Mor-Atheist

I have heard the statements many times that the Gospels are anonymously written, and that they were not written until many years after the events that supposedly took place in them.

It appears that this is presented as fact, but I have been asked "how can anyone possibly know". What has everyone seen as the best proof that this is the case? Can this be known for sure or are we just at the point where it appears that this is the case?

Doctor X

Welcome to the forums . . . two drink minimum. . . .

I will deal with the easiest:

Authorship:

All of them are annonymous. None of them give a name. Jn kind of alludes to being the "beloved disciple" but, frankly, that is hardly evidence. That his passion narrative seems to follow Mk's as a basis--and he contradicts everyone else--adds stories . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . it seems most utterly unlikely.

Dating:

Oye . . . let me throw some Straw Scholars out here . . . the majority accept Markan priority--with Mt and Lk using Mk as a source. Some have argued against it--I do not buy it personally--but check the Recommended Readings for the basics.

Since Mk is first then all follows. So when is Mk? Scholars date him at the earliest juuuusssssttttt after the fall of Jerusalem which he predicts--at least in the final form we have. This is 70 CE.

"But could he not preserve earlier material written by Junior's Personal Secretary, Fred?"

Well, the problem with that--there are many "proto" sources, and arguing "what" Mk used gets painful and remains uncertain--is that Mk makes major mistakes in geography and historical detail. With the Mad Jesus film of Mel "Anti-Semitic? Moi?" Gibson, there are a lot of threads on the historicity of the passion. The big problem is the portrayal of Judaism and the Romans, frankly. So if he was a witness--or "preserved witness material"--he was a damnably blind witness.

There are also clear "stories" or literary artifice in Mk. My favorite is the "Feeding of Like Lots of Ungrateful Bastards" stories. Junior has a rave . . . people are hungry . . . so he does the loaves 'n fishes miracle.

One page later in the RSV, the same situation comes up. The hapless disciples gawk at "what will we do?" Junior reminds them of the miracle, and demonstrates it step-by-step and wonders at their stupidity. This, along with other stories, undercuts whomever the disciples were intended to represent. It is not history.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

The best "proof" is the state of the evidence, IMO. In the late 1st century, we find Church Fathers making statements that are similar to statements made in the Gospels but are not attributed to any text or author. Actually, many of the sentiments expressed are, in the Gospels, placed in the mouth of Jesus but our Church Fathers also do not attribute them to him. At the beginning of the 2nd century we find a Church Father, Papias, mentioning two texts and connecting the names "Mark" and "Matthew" as authors. Unfortunately, he doesn't quote from either and his descriptions don't seem to match either of our current Gospels. During the 2nd century, I think we start finding quotes that match the current texts though they aren't always connected to specific authors. We have to wait until the end of the 2nd century before Irenaeus connects four texts to the four names of the current Gospels.

Mor-Atheist

Doctor,

Thanks for the welcome I have been lurking on the boards for a while, but finally got the courage up to post.

Amaleq,

Thanks to you as well!

Does anyone have any recommended reading on the topic? I guess other than the recommended reading Doctor X talked about? Actually if anyone knows of any debates (wether formal or on a certain thread) I would love to read those as well to see both sides. Thanks again!

Postcard73

Welcome Mor-Atheist, glad you decided to sign up and start posting. I don't know of anything specific to gospel authorship, but there is a lot of info about the Bible in the Chrsitianity section of the SecWeb Library. The forum search function isn't working right now, though it should be fixed when the VB upgrade is done in a couple weeks. This topic has been discussed, so once you can search, you should be able to find more info.

gregor

My personal favorite, when starting from the shallow end of the theological pool, is "Who Wrote the Gospels" by Helms. It is a popularized summarization of thinking on gospel authorship and motives. It's under 200 pages long, I think. It is not a 600 page tomb by a heavy hitter.

The sticky note at the forum entrance contains a long reading list. Last month I posted my recommended order in which some of these should be read, and I'd be happy to repost if requested.

Mormon Mike

Question: Does this mean that we "know" the gospels are "anonymously" written, or does this mean that we do not have evidence that directly conects the writings to any one Apostle or Disciple?

Doctor X

Mormon Mike:

Both, in a sense.

For the first, as stated, the Synoptics are annonymous--no statement of authorship--and Lk specifically states he is not a witness. Jn implies the work is by the "belov'd disciple." Mk, a source for Mt and Lk and probably Jn as well, does not give an "authority" for his work--"Yea did it come to me that I should record blah . . . blah . . . blah. Mt and Lk do not acknowledge their sources--Mk or Q. Mt does not give a statement of authority either. Lk implies one by stating that he is trying to give an accurate account:

There are sufficient historical and factual inaccuracies to conclude that an witness to the events did not write either the Synoptics or Jn.

--J.D.

Mormon Mike

Doctor X:

Let me preface this, I'm not at all looking to "bible bash", really just looking for info and intelligence. My Brother-in-Law informed me of this site and I have read quite a few of the threads and debates and have found it very interesting. Finally I strongly believe that just because two individuals do not think the same way on one given subject doesn't mean that they cannot learn from one another.

Could one conclude that the authors names very well could have been Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, and the early scribes and translators for KJ were simply guessing incorrectly in attributing the writings to those of the same name who were witnesses?

Doctor X

Mormon Mike:

What do you mean by "bible bash?"

Eeeeerrrr . . . I am not sure I understand your question.

To reiterate, Mt, Mk, and Lk do not identify the author in the texts. In Lk's opening, he does not give himself a name. Jn implies the author is the "belov'd disciple." In none of the extant textual witnesses I am aware of are the authors identified.

Amaleq provides a summary of how the names were attached to the texts long after their composition.

By "KJ," if you mean "King James Version" there are some links somewhere to the process of its composition. Suffice to write, it was not based on the best witnesses--many of which had not been discovered. Titles of texts were artificial. "The custom in the ancient Near Wast was to call books by their opening words. Thus the book Genesis has always been known in Hebrew as bereshit, 'In the Beginning.'" [Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible.--Ed.] Thus, "Gospel According to. . . ." is an added and artificial title.

By convenience and convention, scholars refer to the authors of the texts by these names now. We do not know who actually wrote Mark, so we might as well use the name Mk.

Anyways, by the time of the KJ translators, these texts were believed to have been written by these apostles . . . and Moses wrote the Pentateuch! Of course, at the time scholars had doubts, but that gets into the whole history of scholarship.

--J.D.