Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Sparko]

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

Isn't that how we do most historical writings?

Most historians figure people closer to the event have more knowledge of such things than someone 2,000 years removed. If the Church attached names to the gospels from earliest copies that we have, and we don't have any mis-attributions (like copies of Matthew attributed to Mark or someone else) then we can be pretty sure that the author was Matthew. There is no reason to think otherwise.

How do you know Plato actually wrote The Republic?

[Tassman]

Isn't that how we do most historical writings?

Most historians figure people closer to the event have more knowledge of such things than someone 2,000 years removed. If the Church attached names to the gospels from earliest copies that we have, and we don't have any mis-attributions (like copies of Matthew attributed to Mark or someone else) then we can be pretty sure that the author was Matthew. There is no reason to think otherwise.

How do you know Plato actually wrote The Republic?

"Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."- Bart Ehrman Blog.

[37818]

"Contrary to what you may sometimes have heard, there is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on. It is absolutely true to say that in the manuscripts of the Gospels, they have the titles we are accustomed to (The Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). But these manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."- Bart Ehrman Blog.

There is no evidence that the names were not originally associated with those four accounts.

[37818]

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

The preponderance of the manuscript evidence.

[Tassman]

The preponderance of the manuscript evidence.

[Doug Shaver]

Isn't that how we do most historical writings?

Having read several books about how historians do their thing, I don't think so.

Most historians figure people closer to the event have more knowledge of such things than someone 2,000 years removed.

Not everybody who lived 2,000 years ago knew everything there was to know about their time and place. Few would have had that kind of knowledge, and we cannot assume that they were the only ones putting their thoughts in writing.

If the Church attached names to the gospels from earliest copies that we have, and we don't have any mis-attributions (like copies of Matthew attributed to Mark or someone else) then we can be pretty sure that the author was Matthew.

That argument begs the question of the church's own credibility. You're assuming that the church itself could not have made any mistakes about its own origins.

There is no reason to think otherwise.

The reasons don't persuade you. That doesn't mean there aren't any.

How do you know Plato actually wrote The Republic?

I don't claim to know who wrote it. Plato's authorship does seem to be the most parsimonious supposition, but there is another point more relevant to this discussion. Nobody is claiming that what we should learn from the Republic depends on who wrote it. It presents certain ideas about how a society should be governed, and we can argue the merits of those ideas quite independently of any questions we might have about who first wrote them down.

[shunyadragon]

The preponderance of the manuscript evidence.

None of the manuscript evidence nor historical records date to support your assertions.

[37818]

None of the manuscript evidence nor historical records date to support your assertions.

The New Testament documents copies date closer to their originals more than most other ancient documents. Can you identify one of those others?

[Tassman]

There is no evidence that the names were not originally associated with those four accounts.

There is no good reason to think they were. Again: "These manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."- Bart Ehrman Blog.

[Doug Shaver]

There is no evidence that the names were not originally associated with those four accounts.

I don't need that evidence. If someone affirms X without evidence, then I can affirm not-X without evidence.

[shunyadragon]

The New Testament documents copies date closer to their originals more than most other ancient documents. Can you identify one of those others?

IT is a fact that the evidence does not date the gospels as early as you claim. The other ancient literature does not make the claims you are making for the NT, and they do not need to. Plato's Republic does not need to written by Plato to be what the literary works represent in history.

Confucius literary works. The literary works of Babylonia, Canaanite, and Ugarit cuneiform are preserved found in their original libraries.

[37818]

IT is a fact that the evidence does not date the gospels as early as you claim. The other ancient literature does not make the claims you are making for the NT, and they do not need to. Plato's Republic does not need to written by Plato to be what the literary works represent in history.

Confucius literary works. The literary works of Babylonia, Canaanite, and Ugarit cuneiform are preserved found in their original libraries.

Plato's republic has some 250 mss. It is deemed to have been written in around 380 BC. Remaining full copies are some 1000+ years later.

The NT has thousands of copies. And from the time of its writing to its earlest copies only about a 100 years or so. Full NT only about 400 years.

Provide information.

[37818]

I don't need that evidence. If someone affirms X without evidence, then I can affirm not-X without evidence.

The ;evidence only supports the names associated with the four gospel accounts. What is the date of earliest claim regarding the gospels not being written by those whose names are associated with them?

[37818]

There is no good reason to think they were. Again: "These manuscripts with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. What were manuscripts of, say, Matthew or John entitled in the year 120 CE? We have no way of knowing. But there are reasons to think that they were not called Matthew and John."- Bart Ehrman Blog.

The earliest evidence says otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

Plato's republic has some 250 mss. It is deemed to have been written in around 380 BC. Remaining full copies are some 1000+ years later.

As I said before date and author are not meaningful nor necessary for Plato's Republic. The comparison is a ruse.

The NT has thousands of copies. And from the time of its writing to its earlest copies only about a 100 years or so. Full NT only about 400 years.

All this is too late to justify your claims.

Provide information.

Provide information for what? If you are talking about the cuneiform literature there are numerous internet and archealogical sources that describe these finds.