Who wrote the Gospels?

[lucasdwi]

I have heard some people say that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. What do you guys think about that? Thanks.

 

[mondar]

The idea was common at one time that John could not have written his gospel. The material was seen as an apologetic against gnosticism and therefore written 300AD or later.

Then came the broadmere papyri. Fragments of the gospel of John appeared in the papyri as early as 125AD. Suddenly the late date liberals had to do some fast backpedaling.

Since the discovery of the papyri, scholarship has taken a different twist with the dating of many of the gospels. However, even with such excellent 2nd century evidence, the idea of the late date, and the impossibility of apostolic authorship persists. There are now ten or twelve 2nd century witnesses to different parts of the NT. If the gospel of John was penned by John at about 95AD, and the date for 125AD is correct, then we have a copy of John copied very close to the date of the autograph.

There will always be extreme, hard core skeptics who challenge anything and everything about the bible. Modern day extremists are men like Bart Erhman who say that we lost the NT in scribal copying.

I guess there will also always be people like me that believe we have the autographs. The problem is that there are variants. Variants happen with any written form except for the photocopier. There is disagreement as to which variant is the actual original reading. The vast majority of variants involve small matters of spelling. I studied an internet copy of P75 one time to see what a variant looked like. It involved one letter. On line 4 of the manuscript, either a letter was deleted or a letter was added. Either way it was read, the same basic theology came from the context.

The fact that we have ten or twelve 2nd century witnesses makes it hard to believe extreme skeptics that the NT is lost, or that there is evidence that it was not written by the apostles.

 

[lucasdwi]

Thanks for the reply, I guess I was not explicit it what I meant. How do we know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Were these names not applied by Irenaeus for the first time in the second century, decades after they were written?

 

[Free]

I don't think there is any substantial reason to not believe they were written by other people. If these names were first applied by Irenaeus it may be the case that he was just putting the names on that were already accepted by the Christian community at large. It certainly doesn't have any bearing on what is written in them if it was other authors.

 

[Paidion]

There is a current view among even evangelical types, that Lazarus, the one whom Jesus raised from the dead, was the author of the gospel of John. Proponents of this view say that Lazarus was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (mentioned in the gospel of John).

Here is a discussion of the matter on another Christian forum:

The Raising of Lazarus

 

[mondar]

Thanks for the reply, I guess I was not explicit it what I meant. How do we know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Were these names not applied by Irenaeus for the first time in the second century, decades after they were written?

I dont know much about this. I have seen photocopies of papyri of the Gospel of John with the title "Gospel of John" before the text begins. Would you like a url with some of these papyri? I have it on my home computer.

Since this is true, I dont see the purpose looking at any claims Iraneaus began this tradition. The papyri predate Iraneaus.

 

[lucasdwi]

I have seen photocopies of papyri of the Gospel of John with the title "Gospel of John" before the text begins. Would you like a url with some of these papyri? I have it on my home computer.

Yes please, I would very much like to look at them.

It certainly doesn't have any bearing on what is written in them if it was other authors.

I might disagree with this point. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke was actually written by a women. Although I can understand the idea that, to make an analogy, it does not matter if Socrates or even Shakespeare existed, what matters are the words that we know exist. Is this what you were saying?

 

[Vic C.]

There is a current view among even evangelical types, that Nicodemus, the one whom Jesus raised from the dead, was the author of the gospel of John. Proponents of this view say that Nicodemus was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (mentioned in the gospel of John).

Here is a discussion of the matter on another Christian forum:

The Raising of Lazarus

Hi Paidion, twice you mentioned Nicodemus, once as the possible author. Is this a typo and did you mean Lazarus?

 

[lucasdwi]

Hi Paidion, twice you mentioned Nicodemus, once as the possible author. Is this a typo and did you mean Lazarus?

Not to put words into Paidion's mouth, but I believe, after looking over the link in the post, that yes it was a typo and that Lazarus is a potential author.

 

[Vic C.]

I agree, but I always like to hear it from the poster. :yes

 

[francisdesales]

Thanks for the reply, I guess I was not explicit it what I meant. How do we know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Were these names not applied by Irenaeus for the first time in the second century, decades after they were written?

I dont know much about this. I have seen photocopies of papyri of the Gospel of John with the title "Gospel of John" before the text begins. Would you like a url with some of these papyri? I have it on my home computer.

Since this is true, I dont see the purpose looking at any claims Iraneaus began this tradition. The papyri predate Iraneaus.

There is no "autograph" labeled "Gospel of John" before Irenaeus' time!

All we have from before Irenaeus' time (c. 180 AD) is bits and pieces of Gospel writings, none of which are "autographs", but copies. The names of the authors were not part of the original writing, but are forms of tradition handed down by the Christian community. The author is not part of inspired writing.

One should not find this "tradition" offensive. To be honest, it doesn't really matter who wrote "the Gospel according to Matthew"... what matters now is that the Christian community, the Church, accepts this writing as inspired by God. The author's name is not part of the Word of God.

Regards

 

[Paidion]

Hi Paidion, twice you mentioned Nicodemus, once as the possible author. Is this a typo and did you mean Lazarus?

Thanks, Vic. I had a senior moment. Being 71, I can excuse myself in that way! I have corrected that error in the post.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Paidion, twice you mentioned Nicodemus, once as the possible author. Is this a typo and did you mean Lazarus?

Thanks, Vic. I had a senior moment. Being 71, I can excuse myself in that way! I have corrected that error in the post.

Absolutely not problem at all. 52 here and concentration is something to not take for granted. I now have to concentrate on concentrating. :biglaugh

 

[lucasdwi]

The author's name is not part of the Word of God.

I was under the impression that if it is in the Bible, and the Bible is the infallible, authoritative, and inspired Word of God, then it is part of the Word of God. Could you clarify please?

 

[Free]

It certainly doesn't have any bearing on what is written in them if it was other authors.

I might disagree with this point. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke was actually written by a women. Although I can understand the idea that, to make an analogy, it does not matter if Socrates or even Shakespeare existed, what matters are the words that we know exist. Is this what you were saying?

Yes, that is what I am saying. It really doesn't matter who wrote the gospels. What matters is what is contained in them and that someone did actually write them.

I highly doubt a woman wrote any of the gospels and whomever wrote the Gospel of Luke very likely wrote Acts. And Paul does mention a Luke who was traveling with him.

 

[mondar]

Thanks for the reply, I guess I was not explicit it what I meant. How do we know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Were these names not applied by Irenaeus for the first time in the second century, decades after they were written?

I dont know much about this. I have seen photocopies of papyri of the Gospel of John with the title "Gospel of John" before the text begins. Would you like a url with some of these papyri? I have it on my home computer.

Since this is true, I dont see the purpose looking at any claims Iraneaus began this tradition. The papyri predate Iraneaus.

There is no "autograph" labeled "Gospel of John" before Irenaeus' time!

All we have from before Irenaeus' time (c. 180 AD) is bits and pieces of Gospel writings, none of which are "autographs", but copies.

The names of the authors were not part of the original writing, but are forms of tradition handed down by the Christian community. The author is not part of inspired writing.

One should not find this "tradition" offensive. To be honest, it doesn't really matter who wrote "the Gospel according to Matthew"... what matters now is that the Christian community, the Church, accepts this writing as inspired by God. The author's name is not part of the Word of God.

Regards

LOL, I did not recognize this for what it was. It is yet another clandistine thread where Romanists are baiting anyone they can. I bit and did not see it. Now I know that all you can write about is your beloved Lord and Master in Rome and recognize this for what it is. It did not cross my mind that lucasldi was Roman Catholic. I assumed he was writing bonefide thoughts and questions. If I am wrong in my assumptions, I apologize to lucasldi for my assumptions.

You state that the only thing that "matters" is your beloved "Christian Community." I know you mean Rome. Nothing else matters to you, not even who wrote the Gospels. Well of course I disagree. It is the Word of God that will judge the Church, and not the Christian community having authority over the word of God.

Furthermore, no one said we have the autographs. You did not read what I wrote correctly. You rushed too fast to make a confrontation again without reading what was said.

Too all other readers,
Here is a url and photograph of a fragment of p52. The date on this fragment was 125-150AD.
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html
Remember, Iraneaus was not yet born at this time. I mistakenly called this the "broadmere" papyri. It is actually the John Rylands fragment. The exciting thing about that fragment is that it was written about 35-60 years after John wrote the autograph.

The Broadmere papyri was made about the same time as Iraneaus lived. Here is P 75 written about 175-225AD. http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html
For those of you who cannot read Greek, the space between texts says "gospel according to Luke" and then "Gospel according to John." This was obviously the scribal practice at the same time as Iraneaus.

It is obvious that if a scribe added the words "According to John," the source of that practice is not Iraneaus. Just think about it... for 100 years there is copying going on and no one knows who wrote the autograph? The after a century Iraneaus scratches his bald head...and says "oh, this is from John" and "I think Matthew wrote this." No, of course not, scribes knew what they were copying.

When did this tradition of naming the authors start?
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles....
Now I dont know exactly which epistles Peter was referring to, but Peter had read certain Epistles and attributed them to Paul. He did not have to wait 150 years for Iraneaus to say "This one was from Paul." Peter already knew that in the first century.

I want to mention to the OPs that when I first wrote on this thread, I did not recognize it for what it was. This will be my last post in this thread. However, according to the rules, we are allowed to go to the 1 on 1 debate section. I will be happy to continue there if anyone wants.

 

[wavy]

No one knows who wrote the gospels. Point blank.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Free]

That is quite the over-reaction mondar.

Furthermore, no one said we have the autographs. You did not read what I wrote correctly. You rushed too fast to make a confrontation again without reading what was said.

I guess there will also always be people like me that believe we have the autographs.

 

[mondar]

No one knows who wrote the gospels. Point blank.

Thanks,
Eric

Yeah we do.

 

[mondar]

That is quite the over-reaction mondar.

Furthermore, no one said we have the autographs. You did not read what I wrote correctly. You rushed too fast to make a confrontation again without reading what was said.

I guess there will also always be people like me that believe we have the autographs.

No, it was not overreaction. I may not have expressed myself very well, but if you read that entire paragraph more closely you can see what I was saying.

I guess there will also always be people like me that believe we have the autographs. The problem is that there are variants. Variants happen with any written form except for the photocopier. There is disagreement as to which variant is the actual original reading. The vast majority of variants involve small matters of spelling. I studied an internet copy of P75 one time to see what a variant looked like. It involved one letter. On line 4 of the manuscript, either a letter was deleted or a letter was added. Either way it was read, the same basic theology came from the context.

Notice what I highlighted in red. I was not saying we have the original autographs, but that we have the autographs contained somewhere in the variants.