Who wrote the gospels? How do we know?

georgieporgy

I think this little commentary by Dr Jeff Mirus offers reasonable insights into an often asked question;
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=746

Fanny Cradock

I just had a quick scan of the link and I would imagine that even amongst conservative Christians there are some contentious claims made.

The short answer is we don't really know. But I don't believe that makes much of a difference.

Jester Minute

Some of these Biblical 'scholars' and critics reduce the Scriptures and everything in it to nothing. I do wonder 'Why bother?' If there were no miracles then let's all just go home and be agnostics. I guess though if your living is to be made in critically reducing the Bible to nothing, that would be motivation enough for some to create work for themselves, whilst destroying the faith of actual believers. Pop benedict addresses this issue in his latest book and in his book, Jesus of Nazereth - that the historical Jesus IS the real Jesus - the Son of God made man.

That commentary from CatholicCulture.org is good. I read it this morning.

I recommend all to sign up to their free news and commentary emails.

I actually prefer it to Zenit, which is nonetheless excellent.

PDN

The issue of the authorship of the Gospels is entirely separate from that of miracles, or the accuracy of their portrayals of Jesus.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

The issue of the authorship of the Gospels is entirely separate from that of miracles, or the accuracy of their portrayals of Jesus.

It's all inter-linked. Some say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't really write the Gospels. They say they were put together later in an idealised or romantic fashion. These are the same people who will tell you that Jesus didn't really do miracles - the people merely shared the food they had in their knapsacks. The miracle was their sharing, not the miraculous multiplication of food. And on it goes. Then I think to myself, 'What's the point?' And therein lies the ultimate demonic plan, of course - to destroy the faith of believers.

You know PDN, you don't always have to disagree with me. It would make a refreshing change if you might consider biting your lip when you see something of mine which irks you, however so slightly.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

And therein lies the ultimate demonic plan, of course - to destroy the faith of believers.

Man alive, can any skepticism of the Bible or Christian faith be discussed without reference to Satan or demons. :rolleyes:

Plenty of people are skeptical of the Bible and the claims in the Bible in exactly the same way you are skeptical of the claims of any other holy book belonging to a religion you don't believe in. That doesn't mean you are a devil worshiper, and neither does it mean that for those who don't accept the claim of the Bible as some infallible divine work.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

It's all inter-linked. Some say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't really write the Gospels. They say they were put together later in an idealised or romantic fashion.

You've just made two separate and logically unconnected statements there.

A great many conservative biblical scholars, while doubting whether Matthew, Mark or John wrote the Gospels attributed to them (the evidence for Luke is much stronger) still maintain that the Gospels are historically accurate. They certainly do not see them as idealised or put together in a romantic fashion.

These are the same people who will tell you that Jesus didn't really do miracles - the people merely shared the food they had in their knapsacks. The miracle was their sharing, not the miraculous multiplication of food. And on it goes. Then I think to myself, 'What's the point?' And therein lies the ultimate demonic plan, of course - to destroy the faith of believers.

Well, no, often they aren't the same people at all.

You know PDN, you don't always have to disagree with me. It would make a refreshing change if you might consider biting your lip when you see something of mine which irks you, however so slightly.

It's nothing to do with being irked. If I see statements that are incorrect, then I will point that out. It would be a shame if, in what is after all my own academic field, I was to say, "Well I can see that isn't so - but I can't say so because it was posted by Jester Minute."

The authorship of the Gospels is not stated in the biblical texts themselves - so many of us are convinced of the historicity of the Gospels, and of the miracles, but keep an open mind on the issue of authorship.

georgieporgy

I take it from these comments that both mods (Fanny and PDN) do not firmly believe that the 4 gospels were written prior to 100 AD, and that the authors are those mentioned in the article I linked to. I'm asking this with the greatest of respect,- I just want clarity of opinion. And I promise Jester won't eat you alive if that is your opinion (pay attention JM)

As for who was first, Matthew or Mark, I don't see that as being a big issue.

georgieporgy

Wicknight wrote: »

Man alive, can any skepticism of the Bible or Christian faith be discussed without reference to Satan or demons. :rolleyes:

Plenty of people are skeptical of the Bible and the claims in the Bible in exactly the same way you are skeptical of the claims of any other holy book belonging to a religion you don't believe in. That doesn't mean you are a devil worshiper, and neither does it mean that for those who don't accept the claim of the Bible as some infallible divine work.

I don't think he is suggesting you would be a demon worshiper. Rather , he is saying the originator of the story (a lie) is the devil, and you are falling for it. A bit like believing a political statement which often sounds appealing at first.

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

I take it from these comments that both mods (Fanny and PDN) do not firmly believe that the 4 gospels were written prior to 100 AD, and that the authors are those mentioned in the article I linked to. I'm asking this with the greatest of respect,- I just want clarity of opinion. And I promise Jester won't eat you alive if that is your opinion (pay attention JM)

No, that is not the case. I firmly believe that the 4 Gospels were written well before 100AD.

Fanny Cradock

georgieporgy wrote: »

I take it from these comments that both mods (Fanny and PDN) do not firmly believe that the 4 gospels were written prior to 100 AD, and that the authors are those mentioned in the article I linked to.

I think that they were all written before 100AD - but I claim no special knowledge for this other than my own small research. As for Authorship, I tend to side with the view that Luke wrote The Gospel of Luke and Acts and that the Gospel of John was written by John was the son of Zebedee. I really don't know about the other two. I've actually been meaning to read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for some time now. I've been meaning to check out what Bauckham has to say on the matter.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Man alive, can any skepticism of the Bible or Christian faith be discussed without reference to Satan or demons.

Consider it a variation of Godwins Law.

georgieporgy

PDN and Fanny, thanks for the reply. I'm glad we're on the same page date wise. For a while I was beginning to think you guys were heretics

As for the identity of each author,I don't think it matters a great deal what we think. I'm personally inclined to go with the characters mentioned in Dr Mirus' article

Jester Minute

This is the next article in the series by Dr. Jeff Mirus which began this thread:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=477

A brief extract:

In his fine book Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy, the Protestant New Testament professor C. E. Hill debunks the widespread contemporary myth that the four gospels we know today were imposed by one or more dominant figures in the fourth century, presumably in order to vindicate their own ideas of orthodoxy. Recalling that the fourth gospel, St. John’s, was not written until the end of the first century, we can see that it is a remarkable service for Hill to successfully sift all the evidence which points to the acceptance of exactly four authoritative Christian gospels as early as the first quarter of the second century.

In general, the further we go back in time the less evidence we have, as we would expect. For this reason—and undoubtedly to make a better story—Hill starts near the end of the second century and works backwards. For example, he details all the reasons we may be certain that Irenaeus of Lyons, writing his work Against Heresies around AD 180, was already clearly aware that the Christian Church relied on four authoritative gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—to the exclusion of all others. That fact alone knocks nearly two hundred years off the worst of the conspiracy theories.