Why Were matthew, John written in 3rd person style?

[Guest]

Emmet,
Can't the same be said of the old testament as well?

[Guest]

Hi, Sean,

Emmet,
Can't the same be said of the old testament as well?

I could use a bit more detail than that . Can't what be said?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

And thank you also for your reply.

Given that we have, at best, rather limited knowledge about either the (putative) eyewitnesses or the persons who vouch for them (or the persons who vouch for them, etc.), the general line of sourcing is significantly "unknown." So why, indeed, should the "eyewitness claims" be trusted by the church?

The same could be said about any eyewitness…we have limited knowledge. How much surviving knowledge from antiquity is sufficient to convince? Well, that’s in the eye of the beholder. The early church fathers found the evidence they had (all of which we may not have) convincing enough to bet their lives on it. I’m not saying that proves the matter, but it adds significant weight IMO.

Is the faith of the church based upon eyewitness testimony, anyway? As an experienced litigator (or historian) might tell you, such testimony is notoriously fallible.

Yes and no. I believe God is largely known on a personal level through the witness of the Spirit (1John 5:6). I came to Christ while reading the OT, not the NT.

This may come as a shock to some, but even if the gospels could be proven a farse (which I don’t believe they can be), it would not destroy my faith in Jesus because I know Him personally. It would simply mean I have less details about Him than I thought I had. I realize that this catapults us way into the realm subjective experience and is not useful for objective evidential debate, but it’s only to answer your question about what the faith of the church is based on.

Having said that, the eyewitness testimony of the apostles give Him flesh and reveal His loving character and directives for His disciples. For that reason (and others), they are very important for the church, and indeed for all mankind IMO.

Internal evidence for authorship is primary; external evidence is secondary.

Says who?

Is it not curious that key leaders of the church would author such documents anonymously, without including their personal testimony and imprimatur?

Perhaps from your standpoint. But I see no reason to deduce any conclusions from a lack of written claim to authorship. Some of the most beautiful and inspiring poems I’ve read come from unknown authors who were quite probably known by somebody. It doesn’t change the content. The fact that the name of the writer is left out is a sign of humilty IMO. It may not have even occurred to them that their authorship would later be disputed.

Paul, for example, placed his personal stamp of authority in works he delivered to the churches; likewise John the Revelator. As it is, the closest we have to an embedded imprimatur in the gospels is "John," which nevertheless invokes an unnamed "eyewitness."

Paul’s letters were a personal correspondence, whereas the gospels are historical narratives to a broader (largely unknown and future) audience. There is a difference there.

As for the testimony of the early church, which specific sources do you mean to introduce in support of assigning authorship to these gospels? These sources provide the basis for gauging credibility.

I really didn’t mean to introduce any specific sources, but a general acknowledgment of the fact that the early church fathers understood the sources of the gospels by their on-going use of them as authoritative writings. I don’t claim to be an expert on the early church fathers (Paidion might be the better source of that) and I suspect you already know which sources I would put forth. However, since you asked, I’ll just site two examples that I’ve found in Volume 1 of the Anti-nicenes:

From Iraneus Against Heresies Book3,

Chap. I. — The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.1 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews2 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

AND from a commentary on Papias fragments.

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

How often, with Christians, does the "burden of proof" rest with everybody else . Granted, it's an easy way to deflect attention from one's own responsibility to meet a burden of proof.

That may be oftentimes true, but that argument cuts both ways.

However, I did not say the burden of proof always rests with everybody else. I said that if someone contests (positively) the claimed authorship of the gospels (or any other claim for that matter), the burden of proof lies with them to prove that the claim is a lie. One may choose not to take up that burden or to believe the claim, but the proof of such a positive assertion has to be backed up with credible evidence.

It is the church that demands a radical redefinition of people's lives and reinvestment of their resources. Such high demands merit a high burden of proof.

Quite true. That’s what apologetics is all about…the church taking up it’s responsibility to defend it’s claims with evidence. However, a person individually decides whether that evidence is convincing to them or not and I suspect that more often than not, it’s a matter of the will.

The so-called “high demands” you speak of are not burdensome at all to someone who has the inward witness (1John 5:3).

Lord bless

[Guest]

This is just stating the obvious, but I'm not sure whether it has already been explicitly mentioned. In the case of John, of course, it does shift to the first person (plural) at the end when the people who were formally writing the stuff down refer to themselves -- and they expressly state that the content is from the disciple himself, and that they have verified its truth. So the first/third person issue doesn't seem to help the critic in the case of John.

Regards,

CThomas