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?

[cnorman18]

I will partly challenge you on the authorship of Luke.

While the "US' and "WE' indicate the author of the Gospel of Luke claims to have traveled with Paul, there is no place in the Gospel that identifies the author as "LUKE".

I will admit out of the Gospels, LUKE is the one that uses 'US' and 'WE' .. even if it is only in regards to traveling with Paul. Now, if that person was names "LUKE", I have no idea how to determine that. While a 'LUKE' was mentioned in the letters of Paul (including one of the pastorals that are considered pseudo graphical), as far as I can see, I don't see how the mention of Luke from the letters of Paul, and the author of the Gospel of Luke can be linked.

I'll concede the point, but the vast majority of scholars accept the tradition here, and Luke seems to be the most likely candidate. The very earliest manuscript, which I'll also grant dates from about 200 CE, does contain the superscription, "The Gospel according to Luke."

And, to Joey; I grant your point too, though I'm not sure what "point" there is to it. If you set the bar so high nothing can get over it, fine; in that case, there is NO ancient manuscript whose author can be positively identified or verified by your standard. The question then becomes, so what? If your concern isn't for historical accuracy, what is it?

I'm as opposed as you to "truth claims" being made about history or whatever on the basis of the Gospels, and as you know, I'm also opposed to fundamentalism and literalism in ANY religious tradition. But that point can be made without demanding proof of identity that's patently impossible to obtain, and without disregarding the opinions of historians. As it stands, your OP seems to have little point other than to say "Jump over this stick that's 120 feet off the ground," and is thus pointless.

I have to wonder if there are ANY documents, even from modern times, that can be verified to this degree. Who can prove beyond doubt that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address? The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

[Flail]

cnorman wrote:

I have to wonder if there are ANY documents, even from modern times, that can be verified to this degree. Who can prove beyond doubt that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address? The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

Although we cannot verify with perfection that Abe wrote what is purported to be under his hand, we can at least believe what is written and how it was intended....not so with Biblical claims about supposed supernatural events....not only are we in the dark about the author of those writings, but because they relate supernatural events never verified by anyone, anywhere at any time before, then or since, any reasonable person would entertain serious doubts. All the circumstantial evidence lands on the side of fictional.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

I love ya to death my friend, but on this issue I'm in disagreement, and I contend rightly so...

And, to Joey; I grant your point too, though I'm not sure what "point" there is to it.

My point is that we have no way of knowing who wrote these Gospels, and no way of knowing if the words attributed to these folks are an accurate representation of what these folks whoulda written.

If you set the bar so high nothing can get over it, fine

I propose if the identity of these authors could be verified, folks wouldn't be concerned with how high the bar is.

in that case, there is NO ancient manuscript whose author can be positively identified or verified by your standard.

Which is why I don't claim to know what ancient author wrote what.

The question then becomes, so what? If your concern isn't for historical accuracy, what is it?

Accuracy. Whether "historically accurate" or not, I propose accuracy is of the utmost importance. Given the inability to verify who these authors are, I contend claims of accurately presenting their take are folly.

I'm as opposed as you to "truth claims" being made about history or whatever on the basis of the Gospels, and as you know, I'm also opposed to fundamentalism and literalism in ANY religious tradition. But that point can be made without demanding proof of identity that's patently impossible to obtain...

I will not be held liable when folks are unable to verify who wrote what.

It is not my fault folks wish to claim someone wrote something without evidence that someone wrote that something.

and without disregarding the opinions of historians.

I do tend to disregard arguments from "probably", as they are unable to be verified. If this upsets every historian on the planet I hate it for 'em.

As it stands, your OP seems to have little point other than to say "Jump over this stick that's 120 feet off the ground," and is thus pointless.

I object to the categorizing of this OP as "pointless". Simply because you (as a human and not cnorman18 the person) see no point in it is evidence "Gospel believers and promoters" (my term) will accept a lesser standard of evidence than some others.

Again, I can't escape thinking if these authors' identities could be verified there'd be little concern with how high the stick is.

I have to wonder if there are ANY documents, even from modern times, that can be verified to this degree. Who can prove beyond doubt that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address?

Which indicates a problem for folks who try to attribute writings to others when they are unable to verify they speak truth.

I will not be held liable for folks failures in this regard.

The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

I don't doubt folks can be fooled. That so many claim to know who wrote what, and then admit they can't verify who wrote what indicates to me there's a bunch of "fool" to go around.
The famous envelope in the National Archives might be a copy of someone else's work. By this standard, the only way to "verify" an author's identity would be if he's sitting in the same room with you hooked up to a polygraph -- and I have it on good authority that those can be fooled, too.

I will not be held responsible because some folks are unable to show they speak truth, nor will I be made to feel like a bad guy for pointing it out.

[ChristShepherd]

Concerning Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, there exists one copy, known as the Bliss Version, which was signed by President Lincoln. Since Lincoln was the President, his signature is well known.
IMO there can be no reasonable doubt that Lincoln wrote the Gettsburg address.
On the other hand, there are no signed copies of any of the Gospels. Nor is there any reasonable evidence that the Gospels were anymore than an anonymous story.

[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 Christs 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?