Why Most Scholars Agree on the Anonymity of the Four Gospels

[Rich2018]

Persecuted by Jews and Romans. Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources all attest to it. Tactical nihilism isn't a good argument.

When and how ?

Can you give incidents of this persecution and the dates ?

 

[devildavid]

LOL! You actually think the Bible is a single source. That's funny. How does it feel knowing that your worldview is based on holding onto ignorant ideas about history?

Yes, the bible is a single compendium put together and edited selectively by a certain religious group. And it is not a history, it is intended as a religious text to promote a particular faith. Nothing in the bible is meant as an historical account of anything.

 

[Somerville]

Persecuted by Jews and Romans. Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources all attest to it. Tactical nihilism isn't a good argument.

Provide your sources, please. If you can.

 

[Logicman]

I still want to see the poll where "Most Scholars Agree on the Anonymity of the Four Gospels"?

I think most of those are liberal boneheads.

 

[Daisy]

Yes, the bible is a single compendium put together and edited selectively by a certain religious group. And it is not a history, it is intended as a religious text to promote a particular faith. Nothing in the bible is meant as an historical account of anything.

Since when are 66 books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years span considered a single compendium? Oh wait, nevermind...I know...only when it is the Bible...:roll:

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Yes. The miracles are documented by the four Gospels and by the letters of the New Testament. Where are the contemporary accounts disputing those claims? Why did all those Christians in the 1st century choose to be persecuted for what they knew to be a lie?

There is no non-christian historical evidence of "miracles".

Many thousands saw the Virgin Mary in a waterfall. More people have seen her in various places than you can claim ever saw Jesus. Does that mean she was there?

The human mind can do interesting things.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yes. The miracles are documented by the four Gospels and by the letters of the New Testament. Where are the contemporary accounts disputing those claims? Why did all those Christians in the 1st century choose to be persecuted for what they knew to be a lie?

The Bible cannot be used to confirm the claims of the bible. There are all sorts of 'miracles' documented in the Koran. Do you believe those as well?

 

[Somerville]

Changed His mind? Or rather was He waiting for the resurrection to tell the whole world?

As for textual editing after the fact. Could be. Do you have any evidence to support that baseless supposition?

John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible that precisely defines the doctrine of the Trinity. John 7:53-8:12 is generally seen as a late addition to the gospel

The oldest known version of Mark ends at 16:8

For those who point to the 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as 'proof' that we must have the "original" words written by somebody, Prof. Bart Ehrman has a response:

Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.

Then there is the ever so small matter that we have ZERO complete books from the 2nd century; what we do have are tiny fragments (3 or 4) from that period and 8-10 from the 3rd century. The oldest complete Bible is the Codex Sinaiticus which has multiple variations from the canonical text of today.

 

[devildavid]

I still want to see the poll where "Most Scholars Agree on the Anonymity of the Four Gospels"?

I think most of those are liberal boneheads.

As opposed to conservative boneheads?

 

[Rich2018]

Since when are 66 books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years span considered a single compendium? Oh wait, nevermind...I know...only when it is the Bible...:roll:

It's why we refer to the Bible in the singular.

 

[devildavid]

Since when are 66 books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years span considered a single compendium? Oh wait, nevermind...I know...only when it is the Bible...:roll:

Because that is how it has always been presented in published form. Do you know what compendium means? Please show that the contents were ever presented as separate texts.

 

[Daisy]

It's why we refer to the Bible in the singular.

It was not always singular and it still isn't when you consider what I've already stated...

 

[Daisy]

Because that is how it has always been presented in published form. Do you know what compendium means? Please show that the contents were ever presented as separate texts.

:roll:...

 

[Somerville]

Because that is how it has always been presented in published form. Do you know what compendium means? Please show that the contents were ever presented as separate texts.

Technically they were separate texts at the time of composition BUT - the Old Testament was a compendium about 2500-2600 years ago and the New Testament by 1500 years past.

 

[Rich2018]

It was not always singular and it still isn't when you consider what I've already stated...

We don't says "the Bibles".


But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Daisy]

We don't says "the Bibles".


But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Exactly what I said...the Bible consists of 66 smaller books, written by 40 different people, over a period of 1500+ years...I cannot make it more plainer...

 

[Xelor]

Replying (without sarcasm) I do appreciate your posts on this and other subjects.

Yes, you have focused on my intent in starting this thread; however, there are those who believe that the gospels are not anonymous but actually written by the apostles named. This attribution is part and parcel of their faith, that is - if the gospels weren't written by the apostles then they aren't to be seen as worthy of their trust AND as a consequence their religious faith would be seen as a farce. Not all Christians hold that view with many seeing the teachings as being of value in guiding a person to a better life regardless of who actually wrote the words.

My readings on the matter have shown, me at least, that the majority of scholars in the field of studies covering the Roman Empire and the societies in which Christianity developed do believe in the anonymity of the authorship of the four books. Those who deny the anonymity for religious faith reasons may perhaps have deep worries about the authenticity of the words, that their lives may be founded on falsehoods, much like the virulent anti-gay preachers and politicians who are shown to be gay.

Discussion could be about the scholars who argue for anonymity and those academics who argue for the traditional authors. What are the reasons for and against tradition? Why do some say the gospels are anonymous and others say they are not?

Black bold: Thank you.

Red:
To the extent "anonymous" is qualified as indicated in the passage you included in the OP, one need not concern oneself with wither the gospels were written by the apostles of the same name.


Blue:

• Christian Anonymity Opponents --> Preposterous is the notion that the accuracy, value, validity and veracity of the content in the gospels depends on whether they eponymously named for apostles who walked with Jesus. That line of thinking is ad hominem and suffers the corresponding flaws.
• Christian Anonymity Advocates --> Faith, with regard to theistic propositions, is belief in something absent deductively incontrovertible proof. Christianity is a belief system that rests on faith. There is reasonable enough inductive basis for accepting that the gospels are eponymously named; however, there isn't deductively incontrovertible evidence of that authoring.
  
  Have a little faith. If one is willing to accept all the "mystical" stuff the Bible (New Testament (NT) or Old) relates, that the apostles Matt, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels should be well within the scope of things one can take on faith. I mean, really. It's utterly ridiculous, for example, to say, "I have faith that Jesus literally transformed a handful of foodstuffs into enough food to feed thousands," yet also say, "I cannot accept on faith that the apostle Mark wrote the so named gospel."
  
  Really!?! That person can believe all the other incredulous the Bible/NT relates as so, but s/he can't take on faith that the apostles Matt, Mark, etc. wrote the friggin' gospels? That's really where s/he "draws the line" between what of the Bible's content -- tacit and explicit -- is believable and what isn't?
  
  Upon discovering that someone is capable of such incoherence with regard to their capacity for faith, I would be very circumspect about what I'd bother to discuss with that person. Much beyond the weather and basic social niceties would just not be among the things I'd discuss with that person. Quite frankly, there shouldn't be much at all, however fanciful, that a theist, Christian or otherwise, isn't willing to accept on faith.

Pink:
"Seeing the teachings as being of value in guiding a person to a better life, regardless of who actually wrote the words," is the point of pretty much everything in the Bible. Accordingly, aside from historians, I don't know why anyone gives a damn about whether the apostles Matt, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote them.

 

[Somerville]

Exactly what I said...the Bible consists of 66 smaller books, written by 40 different people, over a period of 1500+ years...I cannot make it more plainer...

Most scholars who are not teaching in theological institutions would say that what we read today has an unknown number of authors, far more than the 40 who receive credit by the faithful.

The period of composition is also a matter of discussion. If we use the commonly accepted latest date of 100 CE for the New Testament books, there are few who would support your claim that the oldest book dates to 1400 BCE. There was/is no proof of a monotheistic Judaism in the 16th century BCE.