roofire

I am currently discussing the legitimacy of the bible with a bunch of fundamentalists and am having a hard time breaking into the subject of who really wrote the gospels and when. I have read and am currently reading books on the topic and have reviewed various web sites, but am having trouble coming up with a "simple" argument against Matthew Mark Luke and John as the actual authors.

A frustrating point is that most of the books I read contain a statement similar to "Very few people still accept that the accredited authors are the true authors anymore." But it doesn't say why not, or at least the arguments presented seem to require a lot of set up and detailed analysis of the manuscripts. It seems like it is just so "accepted" that no one even bothers to go into it much anymore. ..yet I have to listen to my fundamentalists quote with no question that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

I am looking for the most simple or obvious arguement to start investigating...assuming there is one. Is there any single detail that stands out, or would I have to go into the overall inconsistancy, incontinuity etc as a whole package.

Any references would be appreciated

CX

First off, even according to Church tradition only two of the gospel authors were eye witnesses. AMt and AJn are reputed to be the Apostles Matthew and John son of Zebedee. Mark is not clearly identified other than as an "interpreter" of Peter who allegedly wrote his gospel, based on his memory of Peter's preaching, after Peter's death. Mark's gospel is acknowledge to contain some errors at least in chronology by early church father's like Origen. Luke is alleged to haven been Paul's "beloved physician" and Luke himself acknowledges in the opening of his gospel that he has used written sources.

Now the argument for GMt not being written by the apostle Matthew is lengthy and complicated and probably requires more research than your opponents are willing to put in. It is based on the ideas of Marcan priority (that GMk was written first among the synoptic gospels) and the literary interdependence between GMk and GMt. GMt contains nearly 90% of GMk with significant portions being verbatim. It is hard to conceive why an eyewitness would rely so heavily on a non-eyewitness. There are also stylistic and theological reasons to conclude that GMt was written rather later.

Your best bet is to pick up a good intro for further details. Udo Schnelle's contains a section describing the "Synoptic Problem" and the current academic concensus.

Another point to make to fundamentalists is that they usually subscribe to Sola Scriptura meaning evidence from the bible alone. The gospels do not name their authors and there are no authorial attributions prior to the Church Fathers (Catholics mind you) in the 2nd century. There is no biblical basis for naming authors of the gospels.

mike_decock

I think one of the easy refutations of the "eyewitness" argument is that the stone used to block the tomb is implied as being round since it was rolled away. This is significant since round tomb blocking stones were not in use until after 70 CE. It's like having a BMW Z3 in a story set in 1960.

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated

-Mike...

Qinopio

Regarding the last objection in that link:

An explanation I've heard about the second anointing was that Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee. Jesus was part of (or was at least very close with) the Essene community. The Essenes had distinct purity and burial rituals that probably would have not been followed in the quick burial given by Joseph. So, Jesus' Essene friends would have come back to the tomb to give him a proper Essene burial.

Paul Baxter

The argument about the stone sounds extremely weak to me. To have force, I think one would additionally need to show that there was another way of descibing the movement of stones (using a different verb). Perhaps any movement of a large stone would be called rolling, even if it was more of a sliding thing. Plus it is conceivable that the gospel writers were not aware of another verb which could be used in this context.

Additionally, there's always the possibility that the stone was round. Doesn't make any difference to me really. It just seems like archeology wouldn't really be able to make any strong case on a point like this.

Thinking while I'm writing this, I assume y'all would read this as evidence of anachronism?

mike_decock

I've read some apologetics trying to explain the rolling stone and I found them thoroughly unconvincing. I think the simple answer is that a rolling stone didn't belong in 30 CE and the authors were ignorant of that fact, just like Mark is ignorant of his geography.

Out of 900 tombs dated before 70 CE, only 4 have round stones. These were only used for very elaborate tombs while the gospels claim that Jesus was buried in a simple tomb.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/wilkin4.htm

Yes, I see it as a glaring anachronism which destroys any naive notion that the gospels are based on eyewitness reports.

-Mike...

Paul Baxter

See, I can read you guys like a book, umm, eventually

I'll let my point about the greek verb stand til someone cares to knock it down. If that verb is the ONLY one the writers knew to use for moving a large stone, then it doesn't give evidence that that stone was round, does it?

I saw a picture of one of the sliding stones in a book last week, so I'll be happy to provisionally grant you the nature of the stone in question.

Peter Kirby

προωθεω is a Greek word meaning simply to push.

best,
Peter Kirby

Paul Baxter

well, you are half way there, Peter. Now, use it in a sentence
One from that period, involving a big stone. :banghead: (something like this?)

Vorkosigan

I tend to agree with Paul here. A large stone might be "rolled" regardless of shape. Much better evidence exists for dating Mark after 70. See Peter's article at www.earlychristianwritings.com

Vorkosigan