Are these proven?

[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]

Originally posted by 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?

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 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/index.shtml) 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:

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?

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:

Lk 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

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:

Let me preface this, I'm not at all looking to "bible bash", . . .

What do you mean by "bible bash?"

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?

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.

[Mor-Atheist]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X

What do you mean by "bible bash?"


This is a term used by LDS people to signify that they do not want to argue with someone about the bible. Bible bashing takes on an entirely new meaning on this forum :)

As you can probably guess, I am the brother in law that Mormon Mike referred too. Go easy on him, he is just learning the ropes here with us heathens :)

[Doctor X]

Mor-Atheist:

I had the suspicion that might be the case. I wanted to make sure that he did not think people on this forum "bashed" the texts as in, "they suck, you suck, ha!AHA!HA!HA!"

I do not think anyone does that in this particular forum.

Granted, some think if you disagree with a relgious or theological interpretation, that is "bashing" the text. I do not agree with that. If that is the case, in Mormon Mike's mind, then he may be uncomfortable here.

Similarly, few are outright rude here unless a poster behaves rudely: "You just don't know the Bible/read the Bible. You are an ATHEIST and are unqualified to comment. All atheists are biased, hatefilled defillers of sheep. I will pray for you, scum."

Most of the [b]Recommended Reading is non-polemical in nature--neither ferverently pro-religion or anti-religion. I do not know what the statistics are these days, but most biblical scholars--professional academics--started religious and many remain religious.

--J.D.

[Mor-Atheist]

Doctor X,

He will not be uncomfortable, but the mormon belief is that no one ever benefits by arguing the bible to try to show someone else they have the wrong interpretation (usually this is done between mormon's and christians). This forum is different as it is questioning the bible itself, not someone's interpretation of it.

This actually could be a very strange thing seeing LDS people posting here, the reason I say that is that they believe the bible has many errors in it (which makes the Book of Mormon necessary) so from that standpoint they will agree with aethists. But on the flipside, if any LDS person is arguing LDS doctrine, the
Atheists will actually have the Xians as an ally as they really do not like Mormons (I speak from a LOT of experience here...).

This could throw the whole board out of alignment with debates going every which way, an ally from a LDS person on one point turns into an enemy on another. Mass chaos, I love it :)

[Doctor X]

Mor-Atheist:

. . . but the mormon belief is that no one ever benefits by arguing the bible to try to show someone else they have the wrong interpretation. . . .

That would try to deny centuries of biblical scholarship! I can understand the reason for the approach.

This actually could be a very strange thing seeing LDS people posting here, the reason I say that is that they believe the bible has many errors in it (which makes the Book of Mormon necessary) . . . Atheists will actually have the Xians as an ally as they really do not like Mormons (I speak from a LOT of experience here...).

Somewhere there is a Chick cartoon on what to do when the Mormons invade! Anyways, people have wanted to discuss the B of M, but we have not had many Mormons. I am afraid most recognize it as the product of a guy named Joe! South Park did a wonderfully scathing treatment of Joe Smith and his hat. However, if someone wanted to discuss it specifically, then . . . well . . . I am not sure which forum it would go to. On of the Mods may have a suggestion.

This could throw the whole board out of alignment with debates going every which way, an ally from a LDS person on one point turns into an enemy on another. Mass chaos, I love it

"Dogs and cats living together. . . ."

On some of the other forums, people--usually former Mormons--have discussed various bits of the theology from the underwear to the planet you get to rule! Atheists tend to sit back smuggly because when people ridicule the religion, they tend to forget the ridiculous in their own religions!

--J.D.

[Mormon Mike]

Granted, some think if you disagree with a relgious or theological interpretation, that is "bashing" the text. I do not agree with that. If that is the case, in Mormon Mike's mind, then he may be uncomfortable here.

That is not the case at all. Being new to the board I did not want anyone to think that I had hidden motives with my postings. I have opinions and I know there are many other opinions and information out there, I really just look forward to educating myself in areas that I have not fully studied.

[Doctor X]

Mormon Mike:

That is fine. I merely wished to understand what you considered to be "bible bashing."

--J.D.

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by Mormon Mike
That is not the case at all. Being new to the board I did not want anyone to think that I had hidden motives with my postings. I have opinions and I know there are many other opinions and information out there, I really just look forward to educating myself in areas that I have not fully studied.

With a name like Mormon Mike, nobody is going to imagine that you had hidden motives!

Anyway, "Who Wrote the Gospels" is great (my copy finally arrived from Amazon). But if you are seriously interested, you should read some of the major introductory works, like Ehrman's Introduction to the New Testament, Brown's Introduction to the New Testament or Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. All three are Christians. Brown is a Catholic priest and conservative, Schnelle is rigidly mainstream, and Ehrman is more liberal. All are good basic works, summarizing the scholarship and ideas.

If you want to know why we think the writers were not witnesses, Mor-Atheist, there are several reasons. First, Mark, Matt, and Luke tell very closely the same story. Scholarship has shown that Luke and Matthew copied Mark when they did so. For example, there are 666 verses in Mark, and about 600 of those wound up in Matthew. Very often even the same words are used, and further, when we look at the differences, we can see where Matthew and Luke corrected Mark's numerous errors and bad greek, as well as expanding mark's terse language. For example, Luke will have cried out where Mark simply wrote cried.

Now, a person analyzing this might well ask -- if Matt actually ran around with Jesus, why did he copy Mark?

A second issue is that the names do not appear attached to the gospels until almost the third century. They are not named by the church fathers until 180. If they had those names, why were they not used? It appears that they were given those names to give them more authority.

Another problem is that the gospels contain much that is demonstratably based on the Old Testament. For example, The whole Passion story is borrowed from Old Testament psalms and prophecies, particularly Psalm 22. Not only that, but the citations are from a version of the OT called the Septaugint. Again, if they actually were witnesses, and actually knew, why did they feel the necessity to make up stories out of the OT.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

[Mor-Atheist]

Vorkosigan,

Your answers are exactly the type I am looking for, which of the books that you have read would you say offer the best of these types of arguments? I am not sure if I want to start with the books by the xians as they always seem to have an agenda, maybe you can offer a little more info on those? Thanks again!

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by Mor-Atheist
Vorkosigan,

Your answers are exactly the type I am looking for, which of the books that you have read would you say offer the best of these types of arguments? I am not sure if I want to start with the books by the xians as they always seem to have an agenda, maybe you can offer a little more info on those? Thanks again!

There are no agenda-free books, so you are out of luck there. Just go with one of the basic intro texts, and start scoping out Peter Kirby's www.earlychristianwritings.com website, which is extremely balanced. Come to think of it, Kirby may well be the least agenda-driven person who writes and thinks on this topic.

After you've read one of the intro texts (Brown, Ehrman, Schnelle, Johnson) then read Helms Who Wrote the Gospels? and EP Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus for some interesting takes on your questions above. After that, it gets more detailed, and you'll just need to follow your interests. What do you like? NT social background? Pauline theology? The Church fathers? For example, I am very interested in HJ stuff, so I have a big collection of books on that, but very little on Paul, or the Dead Sea Scrolls -- limited budget, so I buy what I am most interested in <sob>.

Personally, I put, H. Koester's History and Literature of Early Christianity, John D. Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, and Thiessen and Merz' The Historical Jesus in the run-don't-walk category, but everyone will have their own ideas and preferences. Koester is an intro work, but it helps to have some background first. Crossan bulges with ideas, insights, and observations. And T & M covers the HJ in exhaustive detail, though their stance is openly apologetic. You might also want a good reference work, and if your interest is the Gospels (like mine) Ludemann's Jesus After 2000 Years is pretty good.

Anyway, good luck. The recommended readings list is absolutely first class and every book on it is useful.

Vorkosigan

[Celsus]

For the Dead Sea Scrolls, VanderKam and Flint's The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is very good, and not on the reading list (though it should be, hint hint). While it's quite a hefty work I wouldn't trust many introductions shorter than it.

Joel

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
For example, there are 666 verses in Mark,...So that's who the writer of Revelation was referring to.

Revelation 13: 18
This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

;)

[DetectedDestiny]

So that's who the writer of Revelation was referring to

No, he was referring to this:

2 Chronicles 9:13: The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,