Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Doug Shaver]

That church that received the original Greek edition of it knew who it was from.

You say so.

What can you tell me about that church? Can you identify any of its members by name? Can you tell me what city or country it was located in? Can you tell me when they received that original Greek edition? Can you tell me how they knew who it was from? Can you tell me your source for any of this information?

[rogue06]

That church that received the original Greek edition of it knew who it was from. And the copies identified Matthew as the writer.

Also telling is that nobody else was ever named as a possible author -- something that is exceptionally rare with an "anonymous" work.

[Doug Shaver]

Also telling is that nobody else was ever named as a possible author -- something that is exceptionally rare with an "anonymous" work.

The writings that survived don't mention any alternatives. How confident do you think we can be that every document in which somebody expressed an opinion about gospel authorship was preserved?

[Tassman]

From the perspective that the disciple and Apostle Matthew did write it, those modern scholars would be wrong.

And what "perspective" would that be and why would one take it seriously. Especially when, according to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman and many other scholars, the claim that the tax collector Matthew was the author of the Gospel of Matthew cannot be traced earlier than about 180 CE.

[37818]

And what "perspective" would that be and why would one take it seriously. Especially when, according to biblical scholar Bart Ehrman and many other scholars, the claim that the tax collector Matthew was the author of the Gospel of Matthew cannot be traced earlier than about 180 CE.

That is an opinion of some scholars based on late dating of some papyrus (P64, P67) fragments of Matthew.

[shunyadragon]

That is an opinion of some scholars based on late dating of some papyrus (P64, P67) fragments of Matthew.

'Opinion?'
Is there any other external evidence that would support an earlier date. I believe there may be an unverified fragment the may have an earlier date, but not that early.

[Tassman]

That is an opinion of some scholars based on late dating of some papyrus (P64, P67) fragments of Matthew.

These are rough guesses, but most scholars agree on them.

Here we have in a convenient nutshell the basic reasons behind the widely accepted dates for the Gospels. Bart Ehrman explains he is not going into details here, and one can find in the literature more nuanced arguments for relative and other dates assigned to the gospels. But with these dot points we can say we are looking at the trunk of the tree."

https://vridar.org/2009/05/07/how-th...dated-and-why/

[37818]

'Opinion?'
Is there any other external evidence that would support an earlier date. I believe there may be an unverified fragment the may have an earlier date, but not that early.

The believing the identity of the authors. Matthew, Mark, Peter, Luke and Paul.

[Tassman]

The believing the identity of the authors. Matthew, Mark, Peter, Luke and Paul.

Why would you believe this when (except for the core group of authentic Pauline epistles) there is so much sound evidence against their authorship?

[rogue06]

Why would you believe this when (except for the core group of authentic Pauline epistles) there is so much sound evidence against their authorship?

Perhaps you should present some of this evidence. Let's start with Mark for instance. What evidence do you have that it was written by someone other than who it has always been attributed to?

[Tassman]

Perhaps you should present some of this evidence. Let's start with Mark for instance. What evidence do you have that it was written by someone other than who it has always been attributed to?

Given the scholarly consensus that Mark was written anonymously, perhaps the onus is on you to give reasons to believe otherwise. AFAIK ascribing authorship to Mark is simply tradition unsupported by factual evidence.

[Doug Shaver]

What evidence do you have that it was written by someone other than who it has always been attributed to?

I don't need evidence to say we don't know who wrote it. If you say we do know, you're the one who needs evidence.

[37818]

I don't need evidence to say we don't know who wrote it. If you say we do know, you're the one who needs evidence.

The evidence has been the only named person associate as the human author of said document.

[shunyadragon]

The believing the identity of the authors. Matthew, Mark, Peter, Luke and Paul.

Believing is your justification for your belief. Where is the evidence you can cite to support this belief?

[Doug Shaver]

The evidence has been the only named person associate as the human author of said document.

That's it? Somebody said that so-and-so wrote it, and we should just take their word for it?