The Gospel Writers

[Realworldjack]

What can we know (demonstrate) about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? Notice carefully that I am not talking about opinions here, but rather what we can know to be a fact, and how we would go about demonstrating it to be a fact we can know?

[Realworldjack]

.

What can we know (demonstrate) about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? Notice carefully that I am not talking about opinions here, but rather what we can know to be a fact, and how we would go about demonstrating it to be a fact we can know?

Very little if anything.

What we have available is a anthology put together two centuries later by promoters of a religious point of view.


From Catholicism, the religious organization that compiled the Bible:

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the twelve apostles. We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a ghost writer did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of them.

Whether the final version of the gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their gospels.
https://catholicstraightanswers.com/who ... e-gospels/

Bold added

Notice: 'Ghost writer' and 'hard to say' and 'tradition does link'

Very little if anything.

Thanks for the input. I will give it a couple of more days and then maybe give a reply, by maybe opening another thread.

[Mithrae]

Thanks for the input. I will give it a couple of more days and then maybe give a reply, by maybe opening another thread.

Please promise you're not going to claim that we 'know' Luke/Acts are personal letters

Since you don't seem interested in any kind of uncertainties, my answer is the same as others' - we don't know anything about the gospel authors. Speaking of which why would you start a new thread (rendering this one rather pointless)?

[Realworldjack]

Thanks for the input. I will give it a couple of more days and then maybe give a reply, by maybe opening another thread.

Please promise you're not going to claim that we 'know' Luke/Acts are personal letters

Since you don't seem interested in any kind of uncertainties, my answer is the same as others' - we don't know anything about the gospel authors. Speaking of which why would you start a new thread (rendering this one rather pointless)?

Please promise you're not going to claim that we 'know' Luke/Acts are personal letters

I have no intentions of mentioning this. However, I cannot control what other folks bring into the conversation, so please do not hold me to it.

Since you don't seem interested in any kind of uncertainties, my answer is the same as others' - we don't know anything about the gospel authors.

Thanks for the response.

Speaking of which why would you start a new thread (rendering this one rather pointless)?

I just mentioned it as a possibility. The reason being is that it may lead us into a whole other conversation, but we will see.

Thanks again!

[bjs]

Matthew, also called Levi...

The only fact is that the character "Levi" in Mark was renamed "Matthew" in Matthew. One explanation is that there was an actual person that was called both "Levi" and "Matthew," but an equally parsimonius explanation is that the author of Matthew's Gospel was uncomfortable naming a tax collector "Levi."

I recognize that this is a little off topic, but can you explain your reasoning? The context of the Calling of Matthew in the Gospel of Matthew was that Jesus was calling a Jewish tax collector to be his disciples. Or, more generally, that Jesus calls the despised, the hated and the outcast to him. So naming the tax collector Levi, a distinctly Jewish name, would fit well with the overall message of the passage. Why do you think the author of Mathews Gospel would be uncomfortable with that name?

Papias of Hieropolis (70-163 AD), quoted by the historian Eusebius, said that Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

No, Papias just said that a gospel had been written by Mark, but didn't tell us which one he meant:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial are, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

He didn't give us any information that would let us equate our Gospel of Mark with his.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (early second century " 202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), and Origen (184-253) also wrote that Mark was the author of the gospel that bears his name.

Justin Martyr quoted from Mark, but didn't name the author.

Irenaeus apparently paraphrased Papias:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, 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 also quoted enough from all four Gospels that we can be reasonably sure he meant the same four that are in our Bibles.

The others don't offer any more information than Irenaeus and are possibly just paraphrasing him.

So within a generation or two of the writing of the gospel many sources attest to Mark being the author. No other name was attached to the gospel so early on or with so much force, so all the external evidence points to Mark being the author.

"All of the evidence" does, but "all of the evidence" in this case isn't much to go on. It amounts to a single dubious source (Irenaeus) being repeated without question by later authors. That's not nothing, but it's not much.

I did mention Irenaeus first, and separate from the rest, because his claim about Mark is the oldest surviving record. It is possible that others were working from his claim, though that is just a guess since we have no evidence to show that it is so.

The idea that Irenaeus was referring to some other document written by Mark is much more dubious. Marks name was directly attached to what now call the Gospel of Mark not long after Irenaeus. If Irenaeus was referring to some other gospel written by Mark, then this would be the only surviving mention of that important document. Its not impossible that no one else ever heard of this document, but it is highly unlikely. Saying that Irenaeus was referring to some other document written by Mark creates an extra layer of complication without any evidence or reason to suggest that it is true.

If someone was going to pick a name to falsely attribute this Gospel to, it is unlikely they would pick Mark. They might pick Peter. When people started writing false gospels in the mid-second century they were more than happy to attach Peters name to one. Picking Peters travelling companion as the author creates a confusing extra layer to the story. The only logical reason to claim that Mark wrote the gospel is if he actually did.

That's not the only logical reason. You said yourself that the Greek's pretty bad. If early apologists thought that the gospels had to come from someone at least close to the Apostles, but didn't want to attribute Mark's crappy Greek to one of the Twelve, then "Mark, obscure friend of Peter" might be a logical choice. I don't know that's what happened, but even "reasonable conjecture" is a rather far cry from "only logical reason."

That does not fit with the actual history. What we call Marks Gospel was respected very early on. It was sent throughout the Roman word and treated as authoritative. It was one of the first documents to be accepted as Christian Scripture. Beyond this, Johns Gospel shows roughly the same level of Greek and there was not a problem assigning that work to the Apostle. Saying that people did not want to assign Marks Gospel to an Apostle is not even within the realm of reasonable conjecture.

I will grant that I should not have written that it was the only logical reason. I should have written that it was the only reasonable explanation. There are other explanation, like that one provided. They are not impossible, but they are also not reasonable.

It is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Mark wrote the gospel which bears his name.

It's a relatively common mistake to treat a little evidence as sufficient just because it's all we've got. In the absence of other evidence, it's a reasonable assumption to begin with, but flimsy is flimsy. What we have is a far cry from "likely," let alone the kind of fact being asked for.

The evidence here is not ironclad, but it is far from flimsy. As I said, we cant be certain of much from antiquity. However, what we have here is at least likely and probably a little more than that.

[Mithrae]

From a thread last year:

• Mithrae wrote:

  Irenaeus is the one that took the description of Papias and attached it to what we know as the Gospel of Mark by quoting from it. Every other early Christian writer that I'm aware of simply takes Irenaeus at his word.

  That's... kind of true. However Justin Martyr cites gMark fairly unambiguously in the story of Zebedee's sons being called Boanerges, and apparently attributes it to the 'memoirs' of Peter. This would be perfectly understandable if gMark was indeed written by Peter's interpreter, but difficult to explain in any other scenario:
  "And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder..."
  
  
  
  The gospel of Mark was written before Matthew, hence probably around 65-71CE, apparently for a Gentile audience. I don't know of any real reason to suppose it wasn't written by Mark, but the evidence for Markan authorship isn't exactly overwhelming. I'd give it 50/50 odds maybe. One particularly interesting theory about Mark is the strong possibility that its final chapters were based on a very early written Passion narrative. . . .
  
  John I would say has the highest likelihood of a correctly identified author, by a considerable margin: Of the four it has both the clearest internal attribution (albeit only claiming to be by an unspecified disciple, John 1:14, 19:35), probably the earliest 'external' confirmation of authorship (confirmed in the appendix, likely added shortly after the beloved disciple's death, to have been written by him), and the only one with clear and specific identification of author prior to Irenaeus (indeed by multiple disparate sources, the Valentinians Ptolemy and Heracleon both attributing it to John). So perhaps an 80% likelihood it was written by the beloved disciple, who was almost certainly John (though a distant second contender would be Lazarus... very distant if one doesn't accept the story of him being raised to life ).

[Difflugia]

I recognize that this is a little off topic, but can you explain your reasoning? The context of the Calling of Matthew in the Gospel of Matthew was that Jesus was calling a Jewish tax collector to be his disciples. Or, more generally, that Jesus calls the despised, the hated and the outcast to him. So naming the tax collector Levi, a distinctly Jewish name, would fit well with the overall message of the passage. Why do you think the author of Mathews Gospel would be uncomfortable with that name?

Because "Levi" isn't just distinctly Jewish, but the eponymous ancestor of the priestly tribe. With all the other Jewish names to choose from, it is plausible that a Jewish author of Matthew would change "Levi" to something else to avoid any appearance of libeling the priesthood. It could also go the other way. Maybe "Matthew" was afraid that a disciple named Levi implied that Jesus had a connection with the established priesthood. Who knows? Not us and that's the point.

All we know for certain is that the author of Matthew copied lines out of Mark, but changed one of the names. "Levi's name was also Matthew" is just as baseless of a conjecture as "the evangelists thought Levi was a dumb name."

I did mention Irenaeus first, and separate from the rest, because his claim about Mark is the oldest surviving record. It is possible that others were working from his claim, though that is just a guess since we have no evidence to show that it is so.

And we have no evidence or reasoning from the later Fathers to think otherwise, which is the point.

The idea that Irenaeus was referring to some other document written by Mark is much more dubious.

Not Irenaeus, Papias. Papias claimed Mark wrote a gospel, but didn't describe it sufficiently. In fact, the description says that the events were out of order, but our Gospel of Mark instead appears to have been arranged in a distinct chronology.

Irenaeus is the one that took the words of Papias that claimed that Mark wrote a gospel and attached them to the particular gospel that we now call the Gospel of Mark.

Marks name was directly attached to what now call the Gospel of Mark not long after Irenaeus. If Irenaeus was referring to some other gospel written by Mark, then this would be the only surviving mention of that important document.

Substituting Papias for Irenaeus, yes you're right.

Its not impossible that no one else ever heard of this document, but it is highly unlikely.

Show your work.

Saying that Irenaeus was referring to some other document written by Mark creates an extra layer of complication without any evidence or reason to suggest that it is true.

No, claiming that Irenaeus was referring to the same documents as Papias is using claiming conjecture as evidence.

That does not fit with the actual history. What we call Marks Gospel was respected very early on. It was sent throughout the Roman word and treated as authoritative. It was one of the first documents to be accepted as Christian Scripture.

Aside from a single quotation by Justin, the earliest evidence of Mark's acceptance is Irenaeus. Because others accepted it later doesn't imply that Papias, Irenaeus, or anyone else expected that it would be until it was.

Beyond this, Johns Gospel shows roughly the same level of Greek and there was not a problem assigning that work to the Apostle.

I disagree. The Greek of the Fourth Gospel shows Semitic influence, but is nonetheless quite refined and grammatical. Mark's Greek is much more simple and somewhat crude. But these are subjective judgements, anyway. My point is that you assert without any adequate justification that "the only logical conclusion" is that Mark was really written by Mark. That itself is the conjecture and is a baseless one. There are any number of reasons that someone might want to attribute a writing to a lesser-known, but still known person.

Saying that people did not want to assign Marks Gospel to an Apostle is not even within the realm of reasonable conjecture.

I'm pretty sure that "personal incredulity" is considered a logical fallacy. At the moment, all you have is conjecture, which isn't enough to tip the balance over any other conjecture.

I will grant that I should not have written that it was the only logical reason. I should have written that it was the only reasonable explanation. There are other explanation, like that one provided. They are not impossible, but they are also not reasonable.

And I suppose you have some justification for this assertion?

The evidence here is not ironclad, but it is far from flimsy. As I said, we cant be certain of much from antiquity. However, what we have here is at least likely and probably a little more than that.

Proof by assertion.

[Difflugia]

That's... kind of true. However Justin Martyr cites gMark fairly unambiguously in the story of Zebedee's sons being called Boanerges, and apparently attributes it to the 'memoirs' of Peter. This would be perfectly understandable if gMark was indeed written by Peter's interpreter, but difficult to explain in any other scenario:
"And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder..."

Just for the record, I missed this while writing the previous response and didn't ignore it on purpose. I'll look at it tomorrow.

[bjs]

[Replying to Difflugia]


I did flip the name Irenaeus for Papias. My apologizes. I will respond to the rest of your post later.

[elphidium55]

I would like to bring up what Papias says about the Gospel of Matthew as evidence that Papias is not entirely reliable. Should I start a new thread?

[Faithless]

I did a fair amount of research many years ago into this very question. Going from memory the initial problem with the gospels is that they were written in Greek. There is no evidence of translations from earlier writings.

According to the stories themselves, Jesus and his disciples were uneducated Jews during a period where all but the wealthy were uneducated. Mark may be a bit more crude than other writings but they still show an educated Greek writer. The story includes chiasms and stories wrapped within stories, all of which show a Greek education. So, out of the gate, none of the gospels seem to be written by apostles or those associated with them if we also want to claim the simple followers of Jesus were peasants.

In those days, no one that wrote a piece of literature would identify it as according to Mark. This is how one would identify someone else writing a story they heard from Mark at a minimum. Until Iraneus identified the gospel writings, there were papers circulating known only as memoirs of the apostles. It is suspected that Iraneus is the one that named them.

Matthew and Luke copied extensively from Mark, often word for word, other times seeming to correct what Mark wrote. The legend of a Hebrew gospel by Matthew is just that, legend. The Matthew we have was an original Greek composition, mostly a rewrite of Mark with a suspected Q source for the remaining. Luke seems to have used this Q source as well but in completely different settings...as though they had some sayings but no context to fill it in and Matthew and Luke each created their own context.

Ill stop here for now. Most secular scholarship claims we have no idea who the original authors are and its lost to time.