my dog earl

I was at another thread and the topic of authorship came up.

Who was the "John" Revelation was refering to?

Also the names of other books of the Bible like...who were Mathew, Mark, Luke, and this other John? My fundy friend thought they were some of the apostles.....I argued they weren't.

What got any of these books into the Bible in the first place?

Rational BAC

There are a lot of answers to that on BC&H but it is very scholarly.

If you get the History channel ---they are supposed to have "Who Wrote the Bible?" on tonight. I find the History Channel to be easy history---probably a little shallow for true history scholars but good enough for laymen like me.

Unfortunately they have it running during the Super Bowl. (Lord knows why?)-------but it will be repeated later on tonight after the Super Bowl so works for me.

Postcard73

Hey there MDE. Thanks to your Lounge thread I know you are looking for basic answers as opposed to deep, complex scholarship. I am going to move this thread to BC&H- hopefully the folks there will keep it simple...

Scott (Postcard73)
GRD Moderator

Marduk

I saw the History Channel show about Revelation with Avery Brooks: The John of Revelation is believed to be an early Chrsitian Church leader in Turkey, not the same John of Gospel fame. The writing style is different enough that it is not believed to be the same guy.

atheist

My parents have an NIV Study Bible that includes the NIV Concordance. While I can't remember the specifics, I do recall that it discussed the authorship of each book in the bible (OT and NT). Anyway, I'm not sure what kind of value it holds, other than to theological historians, but it is a one source of information on the subject. You'd at least be able to get a 'theologians view' of who may have written parts of the bible.

Toto

That's the fun part - no one really knows who wrote them.

The Revelation to John or the Apocalypse of John starts This John is generally thought to be John of Patmos, not to be confused with the John of the 4th gospel or John the son of Zebedee mentioned in the gospels as a disciple of Jesus. But it's not clear.

As for the gospels - none of them list their authors - all were written anonymously, perhaps by more than one writer or editor. The names were attached at a later period. It appears that Christians tried to connect these gospels to eyewitnesses to Jesus, to give them some legitimacy, but the case for this is very shakey.

The Gospel of Mark was ascribed to a certain Mark who was a follower of Peter, based on a statement by Papias (an early church father quoted by the historial Eusebius) that Mark wrote down what St. Peter told him. However, the document that Papias described seems to have little in common with the gospel according to Mark.

The Gospel of Matthew was ascribed to Matthew, a disciple, but it seems highly unlikely that a dsiciple of Jesus wrote it, since most of the material is cribbed from Mark.

The Gospel of Luke was ascribed to a physician Luke who accompanied Paul and is mentioned in his letters, based on some convoluted reasoning.

The Gospel of John is ascribed to John the son of Zebedee, but this seems unlikely.

As to how they all got into the Bible, read The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Rational BAC

Actually to be repeated at midnight-------I plan on taping it. Because I don't want to stay up that late.

Checked the TV Guide ---not repeated again at all this coming week.

Godless Wonder

Hmmm. That reminds me:

There is a certain apologetic excuse for this verse which holds that someone standing there -- namely, John -- did see the kingdom of God come with power -- in a vision -- as recorded in Revelations. Now, if this is not the same John -- is that apologetic rendered invalid?