The Gospel Writers

[Realworldjack]

What can we know (demonstrate) about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? Notice carefully that I am not talking about opinions here, but rather what we can know to be a fact, and how we would go about demonstrating it to be a fact we can know?

[elphidium55]

It sounds like you want to get an unbiased, objective understanding of the pros and cons of these literary documents. Fortunately, we have a method of inquiry tailor made for these kinds of questions: science (aka methodological naturalism). Science, in this case history, is what you need to answer these questions.

What does a properly scientific historical analyis of your question require? For one thing, it requires that it not be "question begging" with regard to evidence. That is, it cannot provide answers that assume the very question at hand. So, for example, the report that Jesus' resurrection was attested to by X number of people does not served as evidence for the historical veracity of the resurrection. That's because the report that X number of people actually saw the resurrected Jesus is part of what is being evaluated for it's reliability. The default scientific point of view on such reports is that, in the absence of evidence for or against, we just don't know.

Secondly, the evidence can not involve what is known as "special pleading." That is, you cannot exempt the questions you're asking from the kinds of answers that you get by asking similar questions about other similar historical events. So, for example, the following kinds of statements are often cited for various religious claims:

"Why would the early Christian disciples by willing to risk their lives for something which was not true?"
"Why would the early Mormon disciples by willing to risk their lives for something which was not true?"
"Why would the early Muslim disciples by willing to risk their lives for something which was not true?"

If you're answer is that martyrdom on behalf of an idea is evidence for the truth of the idea, then all three of these claims would be true. Or you could argue that such martyrdom is never evidence. But if you argue that this serves as evidence for one of them but not the others, then you are exempting one of them from the rules of reasoning being applied to the other two. In short, you're engaging in special pleading.

[Realworldjack]

It sounds like you want to get an unbiased, objective understanding of the pros and cons of these literary documents. Fortunately, we have a method of inquiry tailor made for these kinds of questions: science (aka methodological naturalism). Science, in this case history, is what you need to answer these questions.

What does a properly scientific historical analyis of your question require? For one thing, it requires that it not be "question begging" with regard to evidence. That is, it cannot provide answers that assume the very question at hand. So, for example, the report that Jesus' resurrection was attested to by X number of people does not served as evidence for the historical veracity of the resurrection. That's because the report that X number of people actually saw the resurrected Jesus is part of what is being evaluated for it's reliability. The default scientific point of view on such reports is that, in the absence of evidence for or against, we just don't know.

Secondly, the evidence can not involve what is known as "special pleading." That is, you cannot exempt the questions you're asking from the kinds of answers that you get by asking similar questions about other similar historical events. So, for example, the following kinds of statements are often cited for various religious claims:

"Why would the early Christian disciples by willing to risk their lives for something which was not true?"
"Why would the early Mormon disciples by willing to risk their lives for something which was not true?"
"Why would the early Muslim disciples by willing to risk their lives for something which was not true?"

If you're answer is that martyrdom on behalf of an idea is evidence for the truth of the idea, then all three of these claims would be true. Or you could argue that such martyrdom is never evidence. But if you argue that this serves as evidence for one of them but not the others, then you are exempting one of them from the rules of reasoning being applied to the other two. In short, you're engaging in special pleading.

I really was only wanting to know what you believe we can know about the authors of what we call, "The Gospels", and I do not think you have actually answered that question.

In the meantime, I think I see a flaw in your logic, but I do not want to bother with it at this time, exactly because I do not want to stray off topic here. So then, if you can please answer the question as to what we can know about the authors I have referred to, this would be much appreciated, and keep us from going off topic.

[bjs]

What can we know (demonstrate) about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? Notice carefully that I am not talking about opinions here, but rather what we can know to be a fact, and how we would go about demonstrating it to be a fact we can know?

One of the challenges here is setting the goal posts. In the strictest sense, I know that I exist. Everything else is up for grabs. However, if we use the more common concept of knowing something – that is, I am confident enough in the truth of this knowledge to act accordingly – then we can know a little bit more.

With this in mind, it seem likely that Mark, Luke, and John were each written by the men whose names they bear. Matthew is a tougher call. Matthew, also called Levi, is still a reasonable guess, but we have far less evidence to support the claim that Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name.

In terms of demonstrating that this is true, I don’t have time for a three- or four-part debate. Therefore, I will just look at the evidence concerning what is thought to be the oldest of the Gospels, the Gospel of Mark.

The external evidence:

Papias of Hieropolis (70-163 AD), quoted by the historian Eusebius, said that Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

By the second century the title “kata markon� had been added to the copies of the beginning of the gospel. “Kata markon� means “according to Mark.�

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (early second century – 202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), and Origen (184-253) also wrote that Mark was the author of the gospel that bears his name.

So within a generation or two of the writing of the gospel many sources attest to Mark being the author. No other name was attached to the gospel so early on or with so much force, so all the external evidence points to Mark being the author.


The internal evidence:

First let me say Mark’s name was not attached to the original document, though it is doubtful that people would consider it sufficient evidence even if it was.

However, Mark’s Gospel reveals some of the least skilled Greek in the NT. Only the letters attributed to John are as poorly written, grammatically speaking. We have a homely, down-to-earth style that suggests that Greek was a second language for the author. Such a style is exceedingly difficult to fake, especially in a mostly illiterate society. And, since the society was mostly illiterate, there would be little reason for such a forgery.

This strongly suggests that the gospel was written by someone who grew up with another language, such as Hebrew, and later learned Greek. It all but eliminates the possibility that the book was later written by someone who grew up in a Greek-speaking society. While this doesn’t get us to Mark directly, it does tell us that the gospel was probably written by someone like Mark.


One other thought:

Mark was an obscure figure in the early church. His name was is never mentioned in the gospel that now bears his name. He is only mentioned a few times in the NT, and even then it is not always in a positive setting. We are told that he abandoned Paul during a missionary journey when things got too tough, and that he later caused a fight between Paul and Barnabas.

If someone was going to pick a name to falsely attribute this Gospel to, it is unlikely they would pick Mark. They might pick Peter. When people started writing false gospels in the mid-second century they were more than happy to attach Peter’s name to one. Picking Peter’s travelling companion as the author creates a confusing extra layer to the story. The only logical reason to claim that Mark wrote the gospel is if he actually did.


Conclusion:

This does not conclusively establish that Mark was the author of the Gospel that bears his name. I’m honestly not sure what would.

It is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Mark wrote the gospel which bears his name.

[elphidium55]

The scientific consensus of historians is that the four canonical gospel authors are anonymous. What can we say about these anonymous authors? Not much. We can infer some things about the authors from the text themselves, but not as much as we would like.

That we associate these works with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John comes from a latter tradition which came to be accepted by orthodox christianity. This is a more satisfying answer than simply referring to gospels one, two, three, and four. Also, it not only gives us names for these gospels but also a bit of a backstory to go with them.

Some commentators have tried to pick out aspects of these works as providing internal evidence for these associations. So, for example, some will cite passages in "Luke" as showing that the author must have been a physician. They do this because the tradition holds that Luke was a physician. But it is hard to do these kind of correlations in a rigorous way which does not smack of confirmation bias. Also, many of these comparisons overreach in their conclusions.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 4 by bjs]

Conclusion:

This does not conclusively establish that Mark was the author of the Gospel that bears his name. I’m honestly not sure what would.

Thanks so much for your response!

So then, it would seem that according to you, there is not a whole lot we can know for certain, and, or demonstrate as far as the authors are concerned? If I am not reading you correctly then please correct where I am in error?

I have some comments I would like to make, but I will wait in order to see if there may be more folks who would like to join in.

[Realworldjack]

The scientific consensus of historians is that the four canonical gospel authors are anonymous. What can we say about these anonymous authors? Not much. We can infer some things about the authors from the text themselves, but not as much as we would like.

That we associate these works with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John comes from a latter tradition which came to be accepted by orthodox christianity. This is a more satisfying answer than simply referring to gospels one, two, three, and four. Also, it not only gives us names for these gospels but also a bit of a backstory to go with them.

Some commentators have tried to pick out aspects of these works as providing internal evidence for these associations. So, for example, some will cite passages in "Luke" as showing that the author must have been a physician. They do this because the tradition holds that Luke was a physician. But it is hard to do these kind of correlations in a rigorous way which does not smack of confirmation bias. Also, many of these comparisons overreach in their conclusions.

Thanks so much for the clarification, and the response.

What can we say about these anonymous authors? Not much.

So then, according to you we can know, and or demonstrate very little concerning the authors? If I have misunderstood you then please feel free to clarify.

I may give a response once I allow others to join in if the wish. Thanks again!

[bjs]

[Replying to post 4 by bjs]

Conclusion:

This does not conclusively establish that Mark was the author of the Gospel that bears his name. I’m honestly not sure what would.

Thanks so much for your response!

So then, it would seem that according to you, there is not a whole lot we can know for certain, and, or demonstrate as far as the authors are concerned? If I am not reading you correctly then please correct where I am in error?

I have some comments I would like to make, but I will wait in order to see if there may be more folks who would like to join in.

There is not much that we can know for certain about antiquity in general. Applying normal historical standards, we can be relatively confident that Mark wrote the Gospel which bears his name. We can’t be certain.

[Zzyzx]

.

What can we know (demonstrate) about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? Notice carefully that I am not talking about opinions here, but rather what we can know to be a fact, and how we would go about demonstrating it to be a fact we can know?

Very little if anything.

What we have available is a anthology put together two centuries later by promoters of a religious point of view.


From Catholicism, the religious organization that compiled the Bible:

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the gospels?  Is the sacred author also the saint?  Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the twelve apostles.  We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways:  First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen.  Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author.  Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a “ghost writer� did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of them.

Whether the final version of the gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say.  Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their gospels. 
https://catholicstraightanswers.com/who ... e-gospels/

Bold added

Notice: 'Ghost writer' and 'hard to say' and 'tradition does link'

[Difflugia]

Matthew, also called Levi...

The only fact is that the character "Levi" in Mark was renamed "Matthew" in Matthew. One explanation is that there was an actual person that was called both "Levi" and "Matthew," but an equally parsimonius explanation is that the author of Matthew's Gospel was uncomfortable naming a tax collector "Levi."

Papias of Hieropolis (70-163 AD), quoted by the historian Eusebius, said that Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.

No, Papias just said that a gospel had been written by Mark, but didn't tell us which one he meant:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial are, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

He didn't give us any information that would let us equate our Gospel of Mark with his.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (early second century – 202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), and Origen (184-253) also wrote that Mark was the author of the gospel that bears his name.

Justin Martyr quoted from Mark, but didn't name the author.

Irenaeus apparently paraphrased Papias:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus also quoted enough from all four Gospels that we can be reasonably sure he meant the same four that are in our Bibles.

The others don't offer any more information than Irenaeus and are possibly just paraphrasing him.

So within a generation or two of the writing of the gospel many sources attest to Mark being the author. No other name was attached to the gospel so early on or with so much force, so all the external evidence points to Mark being the author.

"All of the evidence" does, but "all of the evidence" in this case isn't much to go on. It amounts to a single dubious source (Irenaeus) being repeated without question by later authors. That's not nothing, but it's not much.

If someone was going to pick a name to falsely attribute this Gospel to, it is unlikely they would pick Mark. They might pick Peter. When people started writing false gospels in the mid-second century they were more than happy to attach Peter’s name to one. Picking Peter’s travelling companion as the author creates a confusing extra layer to the story. The only logical reason to claim that Mark wrote the gospel is if he actually did.

That's not the only logical reason. You said yourself that the Greek's pretty bad. If early apologists thought that the gospels had to come from someone at least close to the Apostles, but didn't want to attribute Mark's crappy Greek to one of the Twelve, then "Mark, obscure friend of Peter" might be a logical choice. I don't know that's what happened, but even "reasonable conjecture" is a rather far cry from "only logical reason."

It is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Mark wrote the gospel which bears his name.

It's a relatively common mistake to treat a little evidence as sufficient just because it's all we've got. In the absence of other evidence, it's a reasonable assumption to begin with, but flimsy is flimsy. What we have is a far cry from "likely," let alone the kind of fact being asked for.