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]

We know very little if anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We can only speculate at their literary intent. I suppose if the same lack of background and knowledge were applicable to J. K. Rowling, people could indoctrinated to understand and believe that the life and times of Harry Potter are as actual/factual as many Christians believe as to BibleGod.

[Flail]

We know very little if anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We can only speculate as to their literary intent. I suppose, if the same lack of background and knowledge were applicable to J. K. Rowling, people could indoctrinated to understand and believe that the 'life and times of Harry Potter' are as actual/factual as many Christians believe as to BibleGod.

[cnorman18]

Can any of the Gospel writers be positively identified?

No.

We have church tradition about the identities of the Gospel writers, which seem reasonable in some cases; but no independent confirmation of that, or even any documentation or evidence other than the tradition.

Mark is traditionally identified as John Mark, a companion and follower of Peter, who is said to have written his Gospel at Peter's direction in Rome.

Matthew is supposed to be the Disciple of that name, a Jewish tax collector.

Luke is said to be the same Luke mentioned in Acts, a companion of Paul and a Greek physician.

John is said to be the Disciple of that name, among the youngest of the Twelve, who wrote his Gospel as a sort of supplement to the others at an advanced age. The only evidence for this is internal; the author refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," name never given, but the name of John is conspicuously absent when compared to the lists of disciples given in the other Gospels.

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

No. Re my post on the "Logical Fallacy" thread concerning Klausner, it appears, on the contrary, that the Gospels were assembled from oral traditions that had been circulating around Palestine for some time prior to their composition. That would account for both their similarities and differences. The letters of Paul are the oldest part of the New Testament, and the influence of Pauline thought is visible in the Gospels in many places. That may or may not mean that the tradition is accurate about authorship, but it seems a good bet that there were no eyewitnesses among them. As with most documents that old, though, even that is not certain.

[EduChris]

We know very little if anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We can only speculate at their literary intent...

Do we have to know with absolute certainty who wrote Animal Farm in order to recognize the truth it proclaims? Isn't its "truth content" independent of the author's intent and identity?

What about the ancient monuments and inscriptions we study in order to learn about ancient history? Is it necessary that we know the precise identities of those who scratched out the inscriptions in the stones?

Conversely, is knowing the precise identity of an author any guarantee of the accuracy of her writings?

[cnorman18]

We know very little if anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We can only speculate at their literary intent...

Do we have to know with absolute certainty who wrote Animal Farm in order to recognize the truth it proclaims? Isn't its "truth content" independent of the author's intent and identity?

What about the ancient monuments and inscriptions we study in order to learn about ancient history? Is it necessary that we know the precise identities of those who scratched out the inscriptions in the stones?

Depends on the intent. 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.

If it is to be claimed that the Gospel accounts are of objectively true and historical events, then attribution and historicity becomes an issue. If they are claimed to be "faith documents" without necessarily reflecting objective, historical truth, extended parables only, then attribution, etc., are no longer important.

Seems simple enough to me.

[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. Have a look at this thread to understand what I mean: Are the Gospels Hopelessly Anonymous

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.

[EduChris]

...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.

...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.

[river]

We know very little if anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We can only speculate at their literary intent...

Do we have to know with absolute certainty who wrote Animal Farm in order to recognize the truth it proclaims? Isn't its "truth content" independent of the author's intent and identity?

What about the ancient monuments and inscriptions we study in order to learn about ancient history? Is it necessary that we know the precise identities of those who scratched out the inscriptions in the stones?

Conversely, is knowing the precise identity of an author any guarantee of the accuracy of her writings?

If I want to put the truths I find in the Bible on the same level with the truths I find in Animal Farm then I can take them or leave them. I can take what I find helpful and leave the rest. But that is not what I am being asked to do with the Bible. I am being asked to accept every word on the authority of God.for me to do this and not concern myself with the human authors, who they were, where they lived, when they lived and if they lived at all is spiritually irresponsible.

No, identifying the authors does not establish the accuracy of what they wrote.

[Druijf]

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?