Without evidence about Theophilus' willingness and ability to follow up, we cannot use the preface as internal evidence of accuracy.
What do you mean by that? Why would a Theophilus be willing and able to follow up?
The preface is all BS, but with an important purpose, targeted to a Christian audience:
Because allegedly meant to an excellency, that account of Jesus' life was intended to be considered accurate by the audience, even if it is not.
I was responding to this statement of yours:
Lk 1:1:4, set the gospel as being "historical", all true (you do not lie to an excellency. If you do, the consequences can be bad for the author!) and also make believe the gospel was written before 65 AD.
I do not think that the preface to Luke in any way guarantees that the author was not lying, stretching the truth, guessing, or inventing.
I agree with you that it was intended to be accepted as true.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:31 pm
And it's the same reason I don't believe what Irenaeus says about the Ebionites using Matthew or the Valentinians using John. The Valentinians also used synoptic material. It's the artificiality of the original source which makes the whole thing so incredible.
Alright, but could we be a bit flexible and say that the Marcionites "by and large" used a (version of) Luke, that the Ebionites "by and large" used a (version of) Matthew, etc.?
The Ebionite gospel fragments preserved by Epiphanius are not particularly Matthean over and above being Lucan (for example). But the Ebionite gospel appears to have claimed authorship by Matthew, since it has Jesus referring to Matthew in the second person: "you, Matthew." This datum, in conjunction with Irenaeus' claim that the Ebionites used "only" the gospel of Matthew, is what makes me suspect that there is something to this patristic reconstruction. Call the group what you will, but it appears that some Jewish Christians used a gospel which they claimed was by Matthew; its actual relationship to our canonical Matthew is up for debate.
That is interesting. If that is the case, I wonder if they called it Matthew because it was based on a similar Matthew-type source that Luke used (what some call "Q"). Being a Farrer Hypothesis guy, I've been wondering what version of Matthew could have been used by the author of Luke. Is it possible that Luke and the Ebionites had access to a (in my view translation of) Matthew that had not been combined with Mark?
Last edited by John2 on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
But the Ebionite gospel appears to have claimed authorship by Matthew, since it has Jesus referring to Matthew in the second person: "you, Matthew." This datum, in conjunction with Irenaeus' claim that the Ebionites used "only" the gospel of Matthew, is what makes me suspect that there is something to this patristic reconstruction.
That's kind of like saying that because ancient people sailed in ships and were experienced sailors there is something to the existence of sea monsters. I of course don't see the connection you are referring to. Remember the Marcionites (De Recta in Deum Fide) explicitly deny that any of the apostles wrote gospels. There is also the disconnect in the fact that Irenaeus clearly borrows from Papias to construct his first reference to the gospel of Matthew (in Book Three) but it is unlikely in my mind that Papias is referring to our narrative gospel of Matthew. To this end, given that Irenaeus like most Church Fathers is a dishonest witness, like all dishonest witnesses, once you catch them in one untruth you should wary believing in any more of what they say - in this case about the gospel of Matthew.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:13 am
I of course don't see the connection. Remember the Marcionites (De Recta in Deum Fide) explicitly deny that any of the apostles wrote gospels.
I do not think Matthew/Matthias was originally one of the Twelve Apostles: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3814.
But the Ebionite gospel appears to have claimed authorship by Matthew, since it has Jesus referring to Matthew in the second person: "you, Matthew." This datum, in conjunction with Irenaeus' claim that the Ebionites used "only" the gospel of Matthew, is what makes me suspect that there is something to this patristic reconstruction.
That's kind of like saying that because ancient people sailed in ships and were experienced sailors there is something to the existence of sea monsters.
It is nothing of the sort. This is not a subjective assessment; I think you are misreading me.
Ehrman FWIW identifies the Ebionite gospel as a harmony:
For one thing, this particular Gospel of the Ebionites appears to have been a "harmonization" of the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
As such your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not surprising in fact given that Epiphanius - who on occasion preserves ancient testimony - says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the Diatessaron.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The "patristic reconstruction" I was referring to is that some Jewish Christians claimed to have a gospel written by Matthew. That is all I was talking about.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:18 am
Ehrman FWIW identifies the Ebionite gospel as a harmony:
For one thing, this particular Gospel of the Ebionites appears to have been a "harmonization" of the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
As such your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not surprising in fact given that Epiphanius - who on occasion preserves ancient testimony - says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the Diatessaron.
To whom are you responding here?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
John2 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:49 amThat is interesting. If that is the case, I wonder if they called it Matthew because it was based on a similar Matthew-type source that Luke used (what some call "Q"). Being a Farrer Hypothesis guy, I've been wondering what version of Matthew could have been used by the author of Luke. Is it possible that Luke and the Ebionites had access to a (in my view translation of) Matthew that had not been combined with Mark?
My own suspicion is that gospels like that were called "according to Matthew" simply because of the tradition, which we have from John the Elder, Papias, and Eusebius, that someone named Matthew wrote an early gospel text.
1. we have to understand that Irenaeus on several occasions (albeit preserved with the ambiguity of the Latin translation) refers to his text as 'the idea of the gospel' meaning that the four were read together as one gospel 'in heaven.' That there was this perfect Tetrad of a gospel in the ideal world and that the Diatessaron or a four-columned text imitated that perfect 'idea' of the gospel.
2. Matthew was always the first of the four in Ammonius's Diatessaron
3. Ammonius's Diatessaron seems to have been used by Irenaeus in at least two instances and only makes sense given Irenaeus's understanding of the four being read together (the alternative is to think he meant our 'back to back' arrangement which doesn't lend itself to reading together or thinking that all four are a unit.
In other words, Matthew is one column, Mark the next, Luke the next and John the last of four columns ('four columns' being mentioned by Irenaeus as the 'face' of his gospel). While Matthew is just one column, I think that one could read the Diatessaron in such a way that all the ancient witnesses to Matthew would have made sense to a reader of the Diatessaron 'as if' the ancient witness using the Ebionite gospel had a Diatessaron. Do you see what I mean?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
