Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves

  • Thread starter Thread starter paarsurrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paarsurrey

Guest
Hi

What does the following sentence signify?:

"Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

Thanks
 
Maybe there is no actual internal evidence indicating the authorship.

The thing is, even the earliest mss (some of which are 2nd century) connect the traditional authors with the gospels bearing their names.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Maybe there is no actual internal evidence indicating the authorship.

The thing is, even the earliest mss (some of which are 2nd century) connect the traditional authors with the gospels bearing their names.
Click to expand...
Hi

Thanks for responding.

Your above sentences still remain vague to me unless elaborated and defined further. What are the traditional authors? You mean Mathew, Mark, Luke and John or someone else?

These were committed to writing much later as I understand, they were in the form of oral tradition not even named, so how could they differentiate one from the other.

Anyone, please

It would be useful, if while replying, one mentions one’s denomination for a clear understanding, mine is written in my signatures.

Thanks
 
I am Roman Catholic.

There are some “scholars” who assert a later date for the writing of the four gospels which necessarily casts doubt on their authorship. The RCC teaches that they were written by the men whose names are associated with them.

This is a long read, but good if you are interested.

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
 
bpbasilphx said:
Maybe there is no actual internal evidence indicating the authorship.

The thing is, even the earliest mss (some of which are 2nd century) connect the traditional authors with the gospels bearing their names.
Click to expand...
by titles do you mean the bold face headings for chapter sections such as “Sermon on the Mount” or “Last Supper”? Yes those are later additions, as is the practice of breaking the text into numbered chapters and verses.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

What does the following sentence signify?:

"Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

Thanks
Click to expand...
it means that the authors did not write : “the gospel of Jesus according to me” and then began to write.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

What does the following sentence signify?:

"Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

Thanks
Click to expand...
Paarsurrey,
It would be helpful, when you post a quote, to cite the source of the quote so that we can put it in context.
Paul
 
The sentence seems to imply that there is no evidence supporting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote the Gospels that bear their names.

To hold this view you have to go against the unanimous testimony of early historical sources - Christian bishops, scholars, etc. There is absolutely no credible source (or possibly any source at all) which attributes Matthew, Mark, and Luke to anyone else (and I believe, although I’m not positive, that is the case with John).

Modern liberal scholars want to distance the texts from apostolic authorship as much as they can for a number of reasons. Largely it seems that they want theology to hold up under the scrutiny of the scientific method and are thus embarrassed by the miraculous elements found in Christianity. It could also be that they want to reduce the faith to a mere subjective ‘faith’ which has no grounds in objective reality. But most of them, I think, are just incredibly ignorant of early historical sources (possibly by their own wills). For that reason, they can make such unsubstantiated claims without being outright liars.
 
EB4304;:
To hold this view you have to go against the unanimous testimony of early historical sources - Christian bishops, scholars, etc.
Click to expand...
They discount the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, on the grounds that the Gospels were written by Early Church Fathers.

P-52 is dismissed as “being from a text which is no longer extent”.
(and I believe, although I’m not positive, that is the case with John).
Click to expand...
The Gospel of John is a very interesting case.

The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelations are attributed to John.
From forensic analysis:
  • If all five were originally written in Greek, then they were written by at least two people;
  • If they were originally written in a language other than Greek, then at least two people translated them;
  • If they were originally written in two or more languages, then a person other than the author did the translation;
One major issue with the forensic analysis, is that the texts that are used are reconstructions. That does contaminate the results. (One of my long term projects, is to obtain an accurate etext of each and every known manuscript and manuscript fragment, and then run the forensic analysis for identifying on author on each etext.)

xan

jonathon
 
jblake said:
They discount the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, on the grounds that the Gospels were written by Early Church Fathers.

P-52 is dismissed as “being from a text which is no longer extent”.

The Gospel of John is a very interesting case.

The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelations are attributed to John.
From forensic analysis:
  • If all five were originally written in Greek, then they were written by at least two people;
  • If they were originally written in a language other than Greek, then at least two people translated them;
  • If they were originally written in two or more languages, then a person other than the author did the translation;
One major issue with the forensic analysis, is that the texts that are used are reconstructions. That does contaminate the results. (One of my long term projects, is to obtain an accurate etext of each and every known manuscript and manuscript fragment, and then run the forensic analysis for identifying on author on each etext.)
xan
jonathon
Click to expand...
Hi

I appreciate your scholarly views. Could you please explain for us what is the forensic analysis as mentioned by you?

Thanks
 
paarsurrey;:
I appreciate your scholarly views. Could you please explain for us what is the forensic analysis as mentioned by you?
Click to expand...
a) I’m not a scholar. The only reason I know how to do that type of Literary Forensic Analysis, is because I did training as a Forensic Document Analyst.

b) The forensic analysis consists of the following:

i) The specific word that is used:
  • When did it first occur in the literature;
  • When did it become common usage;
  • When did it leave common usage;
  • When did it last occur in the literature;

This gives a rough way to date the text;​

ii) The grammar of the sentence:
  • When was the type of construction first used;
  • When was it commonly used;
  • When was it last used;

This gives a second way to date the text;​

iii) What is the structure of the handwriting:
  • When was the copybook first used;
  • When was the copybook in common usage;
  • When was the copybook last used;

This requires that one either have the original manuscript, or a very good high quality photograph of the text;​

This provides a way to date when the copy was made;​

iv) Do a full forensic document analysis of the handwriting of the manuscript;

This lets one determine how many people wrote the specific document;​

v) Do a statistical analysis of the phrases and words used;

This provides a way to roughly date the text;​

vi) Do a statistical analysis of the letters, letter pairs, letter triplets, and letter quadruplets;

This provides a way to differentiate two or more authors;​

If I had high quality TIFF/PNG/SVG files, I could do iii and iv.
(JPG files are utterly useless,because they throw away too much data that this type of analysis requires.)

I’ve got the tools on my computer to do everything else. 🙂

Most of this is simple grunt work, followed by a different type of grunt work, followed by an argument of whether or not two differences are statistically significant, followed by still more grunt work.

xan

jonathon
 
jblake said:
a) I’m not a scholar. The only reason I know how to do that type of Literary Forensic Analysis, is because I did training as a Forensic Document Analyst.

b) The forensic analysis consists of the following:

i) The specific word that is used:
  • When did it first occur in the literature;
  • When did it become common usage;
  • When did it leave common usage;
  • When did it last occur in the literature;

This gives a rough way to date the text;​

ii) The grammar of the sentence:
  • When was the type of construction first used;
  • When was it commonly used;
  • When was it last used;

This gives a second way to date the text;​

iii) What is the structure of the handwriting:
  • When was the copybook first used;
  • When was the copybook in common usage;
  • When was the copybook last used;

This requires that one either have the original manuscript, or a very good high quality photograph of the text;​

This provides a way to date when the copy was made;​

iv) Do a full forensic document analysis of the handwriting of the manuscript;

This lets one determine how many people wrote the specific document;​

v) Do a statistical analysis of the phrases and words used;

This provides a way to roughly date the text;​

vi) Do a statistical analysis of the letters, letter pairs, letter triplets, and letter quadruplets;

This provides a way to differentiate two or more authors;​

If I had high quality TIFF/PNG/SVG files, I could do iii and iv.
(JPG files are utterly useless,because they throw away too much data that this type of analysis requires.)

I’ve got the tools on my computer to do everything else. 🙂

Most of this is simple grunt work, followed by a different type of grunt work, followed by an argument of whether or not two differences are statistically significant, followed by still more grunt work.

xan

jonathon
Click to expand...
Hi

Thank you for a very informative post, I was not aware of it. It is very fascinating.

I was once interested in certain words and I looked into some dictionaries, when I pondered I realized that the words tell history of civilization. The word was in Arabic “khatum” meaning SEAL, I looked in English Dictionaries for the words PRESS, IMPRESS, PRINT. IMPRINT; diffrent usage of SEAL would convey how the words convey history of the people who spoke them. I am just a layman but I got to know that their was a history concealed in every word.

Maybe it is boring for some people. Now that word NUT when man lived in jungle when thirsty man would crack a nut to quench one thirst, and it was difficult to do it. A difficult man was also called as NUT etc

Thanks again.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

What does the following sentence signify?:

"Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

Thanks
Click to expand...
It means we have no clear assurance that the writers of some of the Gospels at least may not have been written by the named evangelists. It was common in those days for a follower of a patrticular preacher or teacher, if they chose to write down the teachings, to write in the name of that person. So, for example, in Mark, it is Mark’s Gospel. We don’t know for sure if some Mark actually wrote it, or if Mark was a preacher of the gospel and someone wrote down what Mark taught.
 
EB4304 said:
The sentence seems to imply that there is no evidence supporting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote the Gospels that bear their names.

To hold this view you have to go against the unanimous testimony of early historical sources - Christian bishops, scholars, etc. There is absolutely no credible source (or possibly any source at all) which attributes Matthew, Mark, and Luke to anyone else (and I believe, although I’m not positive, that is the case with John).

Modern liberal scholars want to distance the texts from apostolic authorship as much as they can for a number of reasons. Largely it seems that they want theology to hold up under the scrutiny of the scientific method and are thus embarrassed by the miraculous elements found in Christianity. It could also be that they want to reduce the faith to a mere subjective ‘faith’ which has no grounds in objective reality. But most of them, I think, are just incredibly ignorant of early historical sources (possibly by their own wills). For that reason, they can make such unsubstantiated claims without being outright liars.
Click to expand...
Yes and many of those “liberal” scholars are Catholic and of course the same notes are contained in Catholic study bibles. This is not a new idea, but has been developed over a fairly long period of time and is the reasoned of opinion of most exegetes today. Please provide proof that scholars are falsifying information to arrive at a known false position for some nefarious desire to limit Christianity to “subjective” belief. I’ve never heard this rather strange line of thinking in my life. Can you name the academic scholars you think are so ignorant they are unable to read ECF and discern the truth?

I think really what you are saying is that you regard the bible as inerrent in every word and are not Catholic but a fundamentalist. we do not follow that practice in the Catholic church.
 
jblake said:
They discount the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, on the grounds that the Gospels were written by Early Church Fathers.

P-52 is dismissed as “being from a text which is no longer extent”.

The Gospel of John is a very interesting case.

The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelations are attributed to John.
From forensic analysis:
  • If all five were originally written in Greek, then they were written by at least two people;
  • If they were originally written in a language other than Greek, then at least two people translated them;
  • If they were originally written in two or more languages, then a person other than the author did the translation;
One major issue with the forensic analysis, is that the texts that are used are reconstructions. That does contaminate the results. (One of my long term projects, is to obtain an accurate etext of each and every known manuscript and manuscript fragment, and then run the forensic analysis for identifying on author on each etext.)

xan

jonathon
Click to expand...
I’d always thought the Gospel of John and Revelation were written by the samer person, but not the letters of John? Do you have any take on this? This work sounds most interesting. Hope you can keep us posted.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

What does the following sentence signify?:

"Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."

Thanks
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot to say I was Catholic. Welcome to the forum. I hope you join in and give us your prospective from a Muslim point of view. 🙂
 
EB4304 said:
The sentence seems to imply that there is no evidence supporting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote the Gospels that bear their names.

To hold this view you have to go against the unanimous testimony of early historical sources - Christian bishops, scholars, etc. There is absolutely no credible source (or possibly any source at all) which attributes Matthew, Mark, and Luke to anyone else (and I believe, although I’m not positive, that is the case with John).

Modern liberal scholars want to distance the texts from apostolic authorship as much as they can for a number of reasons. Largely it seems that they want theology to hold up under the scrutiny of the scientific method and are thus embarrassed by the miraculous elements found in Christianity.
Click to expand...

A few points:​

  • The mere material presence of words in a text testifying to its revealed status does not by itself guarantee the status of a text: if it did, there would have been no controversy about the status of the Book of Revelation, or its authorship. And many Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha would have been canonised as Scripture, that have not. 1 Enoch is prophetic, & Enoch is quoted as a prophet by St. Jude - but the book was rejected, despite the explicit, inspired & inerrant witness of the NT Apostle to its inspired & inerrant prophetic content
  • Miracle-stories were common in antiquity - but how many Christians are willing to accept the sage & miracle-worker Apollonius of Tyana as a miracle-worker ? He was a younger contemporary of Jesus who taught, healed the sick, confuted his enemies, & was even seen in two different places at the same. It is clearly because they are “embarrassed by the miraculous elements found in” his life that Christians rejected the claim that he was a prophet & wonder-worker.
  • If wonder-stories about Apollonius can & should be critically surveyed, so should wonder-stories about Jesus.
  • IOW - the appeal to miracle is useless as a scholarly tool; which is why it is not used. I’m sure that Homeric scholars would be only too pleased if Homer were to appear to them to tell them whether or not the lines of the Odyssey at Book 11.600-02 are or are not by him - but even if he were to appear, such a vision would be useless as an academic tool, because it could be explained in some other way than as as a vision of the poet. No amount of faith in Homer’s inspiration can solve questions arising from his text, because these are issues of two wholly unrelated orders. Which is why one cannot use one own’s religious faith as an academic tool
It could also be that they want to reduce the faith to a mere subjective ‘faith’ which has no grounds in objective reality. But most of them, I think, are just incredibly ignorant of early historical sources (possibly by their own wills). For that reason, they can make such unsubstantiated claims without being outright liars.
Click to expand...

That must be why scholars such as Raymond Brown, Albert Vanhoye, & John McHugh have all been been members of the PBC: because of their vast ignorance.​

I think you ought to inform the Pope that the PBC has dishonest & unorthodox ignoramuses on it - you’re the one to tell us of their unorthodoxy, ignorance & lack of intellectual honesty, so it’s only fair that you should tell him how untrustworthy & ignorant & unorthodox such scholars are.

If these scholars, & others like them, are as you describe, you have a moral duty to alert those who are in a position to prevent people of this character perverting the Faith with their ignorance, their intellectual dishonesty, & their lack of orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top