What ARE the "gospels?"

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian bibles contain works identified as "gospels", a term which means "an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth" -- and alternatively known as the "Good News."

Four of the gospels are referred to as Canonical Gospels (meaning a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture) and identified by the pseudonyms Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

There are also Apocryphal Gospels (writings by early Christians that give accounts of Jesus and his teachings, the nature of God, or the teachings of his apostles and of their lives.

Christian denominations disagree on which writings should be regarded as "canonical" and which are "apocryphal".

There are other Gospels which are neither Canonical nor Apocryphal, including The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, and others.

1) Who were the gospel writers? Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of gospel writers is largely unknown or disputed (i.e., we don't know).

2) When were the gospels written? Again Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the best anyone can do is an "educated guess" – ranging from 50 CE to 150 CE or later. Some gospels appear to have been written later than others and to have been at least partially copied from earlier works.

3) Did gospel writers personally witness the events and conversations they describe? There is no credible evidence that any gospel writers were personal eyewitnesses to what they write about.

4) How did gospel writers learn about the events and conversations? Nobody knows. Perhaps they heard things from others who had seen or heard? Perhaps they wrote from folklore, legends or fables. We just do not know. Was their information accurate? No one knows.

5) Do original copies of any of the gospels exist? No. The earliest copies available date from centuries after the events they depict.

6) Were the gospels changed over time? There is some evidence of changes in copying, editing, revision, insertion, etc; however, the extent of changes / editing / adding / etc is disputed.

7) Did gospel writers know one another? Possibly. They were at least familiar with others' writings (or used some common source) judging by identical long passages with exact wording.

8) Did gospel writers intend to write "The Bible?" No. They were writing for unknown audiences (perhaps early Jesus followers). There were evidently many early writings circulating during the early centuries. Some writings were selected as "official" by councils (meetings) of church officials under direction of Roman emperors. Those selected reflected predominant opinion of powerful churchmen (and acceptable to Roman authorities). Other writings were discarded or destroyed.

9) Do the gospels agree with one another? No. Even the Canonical Gospels give different accounts of significant events and conversations – particularly the Gospel of John. Some emphasize miraculous events and others do not mention miracles.

10) Were the gospels "inspired by God?" It might be more accurate to say that gospel writers were "inspired" (motivated) to write their thoughts about God. "Divine inspiration" is church tradition that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

11) Are Christians in general aware of or concerned about these questions (let alone answers)? In my experience through these debates and in life experience, very few Christians appear to have considered any such questions or to have sought truthful and accurate answers.

12) If Christian preachers openly discussed these questions with their "flock" and gave honest answers (which they may well have learned in divinity schools), would people have a more realistic view of the gospels? In my opinion many would. However, that would probably be counter-productive for preachers' livelihood.


To the above twelve questions I have provided my answers. Feel free to disagree and debate the issues.

[WinePusher]

1) Who were the gospel writers?

2) When were the gospels written?

In the order of most confident to least confident...

Matthew - Unknown Jewish Christian author, writing c. 70-75CE

John - By John, perhaps expanded by a 'Johannine community,' c. 80-100CE

John is the only gospel which claims disciple/eyewitness status (1:14, 19:35 and 1 John 1:1-3). That claim was confirmed by the author of the appendix (21:24), which again is a uniquely early source of evidence: It was apparently written shortly after the alleged disciple's death, since it seeks to downplay expectations that Jesus would return in a disciple's lifetime (21:22), an expectation which simply could not exist long after the disciples were dead. At least as early as the mid 2nd century, the gospel was accepted by such diverse veins of Christianity as proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (who counted it along with the other three amongst the "memoirs of the apostles") and the gnostics Ptolemy and Heracleon (who both attributed it to John). The historical attributions for its authorship are probably the strongest amongst the gospels, though legitimate debate arises over whether or not an original Johannine core was modified/redacted by a 'Johannine community' (some comments here). The book's frequent references to followers of Christ being 'put out of the synagogue' suggests both that it was written some time after the revolt, when Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was in the process of defining itself in the absence of a temple, and that the author was probably a Jew who was somewhat bitter about the exclusion.

Mark - Interpretor of Peter, writing c. 65-75CE

Luke - Companion of Paul, writing c. 77-130CE

Why do you place John before Mark and Luke. It seems that the consensus among nearly all biblical scholars, including some conservative scholars, is that John is the most ahistorical Gospel out of the four. Most of the scholarly community views John as a type of theological essay that presents a romanticized portrait of Jesus, and it is really the only Gospel whose authorship can be reasonably placed at the beginning of the 2nd century which places a lot of strain on your thesis that the author of John was an eyewitness.

[WinePusher]

That may be true. We probably don’t really know. But does it really matter? I don’t also know who really wrote the Origins of Species. Does that make the book wrong? Or if we would surely know that Gospel of Luke was really written by doctor named Luke right after those claimed events, would you then believe what the Bible tells? If we would know that surely, it would make it even more suspicious because if the accounts are true, we should not have much knowledge about the events, because disciples were allegedly persecuted.

I think your approach is pointless and don’t really lead to anywhere.

Really? You don't know who wrote Origin of Species? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't make sense. We do know who wrote Origin of Species and we do have a good understanding of the historical context surrounding the development of Origin of Species. The point that underscores everything you've written here is really about the philosophy of history. How is it that we go about obtaining knowledge about the past and whether or not our knowledge of the past can be trusted.

Well, in order to obtain knowledge about nature we primarily rely on the scientific method and, similarly, in order to obtain knowledge about history we rely on the historical method/historical criterion/historiography, etc. Sadly, history isn't a science and we are not able to establish all historical facts with a high level of certainty. The application of the historical method to the Gospels, and the Bible in general, has yielded unclear results that have left historians split on the matter. That is all we can say for certain. So, whether or not you think the Gospels are reliable really depends on your biases and opinions.

[Zzyzx]

.
Well said. Good post.

Edited to add: This was sent as an MPG message (or I thought it was). Let's let it stand here but extend my comment to say that you have addressed the issue with thought born of reasoning.

Yes, we know who wrote many of the documents from the past. Knowing the identity of an author is often important as a starting point in evaluating its content. Biases and agendas may play a part in what an author presents. Known accomplishments including other writings can help.

[Mithrae]

In the order of most confident to least confident...

Matthew - Unknown Jewish Christian author, writing c. 70-75CE

John - By John, perhaps expanded by a 'Johannine community,' c. 80-100CE

Mark - Interpretor of Peter, writing c. 65-75CE

Luke - Companion of Paul, writing c. 77-130CE

Why do you place John before Mark and Luke. It seems that the consensus among nearly all biblical scholars, including some conservative scholars, is that John is the most ahistorical Gospel out of the four. Most of the scholarly community views John as a type of theological essay that presents a romanticized portrait of Jesus, and it is really the only Gospel whose authorship can be reasonably placed at the beginning of the 2nd century which places a lot of strain on your thesis that the author of John was an eyewitness.

John virtually shouts its intentions as a primarily theological, rather than historical work from its very first verses, but that doesn't make the disciple/eyewitness claim false. Jesus was hardly the only teacher for whom some followers have considered their 'meaning' (variously interpreted) more important than the actual events of their lives. There have been theories which have suggested that John was written as late as the mid 2nd century - from what I've gathered based mostly on assumptions about the development of its 'high Christology' - but as I've pointed out there's at least two not particularly obscure reasons to doubt that:

Firstly, the appendix was evidently written at a time when it was necessary to downplay expectations (or disappointments) centered on the life (or death) of an alleged 'beloved disciple' (21:22). That could only be the case within a possible lifetime of a disciple - perhaps the very early 2nd century at the latest - and obviously the bulk of the gospel must have been written before that.

Secondly, the author was apparently more than a little preoccupied with followers of Christ being 'put out of the synagogue' (9:22, 12:42, 16:2), and since that obviously isn't an historical detail from Jesus' own time, it must reflect the contemporary concerns of the author. I'm not sure that any specific date can be pinned down there, but most likely the Jewish/Christian split would have become most pronounced in the decades immediately after the temple's destruction.

I put my views of John down as more confident than Mark and Luke because there seems to be better and earlier historical attributions of it. Besides Papias (whose comments we can only guess/infer are about canonical Mark) I haven't yet seen any direct historical attributions of authorship for Mark and Luke prior to Irenaeus in c. 180CE (though Justin Martyr quotes from all four gospels and calls them "memoirs of the apostles"). By contrast for John there is
- the gospel's own claim of eyewitness authorship
- the appendix's confirmation of that claim
- the gnostic Ptolemy attributing it to John c. 150CE (quoted by Irenaeus, paragraph 5)
- the gnostic Heracleon attributing it to John c. 170CE (quoted by Origen, fragment 3)

[higgy1911]

It seems to me scholars are going out on a limb claiming we don't have any original copies of the gospels. I mean I don't understand what evidence there could even be that something is a copy rather than an original if it is the earliest copy we have?
Are there references in other documents preceding the gospels to the gospels? That would be some evidence I suppose, though not very telling as to whether the original gospels are faithfully represented by the earliest ones we have.

[Zzyzx]

.

It seems to me scholars are going out on a limb claiming we don't have any original copies of the gospels. I mean I don't understand what evidence there could even be that something is a copy rather than an original if it is the earliest copy we have?

If a document written by a person who is known to have (or believed to have) lived in 300 CE describes events or conversations from centuries earlier in first person narrative the possibilities are limited to (it seems to me) being either a 1) a copy of an earlier document, or 2) a fabrication.

Are there other possibilities?

Are there references in other documents preceding the gospels to the gospels?

Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that gospel writers copied from one another or from a common (shared) source. Thus, some writings which became "scripture" preceded others. Extended passages with identical wording are not likely to have occurred accidentally.

That would be some evidence I suppose, though not very telling as to whether the original gospels are faithfully represented by the earliest ones we have.

Bible promoters have been trying for many centuries to demonstrate that earliest gospels existing "faithfully represent" original writings – with little or no success.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

I agree. I think what I'm saying is that there isn't much evidence presented in all these scholarship threads of late that suggests copy of older document is more likely than fabrication or visa versa. Seems odd to me to hold a firm opinion on the subject. Too much conjecture involved in either scenario. To many "could have been this way" scenarios that people proceeding from as though they were "definitely happened this way" scenarios.

[Mithrae]

It seems to me scholars are going out on a limb claiming we don't have any original copies of the gospels. I mean I don't understand what evidence there could even be that something is a copy rather than an original if it is the earliest copy we have? Are there references in other documents preceding the gospels to the gospels? That would be some evidence I suppose, though not very telling as to whether the original gospels are faithfully represented by the earliest ones we have.

Carbon dating can provide an estimate of manuscript age within 100 years, and comparative study of the writing style, format and materials used (paleography) can sometimes pin a date down even more precisely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_m ... anuscripts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography

Here are a couple of sources I've encountered listing the known manuscripts of the New Testament with estimated dates:
http://csntm.org/Manuscripts.aspx
http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

This site provides a handy reference table for many of the early allusions/quotations of the New Testament, though some of them are a little dubious (and some others are missing):
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

These sources can also be handy, though neither is perfect:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

If you want to check up translated works of the Church fathers directly, they can be found here (though again not necessarily perfect; they're 19th century translations):
http://www.ccel.org/node/70