gospels were anonymous...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why do you believe that Matthew, Mark Luke and John wrote those 4 gospels, considering the fact that they were anonymous writings?

Joe…
 
joe370 said:
My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why do you believe that Matthew, Mark Luke and John wrote those 4 gospels, considering the fact that they were anonymous writings?

Joe…
Click to expand...
No, I do not believe the gospels were written by the “authors” who’s name is attributed to each gospel. They were written anonymously. I do not believe they were written “shortly after” the death of Christ either. Mark was probably written between 50-65CE, Matthew around 70CE and John and Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century to the first decades of the 2nd.

That “tradition” put names to the gospels does not "proove’ their authorship…it is “pious myth” but not historical fact.
 
The human writers who put pen to paper are irrelevant to the message. I think of last Sunday’s Gospel reading from Luke 17:5-10. The idea of worthless slaves is that one could have done the work as well as any other.

The convention of naming books is a convenience that helps us locate and discuss passages. Another possibility might have been to title books by their first lines, as was done with Psalms for a long time. If you look in many hymnals, there is an index of first lines. Add to the idea of naming the books having chapters and then verses and we have a convenience for study, but no more.
 
Publisher said:
No, I do not believe the gospels were written by the “authors” who’s name is attributed to each gospel. They were written anonymously. I do not believe they were written “shortly after” the death of Christ either. Mark was probably written between 50-65CE, Matthew around 70CE and John and Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century to the first decades of the 2nd.

That “tradition” put names to the gospels does not "proove’ their authorship…it is “pious myth” but not historical fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is historical fact.

For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eyewitnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship.

Clement of Alexandria, who lived ca. 150-215 (i.e. as few as only 10 years removed from the “first decades of the 2nd century”), records that he himself had traveled widely, meeting and listening to truly notable men from all over the Roman Empire. Remember that, while Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual center was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous pagan university, and the earlier presence of Philo had also made it the center of Jewish studies; it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made.

Eusebius quoted (i.e. not paraphrased) the following from Clement’s books:So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark.
And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

So by this evidence, for John to have known of the other Gospels (in particular, Mark’s), all of the synoptic gospels would have had to have been written prior to Peter’s martyrdom (in 64 AD, according to the “Gospel of Wikipedia”)
 
Erich said:
Actually, it is historical fact.

For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eyewitnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship.

Clement of Alexandria, who lived ca. 150-215 (i.e. as few as only 10 years removed from the “first decades of the 2nd century”), records that he himself had traveled widely, meeting and listening to truly notable men from all over the Roman Empire. Remember that, while Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual center was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous pagan university, and the earlier presence of Philo had also made it the center of Jewish studies; it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made.

Eusebius quoted (i.e. not paraphrased) the following from Clement’s books:So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark.
And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.

So by this evidence, for John to have known of the other Gospels (in particular, Mark’s), all of the synoptic gospels would have had to have been written prior to Peter’s martyrdom (in 64 AD, according to the “Gospel of Wikipedia”)
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that the CC teaches what you have outlined. Modern biblical scholars disagree with you and the Catholic church…what you outline is part of the “sacred story” of Catholicism…based on tradition, pious myth and the need to push the gospels back to as close to the time of Christ as possilbe…if you believe it…wonderful…I don’t.
 
Publisher said:
No, I do not believe the gospels were written by the “authors” who’s name is attributed to each gospel. They were written anonymously. I do not believe they were written “shortly after” the death of Christ either. Mark was probably written between 50-65CE, Matthew around 70CE and John and Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century to the first decades of the 2nd.

That “tradition” put names to the gospels does not "proove’ their authorship…it is “pious myth” but not historical fact.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, you still consider them canonical and inspired-right?
 
Publisher said:
I have no doubt that the CC teaches what you have outlined. Modern biblical scholars disagree with you and the Catholic church…what you outline is part of the “sacred story” of Catholicism…based on tradition, pious myth and the need to push the gospels back to as close to the time of Christ as possilbe…if you believe it…wonderful…I don’t.
Click to expand...
Modern biblical scholars? Provide the names of such modern scholars.
 
Publisher said:
I have no doubt that the CC teaches what you have outlined. Modern biblical scholars disagree with you and the Catholic church…what you outline is part of the “sacred story” of Catholicism…based on tradition, pious myth and the need to push the gospels back to as close to the time of Christ as possilbe…if you believe it…wonderful…I don’t.
Click to expand...
What do you know of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War from personal experience? I’d venture to guess, “absolutely nothing” (i.e. everything you know about these wars you know from what others have written… and, in the grand scheme of things, the 234 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence is a mere “drop in the bucket”).

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Of course, the same is true for some of the writings of the ECFs as well.

If someone came along today and claimed – with no evidence to back it up – something (anything!) about the writings of Virgil, Livy, Horace, Plato, or even Euripides that contradicts what we already know, no one would hesitate to say that the new claims must be in error.

So tell me, then, why your claim – which first made its appearance 1,800 years after the time of Christ and which contradicts all the ancient historians, the tradition of the Catholic Church, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant denominations – that Mark was written between 50 AD and 65 AD, Matthew around 70 AD and John and Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century to the first decades of the 2nd is worthy of serious consideration?
 
Nicea325 said:
Modern biblical scholars? Provide the names of such modern scholars.
Click to expand...
Hyam Mcoby
Robert Price (The Pre/Nicene New Testament)
John Dominic Crossan
Bart Erhman
Burton Mack
John Spong
Marcus Borg
Karen Armstrong
Karen King
 
Erich said:
What do you know of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War from personal experience? I’d venture to guess, “absolutely nothing” (i.e. everything you know about these wars you know from what others have written… and, in the grand scheme of things, the 234 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence is a mere “drop in the bucket”).

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Of course, the same is true for some of the writings of the ECFs as well.

If someone came along today and claimed – with no evidence to back it up – something (anything!) about the writings of Virgil, Livy, Horace, Plato, or even Euripides that contradicts what we already know, no one would hesitate to say that the new claims must be in error.

So tell me, then, why your claim – which first made its appearance 1,800 years after the time of Christ and which contradicts all the ancient historians, the tradition of the Catholic Church, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant denominations – that Mark was written between 50 AD and 65 AD, Matthew around 70 AD and John and Luke/Acts at the end of the 1st century to the first decades of the 2nd is worthy of serious consideration?
Click to expand...
With new discoveries, textual criticism, internal evidence that was not before available to be studied and common sense…removing the “magic” and “mysticism” from the historical evidence…I’d say these scholars are much more credible than the pious mythic history that “historic” Christianity has espoused.

If you find comfort in your beliefs…I say you need not give any of these claims consideration. They have however answered some of my deepest questions…and has allowed me to embrace a faith in God I wasn’t able to accept before without reservations.

They have answered my questions…if you choose to embrace what your church tradition tells you…I’m ok…I don’t debate Mormonism’s claims…I offer only an alternative view and ask…“Which is more credible?” If your answers are “credible” to you…why change them? It certainly makes no difference to me and my walk in Christ if you accept or reject them.
 
Nicea325 said:
Nonetheless, you still consider them canonical and inspired-right?
Click to expand...
Are they “canonical”…of course…the established religious body of the day set the canon…are all inspired writings in the canon? No…does inspiration mean “inerrant” or “without error”…no…the Bible is a very human book…by very human authors who sought to relay their experience with God.

The Bible is not the Source of Truth…the Light of Christ, the Holy Spirit is the True Rule and Source of Truth…do scripture contain the truth…Yes…are they completely “true”…Yes…are they historically true? No…not completely “historical” in the least.

From Philadephia Yearly Meeting “Faith and Practice”
“We do not, however, consider scriptures, whether Hebrew or Christian or those of other religous faiths, to be the final revelation of God’s nature and will. Rather, we believe in continuing revelation. This term empasizes our ongonig communion with the Living God, our expanding sensitivity in our relationships with one another, and our growing knowledge of the universe.”

Our understanding of scripture is based on a very “this world” idea…any info others with to base belief on concerning the “next life”, “heaven” and or “hell”…is up to them…our focus is on this world and how our world is to become a fit place for humanity to dwell in peace with one another…any religious literature…whether scripture or “tradition” that does not answer the basic question of “How then shall we live?” is not something we spend a lot of time worrying about.

If you find your beliefs give you peace, cause you to be gentle, kind, merciful, meek, compassionate to your fellow Sojourners in this world, we rejoice with you on your Journey.
 
joe370 said:
My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why do you believe that Matthew, Mark Luke and John wrote those 4 gospels, considering the fact that they were anonymous writings?

Joe…
Click to expand...
It makes no difference who wrote the Gospels. Facts change based on perspective, the truth never changes. The Gospels are true, and that’s all that matters. 🙂

In Christ
Joe
 
JHow said:
No, I was going to go for “Reliable source of information”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh…so was I…as I stated before…I do not believe the “faith story” of so called “historical Christianity” is reliable or credible.🙂
 
Publisher said:
Hyam Mcoby
Robert Price (The Pre/Nicene New Testament)
John Dominic Crossan
Bart Erhman
Burton Mack
John Spong
Marcus Borg
Karen Armstrong
Karen King
Click to expand...
Thanks! But you are aware that in 20,30,50 years or more down the road,views will change again? I am not one who dwells so much as to whether Mark really wrote Mark or what have you not,because that takes away from the main message: The Gospel of Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top