Who wrote the Gospels?

[francisdesales]

double post...

 

[francisdesales]

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)

I agree. Internally, the author is not named, only externally by the Church do we know who wrote Acts or Luke. My point was to disagree with the silly notion that we have the actual autographs with the author's name on the original Gospel writing. We clearly have neither. Nor did I appreciate the appeal to whining because I am Catholic by another poster, as you can no doubt understand. We ALL depend upon tradition to know the authors of the Gospels, just as we rely on "tradition" in many other historically relevant subjects. To resist is a futile attempt to raise the Bible to some status it does not possess - self-authentication as the Word of God.

To those who are consistent in historical matters, this is not an issue.

Regards

 

[lucasdwi]

We ALL depend upon tradition to know the authors of the Gospels, just as we rely on "tradition" in many other historically relevant subjects.

So that we are all on the same page, would you mind giving some examples?

 

[francisdesales]

We ALL depend upon tradition to know the authors of the Gospels, just as we rely on "tradition" in many other historically relevant subjects.

So that we are all on the same page, would you mind giving some examples?

I was a student of military history.

Did you know we do not have ANY autographs, or even copies, of a historian who wrote while alive during Alexander the Great's time? Yet, we accept the general idea of how the battle of Granicus or Arbela was fought, disposition of troops, etc... All the information we have on Alexander is based on second-hand writings of historians who took data from other historians from whom we no longer have extent writings.

As far as textual reliability, the Bible is far more secure than the history of Alexander... Yet, we accept the "relevant historical data" of Alexander on most subjects.

Of course, this begs the question why someone subjects the Bible to far more rigorous standards than Alexander...

Regards

 

[Mark62]

I was a student of military history.

Did you know we do not have ANY autographs, or even copies, of a historian who wrote while alive during Alexander the Great's time? Yet, we accept the general idea of how the battle of Granicus or Arbela was fought, disposition of troops, etc... All the information we have on Alexander is based on second-hand writings of historians who took data from other historians from whom we no longer have extent writings.

As far as textual reliability, the Bible is far more secure than the history of Alexander... Yet, we accept the "relevant historical data" of Alexander on most subjects.

Of course, this begs the question why someone subjects the Bible to far more rigorous standards than Alexander...

Regards

Well done!! Alexander's nearest biographer was sme 270-300 years after his death and yet it is accepted as fact.

The Gospels aren't necessarily histories as such and need to be read on their terms on not anyone elses. I thion the biggest problem is that the Gospels make some important claims about Jeus which no other historical documents make. Hence there are those who try to impose even stricter historical tests than they might otherwise impose.

Parts of the Gospels have been supported through archeological evidence, and external non-Christian sources such as Tacitus & Josephus.

 

[francisdesales]

The Gospels aren't necessarily histories as such and need to be read on their terms on not anyone elses. I thion the biggest problem is that the Gospels make some important claims about Jeus which no other historical documents make. Hence there are those who try to impose even stricter historical tests than they might otherwise impose.

A person CAN approach the bible as merely an historical work initially. That is what I did. A person certainly can try to come to read it without the presuppositions that it is from God and analyze it as an historical work, first. The Gospels are indeed narratives of the life of Christ. Not complete histories, and the authors did have theological intent, not just historical. However, from my own historical studies, I have come to learn, from Aristotle, I believe, that we are to take a historian's word UNLESS we find other evidence of contrary. Naturally, the Bible can be placed into this category - and we find pretty good support for its veracity.

Now, the miracles... It would seem strange to me to trust everything the authors wrote BUT the miracles, knowing that these writings are quite reliable on other subjects. Given the moral background of these men, the total committment they made without earthly gain, even onto death, it would seem out of charecter that they would be untrustworthy on that subject, especially, since it was what they based their OWN beliefs upon. Peter would have went back to being a fisherman after Christ's death, for example, not a man who would preach to the world and die a martyr's death. While I do not fully understand these miraculous dealings in the Bible, I accept the author's relating them as is...

Parts of the Gospels have been supported through archeological evidence, and external non-Christian sources such as Tacitus & Josephus.

Agree, which is why we can take the Bible as merely historical works first and later conclude that the claims inside are worth believing and trusting.

Regards

 

[wavy]

However, from my own historical studies, I have come to learn, from Aristotle, I believe, that we are to take a historian's word UNLESS we find other evidence of contrary.

That of course depends on whether the gospels are genuine histories.

Now, the miracles... It would seem strange to me to trust everything the authors wrote BUT the miracles, knowing that these writings are quite reliable on other subjects. Given the moral background of these men, the total committment they made without earthly gain, even onto death, it would seem out of charecter that they would be untrustworthy on that subject, especially, since it was what they based their OWN beliefs upon. Peter would have went back to being a fisherman after Christ's death, for example, not a man who would preach to the world and die a martyr's death. While I do not fully understand these miraculous dealings in the Bible, I accept the author's relating them as is...

1. Miracle stories insofar as they are a common phenomenon in many genres involved in religion tend to be false, misunderstood, etc., and in the case of the gospels are quite easily explained as legendary developments.

2. We don't know the 'moral background' of the apostles at all.

3. It is doubtful the apostles wrote the gospels.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

However, from my own historical studies, I have come to learn, from Aristotle, I believe, that we are to take a historian's word UNLESS we find other evidence of contrary.

That of course depends on whether the gospels are genuine histories.

There is no legitimate external historical evidence to point to that conclusion. Only philosophical denial accepts such a conclusion, wavy. Historically speaking, the gospels are legitimate works, despite being subjected to a very strict (more so than other historical pieces) level.

1. Miracle stories insofar as they are a common phenomenon in many genres involved in religion tend to be false, misunderstood, etc., and in the case of the gospels are quite easily explained as legendary developments.

As you say, many genres of literature are myth and legend and do not INTEND to give historical truth. The gospels are not mythical genre. They are clearly narratives. They are based upon eye-witness accounts that could have easily been verified or disproven as false. Myth is not historically verifiable, since they are based on "a long long time ago" where no "witnesses" are alive anymore - such as the Creation story.

2. We don't know the 'moral background' of the apostles at all.

I do. Just as I know the moral background of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Are you willing to deny the "moral background" of everyone except those you know personally??? Or do you have some preconceived bias against the apostles in particular?

3. It is doubtful the apostles wrote the gospels.

It is doubtful that that holds up to any unbiased scrutiny, given the very early tradition that they had "apostolic authorship". Their authorship was the main reason for these works being included into the canon, as numerous works were NOT included for that very reason.

I realize we have discussed this subject before, and it is unlikely that we are going to change each other's minds. But I will entertain any of your questions and explain why I believe what I believe. You may choose to accept them or not.

Regards

 

[wavy]

There is no legitimate external historical evidence to point to that conclusion. Only philosophical denial accepts such a conclusion, wavy. Historically speaking, the gospels are legitimate works, despite being subjected to a very strict (more so than other historical pieces) level.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

As you say, many genres of literature are myth and legend and do not INTEND to give historical truth. The gospels are not mythical genre. They are clearly narratives. They are based upon eye-witness accounts that could have easily been verified or disproven as false. Myth is not historically verifiable, since they are based on "a long long time ago" where no "witnesses" are alive anymore - such as the Creation story.

First of all, 'legend' and 'myth' are not equivalent, and 'narrative' does not mean 'historical'. And besides, you're begging the question. Since myths, or legends, are not purposely historiographical, what damage does that do to my view unless one already assumes the gospels are histories? None at all.

As far as being 'eyewitness accounts' easily verifiable or disprovable, you are entitled to that popular opinion as well, but it's one, I think, not supported by the evidence nor does it encase the consensus of modern scholarship.

I do. Just as I know the moral background of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Are you willing to deny the "moral background" of everyone except those you know personally??? Or do you have some preconceived bias against the apostles in particular?

No...you don't. On what criteria or against what support have you estimated the morality of the apostles?

It is doubtful that that holds up to any unbiased scrutiny, given the very early tradition that they had "apostolic authorship". Their authorship was the main reason for these works being included into the canon, as numerous works were NOT included for that very reason.

A tradition, I would say, not 'early' enough to ensure its accuracy and which I believe is controverted by other strands of evidence. And the mere belief that the gospels were written by the apostles would indeed be warrant for including them into the orthodox Christian canon, just as the belief that what are known as pseudepigrapha were written by certain apostles warranted inclusion in heretical canons, but beliefs do not by themselves reflect the alleged reality behind said beliefs.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Free]

As far as being 'eyewitness accounts' easily verifiable or disprovable, you are entitled to that popular opinion as well, but it's one, I think, not supported by the evidence nor does it encase the consensus of modern scholarship.

On the contrary, the evidence is much more favorable to the gospels being eyewitness accounts and the consensus of modern scholarship would agree. You need to quit reading so much of the liberal theologians, especially since they are a minority and therefore cannot be said to form a consensus.

 

[wavy]

On the contrary, the evidence is much more favorable to the gospels being eyewitness accounts and the consensus of modern scholarship would agree. You need to quit reading so much of the liberal theologians, especially since they are a minority and therefore cannot be said to form a consensus.

Sorry, Free, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Free]

lol! Which part?

 

[wavy]

lol! Which part?

'lol' is correct. Which part? All of it. You have no idea of the height or depth, tone, color or pitch of the material I've read, first of all. Secondly, it is the historical-critical method, sometimes referred to as biblical criticism, dominating biblical scholarship, not this or that 'theology', liberal or otherwise.

Biblical Criticism refers in the broadest sense to the use of rational judgment in understanding the bible...More narrowly, however, it refers to an approach to the study of scripture that is centrally concerned with searching for and applying neutral, i.e., scientific and nonsectarian canons of judgment in its investigation of the biblical text.

Historical Criticism ... The rise of historical criticism, which began in the 17th cent. and achieved full flower in the 19th and 20th centuries, is the major transforming fact of biblical studies in the modern period.
--R. N Soulen, R. K. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd Edition, Westminister John Knox Press, 2001, pp. 18, 79

As far as consensus on the gospels, the late Raymond Brown conveys the consensus in his middle-ground, highly approbated and standard reference work on the NT succinctly as follows: '...in all likelihood the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' life.' (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997, p. 21).

Feel free to continue, if you wish. There's more where that came from.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Nick]

That of course depends on whether the gospels are genuine histories.

There is already overwhealming historical evidence pointing to the view that the gospels did exist and are genuine. It is generally considered by most historians that the gospels are historically accurate and genuine.

 

[Free]

'lol' is correct. Which part? All of it. You have no idea of the height or depth, tone, color or pitch of the material I've read, first of all.

Ah, yes I have a slight idea. You posted it in the Book Discussion forum. ;) And from all of your posts I certainly have a better idea.

Secondly, it is the historical-critical method, sometimes referred to as biblical criticism, dominating biblical scholarship, not this or that 'theology', liberal or otherwise.

Biblical Criticism refers in the broadest sense to the use of rational judgment in understanding the bible...More narrowly, however, it refers to an approach to the study of scripture that is centrally concerned with searching for and applying neutral, i.e., scientific and nonsectarian canons of judgment in its investigation of the biblical text.

Historical Criticism ... The rise of historical criticism, which began in the 17th cent. and achieved full flower in the 19th and 20th centuries, is the major transforming fact of biblical studies in the modern period.
--R. N Soulen, R. K. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd Edition, Westminister John Knox Press, 2001, pp. 18, 79

As far as consensus on the gospels, the late Raymond Brown conveys the consensus in his middle-ground, highly approbated and standard reference work on the NT succinctly as follows: '...in all likelihood the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' life.' (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997, p. 21).

Regardless of what definitions you use, everyone, most certainly including every scholar, brings preconceived notions and biases to the table, and that most certainly includes liberal theology.

Feel free to continue, if you wish.

I just did. :yes

 

[Mark62]

On the contrary, the evidence is much more favorable to the gospels being eyewitness accounts and the consensus of modern scholarship would agree. You need to quit reading so much of the liberal theologians, especially since they are a minority and therefore cannot be said to form a consensus.

Sorry, Free, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks,
Eric

Wavy

A very opinionated statement young man. :naughty Are you channelling Imgacican?? :gah Rather than make such assertions about someone else's knowledge, I now give you a challenge, one that I myself undertook as a non-Christian some 18 years ago:

Read "Is the New Testament History" by Paul Barnett.

I assume you are from the USA so try obtaining the book online via email through sales@matthiasmedia.com.au

If you are honestly having trouble obtaining a copy, PM me and I will buy one for you and post it to you. Read my comments on this book in an earlier post of mine on this thread. I don't think I can get any fairer than that. I have to buy another one for myself anyway as I leant it to someone years ago and never got it back. No better way to lose a book I am thinking.

Oh and by the way, the apostles didnt write all the Gospels, Luke wasn't an apostle. All but 3 books of what we now call the the New Tetsament were known to be in existence by about 105AD.

 

[wavy]

A very opinionated statement young man.

I happen to be a very opinionated person. :D

Rather than make such assertions about someone else's knowledge, I now give you a challenge, one that I myself undertook as a non-Christian some 18 years ago:

Read "Is the New Testament History" by Paul Barnett.

I assume you are from the USA so try obtaining the book online via email through sales@matthiasmedia.com.au

If you are honestly having trouble obtaining a copy, PM me and I will buy one for you and post it to you. Read my comments on this book in an earlier post of mine on this thread. I don't think I can get any fairer than that. I have to buy another one for myself anyway as I leant it to someone years ago and never got it back. No better way to lose a book I am thinking.

Oh and by the way, the apostles didnt write all the Gospels, Luke wasn't an apostle. All but 3 books of what we now call the the New Tetsament were known to be in existence by about 105AD.

Will do. I had not heard of this book. I'll look into it.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Ah, yes I have a slight idea. You posted it in the Book Discussion forum. ;) And from all of your posts I certainly have a better idea.

I read many books and only listed three biblically-based ones that I am currently reading in that thread, none of which have anything to do with 'liberal theologians'. Reading my posts and finding them generally disagreeable is no precedent for labeling. You might consider that the reason my views routinely go against yours is because my views (unless they represent my own unique perspective occasionally, of course) are backed by the finest scholarship, integrating many angles and standpoints and enhanced by several years of intense study, and also--not to be offensive-- probably because I'm more widely read on the relevant issues than you are.

Regardless of what definitions you use, everyone, most certainly including every scholar, brings preconceived notions and biases to the table, and that most certainly includes liberal theology.

That I doubt not, but it has nothing to do with your original claim that I was addressing.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

There is no legitimate external historical evidence to point to that conclusion. Only philosophical denial accepts such a conclusion, wavy. Historically speaking, the gospels are legitimate works, despite being subjected to a very strict (more so than other historical pieces) level.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

Maybe you should try supporting yours, then, rather than just trying to wave mine away with the wavy hand...

Where is the evidence that the Bible is has no or little historical veracity?

Like I said, it is philosphical denials, not evidence, that leads one to your point. Been there, done that.

Forgive me if I choose not to address the rest of your response, it is along the same lines as above. You provide an argument, but no defense for your exact same stance regarding other, non-religious issues. Be more consistent.

Regards

 

[wavy]

Maybe you should try supporting yours, then, rather than just trying to wave mine away with the wavy hand...

Where is the evidence that the Bible is has no or little historical veracity?

Like I said, it is philosphical denials, not evidence, that leads one to your point. Been there, done that.

Forgive me if I choose not to address the rest of your response, it is along the same lines as above. You provide an argument, but no defense for your exact same stance regarding other, non-religious issues. Be more consistent.

Regards

I'd be willing to overlook this hypocrisy with respect to making bare assertions and not backing them up and provide any evidence you request in my defense. However, see red: first, properly summarize my position before we proceed.

Thanks,
Eric