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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #1]

Sorry for the long delay but I had trouble logging in after the up grade to the site. At any rate, it seems we all agree that we cannot know for certain who the authors of the Gospels may have been. With this being the case, we would all have to admit that it is very possible the authors are exactly the folks who have their names attached to them. Moreover, there is very good reason to believe the author of both Luke, and Acts, would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles, would have traveled with Paul, and would have been with Paul during his arrest which is recorded at the end of Acts.

The point I am making is, there may be those who doubt the authorship of the Gospels, and they may have reasons for their doubt, however this does not negate the fact that there is reason, facts, and evidence to support those who hold the position the Gospels bear the name of the authors who composed them.

So then, while I may not be able to insist who the authors would have been, I certainly have reason to believe who they would have been. But, this also means no one can insist the authors could not have been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather, all one can do is to attempt to cast some sort of doubt.

The question then becomes, why does it even matter who the authors may have been? Well, I can assure you that it matters greatly, and those who are opposed understand just how much it matters, which is exactly why they know they must, and have to attempt to cast doubt.

[Difflugia]

Sorry for the long delay but I had trouble logging in after the up grade to the site. At any rate, it seems we all agree that we cannot know for certain who the authors of the Gospels may have been. With this being the case, we would all have to admit that it is very possible the authors are exactly the folks who have their names attached to them.

"Possible" and "probable" are not synonyms. Saying that something is "very possible" is like saying that a number is "very one." No matter how "one" a number gets, it never becomes two, three, or seven.

Moreover, there is very good reason to believe the author of both Luke, and Acts, would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles, would have traveled with Paul, and would have been with Paul during his arrest which is recorded at the end of Acts.

This is a brand-new argument that you haven't supported.

The point I am making is, there may be those who doubt the authorship of the Gospels, and they may have reasons for their doubt, however this does not negate the fact that there is reason, facts, and evidence to support those who hold the position the Gospels bear the name of the authors who composed them.

That's very possible. You haven't actually supplied any of the reasons, facts, or evidence, though.

So then, while I may not be able to insist who the authors would have been, I certainly have reason to believe who they would have been.

If you have any good reasons, though, you haven't told them to us.

But, this also means no one can insist the authors could not have been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather, all one can do is to attempt to cast some sort of doubt.

Nobody says that they could not have been, but that they probably weren't. Even if the balance of evidence is such that we can be nearly certain that the traditions are wrong, it's still very possible that they are right.

The question then becomes, why does it even matter who the authors may have been? Well, I can assure you that it matters greatly, and those who are opposed understand just how much it matters, which is exactly why they know they must, and have to attempt to cast doubt.

It matters a great deal because someone on the internet might be wrong.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #52]

"Possible" and "probable" are not synonyms. Saying that something is "very possible" is like saying that a number is "very one." No matter how "one" a number gets, it never becomes two, three, or seven.

I think you have missed the point? The point being, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can demonstrate the position we hold. Rather, all any of us can do is to give the reasons, facts, and evidence for the position we hold.

This is a brand-new argument that you haven't supported.

The support comes from another thread I believe you are involved with which is dealing with the fact that the author uses the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events as if he is actually there to witness the events. Of course you believe you have another explanation for this, but it has not in any way been proven, which leaves us with the option that the author used those words because he would have been there.

Moreover, the fact that Luke, and Acts, have been attributed to Luke by those who would have been a lot closer in time than we are, is in the very least evidence that Luke would have been the author, unless you can come up with some sort of evidence to support the idea these folks were incorrect, or lying? With Luke, and Acts being attributed to Luke, along with the fact that Paul actually mentions Luke being present with him in his letters gives me good reason to believe that Luke was indeed the author, and that he would have traveled with Paul. In order to eliminate this reason, you would have to demonstrate that Luke would not have been the author, (which you cannot do) along with demonstrating that the author did not travel with Paul, (which you cannot do) otherwise there is reason to hold the position the author was indeed Luke, and he traveled with Paul.

That's very possible. You haven't actually supplied any of the reasons, facts, or evidence, though.

Supplied above!

Nobody says that they could not have been, but that they probably weren't.

The problem here is the fact that you, nor anyone else has come close to demonstrating that, "they probably weren't". You see, this would be your opinion. I happened to hold another opinion.

Even if the balance of evidence is such that we can be nearly certain that the traditions are wrong, it's still very possible that they are right.

Again, we are nowhere close to being "nearly certain that the traditions are wrong".

It matters a great deal because someone on the internet might be wrong.

I can assure you "someone" is wrong, which is exactly my point. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or we both could be wrong, but we both cannot possibly be correct. I admit, and understand this. However, there seem to be those who are under the impression they must, and have to be correct, and have not come close to demonstrating their case.

[Difflugia]

"Possible" and "probable" are not synonyms. Saying that something is "very possible" is like saying that a number is "very one." No matter how "one" a number gets, it never becomes two, three, or seven.

I think you have missed the point? The point being, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can demonstrate the position we hold. Rather, all any of us can do is to give the reasons, facts, and evidence for the position we hold.

If you think that's the difference in positions, then you're still conflating "possible" with "probable."

My position is (and always has been) that it's probable that none of the Gospels was written by the person to whom it is traditionally ascribed. I also think that's been demonstrated.

Your position in most statements is that it's not impossible that the Gospels were all written by their traditional authors. For a certain (and not unreasonable) definition of "possible" and "impossible," that's true merely by definition and doesn't even need to be demonstrated.

Those two aren't in conflict. Unless I am in fact missing the point, however, you seem to be trying to extend a logical progression that goes something like:

1. It's not impossible that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors.
2. It's therefore not more probable that the Gospels had different authors.
3. It's therefore probable (or at least reasonable to think) that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors.

That's not false as such, but is instead fallacious. The statements don't logically follow from one another.

This is a brand-new argument that you haven't supported.

The support comes from another thread I believe you are involved with which is dealing with the fact that the author uses the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events as if he is actually there to witness the events. Of course you believe you have another explanation for this, but it has not in any way been proven, which leaves us with the option that the author used those words because he would have been there.

The lengthy argument there doesn't support quite what you think it does because it was too narrow. The argument was whether or not the "we" was intended by the author to mean that he or she was present during those events, but that only minimally addresses whether the author was either actually there or actually Luke.

Moreover, the fact that Luke, and Acts, have been attributed to Luke by those who would have been a lot closer in time than we are, is in the very least evidence that Luke would have been the author, unless you can come up with some sort of evidence to support the idea these folks were incorrect, or lying?

I don't think they were lying, but they were incorrect. If you want a discussion about that, we can have one, but so far you've only asserted your position without support and I expect you to do at least a little of your homework before rebutting it.

With Luke, and Acts being attributed to Luke, along with the fact that Paul actually mentions Luke being present with him in his letters gives me good reason to believe that Luke was indeed the author, and that he would have traveled with Paul.

None of the Church Fathers offered any source other than Paul's mentions of Luke for the tradition itself. It's a fine starting point, but no more than that.

In order to eliminate this reason, you would have to demonstrate that Luke would not have been the author, (which you cannot do) along with demonstrating that the author did not travel with Paul, (which you cannot do) otherwise there is reason to hold the position the author was indeed Luke, and he traveled with Paul.

You're conflating "is possible" with "is probable" again.

Nobody says that they could not have been, but that they probably weren't.

The problem here is the fact that you, nor anyone else has come close to demonstrating that, "they probably weren't". You see, this would be your opinion. I happened to hold another opinion.

It would be my opinion and I like to think it's an educated one. If there's one of the Gospels in particular you'd like to talk about, I'll justify my opinion, but I'm not going to waste the effort if you're just looking to argue that possible is the same as probable.

Even if the balance of evidence is such that we can be nearly certain that the traditions are wrong, it's still very possible that they are right.

Again, we are nowhere close to being "nearly certain that the traditions are wrong".

That depends on what you mean. This thread hadn't gotten that far, but academic consensus is pretty unified. Again, is there a particular Gospel you'd like to discuss first? Or to avoid a shotgun sort of thing, maybe there's a particular apologetic argument you'd like to start with?

I can assure you "someone" is wrong, which is exactly my point. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or we both could be wrong, but we both cannot possibly be correct. I admit, and understand this. However, there seem to be those who are under the impression they must, and have to be correct, and have not come close to demonstrating their case.

The problem is that you're implying that because there's uncertainty, the two positions can be weighted something like fifty/fifty. I agree that I could be wrong, but it's much more likely that you're wrong.

Have a favorite Gospel author that you want me to demonstrate on?

[Goose]

"Possible" and "probable" are not synonyms. Saying that something is "very possible" is like saying that a number is "very one." No matter how "one" a number gets, it never becomes two, three, or seven.

I think you have missed the point? The point being, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can demonstrate the position we hold. Rather, all any of us can do is to give the reasons, facts, and evidence for the position we hold.

If you think that's the difference in positions, then you're still conflating "possible" with "probable."

From what I can see I don't think Realwordljack is still conflating possible with probable here. I think what he is suggesting is that in these matters we build historical cases for our position using evidence, facts, and reasons.

My position is (and always has been) that it's probable that none of the Gospels was written by the person to whom it is traditionally ascribed.

What do you mean by the word probable? Do you mean it in the sense of probabillity theory? Or do you mean probable more in the sense of something like the weight of evidence supports the position none of the Gospels was written by the person to whom it is traditionally ascribed?

I also think that's been demonstrated.

Where?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

If you think that's the difference in positions, then you're still conflating "possible" with "probable."]

My friend, I do not deal in "probabilities" because "probabilities" cannot in any way get you closer to what the truth may be. Moreover, I do not site the "possibilities" because I am under the impression that the "possibilities" would get us any closer to the truth, but rather the fact that neither side can absolutely demonstrate their case, but can rather only give the reasons, facts, and evidence in support of what they happen to believe. Again, I understand and admit this, while there seem to be others who are under the impression that the "probabilities", and "possibilities" are somehow a factor in what the actual truth would be.

My position is (and always has been) that it's probable that none of the Gospels was written by the person to whom it is traditionally ascribed.

One thing is certain, and that is the fact that you cannot demonstrate in the least "that none of the Gospels was written by the person to whom it is traditionally ascribed". I would also like to know how anyone would be able to demonstrate that this would be the more "probable" conclusion? How does one go about calculating such a thing?

I also think that's been demonstrated.

When one says "I also think" this seems to clearly indicate an opinion? So then, is it a fact, "that's been demonstrated"? Or, is this simply an opinion? Next, what is it that you "think" has been "demonstrated"? Is it that the "none of the Gospels were written by the person to whom it is traditionally ascribed"? Or, that it has been "demonstrated" that it is more "probable"?

Your position in most statements is that it's not impossible that the Gospels were all written by their traditional authors.

Well no........? My position, which I have clearly stated is, neither side can demonstrate their case, but can only give the reasons, facts, and evidence in support of the position they hold. On the other hand, you seem to be under the impression that your position can be demonstrated, or at least that it can be demonstrated to be the more probable, as if this would even enter into the equation? The problem is, even if you could demonstrate that your position is the most "probable" (which you cannot) it still would not get us any closer to the truth.

For a certain (and not unreasonable) definition of "possible" and "impossible," that's true merely by definition and doesn't even need to be demonstrated.

Exactly! The only problem is, you seem to be under the impression that your position is the most "probable" while you have failed to demonstrate your case, but the fact of the matter is, even if you could demonstrate that it would be the most "probable" (which you cannot) it still would not get us any closer to the truth.

Your position in most statements is that it's not impossible that the Gospels were all written by their traditional authors.

Allow me to speak for myself. It is my position, that neither side can demonstrate their case, and all any of us can do is to explain what we believe, based upon the facts, and evidence we have available to us. As I have already said, there are those of us who understand and admit this, while there seem to be others that are under the impression their opinion is the better opinion, but can in no way demonstrate this to be the case other than in their own mind.

For a certain (and not unreasonable) definition of "possible" and "impossible," that's true merely by definition and doesn't even need to be demonstrated.

Exactly my point! In other words, until one of us demonstrates our case then all the possibilities are on the table, and what you "think" the probabilities may be does not enter into the equation.

Those two aren't in conflict. Unless I am in fact missing the point, however, you seem to be trying to extend a logical progression that goes something like:
1. It's not impossible that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors

In my own words, it is possible the early Church has the authors correct, and we would need some reason to believe they were in error, or lying.

2. It's therefore not more probable that the Gospels had different authors.]

NO! Because as I have said, "I do not deal in probabilities". Rather, I deal with the facts, and evidence at hand, and come to an opinion based upon this evidence.

It's therefore probable (or at least reasonable to think) that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors.

Again, the "probabilities" have nothing to do with it. It is however reasonable to believe the "Gospels were written by their traditional authors" since we have facts, and evidence to support such an opinion. It may also be reasonable to believe that the Gospels were not authored by the traditional authors, but we would need some sort of evidence to support such an opinion.

That's not false as such, but is instead fallacious. The statements don't logically follow from one another.

Of course it does not follow, because you have made a "straw man" argument. My position is, it has not in any way been demonstrated that the authors are not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and this is a fact. You on the other hand, "think" (hold the opinion) that it has been demonstrated they were not. There seem to be those who have trouble separating opinion from fact. You know, it is kinda like, when they were one time a convinced Christian they were absolutely sure they were correct with no possibility of error, and now all of a sudden they have changed their mind, and are just as certain they cannot be in error now. In other words, "I was wrong when I was certain certain I was correct, but now I am absolutely certain that I am correct that I was wrong about being correct".

The lengthy argument there doesn't support quite what you think it does because it was too narrow. The argument was whether or not the "we" was intended by the author to mean that he or she was present during those events, but that only minimally addresses whether the author was either actually there or actually Luke.

You are correct that there is more to the argument, but we have more evidence than simply the use of the words "we", and "us". Next, one would have to admit that when one reads such words as "we" and "us" in those contexts that it would naturally lead to the idea the author would have been present. In other words, I am not bringing anything foreign to the text. In order to believe the author would not have been present, one must, and has to go outside the text itself in order to supply any sort of support. The point is, one of us is reading the text as it was written. The other has to go outside the text in order to support their position. It is one thing to say there is evidence to support the idea the author would not have been present. It is quite another to suggest this evidence causes it to be more "probable" that he would not have been. The fact is, while there may be evidence, and reason to believe the author may have been using a literary device, this does not negate the fact that there is reason to believe the author would have been present.

I don't think they were lying, but they were incorrect.

Opinion noted! The problem is, there are a whole lot of very intelligent, and well educated folk who hold another opinion, and until it has been demonstrated one way or the other, then all any of us can do is to share our opinions, along with the facts, and evidence in support.

If you want a discussion about that, we can have one, but so far you've only asserted your position without support and I expect you to do at least a little of your homework before rebutting it.

Are you assuming that I have not "done my homework"? If so, I can't help but wonder why you would think such a thing? Could it be because when one was a convinced Christian at one time, they did not "do their homework" and simply assume all Christians must operate in the same way?

None of the Church Fathers offered any source other than Paul's mentions of Luke for the tradition itself. It's a fine starting point, but no more than that.

Do you really want to talk about being "narrow"? The "Church Fathers" owe us nothing, just like the Biblical writers owe us nothing, since they were not addressing us, and did not have us in mind as they wrote. So then, as we read the "Church Fathers" and Biblical authors we are reading what they were communicating to audiences at the time, who would have had the opportunity to investigate, and better know the truth, and or falsehood of what was being said.

You're conflating "is possible" with "is probable" again.

No, it is you who is confused because the "probabilities" have nothing to do with what the truth may be.

It would be my opinion and I like to think it's an educated one.

That's really funny! So then, I suppose you are under the impression that anyone who is opposed to your opinion does not have an "educated" opinion. Meanwhile, here in the "real world" there are those of us who understand there are very intelligent, and well educated folks of both sides of the equation, which causes some of us to pause and understand that we may need to listen to the reason of others, which is why we are glad to discuss, and exchange ideas, and opinions, not necessarily in order to change the mind of others, but also to determine how our ideas, and opinions hold up to those who are opposed, while not supposing those opposed must, and have to have an uneducated opinion.

If there's one of the Gospels in particular you'd like to talk about, I'll justify my opinion, but I'm not going to waste the effort if you're just looking to argue that possible is the same as probable.

What would be a "waste of time" would be to discuss the "probabilities".

That depends on what you mean. This thread hadn't gotten that far, but academic consensus is pretty unified.

I'm gonna take a guess here, and my guess would be that you were a Christian at one time, and that you were a Christian simply based upon the word of others. If I am correct, then nothing much seems to have changed accept the mind. In other words, you took the word of others to become a Christian, and now you seem to be relying on the word of the "academic consensus" as if this somehow makes it more "probable" that you are now correct. It does not my friend!

This thread hadn't gotten that far, but academic consensus is pretty unified. Again, is there a particular Gospel you'd like to discuss first? Or to avoid a shotgun sort of thing, maybe there's a particular apologetic argument you'd like to start with?

My whole point here has been, when we discuss these issues we are only sharing our opinions, hopefully based upon the facts, and evidence we have, and neither of us can demonstrate that our opinion would be the correct opinion. Would you care to demonstrate where I am in error here?

The problem is that you're implying that because there's uncertainty, the two positions can be weighted something like fifty/fifty.

You are so incorrect here, because I clearly understand there is no "fifty/fifty" involved. One, or the both of us are incorrect. It somehow seems to make you feel better about your opinion believing that it would be the more probable. I find no such comfort because I understand it would have nothing to do with it.

I agree that I could be wrong, but it's much more likely that you're wrong.

This is simply an opinion, but even if it were a fact how would this make one feel better about their opinion?

[Difflugia]

My friend, I do not deal in "probabilities" because "probabilities" cannot in any way get you closer to what the truth may be.

I misunderstood your position and you've now made it absolutely clear.

What would be a "waste of time" would be to discuss the "probabilities".

I'm sure you're right.

[Realworldjack]

My friend, I do not deal in "probabilities" because "probabilities" cannot in any way get you closer to what the truth may be.

I misunderstood your position and you've now made it absolutely clear.

What would be a "waste of time" would be to discuss the "probabilities".

I'm sure you're right.

With this being the case I think we would all have to agree that while there may be facts, evidence, and reason to hold a certain position, we would all also have to agree that those opposed may very well have facts, evidence, and reason to believe as they do. In other words, although I may hold a certain position based upon the facts, and evidence involved, this would not negate the fact that those opposed may very well have good reason to hold to the opinion they have reached. It is one thing to reach a certain opinion based upon the facts, and evidence involved. It is quite another to go on to insist that those opposed have no reason, nor basis for the position they may hold, unless this can be demonstrated. So then, while I am convinced the authors of the Gospels would have been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, based upon the facts, and evidence we have, I do not insist those opposed have no reason for their stance.

[Difflugia]

With this being the case I think we would all have to agree that while there may be facts, evidence, and reason to hold a certain position, we would all also have to agree that those opposed may very well have facts, evidence, and reason to believe as they do.

In a broad sense, that's true.

In other words, although I may hold a certain position based upon the facts, and evidence involved, this would not negate the fact that those opposed may very well have good reason to hold to the opinion they have reached.

You've said several times that you don't consider probability to be a part of your decision-making process. If your description is accurate, I don't see how any of your conclusions can be sound.

While I personally suspect that your description isn't accurate and you do actually consider probability when evaluating evidence, you have insisted that you don't and I'll take you at your word as far as the discussion goes. I will not, however, agree that such a method can produce "good reason."

[Realworldjack]

With this being the case I think we would all have to agree that while there may be facts, evidence, and reason to hold a certain position, we would all also have to agree that those opposed may very well have facts, evidence, and reason to believe as they do.

In a broad sense, that's true.

In other words, although I may hold a certain position based upon the facts, and evidence involved, this would not negate the fact that those opposed may very well have good reason to hold to the opinion they have reached.

You've said several times that you don't consider probability to be a part of your decision-making process. If your description is accurate, I don't see how any of your conclusions can be sound.

While I personally suspect that your description isn't accurate and you do actually consider probability when evaluating evidence, you have insisted that you don't and I'll take you at your word as far as the discussion goes. I will not, however, agree that such a method can produce "good reason."

In a broad sense, that's true.

My friend, it is either true, or it is false. It seems to me you may be avoiding the question?

You've said several times that you don't consider probability to be a part of your decision-making process. If your description is accurate, I don't see how any of your conclusions can be sound.

The point here is, I do not make decisions based upon what I believe may "probably" be correct, but rather upon the facts, and evidence we have. With this being the case, I do not have to say, "I am probably correct, or incorrect" but rather that "I am correct, or incorrect". Because you see, the "probabilities" have nothing to do with my being correct, or incorrect. When we are talking about the resurrection of Jesus, the "probability" of a resurrection is not very good at all, to which we can all agree. However, the "probability" of Jesus being resurrected, can do nothing whatsoever to getting us closer to the truth. Only the facts, and evidence can do this. So then, you seem to believe your decisions to be sound because they are built upon the "probabilities", while I tend to base my conclusions upon the facts, and evidence we have, ignoring the "probabilities", because I happen to understand that the "probabilities" have nothing to do with what the truth would actually be.

While I personally suspect that your description isn't accurate and you do actually consider probability when evaluating evidence

It is my hope that my explanation above has eliminated your suspicion, because I can assure you when I am making such a major life decision, I am not in any way considering the "probabilities", but am rather only considering the facts, and evidence involved.

I will not, however, agree that such a method can produce "good reason."

So then, are you suggesting that the "probabilities produce" better decisions than the then facts, and evidence, involved?