The Four Gospels (Jesus, tradition, translation, disciples, preaching)

[The Great Architect]

At the moment, my study of the New Testament focuses on the four Gospels. It got me thinking...

Is there a general consensus, amongst theologians and religious scholars, about where they came from? I'm not talking about if it was from God, or man; I mean, who wrote them? Is the narrator the same as the author? Why are they given the names they are given? I have always just as I assumed that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Also, that these men, are the same as those who are mentioned as being close disciples of Christ, during his ministry.

However, I don't think this perception is accurate. Any information that you can give, along these lines, would be very much appreciated. Please, correct my misconceptions!

Thank you.

[angellous_evangellous]

Is there a general consensus, amongst theologians and religious scholars, about where they came from? I'm not talking about if it was from God, or man; I mean, who wrote them?

No. All the Gospels are anonymous.

Is the narrator the same as the author?

No.

Why are they given the names they are given?

The names were written at the top of the manuscripts by later scribes.

I have always just as I assumed that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Also, that these men, are the same as those who are mentioned as being close disciples of Christ, during his ministry.

The writing of the Gospels is divided between the Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke) which used similar sources and John, who used other sources. Basically, the theory is that Jesus said some stuff that a few people heard, and his sayings were at the very least collected in sayings tradition Q (for the Synoptic traditions), J (for John), and T (Gospel of Thomas sayings not in Q). These sayings traditions may or may not have been written down, but eventually were used by whoever wrote the canonical and non-canonical Gospels.

notes:
Q document - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Francine]

Originally Posted by The Great Architect

Is there a general consensus, amongst theologians and religious scholars, about where they came from?

Mark was the companion of Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and Peter's preaching was the source of the contents of his gospel, written in Greek. That it's not called the "Gospel according to Peter" is actually evidence of its authenticity...a forgery would have bypassed the relatively unknown Mark and tried to pass it off as the gospel of the Prince of the Apostles.

Matthew preached among the Jews for 15 years, and he used a translation of Mark, written in the Syrian tongue Aramaic, the local language of the common people of the time (even Jesus spoke it). Matthew contains the entirety of the gospel of Mark, plus a set of genealogies and evidence of fulfilled scriptures which would have appealed to the target audience (Jews).

The author of Acts is also the author of Luke, from internal evidence (the unique insights of a physician appear in both works). Luke was a companion of Paul and this is attested to from antiquity, unanimously. So the gospel of Luke would have been in circulation among the gentiles.

John is unique in its well-developed Christology. St Polycarp was John's disciple, and St Irenaeus was Polycarp's disciple, and Irenaeus wrote in "Adversus Heresus" that certain fools were denying the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel, but after that no one questioned it until the 18th Century.

[kiwimac]

The whole question of the authors of the Gospels is a fraught one. I suggest googling the following and see where they take you.

" Ur-mark " "Q + gospels" " 2 source hypothesis " (for starters anyway!)

[The Great Architect]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

The whole question of the authors of the Gospels is a fraught one. I suggest googling the following and see where they take you.

" Ur-mark " "Q + gospels" " 2 source hypothesis " (for starters anyway!)

I did. So much information! Can you hear the sound of my brain exploding?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by The Great Architect

I did. So much information! Can you hear the sound of my brain exploding?

No need for that. A good introduction to the New Testament is all that you need. There are several that are very readable for laypeople.

I recommend:

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman (Paperback - Oct 7, 2007)

An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation by David A. DeSilva

An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) by Raymond E. Brown

[kiwimac]

It is important to read books by non-evangelicals as well. I suggest taking the time to educate yourself fully. Look at both pro and con positions, read widely rather than narrowly.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

It is important to read books by non-evangelicals as well. I suggest taking the time to educate yourself fully. Look at both pro and con positions, read widely rather than narrowly.

... or not read any of those at all...

also Udo Schnelle's introduction is quite good.

[angellous_evangellous]

There is absolutely no reason why an evagelical should read anything written by another evagelical - all they will get is what they already believe. Evangelical biblical scholarship is a complete sham, artifically shaping the work of real scholars to apologetically argue whatever evangelicals happen to believe on a given issue. It's much better to read "non-evangelicals" first (who evangelicals have to depend on anyway) and then try to understand how evangelicals distort their findings to argue their case.