Gospel Writers

[JoeyKnothead]

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Can we verify any of the words attributed to these writers are their own, and have been accurately reproduced?

[cnorman18]

...Animal Farm is clearly fiction, and the intent is to tell a good story with a moral, and there is no claim, implied or otherwise, of objective truth...

You are talking about the genre of a work here. I admit that identifying the genre is crucial for interpretation, but the identity of an ancient author doesn't establish anything about the truth of his writing.

That rather depends on the writer and the work. The fact that Julius Caesar is accepted as the author of the first seven books of The Gallic Wars rather does affect their credibility as history, considering that they were known to have been widely circulated during his own lifetime and during the lifetime of those who knew him and served in those wars. A book on the same subject by an unknown author published decades after the fact has rather less credibility.

Absolute truth? No, nothing establishes that. But it's more than a little silly to claim that "the identity of an ancient author doesn't establish anything about the truth of his writing." If that were true, it would be rather pointless to engage in literary criticism or historical study at all.

...If it is to be claimed that the Gospel accounts are of objectively true and historical events, then attribution...becomes an issue...

Ancient authors had very different ideas about "objective history" than we do--or at least, than we did have prior to the dominance of postmodern thought. What seems clear is that those were were in the best position to know the genre of the gospels--that is, the audiences for which they were written--deemed the gospels historically reliable and accurate enough according to the conventions of the time.

Which means, in modern terms, absolutely nothing. "According to the conventions of the time," at the turn of the 20th century, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was considered an "historically reliable and accurate" work. The advances and insights of modern scholarship are significant, important, and an improvement over the standards of the past. It's also more than a little silly to accept ANY literary work as historically accurate and reliable because it was so accepted by past generations. What would be the point of learning more about the methods and techniques of historical literary research? Are we to eschew learning because it threatens the things we think we know?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Yes, probably to about the same degree of certainty we can positively identify the writers of other works from antiquity.
...

Yes, prob'ly?

I respond:

No prob'ly.

Notice the question does not address "degree of certainty", but addresses positively identified.

I won't bother with another thread as this OP is this OP.

Can we verify any of the words attributed to these writers are their own, and have been accurately reproduced?

Again, probably to the same degree we can attribute to other writers from antiquity their words are their own and accurately reproduced.

I readily admit to my lack of a fancy education and all that and request someone please explain to me where I was asking if something could probably be identified, as opposed to positively identified.

I consider this whole line of argument to be nothing more than an attempt to rephrase the OP in a manner in which the theist may find comfort.

[river]

Ancient authors had very different ideas about "objective history" than we do--or at least, than we did have prior to the dominance of postmodern thought. What seems clear is that those were were in the best position to know the genre of the gospels--that is, the audiences for which they were written--deemed the gospels historically reliable and accurate enough according to the conventions of the time.

How do you know that historical reliability was a criterion for early church communities to accept narratives about Jesus as authoritative?

If the audience to whom the writers were disclosing the gospel were considered the best judges of the writers' reliability that greatly simplifies the task of finding a criterion. Anything that agreed with what they already believed was considered reliable. This also answers the question of why it was so easy for early Christians like Constantine to

[Goose]

I consider this whole line of argument to be nothing more than an attempt to rephrase the OP in a manner in which the theist may find comfort.

No Joey, it's a reasonable and honest answer. You seem to be looking for something like finger prints and dental records. I'd like to know how many authors from antiquity can be "positvely identified" to the same standard you expect of the Gospel writers.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Yes, probably to about the same degree of certainty we can positively identify the writers of other works from antiquity.

I challenge the claim that bible writers can be POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED (as the question clearly asks).

Kindly provide documentation -- not excuses or reference to other writers -- and demonstrate whether bible writers can be POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED or not.

[Goose]

.

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Yes, probably to about the same degree of certainty we can positively identify the writers of other works from antiquity.

I challenge the claim that bible writers can be POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED (as the question clearly asks).

Kindly provide documentation -- not excuses or reference to other writers -- and demonstrate whether bible writers can be POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED or not.

When I find some dental records, finger prints, and DNA tests I'll let you know.

[Zzyzx]

.

.

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Yes, probably to about the same degree of certainty we can positively identify the writers of other works from antiquity.

I challenge the claim that bible writers can be POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED (as the question clearly asks).

Kindly provide documentation -- not excuses or reference to other writers -- and demonstrate whether bible writers can be POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED or not.

When I find some dental records, finger prints, and DNA tests I'll let you know.

Thank you for the tacit admission that the writers of bible stories CANNOT be positively identified as you claimed.

Are the names "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John" considered by scholars and theologians to be the actual names of the writers?

If not, who were the actual writers?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

I consider this whole line of argument to be nothing more than an attempt to rephrase the OP in a manner in which the theist may find comfort.

No Joey, it's a reasonable and honest answer.

Let's study on that there for a bit...

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

Can we verify any of the words attributed to these writers are their own, and have been accurately reproduced?

To which Goose replied there in Post 7:

Yes, probably...

I'm all for 'llowing folks'd might be misunderstanding what's meant by positively identify, or even verify, cause them's some fancy words, but to confuse that with "probably" makes me wonder 'bout whether their teachers weren't the best and maybe their teachers didnt' pay 'em enough attention or they just skipped school in the all together.

Seems often (I can point to examples on this site) the theist will sub/consciously distort, misstate, or otherwise just get wrong as heck what the question is, in an apparent attempt to frame the debate in terms they may think suits 'em. I'm cool with it I s'pose, but don't ask me to wear that suit and I don't care if I gotta go to court in front of a judge.

I propose this is yet another example of a theist who is unable to support the challenged claims, but lacks the integrity to admit it in front of a whole bunch of folks.

You seem to be looking for something like finger prints and dental records. I'd like to know how many authors from antiquity can be "positvely identified" to the same standard you expect of the Gospel writers.

I don't presume to know what form of evidence may be available to folks, but I do ask they'd show us a bit of it from time to time, if they wouldn't mind too much and their mommas said they could if they wouldn't get their britches dirty.

[Goose]

Thank you for the tacit admission that the writers of bible stories CANNOT be positively identified as you claimed.

Do you know what it means to positively identify a person, Zzyzx? Do you and Joey stop to think what it is you are asking? And how irrational it is? If you and Joey want dental records and finger prints then the the answer is "no" we cannot positively identify the gospel writers. If you and Joey are asking can we reasonably determine, using the methods of determining authorship of ancient texts, the identity of the gospel authors, then the answer is yes I believe we can. So do you want to go the irrational route or the rational route?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

Do you know what it means to positively identify a person, Zzyzx? Do you and Joey stop to think what it is you are asking? And how irrational it is?

I figure it's 'bout irrational as saying someone can probably be positively identified.

If you and Joey want dental records and finger prints then the the answer is "no" we cannot positively identify the gospel writers.

I 'preciate you admitting that.

If you and Joey are asking can we reasonably determine, using the methods of determining authorship of ancient texts, the identity of the gospel authors, then the answer is yes I believe we can.

I believe I'm gonna hook up with Katy Perry, but I for sure ain't holding my breath till it happens.

So do you want to go the irrational route or the rational route?

I prefer the verifiable route myself.