Who Wrote The Gospels?

[b***@gmail.com]

Who Wrote The Gospels?

Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell
their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad
consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament
were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if
that is the case, who did write them?

Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large
and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels?
These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were
traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who
was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the
Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke,
the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back
to about a century after the books were written.

But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of
Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do
they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such
fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus
comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John,
Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning
and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a
word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In
Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost
never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus
teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In
Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his
identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does
miracles.

Did two of the earthly followers of Jesus really have such radically
different understandings of who he was? It is possible. Two people who
served in the administration of George W. Bush may well have radically
different views about him (although I doubt anyone would call him
divine). This raises an important methodological point that I want to
stress before discussing the evidence for the authorship of the
Gospels.

Why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written
by apostles and companions of the apostles? In part it was in order to
assure readers that they were written by eyewitnesses and companions
of eyewitnesses. An eyewitness could be trusted to relate the truth of
what actually happened in Jesus' life. But the reality is that
eyewitnesses cannot be trusted to give historically accurate accounts.
They never could be trusted and can't be trusted still. If
eyewitnesses always gave historically accurate accounts, we would have
no need for law courts. If we needed to find out what actually
happened when a crime was committed, we could just ask someone. Real-
life legal cases require multiple eyewitnesses, because eyewitnesses'
testimonies differ. If two eyewitnesses in a court of law were to
differ as much as Matthew and John, imagine how hard it would be to
reach a judgment.

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously,
and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached
to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but
these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors
and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the
authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not
original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple
reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel
according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling
you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books
"according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person,
about what "they"-Jesus and the disciples-were doing, never about what
"we"-Jesus and the rest of us-were doing. Even when this Gospel
narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it
talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself
(Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect
the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author
says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is
testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his
testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates
between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and
himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is
not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information
from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a
companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not
a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee
the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of
the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

Who, then, wrote these books?
Excerpted from Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman.

[G]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Who Wrote The Gospels?
Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell
their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad
consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament
were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if
that is the case, who did write them?

...

To claim there is "broad consensus among scholars" that the gospels were
not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is a dishonest claim. You
are trying to give the impression that it is accepted by an overwhelming
percentage. That is simply not true.

The differences between the gospels can simply be attributed to
different perspectives and purposes. That doesn't mean that any of them
are wrong.

You might want to try citing some evidence if you want people to believe
what you have to say.

----

[I'm sure he's only reading certain scholars. There are scholars who
think Jesus didn't live, although only a few. But among moderate
critical scholars, there's reasonable, though certainly not unanimous,
acceptance of Mark, Luke and John, as long as it's understood that
John is probably not the disciple. --clh]

[DKleinecke]

Post by G
[I'm sure he's only reading certain scholars. There are scholars who
think Jesus didn't live, although only a few. But among moderate
critical scholars, there's reasonable, though certainly not unanimous,
acceptance of Mark, Luke and John, as long as it's understood that
John is probably not the disciple. --clh]

I think you need to add that Luke is not the physician Paul named. But
what are we left with? The gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark,
Luke or John but by four somebodies else wuth the same fours names. On
the whole it seems to me that most moderate critical scholars do
exactly - for convenience. If Mark was not written by Mark, it had to
be written by somebody (possibly two people there are signs of two
editions - for example two versions of the story about feeding the
multitudes). So generally scholars use Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
as shorthand versions of "the anonymous author who wrote the gospel
according to Matthew" and so on.

This is as good as time as any for me to insert one of my more
peculiar theories. I think the document called Q circulated as the
"Kata Mathetes" (according to the disciples) abbreviated to "Kata
Math." and then mistaken for a man's name and Matthew was invented
(perhaps on the basis of the early Christian Mathias (Acts 1.23, 26).
When the author of our present gospel of Matthew wrote he thought of
himself as writing an improved version of Kata Mathetes (Q) improved
by the inclusion of historical information from Mark. In other words,
at least so far as Matthew is concerned, the gospel is Q with Mark
added. What Luke (whoever he was) thought is a wholly different
matter.

[George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus]

On Mar 25, 6:54 pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
If Mark was not written by Mark, it had to be written by somebody
(possibly two people there are signs of two editions - for example two
versions of the story about feeding the multitudes)

Both accounts of the feedings were necessary, they taught two
different lessons. Notice in Mark 8:14-21, Mark says there was only
one loaf of bread on the boat (Jesus), but the disciples did not
recognize Jesus at the loaf or the loaves. Jesus asked the disciples
about the number of loaves used during the feeding of the 5,000 and
how many baskets full were left over. It was 5 and 12, which brings
to mind Mark 2:23-26 where he speaks of David and the five loaves he
got from the priest who had 12 loaves. The loaves were supposed to be
only for the priest, just as the messiah/Jesus/bread was supposed to
be only for the Jews. After David took 5 there were 7 left over.

Then Jesus asked how many loaves were used to feed the 4 thousand and
how many bundles there were of leftovers. There were seven of each. I
think that this is about death and resurrection of Jesus. Every bit of
him that was killed rose from the dead...that is not only a ghost or
spirit, but all of him rose from the dead. I think that Mark used a
word meaning bundle rather than basket in the 4,000 pericope was,
after Jesus died his body was wrapped up (as bread would be wrapped up
into a bundle).

[DKleinecke]

On Apr 27, 5:58 pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina

Post by George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
If Mark was not written by Mark, it had to be written by somebody
(possibly two people there are signs of two editions - for example two
versions of the story about feeding the multitudes)
Both accounts of the feedings were necessary, they taught two
different lessons.

Oddly enough you seem to accept the fact that Mark, as we have him, is
telling two different accounts of one and the same event. As I see it
that is indeed correct - but I find people who favor biblical
infallibilty insist that two accounts means two feedings.

The account of the feeding of the 4000 (the second feeding) would be
Mark's original account. Then the account of the feeding of the 5000
came to Mark and his audience insisted he must include it. At a
certain stage in early Christianity this story was THE story of Jesus'
ministry. I say that because it is the ONLY pericope between the
baptism and the final visit to Jerusalem that is in both the synoptics
and John (assuming the clearing of the Temple really belongs with the
final visit).

As you observed there are some substantial differences between the
feedings. Mark could not see how to harmonize the two stories so, in a
second edition, he added the feeding of the 5000.

Matthew, as usual follows Mark, but Luke has only one feeding - the
feeding of the 5000. This appears to require that either (1) Luke knew
there had only been one and he edited out the one her thought was less
interesting or (2) Luke's copy of Mark had some missing pages. There
may never be a generally accepted answer to the question of Luke's
larger omission from Mark. Was it Luke's
conscious decision to cut part of the story or did he have a defective
copy of Mark or did he have an earlier smaller version of Mark?

So the whole matter remains quite speculative.

[George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus]

DKleinecke wrote: Oddly enough you seem to accept the fact that
Mark, as we have him, is telling two different accounts of one and the
same event. As I see it that is indeed correct - but I find people who
favor biblical infallibilty insist that two accounts means two
feedings.

Patton responds: No, not two different accounts of one and the same
event. Mark tells of two different feedings. Each carried a
different message. That is the way Mark tells his story, two separate
events. Mark makes it clear in Mark 8:18-21 that there were two
different feedings. That is the way Mark wrote it. If you don't like
the way Mark told his story, write your own story.

As for biblical infallibility, I am not an expert on biblical
infallibility, I leave that to others.

[Charles Lindsey]

Post by G
[I'm sure he's only reading certain scholars. There are scholars who
think Jesus didn't live, although only a few. But among moderate
critical scholars, there's reasonable, though certainly not unanimous,
acceptance of Mark, Luke and John, as long as it's understood that
John is probably not the disciple. --clh]

Yes, there are some odd features abut John. One would not expect a
Galilean fisherman, the son of Zebedee, to be well-known to the staff at
the High Priest's house. But, in that case, why are the sons of Zebedee
not listed amongst the twelve?

My take is that, of the four, 'John' is most likely to be an eyewitness
account (he claims as much, if you overlook the purely literary device of
referring to himself in the third person). OTOH, it is clear that he was
speaking many years after the events and that, as an old man, he
remembered many incidents but not the exact chronology of when they
occurred (or even which had occurred before or after the Resurrection).
Moreover, by the time of his writing, the other gospels would be already
in circulation, so no need to compete with them - rather he was writing a
pamphlet to express certain theological ideas. Those same ideas recur in
the first epistle of John, making clear that whoever wrote the one
probably also wrote the other.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Charles Lindsey

Post by G
But among moderate
critical scholars, there's reasonable, though certainly not unanimous,
acceptance of Mark, Luke and John, as long as it's understood that
John is probably not the disciple. --clh]

Yes, there are some odd features abut John.

Here is my take - for what it is worth:

I read the gospels to tell us that neither Matthew nor Luke knew
anything more about the life of Jesus than they read in Mark. Their
additions were teachings that had been passed down to them - in the Q
document and orally.

But John seems to know a little more. Not much, but fragments. I take
it that these fragments came from the memory of the person who called
himself the beloved disciple. The actual author of John was somebody
else, but he had had contact with the beloved disciple.

To me the scenario that makes the most sense is that the beloved
disciple was an early adolescent in Jesus' days - say, a 10-year old.
He only got to see parts of the picture and sometimes the other
account ignores him because he was trivial. He was a resident of
Jerusalem - possibly kin to Jesus.

I would like to think that this person - the beloved disciple - was
the person Luke calls John Mark, but I have trouble making that stick.
The church where the Books of John (including Revelation) was quite
close to, but distinct from, the church of Paul. It emphasized the
more gnostic ideas that were circulating.

I assume that the church of John in the ordinary course of events
produced the gospel not long after the beloved disciple died and that
they had no idea that other gospels existed - if they did. The gnostic
flavor of John caused severe internal problems in the church and Luke
wrote his work as a corrective and a rehabilitation of Paul who had
been more-or-less captured by John's church. Eventually Matthew was
uncovered and seized upon as a great compromise.

One mystery of the early church that has never been even partially
solved is why Marcion used Luke instead of John which would have
served his purposes much better.

One thing you can do with this theory is explain the chronology of the
cleansing of the Temple. The beloved disciple was not following events
at all carefully, but he had heard that "the first thing Jesus did
when he came to Jerusalem was drive the money-changers out of the
Temple." His actual contact with Jesus probably only came during the
passion.

[b***@gmail.com]

On Mar 29, 9:07=A0pm, DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote:
...

Post by DKleinecke
I read the gospels to tell us that neither Matthew nor Luke knew
anything more about the life of Jesus than they read in Mark. Their
additions were teachings that had been passed down to them - in the Q
document and orally.

...

Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by b***@gmail.com
...

Post by DKleinecke
I read the gospels to tell us that neither Matthew nor Luke knew
anything more about the life of Jesus than they read in Mark. Their
additions were teachings that had been passed down to them - in the Q
document and orally.

...
Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

"This is Jesus, King of the Jews"

[DKleinecke]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

"This is Jesus, King of the Jews"

Bravo. You're RIGHT. I missed that.

A very small document to be sure - but a document none the less. But
the question has "is" so the answer remains "no". The label on the
cross (and you have to admit that its exact wording is not well
determined) was lost a long time ago.

It might interest people to concern themselves with what "having" a
document means. We don't have Paul's letters - we have, at best,
copies of copies of copies ... how many times nobody knows. I gather
that the oldest papyrus fragments go back to about 200 CE - that's a
century and a half after Paul.

But I am satisfied that we have excellent copies that are close to
what Paul actually wrote. Nevertheless there was a long time and many
copies. Nothing is certain.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

"This is Jesus, King of the Jews"

Bravo. You're RIGHT. I missed that.
A very small document to be sure - but a document none the less. But
the question has "is" so the answer remains "no". The label on the
cross (and you have to admit that its exact wording is not well
determined) was lost a long time ago.
It might interest people to concern themselves with what "having" a
document means. We don't have Paul's letters - we have, at best,
copies of copies of copies ... how many times nobody knows. I gather
that the oldest papyrus fragments go back to about 200 CE - that's a
century and a half after Paul.

True, and we don't have the works of Julius Caesar, Herodotus or Homer in that
sense either. Do we have the manuscripts of Shakespeare, written in his own
fair hand?

In 1959, when I was 18, on the Thursday of Holy Week, members of our church
youth group went around Johannesburg putting up posters.

They showed a figure of Christ on the cross, with a barbed wire fence running
through the middle of it, and a white man kneeling on one side of the fence
and a black man on the other. On the fence itself was written the word
"Apartheid".

There was a second poster, showing the two men kneeling together at the altar,
with bread and a chalice, with the word "Atonement".

I do not have the original posters, though I think I do have a black and white
photo of the Apartheid one.

I am writing this about as long after the event as the gospel writers wrote
after the event of the crucifixion.

Assuming that no copies of the posters survive in museums or libraries, is
there evidence that they ever existed?

Post by DKleinecke
But I am satisfied that we have excellent copies that are close to
what Paul actually wrote. Nevertheless there was a long time and many
copies. Nothing is certain.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Steve Hayes
True, and we don't have the works of Julius Caesar, Herodotus or Homer in that
sense either. Do we have the manuscripts of Shakespeare, written in his own
fair hand?

Of course not. I believe all we have of Shakespeare is four or five
signatures. All I am arguing against is any feeling of absolute
certainty. A lot of people automatically reject the idea of anything
being relative. They want absolutes - but there don't seem to be any.

I observe that we apparently do have documents by Simon bar Kochba in
his own hand.

The usual collection of Paul's letters contain an excellent example -
the two letters to the Thessalonians. The critical appraisal of these
is that First Thessalonians is a genuine letter of Paul's and Second
Thessalonians is a clumsy forgery.

But I think that is an unfair conclusion. I think what we have is two
versions of the same letter - one good and one very poor. I think
whoever released Second Thessalonians thought he had the genuine
letter. But he didn't have it. He had a very corrupted copy of a copy
of a copy and so one. You can compare those two letters and see how
far off track copies can get in a very brief time.

Along that line the pastoral letters - Titus and the two to Timothy -
could be improved versions of genuine Pauline letters. In this case
the revisions were much more intelligently done. But, of course, too
many anachronism remain and they still stay rooted in the early second
century.

We can never be sure. Nothing is more than highly likely.

[DKleinecke]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

No.

The closest we can come is Paul's letters and, using the earliest
possible date for I Thessalonians, that comes a decade after his
death.

It is perfectly possible and reasonable that no document mentioning
Jesus was written while he was alive. Pilate's report, assuming he
made one that mentioned Jesus, would have been after his death.

One might suggest that Luke's census, assuming that it really
happened, contained a one line item naming three people - father,
mother and infant son. But I imagine that it is not what you were
seeking.

[Emma Pease]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by b***@gmail.com
Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

No.
The closest we can come is Paul's letters and, using the earliest
possible date for I Thessalonians, that comes a decade after his
death.
It is perfectly possible and reasonable that no document mentioning
Jesus was written while he was alive. Pilate's report, assuming he
made one that mentioned Jesus, would have been after his death.
One might suggest that Luke's census, assuming that it really
happened, contained a one line item naming three people - father,
mother and infant son. But I imagine that it is not what you were
seeking.

There was the census of Quirinus in about 7CE which was reported by
Josephus and sparked an uprising. However the census may not have named
anyone beyond the head of household who would have been responsible for
taxes and a count of who was in the household possibly by sex and whether
they were adult or not and whether they were free or slave. For example,
Joseph of Nazareth, one wife, 4 sons, 3 daughters, one carpenter's
workshop worth X denirus. Remember the census was for the purpose of
taxation so knowing how much someone was worth was important.

However any contemporary documents such as census records have not
survived to the present day (or even it seems till the time the Christians
could get their hands on official documents in the 300s).

[news]

Post by b***@gmail.com
...

Post by DKleinecke
I read the gospels to tell us that neither Matthew nor Luke knew
anything more about the life of Jesus than they read in Mark. Their
additions were teachings that had been passed down to them - in the Q
document and orally.

...
Is there a single document that was written about Jesus while he was
alive?

B - I do believe that there some documents written by the Romans about "a
man named Jesus" during the time he was alive. Whether this is the
same...whether this Jesus did what the Bible says...we don't know.
Wish I could give you the written piece but maybe google is your friend
here.
Bren

[Steve]

Post by G

Post by b***@gmail.com
Who Wrote The Gospels?
Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell
their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad
consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament
were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if
that is the case, who did write them?

...
To claim there is "broad consensus among scholars" that the gospels were
not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is a dishonest claim. You
are trying to give the impression that it is accepted by an overwhelming
percentage. That is simply not true.
The differences between the gospels can simply be attributed to
different perspectives and purposes. That doesn't mean that any of them
are wrong.
You might want to try citing some evidence if you want people to believe
what you have to say.
----
[I'm sure he's only reading certain scholars. There are scholars who
think Jesus didn't live, although only a few. But among moderate
critical scholars, there's reasonable, though certainly not unanimous,
acceptance of Mark, Luke and John, as long as it's understood that
John is probably not the disciple. --clh]

So....you wax indignant over the unsupported claim above - and then
counter with your own unsupported claim about what moderate scholars
accept?? Are you the pot or the kettle in this picture?

[d***@aol.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Who Wrote The Gospels?
Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts
As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large
and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels?
But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of
Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels?

Oh for Heaven's sake. Pick up two books about JFK or Lady Di. Do you
imagine they are going to be identical, or often even very similar?
The Gospel writers were writing how many years after the events and
you expect their memories to match exactly? They had no idea what
things were most important to include, so they just wrote down what
they remembered best, and that not perfectly, and of course filtered
through their own perspective.

In Matthew Jesus was confessed to be the "Christ, the Son of the
living God," He spoke with such authority that He claimed the right to
change the Mosaic Law, who but God could do that? What about Matthew
26:62,63 ?