Prof. Ehrman and other scholars write about the rather weak external evidence that the traditional gospel authors wrote their respective Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Prof. Ehrman discusses Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, and Clement of Alexandria. However, Papias is the only one that discusses where he got his information. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying:
If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** (chapter 39, section 4).
This is not the best information the world, talking with people a century after Jesus’ death. However, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, and Clement of Alexandria give absolutely no source for their information. To me, information with no source is worthless. I understand that there are many reasons for thinking that Papias is not reliable, but, unreliable as he is, isn’t he the best evidence regarding the traditional authorship of Mark and Matthew? He doesn’t mention Luke or John.
Am I missing something because, if Papias is as good as it gets, there is no evidence for traditional gospel authorship.
LS:
That sounds right, but,
“This is not the best information the world, talking with people a century after Jesus’ death”
Since we’re addressing testimony about when the gospels were written, the standard is how long after the gospels were written.
Considering that Papias is said (per Ehrman) to have been writing between 110 and 140, we can specify the time frame as follows
Mark: 65- 80 A.D 45 to 60 years Matthew: 80- 100 A.D 30 to 40 years Luke: 80 – 130 A.D 30 to 10 years John 90 -120 falls within 20 years on each side. The question here is what sort of time frame can historians accept.
“To me, information with no source is worthless.”
I think historians look for corroboration from independent sources. So while tracing, say, the claims of Papias back to the original claim is desirable, a number of independent sources (the more the merrier) saying the same thing, is useful for the historians purposes.
Non of that alters your conclusions, but I think with those corrections, your argument is actually stronger. Take the example of John, if Papias is writing within a decade or two of its publication and still gets it wrong, he sbecomes even less reliable.
spiker said
Since we’re addressing testimony about when the gospels were written, the standard is how long after the gospels were written.
True. I thought about that, but didn’t go into it. Later the Gospels were written, they are closer in time to Papias, but further from the events they purport to describe. Papias said nothing about John. Hypothetically, if the Gospel according to John had been written in 120 CE, then Papias could have met the author, but the author would not have been St. John – who would have been long dead.
Hypothetically, if the Gospel according to John had been written in 120 CE, then Papias could have met the author, but the author would not have been St. John – who would have been long dead.
Well, tru dat, LS
Actually, I had a similar situation writing that last bit which you captured in your response. That is, to say that Papias testimony would be more reliable in the sense he would be in a position to know that it was not written by an eye witness. Consequently, if one wants to accept the credibility of Papias, then one has to let go of the idea that the Gospels are the product of eye witness testimony.
As far as John goes. the question, I think is, whether his comments have been understood to refer to the author of the fourth Gospel. After all, he does speak of John the Elder and this has often been taken as a reference to the disciple, John and his purported authorship of the fourth gospel.
BTW have you read or formed an opinion on Bauckham’s belief that John was written by an eyewitness ( a friend of John’s).
To me, it sounds a bit thin, but I have not looked at the evidence.
Lawyerskeptic said
Am I missing something because, if Papias is as good as it gets, there is no evidence for traditional gospel authorship.
Indeed, no evidence for the traditional gospel authorship.
You might find the alternative idea of Thomas Brodie of interest.
One thing is certain: when the final story is told there will be a special role
for the process of writing. Many reconstructions of Christian origins have
pictured the process of writing the books of the New Testament as late and
loose- decades after Jesus is said to have lived, and without direct links
between the various writers and writings. And the process of tying the books
together in what is now called the New Testament has been seen as not
happening until considerably later.
However, in several human movements a process of writing comes early
and is carefully developed. It would probably be worthwhile to check the
nature and role of the process of writing in various events-the roles perhaps
of the Magna Carta, Luther’s theses, the Spanish Salmanticences, the French
Encyclopedie in relation to the French Revolution, the US Constitution, the
Communist Manifesto, the Irish 1 9 1 6 Easter Proclamation of independence,
plus, more recently, the role of tape recordings and the internet-but what is
certain is that, while the Jewish people became known as the People of the
Book, the Christians became de facto the primary developers of the codex,
the bound book which replaced scrolls, and which, whatever its origin,
emerged energetically about the same time as Christianity.
1 9. Christian Origins 1 83
In any case, regardless of what may have happened around various other
events and the codex, there is significant evidence that writing, coordinated
writing, had an important role in the founding of Christianity. I will mention
six points:
1 . Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting.
2. The rewriting indicates coordination-a group or school.
3. The existence of other schools gives support to the idea of a New
Testament school/group.
4. The scholarly linking of biblical books with schools gives further
support to the idea of a New Testament school.
5. The quest for the sequence of the books.
6. The truth of writing.
………………
The preceding views hold that, where diverse books show an obvious
mixture of similarity and difference-the Deuteronomic history, the Johannine writings, the Pauline corpus- the explanation lies in some form of school. As evidence now emerges that all twenty-seven New Testament
books are linked not only by a pattern of similarity and difference but also by
systematic literary connections, the case for some form of school becomes
compelling. In some sense the origin of Christianity is linked to one key
community that contained writers who built on one another and interpreted
one another.
Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus
It seems to me that early christianity was an elitiest movement; not a bottom up but a top down movement led by sophisticated literate Jews. New ideas, after all, are often revolutionary by their nature and require great thinkers….such people are very often, as it were, born before their time.
Greg Matthews said
Great, another marginalized misunderstood mythicist. For such an elitist movement these rich Jews used some of the most inept, under educated Greek scribes possible.
If the story is of an illiterate, or semi-illiterate, wandering carpenter preacher – then, it’s pretty obvious that an author is going to represent that in the manner in which he/she tells the story – a product of the un-educated or under-educated….A bottom up origin of Christianity. However, don’t let the manner in which the story is told cloud ones judgement over how a movement such as Christianity could have originated.
As to Brodie’s above quote – that view deals with the NT manuscripts and is neither historicist nor ahistoricist. It’s only by interpreting the gospel story in the historicists manner that you can make the statement you made above about ‘under educated Greek scribes..’. Dealing with the manuscript texts as texts then their relationship one to the other suggests, as Brodie says, a school of authorship. A school indicates educated scholars – an elite movement behind NT writing.
As to Thomas Brodie being marginalized: Indeed he has been. And that is a sad reflection on the state of scholarship in the Catholic Church. Censorship to protect ‘truth’…..methinks that’s it’s errors of judgement that need all the protection that it’s proponents can muster. The ‘truth’ sets one free does it not…..it’s errors that require a 1984 approach to mind control….
—————————
Wikipedia: Thomas Brodie:
‘Following on these deliberations the committee advised that they judged Beyond the Quest to be ‘imprudent and dangerous’ (a phrase from the Order’s own legislation). Accepting this assessment, the Provincial continued the sanctions on Tom Brodie – that he withdraw fully from ministry and from all forms of teaching, writing, or making public statements.”
Greg Matthews said
No one’s ever heard of Brodie. Were it not for a mythicist editor on wikipedia he wouldn’t even have an entry: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Well, people have certainty heard of Brodie now. The Catholic Church censor of Brodie has brought him to the attention of a wider audience. While the Catholic Church has deemed his ”Beyond the Quest for a Historical Jesus” to be ”imprudent and dangerous’’ they have not taken the big stick to his other books i.e. these books stands as testimony to his scholarship.
From amazon, a list of books by Thomas Brodie.
The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (New Testament Monographs)
6 Jun 2006
The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model…
The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-oriented Approach
1 Jan 1993
The Word is Flesh and Blood: The Eucharist and Sacred Scripture
16 Feb 2012
The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary by Thomas L. Brodie (1997-11-27)
The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs)
17 Oct 2006
Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Hardback) – Common
2001
Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts As a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings
1987
Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery
6 Sep 2012
Greg Matthews said
That means squat. You can self-publish and have Amazon sell your book.
So two books of Bart Ehrman’s published by Oxford University Press mean ‘squat’….
Three of the books listed above by Thomas Brodie were published by Oxford University Press. Two were published by Sheffield Phoenix Press.
Wikipedia:
Oxford University Press (OUP) is the largest ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd. (SPP) is an independent academic printing house specializing in ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make. If it is to discredit the scholarship of Thomas Brodie, methinks you are on a track to nowhere….
Greg Matthews said
No one’s ever heard of Brodie. Were it not for a mythicist editor on wikipedia he wouldn’t even have an entry: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
And we’re back:
Is it just me or has Wikipedia become the redoubt of Pravda’s former editorial staff:
From it’s article on Richard Carrier
Initially he was not interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus, Like many others his first thought was that it was a fringe conspiracy topic not worthy of academic inquiry, however many different people requested that he looked into the subject and raised money for him to do so which lead to his authoring two books on the subject, Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus.
Well, imagined that!
It’s well established that Christianity was founded on oral tradition and that literacy was not well established in that part of the world at that time. I’m sure you’re familiar with Hezser’s findings of a literacy rate of about 3%. As far as I know there’s very little evidence to support the idea of coordinated writing or schools. The idea of communal writing has been proposed, but it sounds a bit thin. One need look no further than Luke’s dedication to find that idea questionable.
“I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty…”
Nothing their about a school or some coordinated writing. Luke, for one, specifically refers to himself as both investigator and author.
The late dating of the Gospels is completely consonant with both the the rate of literacy and the Christian sense of immanence.
Why bother writing this stuff down if the end is coming(like a thief in the night) any day now?
spiker said
As far as John goes. the question, I think is, whether his comments have been understood to refer to the author of the fourth Gospel. After all, he does speak of John the Elder and this has often been taken as a reference to the disciple, John and his purported authorship of the fourth gospel.
BTW have you read or formed an opinion on Bauckham’s belief that John was written by an eyewitness ( a friend of John’s).
Please forgive my late response. I have been busy with a real trial.
So far as I know, the chapter in Eusebius that I referenced in my initial post is the only information we have about what Papias said about John the Elder (or Presbyter). Papias says that John the Presbyter said that Mark wrote a gospel, but I see no indication that Papias even knew that there was such a thing as a Gospel according to John.
You give me too much credit to think I might have an informed opinion about Richard Bauckham’s theories. I have Jesus and the Eyewitnesses on my bookshelf, and that is where it is likely to remain. I’ve read parts of it, but I’m not enough of a biblical scholar to grapple with the entire tome. If you think my legalistic perspective might be of some value, tell me what part to read and I’ll give you my opinion, if any.
Lawyerskeptic said
So far as I know, the chapter in Eusebius that I referenced in my initial post is the only information we have about what Papias said about John the Elder (or Presbyter). Papias says that John the Presbyter said that Mark wrote a gospel, but I see no indication that Papias even knew that there was such a thing as a Gospel according to John.
I’ve always been interested in Papias and that has nothing to do with his knowledge, or lack thereof, of the Apostolic Fathers. To be precise, what he says about Mark writing his Gospel is that those who heard Peter were not satisfied with oral stories and begged Mark to write his Gospel. Whether or not the John that Eusebius says Papias mentioned is John the Elder or John the Presbyter or John the Candlestick maker is an extrapolation on our part (I’m sure it had been considered centuries ago though). I have Bart’s translation of The Apostolic Fathers Vol II for the Loeb Classical Library and in it he has all known non-Arabic fragments that mention Papias. One of those is a late reference from something Bart calls “Catena of Greek Fathers”. I have no idea what that means, but I don’t think Catena is a name. Anyway, that reference says John dictated his Gospel to Papias of Hieropolis. There was a Papias who was a Bishop of Hieropolis, but I don’t think it is universally believed that the Papias we’re talking about here was the same person as the bishop. In any event, this very late mention is the only fragment that associates Papias with the Gospel of John.
Lawyerskeptic said You give me too much credit to think I might have an informed opinion about Richard Bauckham’s theories. I have Jesus and the Eyewitnesses on my bookshelf, and that is where it is likely to remain. I’ve read parts of it, but I’m not enough of a biblical scholar to grapple with the entire tome. If you think my legalistic perspective might be of some value, tell me what part to read and I’ll give you my opinion, if any.
Ahhh, You’re way ahead of me, It sounds interesting, but it’s way on the outskirts of my reading wishlist in a bad section of town. It’s
between a mythicist crack house and an abandoned building full of fundamentalist hobos looking for a bit of skull popper.
While I probably will never read it either, I think it’s instructive that the claim is that John was written by an “eye witness” to John;
a later apostle. This seems like the whole John Mark wrote down everything he heard Peter say. Not that either is false, but it cements the conclusion that the gospels were NOT written by the disciples and in time may also demolish the whole eyewitness
acccount line of thinking
Greg Matthews said
Anyway, that reference says John dictated his Gospel to Papias of Hieropolis. There was a Papias who was a Bishop of Hieropolis, but I don’t think it is universally believed that the Papias we’re talking about here was the same person as the bishop. In any event, this very late mention is the only fragment that associates Papias with the Gospel of John.
Fascinating! For the life of me, I can’t remember my original point re: John 😉
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert