• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gospel According to Anonymous.

Do we know who wrote the Gospels?


  • Total voters
    27

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
It is my understanding that the four gospels we have in the New Testament were written anonymously and the appellations of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not come about until considerably latter.

Do you think we know who wrote the gospels? Or were they anonymous?

Does it matter?

Is the way we read these books affected by what we know or don't know about who wrote them?

[youtube]rhM5lbVBgkk[/youtube]
Bart Ehrman - Who Wrote The Gospels? - YouTube
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
they are not annonymous. The writers are very well known. The gospels are named after them...Matthew, Mark, luke, John.

Matthew was one of the chosen 12. His occupation was as a tax collector, he was a jew who became a disciple of Jesus at the beginning of Jesus ministry.
Mark was the son of one of Jesus disciples. Her name was Mary of Jerusalem. Mark became a servant in the congregation and accompanied Paul and Peter in the missionary work.
Luke became a disciple of Jesus sometime after Jesus died. He does not claim to have been a witness to Jesus Christ’s ministry. Rather, Luke says that he received information from eyewitnesses and “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” (Luke 1:1-3)
John was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus...he was a fisherman from the sea of galilee.

Bart Erhman has no idea what he's talking about.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
they are not annonymous. The writers are very well known. The gospels are named after them...Matthew, Mark, luke, John.

Matthew was one of the chosen 12. His occupation was as a tax collector, he was a jew who became a disciple of Jesus at the beginning of Jesus ministry.
Mark was the son of one of Jesus disciples. Her name was Mary of Jerusalem. Mark became a servant in the congregation and accompanied Paul and Peter in the missionary work.
Luke became a disciple of Jesus sometime after Jesus died. He does not claim to have been a witness to Jesus Christ’s ministry. Rather, Luke says that he received information from eyewitnesses and “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” (Luke 1:1-3)
John was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus...he was a fisherman from the sea of galilee.

Bart Erhman has no idea what he's talking about.
So how do you know that? I know who Matthew was suppose to be, but nowhere in the "gospel according to Matthew" does it say it was written by anyone named Matthew. That appellation was applied to the book much latter, and certainly not by the author. It is not just Bart Ehrman saying this, it is the consensus among the majority of historians.

Can you give me any reason for thinking Matthew had anything to do with writing the Gospel that now bears his name?

Do you think John could write? I think the Bible even describes him as illiterate. (Can't remember the passage off hand)
 

outhouse

Atheistically
they are not annonymous. .


Pegg, we don't have a clue who wrote these books.

You would have to explain why Jews teaching to Jews in Galilee, would start a religion for the Roman enemies who oppressed them.

But you would also have to explain who got parts of the legend right and who was wrong, due to all the contradictions.




But please don't even try your wasting your time, no one at all with credibility claims all 4 gospels were written by who they attributed them too.

Bart Erhman has no idea what he's talking about.

He is the professor here, and you are?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
fantôme profane;3290057 said:
So how do you know that? I know who Matthew was suppose to be, but nowhere in the "gospel according to Matthew" does it say it was written by anyone named Matthew. That appellation was applied to the book much latter, and certainly not by the author. It is not just Bart Ehrman saying this, it is the consensus among the majority of historians.

Can you give me any reason for thinking Matthew had anything to do with writing the Gospel that now bears his name?
From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) there has been a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew was the writer of the gospel bearing his name.
When you have living witnesses who can testify to something, then it is generally considered to be a form of evidence.

fantôme profane;3290057 said:
Do you think John could write? I think the Bible even describes him as illiterate. (Can't remember the passage off hand)

Yes, of course John could write. The bible does not describe him as 'illiterate' but as 'unlettered and ordinary' ....and this expression was assigned to John and Peter from the religious authorities because John and Peter were not rabbinicly trained to be teachers of God.

Acts 14:13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. And they began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus

Regarding this, The New Interpreter’s Bible comments: “These terms are probably not to be taken literally as though Peter [and John] were unschooled and could not write or read. They simply recognize the profound difference in social class between those sitting in judgment and the apostles.”

 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
He is the professor here, and you are?

LOL

he's the professor....thats funny :D

....its funnier that he stresses the point that we should use our brains, yet he gleaned all his anti bible propaganda from other peoples brains rather then his own. Strange man.
 
Last edited:

WyattDerp

Active Member
From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) there has been a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew was the writer of the gospel bearing his name.

Even that would merely make 1 out of 4.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Pegg do you understand what the literacy rates would have been like in first century Palestine? Is is extremely unlikely that a fisherman would have been able to write at all. The idea that he could have written eloquently in Greek seems ridiculous.
 

jonman122

Active Member
From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) there has been a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew was the writer of the gospel bearing his name.
When you have living witnesses who can testify to something, then it is generally considered to be a form of evidence.

From what I just read about Papias and his claims, they were incredibly vague and based off no evidence whatsoever. Scholars still believe the author is anonymous at best.

"Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts. For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship_and_sources
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
fantôme profane;3290239 said:
Pegg do you understand what the literacy rates would have been like in first century Palestine? Is is extremely unlikely that a fisherman would have been able to write at all. The idea that he could have written eloquently in Greek seems ridiculous.

that is pure speculation and one argument that critics like to fall back on when they try to make the claim that the writers could not have been Jesus apostles.

Being fishermen does not mean they could not read or write. That is crazy to assume. And in jewish society, all males had to read the law....it was part of the law that all learned the law and read from the law. The gospels state that Jesus went into the synagugue and read publically...he didnt attend the rabinical school, yet he could read. Why? We certainly cannot just assume that no one could read when the accounts clearly state otherwise.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
that is pure speculation and one argument that critics like to fall back on when they try to make the claim that the writers could not have been Jesus apostles.

Being fishermen does not mean they could not read or write. That is crazy to assume. And in jewish society, all males had to read the law....it was part of the law that all learned the law and read from the law. The gospels state that Jesus went into the synagugue and read publically...he didnt attend the rabinical school, yet he could read. Why? We certainly cannot just assume that no one could read when the accounts clearly state otherwise.
Are you claiming that all Jewish males living in first century Palestine knew how to read?


Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine
By Catherine Hezser
Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine - Catherine Hezser - Google Books
Page 496
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
fantôme profane;3289920 said:
It is my understanding that the four gospels we have in the New Testament were written anonymously and the appellations of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not come about until considerably latter.

Not considerably later (although it depends upon the gospel). Our evidence that the gospel authors were written by the traditional authors comes from a number of sources, from some of the earliest christian literature outside the NT (such as Papais) to the moratorium canon and Eusebius (late). There is also the internal evidence, from the closing of John to the incredibly speculative argument Bauckham made on the "Petrine perspective" of Mark.


Does it matter?

It depends on what you are using them for. As our only information about the traditional gospel authors is either late, scant, or wouldn't add much in most cases (even if two disciples of Jesus were authors, that doesn't mean they have not added their own interpretations, christologies, etc. to their works). I don't know how important it is for various Christians that the gospel authors are the traditional authors just for the sake of them being so. From the point of view of the historian and from a certain Christian perspective that is interested in historical accuracy, how much we can know about what the gospel authors knew of Jesus is important, but not knowing who wrote them doesn't necessarily affect this much. For example, it is quite possible that the fourth gospel was written by those who followed a disciple of Jesus and that they faithfully recorded much of that disciples teaching. However, as the context and history changed the nature of early Christianity beliefs, altercations, christologies, etc., what that disciple taught may connect much less with the historical Jesus and much more with the disciple's christological, theological, and religious teachings (and particularly often deliberately in opposition to other views). Hence the fact that we may have an accurate reflection of a disciple's teachings about Jesus doesn't mean at all we have an accurate portrait of Jesus.

Is the way we read these books affected by what we know or don't know about who wrote them?

Somewhat. There are many documents from, such as Plato's letters, where we don't know whether they were written by whom they claim to be written by, and many cases where we know they weren't written by whom they claim to be. Often the first issue is a real problem. Ascribed authorship or pseudoepigraphical works are less so. What's important is not the author, but the knowledge of the author, the nature of the tradition used, and how the author shaped what part of that tradition s/he used.

And never listen to Ehrman (unless you are reading something he wrote in an academic journal or similar academic source).
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
fantôme profane;3290385 said:
Are you claiming that all Jewish males living in first century Palestine knew how to read?


Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine
By Catherine Hezser
Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine - Catherine Hezser - Google Books
Page 496

that is not the consensus view. The Watchtower has done a fair bit of research on the matter and here is a snipet from an article in a 2008 watchtower

In the first century, people of all sorts knew how to read and write. On this point, Alan Millard, professor of Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages, observed: “Writing in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society.” He adds: “That was the environment in which Jesus worked.”
Regarding the assertion that the Gospel texts “arose in an entirely illiterate society,” Professor Millard writes: “That is an unlikely picture, [as] writing would have been known about everywhere . . . Consequently, there were usually people present who could have written something they heard, whether for their own reference or to inform others.”
Apparently, waxed writing tablets were readily available and could be used to jot down information. An example of this is found in the first chapter of Luke. Zechariah, who had temporarily lost the ability to speak, was asked what name he wanted his son to have. Verse 63 says: “He asked [apparently using gestures] for a tablet and wrote: ‘John is its name.’” Bible dictionaries explain that the word “tablet” may have referred to a wooden writing board probably overlaid with wax. Someone present may have had a writing board with him, readily available for Zechariah to write on.
Another example illustrates that writing boards and their use were evidently known at this time. In the book of Acts, we read that Peter was speaking to a crowd in the temple area, exhorting them: “Repent . . . get your sins blotted out.” (Acts 3:11, 19) The expression ‘get blotted out’ comes from a Greek verb that means “wipe out, erase.”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains: “The image expressed by the verb here and perhaps elsewhere is most probably smoothing the surface of a wax writing-tablet for re-use.”
The Gospel accounts also show that Jesus’ followers and audiences included people who likely used writing in their everyday work. There were, for example, the tax collectors Matthew and Zacchaeus (Matthew 9:9; Luke 19:2); a synagogue officer (Mark 5:22); an army officer (Matthew 8:5); Joanna, wife of a high official under Herod Antipas (Luke 8:3); as well as scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and members of the Sanhedrin. (Matthew 21:23, 45; 22:23; 26:59) No doubt, many—if not all—of Jesus’ apostles and disciples were able to write.


How can they all be illiterate AND be in occupations which required them to be literate such as a tax collector or officer of the synagugue and even members of the sanhedrin who would have been schooled in the rabbinical schools. All these were christians who couldnt read and write???? Does that even sound 'reasonable' to you???
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
fantôme profane;3290385 said:
Are you claiming that all Jewish males living in first century Palestine knew how to read?

btw, the account about Jesus death relates that the army officers 'wrote' a sign to attach to the torture stake.... it was written in latin, hebrew and Greek

John 19:17 And, bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called Skull Place, which is called Gol′go·tha in Hebrew; 18 and there they impaled him, and two other [men] with him, one on this side and one on that, but Jesus in the middle. 19 Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: “Jesus the Naz·a·rene′ the King of the Jews.” 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek. 21 However, the chief priests of the Jews began to say to Pilate: “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered: “What I have written I have written.”


Do you seriously believe that there would have been any point in putting a written sign above Jesus head if no one could read it??? Its so illogical to assume that everyone was illiterate....the gospels were written in the first century when people were still illiterate and SOMEHOW christians were managing to make copies upon copies upon copies of them into other languages and sending them out to other nations. How could they have done that so early on if everyone was illiterate? Why were their chrisians groups in far away places with copies of the gospels??? how did they get them and from where if noone could read or write??? You need to find some better 'professors' lol
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) there has been a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew was the writer of the gospel bearing his name.
When you have living witnesses who can testify to something, then it is generally considered to be a form of evidence.



Yes, of course John could write. The bible does not describe him as 'illiterate' but as 'unlettered and ordinary' ....and this expression was assigned to John and Peter from the religious authorities because John and Peter were not rabbinicly trained to be teachers of God.

Acts 14:13 Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. And they began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus

Regarding this, The New Interpreter’s Bible comments: “These terms are probably not to be taken literally as though Peter [and John] were unschooled and could not write or read. They simply recognize the profound difference in social class between those sitting in judgment and the apostles.”


During the 2nd century (or 3rd), there was a group called the Alogi who said the Gospel of John was written by the falsely-titled-Gnostic, the Jewish Christian Cerinthus.

Why is their opinion on this matter any less valid than others? Because their known-attested opinion comes from later sources?

As for Acts 4:13 (not 14), to be "uneducated" could very well mean "illiterate" as Strong's indicates:

Definition: unlettered, illiterate, uneducated, perhaps with the narrower idea: unacquainted with Rabbinic teaching.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
that is not the consensus view. The Watchtower has done a fair bit of research on the matter and here is a snipet from an article in a 2008 watchtower

In the first century, people of all sorts knew how to read and write. On this point, Alan Millard, professor of Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages, observed: “Writing in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society.” He adds: “That was the environment in which Jesus worked.”
Regarding the assertion that the Gospel texts “arose in an entirely illiterate society,” Professor Millard writes: “That is an unlikely picture, [as] writing would have been known about everywhere . . . Consequently, there were usually people present who could have written something they heard, whether for their own reference or to inform others.”
Apparently, waxed writing tablets were readily available and could be used to jot down information. An example of this is found in the first chapter of Luke. Zechariah, who had temporarily lost the ability to speak, was asked what name he wanted his son to have. Verse 63 says: “He asked [apparently using gestures] for a tablet and wrote: ‘John is its name.’” Bible dictionaries explain that the word “tablet” may have referred to a wooden writing board probably overlaid with wax. Someone present may have had a writing board with him, readily available for Zechariah to write on.
Another example illustrates that writing boards and their use were evidently known at this time. In the book of Acts, we read that Peter was speaking to a crowd in the temple area, exhorting them: “Repent . . . get your sins blotted out.” (Acts 3:11, 19) The expression ‘get blotted out’ comes from a Greek verb that means “wipe out, erase.”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains: “The image expressed by the verb here and perhaps elsewhere is most probably smoothing the surface of a wax writing-tablet for re-use.”
The Gospel accounts also show that Jesus’ followers and audiences included people who likely used writing in their everyday work. There were, for example, the tax collectors Matthew and Zacchaeus (Matthew 9:9; Luke 19:2); a synagogue officer (Mark 5:22); an army officer (Matthew 8:5); Joanna, wife of a high official under Herod Antipas (Luke 8:3); as well as scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and members of the Sanhedrin. (Matthew 21:23, 45; 22:23; 26:59) No doubt, many—if not all—of Jesus’ apostles and disciples were able to write.


How can they all be illiterate AND be in occupations which required them to be literate such as a tax collector or officer of the synagugue and even members of the sanhedrin who would have been schooled in the rabbinical schools. All these were christians who couldnt read and write???? Does that even sound 'reasonable' to you???
You are thinking with a modern mindset where literacy is important to be able to function. This has not always been the case. There was even an entire civilization that came and went without a written language.

Common literacy is a modern phenomenon. I don't think it was needed even to be a tax collector in first century Palestine. Nor do I think it was needed to be an officer in a synagogue, and certainly not needed to be a fisherman.

We also need to consider what level of literacy we are talking about. The ability to scratch out a few words (which I still maintain would have been a rare ability) is very different from being able to compose an entire book in a foreign language. The language spoken by Jesus and his apostles was Aramaic. Perhaps they also knew some Hebrew. But I think it is unreasonable to assume someone from this culture and this background, someone who was described as unlettered and ordinary (which I do think means illiterate) could write eloquantly in Greek.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
An interesting mistake Pegg. It is Acts 4:13 that you quoted above. 14:13 is about the priest of Zeus bringing out a sacrifice for the disciples Barnabas and Paul.

The word allows for either illiterate or unacquainted with Rabbinic teaching.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Not considerably later (although it depends upon the gospel). Our evidence that the gospel authors were written by the traditional authors comes from a number of sources, from some of the earliest christian literature outside the NT (such as Papais) to the moratorium canon and Eusebius (late). There is also the internal evidence, from the closing of John to the incredibly speculative argument Bauckham made on the "Petrine perspective" of Mark.




It depends on what you are using them for. As our only information about the traditional gospel authors is either late, scant, or wouldn't add much in most cases (even if two disciples of Jesus were authors, that doesn't mean they have not added their own interpretations, christologies, etc. to their works). I don't know how important it is for various Christians that the gospel authors are the traditional authors just for the sake of them being so. From the point of view of the historian and from a certain Christian perspective that is interested in historical accuracy, how much we can know about what the gospel authors knew of Jesus is important, but not knowing who wrote them doesn't necessarily affect this much. For example, it is quite possible that the fourth gospel was written by those who followed a disciple of Jesus and that they faithfully recorded much of that disciples teaching. However, as the context and history changed the nature of early Christianity beliefs, altercations, christologies, etc., what that disciple taught may connect much less with the historical Jesus and much more with the disciple's christological, theological, and religious teachings (and particularly often deliberately in opposition to other views). Hence the fact that we may have an accurate reflection of a disciple's teachings about Jesus doesn't mean at all we have an accurate portrait of Jesus.



Somewhat. There are many documents from, such as Plato's letters, where we don't know whether they were written by whom they claim to be written by, and many cases where we know they weren't written by whom they claim to be. Often the first issue is a real problem. Ascribed authorship or pseudoepigraphical works are less so. What's important is not the author, but the knowledge of the author, the nature of the tradition used, and how the author shaped what part of that tradition s/he used.

And never listen to Ehrman (unless you are reading something he wrote in an academic journal or similar academic source).
A good post, thank you.

I want to asure you that this is not just about what Bart Ehrman says. I have found that including a short video clip sometimes helps to get more responses. Same think with including a poll. But the op would have been complete without either.

I have seen a couple sources (not just Ehrman) that have suggested that the Papais reference is kind of iffy. He may not have been refering to the gospels that we know today.

I still think I have strong reasons to be skeptical of the authorship of these gospels.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
fantôme profane;3290489 said:
You are thinking with a modern mindset where literacy is important to be able to function. This has not always been the case. There was even an entire civilization that came and went without a written language.

Common literacy is a modern phenomenon. I don't think it was needed even to be a tax collector in first century Palestine. Nor do I think it was needed to be an officer in a synagogue, and certainly not needed to be a fisherman.

We also need to consider what level of literacy we are talking about. The ability to scratch out a few words (which I still maintain would have been a rare ability) is very different from being able to compose an entire book in a foreign language. The language spoken by Jesus and his apostles was Aramaic. Perhaps they also knew some Hebrew. But I think it is unreasonable to assume someone from this culture and this background, someone who was described as unlettered and ordinary (which I do think means illiterate) could write eloquantly in Greek.

this just completely ignores the very culture you are speaking about. The law of Israel included education...it was a religious requirement! Children were taught from a very early age by both father and mother. (Deuteronomy 11:18, 19; Proverbs 1:8; 31:26)

Dictionnaire de la Bible, Bible scholar E. Mangenot writes: “As soon as he could speak, the child learned a few passages from the Law. His mother would repeat a verse; when he knew it, she would give him another one. Later, the written text of the verses they could already recite from memory would be put into the children’s hands. Thus, they were introduced to reading, and when they had grown older, they could continue their religious instruction by reading and meditating on the law of the Lord.”


Maybe you should look up the Gezer Calender.... its a piece of archeological evidence that the average Isrealite was capable of reading and writing long before the 1st century. This was a farmers tablet detailing the agricultural year.... if a farmer could read and write, why not a fisherman?

images
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
fantôme profane;3290489 said:
You are thinking with a modern mindset where literacy is important to be able to function. This has not always been the case. There was even an entire civilization that came and went without a written language.

Common literacy is a modern phenomenon. I don't think it was needed even to be a tax collector in first century Palestine. Nor do I think it was needed to be an officer in a synagogue, and certainly not needed to be a fisherman.

We also need to consider what level of literacy we are talking about. The ability to scratch out a few words (which I still maintain would have been a rare ability) is very different from being able to compose an entire book in a foreign language. The language spoken by Jesus and his apostles was Aramaic. Perhaps they also knew some Hebrew. But I think it is unreasonable to assume someone from this culture and this background, someone who was described as unlettered and ordinary (which I do think means illiterate) could write eloquantly in Greek.


on the contrary, we didn't invent reading and writing.... language was invented by the very people who you, and other so called 'professors', seem to think were illiterate.

how does that figure???? Is that even possible????
 
Top