arieh0310:
I don’t know if “most” scholars think that the Gospels weren’t written by the Apostles.
I am pretty confident in making that claim. If you don’t know this, I suggest that you acquaint yourself with some of the standard literature (Raymond Brown, John Meier, E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson, F. F. Bruce, Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg). The scholars you may be accustomed to regard as liberal (such as Fr. Raymond Brown) are actually to the right of center of the scholarly consensus. Only a very few
extremely conservative scholars would say that any of the Gospels were written by an eyewitness.
arieh0310:
I think there is ample evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels.
I think there is some evidence. But it’s not enough to convince most scholars. Mark and Luke of course were never claimed to be by eyewitnesses (the Petrine link traditionally ascribed to Mark is IMHO the strongest and most plausible of the traditions concerning authorship of the Gospels), and indeed Luke explicitly says that his Gospel is based on research. If, as most scholars think, Mark was the earliest Gospel, then Matthew is pretty clearly not by an eyewitness, since one of the two evidently borrowed from the other (and why would an eyewitness borrow from a less direct source?). That leaves John, which is unquestionably the latest Gospel, again making the eyewitness claim improbable (but not, in my opinion, impossible–I’m inclined to think that John is based on the Apostle John’s eyewitness accounts, edited by his disciples; but this is a much more conservative view than that held by most NT scholars).
arieh0310:
Around 189 Irenaeus wrote affirming the authorship of the 4 gospels.
Not very helpful on the face of it, since Irenaeus was writing a century after the composition of the Gospels. However, Irenaeus was actually citing Papias, who lived around 100 and allegedly knew St. John. So I do think this is strong evidence, and I’d be inclined to take it as indicating that Matthew, Mark, and John all have some connection with the eyewitness accounts of apostles. (Of course, if you take Papias’s account of authorship, are you also going to accept his millenarian eschatology, which he likewise claimed to have received from Our Lord through the eyewitness account of St. John?) But most NT scholars take a more skeptical approach.
arieh0310:
with your definition of “proof” one could never really prove anything.
I was pushing it a bit in suggesting that we can’t prove that Jesus lived and was crucified. The main reason I suggested this is the lack of independent evidence. But the evidence we have is solidly convincing to all but a few marginal ideologues, so I don’t have a problem saying that Jesus’ existence and crucifixion can be proven. Still, the definition of “proof” I had in mind was not an impossible one–it would simply require multiple independent sources coming from divergent ideological perspectives (and hence with
different biases). For ancient history, this generally means archeological evidence, and the archeological evidence for Jesus is so far zero (that’s why the James ossuary would be such a hugely important find if authentic).
arieh0310:
I guess I would use a more courtroom definition: Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Actually the standard for criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is quite different. Beyond a shadow of a doubt would be at least as strong as the standard I was using–maybe stronger. The standard used by historians is not that different from the judicial standard of “reasonable doubt,” though the methodologies are not identical. I would agree that the life and death of Jesus (the bare facts that Jesus lived, taught in Galilee and Jerusalem, had disciples, and was crucified by the Romans) are not open to reasonable doubt (though they are not beyond a “shadow of a doubt”). The resurrection, however, is open to reasonable doubt, given the extraordinary nature of the claim. And the general historicity of the Gospels as a whole is
certainly open to reasonable doubt, using the standards common amog historians. Which is why Keating’s argument, once again, makes no sense.
arieh0310:
If anything comes across as mean-spirited or sarcastic it wasn’t intentional
No offense taken. It’s a sensitive subject because downplaying the certainty of the evidence is often taken to be an attack on the Christian Faith itself. I think the evidence is highly plausible, and that’s all faith needs. But apart from faith the Gospel account would simply be a matter of plausible opinion. (Of course, given that the story of Jesus calls for total commitment and a revision of one’s entire world view, no one is going to believe it as a matter of plausible opinion–you either accept it and build your life on it, or you reject it. But reasonable people have chosen to do both.)
Edwin
