[Ninjinka]

Many points in this article are presented as accepted fact, but are not (even among non-Christian scholars).

Such as:

> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.

The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.

And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.

[davmre]

Scholarly consensus is that the "Gospel of Matthew" was not written by the apostle Matthew and the "Gospel of John" was not written by the apostle John:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author_and_d...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

[Ninjinka]

For that assertion to hold water, "scholarly consensus" would have to define "scholarly" so narrowly as to exclude the vast majority of scholars (it seems like it should go without saying that most scholars in this area are Christian who maintain apostolic authorship).

Perhaps they are dismissing scholars who identify as Christian? That would be quite the catch-22.

[jarpadat]

In case you are interested, here is some data on how scholars view apostolic authorship: https://thesacredpage.com/2024/12/13/the-2024-survey-of-paul...

To me, it is apparent that the data cannot support any clean division between two "sides", it tells a more complicated story about sometimes there was apostolic authorship, sometimes not, and sometimes we don't really know.

I would suggest that the real academic consensus is that we can confidently rule out the us-vs-them preoccupation that is common in lay discussion.

[chambers]

"No sides in science" is a silly idea. Of course, scholars have biases. They're human. Humans like to group up and gang up against other.

Specific to Bible Scholarship, I wager the two big sides are scholars who have faith (i.e., Nicene Creed) and scholars who have little. Bruce Metzger who had some faith, and Bart Ehrman who has none. RSV/ESV which says Jesus is the "Son of God" in Mark 1, and NRSVue which deletes "Son of God" from Mark 1.

It's quite a fault line.

[vinceguidry]

There are plenty of YouTube videos that go into the subject thoroughly. I couldn't find the one I watched recently stating the notion that the gospels ever could have been totally anonymous is absurd. Nobody would take you seriously, reputation was everything in the ancient world. The people of the time knew exactly who wrote what, even if there weren't any direct titles on the actual manuscripts.

[goatlover]

So then who wrote Hebrews? It wasn't Paul's writing style, and it doesn't name it's author. Matthew and Luke don't name the Q source material they have in common. Let's take gMark, someone composes it around 70AD somewhere. It gets copied and sent to other communities elsewhere. Decades later it's attributed to Mark.

[vinceguidry]

That one probably was pseudonymous.

[judahmeek]

Reputation has never been everything & as crazy conspiracy theories like Qanon & antivax prove, some sizable fraction of the population will find a way to believe whatever they want to.

[vinceguidry]

Sure. They had crazy conspiracy theories back then too. Anyone can believe what they want. But reputation means something today just as it did back then. It's just today we outsource that function to the academic system.

[goatlover]

Where do the attributions come from, Papias? He claimed Mark wrote down Peter's teachings in the wrong order, and that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew. But the Matthew we have is in Greek, copies from Mark and shares other Greek material with Luke (Q source).

[normalaccess]

And 8 out of 10 dentists prefer Colgate...

[room271]

You are overstating the case on authorship (we don't know who wrote Matthew and John) but otherwise you are wholly correct -- the article misrepresents the scholarly consensus. I.e. as you say, Greek was pervasive and Jesus almost certainly spoke it (along with Aramaic) and it is quite possible that gospel accounts are either written by eyewitnesses or contain the direct testimony of those who were. The historical timeline allows for this and we simply lack historical evidence to make a wholly conclusive case either way (though many attempt to do so on each side).

[dizhn]

This is exactly the subject of this book by Robyn Faith Walsh.

The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture ( Preview pdf: https://robynfaithwalsh.com/content/files/2023/01/Walsh-OECL...)

She has a ton of content on youtube as well.

[Anthony-G]

I always enjoy coming across examples of nominative determinism – even if the name is only tangentially related to what the person does.

[vinceguidry]

Thanks for confirming the low quality, now I don't have to bother listening, like, the whole area got conquered by the Greeks before the Romans showed up. It's called Hellenization and is a major theme in the Book of Maccabees.

Unreal.

[krapp]

As far as I know the scholarly consensus is that none of the gospels, including Matthew and John, were written by disciples, or anyone who lived within Jesus' lifetime. Obviously Christians believe otherwise.

[room271]

This is not correct. Secular academics disagree quite a lot about the specifics as we lack sufficient historical data but it is very widely accepted that:

* the gospels were written in the 1st century

It is therefore entirely possible that they were written by eyewitnesses, even though many do not think they were written by some of the 12 disciples. The topic of 'eyewitnesses' is however hotly debated. See e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitne... which is pro this view but also plenty against.

Even John's gospel, which is often thought of as the latest, may well have been written very early; arguments for a late dating are almost wholly made in relation to the text itself (i.e. it has a 'higher' Christology) and not wider historical data.

Source: I am studying theology at Cambridge University in the UK and have heard several professors here debate these topics, plus I am familiar with the literature.

[goatlover]

They "eyewitness" testimony would include things like Pilate talking to Jesus and the devil tempting Jesus in the desert. Or the women in Mark's gospel finding the empty tomb and then not telling anyone about it. There is a lot of legendary type of story telling that you get with ancient heroes.

Some of the teachings of Jesus might be historical.

[red_trumpet]

> Obviously Christians believe otherwise.

Depends on the Christians. My Catholic school teachers in Germany taught us what you write.

[michaelsbradley]

Depends on the Catholics, too. Some who profess the Catholic Faith, educators and non-educators alike, find it scandalous that staff at a Catholic school teach their pupils such ideas. Others find it amusing, at best, that Catholic teachers impart any ideas re: Scripture that don't line up with areligious academic commentary.

[ZephyrP]

In the mid-2000s, I attended evangelical 'kids night'. Held each Friday at the dead-center of an unincorporated community in rural Colorado.

The "cool" youth pastor who was responsible for these events told us "the Gospel's authors are anonymous, their names are totally traditional". I never had the sense that this view was in any way heretical or contentious, even in a strain of Christianity that strongly emphasized the historicity of the Bible.

[anon291]

This is what we learned in Catholic school. Christians are not delusional about the source of the gospels.

There's been this weird push to view the Bible like the Quran and the two really have nothing in common. The entire view on the book is wholly different.

The authorship of the Bible is actually not really important if you believe the claim of the Catholic/Orthodox church (who make the same claim)

[xhevahir]

Catholics may be willing to believe that the Gospels were written by other authors than the traditional ones, but many, many Protestants are not, particularly in the US.

[MisterBastahrd]

None of the gospel writers were the people whose names are attributed to them.

[room271]

It is not correct to assert this. More precise is to say: it is unlikely that all of the gospels were written by the names we now associate with them -- at least not insofar as these names relate to the 12 disciples.

The truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels. The evidence is that they are quite early (i.e. for Mark, consensus is late 60s so perhaps 30-40 years after Jesus' death). In fact, many scholars think 'Mark' was written by 'Mark Antony' who is mentioned in Acts. And John may have been written by a 'John the Elder' who is mentioned elsewhere. These are educated guesses though -- the evidence is circumstantial.

[AStonesThrow]

> [Our] truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels

Okay, because y’all forgot? People purposely want to remake Sacred Scripture?

I mean, the Church knows who wrote them; Jesus, Mary and the Saints know; bishops and priests and the faithful knew for centuries.

Naming of Bible books isn’t about some guy holding a pen and making stuff up: the names speak to provenance, lineage, and perspective. Somewhat the same function as the “begat” passages everyone hates (because who can remember who all THOSE people were???)

If scholarship wants to move past that attribution and unmoor the books from tradition, then they can. Modern interpretations, perspectives, and hermeneutics are always in demand. But I confidently assure you that anyone who mattered was well aware of where those books came from and “who” had written them, notwithstanding meddlesome medieval monkey business.

[shawabawa3]

But Mark Antony died before Jesus was born

[room271]

You are correct, I meant John Mark :(.

[AStonesThrow]

I once sat on a bus with kids who enjoyed sightings of “Honda Chevys”. Ahh, the John Paul generation!

[freeopinion]

This is bit besides the point, but I'll stick it here anyway.

When I read <u>A Man Called Ove</u> in English I was impressed over and over again with the writing. It made me wish I could understand Swedish to compare the original prose. I concluded that Henning Koch is an amazingly talented wordsmith. And it made me suspect that Fredrik Backman might also be one. Clearly, Backman is a very good writer. But I wonder if Koch is a better wordsmith. Sadly, I am unable to enjoy Backman in the original language. As it is, I credit Backman with great writing and Koch with great wording (probably inspired by Backman's great wording).

[niemandhier]

I often read translations along side the original. So far the originals always were better.