Are the Gospels hopelessly anonymous?

[Goose]

There have been several threads recently comparing the evidence for Christianity with other ancient secular events/persons. I've noticed in these threads that there is trend to speak of the Gospels as being anonymous or at least having uncertain authorship. Then, the same person while comparing will speak of other ancient works as though the authorship of those works are established with great certainty. In other words, it's assumed the Gospels are hopelessly anonymous but we know who the authors are of other secular works.

I would like to know the method the sceptic employs to arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels are anonymous, but is so sure about the authorship of other ancient texts. Obviously this has significant impact for both the Christian and sceptic. Eyewitness attestation hangs in the balance.

Technically speaking, it is true the Gospels are anonymous. They do not make a direct claim to authorship in the text proper. However, if this is the single criterion used to establish that the Gospels are anonymous then I'm afraid many other ancient works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, are equally anonymous. So surely, there must be more to the method than this single criterion.

So, the questions for debate:

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

2. Are the Gospels rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method?

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

[samuelbb7]

Hello Goose

I will work to support the postion that we can trust the Bible. Good questions.

[Goat]

There have been several threads recently comparing the evidence for Christianity with other ancient secular events/persons. I've noticed in these threads that there is trend to speak of the Gospels as being anonymous or at least having uncertain authorship. Then, the same person while comparing will speak of other ancient works as though the authorship of those works are established with great certainty. In other words, it's assumed the Gospels are hopelessly anonymous but we know who the authors are of other secular works.

I would like to know the method the sceptic employs to arrive at the conclusion that the Gospels are anonymous, but is so sure about the authorship of other ancient texts. Obviously this has significant impact for both the Christian and sceptic. Eyewitness attestation hangs in the balance.

Technically speaking, it is true the Gospels are anonymous. They do not make a direct claim to authorship in the text proper. However, if this is the single criterion used to establish that the Gospels are anonymous then I'm afraid many other ancient works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, are equally anonymous. So surely, there must be more to the method than this single criterion.

So, the questions for debate:

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

Either the author self identifies, or, it has to be acknowledged within his lifetime that he wrote it. Now, there are books that are attributed to authors that it is frankly admitted it is tradition rather than full knowledge. The attributing of the Odessey and the Iliad to Homer is one. It is traditional, and a bit romantic to have it attributed to a blind song smith. It is far easier to say 'this work is attributed by legend' to someone than to pick out actual authorship.

Sometimes, stylistic similarities can point to books that are from the same author. If one can be identified, and the style, words used, syntax, etc etc etc are the same, then it can be assumed they are written by the same author. An example of this in the New Testament is Acts and Luke.

2. Are the Gospels rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method?

For Matthew, and Mark, yes. Luke has a personal greeting, however, that term has been used for 'everyman', so trying to narrow down Luke to a specific person is also highly difficult.

As for the Gospel of John, it identifies itself as being from John , but it doesn't mention which John. Various scholars have hypothesized 4 different John as the author. Weather the author is any of those Johns , another john, or someone who is claiming to be one of the johns (a pseudo graphical work) is unknown.

The claims for authorship of any of the Gospels didn't come till much later in the second century.

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

In many of the older works, yes. However, many were self referenced, and others were referenced by other people within the authors lifetime, or within a few years of the authors lifetime. Secular works usually have multiple attestations from unbiased sources.

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ?

Some yes, some no. It , however, is irrelevant to evidence for providing evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

Point one. Quote in the Gospels the line where it identifies the author. As far as I can see, only the Gospel of John does, but there is not enough information to discern which John it is.

How about looking at the attributions of the Gospels, and see how we can associate
the words that claim a gospel was written by 'such and such' with that actual gospel? What is the date of the claim? Is it within 40 years of the writing of the Gospel, and what evidence is there that the Gospel has not been altered?]

There is positive evidence that the Gospel of John was redacted several times.

Let's see you provide evidence for the authorship of the gospels. First, show internal evidence (i.e in the gospel itself), that show who it was written by.

Next, show external references to that Gospel. What is the date of the reference, and how specific is the information that will allow you to correlate the name we
give the gospel today with the gospel they are referring to. Let's examine what evidence you have.

[Goose]

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

Either the author self identifies, or, it has to be acknowledged within his lifetime that he wrote it.

OK, that would make all the Pauline letters in which Paul identifies himself authentically Pauline. But I digress.

I would agree that self identification is good evidence for authorship. However, many works from antiquity do not self identify such as the Annals.

If you are requiring another source to identify the author within his lifetime that will be problematic for the works I've listed in the OP such as Gallic/Civil Wars , Parallel Lives , and the Annals . Works for which authorship is rarely questioned by classical scholars.

Sometimes, stylistic similarities can point to books that are from the same author. If one can be identified, and the style, words used, syntax, etc etc etc are the same, then it can be assumed they are written by the same author. An example of this in the New Testament is Acts and Luke.

I would agree with this. However, this is much more subjective in nature and should not be given primary importance.

So your method seems to be:
1. The author must self identify, or:
2. Someone else must credit authorship with in the lifetime of the author.
3. Stylistic similarities can help confirm authorship.

My questions would be for #2. Are we requiring explicit external attestion to authorship in the lifetime of the author? Does the name of the work need to be mentioned and the name of the author? You need to get a little more specific here. It's too general.

2. Are the Gospels rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method?

For Matthew, and Mark, yes. Luke has a personal greeting, however, that term has been used for 'everyman', so trying to narrow down Luke to a specific person is also highly difficult.

As for the Gospel of John, it identifies itself as being from John , but it doesn't mention which John. Various scholars have hypothesized 4 different John as the author. Weather the author is any of those Johns , another john, or someone who is claiming to be one of the johns (a pseudo graphical work) is unknown.

OK, based on your criteria above the gospels are hopelessly anonymous. Which isn't surprising. But of course along with your criteria other works are rendered hopelessly anonymous as well. None of the secular works I mentioned in the OP self reference, nor do they have independent attestation to authorship within the lifetime of the writer. Stylistic similarities may exist with other works, but then those other works fail your first two criteria as well. So your criteria must be flawed as the authorship for these secular works are rarely questioned.

The claims for authorship of any of the Gospels didn't come till much later in the second century.

We'll get to this.

3. Are most other secular works, for which authorship is rarely questioned, rendered hopelessly anonymous by this method as well?

In many of the older works, yes. However, many were self referenced, and others were referenced by other people within the authors lifetime, or within a few years of the authors lifetime. Secular works usually have multiple attestations from unbiased sources.

Providing a handful of examples and giving the external sources that referenced the work in question would be helpful here. You can use the examples I've provided in the OP. But I don't want to be accused of stacking the deck so feel free to use other works from the time frame of the Gospels, say 100 years either way.

4. Can we be as sure about the authorship of the Gospels as let's say: the Gallic/Civil Wars (Julius Caesar?), Parallel Lives (Plutarch?), the Annals (Tacitus?) etc. ? [/b]

Some yes, some no. It , however, is irrelevant to evidence for providing evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

It's not irrelevent. It's the whole point of the thread.

How about looking at the attributions of the Gospels, and see how we can associate
the words that claim a gospel was written by 'such and such' with that actual gospel? What is the date of the claim? Is it within 40 years of the writing of the Gospel, and what evidence is there that the Gospel has not been altered?

First, I'd like to see how many secular works from the time of the Gospels meet this criterion. Please provide sources.

There is positive evidence that the Gospel of John was redacted several times.

We'll get to that.

Let's see you provide evidence for the authorship of the gospels. First, show internal evidence (i.e in the gospel itself), that show who it was written by.

Next, show external references to that Gospel. What is the date of the reference, and how specific is the information that will allow you to correlate the name we
give the gospel today with the gospel they are referring to. Let's examine what evidence you have.

Goat, you're not making the rules here. This is my thread. First, let's solidify your method and see which works from the same time as the Gospels pass your criteria. Please begin there.

[Zzyzx]

.

Goat, you're not making the rules here. This is my thread. First, let's solidify your method and see which works from the same time as the Gospels pass your criteria. Please begin there.

Are the "rules" in this thread different from forum rules?

Who is allowed to participate and under what conditions?

[Goose]

.

Goat, you're not making the rules here. This is my thread. First, let's solidify your method and see which works from the same time as the Gospels pass your criteria. Please begin there.

Are the "rules" in this thread different from forum rules?

Who is allowed to participate and under what conditions?

Up to your ol' tricks huh, Zzyzx. You gonna answer the questions for debate or is this another troll?

[Zzyzx]

.

Up to your ol' tricks huh, Zzyzx. You gonna answer the questions for debate or is this another troll?

If the rules of this thread are different from forum rules, as your reply to Goat seems to imply, they should be clearly stated for consideration by all who might wish to participate (but might refrain from doing so under stringent or strange new rules).

Does the forum permit special rules for "your thread"?

[Goat]

1. What is the method used to determine authorship of an ancient text?

Either the author self identifies, or, it has to be acknowledged within his lifetime that he wrote it.

OK, that would make all the Pauline letters in which Paul identifies himself authentically Pauline. But I digress.

Except , of course, there is the well known technique of 'pseudo graphics'. However, there are a number of letters from Paul that would be considered
authentically from Paul. Others are not , due to stylistic differences, and the lack of
an authoritative source. However, the self identification does pass one part of the examination.

I would agree that self identification is good evidence for authorship. However, many works from antiquity do not self identify such as the Annals.

When it comes to the Annals, Tacitus's literary style was very unique, and was similar to other books he had written. While that does not absolutely prove he wrote Annals, between the stylistic similarities, and the attributing of Annals to him
early on, by sources who are not benefiting, increases the probability to fairly high.

If you are requiring another source to identify the author within his lifetime that will be problematic for the works I've listed in the OP such as Gallic/Civil Wars , Parallel Lives , and the Annals . Works for which authorship is rarely questioned by classical scholars.

It is not just another source, but within a certain period of his lifetime,and/or stylistic similarities such as grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary.

Sometimes, stylistic similarities can point to books that are from the same author. If one can be identified, and the style, words used, syntax, etc etc etc are the same, then it can be assumed they are written by the same author. An example of this in the New Testament is Acts and Luke.

I would agree with this. However, this is much more subjective in nature and should not be given primary importance.

So your method seems to be:
1. The author must self identify, or:
2. Someone else must credit authorship with in the lifetime of the author.
3. Stylistic similarities can help confirm authorship.

My questions would be for #2. Are we requiring explicit external attestion to authorship in the lifetime of the author? Does the name of the work need to be mentioned and the name of the author? You need to get a little more specific here. It's too general.

We are not requiring explicit external evidence within the author's lifetime, however, it has to be from a non-biased source, which does not a specific agenda. Because of the nature of pseudo graphics, it should be within I would say a generation of the writing (i.e. 20 years).

So, you are avoiding the question, what evidence do you have of the authorship of the gospels?




[

[Goose]

Either the author self identifies, or, it has to be acknowledged within his lifetime that he wrote it.

OK, that would make all the Pauline letters in which Paul identifies himself authentically Pauline. But I digress.

Except , of course, there is the well known technique of 'pseudo graphics' However, there are a number of letters from Paul that would be considered
authentically from Paul. Others are not , due to stylistic differences, and the lack of
an authoritative source. However, the self identification does pass one part of the examination. .

I've not heard of 'pseudo graphics.' You probably mean pseudonymous. At any rate, the problem with labelling a work pseudonymous is that we could do that with any work. (The Gallic Wars are pseudonymous - prove me wrong) The stylistic differences that some cite as the evidence for some Pauline letters being pseudonymous are over stated. It's also very subjective. These differences in style or terminology could just as easily be explained as the writer maturing or expanding his vocabulary or some other reason. At any rate, we are digressing into Paul.

I would agree that self identification is good evidence for authorship. However, many works from antiquity do not self identify such as the Annals.

When it comes to the Annals, Tacitus's literary style was very unique, and was similar to other books he had written. While that does not absolutely prove he wrote Annals, between the stylistic similarities, and the attributing of Annals to him
early on, by sources who are not benefiting, increases the probability to fairly high.

First, I want to highlight that you do not dispute Tacitus as the author of the Annals. In fact, you say the probability is "fairly high" that he is the author. Which of course would mean the authorship of the Annals is NOT hopelessly anonymous.

I agree Tacitus style was unique. However, there is some disagreement here that the Annals are similar in style to say the Historiae of Tacitus. Taken from wiki (not the greatest source, I know):

In comparison to the Historiae, the Annales are rather less fluid. They are also more concise and severe. There is even more predilection for incongruity. The unharmonious verbal forms reflect the discordant events and the ambiguity of the characters' behaviour. There are many violent metaphors and audacious uses of personification. Poetic styles, especially that of Virgil, are often used. For example, the description of Germanicus's foray onto the field of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in search of the destroyed legions of Varus follows the style of Virgil's description of Aeneas's descent into the underworld.

Also, the first external source that directly attributes Tacitus as an author of anything is Tertullian over 100 years after Tacitus. So by your own admission you must think this is early. And note, Tertullian mentions the Historiae not the Annals. We'll keep that in mind.

Tertullian the Apology ch 16:

For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an ass's head. Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories...

If you are requiring another source to identify the author within his lifetime that will be problematic for the works I've listed in the OP such as Gallic/Civil Wars , Parallel Lives , and the Annals . Works for which authorship is rarely questioned by classical scholars.

It is not just another source, but within a certain period of his lifetime,and/or stylistic similarities such as grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary.

Your method is already in serious trouble. The Annals differ from the Historiae and have no external source naming Tactus as the author with in the lifetime of Tacitus. Yet, you do not dispute the authorship of the Annals but rather say the probability is "fairly high." There seems to be a double standard here. Can you explain this?

Sometimes, stylistic similarities can point to books that are from the same author. If one can be identified, and the style, words used, syntax, etc etc etc are the same, then it can be assumed they are written by the same author. An example of this in the New Testament is Acts and Luke.

My questions would be for #2. Are we requiring explicit external attestion to authorship in the lifetime of the author? Does the name of the work need to be mentioned and the name of the author? You need to get a little more specific here. It's too general.

We are not requiring explicit external evidence within the author's lifetime, however, it has to be from a non-biased source, which does not a specific agenda. Because of the nature of pseudo graphics, it should be within I would say a generation of the writing (i.e. 20 years).

Now I'm confused because you are changing your criteria and this was only your second post. Does the external evidence need to be within the author's lifetime or does it not? Or does it now need to be with in 20 years? If it doesn't need to explicitly link the author to the work in question, what is good enough? A general allusion, a quote, a statement that the author wrote something, or what? Let's get this settled.

Also, all writers from the ancient world had an agenda. Which is not unlike authors today. So, that will become problematic for secular works as well.

So, you are avoiding the question, what evidence do you have of the authorship of the gospels?

Patience goat. We'll get to all that. We haven't settled question number 1, yet. I predict through this discussion we will identify that your method:
1. employs a double standard for Christianity whether intentional or not and/or;
2. employs an unreasonable level of scepticism toward the authorship of all ancient texts and/or;
3. The Gospels are no more hoplessly anonymous than other secular works for which authorship is rarely questioned.

[Cathar1950]

So, you are avoiding the question, what evidence do you have of the authorship of the gospels?

Patience goat. We'll get to all that. We haven't settled question number 1, yet. I predict through this discussion we will identify that your method:
1. employs a double standard for Christianity whether intentional or not and/or;
2. employs an unreasonable level of scepticism toward the authorship of all ancient texts and/or;
3. The Gospels are no more hoplessly anonymous than other secular works for which authorship is rarely questioned.

I suggest you have created a false problem.
What diffrence does it make who wrote the other ancient text as to the validity of the claims.
The double standard it yours as we should hold a level of skepticism towards all texts. Even if the Gospels were shown not to be anonymous this would not make them true or historical.
I suggest you have an unreasoable lack of skepticism.