a guess on is Apollinaris, but that's *around* the time that, according to Bart, the Gospels were "getting" attributed to the four evangelists anyway, so I'm sure it wouldn't bother him too much.<br /><br />Ehrman clearly thinks he has to do something about Papias, so he has a lot of stuff elaborately dissing the Papias evidence, but the others he'd probably just blow off.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-24634224365637667082018-02-18T07:22:44.452-05:002018-02-18T07:22:44.452-05:00Hello Lydia, thank you for the great post!
I'v...Hello Lydia, thank you for the great post!<br />I've been puzzled with the common claim/statement (that even Bart uses) that none of the Gospels are named or attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke & John before Irenaeus did so in 180 AD... Surely this is false or "borderline" so? If I may indicate a few:<br /><br />- Papias (95-120 AD) for Mark & possibly Matthew.<br />- Ptolemy (140-150 AD)<br />“John, the disciple of the Lord, […]. He speaks as follows: ‘The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’”<br />- Claudias Apollinaris (160-180 AD) (quoted by Eusebius)<br />“[…] and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view.”<br />- Muratorian Canon (170-200 AD)<br />- Anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark (160-180 AD)<br />- Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (160-180 AD)<br />- Anti-Marcionite prologue to John (160-180 AD)<br /><br />and I dare even perhaps include The Epistula Apostolorum (140 AD) should I feel confident.<br /><br /><br />Don't these disprove or at least challenge the notion that they aren't identified until 180 AD ?<br /><br />Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02390301946553771416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-40413026687698496012016-04-15T11:25:10.974-04:002016-04-15T11:25:10.974-04:00Grant, I heard by the grapevine that someone poste...Grant, I heard by the grapevine that someone posted a link to this on his Facebook page, but I never could confirm that he wrote any response to it. Some people told me that he had, but I could not find it, so it seemed to be a confusion arising from the fact that someone drew his attention to it.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is that Ehrman has *incredibly* poor judgement when it comes to these kinds of matters. He throws around poor arguments with an air of great confidence and thus bamboozles people. I have not listened to the recent debate with Bauckham, but reports of it indicated that he's still doing the same-old, same-old. I have little reason to think that he will ever change, because this misleading modus operandi works for him. In the main post here I caught him in _several_ places where it really appears that he was being knowingly misleading. <br /><br />What motivation does he have to apologize or retract? His sociological superstar status and the perception of him by the public at large as a great scholar is largely untouched by a blog post like this, and it really (I'm sorry to say) looks like he long ago abandoned any inclination to think that he might be wrong about these matters.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-57620105545640397852016-04-15T00:12:36.352-04:002016-04-15T00:12:36.352-04:00Did Bart ever reply to this? It was pretty a prett...Did Bart ever reply to this? It was pretty a pretty devastating critique. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08733799499239986035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-64074088827050052832016-03-19T19:02:17.173-04:002016-03-19T19:02:17.173-04:001) Yes, actually, it _does_ matter who wrote the g...1) Yes, actually, it _does_ matter who wrote the gospels, and the question of whether their authorship is known is relevant to that question. Obviously, it matters to the question of whether the people who wrote them had close knowledge of the events. Your own hero, Bart Ehrman, clearly thinks it's important. That's why he has spilled so much ink over it.<br /><br />2) There are _no_ lines of evidence that support the conclusion that the gospels are "heavily fictionalized," and any casual reader who thinks that is "apparent" is badly confused. "Deep analysis" and "inter-textual and intra-textual aspects" sound impressive but, in fact, do not name any good arguments to that effect.<br /><br />3) Ehrman has not argued responsibly and carefully, and this post goes into great detail as to how irresponsible and misleading he has been on just a couple of issues. There are plenty of other examples that could be given. But it's interesting that you do not even bother interacting with the arguments in the post.<br /><br />4) I, like most people who know anything about Ehrman, am aware of his background. The idea that his being former evangelical makes his current position more authoritative is laughable, but it is typical of the skeptical community who will often use someone's position as a deconvert to give him some kind of "cred." "Oh, he _must_ know the best arguments that can be given for that position, because he used to be a Christian/evangelical/pastor/what-not." The quality of Ehrman's argumentation, and in particular his frequently misleading moves, can be evaluated all on their own, without giving him extra points ab initio for having deconverted from evangelicalism.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-7971042209352337742016-03-19T15:47:37.086-04:002016-03-19T15:47:37.086-04:00I realize I'm very "late to the party&quo...I realize I'm very "late to the party" on this one.... Just discovered the debate and this response to it. To be honest, I haven't taken the time to read all of it, but do have background for a pertinent remark on the issue. Beyond M. Div. (graduated) and PhD (not quite completed) work, I've studied NT backgrounds and exegesis in the thousands of hours. My point is this:<br /><br />I doesn't much matter, really, whether the Gospels are "anonymous" or properly attributed by tradition (perhaps quite early tradition) to certain people. Dating issues are still in play and are fairly important. (It's real hard to make a solid case for even Mark being earlier than 70, though possible John is a bit earlier than the others of the 70s and after.) <br /><br />Regardless, there are SEVERAL lines of evidence for the Gospels being heavily fictionalized, beginning with the idea that such is quite apparent even to a casual reader, confirmed by deep analysis and inter-textual and intra-textual comparisons. I won't go into other factors, as I know from reading him that Ehrman covers most or all the important aspects, and quite responsibly and capably. And he is far from the only one... just one of the most noted and widely read in recent years to do so. The strong, strong majority of biblical scholars come out basically where he is... some of them religious and some not. (For those not familiar, Ehrman was a solid Evangelical for a number of years, having studied at Moody Bible Inst. and then Princeton Seminary, including being under the relatively "orthodoxy"/conservative Bruce Metzger. So he didn't come to his "higher critical" skepticism lightly or without being well aware of arguments on both sides.) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-6804677622054277842015-09-01T21:45:22.889-04:002015-09-01T21:45:22.889-04:00First, I notice that Roger M., like his hero Bart ...First, I notice that Roger M., like his hero Bart Ehrman, seems to have such an obsession with the topic of inerrancy that he finds it difficult to talk about any other topic--e.g., the authorship of the gospels or the historical reliability of the gospels. Roger M. does not see fit even to address any of the points I have carefully made in the main post on which he is commenting, such as Bart Ehrman's misleading use of the term "anonymous" or his errors about Justin Martyr. He prefers to drone on and on about inerrancy. It's an odd thing. It's rather like other contexts in which someone says that conservatives have an obsession about x but it is, in fact, the person bringing the accusation who obsessively insists upon talking about x instead of other topics, even when those are the topics actually on the table for discussion! (As was the case on Unbelievable, which was not, in fact, supposed to be a discussion of inerrancy but rather of the more interesting question of reliability.)<br /><br />Roger M. also fails to note that, in fact, Tim _did_ state, unequivocally, that he does _not_ approach the gospels with the assumption that they are inerrant (minute 17:21). This was directly addressed to Ehrman's statement that he doesn't approach Josephus with the "theological belief" of inerrancy because of what he "teaches his children" or "thinks late at night" or "does on Sunday morning." Tim answered explicitly that he does not approach the gospels with such a religious or theological assumption of inerrancy. For some reason, this clear statement was something Ehrman refused to accept for an answer. Yet Tim was declaring _exactly_ the same approach to the gospels that Ehrman was declaring to Josephus--namely, that he is not assuming religiously that they do not contain errors but rather examines that question in an open-minded, historical manner. Ehrman's obsession was such that he would not even accept _that_ answer, in clear response to his _own_ analogy to Josephus. It almost sounded like he didn't hear it. He certainly rode over the end of Tim's answer. Apparently his followers aren't able to hear the answer, either, but want to waste further time.<br /><br />As far as claiming "victory," it would be interesting to find a single bit of actual *evidence* on the question of authorship (for example) that Ehrman brought in the debate to support his contention that no one really knows who wrote the gospels. I didn't notice any. The nearest he got was the argument from silence from their being quoted without explicit naming of authors early on, but he himself attempted to claim (disingenuously, as I show in the main post here) that he wasn't attempting to use that as an argument! It's a little difficult, it seems to me, to achieve victory in a debate when one brings no positive evidence for one's claims while one's opponent does bring positive evidence.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-79730945416434739322015-09-01T17:35:56.021-04:002015-09-01T17:35:56.021-04:00Well, let's be frank. Bart Ehrman owned McGrew...Well, let's be frank. Bart Ehrman owned McGrew in this discussion, right from the opening round when he had McGrew on the ropes about the inerrancy issue.<br /><br />It was so obvious that McGrew was stubbornly refusing to show his hand on inerrancy, for the very reason that Erhman claimed - adherence to inerrancy, or even the lesser belief in the inspired nature of the documents, cannot help but prejudice a scholar's complete and honest objectivity when approaching the question of historical reliability. One cannot be entirely objective if you hold a metaphysical belief about the inspired nature of the documents. McGrew knows this and hence refused - even comically - to honestly and frankly answer Erhman's question.<br /><br />For the rest of the discussion, Erhman was superior in both style, delivery and the content of his arguments. Round 1 to Erhman by a TKO.Roger Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-87247082953157908832015-08-05T09:09:03.120-04:002015-08-05T09:09:03.120-04:00I myself do think it plausible historically that t...I myself do think it plausible historically that the gospels always circulated with titles. If so, of course, Luke would have known that the title was on it with his name and would have known that the "me" in his introduction would be taken to refer to the title. Obviously we don't have proof of that, and I'm not going to assume it absolutely, but I'm quite open to it.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-78470093468913982872015-08-04T17:01:27.404-04:002015-08-04T17:01:27.404-04:00Lydia,
It took some time before I could react. Yo...Lydia,<br /><br />It took some time before I could react. You made your point very clear in the last reply. Thanks for that. Indeed from a strict historical point of view it is true that the Gospel of Luke could have been given to Theophilus without a title and by that without Luke’s name. And that later on the title was connected with the book? But is that a fair point of view? We have to do with a most complete Gospel book about the life of Jesus. Would that not have a title from the outset? That would be rather strange, wouldn’t it? <br />One may ask: But why did the author write only for one man: Theophilus? Of course not that only Theophilus would be the reader of it. It was not given to him as a personal document, only for him. No, as any normal book it was written to be read by far more people. But it had from the outset for each reader a face to face (man to man) quality. That was certainly an implication of the author’s intention by writing for Theophilus, and he chose for the same method writing the Acts of the Apostles (1:1).<br />Personally I have left the strict historical critical starting point in exegesis, in favor of a historical grammatical starting point. That is: I accept the text as it is and accept it as original; except in case of a variant reading I try to take the most reasonable option in my eyes. So I accept the title “Gospel according to Luke” or in short “According to Luke” just as we do with any other book with a title that comes from the past to us. Then there are two conclusions.<br />1. Grammatically. It is inevitable that there is a connection between ME (verse 3 of the prologue) and Luke. <br />2. Historically. From the outset there is an integral relation between Luke and the Gospel he wrote as everyone knows that the prologue is the opening mark of the author. <br />These are two fair conclusions, I feel, and to me it is unfair to deny them without solid counter information. <br /><br />I hope that you understand that I wrote this not wanting to be right, but to make my point more clear and to lay open my intentions and the practical implications for this important subject.<br /><br />God bless.<br /><br />BJEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-446553897783765512015-08-03T22:47:57.761-04:002015-08-03T22:47:57.761-04:00I wasn't saying that he would have put his nam...I wasn't saying that he would have put his name above the gospel, though I don't know that it is "certain" that an author never wrote a superscription. My point was simply that if the text was delivered,perhaps even personally, to its intended recipient, it is possible there was no superscription. I am, however, quite open to the idea that there _was_ a superscription (or subscription) from the beginning. In fact, that was one of my points--that for all our evidence tells us, these gospels may always have been circulated with a superscription. Obviously, we cannot prove that matter either way. I was simply pointing out that the use of the first person does not absolutely settle it that he *must* have been alluding to a superscription.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-49517327808877286942015-08-03T09:29:20.665-04:002015-08-03T09:29:20.665-04:00Lydia,
Your remark is understandable, but not def...Lydia,<br /><br />Your remark is understandable, but not defendable.<br /><br />You said:<br />"It's possible though that he gave his manuscript personally to Theophilus who therefore knew to whom the first person referred." <br /><br />It was certainly not Luke who put his name above the Gospel he wrote. That becomes visible by the expression KATA LOUKAN (According to Luke). This was not written by the author of the book, but by a second hand, reasoning in all simplicity. To my conviction this second hand came from an apostle to autorize the book on behalf of the apostles. It was their task as true witnesses of Jesus Christ that correct copies about Him came on the market. And their approval is to be seen above each of the four Gospels with "According to ...". <br /><br />Maybe this approach is a little bit irritating, too easy and too dominant in the debate. But that is the nature of drawing the line where it should be.BJEhttp://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-3406689638425993212015-08-03T08:07:41.396-04:002015-08-03T08:07:41.396-04:00That's an interesting idea--that the use of th...That's an interesting idea--that the use of the first person in Luke indicates that it was superscripted.<br /><br />It's possible though that he gave his manuscript personally to Theophilus who therefore knew to whom the first person referred.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.com