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?

[Goose]

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.

[Goat]

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.

On thing I noticed in that entire thread.. although there are many writings from the same time period where the level of evidence is such that the writer of a specific letter can be positively identified, in that thread, there was no evidence provided at all beyond church tradition about the authorship of the Gospels. The same game was played in that thread that is being played here.

In that thread, the way you tried to 'show evidence of the authorship of the Gospels' is try to put doubt on the authorship of other ancient wriitings.

Yet, you never provided evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

[otseng]

Now don't forget to send me an invite to the we sher show'd dem dar Cris'ns party you and yur gud budy Zzyzx will probably be having.

Moderator comment:

A little bit of sarcasm here that goes a bit far. I think we all can appreciate a little levity, but do so without the sarcasm.

[Zzyzx]

.

Now don't forget to send me an invite to the we sher show'd dem dar Cris'ns party you and yur gud budy Zzyzx will probably be having.

You are invited to the ongoing "party" we have -- it is conducted right here in these threads.

We consistently "show dem dar Crist'ns" (particularly those who proclaim the bible to be literal truth or "the word of god"), that the literature on which they base their religion or beliefs cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate -- and that there is no rational reason to conclude that a "god" visited Earth as claimed in stories of that religion or any other religion, belief system, fable, myth, or fantasy.

The guests of honor at our "party" are readers who can intelligently, with discernment and judgment, evaluate the merits of what is said. My "buddies" and I appreciate the creative dance and occasional comedy provided by any attendees who care to perform such acts -- particularly those who display a condescending or superior attitude.


Now, back to the topic of the thread:

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?

The honest and straight-forward answer, provided by scholars and theologians, is that we do NOT know who wrote the gospels OR that what they wrote is from their own observation, OR that their sources of information were reliable, OR that the words have not been altered since.

What is the implication of such uncertainty when applied to literature which MUST be basically truthful and accurate if a religion based upon it is valid?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

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.

I agree it is irrational, juvenile, and unscholarly to attribute a text to someone where we can't show they actually wrote it.

Which is basically what you are suggesting we do when you ask for authors from 2000 years ago to be positively identified.

I propose this is a problem for those who seek to attribute works to folks without having any means to confirm such folks wrote such works. Again, "juvenile".

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?

The OP refers specifically to the "Gospels"; as you have admitted you can't verify who wrote these accounts, wouldn't it be a bit "juvenile" to carry on in another thread?

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

Feel free to drag this'n up when you are "serious" about verifying who wrote the Gospels.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 27:

You are invited to the ongoing "party" we have -- it is conducted right here in these threads.

We consistently "show dem dar Crist'ns" (particularly those who proclaim the bible to be literal truth or "the word of god"), that the literature on which they base their religion or beliefs cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate -- and that there is no rational reason to conclude that a "god" visited Earth as claimed in stories of that religion or any other religion, belief system, fable, myth, or fantasy.

The guests of honor at our "party" are readers who can intelligently, with discernment and judgment, evaluate the merits of what is said. My "buddies" and I appreciate the creative dance and occasional comedy provided by any attendees who care to perform such acts -- particularly those who display a condescending or superior attitude.

Typically well stated. I attempt to show the observer that there's just a little bit of dishonesty in claiming someone wrote something, but being unable to verify they actually did. Granted the various Gospels may contain worth on their own, but the bottom line is we have no means by determining if such words are accurate and reliable unless we can find out who actually wrote them (and even then there's more work to do).

As Zzyzx says, "The honest and straight-forward answer, provided by scholars and theologians, is that we do NOT know who wrote the gospels OR that what they wrote is from their own observation, OR that their sources of information were reliable, OR that the words have not been altered since."

We're basically lost as a cow at a square dance when we can't know who wrote what.

What is the implication of such uncertainty when applied to literature which MUST be basically truthful and accurate if a religion based upon it is valid?

The implication, for me, is I'd rather withhold acceptance or belief until such stories can be verified as true.

[cnorman18]

Oh, stop it, all of you.

I wouldn't presume to be an authority here, but I do think I can claim to be unbiased; I was once a Christian, but am no longer, and I am neither an advocate for Christianity nor opposed to it. I have some academic knowledge about history and historical documents in general, and about the New Testament documents in particular. So, with all that in mind, here's my take on all this:

First, the identity of the author of a document and its historical reliability are two separate issues, though they are tangentially related. That doesn't seem to be at all clear to everyone here.

In the case of fiction or pure literature, e.g. Animal Farm or the Greek or Indian myths, identity is irrelevant; the point is the story itself, and it doesn't much matter who wrote it. There is no claim to historical accuracy in novels or myths or lyric poems which are not attached to places, times and dates.

In the case of a document which purports to be a source of historical fact, however, it is not unreasonable to demand that SOME indication of the identity of the author, or at least some indication of his background and the reasons he wrote what he did, be presented. It is very rare for the author of an ancient document of this nature to be absolutely and positively identified, though it does happen; it's accepted as generally indisputable fact that Julius Caesar himself wrote the first seven volumes of The Gallic Wars, mentioned above, for example. But it's NOT reasonable to demand that level of verification for every document with an origin in ancient times. For most such documents, we depend on internal evidence and corroboration from other sources for a reasonably credible identification. Positive ID, in the modern sense, is not only, for the purposes of the historian, virtually always impossible; it is not necessary. Indications of the general nature of the source and the reasons for its existence and preservation are sufficient.

For instance; it's clear that the Gospel of Luke and the book of The Acts of the Apostles came from the same hand. In the latter book, the author rather frequently uses the terms "we" and "us," which is internal evidence that the author places himself in the events he reports as a participant, and that the author was indeed Luke, a sometime traveling companion of Paul. That is conclusive enough for our purposes, since Luke was not, and never claims to have been, an eyewitness to any of the events of the life of Jesus, though he was an eyewitness to some of Paul's travels. On the events of the life of Jesus, i.e. in the content of his Gospel, Luke was probably recording the reports of others, the oral traditions which were circulating in Palestine and the Near East at the time --which is precisely all that he himself claims to be doing. The historical reliability of the documents is a separate issue, which, again, doesn't seem to be at all clear to everyone in this discussion; but the identity of the author seems to be well-established enough for the purposes of the historian.

Now it should be noted that for the ancients, the distinction between history and literature was not as clear as it is for us today. In some cases -- The Gallic Wars and the Greek myths again -- the distinction is clear; the former is history, the latter is not. In others, like The Iliad and the books of Esther and Job, the distinction is not so clear. Therefore, in modern terms (which are the only terms that make sense in the present discussion), such literature should be considered artifacts from which history may be deduced or discerned, but not historical reporting as we have it today. For a fuller discussion of how oral history becomes quasi-historical mythopoetic literature, see the "Concocted" thread.

Now, with all that in mind, what is the nature of the Gospel documents? Are they, in fact, intended to be historical documentation of real events, or are they faith testimony that was intended for the devotional consumption of a religious community? The fact that they are presented as the former does not matter; virtually ALL literature is presented internally as something that really happened. You wont find This is FICTION, a made-up story that never really occurred anywhere in the TEXT of even Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or The Lord of the Rings. The Sherlock Holmes stories are even tied to a particular time and place, with specific street addresses that never actually existed as written. Real historical personages are featured in Gone With The Wind and The Robe, which are inarguably pure fiction; and, as I noted earlier, the distinction between devotional literature and true history was neither as clear nor as important to the ancients as it is to us.

It is obvious that the Gospels were products of the early Christian community. They are, then, products of authors, whoever they are, with an agenda of faith, not of historical accuracy. Even so, it would be a mistake to dismiss them entirely as historical sources. They are historical artifacts. Some history, as I remarked earlier, can be discerned or deduced from these documents, even given their nature as "faith testimony" and the products of believers.

The biggest, and most common, mistake here is the false dichotomy: that the Gospels are either to be considered totally reliable and accurate in every detail, which is the position of the committed literalist, or totally discarded as fabrication, fiction or fable, which is the position of the committed skeptic. Neither of these positions is available to the serious historian. Even if they are presented by their authors, e.g. Luke, as strictly historical narrative, they should be approached as artifacts, snapshots of the narratives and beliefs shared by an ancient community. That's neither literal history nor fiction. It's tradition, and contains elements of both.

It's not only the authors of these documents who bring their personal agendas into this conversation; it's the debaters as well. That ought to be remembered here. It's isn't likely that truly objective historical study is going to happen on this forum, because when it does, both agendas are obliged to concede some points. In my experience here, that's most often regarded as a defeat by both sides, and true objectivity takes a back seat to partisanship.

Everybody calm down. If you want to really discuss the historicity of ancient documents, its done by looking below and behind the surface of the text and the identity of the authors. If you just want to argue for your position, there are other areas for debate where thats more appropriate.

[Flail]

Cnorman18 wrote:
[

b]The biggest, and most common, mistake here is the false dichotomy: that the Gospels are either to be considered totally reliable and accurate in every detail, which is the position of the committed literalist, or totally discarded as fabrication, fiction or fable, which is the position of the committed skeptic. Neither of these positions is available to the serious historian. Even if they are presented by their authors, e.g. Luke, as strictly historical narrative, they should be approached as artifacts, snapshots of the narratives and beliefs shared by an ancient community. That's neither literal history nor fiction. It's tradition, and contains elements of both.

It's not only the authors of these documents who bring their personal agendas into this conversation; it's the debaters as well. That ought to be remembered here. It's isn't likely that truly objective historical study is going to happen on this forum, because when it does, both agendas are obliged to concede some points. In my experience here, that's most often regarded as a defeat by both sides, and true objectivity takes a back seat to partisanship.[/b]

Well stated...the above as well as the entire and basically neutral post is excellent, informative and enlightening.

My 'agenda' is with 'truth claims' made by many adherents as to the supernatural claims/reported events in the Bible relating to BibleGod(Jesus).
Since there is absolutely zero verifiable, credible evidence as to the actual/factual occurrence of these events, since no one has ever verifiably observed such events at any time in history, and given the 'common case in such instances as resulting from fabrication or fictional writing', one would have to conclude, based upon the overwhelming circumstantial evidence available as to the typical source of unverifiable book material(fictional/human invention), that therefore all supernatural 'events' reported in Biblical accounts were fabricated or delusional. IMO, that is the only conclusion we can reach within the realm of reasonable, rational probability.

[bjs]

John shows a remarkable grasp of Greek composition for an unlettered working class Aramaic speaker.

I just wanted to throw in that I dont think this is true. All the writings attributed to John show the same relatively low level of skill in Greek grammar (well, I suppose Revelations is a little worse than the other works). Johns writings read like they were written by someone for whom Greek is a second language, with basic and repetitive grammatical structure that is at time choppy, but still easy to follow for those with less skill in reading Greek.

Marks Gospel is the only book that reveals less knowledge of Greek than the works attributed to John. In the NT, only Hebrews, Luke and Acts show an impressive command of the Greek language.

As for the general question of this thread: I think that it has been well presented that we have more evidence for the authorship of the Gospels than we do for almost any other ancient writing, but not so much evidence that their authorship cannot be contested.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

With the utmost respect for one whose opinions I value, and some snipping to get to pertinent points...

...
In the case of a document which purports to be a source of historical fact, however, it is not unreasonable to demand that SOME indication of the identity of the author, or at least some indication of his background and the reasons he wrote what he did, be presented. It is very rare for the author of an ancient document of this nature to be absolutely and positively identified, though it does happen...

Which indicates a problem for those who claim to know who wrote what.

...
For most such documents, we depend on internal evidence and corroboration from other sources for a reasonably credible identification.
...

Do you contend a "reasonably credible identification" is on a par with a verified identification?

This OP seeks verification. If that causes folks discomfort that's on them.

Positive ID, in the modern sense, is not only, for the purposes of the historian, virtually always impossible; it is not necessary. Indications of the general nature of the source and the reasons for its existence and preservation are sufficient.

What a historian chooses to accept is on them. I, and this OP, prefer the verifiable.

For instance; it's clear that the Gospel of Luke and the book of The Acts of the Apostles came from the same hand. In the latter book, the author rather frequently uses the terms "we" and "us," which is internal evidence that the author places himself in the events he reports as a participant, and that the author was indeed Luke, a sometime traveling companion of Paul.

Can you offer some means to verify your statement is accurate, or do you rely on the standards set forth by historians, who by your own admittance don't rely on positive identification in declaring who wrote what?

That is conclusive enough for our purposes...

With all respect, you don't get to define what the OP asks.

...content of his Gospel, Luke was probably...

Those who are willing to accept "probably" are certainly free to do so, but those of us who seek positive identification and verification are not bound to such a low standard.

I will not be bound to accept "probably was written by", when this OP specifically asks how we can positively identify, or how we can verify.

Everybody calm down. If you want to really discuss the historicity of ancient documents, its done by looking below and behind the surface of the text and the identity of the authors.

I don't feel I've done anything to "calm down" for - except present an OP.

How we can determine the historicity of a document without having the original writer for cross examination is a leap of faith I'm not prepared to make, nor is the question of historicity even presented in the OP.

I will not lower my standards just to bring comfort to another.



If folks wish to address the historicity, the "probably wrote", and other issues this OP brings up, they are certainly free to do so, but they don't get to redefine or rephrase the OP in order to "drag the thread 'off topic'".