Toto

We seem to have cross posted. I don't recall Witherington's position on the authorship of the Gospels. I'm only familiar with his unfortunate involvement in the James Ossuary to-do and with his defense of the Book of Acts.

And what's this insider/outsider language? How can we communicate?

hatsoff

Not so. First of all, the author of GJohn implies he is John, and claims eyewitness status. Second, those who reject Matthean authorship usually reject Pauline authorship for the Pastorals. You'd be hard pressed to find any Christian scholar who rejects Matthean authorship yet affirms inerrancy. *Very* hard pressed.

jgibson000

Easily if it is testamentary literature. In any case, you are equivocating on the term "authenticity".

The Gospels are anyonmous. There is nothing within any of them about who penned them. So the foundation of the idea that the authors lied about who they were is simply not there.

I suggest you read the discussion on Pseudepigraphy by R.J. Bauckham in his commentary on 2 Peter and Jude. Your fundamental premise that NT authors were pulling a fast one on their readers doesn't stand up to scrutiny since the readers of that work, well aquainted with psedipgraphical OT works and the qenre of testamentary literature never presumed that the writer of the work was the actual historical figure whose name was being used for the name of a work's author/sender.


One sentence in particular bears quoting:

"The pseudepigraphal device is therefore not a fraudulent means of claiming apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of the apostolic message. Recognizing the canonicity of 2 Peter means recognizing the validity of that claim, and it is not clear that this is so alien to the early church’s criteria of canonicity as is sometimes alleged."

"Seems" is the operative word since his example is bogus..

Better tell that to D.J. Moo and to Gary Burge.

And your evidence for such a claim is what?

Jeffrey Gibson

patchy

The first post in this thread has everything you'll ever need to debunk this silly "eyewitness" foolishness that continues to crop up.

WishboneDawn

Tomboymom - Do you have this link in your bookmarks - religioustolerance.org?

Here's their page on the gospels, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#mark

I've found that site really useful when debating conservative christians and looking for links, resources and quick information on different things regarding christianity and the bible. Sort of the talkorigins of theology for the liberal christian crowd.

gagundathar

Doesn't the author of 'Luke' describe the narrative as being handed down to him by those who were eye-witnesses of the events chronicled therein?

Seems a bit obvious to actually say that out loud, but I don't think anyone else has caught that one yet.

Toto

Never? How do we know this?

Is the reference to Word Biblical Themes: Jude, 2 Peter (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Word Biblical Themes) by Richard J. Bauckham

or more likely

Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50, 2 Peter, Jude (bauckham) (or via: amazon.co.uk) (searchable - search for pseudepigraphy, page 161-2)

hatsoff

The author of Ephesians says he is Paul. At the very least, that is an untruth, and if one accepts it as such, how can that one go on to accept inerrancy?

How so?

First of all, that's not true (the author of GJohn is a self-proclaimed eyewitness). Second, that the first three Gospels are anonymous really isn't the point. The Apostolic traditions are closely tied to inerrancy doctrines.

Testamentary literature is quite different from Pauline pseudepigraphy. Take the apocryphal Gospels, for example. Gnostics forged Apostolic ascription, and in response folks like Irenaeus and Clement wrote against such lies.

Again, though, that's really sidestepping the issue. Inerrancy does not usually make allowances for pseudepigraphy. Though it may be technically possible to, say, reject Matthean authorship of GMatt yet still accept Biblical inerrancy, it rarely seems to happen.

If his example is bogus (and with the facts I've seen so far it very well might be), you have not shown it to be so.

I'm not sure about Gary Burge, but unless my memory is failing Moo affirmed the Matthean tradition in his Introduction to the NT.

What claim? I'm simply saying that if a Christian university hires only those who accept inerrancy, what difference does it make whether or not it's an official requirement?

Padre Bear

I agree it makes it hard to communicate. But language often shaped by ingroup theological wrestling is often lost to outgroup readers. Inerrant and infallible mean vastly differnet things to those within theological framework of the church but are often seen a synonyms to those outside.

TomboyMom

danke schoen! Here's what I came up with, thanks to all of you:

1. There are two questions: (1) Who wrote the gospels? (2) Were any of the authors of the gospels, whether the traditionally attributed ones or not, eye-witnesses? I said that the majority of scholars believe that none of the authors were eye-witnesses. You said they were written by the traditionally attributed authors. Two different things.

2. Perhaps you find those authors who agree with you worth reading? I didn't say anything about the credibility of the authors, merely that the majority of mainstream scholarship believes that no gospel was written by an eye-witness, and I stand by that statement with confidence. That would include people such as Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Bruce Metzger, virtually every non-Christian scholar, and the majority of Christian scholars. Perhaps you would be willing to name that scholarship worth reading that asserts to the contrary, and tell us why you find it worth reading? I believe that only the more conservative, even fundamentalist authors, would continue to maintain both that the gospels were authored by the traditional names, and that those "apostles" were eye-witnesses.

None of the gospels name their authors, and none of them claim to be eye-witness accounts. (The closest would be John, but the mainstream view is that the passage seeming to claim anything like self-identification, 21:24, is a later redaction.) The attributions that we have today come from 2d century church tradition.

The grossly predominant view is that the first gospel written is Mark, around 65-80 C.E I hope you will agree with this? Neither Mark nor church tradition name Mark as an eye-witness. Tradition from Eusebius quoting Papias is that he was a secretary to the apostle Peter. However, Mark himself does not say this.

Most scholars believe that Mathew and Luke were written after Mark and based on Mark, as well as Q, if any. Although church tradition says that Mathew was a witness, the strongest argument against this is that he copies extensively from Mark, which would be odd and unnecessary for a witness.

Luke is thought to be written later, at least 90 C.E., so it strains credulity that its author would have been alive and observant during Jesus' life. Further, Luke is also based on Mark and Q. Luke is supposed to have been a companion of Paul, whom we agree never met Jesus. That is, even church tradition does not describe him as a witness.

By tradition from Iraneus in the 2d century, the author of John is identified with the "beloved disciple" John. However, the prevailing view is that it was written 100 C.E. or later, so that is impossible.