Or less concisely but better, what is known or can reasonably be inferred about who did.
The works were (as I understand) composed in Koine Greek, which lets out the actual disciples whose names are attached to them, and in the first century CE.
But I have not seen a discussion of who they (or the shadowy author of Q) might have been.
I would be interested to know what inferences can be drawn from the texts: in what city each lived, in what decades, what stratum of society each may have occupied, might any have actually been acquainted with Jesus, and so on.
Or whether it is just an impenetrable mystery.
Robert said
I think one needs to look at author and audience together. Each gospel is written by someone but also written for someone.
and this is exactly my point too – the gospel of john is universal, it does not target jews as others
Unlike the other gospels that target specific groups like the Jews, John’s audience is universal. It addresses humanity as a whole.
While the other gospels target specific groups like Jews or Romans, John breaks those boundaries entirely. It is written for everyone, everywhere.
- The Global Scope: He explicitly states his message is for the whole world. Verses like John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world“) show that his audience has no national or ethnic borders. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Interesting responses; thanks. I admit to (personally) having less of an interest in John, as it seems to offer less in the way of history than the other three gospels.
I wonder if any or all of the synoptic gospels were written by Greek-literate gentiles or Jews; Matthew seems most addressed to Jews, and hence most likely composed by one. My speculation is that all three were, but the evidence either way seems thin.
ronks said
Interesting responses; thanks. I admit to (personally) having less of an interest in John, as it seems to offer less in the way of history than the other three gospels.
I wonder if any or all of the synoptic gospels were written by Greek-literate gentiles or Jews; Matthew seems most addressed to Jews, and hence most likely composed by one. My speculation is that all three were, but the evidence either way seems thin.
One of the real advances in thought about the Synoptics is realizing that they’re just as motivated by ideology as John is. To assume Mark is more accurate historically than John simply because it is earlier is highly questionable.
My intuition is that Mark is a Diaspora Jew writing to a mixed audience. His focus on what seem to be primarily Jewish concerns – the nature of the Messiah and the fate of the Temple – not to mention his obvious assumption that his audience is very knowledgeable of the Hebrew scriptures – leads me in that direction. Mark’s geographical and cultural gaffes can be attributed to his place of origin. I’ve known the children of expats who were very ignorant about features of the Old Country.
Matthew seems a likely candidate to be a Jewish convert but it’s entirely possible he is a gentile convert caught up in the argument about how faithful gentile converts should be to the Torah.
Luke seems obviously a gentile.
John? An open question I think.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)