Orthodox_Freethinker

Not when all the oldest manuscripts bear the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Not when the patristic tradition is unanimously in favor of the attributed authorship.

One can imagine anything to rule out their authorship.

The claim is implicit with the internal evidence of the Gospels.

The Jesus Seminar is the radical fringe of Biblical scholarship. Their standards are unfair in assessing the reliability of the Gospels and would not be used for other ancient works. For example, they will not accept any words of Christ that sound either too Jewish or too Christian. That's rather strange considering that Jesus was a Jew and founder of the Christian religion.
One might as well rule out the words of Siddhartha Gautama for sounding either too Hindu or too Buddhist.
The members of the Jesus Seminar, if they actually agree with their own conclusions, are heretical in them.

Does that mean colleges and universities which accept and provide evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels do not utilize serious scholarship?

You've created a false dichotomy between Biblical scholarship and Christian apologetics.

Apologetics is the defense of traditional Christian doctrine in utilizing evidence and rational arguments.

Do you mean the a priori religious assumptions (metaphysical naturalism) of the Jesus Seminar?

Orthodox_Freethinker

Whether written by the beloved disciple or composed by someone to whom he personally dictated the story, the Gospel of John is based upon eye witness testimony.

Julian

:rolling:

You guys have incredible stamina, can't you sense the futility by repeating the same point over and over again to OF?

I mean, for example, he has been shown the factual evidence that all the first references were anonymous, yet he claims the first references bear the current names. He is deliberately ignoring the facts.

Julian

Orthodox_Freethinker

The epistle of James was written by a Jewish Christian, for Jewish Christians. Its content does not concern the person of Jesus but what Jesus taught.

How could James not mention Jesus despite being "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ"? (Ja 1:1)

Why would a Jew consider a dead corpse his Lord?

Orthodox_Freethinker

You've misunderstood my words. The Gospels are essentially anynomous given that their authors do not directly and openly declare themselves within the text. However, the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels bear the names attributed to them. This attribution is collaborated by the internal, though implicit, evidence of the Gospels and the unanimous testimony of the early Church.
The preponderance of evidence, though not equating to absolute proof, supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

darstec

From the NAB, Introduction to the Gospel of John Again from the same bible, Introduction to the Gospel of Luke Again from the same bible, Introduction to the Gospel of Mark Again from the same bible, Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew The Roman Catholic Church under whose authority those Introductions were written could hardly be considered a skeptic. If anything they have long held the tradition of Apostolic authorship until scholarly research no longer allowed them to hold that view tenable.

Similar things are written about the other supposed eyewitness authors you mentioned.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Whether or not it was personally composed by the evangelist, the fourth Gospel utilized John's personal eye witness testimony. The Gospel itself testifies to being based on that of an eye witness.

In order to make this claim, one must provide the prologue and explain how one arrived at this conclusion.

"Traditionally, Christians believe that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation, of Paul. This would place it as having been written before the Acts, whose date of the composition is generally fixed at about AD 63 or 64. Consequently the tradition is that this Gospel was written about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. If the alternate conjecture is correct, that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there, then it would date earlier, 40–60. Evangelical Christians tend to favor this view, in keeping with the tradition to date the gospels very early."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...of_composition

Those who insist upon a later date are no less speculative than those who accept the patristic tradition.

"Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition."
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/intro.htm

Even if Luke were written in the 80's, that would not rule out that it was written by John Mark, the disciple of Saint Paul.

I have no need for such hasty generalizations. As I've explained many times before, Matthew's purported dependence upon Mark would not rule out his own eye witness testimony. Who better to correct and expand upon Mark other than one who personally knew Jesus Christ?

In order to show the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the authorship of the Gospels, one would need to produce an official statement of the Vatican. Otherwise, all you have is the words of one of many competing Catholic Bibles, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal of Biblical scholarship.

Amaleq13

Why are you completely ignoring the point of my post and just repeating your claim?

You've made your beliefs clear but the point was that you were claiming that scholars who did not accept the text as written by an eyewitness were not "mainstream". It is quite clear from The Catholic Study Bible and The Anchor Bible Dictionary that you are incorrect.

In actual fact, it is your position that does not correspond with "mainstream scholarship" and it would be great if you would stop claiming otherwise since it is so clearly false.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Something which you have ignored is that if John did not personally compose the fourth Gospel, that would not rule out it being based on his own testimony. The most plausible explanation is that it was based on the beloved disciple's eye witness.
Furthermore, you've also ignored that The Catholic Study Bible, one of many competing Catholic Bibles, does not equate to the official statement of the Vatican.

guy_683930

Or how about the gospel of Peter? It existed with as much probability in the 1st century as Matthew did. In fact, it agrees closer with 1 Peter on Jesus' resurrection body:

1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;"

1 Peter has a spiritual resurrection in mind!