by jimwalton » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:18 pm
> Are you sure that you don't consider them to be anonymous writers because of your bias rather than everything you just written?
Yeah, I'm sure because I've examined the evidence. I've read extensively and weighed the arguments. I think the arguments in favor of traditional authorship are far stronger than the arguments against traditional authorship.
> people will come up with all types of creative ways to to justify believing in them anyway... This seems like the same exact situation.
Well, I don't consider this is what I've done. As I said, I've looked into it quite a bit.
> No you don't know who they. Their names. When they lived. When they died. Their motivations. Their influences. And whether or not they were mentally sound.
If they are the traditional authors, we have at least something to go by. Not tons, but not zilch either.
Matthew, generally believed to be the disciple of Christ, but he hardly enters into the Gospel stories. We know, if we accept the Gospels, he was a Palestinian Jew who made his living as a tax collector. Probably versed in the law (probably a Levite), probably literate. Interestingly, the Gospel of Matthew has a lot about the Law, ecclesiastical matters, oral interpretations of law and customs, and the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people. The level of Greek in Matthew's Gospel matches what we would expect from such a man. Yet we never hear his voice (that I recall). After Jesus' resurrection, he disappears from written history. We know nothing about his death. So about Matthew we know very little.
Mark we know better. He shows up in various places all over the NT (Acts 12.12, 25; 15.39; Col. 4.10; 2 Tim. 4.11; Philemon 1.24; 1 Pet. 5.13). We know he was a Jerusalemite whose family were believers. He may have known Jesus and followed him somewhat during his ministry. He was a friend of Peter's. His Gospel is basically Peter's story. He speaks a lot about Messiahship, the message of salvation, and the failure of the disciples, commensurate with someone living in Jerusalem with Matthew & Peter after the resurrection. His writing also contains some Latinisms, to be expected from someone who later lived in Rome. (The historical writings we have put him in Rome in the late 50s with Peter.) He writes a lot about Jesus' authority, which fits the profile as well. We don't know anything about his death.
We know Luke was a Gentile and a doctor, and therefore educated and analytical. He traveled with Paul (and therefore probably Mark) throughout the Roman Empire. His Gospel contains more political references than any of the other Gospels. His Gospel contains themes like gender equality, justice, caring for the poor, wealth and poverty, persecution, suffering, and salvation. We don't know anything about his death.
John was a disciple of Jesus, and his Gospel has an abundance of eyewitness details. He was a Galilean fisherman. His Gospel explicitly states that it was written so that people believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. His Gospel is like a lawyer's presentation, bringing evidence and eyewitness testimony to the "witness stand," one after another, to make his case. Little or nothing is known about his death.
> Tell me why your view deserves any credibility to non-christians?
Jesus is a major character in history, no matter what you think of him. Western civilization is founded on Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian theology. Unless you attend UC Berkeley, voices other than liberal ones deserve to be heard so that there is a balanced consideration of perspectives and information.
> Are you sure that you don't consider them to be anonymous writers because of your bias rather than everything you just written?
Yeah, I'm sure because I've examined the evidence. I've read extensively and weighed the arguments. I think the arguments in favor of traditional authorship are far stronger than the arguments against traditional authorship.
> people will come up with all types of creative ways to to justify believing in them anyway... This seems like the same exact situation.
Well, I don't consider this is what I've done. As I said, I've looked into it quite a bit.
> No you don't know who they. Their names. When they lived. When they died. Their motivations. Their influences. And whether or not they were mentally sound.
If they are the traditional authors, we have at least something to go by. Not tons, but not zilch either.
Matthew, generally believed to be the disciple of Christ, but he hardly enters into the Gospel stories. We know, if we accept the Gospels, he was a Palestinian Jew who made his living as a tax collector. Probably versed in the law (probably a Levite), probably literate. Interestingly, the Gospel of Matthew has a lot about the Law, ecclesiastical matters, oral interpretations of law and customs, and the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people. The level of Greek in Matthew's Gospel matches what we would expect from such a man. Yet we never hear his voice (that I recall). After Jesus' resurrection, he disappears from written history. We know nothing about his death. So about Matthew we know very little.
Mark we know better. He shows up in various places all over the NT (Acts 12.12, 25; 15.39; Col. 4.10; 2 Tim. 4.11; Philemon 1.24; 1 Pet. 5.13). We know he was a Jerusalemite whose family were believers. He may have known Jesus and followed him somewhat during his ministry. He was a friend of Peter's. His Gospel is basically Peter's story. He speaks a lot about Messiahship, the message of salvation, and the failure of the disciples, commensurate with someone living in Jerusalem with Matthew & Peter after the resurrection. His writing also contains some Latinisms, to be expected from someone who later lived in Rome. (The historical writings we have put him in Rome in the late 50s with Peter.) He writes a lot about Jesus' authority, which fits the profile as well. We don't know anything about his death.
We know Luke was a Gentile and a doctor, and therefore educated and analytical. He traveled with Paul (and therefore probably Mark) throughout the Roman Empire. His Gospel contains more political references than any of the other Gospels. His Gospel contains themes like gender equality, justice, caring for the poor, wealth and poverty, persecution, suffering, and salvation. We don't know anything about his death.
John was a disciple of Jesus, and his Gospel has an abundance of eyewitness details. He was a Galilean fisherman. His Gospel explicitly states that it was written so that people believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. His Gospel is like a lawyer's presentation, bringing evidence and eyewitness testimony to the "witness stand," one after another, to make his case. Little or nothing is known about his death.
> Tell me why your view deserves any credibility to non-christians?
Jesus is a major character in history, no matter what you think of him. Western civilization is founded on Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian theology. Unless you attend UC Berkeley, voices other than liberal ones deserve to be heard so that there is a balanced consideration of perspectives and information.