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?

[Flail]

Cnorman18 wrote:
[

b]The biggest, and most common, mistake here is the false dichotomy: that the Gospels are either to be considered totally reliable and accurate in every detail, which is the position of the committed literalist, or totally discarded as fabrication, fiction or fable, which is the position of the committed skeptic. Neither of these positions is available to the serious historian. Even if they are presented by their authors, e.g. Luke, as strictly historical narrative, they should be approached as artifacts, snapshots of the narratives and beliefs shared by an ancient community. That's neither literal history nor fiction. It's tradition, and contains elements of both.

It's not only the authors of these documents who bring their personal agendas into this conversation; it's the debaters as well. That ought to be remembered here. It's isn't likely that truly objective historical study is going to happen on this forum, because when it does, both agendas are obliged to concede some points. In my experience here, that's most often regarded as a defeat by both sides, and true objectivity takes a back seat to partisanship.[/b]

Well stated...the above as well as the entire and basically neutral post is excellent, informative and enlightening.

My 'agenda' is with 'truth claims' made by many adherents as to the supernatural claims/reported events in the Bible relating to BibleGod(Jesus).
Since there is absolutely zero verifiable, credible evidence as to the actual/factual occurrence of these events, since no one has ever verifiably observed such events at any time in history, and given the 'common case in such instances as resulting from fabrication or fictional writing', one would have to conclude, based upon the overwhelming circumstantial evidence available as to the typical source of unverifiable book material(fictional/human invention), that therefore all supernatural 'events' reported in Biblical accounts were fabricated or delusional. IMO, that is the only conclusion we can reach within the realm of reasonable, rational probability.

[bjs]

John shows a remarkable grasp of Greek composition for an unlettered working class Aramaic speaker.

I just wanted to throw in that I dont think this is true. All the writings attributed to John show the same relatively low level of skill in Greek grammar (well, I suppose Revelations is a little worse than the other works). Johns writings read like they were written by someone for whom Greek is a second language, with basic and repetitive grammatical structure that is at time choppy, but still easy to follow for those with less skill in reading Greek.

Marks Gospel is the only book that reveals less knowledge of Greek than the works attributed to John. In the NT, only Hebrews, Luke and Acts show an impressive command of the Greek language.

As for the general question of this thread: I think that it has been well presented that we have more evidence for the authorship of the Gospels than we do for almost any other ancient writing, but not so much evidence that their authorship cannot be contested.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

With the utmost respect for one whose opinions I value, and some snipping to get to pertinent points...

...
In the case of a document which purports to be a source of historical fact, however, it is not unreasonable to demand that SOME indication of the identity of the author, or at least some indication of his background and the reasons he wrote what he did, be presented. It is very rare for the author of an ancient document of this nature to be absolutely and positively identified, though it does happen...

Which indicates a problem for those who claim to know who wrote what.

...
For most such documents, we depend on internal evidence and corroboration from other sources for a reasonably credible identification.
...

Do you contend a "reasonably credible identification" is on a par with a verified identification?

This OP seeks verification. If that causes folks discomfort that's on them.

Positive ID, in the modern sense, is not only, for the purposes of the historian, virtually always impossible; it is not necessary. Indications of the general nature of the source and the reasons for its existence and preservation are sufficient.

What a historian chooses to accept is on them. I, and this OP, prefer the verifiable.

For instance; it's clear that the Gospel of Luke and the book of The Acts of the Apostles came from the same hand. In the latter book, the author rather frequently uses the terms "we" and "us," which is internal evidence that the author places himself in the events he reports as a participant, and that the author was indeed Luke, a sometime traveling companion of Paul.

Can you offer some means to verify your statement is accurate, or do you rely on the standards set forth by historians, who by your own admittance don't rely on positive identification in declaring who wrote what?

That is conclusive enough for our purposes...

With all respect, you don't get to define what the OP asks.

...content of his Gospel, Luke was probably...

Those who are willing to accept "probably" are certainly free to do so, but those of us who seek positive identification and verification are not bound to such a low standard.

I will not be bound to accept "probably was written by", when this OP specifically asks how we can positively identify, or how we can verify.

Everybody calm down. If you want to really discuss the historicity of ancient documents, its done by looking below and behind the surface of the text and the identity of the authors.

I don't feel I've done anything to "calm down" for - except present an OP.

How we can determine the historicity of a document without having the original writer for cross examination is a leap of faith I'm not prepared to make, nor is the question of historicity even presented in the OP.

I will not lower my standards just to bring comfort to another.



If folks wish to address the historicity, the "probably wrote", and other issues this OP brings up, they are certainly free to do so, but they don't get to redefine or rephrase the OP in order to "drag the thread 'off topic'".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 32:

...
As for the general question of this thread: I think that it has been well presented that we have more evidence for the authorship of the Gospels than we do for almost any ancient writing, but not so much evidence that their authorship cannot be contested.

This OP seeks to positively identify who wrote what in the Gospels, and to verify that what these 'now' positively identified folks have attributed to them is an accurate take on what they wrote (or said if oral tradition).

You are perfectly free to think what you will, but thinking is not positive identification or verification of anything except maybe one's thoughts.

[ChristShepherd]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as a common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy . . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

[Goat]

Oh, stop it, all of you.

I wouldn't presume to be an authority here, but I do think I can claim to be unbiased; I was once a Christian, but am no longer, and I am neither an advocate for Christianity nor opposed to it. I have some academic knowledge about history and historical documents in general, and about the New Testament documents in particular. So, with all that in mind, here's my take on all this:

First, the identity of the author of a document and its historical reliability are two separate issues, though they are tangentially related. That doesn't seem to be at all clear to everyone here.

In the case of fiction or pure literature, e.g. Animal Farm or the Greek or Indian myths, identity is irrelevant; the point is the story itself, and it doesn't much matter who wrote it. There is no claim to historical accuracy in novels or myths or lyric poems which are not attached to places, times and dates.

In the case of a document which purports to be a source of historical fact, however, it is not unreasonable to demand that SOME indication of the identity of the author, or at least some indication of his background and the reasons he wrote what he did, be presented. It is very rare for the author of an ancient document of this nature to be absolutely and positively identified, though it does happen; it's accepted as generally indisputable fact that Julius Caesar himself wrote the first seven volumes of The Gallic Wars, mentioned above, for example. But it's NOT reasonable to demand that level of verification for every document with an origin in ancient times. For most such documents, we depend on internal evidence and corroboration from other sources for a reasonably credible identification. Positive ID, in the modern sense, is not only, for the purposes of the historian, virtually always impossible; it is not necessary. Indications of the general nature of the source and the reasons for its existence and preservation are sufficient.

For instance; it's clear that the Gospel of Luke and the book of The Acts of the Apostles came from the same hand. In the latter book, the author rather frequently uses the terms "we" and "us," which is internal evidence that the author places himself in the events he reports as a participant, and that the author was indeed Luke, a sometime traveling companion of Paul. That is conclusive enough for our purposes, since Luke was not, and never claims to have been, an eyewitness to any of the events of the life of Jesus, though he was an eyewitness to some of Paul's travels. On the events of the life of Jesus, i.e. in the content of his Gospel, Luke was probably recording the reports of others, the oral traditions which were circulating in Palestine and the Near East at the time --which is precisely all that he himself claims to be doing. The historical reliability of the documents is a separate issue, which, again, doesn't seem to be at all clear to everyone in this discussion; but the identity of the author seems to be well-established enough for the purposes of the historian.

Now it should be noted that for the ancients, the distinction between history and literature was not as clear as it is for us today. In some cases -- The Gallic Wars and the Greek myths again -- the distinction is clear; the former is history, the latter is not. In others, like The Iliad and the books of Esther and Job, the distinction is not so clear. Therefore, in modern terms (which are the only terms that make sense in the present discussion), such literature should be considered artifacts from which history may be deduced or discerned, but not historical reporting as we have it today. For a fuller discussion of how oral history becomes quasi-historical mythopoetic literature, see the "Concocted" thread.

Now, with all that in mind, what is the nature of the Gospel documents? Are they, in fact, intended to be historical documentation of real events, or are they faith testimony that was intended for the devotional consumption of a religious community? The fact that they are presented as the former does not matter; virtually ALL literature is presented internally as something that really happened. You wont find This is FICTION, a made-up story that never really occurred anywhere in the TEXT of even Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or The Lord of the Rings. The Sherlock Holmes stories are even tied to a particular time and place, with specific street addresses that never actually existed as written. Real historical personages are featured in Gone With The Wind and The Robe, which are inarguably pure fiction; and, as I noted earlier, the distinction between devotional literature and true history was neither as clear nor as important to the ancients as it is to us.

It is obvious that the Gospels were products of the early Christian community. They are, then, products of authors, whoever they are, with an agenda of faith, not of historical accuracy. Even so, it would be a mistake to dismiss them entirely as historical sources. They are historical artifacts. Some history, as I remarked earlier, can be discerned or deduced from these documents, even given their nature as "faith testimony" and the products of believers.

The biggest, and most common, mistake here is the false dichotomy: that the Gospels are either to be considered totally reliable and accurate in every detail, which is the position of the committed literalist, or totally discarded as fabrication, fiction or fable, which is the position of the committed skeptic. Neither of these positions is available to the serious historian. Even if they are presented by their authors, e.g. Luke, as strictly historical narrative, they should be approached as artifacts, snapshots of the narratives and beliefs shared by an ancient community. That's neither literal history nor fiction. It's tradition, and contains elements of both.

It's not only the authors of these documents who bring their personal agendas into this conversation; it's the debaters as well. That ought to be remembered here. It's isn't likely that truly objective historical study is going to happen on this forum, because when it does, both agendas are obliged to concede some points. In my experience here, that's most often regarded as a defeat by both sides, and true objectivity takes a back seat to partisanship.

Everybody calm down. If you want to really discuss the historicity of ancient documents, its done by looking below and behind the surface of the text and the identity of the authors. If you just want to argue for your position, there are other areas for debate where thats more appropriate.

I will partly challenge you on the authorship of Luke.

While the "US' and "WE' indicate the author of the Gospel of Luke claims to have traveled with Paul, there is no place in the Gospel that identifies the author as "LUKE".

I will admit out of the Gospels, LUKE is the one that uses 'US' and 'WE' .. even if it is only in regards to traveling with Paul. Now, if that person was names "LUKE", I have no idea how to determine that. While a 'LUKE' was mentioned in the letters of Paul (including one of the pastorals that are considered pseudo graphical), as far as I can see, I don't see how the mention of Luke from the letters of Paul, and the author of the Gospel of Luke can be linked.

[cnorman18]

I will partly challenge you on the authorship of Luke.

While the "US' and "WE' indicate the author of the Gospel of Luke claims to have traveled with Paul, there is no place in the Gospel that identifies the author as "LUKE".

I will admit out of the Gospels, LUKE is the one that uses 'US' and 'WE' .. even if it is only in regards to traveling with Paul. Now, if that person was names "LUKE", I have no idea how to determine that. While a 'LUKE' was mentioned in the letters of Paul (including one of the pastorals that are considered pseudo graphical), as far as I can see, I don't see how the mention of Luke from the letters of Paul, and the author of the Gospel of Luke can be linked.

I'll concede the point, but the vast majority of scholars accept the tradition here, and Luke seems to be the most likely candidate. The very earliest manuscript, which I'll also grant dates from about 200 CE, does contain the superscription, "The Gospel according to Luke."

And, to Joey; I grant your point too, though I'm not sure what "point" there is to it. If you set the bar so high nothing can get over it, fine; in that case, there is NO ancient manuscript whose author can be positively identified or verified by your standard. The question then becomes, so what? If your concern isn't for historical accuracy, what is it?

I'm as opposed as you to "truth claims" being made about history or whatever on the basis of the Gospels, and as you know, I'm also opposed to fundamentalism and literalism in ANY religious tradition. But that point can be made without demanding proof of identity that's patently impossible to obtain, and without disregarding the opinions of historians. As it stands, your OP seems to have little point other than to say "Jump over this stick that's 120 feet off the ground," and is thus pointless.

I have to wonder if there are ANY documents, even from modern times, that can be verified to this degree. Who can prove beyond doubt that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address? The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

[Flail]

cnorman wrote:

I have to wonder if there are ANY documents, even from modern times, that can be verified to this degree. Who can prove beyond doubt that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address? The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

Although we cannot verify with perfection that Abe wrote what is purported to be under his hand, we can at least believe what is written and how it was intended....not so with Biblical claims about supposed supernatural events....not only are we in the dark about the author of those writings, but because they relate supernatural events never verified by anyone, anywhere at any time before, then or since, any reasonable person would entertain serious doubts. All the circumstantial evidence lands on the side of fictional.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

I love ya to death my friend, but on this issue I'm in disagreement, and I contend rightly so...

And, to Joey; I grant your point too, though I'm not sure what "point" there is to it.

My point is that we have no way of knowing who wrote these Gospels, and no way of knowing if the words attributed to these folks are an accurate representation of what these folks whoulda written.

If you set the bar so high nothing can get over it, fine

I propose if the identity of these authors could be verified, folks wouldn't be concerned with how high the bar is.

in that case, there is NO ancient manuscript whose author can be positively identified or verified by your standard.

Which is why I don't claim to know what ancient author wrote what.

The question then becomes, so what? If your concern isn't for historical accuracy, what is it?

Accuracy. Whether "historically accurate" or not, I propose accuracy is of the utmost importance. Given the inability to verify who these authors are, I contend claims of accurately presenting their take are folly.

I'm as opposed as you to "truth claims" being made about history or whatever on the basis of the Gospels, and as you know, I'm also opposed to fundamentalism and literalism in ANY religious tradition. But that point can be made without demanding proof of identity that's patently impossible to obtain...

I will not be held liable when folks are unable to verify who wrote what.

It is not my fault folks wish to claim someone wrote something without evidence that someone wrote that something.

and without disregarding the opinions of historians.

I do tend to disregard arguments from "probably", as they are unable to be verified. If this upsets every historian on the planet I hate it for 'em.

As it stands, your OP seems to have little point other than to say "Jump over this stick that's 120 feet off the ground," and is thus pointless.

I object to the categorizing of this OP as "pointless". Simply because you (as a human and not cnorman18 the person) see no point in it is evidence "Gospel believers and promoters" (my term) will accept a lesser standard of evidence than some others.

Again, I can't escape thinking if these authors' identities could be verified there'd be little concern with how high the stick is.

I have to wonder if there are ANY documents, even from modern times, that can be verified to this degree. Who can prove beyond doubt that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address?

Which indicates a problem for folks who try to attribute writings to others when they are unable to verify they speak truth.

I will not be held liable for folks failures in this regard.

The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

I don't doubt folks can be fooled. That so many claim to know who wrote what, and then admit they can't verify who wrote what indicates to me there's a bunch of "fool" to go around.
The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

I will not be held responsible because some folks are unable to show they speak truth, nor will I be made to feel like a bad guy for pointing it out.

[ChristShepherd]

Concerning Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, there exists one copy, known as the Bliss Version, which was signed by President Lincoln. Since Lincoln was the President, his signature is well known.
IMO there can be no reasonable doubt that Lincoln wrote the Gettsburg address.
On the other hand, there are no signed copies of any of the Gospels. Nor is there any reasonable evidence that the Gospels were anymore than an anonymous story.