I’m glad to see that your a follower of the German Rationalists; if you want to see how they view the Koran, see You-Tubes of Jay Smith. The Apostolic Polity as evinced in the writings of Ireneus of Lyons and Tertullian of North Africa point out that the Apostolic Churches of the ancient world have the same 4 gospels and name the same 4 authors, and in any normal court of law, that would be conclusive.
They are written not by eyewitnesses, Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable. In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that “the differences among manuscripts have become great, … [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” For these reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.
We have four witnesses to your 1 witness…and that 1 witness was 600 years later….oooooh!, I almost forgot, you did have many other witnesses, but the third Kalief according to Bukhari burned all the others. What kind of person burns witnesses?
you stated: [According to the consensus of NT scholars today NONE of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses]
Glad you accept the consensus of NT Scholars today – According to Reza Aslin a Muslim, the consensus of modern scholarship said Jesus was crucified.
And also Anad Rashid, the other day with his debate with James White said that the consensus of Modern Scholars said that Jesus was crucified. So this would mean the Koran is wrong.
So if your going to accept the witness of rationalistic “School of thought” scholarship , then you also have to accept their consensus on the Crucifixion
I accept the Apostolic Polity as explained in the writings of Ireneus and Tertullian in the late 2nd century which explains why the historic churches came up with the same 4 gospels naming the same 4 authors in Aramaic, Greek, Vetus Latin, Coptic and other ancient languages. As I said before in any normal court of law that would be conclusive. The Historic Apostolic Churches which can legally trace back to the Apostles represent thousands of independent witnesses across the ancient world.
Remember, the names weren’t on the texts received by the Apostolic Churches – yet they name the same 4 gospels identifying the same 4 authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Ireneus is a witnesses to the official Apostolic Church of Smyrna – his bishop was Polycarp – and according to Tertullian in North Africa – Polycarp was Appointed Bishop by the Apostle John –
Ireneus and Tertullian – at opposite end of the empire also name the same authors for the same gospels. Remember, the gnostic texts were all different. Iiars don’t agree.
Help me understand Mr Williams, Bukhari, 200 years after the death of his project set about to collect the sayings of Muhammad – Bukhari was dealing with over 600,000 sayings which he widdled down to about 7000 using independent chains of reports to validate the sayings – yet when Ireneus and Tertullian and thousands of historic churches use a similar technique to establish the cannon of the Testament against the Gnostics – you reject thousands of our witnesses, yet accept the one witness of Bukhari – How can that be explained except as an unbeliever you are biased against Christianity?
Are you familiar with the reasons why nearly all NT scholars today do not think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Have you read any scholarship?
When you stated [“In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that “the differences among manuscripts have become great, … [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”]
Its important to distinguish between the commonly received text of the Apostolic Churches as opposed to texts of unknown provenance. Before Origin (Who was excommunicated by the Apostolic Church of Alexandria, two Egyptian councils, and 1 ecumenical council) Tertullian, Ireneus and Gauis in the second century discussed alterations to the text of the New testament that was all over the ancient world – Even Tertullian in his works against Marcion showed that the texts received by the Apostolic Churches were different than Marcions Shorter edition of luke and ten letters of Paul – Jerome spoke about bad texts in Latin as well – but we can look at the Vulgate which was publically read in the churches of the West, the Aramiac Peshitta, the Greek Church Text and the TR which was read in protestant churches and adopted by the Coptic Church in Egypt in Arabic of all languages. Once again, we can be honest about our varients, but remember these versions have been commonly received by the official Apostolic Churches witness to the same type of text and same consistent traditional readings in the Latin, Greek and Aramiac.
Any one scribe can corrupt a text, but they couldn’t corrupt them all. we are talking about thousands of ind pendant Apostolic church texts in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and other ancient languages.
Yet Uthman burned all your variants 20 years after the death of your prophet. Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur’an, so he asked ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before.” also “Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. “Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.” Also: Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, Why were the other copies and fragements ordered to be burnt – the answer is clearly found in the original statement – “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Quran”Now Uthman as the Third Kalieh had state power to create an official version of the Koran and destroyed all your variants and differences” And lets not forget the sheep that ate a little bit of the Koran. Now can you show me any historical record where the official Greek Churches got together and created a standardized text in Greek – I mean, they had 7 ecumenical councils – surly if such a concoction occurred – we should have record of such an event – Now – we are aware of Jerome’s standardization of the Latin in 383 AD – unfortunate Jerome didn’t have the power Uthman did – Jerome in his preface to the Gospels says that he is confirming the Latin to the Original Greek , and would only use Latin readings if they had Greek Support and he used very early manuscripts.
Once again you accept Bukhari methodology of collection which uses similiar standards “independant Chains of Reports” and he was only one man – yet you reject thousands of our independent witnesses that legally trace back to the apostles through our succession of bishops as described by Tertullian and Ireneus. How is this not a double standard. I can accept Bukhari methodology, and have respect for his integrity in his process – but you reject the Apostolic Polity of Thousands of Independent churches in Greek, Latin and Aramaic.
Are you familiar with the reasons why nearly all NT scholars today do not think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Have you read any scholarship?
I see your playing a little dodge ball with me, but I think you have mistaken my argument – I’m using a Socratic approach which is designed to bring out the truth. (Answering a question with another question) All I was trying to demonstrate is that your appealing to sources which you would also consider flawed.
but I will answer your questions. When you state [Are you familiar with the reasons why nearly all NT scholars today do not think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?]
Of course, And yes I am well versed on their scholarship. Their views on the New Testament are under an evolutionary worldview – it’s no surprise these theories only originated within the last couple of hundred years, If these scholars acknowledge John, Matthew, Mark and Luke as the authors – this rules out their entire evolutionary theory; for John and Matthew were eyewitness, Mark was Peters scribe, and Luke was Paul scribe –
This is why they say Mark was the first Gospel and then they say the last 12 verses were added on. I get Mr Williams we live in a postmodern worldview where we can create any narrative we want, but the historic churches.did exist and still exist, and the consensus of the fathers and the historic churches which published the gospels said not only was Matthew the first Gospel Published, but they basically document that these were the four writings commonly received by the Apostolic churches, and they all name the same authors – FYI there was no internet or email to help spread the word.
I notice Mr Williams you did not engage Ireneus and Tertullian Testimony. Remember Irenaeus opens up his third book against the heresies responding to the textual claims of the gnostics stating:
“So Matthew among the Hebrews issued a Writing of the gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia (Against Heresies, 3:1)
Further in his treatise Irenaeus then makes an empirical observation regarding the Gospel records stating “The Tradition of the Apostles, made clear in all the world can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the Truth.
Tertullian responding to Marcion in his fourth book makes the same empirical observation regarding the Gospel records from the opposite end of the empire when he states “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul”
More importantly is the Apostolic Polity they describe which explains how the historic churches were set up and organized to witness to the official writings of the Apostles and safeguard the text down through the ages against the textual claims of the gnostics. –
Irenaeus states “We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches and their successors down to our time” (Establishing a Legal Chain of Custody back to the Apostles to identify the text) and this is what Irenaeus appeals to against the gnostics when in the previous paragraph he states “When we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders in the churches..
Tertullian appeals to the Apostolic Polity against Marcion to establish the Apocalypse of John.when he states “We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author.
This is how the historic churches were organized and setup, as an Anglican we are organized in the same manor as is the Greek Orthodox, the Syrians, the Coptic, Rome, etc… what you are not dealing with Mr Williams is we are talking about thousands of independent Apostolic churches in the Latin West, the Greek, the Aramaic and Coptic witnessing to the same 4 gospels, naming the same authors who can legally trace back to the apostles –
These churches were fighting with each other all over the place, yet they all witness to the same four gospels, naming the same authors – We have the legal lists of the Apostolic Churches going all the way back.Ireneus, Tertullian and Eusebius documents the lists of bishops going back to the Apostles.
So Modern Scholarship doesn’t deal with what the Apostolic Churches said because they can’t refute it so they ignore it, sought of like how you ignore it. Not once in your arguments Mr Williams do you even speak to the Apostolic Polity. In my debate with Dr Ehrman on his blog, he was speechless when I appealed to the Apostolic Polity, for he knew exactly what I was saying, and he knew that his well educated Greek Scribe narrative doesn’t explain how the independent Apostolic Churches throughout the Mediterranean came up with the 4 gospels in Greek, Latin and Aramaic naming the same authors unless it does go back to the Apostles and Ireneus and Tertullian said it did.
Don’t feel bad Mr Williams, Ireneus and Tertullian have been unanswered for the last 1800 years. So if your going to challenge the Gospel records, you are going to have to deal with what the apostolic churches said and not ignore it like modern scholarship does.
God Bless
Jonathan S
and this theory wasn’t first introduced I believe until 1798 – The Apostolic fathers and churches all said Matthew was first – From Ireneus, to Augustine
thanks for your (rather wordy and long) reply. Despite the length of your reply it fails to engage with the actual reasons given by today’s experts on the gospels for concluding they’re not written by eyewitnesses.
Briefly they can be summarized:
1) none of the gospels actually claim to be by the disciples of Jesus called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are all anonymous.
2) they do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses. Note that Matthew’s gospel for instance is written completely in the third person, about what “they” – Jesus and his disciples – were doing, never about what “we” – Jesus and the rest of us – were doing. Even when this gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to be a disciple, it talks about “him”, not about “me”. Read Matthew 9:9. There’s not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.
3) the disciples of Jesus were lower-class peasants from rural Galilee which meant that they were almost certainly illiterate. Studies suggest that only about 10% of the Roman Empire was roughly literate – all in the upper classes who had the time and money to get an education. Acts 4:13 says they were all “unlettered” the ancient world for illiterate. The authors of the gospels were clearly highly educated, Greek speaking christians who probably lived outside of Palestine.
4) the gospels contradict each other in numerous important ways about what Jesus actually taught (for instance about the Jewish law and the significance of Jesus’s death). If they were written by the earthy disciples of Jesus why do they contain these contradictions?
5) it is now clear to scholars in the field of gospel studies that there is a high degree of literary dependence between the gospels, usually called the synoptic problem. Most specialists conclude (rightly in my view) that Matthew and Luke used Mark in the writing of their own gospels, changing Mark as they saw fit – often in highly significant ways when they disagree with Mark’s account of Jesus.
The views of churchmen (eg Augustine) who lived generations after the gospels were written is interesting about has no direct bearing on the problems I have outlined here. They simply repeat the traditional view about the gospels authorship without considering the issues raised above.
I do enjoy our monologues Mr Williams, but you have just ignored the evidence of Ireneus, Tertullian and all the Apostolic Churches. Your like the three Buddhist monkeys of Shri Lanka (You don’t see what I say, hear what I say, or speak about what I say). But it still doesn’t change the historical facts that you are ignoring as the postmodern scholars of academia,that create their made up narrative of the ancient world.. The Apostolic Polity of the Ancient Churches is true whether you believe it or not. We have to deal with the Meta-narrative otherwise known as reality. Mr Williams you need to take the red the pill and get out of the Matrix you are in.
So let’s review your postmodern arguments:
First you said: [1) none of the gospels actually claim to be by the disciples of Jesus called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are all anonymous] –
Well I made this point earlier – but Ireneus, Tertullian, and the historic apostolic churches all came up with the same 4 books, naming the same authors even though the documents don’t indicate who wrote them…
.What your not answering is, how did they all came up with the same 4 names for the same books?
Remember the gnostics not only had different books, but different names for their books. Ireneus and Tertullian stated this was the independent testimony of the apostolic churches throughout the ancient world from britian to India and North Africa to Germany –
So how did they all guess correctly in Aramaic, Greek, Vetus Latin, Coptic and other ancient languages – remember, the east and the west were fighting over the date of Easter in the early second century according to Ireneus- yet they all come up with the same testimony on the authors of the gospels.
Irenaeus states “The tradition of the apostles made clear in all the world can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth; We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time” They can identify the authors because the churches can all legally trace back to the apostles – these are thousands of independent witnesses coming up with the same testimony – that would be conclusive in any normal court of law.
Second you stated [2) they do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses] – really? Well I think you need to read Luke 1:1-4 again where it states:
Luke 1:1-4King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 EVEN AS THEY DELIVERED THEM UNTO US, WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Do you see Mr Williams how modern scholarship ignores evidence and continue to be stuck in their postmodern narrative?
Your third point: [the disciples of Jesus were lower-class peasants from rural Galilee which meant that they were almost certainly illiterate]
Mr Williams, I love how you take this statement right out of Dr Ehrmans playbook – First there was writing in that area going back around 3000 years and short hand had existed from the time of Xenophon. What your missing is in a village of 1000 people and 90% are illiterate, you still have people who can write. Scribes are mentioned all over the new testament – it only takes one person to write – they could have hired scribes. Tertullian and Ireneus said Mark was Peters interpreter, and Luke was Paul’s companion. Read
Romans 16:22King James Version (KJV) where it says
22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.(Paul used tertius to write the epistle of Romans) even though it was coming from Paul.
You also mentioned in your third point which is also from Dr Ehrman that:[The authors of the gospels were clearly highly educated, Greek speaking christians who probably lived outside of Palestine]
Ok, even though you cannot document this assertion from any witnesses from from the ancient world that substantiates what you are stating – help me understand why Highly Educated Greeks would write in Koeine with smatterings of Aramaic instead of Attic, Ionic or Alexandrian Greek? Your asserting they were highly educated, then they would have written in Attic,Ionic or Alexandrian Greek not in Koeine with smatterings of Aramaic. Philo wrote in the 1st century and he was highly educated as well and he was from Alexandria and we have what he wrote in – Yet, Koiene was the common Greek especially in trade – So john, peter as fisherman and Matthew as a publican would use this dialect of Greek to conduct business transactions in their trade.
So that’s your first problem, your second problem with this assertion is how did these highly educated Greeks get the new testament gospels into Aramaic, Coptic, Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages and convince the independent Apostolic Churches throughout the Mediterranean to accept these 4 while rejecting all the other so called Gospels (E.g, Gospel of Truth, Thomas, Peter, etc..)
So please bring forth your Ancient witnesses that explain how we got the books of the New Testament.
Because if you reject what the Apostolic Churches said, I’m sure there were well educated Greeks, Jews, Romans, Syrians and others, who would have written tombs disproving what the Apostolic Churches said. Or are you maintaining that all these people, could only speak Aramaic, and could not read or write?
Mr Williams, as you can see your dealing with an Anglican, not someone from the church of last week. Your of Brittan decent, and I too have an English background, so why do you reject British Empiricism for the German Speculation?
I don’t see how Brother Paul is neglecting the spirit of the British empiricists. Bilal-sama may not have extensive knowledge of Saint Ireneus of Lyons, but he does not about how the books of the Bible were composed through modern critical scholarship.
I love Hobbes and Hume. Berkeley and Locke are also cool. F*** the schoolmen! I also love William of Ockham.
I have a New Testament reading program (and may Allah forgive me that I have not emphasized the Qu’ran that much). I regard my approach to the texts as trying to be “exegetical” as possible; that is I try to draw out the meaning of the text. I consider my approach to be “zahiri”, that I look for what is manifest and evident in the meaning of the words, as opposed to trying to read into the text so that I could conform to a tradition. I emphasize acquiring my own understanding of the text, rather than have it be influenced by other polemicists who have their own biases. I feel that I should start from having a personal understanding and interpretation of scripture, and THEN I could modify my views in light of other interpretations that make more sense.
Why should the Church fathers have much say of anything important about whether books such as the Epistles of Timothy are forgeries?
My point to Mr Williams is that he must deal with the empirical data instead of ignoring it which demonstrates that the Apostolic Greek, Aramaic, Vetus Latin, Coptic churches identify only 4 gospels received, and the historic churches all identify Matthew, Mark, Luke & John as the authors – this testimony is confirmed in Eusebius church histories, Ireneus bishop of Lyons (against the heresies) who was in succession to the Apostle John, Tertullian of North Africa and the historic apostolic churches – these are the facts – The Biblical Versions all confirm this as well (i.e., Aramaic Peshitta, the Vulgate, the text of the Greek Orthodox, The Gothic, the Ethiopian etc.
Does not the British justice system require the defense to be heard before a verdict is issued – Ireneus and Tertullian were responding to the textual claims of the Gnostics who also claimed that their writings were also from the apostles. The Apostolic churches were dealing with this specific issue in the second century, so Latias why are you against hearing their arguments? The defense has a right to speak in any normal court of law. This is British Justice, not the German courts that upheld the Nuremberg laws.
.Tertullian and Ireneus challenged the textual claims of the Gnostic’s by appealing to the Apostolic Polity (Its this reality not the postmodern narrative of Academia that Mr Williams needs to respond too.:The historic churches presented a legal defense for the text as demonstrated in Tertullian statement below in his prescription against the heresies.
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind….Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic.
Blogging Theology 
Man! From where do you get these things? 😂😂
LikeLiked by 2 people
word
LikeLike
Some of those version are not just different accounts, but “plagiarized” from each other word for word.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Latias,
I’m glad to see that your a follower of the German Rationalists; if you want to see how they view the Koran, see You-Tubes of Jay Smith. The Apostolic Polity as evinced in the writings of Ireneus of Lyons and Tertullian of North Africa point out that the Apostolic Churches of the ancient world have the same 4 gospels and name the same 4 authors, and in any normal court of law, that would be conclusive.
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are written not by eyewitnesses, Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable. In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that “the differences among manuscripts have become great, … [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” For these reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr Williams,
We have four witnesses to your 1 witness…and that 1 witness was 600 years later….oooooh!, I almost forgot, you did have many other witnesses, but the third Kalief according to Bukhari burned all the others. What kind of person burns witnesses?
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
According to the consensus of NT scholars today NONE of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
So to your ZERO witnesses I give you the All-Knowing, infallible witness of all history: God Himself in His Revelation.
“And this Qur’an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah.” Qur’an 10:37
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mr Williams:
you stated: [According to the consensus of NT scholars today NONE of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses]
Glad you accept the consensus of NT Scholars today – According to Reza Aslin a Muslim, the consensus of modern scholarship said Jesus was crucified.
And also Anad Rashid, the other day with his debate with James White said that the consensus of Modern Scholars said that Jesus was crucified. So this would mean the Koran is wrong.
So if your going to accept the witness of rationalistic “School of thought” scholarship , then you also have to accept their consensus on the Crucifixion
I accept the Apostolic Polity as explained in the writings of Ireneus and Tertullian in the late 2nd century which explains why the historic churches came up with the same 4 gospels naming the same 4 authors in Aramaic, Greek, Vetus Latin, Coptic and other ancient languages. As I said before in any normal court of law that would be conclusive. The Historic Apostolic Churches which can legally trace back to the Apostles represent thousands of independent witnesses across the ancient world.
Remember, the names weren’t on the texts received by the Apostolic Churches – yet they name the same 4 gospels identifying the same 4 authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Ireneus is a witnesses to the official Apostolic Church of Smyrna – his bishop was Polycarp – and according to Tertullian in North Africa – Polycarp was Appointed Bishop by the Apostle John –
Ireneus and Tertullian – at opposite end of the empire also name the same authors for the same gospels. Remember, the gnostic texts were all different. Iiars don’t agree.
Help me understand Mr Williams, Bukhari, 200 years after the death of his project set about to collect the sayings of Muhammad – Bukhari was dealing with over 600,000 sayings which he widdled down to about 7000 using independent chains of reports to validate the sayings – yet when Ireneus and Tertullian and thousands of historic churches use a similar technique to establish the cannon of the Testament against the Gnostics – you reject thousands of our witnesses, yet accept the one witness of Bukhari – How can that be explained except as an unbeliever you are biased against Christianity?
LikeLike
I will ignore your invalid tu quoque arguments.
Are you familiar with the reasons why nearly all NT scholars today do not think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Have you read any scholarship?
Btw these academics are predominantly Christian.
LikeLike
Mr Williams
When you stated [“In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that “the differences among manuscripts have become great, … [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”]
Its important to distinguish between the commonly received text of the Apostolic Churches as opposed to texts of unknown provenance. Before Origin (Who was excommunicated by the Apostolic Church of Alexandria, two Egyptian councils, and 1 ecumenical council) Tertullian, Ireneus and Gauis in the second century discussed alterations to the text of the New testament that was all over the ancient world – Even Tertullian in his works against Marcion showed that the texts received by the Apostolic Churches were different than Marcions Shorter edition of luke and ten letters of Paul – Jerome spoke about bad texts in Latin as well – but we can look at the Vulgate which was publically read in the churches of the West, the Aramiac Peshitta, the Greek Church Text and the TR which was read in protestant churches and adopted by the Coptic Church in Egypt in Arabic of all languages. Once again, we can be honest about our varients, but remember these versions have been commonly received by the official Apostolic Churches witness to the same type of text and same consistent traditional readings in the Latin, Greek and Aramiac.
Any one scribe can corrupt a text, but they couldn’t corrupt them all. we are talking about thousands of ind pendant Apostolic church texts in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and other ancient languages.
Yet Uthman burned all your variants 20 years after the death of your prophet. Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510 the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur’an, so he asked ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before.” also “Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. “Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.” Also: Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, Why were the other copies and fragements ordered to be burnt – the answer is clearly found in the original statement – “Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Quran”Now Uthman as the Third Kalieh had state power to create an official version of the Koran and destroyed all your variants and differences” And lets not forget the sheep that ate a little bit of the Koran. Now can you show me any historical record where the official Greek Churches got together and created a standardized text in Greek – I mean, they had 7 ecumenical councils – surly if such a concoction occurred – we should have record of such an event – Now – we are aware of Jerome’s standardization of the Latin in 383 AD – unfortunate Jerome didn’t have the power Uthman did – Jerome in his preface to the Gospels says that he is confirming the Latin to the Original Greek , and would only use Latin readings if they had Greek Support and he used very early manuscripts.
Once again you accept Bukhari methodology of collection which uses similiar standards “independant Chains of Reports” and he was only one man – yet you reject thousands of our independent witnesses that legally trace back to the apostles through our succession of bishops as described by Tertullian and Ireneus. How is this not a double standard. I can accept Bukhari methodology, and have respect for his integrity in his process – but you reject the Apostolic Polity of Thousands of Independent churches in Greek, Latin and Aramaic.
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
I will ignore your invalid tu quoque arguments.
Are you familiar with the reasons why nearly all NT scholars today do not think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Have you read any scholarship?
Btw these academics are predominantly Christian.
LikeLike
Mr Williams, thank you for your reply.
I see your playing a little dodge ball with me, but I think you have mistaken my argument – I’m using a Socratic approach which is designed to bring out the truth. (Answering a question with another question) All I was trying to demonstrate is that your appealing to sources which you would also consider flawed.
but I will answer your questions. When you state [Are you familiar with the reasons why nearly all NT scholars today do not think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?]
Of course, And yes I am well versed on their scholarship. Their views on the New Testament are under an evolutionary worldview – it’s no surprise these theories only originated within the last couple of hundred years, If these scholars acknowledge John, Matthew, Mark and Luke as the authors – this rules out their entire evolutionary theory; for John and Matthew were eyewitness, Mark was Peters scribe, and Luke was Paul scribe –
This is why they say Mark was the first Gospel and then they say the last 12 verses were added on. I get Mr Williams we live in a postmodern worldview where we can create any narrative we want, but the historic churches.did exist and still exist, and the consensus of the fathers and the historic churches which published the gospels said not only was Matthew the first Gospel Published, but they basically document that these were the four writings commonly received by the Apostolic churches, and they all name the same authors – FYI there was no internet or email to help spread the word.
I notice Mr Williams you did not engage Ireneus and Tertullian Testimony. Remember Irenaeus opens up his third book against the heresies responding to the textual claims of the gnostics stating:
“So Matthew among the Hebrews issued a Writing of the gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia (Against Heresies, 3:1)
Further in his treatise Irenaeus then makes an empirical observation regarding the Gospel records stating “The Tradition of the Apostles, made clear in all the world can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the Truth.
Tertullian responding to Marcion in his fourth book makes the same empirical observation regarding the Gospel records from the opposite end of the empire when he states “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul”
More importantly is the Apostolic Polity they describe which explains how the historic churches were set up and organized to witness to the official writings of the Apostles and safeguard the text down through the ages against the textual claims of the gnostics. –
Irenaeus states “We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches and their successors down to our time” (Establishing a Legal Chain of Custody back to the Apostles to identify the text) and this is what Irenaeus appeals to against the gnostics when in the previous paragraph he states “When we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders in the churches..
Tertullian appeals to the Apostolic Polity against Marcion to establish the Apocalypse of John.when he states “We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author.
This is how the historic churches were organized and setup, as an Anglican we are organized in the same manor as is the Greek Orthodox, the Syrians, the Coptic, Rome, etc… what you are not dealing with Mr Williams is we are talking about thousands of independent Apostolic churches in the Latin West, the Greek, the Aramaic and Coptic witnessing to the same 4 gospels, naming the same authors who can legally trace back to the apostles –
These churches were fighting with each other all over the place, yet they all witness to the same four gospels, naming the same authors – We have the legal lists of the Apostolic Churches going all the way back.Ireneus, Tertullian and Eusebius documents the lists of bishops going back to the Apostles.
So Modern Scholarship doesn’t deal with what the Apostolic Churches said because they can’t refute it so they ignore it, sought of like how you ignore it. Not once in your arguments Mr Williams do you even speak to the Apostolic Polity. In my debate with Dr Ehrman on his blog, he was speechless when I appealed to the Apostolic Polity, for he knew exactly what I was saying, and he knew that his well educated Greek Scribe narrative doesn’t explain how the independent Apostolic Churches throughout the Mediterranean came up with the 4 gospels in Greek, Latin and Aramaic naming the same authors unless it does go back to the Apostles and Ireneus and Tertullian said it did.
Don’t feel bad Mr Williams, Ireneus and Tertullian have been unanswered for the last 1800 years. So if your going to challenge the Gospel records, you are going to have to deal with what the apostolic churches said and not ignore it like modern scholarship does.
God Bless
Jonathan S
and this theory wasn’t first introduced I believe until 1798 – The Apostolic fathers and churches all said Matthew was first – From Ireneus, to Augustine
Have you read any scholarship?
LikeLike
Bilal reads twitter- you have no chance 😄😄
LikeLike
thanks for your (rather wordy and long) reply. Despite the length of your reply it fails to engage with the actual reasons given by today’s experts on the gospels for concluding they’re not written by eyewitnesses.
Briefly they can be summarized:
1) none of the gospels actually claim to be by the disciples of Jesus called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are all anonymous.
2) they do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses. Note that Matthew’s gospel for instance is written completely in the third person, about what “they” – Jesus and his disciples – were doing, never about what “we” – Jesus and the rest of us – were doing. Even when this gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to be a disciple, it talks about “him”, not about “me”. Read Matthew 9:9. There’s not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.
3) the disciples of Jesus were lower-class peasants from rural Galilee which meant that they were almost certainly illiterate. Studies suggest that only about 10% of the Roman Empire was roughly literate – all in the upper classes who had the time and money to get an education. Acts 4:13 says they were all “unlettered” the ancient world for illiterate. The authors of the gospels were clearly highly educated, Greek speaking christians who probably lived outside of Palestine.
4) the gospels contradict each other in numerous important ways about what Jesus actually taught (for instance about the Jewish law and the significance of Jesus’s death). If they were written by the earthy disciples of Jesus why do they contain these contradictions?
5) it is now clear to scholars in the field of gospel studies that there is a high degree of literary dependence between the gospels, usually called the synoptic problem. Most specialists conclude (rightly in my view) that Matthew and Luke used Mark in the writing of their own gospels, changing Mark as they saw fit – often in highly significant ways when they disagree with Mark’s account of Jesus.
The views of churchmen (eg Augustine) who lived generations after the gospels were written is interesting about has no direct bearing on the problems I have outlined here. They simply repeat the traditional view about the gospels authorship without considering the issues raised above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comments Mr Williams:
I do enjoy our monologues Mr Williams, but you have just ignored the evidence of Ireneus, Tertullian and all the Apostolic Churches. Your like the three Buddhist monkeys of Shri Lanka (You don’t see what I say, hear what I say, or speak about what I say). But it still doesn’t change the historical facts that you are ignoring as the postmodern scholars of academia,that create their made up narrative of the ancient world.. The Apostolic Polity of the Ancient Churches is true whether you believe it or not. We have to deal with the Meta-narrative otherwise known as reality. Mr Williams you need to take the red the pill and get out of the Matrix you are in.
So let’s review your postmodern arguments:
First you said: [1) none of the gospels actually claim to be by the disciples of Jesus called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are all anonymous] –
Well I made this point earlier – but Ireneus, Tertullian, and the historic apostolic churches all came up with the same 4 books, naming the same authors even though the documents don’t indicate who wrote them…
.What your not answering is, how did they all came up with the same 4 names for the same books?
Remember the gnostics not only had different books, but different names for their books. Ireneus and Tertullian stated this was the independent testimony of the apostolic churches throughout the ancient world from britian to India and North Africa to Germany –
So how did they all guess correctly in Aramaic, Greek, Vetus Latin, Coptic and other ancient languages – remember, the east and the west were fighting over the date of Easter in the early second century according to Ireneus- yet they all come up with the same testimony on the authors of the gospels.
Irenaeus states “The tradition of the apostles made clear in all the world can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth; We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time” They can identify the authors because the churches can all legally trace back to the apostles – these are thousands of independent witnesses coming up with the same testimony – that would be conclusive in any normal court of law.
Second you stated [2) they do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses] – really? Well I think you need to read Luke 1:1-4 again where it states:
Luke 1:1-4King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 EVEN AS THEY DELIVERED THEM UNTO US, WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Do you see Mr Williams how modern scholarship ignores evidence and continue to be stuck in their postmodern narrative?
Your third point: [the disciples of Jesus were lower-class peasants from rural Galilee which meant that they were almost certainly illiterate]
Mr Williams, I love how you take this statement right out of Dr Ehrmans playbook – First there was writing in that area going back around 3000 years and short hand had existed from the time of Xenophon. What your missing is in a village of 1000 people and 90% are illiterate, you still have people who can write. Scribes are mentioned all over the new testament – it only takes one person to write – they could have hired scribes. Tertullian and Ireneus said Mark was Peters interpreter, and Luke was Paul’s companion. Read
Romans 16:22King James Version (KJV) where it says
22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.(Paul used tertius to write the epistle of Romans) even though it was coming from Paul.
You also mentioned in your third point which is also from Dr Ehrman that:[The authors of the gospels were clearly highly educated, Greek speaking christians who probably lived outside of Palestine]
Ok, even though you cannot document this assertion from any witnesses from from the ancient world that substantiates what you are stating – help me understand why Highly Educated Greeks would write in Koeine with smatterings of Aramaic instead of Attic, Ionic or Alexandrian Greek? Your asserting they were highly educated, then they would have written in Attic,Ionic or Alexandrian Greek not in Koeine with smatterings of Aramaic. Philo wrote in the 1st century and he was highly educated as well and he was from Alexandria and we have what he wrote in – Yet, Koiene was the common Greek especially in trade – So john, peter as fisherman and Matthew as a publican would use this dialect of Greek to conduct business transactions in their trade.
So that’s your first problem, your second problem with this assertion is how did these highly educated Greeks get the new testament gospels into Aramaic, Coptic, Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages and convince the independent Apostolic Churches throughout the Mediterranean to accept these 4 while rejecting all the other so called Gospels (E.g, Gospel of Truth, Thomas, Peter, etc..)
So please bring forth your Ancient witnesses that explain how we got the books of the New Testament.
Because if you reject what the Apostolic Churches said, I’m sure there were well educated Greeks, Jews, Romans, Syrians and others, who would have written tombs disproving what the Apostolic Churches said. Or are you maintaining that all these people, could only speak Aramaic, and could not read or write?
Mr Williams, as you can see your dealing with an Anglican, not someone from the church of last week. Your of Brittan decent, and I too have an English background, so why do you reject British Empiricism for the German Speculation?
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike
I don’t see how Brother Paul is neglecting the spirit of the British empiricists. Bilal-sama may not have extensive knowledge of Saint Ireneus of Lyons, but he does not about how the books of the Bible were composed through modern critical scholarship.
I love Hobbes and Hume. Berkeley and Locke are also cool. F*** the schoolmen! I also love William of Ockham.
I have a New Testament reading program (and may Allah forgive me that I have not emphasized the Qu’ran that much). I regard my approach to the texts as trying to be “exegetical” as possible; that is I try to draw out the meaning of the text. I consider my approach to be “zahiri”, that I look for what is manifest and evident in the meaning of the words, as opposed to trying to read into the text so that I could conform to a tradition. I emphasize acquiring my own understanding of the text, rather than have it be influenced by other polemicists who have their own biases. I feel that I should start from having a personal understanding and interpretation of scripture, and THEN I could modify my views in light of other interpretations that make more sense.
Why should the Church fathers have much say of anything important about whether books such as the Epistles of Timothy are forgeries?
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments Latias,
My point to Mr Williams is that he must deal with the empirical data instead of ignoring it which demonstrates that the Apostolic Greek, Aramaic, Vetus Latin, Coptic churches identify only 4 gospels received, and the historic churches all identify Matthew, Mark, Luke & John as the authors – this testimony is confirmed in Eusebius church histories, Ireneus bishop of Lyons (against the heresies) who was in succession to the Apostle John, Tertullian of North Africa and the historic apostolic churches – these are the facts – The Biblical Versions all confirm this as well (i.e., Aramaic Peshitta, the Vulgate, the text of the Greek Orthodox, The Gothic, the Ethiopian etc.
Does not the British justice system require the defense to be heard before a verdict is issued – Ireneus and Tertullian were responding to the textual claims of the Gnostics who also claimed that their writings were also from the apostles. The Apostolic churches were dealing with this specific issue in the second century, so Latias why are you against hearing their arguments? The defense has a right to speak in any normal court of law. This is British Justice, not the German courts that upheld the Nuremberg laws.
.Tertullian and Ireneus challenged the textual claims of the Gnostic’s by appealing to the Apostolic Polity (Its this reality not the postmodern narrative of Academia that Mr Williams needs to respond too.:The historic churches presented a legal defense for the text as demonstrated in Tertullian statement below in his prescription against the heresies.
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind….Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic.
God Bless
Jonathan S
LikeLike