Who wrote the gospels? Does it matter?

[nobspeople]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

I think it does simply because of the question or credibility. The two that are supposed to be Eyewitness - Matthew and John - purport to be (or are touted by Christianity as being) eyewitness accounts. Mark and Luke are presented as secondhand accounts by those who spoke to eyewitnesses.

There are a lot of discussions that can go on about whether thre gospels could be written by actual disciples or by those who talked to actual disciples. I won't go into those other than to say that originally I thought that John, shorn of what is obviously a lot of additional religious waffle in those sermons and wrangles with crowds of 'Jews', could have been based ton the eyewitness account if not an actual eyewitness. And in fact the account of John the Baptist passing over his disciples to Jesus (long before he 'called' them in Galilee) the 'healing at a distance' in Cana rather than in Capernaum, the donkey ride first thing in the morning rather than smack after arrival from Jericho (sometime in the afternoon) and the questioning in the house of Caiphas' father in Law rather than a full (nonsensical) Sanhedrin trial, with the fanciful Johannine elements removed (1) began to look curiously eyewitness after all.

E.g the mechanism of the Lazarus affair. In Bethany, Mary (sister of Lazarus) send a note to Jesus who has arrived in in Peraea (John's old baptism ground (2) to tip him off that Lazarus is sick. So he waits a couple of days so that Lazarus can be deemed well and truly dead and then he sets out, arriving at Bethany where Martha and Mary let everyone know that Lazarus has been dead in the tomb four days and Jesus just shouts for him to come out which he does, wrapped in bandages to enable him to hop if not walk and as clean as if he'd just been popped in there less than an hour before Jesus arrived.

Well (I thought), that would explain why the synoptics don't have the raising of Lazarus, because it looks damn' fishy. And come to think of it, didn't Bar -Timaeus look fishy too? A' Blind man' planted outside the gate of Jericho for Jesus to heal to impress his followers. And there again, the daughter of Jairus raised where only three trusted followers saw it ;and at the outset, the healing in Capernaum with Jesus and his followers in Cana where they only hear that the 'servant' got better at the exact moment. Watches no doubt being synchronised in advance. So even before we get to the crucifixion and Jesus exiting the tomb we have a succession of fake miracles done to impress Jesus' followers.

Initially it made perfect sense to me as a real account painted over to look like what Christianity wanted Jesus to be. And that still might be the case. But seeing how much of it has to be rejected as fabrication, I have to doubt that any of the gospel -writers could be in contact with eyewitness, never mind being eyewitnesses themselves. Matthew could never have written about 2 donkeys if he'd been there. He has to be a Greek Christian misreading the prophecy. And He's the 'most Jewish' of the gospels. Luke can't be anything but messing his history up with the Nativity and the evidence is that he's mistaking or misusing Josephus to invent an early life for Jesus.

I already did John who does look uncannily eyewitness, once one gets rid of the theological claptrap, but there are odd things that pass without comment (even when I point them out ) that he has a man with palsy - but in Jerusalem, not Galilee And a blind man healed - in Jerusalem, not Jericho. And the suspicion is that these are Jesus -stories being circulated in the later 2nd c and the writers just picked them up and put them in the gospels wherever they liked - which is what Luke did with his 'Sermon material' (or Q document which Matthew presents in one indigestible lump). And that perhaps explain that very odd anomaly - why Luke doesn't have the walking on water. It could hardly be because it was not credible. But in this case - yes, perhaps he'd never heard of it.

So already (give or take a basic common story) I reckoned it looked like Christian adaptors adding whatever they wanted to, plus other traditions or lists of sayings (like 'Q') and that material could only reflect Christian views. As doesn't it Just? Suddenly we understand why Jesus is damning the Jews and their rites and slobbering over Gentiles as being so much more Faithful and worthy. And suddenly that explains the odd attitude towards the disciples (3). They had to be honoured and respected as they had passed the Truth from Jesus to Paul, but at the same time, they were Jews, precious, yes they are, and they are false and tricksy. They always fail in the end.

The last piece of the Puzzle and we can see that the gospel -writers are Christians; gentile, Roman Greek Pauline Christians, taking the teachings of Paul and adapting the original gospel in their own ways, but with one thing in common - to Hell with the Jews, and setting the scene for a couple of thousand years of anti - seminism, persecutions and pogroms. Thanks a bundle, Matthew, whoever you were.

So, to sum up at long last (and this is just to touch on a few points), I say that analysing the gospels tells us what they are, how they were written and thus what sort of people wrote them and why they wrote them and that in turn tells us more about what the gospels are. And what they are is Christian polemic first and foremost written by Greek Paulinist Christians and neither they nor their gospels are eyewitness accounts.

(1) e.g the Temple cleansing put back where it belongs at John 12.20 and that Johannine sermon delivered to 'Greeks' removed as a fanciful Christian - theological addition that is just not credible.

(2) where John Baptist was arrested by Antipas as a subversive danger - which is attested by Josephus - and would be a perfect place for Jesus to assemble that crowd of supporters that appears out of nowhere in the later story.

(3 ) including why they had to know all about the resurrection -predictions but oh -noes...they didn't Understand them.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

A great reply - thank you!
You said, among other reasons, it matters because of credibility.
I wonder, though, is that looking at it in 'hind sight'? Meaning, if they weren't written by people said to be witnesses (or very close to the witnesses), wouldn't believers find other means to justify them? Maybe this 'credibility' is a means to make them more credible because they don't totally match up with each other in the details, for example?

Imagine two different realities:
1) reality like we have now where the gospels don't match exactly
2) reality that the gospels all match exactly

In both realities, believers would justify them to their benefit while, likewise, challengers would latch on each scenario and argue against them.

Some say they would believe them less if they all matched exactly. I call cow pies on that, personally, but that's a topic for another thread, I suspect.

Thoughts?

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

I'd say yes, it would "matter" in the sense it would be relevant, it would add to our limited knowledge of their origins.

The origins of the NT (in fact the Bible too really) is one of the most genuinely interesting subjects I've ever delved into too.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #4]

The origins of the NT (in fact the Bible too really) is one of the most genuinely interesting subjects I've ever delved into too.

I always find it weird (in a good way) how human interest vary from person to person. Some are into this, while others don't care and are into, say, code writing. Or engineering. Or nursing. Humanity is so weird (which is, ironically, interesting itself!)

I'd say yes, it would "matter" in the sense it would be relevant, it would add to our limited knowledge of their origins.

Why would that matter? I'm not saying you're wrong, simply asking this from your perspective.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #4]

The origins of the NT (in fact the Bible too really) is one of the most genuinely interesting subjects I've ever delved into too.

I always find it weird (in a good way) how human interest vary from person to person. Some are into this, while others don't care and are into, say, code writing. Or engineering. Or nursing. Humanity is so weird (which is, ironically, interesting itself!)

I'd say yes, it would "matter" in the sense it would be relevant, it would add to our limited knowledge of their origins.

Why would that matter? I'm not saying you're wrong, simply asking this from your perspective.

Well information matters, especially when discussing stuff from antiquity, we would possibly learn more than we know already.

When I was still an atheist I began to look at the history of the NT and tried to look at it scientifically, tried to get at the raw facts (as opposed to things reflecting someone's beliefs) being able to get at scholarly data was helpful to me, being able to see that the subject could be explored without any reference to "religion" was helpful to me at that time.

The more such data we have the easier it is I think for a non-committed, open-minded inquirer to get insight into Christinaity.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #6]

Well information matters, especially when discussing stuff from antiquity, we would possibly learn more than we know already.

Very true. I just wonder how much it matters, in this case.

The more such data we have the easier it is I think for a non-committed, open-minded inquirer to get insight into Christinaity.[/quote/] Excellent point. Thanks for participating! The thread is better because of it!

[TRANSPONDER]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

I think it does simply because of the question or credibility. The two that are supposed to be Eyewitness - Matthew and John - purport to be (or are touted by Christianity as being) eyewitness accounts. Mark and Luke are presented as secondhand accounts by those who spoke to eyewitnesses.

There are a lot of discussions that can go on about whether the gospels could be written by actual disciples or by those who talked to actual disciples. I won't go into those other than to say that originally I thought that John, shorn of what is obviously a lot of additional religious waffle in those sermons and wrangles with crowds of 'Jews', could have been based on the eyewitness account if not an actual eyewitness. And in fact the account of John the Baptist passing over his disciples to Jesus (long before he 'called' them in Galilee) the 'healing at a distance' in Cana rather than in Capernaum, the donkey ride first thing in the morning rather than smack after arrival from Jericho (sometime in the afternoon) and the questioning in the house of Caiphas' father in Law rather than a full (nonsensical) Sanhedrin trial, with the fanciful Johannine elements removed (1) began to look curiously eyewitness after all.

E.g the mechanism of the Lazarus affair. In Bethany, Mary (sister of Lazarus) sends a note to Jesus who has arrived in in Peraea (John's old baptism ground (2) to tip him off that Lazarus is sick. So he waits a couple of days so that Lazarus can be deemed well and truly dead, and then he sets out, arriving at Bethany where Martha and Mary lets everyone know that Lazarus has been dead in the tomb four days and Jesus just shouts for him to come out which he does, wrapped in bandages to enable him to hop if not walk and as clean as if he'd just been popped in there less than an hour before Jesus arrived.

Well (I thought), that would explain why the synoptics don't have the raising of Lazarus, because it looks damn' fishy. And come to think of it, didn't Bar -Timaeus look fishy too? A 'Blind man' planted outside the gate of Jericho for Jesus to heal to impress his followers. And there again, the daughter of Jairus raised where only three trusted followers saw it; and at the outset, the healing in Capernaum with Jesus and his followers in Cana where they only hear that the 'servant' got better at the exact moment. Watches no doubt being synchronised in advance. So even before we get to the crucifixion and Jesus exiting the tomb we have a succession of fake miracles done to impress Jesus' followers. ,

Initially it made perfect sense to me as a real account painted over to look like what Christianity wanted Jesus to be. And that still might be the case. But seeing how much of it has to be rejected as fabrication, I have to doubt that any of the gospel -writers could be in contact with eyewitnesses, never mind being eyewitnesses themselves. Matthew could never have written about 2 donkeys if he'd been there. He has to be a Greek Christian misreading the prophecy in Greek. And He's the 'most Jewish' of the gospels. Luke can't be anything but messing his history up with the Nativity and the evidence is that he's mistaking or misusing Josephus to invent an early life for Jesus.

I already did John who does look uncannily eyewitness, once one gets rid of the theological claptrap, but there are odd things that pass without comment (even when I point them out ) ;that he has a man with palsy - but in Jerusalem, not Galilee. And a blind man healed - in Jerusalem, not Jericho. And the suspicion is that these are Jesus - stories being circulated in the later 2nd c and the writers just picked them up and put them in the gospels wherever they liked - which is what Luke did with his 'Sermon material' (or Q document which Matthew presents in one indigestible lump). And that perhaps explain that very odd anomaly - why Luke doesn't have the walking on water. It could hardly be because it was not credible. But in this case - yes, perhaps he'd never heard of it.

So already (give or take a basic common story) I reckoned it looked like Christian adaptors adding whatever they wanted to, plus other traditions or lists of sayings (like 'Q') and that material could only reflect Christian views. As doesn't it Just? Suddenly we understand why Jesus is damning the Jews and their rites and slobbering over Gentiles as being so much more Faithful and worthy. And suddenly that explains the odd attitude towards the disciples (3). They had to be honoured and respected as they had passed the Truth from Jesus to Paul, but at the same time, they were Jews, precious, yes they are, and they are false and tricksy. They always fail in the end.

The last piece of the Puzzle and we can see that the gospel -writers are Christians; gentile, Roman Greek Pauline Christians, taking the teachings of Paul and adapting the original gospel in their own ways, but with one thing in common - to Hell with the Jews, and setting the scene for a couple of thousand years of anti - semitism, persecutions and pogroms. Thanks a bundle, Matthew, whoever you were.

So, to sum up at long last (and this is just to touch on a few points), I say that analysing the gospels tells us what they are, how they were written and thus what sort of people wrote them and why they wrote them and that in turn tells us more about what the gospels are. And what they are is Christian polemic first and foremost written by Greek Paulinist Christians and neither they nor their gospels are eyewitness or eyewitness accounts.

(1) e.g the Temple cleansing put back where it belongs at John 12.20 and that Johannine sermon delivered to 'Greeks' removed as a fanciful Christian - theological addition that is just not credible.

(2) where John Baptist was arrested by Antipas as a subversive danger - which is attested by Josephus - and would be a perfect place for Jesus to assemble that crowd of supporters that appears out of nowhere in the later story.

(3 ) including why they had to know all about the resurrection -predictions but oh -noes...they didn't Understand them.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #6]

Well information matters, especially when discussing stuff from antiquity, we would possibly learn more than we know already.

Very true. I just wonder how much it matters, in this case.

The more such data we have the easier it is I think for a non-committed, open-minded inquirer to get insight into Christinaity.

Excellent point. Thanks for participating! The thread is better because of it!

As for would it matter to what I currently believe, well it might, until I see what was found it might matter, I must be honest if we could find and prove that all four where written - initially - by the same hand, that might matter.

Whether it would change my views on the narrative, again hard to say until I see exactly what was found, but I cannot say that it would not matter - that's approaching a dogmatic position which is one of the things I criticize most in others!

[alexxcJRO]

There's a thread speaking to, in part, wrote the gospels.
Does this even matter?
Let's say we find out, beyond any doubt, humanity discovers who wrote the gospels and when.

For discussion:

Bob wrote them.
Fred wrote one while Betty wrote the others.
Does it matter who wrote them? Yes or no. And why?*


* Your opinion, of course, even if others find it wrong or distasteful. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged, however.

It's irrelevant if we have eye-witness testimony or bogus 2hand, 3hand, … testimony.

Q: Because if many/multiple first hand eye-witness proved nothing in case of the Fatima supposed miracle or Sai Baba supposed miracles how can the same evidence but from much distant past(2000years old) prove something in the case of Christianity?

“Sai Baba's believers credited him with miracles such as materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches, along with reports of miraculous healings, resurrections, clairvoyance, bilocation, and was allegedly omnipotent and omniscient.
These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.[7] “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-devotee-of- ... their-life
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-mira ... -your-life
http://saibaba.ws/miracles.htm

“Various claims have been made as to what actually happened during the event. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the Sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The Sun was then reported to have careened towards the Earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position.[18][19] Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling".”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Those that say its relevant who wrote them are either oblivious of reality or are off course biased and apply a double standard for the same kind of evidence: testimonial evidence for miracles and personal unfalsifiable anecdotal experiences.