Regarding gospel authorship

[Zzyzx]

.
From the Catholic Education Resource Center

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cu ... rship.html

Catholic theologians and scholars cannot say if the ‘saints’ named in the gospels actually wrote / authored them, WHO is empowered to dispute their conclusions?

Didn’t the RCC produce the Bible?

How did upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) become authorities on what was produced centuries ago by the RCC?

[Zzyzx]

.
Bible defenders seem to feel compelled to try justify claims that authors of gospels were the people whose names were attached many years later. Admitting that authorship is unknown casts doubt upon any claim that writers were eyewitnesses with personal knowledge, and casts doubt upon the veracity of their writings.

Unless writers actually, personally witnessed the events and conversations, their reports are second-hand at best – and perhaps just recording of folklore, legend, ‘church tradition’, and/or ‘what everyone believed’. Some even add ‘were willing to die for’ as though manner of death of anonymous people is proof of truth (and as though no one dies for false beliefs).

Defenders are also saddled with trying to claim early authorship dates, trying to like authors to events and conversations. Dates generally accepted by Christian theologians and scholars are decades or generations after the claimed events – casting further doubt upon claims of personal knowledge (and perfect recollection word-for-word of preachings decades earlier).

Additionally, if / when Apologists admit that gospel authorship is in doubt, the whole house of cards becomes more fragile. “I don’t know who wrote it but they must have known and they must have been telling the truth� doesn’t sound very convincing.

If church claims (or ‘traditions’) regarding authorship are admittedly doubtful, what else in the Bible is similarly of questionable veracity?

I would not even attempt to defend such a weak position; but then, I was not indoctrinated to believe church teachings (more accurately, attempted indoctrination failed spectacularly by age ten or so). Even then, I could not understand why adults believed the tall tales peddled as ‘gospel truth’.

[Difflugia]

Do Christian theologians and scholars maintain that position, or is it just a deviant personal position?

Most historians do. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist as an independent entity until the eleventh century, well after the last of the canonical books were either written (probably by the end of the second century) or arranged into the canon currently accepted by the Catholic Church (no later than the middle of the fifth century).

Or by "Roman Catholic Church" are you informally referring to the See of Rome prior to the East-West schism and further asserting that the See of Rome was, to the exclusion of the other churches, responsible for the writing/canonization/whatever of the Bible?

If not, do you think that the Roman Catholic Church is in a superior position simply by virtue of having splintered from the unified Church earlier than the Protestants?

Upstart / splinter group religions (Protestantism) pretend to better understand the Bible than the RCC. How presumptuous.

What gives them (or anyone else) superior knowledge or ability with regard to the Bible?

Since neither the Catholic Church has nor any Protestant churches have (as far as I'm aware) access to information that the others don't, it seems to me that they're all on equal footing when taking theological positions. I don't think Protestants are in position to reasonably claim, as some have, that Catholics aren't Christian, but I don't think either group has an inherent advantage over the other when interpreting history or theology.

Are Protestants justified in disagreeing with other Catholic doctrines, like primacy of the Bishop of Rome or papal infallibility?

[bjs]

Note mention of the gospels being written at indeterminate dates between 60 and 90 CE – thirty to sixty years after the supposed events and conversations they present. How well do people tend to remember word-for-word sermons from 30 to 60 years ago?

I don't know of anyone who has claimed that the historical documents are sufficient to say that words of Jesus were recorded word for word. As Rev Saunders pointed out, and I have said many times on this forum, that is an issue of faith.

“Church tradition� means ‘what the church teaches.’ Thus, tradition cannot rationally be regarded as verification for what the church teaches . . .

Seems rather tenuous to me -- 'Just believe what the church teaches'

"Church tradition" does not mean "what the church teaches." It means that someone in the church wrote it, as opposed to it being a source from outside the church. In many cases "church tradition" includes multiples sources attesting to the same fact. Usually we only list the most reliable source, which is how historians approach essentially all of history.

Iraneus was born a century after the supposed crucifixion (130 CE) and his ‘teacher’ Polycarp was born 40 years after the supposed crucifixion (69 CE). Papias was born in 60 CE. How did any of them have personal knowledge of what happened or who wrote what before they were born or when they were children?

At best, they had hearsay (that heard from others).

And? No rational person abandons something entirely just because it is hearsay. History doesn’t work like a court of law. As I and Rev Saunders already point out, we cannot be completely sure that the documents were written by the saints whose names they bear. However, based on the available evidence the most reasonable conclusion is that they were.

If you have evidence that the Gospels were not written by the men whose names they bear (especially Mark, Luke and John) then please present it.

If your only point is that we cannot be positive that the attribution of the Gospels is correct then my well-thought-out and reasoned response is: Well, duh!

[Overcomer]

Perhaps this video will help. it discusses the writing of history and how the ancients saw it. For one thing, they believed it had to come from eye witnesses to be valid.



There were so many eyewitnesses to Christ's life, plenty to interview, plenty to testify to it.

The books of the New Testament were quoted by church fathers in the second century and were unofficially accepted as canon by the end of that century. They merely made it official early in the fourth.

[Zzyzx]

.

Note mention of the gospels being written at indeterminate dates between 60 and 90 CE – thirty to sixty years after the supposed events and conversations they present. How well do people tend to remember word-for-word sermons from 30 to 60 years ago?

I don't know of anyone who has claimed that the historical documents are sufficient to say that words of Jesus were recorded word for word. As Rev Saunders pointed out, and I have said many times on this forum, that is an issue of faith.

You and Saunders are welcome to have ‘faith’; however, that means nothing in debate.

“Church tradition� means ‘what the church teaches.’ Thus, tradition cannot rationally be regarded as verification for what the church teaches . . .
Seems rather tenuous to me -- 'Just believe what the church teaches'

"Church tradition" does not mean "what the church teaches." It means that someone in the church wrote it, as opposed to it being a source from outside the church. In many cases "church tradition" includes multiples sources attesting to the same fact. Usually we only list the most reliable source, which is how historians approach essentially all of history.

Evidently some notable sources disagree:

Tradition is “handed down�
The word “tradition� actually means handing down something to another person.
Scripture testifies to this meaning of Catholic Tradition as the normal mode of transmitting the Faith:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.� (2 Thess 2:15) “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you….� (1 Cor 11:23) “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received….� (1 Cor 15:3) “…I know whom I have believed [i.e., Jesus], and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.� (2 Tim 1:11-14) “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.� (2 Tim 2:1-2) “…I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.� (Jude 1:3)
This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)
We often write Tradition, with a capital ‘T’, to mean Sacred Tradition. This Catholic Tradition is different from those traditions (small ‘t’) that are merely customs, and which are not part of Divine Revelation.
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-tradition

Literally a "handing on," referring to the passing down of God's revealed word. As such it has two closely related but distinct meanings. Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God's revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. Referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, the Second Vatican Council says: "It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 7). (Etym. Latin traditio, a giving over, delivery, surrender; a handing down: from tradere, to give up.)
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... m?id=36902


Tradition any kind of teaching, written or spoken, handed down from generation to generation.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/tradition/

Personal definitions are worthless in debate

Iraneus was born a century after the supposed crucifixion (130 CE) and his ‘teacher’ Polycarp was born 40 years after the supposed crucifixion (69 CE). Papias was born in 60 CE. How did any of them have personal knowledge of what happened or who wrote what before they were born or when they were children?

At best, they had hearsay (that heard from others).

And? No rational person abandons something entirely just because it is hearsay.

No rational person accepts hearsay entirely without substantiating verifiable evidence. However, Apologists are welcome to accept hearsay (or legend, or myth, or fantasy, or folklore, or ‘church tradition’) for their personal use – though they have weak to no weight in debate.

History doesn’t work like a court of law. As I and Rev Saunders already point out, we cannot be completely sure that the documents were written by the saints whose names they bear. However, based on the available evidence the most reasonable conclusion is that they were.

Again, notable sources disagree with you and Saunders:

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cu ... spel-autho...

If you have evidence that the Gospels were not written by the men whose names they bear (especially Mark, Luke and John) then please present it.

See above

If your only point is that we cannot be positive that the attribution of the Gospels is correct then my well-thought-out and reasoned response is: Well, duh!

“Only point�? “Duh�?

Is this intended as debate?

[liamconnor]

No rational person accepts hearsay entirely without substantiating verifiable evidence. However, Apologists are welcome to accept hearsay (or legend, or myth, or fantasy, or folklore, or ‘church tradition’) for their personal use – though they have weak to no weight in debate.

The problem Z, is that you have consistently shown zero understanding of what a "verified" proposition would even look like, apart from your irrelevant analogies from acquiring property.

You have admitted yourself several times as to having no historical method by which to assess history.

You have admitted to having no way of differentiating the claims of, say, Lucian, from the claims of Paul.

All you have, as far as I can see, is the same threadbare assertions, the strength of which are measured in capital letters (e.g., TALES I believe is your favorite term).

But perhaps I have missed an historical conversion in my absence here. Can you demonstrate why a TALE in Tacitus should be considered authentic and a TALE in Paul should not?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 16 by liamconnor]

Here's a novel idea. Try to debate the OP topic rather than focusing on ad hominems.

[marco]

Can you demonstrate why a TALE in Tacitus should be considered authentic and a TALE in Paul should not?

Take the tale of Calgacus, before the battle of Mons Graupius, in the Agricola of Tacitus. Tacitus is not without admiration for the natives of Britannia and so he imagines an inspiring address by the Pictish leader to his desperate tribe. " Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - when they make a wilderness they call it peace. Beautiful though the story is, historians regard it as a composition of Tacitus. But the battle itself is taken as genuine, for we have evidence that the Romans penetrated to the far north of Scotland.


In the same way we can accept some things Paul says, but put other things down to imagination. The same applies to Matthew when he talks of corpses walking to Jerusalem. The task then is what to accept, and what will be the basis of that acceptance.