- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,364
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Formal Anonymity of the Gospels
Let's examine for a moment the claim that all four canonical gospels are anonymous? What do scholars mean when they say this? Well, if they are being careful, what they mean specifically, is that the gospels are formally anonymous. That is, leaving off the issue of the titles for a moment, and not seeking to answer the question of whether the titles were there originally or not, in the stories the gospels present, the author does not step forward and identify himself.* Nowhere in the four canonical gospels does the author say something like, "I, Matthew, am the one who witnessed these events," or "I, John, was the disciple who leaned against Jesus' breast." The gospel authors, within the stories themselves, do not self identify. This is what scholars mean when they call the gospels anonymous.
Now, each of the four gospels are different and need to be examined individually. So, the formal anonymity of Matthew and Mark are 100% with no concrete clues as to authorship (the tax collector named "Matthew" in Matthew and the naked young man in Mark are certainly not "concrete" identifications of authorship).
(. . .)
The author of Luke identifies himself (Luke 1:1-4) in many ways, but not by name. A few things can be known about the author's identity from this passage.
1) The author knows of other attempts to write "gospels."
2) The author claims to depend on, but is not himself, an eyewitness.
3) The author has undertaken investigation.
4) The author wants to provide an orderly account.
All well and good, but none of these identifications get us closer to a name for the author.
Now look at John 21:24-25
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."(. . .) On first glance, it would seem that the beloved disciple is the author of the gospel, but that cannot be. In verse 24, the author(s) clearly self identify as "we."
Didn't like the refutin' goin' on in the other one, huh...
I saw no refutation and your quotes from the JW pages had some truly bad history.
There's this former homicide cop turned Christian guy on the internet trying to establish forensic proof that Jesus lived and the gospels are true and reliable.
He asks why would you accept a testimony of anyone who wasn't alive at the time of the events they describe - a fair point. Then goes on to try and prove the gospels were indeed alive at the time of the Crucifixion.
But shies away from answering whether, as a former homicide detective, he'd ever accept or present as evidence an unsigned testimony from an anonymous source.
In my view the gosp[els are all forgeries from the early Christian church.
The vast majority of scholars contend that the Gospel we know as Matt was composed originally in Greek and is not a translation of a Semitic original … Thus either Papias was wrong/confused in attributing a gospel (sayings) in Hebrew/Aramaic to Matthew, or he was right but the Hebrew/Aramaic composition he described was not the work we know in Greek as canonical.
There's this former homicide cop turned Christian guy on the internet trying to establish forensic proof that Jesus lived and the gospels are true and reliable.
He asks why would you accept a testimony of anyone who wasn't alive at the time of the events they describe - a fair point. Then goes on to try and prove the gospels were indeed alive at the time of the Crucifixion.
But shies away from answering whether, as a former homicide detective, he'd ever accept or present as evidence an unsigned testimony from an anonymous source.
In my view the gosp[els are all forgeries from the early Christian church.
This thread is meant to pull people away from the other thread I started - https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...-were-not-written-eyewitnesses-would-you.html
-- which some commenters have tried to drag away from the topic.
I'll start with words from a professor of New Testament who teaches at a small Baptist college in North Carolina.
The writings of Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 CE), actually all we have are quotes found in later writings and not any original manuscript, provide quotations of the Gospels, but only labels them “Memoirs of the Apostles,” with no mention of their traditional names. Irenaeus (c. 175-185 CE) provides the oldest reference to the traditional titles of the Gospels.
Books / Videos offering "proof" that those books were written by disciples named Mark, Matthew, John and Luke are not hard to find, but nothing I've seen from them would be considered proof by a jury that didn't have other reasons to believe. "Proof" just isn't there.
Your source is another liberal flake who pushes the highly discredited "Q" theory.
I suppose we will never see from you any conservative theologians who hold to the traditional Gospel authors.
Chowan University
Mission
Chowan University, grounded in its Christian faith, transforms the lives of students of promise.
The University fosters its mission by:
- ensuring its Christian character informs all its endeavors.
- equipping undergraduate and graduate students with the knowledge, skills, and ethical values necessary to flourish in a culturally diverse, global society.
- promoting active participation in discovery and creative activities.
- providing a supportive teaching and learning environment.
- enrolling and retaining promising students of all backgrounds.
- meeting the students’ social and spiritual needs by affording personal attention in a caring community.
Your source is another liberal flake who pushes the highly discredited "Q" theory.
I suppose we will never see from you any conservative theologians who hold to the traditional Gospel authors.
So, the early Christians just MADE UP those names? That's nuts.
For instance, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and was subsequently martyred. In his "Letter to the Philippians" he cites the same Christian beliefs as John does.
It was also noted of Polycarp that:
"Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures." -
Irenaeus - St. Polycarp of Smyrna
Why Most Scholars Agree on the Anonymity of the Four Gospels.
'Traditional' does not mean correct.
"another liberal flake", who just happens to teach at a university connected to the Baptist church
That "liberal flake", Keith A. Reich, is Chair of the Dept of Religion.
Well, that's what Ireneaus claimed... many many decades later... but we don't have anything from Polycarp making that claim.
'Traditional' does not mean correct.
There's this former homicide cop turned Christian guy on the internet trying to establish forensic proof that Jesus lived and the gospels are true and reliable.
He asks why would you accept a testimony of anyone who wasn't alive at the time of the events they describe - a fair point. Then goes on to try and prove the gospels were indeed alive at the time of the Crucifixion.
But shies away from answering whether, as a former homicide detective, he'd ever accept or present as evidence an unsigned testimony from an anonymous source.
In my view the gosp[els are all forgeries from the early Christian church.
Your source is another liberal flake who pushes the highly discredited "Q" theory.
I suppose we will never see from you any conservative theologians who hold to the traditional Gospel authors.
Denver Theological Seminary
We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God’s will for salvation, and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak.
Dallas Theological Seminary
Doctrinal Statement (for Seminary faculty and board)
Article I—The Scriptures
We believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error. We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him. We also believe that all the Scriptures were designed for our practical instruction (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).
Your source is another liberal flake who pushes the highly discredited "Q" theory.
I suppose we will never see from you any conservative theologians who hold to the traditional Gospel authors.
It does more often than not.
You know, when you and Elvira the Jehovah's Witness can agree on Biblical issues, then there's surely something really screwed up going on.
Go tell your anti-Christianity swill to somebody else.
It does more often than not.
You know, when you and Elvira the Jehovah's Witness can agree on Biblical issues, then there's surely something really screwed up going on.
Mark, Matthew and Luke were all common names during that time.So, the early Christians just MADE UP those names? That's nuts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?