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?

[Zzyzx]

.

I feel more like I, and now you, have shown the observer that so many Christians accept the word of folks they can't even confirm wrote such words, and just how goofy a notion that is.

What would be "goofy" is to take an irrational, juvenile, and unscholarly approach to determining the authorship of an ancient text. Which is basically what you are suggesting we do when you ask for authors from 2000 years ago to be positively identified.

<snip>

Feel free to drag that thread up if you are serious about having a rational discussion instead of accusing me of making excuses.

Mr. Goose,

Perhaps you are not aware that much (or most) of what you present ARE excuses – excuses for why the identities of gospel writers are unknown – excuses for why tales of supernatural events presented as truthful cannot be substantiated – excuses why the proposed “god� cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary (accompanied by sarcastic comments, attempts to demean Forum members personally, and smokescreens to conceal the lack of support for biblical “gods�, claims and stories).

I trust that readers are astute enough to realize that fancy footwork and creative dance are not substitutes for actual debate of ideas and topics WITH substantiation of claims made and stories presented as truth.

Without the excuses and inappropriate comments, what do you have to offer to SHOW readers that the bible and Christianity present truth?

[Flail]

I feel more like I, and now you, have shown the observer that so many Christians accept the word of folks they can't even confirm wrote such words, and just how goofy a notion that is.

What would be "goofy" is to take an irrational, juvenile, and unscholarly approach to determining the authorship of an ancient text. Which is basically what you are suggesting we do when you ask for authors from 2000 years ago to be positively identified.

When you are "serious" about offering some means to verify just who the heck wrote these "Gospels", instead of making excuses as to why such can't be verified, you be sure to let me know.

I am serious about offering some means to determine authorship of ancient texts here:Are the Gospels Hopelessly Anonymous?

Feel free to drag that thread up if you are serious about having a rational discussion instead of accusing me of making excuses.

Obviously authorship of any writing is essential to understanding context, bias, intent, observational and reporting ability etc. However, when it comes to making 'truth claims' as to the supposed occurrence of supernatural events and supernatural beings the likes of which have never ever been verified or credibly demonstrated, authorship must become an absolute, unqualified requirement. There is a vast difference in writings relating to human events from writings purporting to relate to events involving some presumed supernatural creator of the universe.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

There are a number of extra biblical sources that speak about the gospel writers.

The number of copies in existence enable us to be confident they have been accurately transmitted.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 43:

There are a number of extra biblical sources that speak about the gospel writers.

Please present such for examination.

The number of copies in existence enable us to be confident they have been accurately transmitted.

There's millions of copies of Gone With The Wind, does this make it a true and accurate accounting of the times?

Or is this just a form of argumentum ad populum?

[JehovahsWitness]

From Post 43:

There are a number of extra biblical sources that speak about the gospel writers.

Please present such for examination.

#QUESTION: What evidence do we have of the authorship of the gospels?

I often read posts with peoplel claiming there is no evidence that the individuals creditied with the Gospels actually wrote them. While the gospel writers don't name themselves in their work, evidence can be found through early church writings.

JOHN
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

**Irenaeus (d. approx 200) testified in his letters to Florinus, that he studied under Polycarp , an overseer in the Smyrna congregation and a "a living link" to the apostles. He affirms that Polycarp was "his familiar [...] with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord". He also quotes the earlier works of Papias, who, lived in the period immediately following the death of Jesus Christ's apostles and was an associate of Polycarp both of whom would therefore would be reliable sources of gospel authoriship.

================>
MATTHEW Authorship:Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis (2nd Century) saying Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language. (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16), Irenaeus of Gaul**, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea

==============>

MARK Authorship: Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine.

=====================>

LUKE: Luke tells Theophilus that he had previously written a " Gospel" account. Authorship: Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) Irenaeus, Clement, and Eusebius.


Further...
http://ivanstheologicalponderings.blogs ... spels.html


================>

From Post 43:There's millions of copies of Gone With The Wind, does this make it a true and accurate accounting of the times?.

The existence of thousands of manuscripts allow us to verify and remove any mistakes or changes that might have crept into copies. While there have been attempts to corrupt the integrity of the sacred text, thanks to these early manuscripts, we can verify (and remove) all spurious texts so that modern translations can be trusted to be correct representations of what the writters penned.




THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES

While it is true there are some very famous leather codices dating from the 4th century, with nearly all of the bible books bound in a single volume, this is not to say they are the "earlierst bibles": The Christian Greek Scriptures is a collection of 27 individual books and there are literally thousands of early manuscripts of all or parts of these books for example The Chester Beatty 2 collection contains 9 of Paul's letters (he wrote 13) and they date to approx 200 CE and the Bodmer 14, 15(P75) dated contails most of the gospel of Luke & John and dates to the 3rd Century.

BUT COULDN'T CHANGES & CORRUPTION HAVE CREPT IN BY THE THIRD CENTURY?

Copyists certainly did make errors when writing. What enables us to have confidence in the CGS however is the shear volume of manuscripts (or copies) that were made and survive to this day.

According to one calculation there are over 5000 manuscripts in the original Greek, in addition there are 8000 in various other languages of the 27 books in the Greek canon, totalling over 13,000 dating from the 2nd Century to the 16th. The oldest fragment is P/25 in the John Rylands Library Manchester England) a fragment of Gospel of John dated to approximately 125CE (about 25 years after the original).

IDENTIFYING ERRORS

If only one copy was made of an original, and that copy had an error then all subsequent copies that exist would contain that error and furthermore, there would be no way to identify and it. Fortunately this is not how the bible came down to us. Many hundreds of copies were made during the same period from alternative first souces. According to Professor James L. Kugel “many, many times even within the biblical period itself. This means we have copies today which can be compared to identify (and remove) errors. To illustrate

• A boss give a letter to his secretary. She makes 10 copies and hands them over to ten different departments in the Company. Each Department Head makes dozens of copies for each team in his department and the team leader makes copies for all his staff.
  
  If the secretary spilt coffee on one of her 10 copies - rendering a line illegible for one of the department heads, he has only to consult another department head. If he doesn't notice it and the coffee stain is passed on to his department and subsequently to his team does that mean everyone in the company has a copy of the "stain"? The existence of 9 other departments/teams and hundreds of other staff copies ensures that even without seeing the original we can spot the mistake.

ACADEMIC CONCLUSIONS

Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote:

• -- It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero. - The New Testament; Reliably Transmitted, Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.
  
  -- The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning [...] If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt -- Respected Bible scholar F. F. Bruce
  

Textual variants
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... -word.html
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm



Further Reading
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

RELATED POSTS

Are the gospels mere hearsay?
viewtopic.php?p=1043571#p1043571

Are the gospel claims substantiated ?
viewtopic.php?p=1041048#p1041048

Is the testimony from an anonymous witnesses admissible in a court of law?
viewtopic.php?p=1040994#p1040994

Does a witness have to prove he witnessed an event?
viewtopic.php?p=1041058#p1041058

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Zzyzx]

.

I often read posts with peoplel claiming there is no evidence that the individuals creditied with the Gospels actually wrote them. While the gospel writers don't name themselves in their work, evidence can be found through early church writings.

JOHN
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: “John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.� Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

**Irenaeus (d. approx 200) testified in his letters to Florinus, that he studied under Polycarp , an overseer in the Smyrna congregation and a "a living link" to the apostles. He affirms that Polycarp was "his familiar [...] with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord". He also quotes the earlier works of Papias, who, lived in the period immediately following the death of Jesus Christ’s apostles and was an associate of Polycarp both of whom would therefore would be reliable sources of gospel authoriship.

================>
MATTHEW Authorship:Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis (2nd Century) saying “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.� (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16), Irenaeus of Gaul**, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea

Did you NOTICE the DATES attached to the "authorities" you quote? They were writing a CENTURY or two after the proclaimed events. HOW did they know what transpired a hundred or two hundred years before their time? WHAT were their sources of information, and how reliable were those sources?

THIS is the nature of "substantiation" of bible claims -- citing writers who cannot have known personally and who do not detail how they learned what they wrote. How does anyone know that they were not simply repeating stories told, repeated, passed down, modified, exaggerated or whatever for centuries?

[Flail]

Jehova's witness wrote:

#QUESTION: What evidence do we have of the authorship of the gospels?

I often read posts with peoplel claiming there is no evidence that the individuals creditied with the Gospels actually wrote them. While the gospel writers don't name themselves in their work, evidence can be found through early church writings.

JOHN
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: “John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.� Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

**Irenaeus (d. approx 200) testified in his letters to Florinus, that he studied under Polycarp , an overseer in the Smyrna congregation and a "a living link" to the apostles. He affirms that Polycarp was "his familiar [...] with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord". He also quotes the earlier works of Papias, who, lived in the period immediately following the death of Jesus Christ’s apostles and was an associate of Polycarp both of whom would therefore would be reliable sources of gospel authoriship.

================>
MATTHEW Authorship:Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis (2nd Century) saying “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.� (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16), Irenaeus of Gaul**, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea

==============>

MARK Authorship: Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine.

=====================>

You miss the point. We know the names of those who purportedly wrote the Gospels, but we know little to nothing 'about' them. Who were they, what were there likes, dislikes, prejudices, indoctrinations? What was their mental status, their intelligence, their credibility, their reputation for truth and veracity? What was their upbringing, their history, their parentage? What was their writing ability, their observation ability and skill in reporting? Were they reputed liars or reputed story tellers? We may be able to assign a name but we what we know about them lends nothing to our understanding of what they wrote.

[JehovahsWitness]

They were writing a CENTURY or two after the proclaimed events. HOW did they know what transpired a hundred or two hundred years before their time? WHAT were their sources of information, and how reliable were those sources?

THIS is the nature of "substantiation" of bible claims -- citing writers who cannot have known personally and who do not detail how they learned what they wrote. How does anyone know that they were not simply repeating stories told, repeated, passed down, modified, exaggerated or whatever for centuries?

HISTORICAL METHOD

Historical method does not require that the document be written either by a personal eyeswitness of events or even be "contemporaries" of the subject - if this was the case we would be forced to reject most of what we accept as ancient history today. While of course reliable eyewitness testimony gives added weight to an account, the accepted criteria is that first source be deemed, as Historian David Hackett Fischer puts it “the best relevant evidence.�

The *requirement* that all first sources be written by personal acquaintences of the subject is something no serious scholar finds anything short of ridiculous; this is simply not the criteria by which ancient historical (or even present day) narratives are assessed. Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

• â—† “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.â€� -- Historian, William Durant
  
  ◆ “The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers.� -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand demanding "evidence" to the exclusion of an assessement of the content and perceived integrity of the writers and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

[JehovahsWitness]

You miss the point.

I did not. The point I was addressing was the following..

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?

Regarding YOUR point which is...

We know the names of those who purportedly wrote the Gospels, but we know little to nothing 'about' them. Who were they, what were there likes, dislikes, prejudices, indoctrinations [...]

If I had wanted to address the question of what was Matthew's favorite colour or what Luke usually had for breakfast, I would have posted a reply directly to said post.

Hope that helps
JW

[Flail]

You miss the point.

I did not. The point I was addressing was the following..

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?

Regarding YOUR point which is...

We know the names of those who purportedly wrote the Gospels, but we know little to nothing 'about' them. Who were they, what were there likes, dislikes, prejudices, indoctrinations [...]

If I had wanted to address the question of what was Matthew's favorite colour or what Luke usually had for breakfast, I would have posted a reply directly to said post.

Hope that helps
JW

Yes, I understand you. The point as to identifying an author is not to remember the name assigned but to become aware of his particular identifying characteristics, a few of which I listed in my previous post...which you cutely ignored....but since you know my moniker, I assume you assume to know me.