Who wrote the Gospels?

[lucasdwi]

I highly doubt a woman wrote any of the gospels and whomever wrote the Gospel of Luke very likely wrote Acts.

What about the sudden interest and attention that is paid towards women in the Gospel of Luke? Whoever wrote it told the story such that it was the women who understood, and had faith. The Gospel relates to women more; Mary knows about Jesus not Joseph, women find the tomb empty but don't just run in fear,etc.

 

[Free]

I highly doubt a woman wrote any of the gospels and whomever wrote the Gospel of Luke very likely wrote Acts.

What about the sudden interest and attention that is paid towards women in the Gospel of Luke? Whoever wrote it told the story such that it was the women who understood, and had faith. The Gospel relates to women more; Mary knows about Jesus not Joseph, women find the tomb empty but don't just run in fear,etc.

There is no sudden interest in women. Throughout the gospels women are placed higher than they were in society in general. The fact that women are recorded as finding the tomb, for instance, just adds to the likelihood that the story is true since a woman's testimony was next to worthless. But that in no way means that a woman wrote the text.

 

[lucasdwi]

There is no sudden interest in women.

I am not saying that throughout the Gospel of Luke that the evidence towards a feminine authorship is that women are placed higher in society. What I meant to say, perhaps I was not clear enough, was the throughout the Gospel of Luke there is more intensity towards concern for women and placement throughout the gospel, e.g.
1. the angelic annunciation of Jesus' conception was made towards Mary (Luke 1:31) rather than to Joseph (Matt. 1:20),
2. Luke uses the Greek word for "women" 11 times while the other three gospels use it 8 times in totality,
3. only Luke gives the famous lines that rejoice pregnancy: "My soul doth magnify the Lord" (1:42) and "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (1:42),
4. only Luke implies that Jesus' female intimates outnumbered his male (8:2),
5. implied that women financed the Twelve (8:3),
6. the only NT author to insist that women were the first to believe and preach the resurrection faith while male disciple refused to believe (24:10-11),
praises women who "spoke up" to men (1:60) and questioned an angel (1:34),
7. Luke is the only author to have interest in Mary's inner life (2:18, 34, 51)
8. and Luke gives us the largest female cast of the New Testament.

 

[Paidion]

I think it does matter who wrote them. If one of the gnostic gospels had "made" it into the Bible, would you accept it as "the infallible word of God" just because early Catholic church leaders in the fourth century and later, decided that it belonged to "the canon of Scripture"?

 

[lucasdwi]

If one of the gnostic gospels had "made" it into the Bible, would you accept it as "the infallible word of God" just because early Catholic church leaders in the fourth century and later, decided that it belonged to "the canon of Scripture"?

No, I would question why the early Catholic church leaders added it as I would do, and do, to any text considered to be the infallible world of God (that is quite a claim to through around).

I think it does matter who wrote them.

Why not? If the Bilbe, the infallible, authoritative, and inspire word of God, says that the book was written by John, but was really written by a women not named John, then we would have to reconsider calling it infallible.

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.

But it does matter when we claim that the Bible is infallible, if the author is not who the Bible says they are, is it still infallible?

 

[Free]

But it does matter when we claim that the Bible is infallible, if the author is not who the Bible says they are, is it still infallible?

Of course it would still be infallible. It is the content that is important, not who wrote it down.

 

[lucasdwi]

Of course it would still be infallible. It is the content that is important, not who wrote it down.

I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to say; infallible, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, means "incapable of error", if the Bible says that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, but it was really written by somebody else then there is, what I would call, and error, which contradicts the infallibility of the Bible.

 

[Free]

I fully understand what you are saying but I think that you do not quite understand what it means when theologians say the Bible is infallible. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

The Scriptures are infallible in a fourfold sense: (1) the word of God infallibly achieves its end; (2) it gives us reliable testimony to the saving revelation and redemption of God in Christ; (3) it provides us with an authoritative norm of faith and conduct; and (4) there speaks through it the infallible Spirit of God by whom it is given. (p 606)

 

[wavy]

No one knows who wrote the gospels. Point blank.

Thanks,
Eric

Yeah we do.

Oh really? LOL, on whose 'we' authority?

Thanks,
Eric

 

[lucasdwi]

The Scriptures are infallible in a fourfold sense: (1) the word of God infallibly achieves its end; (2) it gives us reliable testimony to the saving revelation and redemption of God in Christ; (3) it provides us with an authoritative norm of faith and conduct; and (4) there speaks through it the infallible Spirit of God by whom it is given. (p 606)

For one thing "infallible" is used in their definition to describe God and the Holy Spirit, if the Bible is the inspired word of God then why could it be wrong if God is infallible?

 

[wavy]

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

And that's simply false, a Christian folktale not supported in textual criticism. I recall dispelling this myth in our last correspondence here.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

The fact that women are recorded as finding the tomb, for instance, just adds to the likelihood that the story is true since a woman's testimony was next to worthless.

Not if, as I would contend, the story is a legend engendered by Mark in the writing of his gospel and transported via oral tradition to the other gospels, and if Mark was written to a gentile audience (Rome, perhaps).


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

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

And that's simply false, a Christian folktale not supported in textual criticism. I recall dispelling this myth in our last correspondence here.


Thanks,
Eric

Quite grandiose claims you make with no evidence. You cannot prove the corruption of the scriptures by claiming that maybe somewhere sometime a scribe made a textual emendation. I remember you mention the ending of Mark. Several major translations make not of the fact that the older text do not include the longer ending. So then there are older text that do not have the textual emendation. We still then can choose from existent manuscripts and claim we have the original reading.

 

[wavy]

Quite grandiose claims you make with no evidence. You cannot prove the corruption of the scriptures by claiming that maybe somewhere sometime a scribe made a textual emendation. I remember you mention the ending of Mark. Several major translations make not of the fact that the older text do not include the longer ending. So then there are older text that do not have the textual emendation. We still then can choose from existent manuscripts and claim we have the original reading.

I think you need to review that thread again and the authorities I cited. Did you even click it? The ending of Mark has nothing to do with this. This is not about any claim on my behalf of the corruption of the scriptures, this is about your claim that we can reconstruct the autographs. And that claim is false.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Paidion]

I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to say; infallible, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, means "incapable of error", if the Bible says that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, but it was really written by somebody else then there is, what I would call, and error, which contradicts the infallibility of the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke. The title "Gospel of Luke" was added to the Bible, based on the tradition that Luke wrote it. There is no internal evidence that Luke wrote it.

The position which many Christians take, that the Bible is infallible, is usually stated something like this:

The original manuscripts of the Bible which written by its authors, contain no errors of an kind.

 

[lucasdwi]

The original manuscripts of the Bible which written by its authors, contain no errors of an kind.

Was it the original manuscripts or the oral traditions, because there would be a difference between the two.
Do we have the original manuscripts?
If not then how do we know what was on them and where the changes, like claim to authorship, were?

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Jeez, you are a paranoid person, aren't you...

Apparently, everything I write MUST be a "Romanist propaganda" piece and I no doubt have a direct mind-meld with my "Lord and Master in Rome"...

I came to the Church AFTER doing the research on such things as this thread topic. I apologize if my conclusions happen to match Rome's claims that I did not initially trust...

As you previously said, you don't know much about this subject. You don't. I corrected you. But since a Catholic corrected you, I see your usual "tactics" must turn it into an appeal to whining or whatever logical fallacy you prefer to call this lame attempt to cover the FACT that you don't know what you are talking about and this subject has little to do with the me being Catholic.

Rather than attack the messenger, perhaps you might consider your argument?

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.

Another mindless rant.

If you supposedly "know" me, you would also know that I include other Christians as part of the Church, as does the Catholic Church. We don't exclude people such as yourself who can only find room to complain about Catholics who refute you. I have on numerous opportunities expressed that Christians who are not Catholic are also part of the Church. However, you prefer to instill dissent within the Church with your accusations.

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 certainly did read what you wrote, but you just don’t remember. In your rush to kill the messenger, you will say anything to confront reality…

“I guess there will also always be people like me that believe we have the autographs.†Friday, July 10, posted 3:28 AM.

Your argument also verifies this fallacy by your idea that you think that “the Gospel according to John†is written on the actual autographs, citing some papyrus…

It appears to me you are whistling a different tune by denying what you wrote and blaming me for pointing out you were wrong…

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.

No, it doesn’t say “Gospel according to Johnâ€Â…!!!

It contains the words FOUND in the Gospel that was later CALLED “the Gospel according to Johnâ€Â.

Here is what the Rylands fragment says, to include reconstruction, so what I am pasting is MORE than what we actually have…


Therefore Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Judeans said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." This was to fulfill the word which Jesus had spoken to show by what death he would die. Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the king of the Judeans?"

I don’t see anything that says “Gospel according to John†written here. Simple as that.

We believe that “John†wrote this because the Church told us. Not because we have an autograph or a signed copy by John. We rely on the witness of the first Christians.

 

[francisdesales]

The original manuscripts of the Bible which written by its authors, contain no errors of an kind.

Was it the original manuscripts or the oral traditions, because there would be a difference between the two.
Do we have the original manuscripts?
If not then how do we know what was on them and where the changes, like claim to authorship, were?

We have faith that the first Christians accurately passed on the traditions, both written and in oral form, to the next generation of Christians.

Remember, we are talking about a way of life, a life that calls for a total transformation in the face of "cultural norms". These people took very seriously what they had received, believing truly it was from God. If we believe that, we can rest assured that the first Christians related accurately what they had been taught - naturally, they would want to give this doctrine untainted to the next generation, since they were solemnly tasked to do just that.

In addition, they claimed that the Holy Spirit was guiding this body of believers, the Church. When we accept that, it becomes clear that we have the Word of God - and believe that based on faith.

Regards

 

[lucasdwi]

Remember, we are talking about a way of life, a life that calls for a total transformation in the face of "cultural norms". These people took very seriously what they had received, believing truly it was from God. If we believe that, we can rest assured that the first Christians related accurately what they had been taught - naturally, they would want to give this doctrine untainted to the next generation, since they were solemnly tasked to do just that.

I am not doubting the belief that these people had, what I am doubting is the infallibility of what is written. We have variations of the texts, people will make mistakes, so I can not see how we can assign such a concrete adjective to the Bible.

 

[Mark62]

My, my a few people getting a bit hot under the collar here.

Luke: while the actual author of the gospel isnt mentioned in the text itself other evidence supports Luke as the most likely author.

Luke & Acts are companion writings carrying the same tone, language and structure which inidcate common authorship. The fact that Acts moves to the pronoun "we" from Chaper 16 indicates that the author is actually travelling with Paul. This would narrow the field considerably.

According to my NIV study bible, Luke's authorship is supported by uniform early testimony of Christian writings such as Muratorian Canon (170AD) & Irenaeus. (180AD)

The proposition regarding female authorship and the subsequent responseson here remind me of Monty Python's Life of Brian. :rolling

John: This is regarded as an eyewitness account and to place it any later 66AD could be questionable. The author's descriptions reek of eyewitness accounts in some detailed descriptions. It is interesting to note the statement of present fact in verse 5:2 regarding the pool near the Sheep gate. Following the the Jewish Wars of 66-70AD this was not in existancen as the temple was destroyed.

If anyone is really interested in looking at the historical veracity of the Gospels and the NT a small and very good book called "Is the New Testament History" by Paul Barnett. This is available through Matthias Media (check website). This book was critical to my becoming a Christian at 29. The author was Anglican Bishop of North Sydney from 1990 to 2001 and some brief info on him at this press release:

http://www.mq.edu.au/rmc/Documents/Paul ... elease.pdf