Coimbra1982 said
Here is one topic that I consider interesting to discuss.The Bible gives us four accounts of Christ’s life. Each records a unique perspective of the most significant event in history—the crucifixion and resurrection. All four gospels are named after men who lived during or shortly after Christ’s early ministry. Tradition considers these men the authors, but there’s one problem: not one of these books names its author.
The gospels are anonymous—so how do we know who wrote them?
I find Richard Bauckham’s arguments persuasive.
Mark: I think Mark was written by someone connected to the ministry of Peter who probably had the Greek name Markus. He was likely bilingual, speaking both Greek and Aramaic — which would probably geographically locate him in the region of Palestine and maybe in Jerusalem. The writer was almost surely not the biblical “John Mark.”
Matthew: This gospel was likely the product of a community associated with the Levi/Matthew of the Twelve. Bauckham argues persuasively that “Matthew” could be a “translation” of an earlier Hebrew composition (as stated by Papias) in the sense of the word “translation” used by Josephus in describing his Antiquities of the Jews as a “translation” of the Hebrew Bible, to wit: it is not a literal “translation” of the word, but more of “an adaptation” and “re-imagination.” In that connection, it would make sense for the author who “translated” Hebrew Matthew to have used Mark.
Note: Bauckman recites an interesting argument about the Gospel of Thomas implying a connection of Mk with Peter and Mt with Matthew of the Twelve: in Saying 13 of Thomas, the author compares and contrasts exchanges between Peter and Matthew, on the one hand, and Thomas, on the other, as to the true nature of Jesus. Not surprisingly, Thomas is presented as knowing the true Jesus. The comparison against Peter, on its own, would not be surprising; but the inclusion of Matthew (an otherwise obscure apostle) with Peter implies that each of Peter and Matthew are intended to be representing their respective Gospels.
Luke: To the extent we can have a measure of confidence in the authorship of any of the canonical gospels, Luke’s authorship should be the strongest. It makes little sense to artificially or fraudulently attach the name “Luke” to such a work, as that name would carry no weigh on its own.
John: This gospel was likely the product of a community led by John the Elder (and did not necessarily include John, son of Zebedee) and went through a lengthy redaction process. My guess is that the earliest version of “John” was before the destruction of the Temple. The redaction of “John,” the one we have access to, may have been issued just after the death of John the Elder. This community was also responsible for the epistles attributed to John, with 2 John and 3 John being short, personal letters from John the Elder.
Can I prove this? No, certainly not in the sense of a math proof or even proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, I would not even try to argue that this is more likely to be true than not likely to be true. But, I would present this as the best argument that can be made for identifiable authors.
Stephen said
We can assume the Gospels were KNOWN by their names. We wouldn’t call them by explanations, ie “the Gospel about John Baptist’s beheading” etc.. No, they would have been known as “the Gospel written by Luke” etc.. These names were permanently set when the New Testament was put together.Well we can’t assume anything. The practice in the ancient world was to take the title from the first line of the text. In the 150s Justin Martyr, who clearly knew the synoptics and possibly John, refers to the gospels as the “memoirs of the apostles”. He thinks they have apostolic authority although he stops short of granting them the same status as the Old Testament which he regards as scripture.
These traditions developed over time.
One note here. 1 Timothy refers to a line from Luke as “Scripture.” Now, obviously, separate from the authorship issue, the dating of 1 Timothy is highly controversial. For a variety of reasons, however, I think it’s tough to put 1 Timothy too far past the beginning of the Second Century. So, we do have some decent evidence that Luke was being called “scripture,” at least in some circles, by the beginning of the Second Century.
Steefen said
Go right ahead and corrupt the gospels of Matthew and Luke. If both gospels wanted Jesus to be known as a biological person, they would have recorded that.
Indeed, who among us can forget Plutarch’s introduction to The Life of Alexander in Parallel Lives?
It is the life of Alexander the king, and of Caesar, who overthrew Pompey, that I am writing in this book, and the multitude of the deeds to be treated is so great that I shall make no other preface than to entreat my readers, in case I do not tell of all the famous actions of these biological people who existed in flesh and blood and were not celestial entities from outer space, nor even speak exhaustively at all in each particular case, but in epitome for the most part, not to complain.
Steefen said
I don’t have a problem leaving the gospels for historical accuracy. I do have a problem with corrupting the gospels for more historical inaccuracies.
Dear Esteefen,
I have read your insights in which you have discussed here with Mr. Robert and I quite frankly find it an absurd, to state that the name or the actual historical Jesus of Nazareth is a mithy or simply a result of peoples´s imagination is beyond any comprehension. I am a christian but with a more liberal view and midset. I don´t hold the belief of inerrancy and dealing with this topic itself, I find the evidence that the Gospels were written on what it´s call “formally anonymous”. I tend to agree with which I think it´s the majority of the NT scholars who deals with this issue, that the names to it were added latter on, long after the Gospels were in circulation.
But now, dealing with the person of Jesus, even prof. Bart Ehrman who perhaps is the most famous skeptical of all, recognizes that the historical evidence that he did in fact exist, is indisputable. If I´not mistaken, in 2012 he wrote a book named “Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth”. Here I quote a few notions of it:
“In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus’ existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that “whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.”
Ehrman examines the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is likely to have really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person, at least at first.
Robert is a pitiful thinker. I do not learn much from him when he contributes to discussions.
For example, if I say,
1) The gospels are historical fiction
2) Accept them for what they are
3) Learn about the accurate history of that time
4) Do not rewrite the gospels to try to make them scientifically accurate or historically accurate
He asks, Is your position that the virgin birth is historically accurate?
Forum Post June 15, 2020, 9:10pm:
Steefen
The biblical Jesus is not one unique, biological, historical person: he is a composite figure of historical fiction.
The crucifixion and resurrection of this composite figure of historical fiction has no significant events in history because he was not one unique, biological, historical person.
Forum Post June 16, 2020, 6:46pm:
Judith,
To you and to endless numbers of believers throughout history, there is cognitive dissonance that comes with the claim Jesus is “indeed” one unique biological person whose biological mother did not receive the biological seed of a man.
Sorry Robert, your reading comprehension and reading retention are poor. You do not belong in this classroom. You need remedial classes.
Steefen
I don’t have a problem leaving the gospels for historical accuracy. I do have a problem with corrupting the gospels for more historical inaccuracies.
Coimbra1982
Bart Ehrman says Jesus existed.
Steefen
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
Composite character means what? Made up of more than one character.
Composite character of historical fiction means what? The character is made up of some history and some fiction.
Robert said
Steefen, if you are unable or simply do not want to answer my questions about your own position, perhaps it would make sense for you to refrain from constantly addressing my posts. Don’t you see the contradiction?
Steefen
Robert, you have other people with whom to converse.
Do that: converse with other people.
nadimi999 said
Why did the authors of the gospels write their gospels? What was their motive? Did they write it for proclamation, to convert others? Did they have a profit motive? Did they expect to be compensated for their work?
Definitely not profit motive. Almost certainly a very, very strong apologetic motive.
nadimi999 said
Why did the authors of the gospels write their gospels? What was their motive? Did they write it for proclamation, to convert others? Did they have a profit motive? Did they expect to be compensated for their work?
Steefen
The motive was to document a way from militant messianism. Gospel authors appear after messianic rebels successfully attacked Rome’s legion XII-Fulminata. It is likely that Rome told Josephus, Agrippa II, and Temple priests who did not support revolt, simply: fix it. The way to fix it was to write propaganda of how a Jewish religious leader could have a mission other than Jewish independence from being a client kingdom/territory of the Roman Empire. Why, when Herod the Great was one of the best examples of a cooperative client king in the Roman Empire?
See the book:
The Many Faces of Herod the Great
by Adam Kolman Marshak
Steefen
The Jewish intelligentsia led by Josephus, Agrippa II, Berenice, and Temple authorities against the Jewish Revolt could not make Herod the Great the subject of pro-Roman propaganda because having Rome appoint a king over Judea and related areas was not an option. Besides, the problem was not with kings but with messiahs. The propaganda needed a messiah as subject. The messiah that we got in the gospels did speak of his Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness.
vergari said
One note here. 1 Timothy refers to a line from Luke as “Scripture.” Now, obviously, separate from the authorship issue, the dating of 1 Timothy is highly controversial. For a variety of reasons, however, I think it’s tough to put 1 Timothy too far past the beginning of the Second Century. So, we do have some decent evidence that Luke was being called “scripture,” at least in some circles, by the beginning of the Second Century.
John wrote his Gospel later in life. He omitted tons of stuff because other Gospels were in circulation for several decades.
“Afterward, 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.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies
The “Luke” figure never met Jesus, but compiled his Gospel from oral and written sources. You can see Matt and Mark in his work. He then wrote Acts. He died ca 66 in Rome.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)