By Merle Hertzler
It appears that RA has no interest in answering my last reply, so let us draw this debate to a conclusion.
RA could not prove that the four gospels were well-known before the middle of the second century. He lists Polycarp and Ignatius as evidence. If you look at the site he links to, you will find claims that Ignatius quotes the Gospel according Matthew, and that Polycarp quotes the Gospel according to Matthew. The claimed quotes are nothing more than phrases that bear some resemblance to phrases in Matthew. Note that the quotation marks shown in the translation of the words of Ignatius do not appear in the orignal Greek, but are inserted by the translator. Are those really quotes? Are they not merely phrases that resemble things reportedly said by Jesus? Nowhere does Ignatius say he is quoting from a particular book, or even that he is quoting Jesus. And if they are intended as quotes, Ignatius's source could have been a book such as Q or Thomas. In no sense does this prove that the book of Matthew was well-known at the time of Ignatius.
Polycarp at least mentions that he is quoting "The Lord", but again, the words that he quotes could come from any number of sources, including verbal sources. It is not clear that he is quoting Matthew.
RA argues that early Christian books such as the Didache had no reason to mention any of the four gospels, since they were discussing other topics. That is partly true. But how is it that the early Christians took so little interest in the earthly life of Jesus? If the story was true; if God had walked on the earth near them in recent times; if he had raised the dead and done great miracles in the sight of multitudes; if God himself had been killed at Jerusalem and rose again; if this earthly sacrifice had earned eternal salvation; and if damnation awaited those who did not believe this story happened on earth; how could the early Christians find themselves talking about anything else? Why would the Didache or Book of Barnabas never mention the earthly life and sayings of Jesus? And how can Paul, who is so keen on the doctrine of salvation, be so unconerned about any of the earthly details, and about whether the location of this event was ideeed on earth (instead of a heavenly act)? This complete lack of interest in the earthly story in the early Christian writings, has prompted many to doubt if the earthly story ever happened. But we digress. For more information on the historical Jesus question, see The Jesus Puzzle.
Yes, some early Christians supported the eartly story. But there is no evidence that this story was at the forefront of early Chistianity. So we do not need to ask why nobody challenged the resurrection claim. Many may have never heard of it, and those who did may have seen no need to refute a work that was regarded as fiction. And we do no need to ask why nobody challenged the failed prophecy of Mark 13. Few may have even known that it existed.
Who wrote the Gospels?
RA seems to have abandoned his claim that Luke and John identify themselves, and his claim that the authors of Matthew and Mark were identified early looks empty. So we really don' t know who wrote the gospels., and RA has done nothing to change that..
When were the gospels written?
I think I have shown that the writer of Mark shows knowledge of events happening in 70 AD, but not of events happening shortly after 70 AD. The obvious conclusion is that the four gospels were written after 70 AD.
Hand washing
This anachronism was discussed elsewhere. See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=226241.
-------------------
I wish to thank RA for his contributions. You, the reader, can now judge these questions for yourself.