Who actually wrote the books in the New Testament?

[polonius]

This is a general question regarding the history of the New Testament, not an analysis of the scripture itself.

"The number of books in the Bible differs between branches of religious faith. In the Protestant canon, the Bible has 66 books in total, with 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament, according to MinisterBook."

Which NT books were written by the author named?

[historia]

We know for a fact that Joseph Smith wrote the Pearl of Great Price (or dictated it, like with the Joseph Smith-History section) and yet, most if not all of the Christians on this site who are not Mormon do not believe that Joseph Smith had a vision from God, or a visitation from Moroni.

This is a rather different scenario and so I think a poor analogy.

Generally speaking, we are interested in how the author of a text relaying historical information, such as the gospels, got his or her information. Was he an eyewitness to the events? Did she receive the information via oral tradition or another written account? These are important factors in any historical analysis of a text, so these questions are not irrelevant.

The Pearl of Great Price, by contrast, consists mostly of a selection of revelations expanding upon various biblical texts, composed by Joseph Smith thousands of years after the events they describe.

So, while one could, on purely historical grounds, decide that the Gospel of John, for example, is based on eyewitness testimony, the Pearl of Great Price can only be accepted as having historical value on the basis of faith.

[marco]

Nevertheless, it seems to me that, if one could confirm that the author of a work was an eyewitness to the events they describe, that would, in principle, lend greater historical reliability to their account.

That would depend on the nature of what they claim to witness. We still have to judge the witnesses on what they are reporting. And if there is the additional problem of not knowing how reliable the witness is and they report on miraculous events, I think we have every right to express doubt.

But even if "they couldn't possibly all be true," that doesn't, of course, mean none of them are true.

That doesn't say much. The areas of truth might be reports of mundane events. If we establish some of the remarkable claims to be false, we have less reason for accepting other equally remarkable claims. I'm afraid it is like a house of cards; if the foundation is weak, the whole structure topples - rightly or wrongly.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Goose]

Your post seemed a wee bit too personal for me. You seem to be dragging in some personal baggage about how you think scholars should talk to you about the fields they are in. Probably that would be best addressed over at the sub-forum addressing problems laity have with the town-gown riff. As for as this present sub-forum goes, I couldn't care a hoot what you think on these matters, except to say that bringing them up is distracting.

Based on the very slim biblical description of Mark, the legend has him as a young Jewish newbie who serves as a kid of attendant or apprentice to the power players, Matthew, Paul, Peter. So it is only to be expected that Mark would not be first out of teh gate to publish. That honor belongs to Matthew, followed by Mark, who then provided a condensed version of the master's teachings, according to Augustine anyway. However, Wallace and company, along with the majority of biblical scholars, hold fast with the Markan priority. That shows down dead the legend right on the spot. if you want to be dramatic about it, you could say Wallace shot himself in the foot here.

Another major problem is that the Gospel of mark contains too many errors about biblical geography and Jewish customs, as I ready mentioned. I don't have time to give you a list here. As this is a well-beaten path, I'm sure you will have no trouble finding specific lists.

And there are other problems as well.

I didn't say Moo and company were "fringe." I would say they certainly represent a minority, vocal as it may be. Traditions die hard. Also, in many fields, scholars and researchers do like to revamp obsolete ideas at times. There is a group in England that has built supposedly a steam locomotive for the 21st century, though steam is generally considered an obsolete rail technology. Another group is trying to revamp dirigibles. Frankly, I hope they succeed, but I'm not holding my breath. No, they are not "fringe," but I sure don't think they are going to win the day either.

[Goose]

Caesar does not owe his existence to Suetonius.

True but Caesar does owe the first clear cut attribution of authorship of his Gallic Wars to Suetonius.

We have trouble with identifying the Biblical authors.

Well so far you've had trouble identifying who wrote the Gallic Wars with evidential support any stronger than what we find for the Gospels.

Somebody called Mark may be somebody else called Mark for all we know. And who is John? We just don't have these problems with Caesar or Pliny or Cicero.

We know which Mark and which John the same way we know which Pliny and which Caesar. Context.

What makes the Biblical position weaker is that the tales we are told involve incidents that seem magical.

Irrelevant to the topic of authorship.

[Goose]

[Replying to Goose]

Your post seemed a wee bit too personal for me. You seem to be dragging in some personal baggage about how you think scholars should talk to you about the fields they are in. Probably that would be best addressed over at the sub-forum addressing problems laity have with the town-gown riff. As for as this present sub-forum goes, I couldn't care a hoot what you think on these matters, except to say that bringing them up is distracting.

I think you are projecting here and ironically getting somewhat personal in the process.

Based on the very slim biblical description of Mark, the legend has him as a young Jewish newbie who serves as a kid of attendant or apprentice to the power players, Matthew, Paul, Peter. So it is only to be expected that Mark would not be first out of teh gate to publish. That honor belongs to Matthew, followed by Mark, who then provided a condensed version of the master's teachings, according to Augustine anyway. However, Wallace and company, along with the majority of biblical scholars, hold fast with the Markan priority. That shows down dead the legend right on the spot. if you want to be dramatic about it, you could say Wallace shot himself in the foot here.

How exactly does Markan priority rule out Markan authorship?

Another major problem is that the Gospel of mark contains too many errors about biblical geography and Jewish customs, as I ready mentioned. I don't have time to give you a list here. As this is a well-beaten path, I'm sure you will have no trouble finding specific lists.

The examples of geographical errors put forward by Kmmel (5:1, 7:31, 10:1) are over stated hardly qualifying as errors. Mark's alleged ignorance of Jewish customs generally hinges on the assumed reliability of later texts such as the Talmud to accurately reflect first century Jewish practices.

[marco]

Well so far you've had trouble identifying who wrote the Gallic Wars with evidential support any stronger than what we find for the Gospels.

I've had no trouble. Suetonius didn't verify something that was in any doubt.

We know which Mark and which John the same way we know which Pliny and which Caesar. Context.

We do nothing of the kind. Caesar and Pliny are large figures in that period of history. We know of their interactions with other large figures. It borders on the absurd to compare them with somebody called Mark (Mark Jones?) and somebody else called John (John Smith?). In any event, if Titus Labienus wrote in place of Caesar the entire history would still be relevant and authentic. Biblical tales, given their extravagant content, require us to know the full credentials of their author. We don't.
We guess. We are fully informed of Pliny and Caesar.

The miraculous content is NOT irrelevant since its acceptance requires us to examine the credibility of someone who is prepared to narrate such tales. Were it just an account of some battle or some tribe moving, a common soldier could relate this to our satisfaction.

[historia]

We have trouble with identifying the Biblical authors. Somebody called Mark may be somebody else called Mark for all we know. And who is John? We just don't have these problems with Caesar or Pliny or Cicero.

We know which Mark and which John the same way we know which Pliny and which Caesar. Context.

We do nothing of the kind. Caesar and Pliny are large figures in that period of history. We know of their interactions with other large figures. It borders on the absurd to compare them with somebody called Mark (Mark Jones?) and somebody else called John (John Smith?).

I'm not sure I appreciate the thrust of your argument here, Marco.

You've made the observation that we know more about Julius Caesar than we do the authors of the gospels. Okay, but so what? How does the relative notoriety of a figure make it more likely that he was the author of a particular text?

In fact, if this argument has any force at all, it would seem to work the other way around. Many ancient texts were (falsely) attributed to famous figures in an apparent attempt to bolster the text's credibility. The Homeric Hymns, for example, were attributed to Homer, even though he was almost certainly not the author. Christian and Jewish pseudepigrapha are, of course, well known.

Two of the four gospels, by comparison, were attributed to figures (Mark, Luke) who are relatively obscure, and not even apostles. Far from being a problem, as you would have it, this has generally been considered by commentators to be a point in favor of the accuracy of these traditions. For if second-century Christians had simply invented these traditions out of whole cloth in order to bolster the authority of these gospels, they would have surely chosen more prominent figures.

Well so far you've had trouble identifying who wrote the Gallic Wars with evidential support any stronger than what we find for the Gospels.

I've had no trouble.

On the contrary, it seems clear to me that you haven't been able to establish your original point. You'll recall you said:

Ancient biographies rarely, if ever, named the author in the text itself. I dont see how this is a problem.

I immediately think of Caesar in his Gallic War. His text is filled with personal references.

Goose noted, rightly, that the text itself does not name Julius Caesar as the author, and the account is, in fact, all written in the third person. Your subsequent rejoinders have been almost entirely red herrings.

[historia]

Nevertheless, it seems to me that, if one could confirm that the author of a work was an eyewitness to the events they describe, that would, in principle, lend greater historical reliability to their account.

That would depend on the nature of what they claim to witness. We still have to judge the witnesses on what they are reporting.

Sure, but this is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

TheBeardedDude argued that the authorship of the gospels is irrelevant in considering whether the "stories" they recount are "true." As a general principle, I think that is mistaken. The authorship of a text is always an important component in historical analysis, and therefore cannot be dismissed out-of-hand.

And if there is the additional problem of not knowing how reliable the witness is and they report on miraculous events, I think we have every right to express doubt.

Again, this has no relevance to the point I'm making. We should always approach historical texs critically, so "doubt" should be a given in historical analysis.

But even if "they couldn't possibly all be true," that doesn't, of course, mean none of them are true.

That doesn't say much.

On its own, I suppose not. But as this was a comment made directly in response to a point that the TheBeardedDude made, it would seem appropriate to judge its merit in that context rather than in isolation, as you have here.

[marco]

I'm not sure I appreciate the thrust of your argument here, Marco.
You've made the observation that we know more about Julius Caesar than we do the authors of the gospels. Okay, but so what? How does the relative notoriety of a figure make it more likely that he was the author of a particular text?

I am responding to the statement that Caesar and Pliny are as difficult to pin down as Mark and John. They aren't; they are figures well known to us in that period. We can then examine the texts and see if what is attributed to them accords with what we know. At least we can then make some sort of decision.

With Mark and John we can't do any such thing. There are no background details; we don't know if they are speaking as observers or as friends of friends. We have nothing or little to go on.

Goose noted, rightly, that the text itself does not name Julius Caesar as the author, and the account is, in fact, all written in the third person. Your subsequent rejoinders have been almost entirely red herrings.

That's a fair enough point. I took the Gallic wars to be autobiographical, idiosyncratically written in the third person. It served Caesar's purpose to write these accounts so as to gain favour at Rome but yes, we could technically quibble even though the accounts are still considered true. With Mark we have no reason to attribute anything to him; we don't know him. We know Caesar was in Gaul, that he brought an army to the doorstep of Rome; we know nothing about Mark. The accounts in the Gallic wars explain Caesar's rise to power. Since we know nothing of Mark, why would we accept what is written?

[marco]

TheBeardedDude argued that the authorship of the gospels is irrelevant in considering whether the "stories" they recount are "true." As a general principle, I think that is mistaken. The authorship of a text is always an important component in historical analysis, and therefore cannot be dismissed out-of-hand.

I agree. I made the point that it is also important to note what is being narrated. It may be that historians would wish to ignore obvious fiction. When Gibbon mentions some far-fetched tale it is clear he's not doing so to record history. So if we have accounts of angels appearing in the Middle Eastern skies, historians might ignore the testimony of reporters of such events.