Authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m open to whatever it turns out to be.

Theide’s assessment that it was not written as a codex but as a scroll, is pretty convincing.

But I’m not a scholar so I couldn’t run with it on his work alone.

Jim

 

[JohnR77]

Compared to this “confidence-inspiring” excerpt from the intro to John in the NAB.

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. Jn 21seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.

   >  My Translation for that comment:

Because the author of this note cannot think of a reason why one author would switch from one style to another, that proves that no such reason could exist, therefore there are at least two authors. “If I do not know it, then it is not worth knowing.”

The conclusion seems to be based on an arrogant assumption.

But, John did have a reason to switch styles.

The reason why Saint John would switch from one style of Greek to another in the final chapter is not obvious to everyone. Some serious study of this issue is required. After an in-depth study we can see that if Saint John, a single author, had not switched his style of
Greek in the final chapter he should have done so. It fits perfectly in line with achieving what he states is his primary goal.

To read this article see

http://www.defendingthebride.com/ss/fish/style.html#why

John

 

[JohnR77]

Others will say,
“Well, it doesn’t make any difference which Gospel was first as along as we believe that the four Gospel writers faithfully state what Jesus said and did.”

But, the truth is many do not believe that. And in the real world these people pass laws restricting how we live.
Non-Christians will often pass laws to pressure Christians to not live the Gospel. Some Christians deny them one of the strongest reasons for believing in the Gospels.

John

 

[JohnR77]

Suggestion:
Since there are very long and numerous posts about life expectancy, and since they may appear as a very tangential point, would the Moderators consider placing all those posts on a separate thread and just link to that thread from here ?

This would great increase the value of this thread to future readers.

Please click on the heart shape below if you agree that this is a good idea.
(Even if you don’t love me. Lol)

 

[BartholomewB]

I’ve certainly noticed that there are numerous and long digressions on life expectancy. I haven’t read them because the subject is of no interest to me. However, the people who posted them were acting within their rights. No censorship! Let all the posts stand as written.

This would great increase the value of this thread to future readers.

No, it wouldn’t. Censorship never improves anything.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

It might seem like a digression but it’s pretty important in terms of understanding who wrote what and with whom they could have spoken to. Jesus died 30-33 AD and life expectency was 35-45 if you survived childhood. Very few people were over 50. That means that things written after ~60AD are very unlikely to have come from eye witnesses and much more likely to come from previous written accounts and or oral traditions.

 

[JohnR77]

No censorship! Let all the posts stand as written.

I strongly disagree that my idea involved censorship, but out of respect for the creator of this thread, and to keep this thread on topic I will post my ideas on another thread.
See

Censorship ? No. Organization Apologetics

Censorship On another thread I had proposed better organization in regards to posts. See I had suggested that a sub-thread, a numerous number of posts that became, in my opinion somewhat labored, partly because the two parties did not seem to agree that the other correctly understood them, or correctly responded. Perhaps feelings and frustrations on both peoples part played a role. Overall, I like this detailed back and forth so that clarity would hopefully prevail. In the interest of …

 

[BartholomewB]

Very few people were over 50.

Rabbi Hillel lived to be about 100 (link below). He died in AD 10. Jesus may even have seen him during one of his early trips to Jerusalem. Another Jerusalem rabbi, whose name I forget, was known at around the same time for being able to change his shoes standing up, at the age of ninety-something.

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Yes, 1/1,000 people lived to be a 80 in those days, some lived to 100, i don’t have data for that age but it’s considerably less than 1/1,000. Lifespan hasn’t changed, life expectancy has. Today ~1/5 people will live to 100. You can find people that lived to 100 in those times, you just can’t find many.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think you are missing a key point here. It isn’t just “interesting” academically, it is far more than that. If God is, in reality, the inerrant guide for Scripture, then the Gospels WILL BE historically reliable. We can take that, as well as morality and faith, as part of faith.

That means they will be eminently defensible as historical documents because God himself has vouched for them.

Does that mean we close our eyes and just blindly trust them? No, it means we open our eyes wide and look deeper into every detail than anyone else dares because we can trust in the One who is behind it all.

I enjoyed reading all of your posts immensely! Your forbearance with cantankerous adversaries is very indicative of a superior knowledge and willingness to share another viewpoint. The adversaries may ignore your reasonings, but readers like myself see it clearly!

 

[HarryStotle]

Anyone can throw out numbers as facts. How about you dignify those numbers with some hard data that exposes where they are sourced so that can be assessed before we swallow your reasoning?

 

[HarryStotle]

Suggestion:
Since there are very long and numerous posts about life expectancy, and since they may appear as a very tangential point, would the Moderators consider placing all those posts on a separate thread and just link to that thread from here ?

This would great increase the value of this thread to future readers.

As much as I feel your pain about long posts that you are not interested in, I have to disagree that those posts are “very tangential.”

The OP brought up the issue in his last few lines.

it seems to me that the eyewitness testimony of Matthew and John is absolutely essential to give us an accurate historical understanding of Jesus.

Any clarification or further suggested readings on this topic would be much appreciated

Since the question of eyewitness testimony is central to the historical reliability of the Gospels – all of them – a statement that few or none of the eyewitnesses would have been alive at the time of writing, coupled with the claim of the anonymity of the Gospel writers, needs to be treated seriously (and debunked.)

Pitre, himself, considers these two issues as central and so do most New Testament scholars on both sides.

 

[HarryStotle]

I appreciate those thoughts from you.

 

[Vonsalza]

Anyone can throw out numbers as facts. How about you dignify those numbers with some hard data that exposes where they are sourced so that can be assessed before we swallow your reasoning?

While I don’t walk around with all my sources either, I too have been exposed to some research that pretty clearly concludes that if one made it to “adulthood” in the days of antiquity, they were very likely going to live to an advanced age. 60s and maybe 70s.

From what I remember, it really became a function of wealth at that point (as it is today). Ramesses (sp?) the Great made it to 90 years old. Cicero’s wife may have made it to 102. Of course, ancient records on longevity always being taken with a dose of skepticism…

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

I’m afraid that’s against the historical facts. Disease, war and shortages (e.g. faminine) were all more likely to kill you then compared to now. Also wealth doesn’t add anywhere near as much to life expectancy as you’d think, although i understand why people would intuitively assume it would. Whilst the rich wouldn’t starve, they didn’t necessarily have healthy lifestyles either. Whilst agricultural workers have a healthy lifestyle, assuming they can nourish themselves. So swings and roundabouts.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m afraid that’s against the historical facts.

Please provide these “facts” that support your general claims.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Please provide these “facts” that support your general claims.

They’d be lost on you. Clearly our discussion bores people and i can understand why, it bores me too, so i won’t be replying to you.

 

[HarryStotle]

Given that you didn’t provide those sources from the beginning of this thread, before anyone had the opportunity to become bored, I’ll take your refusal as code for you having no such evidence.

 

[Vonsalza]

Replying again, since my fuller post is being mod reviewed, which may never happen.

I’m afraid that’s against the historical facts. Disease, war and shortages (e.g. faminine) were all more likely to kill you then compared to now.

100% of those listed are mitigated substantially by wealth.

Also wealth doesn’t add anywhere near as much to life expectancy as you’d think, although i understand why people would intuitively assume it would. Whilst the rich wouldn’t starve, they didn’t necessarily have healthy lifestyles either. Whilst agricultural workers have a healthy lifestyle, assuming they can nourish themselves. So swings and roundabouts.

True. But there were no social programs for injured laborers in those days beyond begging for alms at the Church/Temple door - a plight obviously offset by access to wealth.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m afraid that’s against the historical facts. Disease, war and shortages (e.g. faminine) were all more likely to kill you then compared to now. Also wealth doesn’t add anywhere near as much to life expectancy as you’d think, although i understand why people would intuitively assume it would.

Sure. Because it’s rational and true.

From your given trifecta, wealth gives one access to treatments for disease, wealth allows one to avoid participating in and being physically adjacent to war and wealth ensures that you’re the last to feel the sting of shortages/famine.

Whilst the rich wouldn’t starve, they didn’t necessarily have healthy lifestyles either. Whilst agricultural workers have a healthy lifestyle, assuming they can nourish themselves. So swings and roundabouts.

Verily. But the benefit of wealth is more than eating and exercising. There wasn’t much in the way of social programs for injured laborers back in those days.

The impact of wealth on longevity is enormous. Always has been. Wealth is the reason Dick Cheney isn’t dead right now.