Are the Gospels hopelessly anonymous?

[Goose]

There have been several threads recently comparing the evidence for Christianity with other ancient secular events/persons. I've noticed in these threads that there is trend to speak of the Gospels as being anonymous or at least having uncertain authorship. Then, the same person while comparing will speak of other ancient works as though the authorship of those works are established with great certainty. In other words, it's assumed the Gospels are hopelessly anonymous but we know who the authors are of other secular works.

I would like to know the method the sceptic employs to arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels are anonymous, but is so sure about the authorship of other ancient texts. Obviously this has significant impact for both the Christian and sceptic. Eyewitness attestation hangs in the balance.

Technically speaking, it is true the Gospels are anonymous. They do not make a direct claim to authorship in the text proper. However, if this is the single criterion used to establish that the Gospels are anonymous then I'm afraid many other ancient works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, are equally anonymous. So surely, there must be more to the method than this single criterion.

So, the questions for debate:

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

2. Are the Gospels rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method?

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

[Goat]

Either the author self identifies, or, it has to be acknowledged within his lifetime that he wrote it.

OK, that would make all the Pauline letters in which Paul identifies himself authentically Pauline. But I digress.

Except , of course, there is the well known technique of 'pseudo graphics' However, there are a number of letters from Paul that would be considered
authentically from Paul. Others are not , due to stylistic differences, and the lack of
an authoritative source. However, the self identification does pass one part of the examination. .

I've not heard of 'pseudo graphics.' You probably mean pseudonymous. At any rate, the problem with labelling a work pseudonymous is that we could do that with any work. (The Gallic Wars are pseudonymous - prove me wrong) The stylistic differences that some cite as the evidence for some Pauline letters being pseudonymous are over stated. It's also very subjective. These differences in style or terminology could just as easily be explained as the writer maturing or expanding his vocabulary or some other reason. At any rate, we are digressing into Paul.

I would agree that self identification is good evidence for authorship. However, many works from antiquity do not self identify such as the Annals.

When it comes to the Annals, Tacitus's literary style was very unique, and was similar to other books he had written. While that does not absolutely prove he wrote Annals, between the stylistic similarities, and the attributing of Annals to him
early on, by sources who are not benefiting, increases the probability to fairly high.

First, I want to highlight that you do not dispute Tacitus as the author of the Annals. In fact, you say the probability is "fairly high" that he is the author. Which of course would mean the authorship of the Annals is NOT hopelessly anonymous.

I agree Tacitus style was unique. However, there is some disagreement here that the Annals are similar in style to say the Historiae of Tacitus. Taken from wiki (not the greatest source, I know):

In comparison to the Historiae, the Annales are rather less fluid. They are also more concise and severe. There is even more predilection for incongruity. The unharmonious verbal forms reflect the discordant events and the ambiguity of the characters' behaviour. There are many violent metaphors and audacious uses of personification. Poetic styles, especially that of Virgil, are often used. For example, the description of Germanicus's foray onto the field of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in search of the destroyed legions of Varus follows the style of Virgil's description of Aeneas's descent into the underworld.

Also, the first external source that directly attributes Tacitus as an author of anything is Tertullian over 100 years after Tacitus. So by your own admission you must think this is early. And note, Tertullian mentions the Historiae not the Annals. We'll keep that in mind.

Tertullian the Apology ch 16:

For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an xxx's head. Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories...

If you are requiring another source to identify the author within his lifetime that will be problematic for the works I've listed in the OP such as Gallic/Civil Wars , Parallel Lives , and the Annals . Works for which authorship is rarely questioned by classical scholars.

It is not just another source, but within a certain period of his lifetime,and/or stylistic similarities such as grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary.

Your method is already in serious trouble. The Annals differ from the Historiae and have no external source naming Tactus as the author with in the lifetime of Tacitus. Yet, you do not dispute the authorship of the Annals but rather say the probability is "fairly high." There seems to be a double standard here. Can you explain this?

Sometimes, stylistic similarities can point to books that are from the same author. If one can be identified, and the style, words used, syntax, etc etc etc are the same, then it can be assumed they are written by the same author. An example of this in the New Testament is Acts and Luke.

My questions would be for #2. Are we requiring explicit external attestion to authorship in the lifetime of the author? Does the name of the work need to be mentioned and the name of the author? You need to get a little more specific here. It's too general.

We are not requiring explicit external evidence within the author's lifetime, however, it has to be from a non-biased source, which does not a specific agenda. Because of the nature of pseudo graphics, it should be within I would say a generation of the writing (i.e. 20 years).

Now I'm confused because you are changing your criteria and this was only your second post. Does the external evidence need to be within the author's lifetime or does it not? Or does it now need to be with in 20 years? If it doesn't need to explicitly link the author to the work in question, what is good enough? A general allusion, a quote, a statement that the author wrote something, or what? Let's get this settled.

Also, all writers from the ancient world had an agenda. Which is not unlike authors today. So, that will become problematic for secular works as well.

So, you are avoiding the question, what evidence do you have of the authorship of the gospels?

Patience goat. We'll get to all that. We haven't settled question number 1, yet. I predict through this discussion we will identify that your method:
1. employs a double standard for Christianity whether intentional or not and/or;
2. employs an unreasonable level of scepticism toward the authorship of all ancient texts and/or;
3. The Gospels are no more hoplessly anonymous than other secular works for which authorship is rarely questioned.

Well, it is fairly acknowledged that Tacitus did not name the annals, The part
that you are forgetting is 'stylistic analysis'

So, are you finished using diversionary tactics, and what is your evidence that you have?

Your diversionary tactics won't get you anyplace, Your red herrings won't get you anyplace. Show your evidence.

[seventil]

Just wanted to jump in here (first post in a year, yay!) -- and say that it's a bit sad to see a great topic like this derail so quickly. It's a topic I've studied a bit and always loved talking about.

I think people should stop looking at the usernames and group memberships to the left of the screen and focus more on the topic at hand. I can tell the "anti-Christians" rushed in here, looked at the questions and then immediately assumed a defensive position based on these assumptions. They saw:

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

People started immediately taking a defensive approach; lest Goose try to say (God forbid) that some ancient texts' authors are just as uncertain of some of the Biblical texts in the near future. Now, isn't that silly? Why get defensive about that? Should our goals be one in the same; the pursuit of truth?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

I agree with Goose here that goat has made some unfair statements like:

Point one. Quote in the Gospels the line where it identifies the author. As far as I can see, only the Gospel of John does, but there is not enough information to discern which John it is.

How about looking at the attributions of the Gospels, and see how we can associate
the words that claim a gospel was written by 'such and such' with that actual gospel? What is the date of the claim? Is it within 40 years of the writing of the Gospel, and what evidence is there that the Gospel has not been altered?]

There is positive evidence that the Gospel of John was redacted several times.

... and then not applied non-Gospel books to the same criteria.

I think first we all need to agree on (or maybe adapt a well known?) standard on what is used to determine authorship. Until we do that, we're all just flying by the seat of our respective pants and judging the authorship by our own personal standards.

So, any ancient literature specialists that can provide some insight? What's the defacto standard when it comes to determining authorship on ancient literature?

[Goat]

Just wanted to jump in here (first post in a year, yay!) -- and say that it's a bit sad to see a great topic like this derail so quickly. It's a topic I've studied a bit and always loved talking about.

I think people should stop looking at the usernames and group memberships to the left of the screen and focus more on the topic at hand. I can tell the "anti-Christians" rushed in here, looked at the questions and then immediately assumed a defensive position based on these assumptions. They saw:

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

People started immediately taking a defensive approach; lest Goose try to say (God forbid) that some ancient texts' authors are just as uncertain of some of the Biblical texts in the near future. Now, isn't that silly? Why get defensive about that? Should our goals be one in the same; the pursuit of truth?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

I agree with Goose here that goat has made some unfair statements like:

Point one. Quote in the Gospels the line where it identifies the author. As far as I can see, only the Gospel of John does, but there is not enough information to discern which John it is.

How about looking at the attributions of the Gospels, and see how we can associate
the words that claim a gospel was written by 'such and such' with that actual gospel? What is the date of the claim? Is it within 40 years of the writing of the Gospel, and what evidence is there that the Gospel has not been altered?]

There is positive evidence that the Gospel of John was redacted several times.

... and then not applied non-Gospel books to the same criteria.

I think first we all need to agree on (or maybe adapt a well known?) standard on what is used to determine authorship. Until we do that, we're all just flying by the seat of our respective pants and judging the authorship by our own personal standards.

So, any ancient literature specialists that can provide some insight? What's the defacto standard when it comes to determining authorship on ancient literature?

When it comes to other ancient documents, to try to focus on them, when the subject is 'are the gospel's hopelessly anonymous' is the logical fallacy of the 'red herring'.

So, what evidence do YOU have of the authorship of the Gospels?

Don't try to evade, Give evidence, and lets see how the evidence holds up.

[Zzyzx]

.

Just wanted to jump in here (first post in a year, yay!)

Perhaps someone has been posting with your ID because there are several posts in the last twelve months (some quite recent). It might pay to check “profile� and “find all posts by . . “ to see if that has happened.

I think people should stop looking at the usernames and group memberships to the left of the screen and focus more on the topic at hand.

Yes, we should endeavor to be as anonymous as the gospel authors.

Negative reactions may well be directed toward what has been said previously rather than being drawn from reaction to the affiliation or username of posters.

Part of the nature of responses may be related to the reputation of previous posters – the credibility and respect that they may have earned (or not earned). A reputation for presenting accurate information clearly produces different effect than a reputation for carelessness with truth. Refusal to document claims produces negative effect upon subsequent posters.

Should our goals be one in the same; the pursuit of truth?

Are you willing to pursue truth regardless of where it leads – even if it leads away from the bible being literally true or historical?

Are you willing to pursue the truth concerning whether biblical tales of “miracles� are literally true?

I agree with Goose here that goat has made some unfair statements like:
<snip>
... and then not applied non-Gospel books to the same criteria.

Is this a case of a religionist jumping in to back a religionist regardless of truth (and basing comments upon user ID or group affiliations)? Goat made fair statements, in my opinion, as they stand and ones that are not dependent upon being applied to or compared to statements about other documents from the era.

I think first we all need to agree on (or maybe adapt a well known?) standard on what is used to determine authorship.

Make your proposals and see whether you can get a consensus.

So, any ancient literature specialists that can provide some insight? What's the defacto standard when it comes to determining authorship on ancient literature?

If we have no such specialist members and/or if there is no generally acceptable standard for determining authorship, how do you recommend proceeding to determine if authorship of gospels is known or is anonymous?

[Goose]

When it comes to other ancient documents, to try to focus on them, when the subject is 'are the gospel's hopelessly anonymous' is the logical fallacy of the 'red herring'.

You forgot the subtitle: Challenging the sceptics' methods on authorship.

You are a sceptic and your methods are being challenged. There is no Red Herring or diversions from me. Why you and others on this forum refuse to establsih a transparent method BEFORE we begin looking at the evidence doesn't bode well for you guys. I'm open to whatever you suggest as long as we can run some secular works through the methodology after you suggest it to see what happens.

On to business.

Let's get our method sorted out. From our posts so far this seems to be your suggested methodology for determining authorship:

1. The author must self identify, and/or:
2. Someone else must credit authorship with in the lifetime of the author, preferably within 20 years, and it must be an unbiased source.
3. Stylistic similarities can help confirm authorship.

However, your acknowledgement of the probability that Tacitus wrote the Annals as "fairly high" and other comments leads me to conclude your actual methodology is something like this:

1. The work need not self-identify.
2. The external evidence crediting authorship can be 100 years or later. This would be considered early. An unbiased source is preferred. And it need not reference the work in question but at least acknowledge that the author in question wrote something. The other work mentioned by the external source can then be compared for stylistic similarities against the work in question.
3. As long as some stylistic similarities exist other stylistic differences can be overlooked.

If a work passes the above criteria it is sufficient to deem the probability of authorship as "fairly high."

I don't want to misrepresent you so if you would like to correct this, now is the time before we begin looking at question number 2 in more detail. Or, if you would like to propose another methodology now is the time.

So, shall we use your suggested methodology or your actual methodology or something else?

[Goose]

Just wanted to jump in here (first post in a year, yay!) -- and say that it's a bit sad to see a great topic like this derail so quickly. It's a topic I've studied a bit and always loved talking about.

Your input, as always, will be welcomed.

[seventil]

.

Just wanted to jump in here (first post in a year, yay!)

Perhaps someone has been posting with your ID because there are several posts in the last twelve months (some quite recent). It might pay to check “profile� and “find all posts by . . “ to see if that has happened.

"A year" was a bit of an exaggeration, and all of my recent posts were merely non-debate discussions and such (as in the "Apology... thread I did that was in the newsletter).

Debating, especially here, takes a certain mindset and commitment that is sometimes hard to convince yourself to do.

Part of the nature of responses may be related to the reputation of previous posters – the credibility and respect that they may have earned (or not earned). A reputation for presenting accurate information clearly produces different effect than a reputation for carelessness with truth. Refusal to document claims produces negative effect upon subsequent posters.

Come on now, Dave. A presumption or bias due to your thoughts on a person, whatever they are, shouldn't influence the true meat of the thread.

Oh, but it has. Not only with Goose, but with me. I'll explain shortly.

Are you willing to pursue truth regardless of where it leads – even if it leads away from the bible being literally true or historical?

Are you willing to pursue the truth concerning whether biblical tales of “miracles� are literally true?

Of course. Now, here's the kicker.

My personal beliefs or thoughts on this subject are much in line with many Atheists. I don't believe in the perfection of the Bible. I don't believe the texts are perfect. I don't believe the Bible is literally true in many cases. I believe much of the Old Testament is written in parables or in the myth-like stylistic writing of many other authors of the same time.

Regarding the New Testament, I don't think it's complete nor perfect. I look at it as a well preserved, somewhat true account of Christian history mainly revolving around Jesus; some who believe He is the Son of God.

So, to answer your question... of course we can pursue the truths concerning authorship or authenticity of any part of the Bible. I don't see how anything could change in my mind, though, as I'm pretty much labeled as a Bible-hating heathen by any Fundamentalist Christian. I'm a Biblical skeptic. My beliefs that I've came to are result of my studies on the subject. Sure, they could be wrong. Anyway, what's to discuss?

Is this a case of a religionist jumping in to back a religionist regardless of truth (and basing comments upon user ID or group affiliations)? Goat made fair statements, in my opinion, as they stand and ones that are not dependent upon being applied to or compared to statements about other documents from the era.

Make your proposals and see whether you can get a consensus.

If we have no such specialist members and/or if there is no generally acceptable standard for determining authorship, how do you recommend proceeding to determine if authorship of gospels is known or is anonymous?

You make an assumption that I'm an authority on this subject. I'm not. It seems that no one else here is, either. I suppose we can best-guess it, but I think that detracts from the validity of any argument if it's based on a premise we're unsure that is standard or even correct.

If there is no standard for determining authorship (which I highly doubt) - then I guess that makes us the resident experts on the subject. Scary, eh?

[Goose]

You make an assumption that I'm an authority on this subject. I'm not. It seems that no one else here is, either. I suppose we can best-guess it, but I think that detracts from the validity of any argument if it's based on a premise we're unsure that is standard or even correct.

If there is no standard for determining authorship (which I highly doubt) - then I guess that makes us the resident experts on the subject. Scary, eh?

In the event that no one else participates and engages the questions for debate, perhaps you will. At least then, we'll hopefully see some rational discussion.

As far as a method for determining authorship, it generally revolves around external and internal evidence and supporting arguments. I'd prefer someone else suggest a method so I'm not accused of stacking the deck. Having a method before we begin helps ensure some objectivity is maintained. Running both secular as well as Biblical texts through the method ensures some intellectual honesty on both sides. I've never understood why this is a problem for some on this forum. Especially, those that hold the idea of the scientific method so near and dear to their heart.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'd prefer someone else suggest a method so I'm not accused of stacking the deck.

Go ahead and try to stack the deck as far as I am concerned. Biblical literalism needs a stacked deck since it lacks evidence to support assertions.

What is your background and expertise in the study of history and/or theology?

Attempting to excuse the anonymity of gospel writers by claiming that "the authors of those other works can be questioned too" is nothing more than making excuses for the lack of evidence to support religious contentions.

Regardless of who wrote what when, Christian beliefs are based upon writings that cannot be verified, by writers who cannot be properly identified, citing events that are not supported by other sources. It is believed “on faith alone� because there is no valid reason to accept the tales as being true.

The greatest “leap of faith�, in my opinion, is accepting the “resurrection� as being literally true. There is no extra-biblical verification that a dead body came back to life – only hearsay accounts attributed to involved people – claims that are contrary to all we know about the real world -- written long after the supposed event by people who are incompletely identified (or unidentified). Quite a stretch.

To present such an incredible claim with such weak evidence is sheer folly. AND to base an entire religion on the hope that the incredible claim is true is, in my opinion, directly contrary to reason, intelligence, logic, evidence and experience.

I have no comment on anyone personally and privately accepting that a dead body came back to life and justified creation of a new religion. However, when such claims are made publicly, particularly in a debate environment, I take exception. Claims made to others should be based in truth that is verifiable with credible evidence. If credible evidence is lacking, for whatever reason, the claim is invalid (no matter how fervently it may be believed).

[daedalus 2.0]

So, let me guess. We on the "internets" haven't established the authorship of the Gospels before the experts who spend a lifetime studying these things?

Shame. I really thought our extensive Googling would answer these questions! hahaha

Either way, goat certainly seems on the right track. If we don't Special Plead, the authorship is forever anonymous. The other historical writings are considered by their author because its easier to talk about Julius Caesar's works as written by him, rather than one or many court biographers. Especially considering the comtemporary writings that suggest he was an excellent orator.

There is a smuggled premise that if the authorship of the Gospels is found, then the writings are true. Well, sad to say, this ain't true.. in fact, in secular works they find exaggeration is made often.

If Goose is going to judge the Gospels equally to secular work, then he must prepare to accept that much of the gospels are untrue.


Either way, it will never happen. There is no verifiable name, birthplace or family line, etc. for any of the authors.


"I, Goose, ran across the roof of the World Trade Center and jumped into the sky. I floated gently to the ground because of the will of God."

Wow. It's pretty easy to create autobiographies. And perhaps that's the only true thing I've ever written. Can the method Goose proposes solve that problem?