Who Wrote the Gospels?
Summary
TLDRThe script debates the authorship of the four Gospels, traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It challenges the modern scholarly consensus that the Gospels were originally anonymous, suggesting that they were likely written by the named individuals. The argument is supported by the lack of alternative authorship claims, unanimous attestation across early church writings, and the implausibility of later forgeries given the titles' historical and cultural context.
Takeaways
- ?\ud83c? The four Gospels in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but some argue that they were originally anonymous and the names were added later for authority.
- ?\ud83c? There's a scholarly consensus that the Gospels were not written by the individuals they're named after, challenging the traditional view with historical-critical analysis.
- ?\ud83c? Ancient works, including the Gospels, were often internally anonymous, with authorship indicated externally through titles or other means, which was a standard practice.
- ?\ud83c? The lack of internal claims of authorship in the Gospels does not necessarily imply they circulated anonymously; they could have been identified by external titles or tags.
- ?\ud83c? Scholars like Simon Gathercole argue that the anonymity of ancient biographies was common and that the Gospels likely had titles attributing them to their respective authors from the outset.
- ?\ud83c? The early Church valued reliable sources, and it's improbable that they would have accepted anonymous biographies of Christ without knowing their origin from reliable sources like disciples or elders.
- ?\ud83c? There is unanimous agreement among early Church writings that the Gospels came from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with no dissenting voices suggesting other authors.
- ?\ud83c? The titles of the Gospels show remarkable consistency across manuscripts, suggesting that they were added early and not as a later addition, which supports the idea that the titles were original.
- ?\ud83c? The names attached to the Gospels are unlikely choices for forgers, considering the social status and roles of the individuals named, which further supports the traditional authorship.
- ?\ud83c? The evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is stronger than for many other ancient works, with earlier and more consistent attestation, challenging the notion that the Gospels were originally anonymous.
Q & A
为什么有观点认为最初的福音书是匿名的?
-一些学者认为,最初的福音书是匿名的,因为这些文献在其内部没有提及作者的名字,无论是在序言还是正文中。这种观点认为,这些名字是在二世纪时为了增加其权威性而后来添加的[^3^]。
传统上,哪四位作者被认为是四福音书的作者?
-传统上,四福音书被认为是由耶稣的门徒马太和约翰以及他们的追随者马可和路加所写[^3^]。
为什么有人认为马可福音可能是彼得口述的?
-根据早期教会传统,马可福音是由使徒彼得的追随者马可所写,他记录了彼得关于耶稣生活的教导。因此,有一种观点认为,马可能是彼得口述的[^3^]。
路加福音的序言提到了谁,这与福音书的匿名性有何关联?
-路加福音的序言提到了提阿非罗,这表明路加福音是送给一个特定的人的。这很难想象路加福音在没有提阿非罗知道谁写的情况下就被送出,这支持了路加福音并非匿名的观点[^3^]。
早期教会父亲帕皮亚斯对于福音书作者身份有何看法?
-早期教会父亲帕皮亚斯认为他不相信任何不能追溯到耶稣的门徒或已知长老的可靠来源的传统,这表明早期教会不太可能接受关于基督的匿名传记[^3^]。
为什么有学者认为福音书的标题在其最初写作时就存在?
-一些学者认为,因为古代作品通常在其外部(如标题、目录或卷轴背面的标签)标识作者,所以福音书很可能在其最初写作时就带有归属于各自作者的标题[^3^]。
为什么说福音书的匿名性并不奇怪?
-根据Simon Gathercole的说法,考虑到文化背景,我们应该预期福音书是内部匿名的,而且这种匿名性并不是福音书独有的特征。许多古代作品也是内部匿名的,如色诺芬、约瑟夫斯和普鲁塔克的作品[^3^]。
早期教会对于福音书作者的共识是什么?
-早期教会的共识是,四福音书的作者是马太、马可、路加和约翰。这种共识来自不同的地区和不同的作者,他们一致认为这四部福音书是由这四位作者所写[^3^]。
为什么说将福音书归因为马太、马可、路加和约翰不太可能是后来的伪造者所为?
-因为马太被认为是一个税吏,这是一个在犹太人中被鄙视的职业,而马可和路加只是门徒的追随者,并不是耶稣的直接门徒。选择这些人作为福音书的作者,对于后来的伪造者来说没有意义[^3^]。
为什么说福音书的作者身份对于理解其内容并不重要?
-即使关于福音书作者身份的问题很复杂,但重要的是这些文献所包含的真理。无论是谁实际写下或编辑了这些信息,这些福音书都是受启示的作品[^3^]。
Outlines
📜 The Debate on Gospel Authorship
This paragraph discusses the historical debate over the authorship of the four Gospels. Traditionally, they are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but some argue they were originally anonymous, with names added later for authority. The paragraph outlines the traditional view that two Gospels were written by disciples (Matthew and John) and the other two by followers of disciples (Mark and Luke). However, modern consensus among New Testament historians is that there's no solid evidence that the Gospels were written by the individuals they are named after. Scholars like Bart Ehrman and David Carr argue for the anonymity of the Gospels, suggesting that names were ascribed later when the Gospels were published as a collection in the second century. Dale Martin also supports this view, stating that the Gospels were likely published without names initially. However, recent scholarship, as represented by Simon Gathercole, challenges this consensus, arguing that the Gospels' titles were probably part of the original writings, and they were always understood to be from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
📚 External Identification of Ancient Authors
The second paragraph explores how ancient works, including the Gospels, were often internally anonymous but externally identified through titles, subscriptions, or other markers outside the main text. It discusses various ways authors could be identified outside their works, such as in a title above the text or on a scroll's back. The paragraph refutes the idea that the Gospels were not attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until the second century. It argues that the Gospels would have needed external titles for identification as they were added to church libraries and circulated. The authorship would have been known to the first readers, as seen in the prologue of Luke's Gospel, which was addressed to Theophilus. Early church fathers like Papias emphasized the importance of reliable sources, suggesting that the Gospels would not have been accepted without known authors. The paragraph also highlights the unanimous agreement among early church writings that attribute the Gospels to the traditional authors.
🔍 Unanimous Consent on Gospel Authorship
This paragraph emphasizes the unanimous consent across the early Christian writings that attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It discusses how no other authors were ever suggested for the Gospels and how the traditions about them differ on minor details, indicating that the information did not all come from a single source. The paragraph also notes the remarkable similarity in the titles of the Gospels across manuscripts, suggesting that the titles were added early. It argues against the idea that the Gospels were anonymous by pointing out that the names attached to the Gospels are unlikely choices for forgers. For example, Matthew was a tax collector, a despised profession among Jews, and Mark and Luke were not direct disciples of Jesus. The paragraph also compares the Gospels' authorship to that of other ancient works, like the book of Hebrews, which was truly anonymous and sparked debate among Church Fathers about its authorship, unlike the Gospels.
🗣️ The Case for Traditional Gospel Authorship
The final paragraph summarizes the evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels. It points out that it was common for biographical works to be internally anonymous, with authors identified externally, such as through tags or titles. The paragraph argues that there was a practical need to identify the Gospels as they were added to Christian libraries, and there is no indication that they were ever considered anonymous. It highlights the unanimous attestation from multiple witnesses that the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The paragraph also notes that the names of the Gospel authors are unlikely to have been chosen by forgers and that the conversation about their authorship should have resembled the debate over the authorship of Hebrews if they were truly anonymous. It concludes by questioning why the Gospels are assumed to be anonymous when the evidence strongly favors that they were not, and it challenges skeptics to provide a better explanation for the unanimous and early attestation of the Gospel titles and their association with the traditional authors.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Gospels
💡Anonymous
💡Authorship
💡New Testament historians
💡Canonical Gospels
💡Internally Anonymous
💡External Title
💡Early Church Fathers
💡Papias
💡Manuscript
💡Forgery
Highlights
The four Gospels are traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but some argue they were originally anonymous.
The claim that Gospels were anonymous until the second century to give them authority is questioned.
Christian tradition holds that two Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, and the other two by followers of the disciples.
Modern New Testament historians generally agree that the Gospels were not written by the men they are attributed to.
David Carr and Colleen Conway argue all four Gospels were originally anonymous.
Simon Gathercole's paper challenges the idea that the anonymity of the Gospels indicates they were not attributed to their traditional authors.
Ancient works were often internally anonymous, including biographies similar to the Gospels.
Gathercole notes that many ancient authors did not include their names within their works.
The absence of an author's name within a work does not mean it circulated without a known author.
Ancient works often identified authors externally, such as in titles or subscriptions.
It is plausible that the Gospels always came with titles attributing them to their respective authors.
The claim that Gospels were not attributed to their traditional authors until the second century is disputed.
Early church writings show unanimous agreement that the Gospels came from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
No dissenting voices attribute the Gospels to other authors, and no alternative authors are ever suggested.
The titles of the Gospels have remarkable similarity across manuscripts, suggesting they were added early.
The names attached to the Gospels are unlikely choices for forgers, suggesting authenticity.
The conversation about the Gospels' authorship should have resembled the debate on the authorship of the book of Hebrews if they were anonymous.
The evidence strongly favors that the Gospels were never anonymous, contrary to some assumptions.
We have far more attestation for the Gospels' authorship than other ancient works whose authorship is not questioned.
The traditional authorship of the Gospels is supported by a wealth of evidence and unanimous early attestation.
Transcripts
you know the four gospels are attributed
to Matthew Mark Luke and John but many
argue the gospels were originally
Anonymous and the names were only added
later to give them more Authority
but is this accurate in the first
century were the gospels entirely
Anonymous and only when they were
criticized did second century Christians
add names to give them more Authority
or are there good reasons to think the
gospels really did come from Matthew
Mark Luke and John
Christian tradition teaches at two of
the gospels were written by Disciples of
Jesus Matthew and John
the other two are written by followers
of the disciples Mark was a follower in
The Interpreter of Peter and Luke was a
traveling companion of Paul
but according to the consensus of New
Testament historians today there is no
reason to think the gospels were written
by the men they are attributed to
Bart ehrmann says there were some books
such as the gospels that had been
written anonymously only later to be
ascribed to certain authors who probably
did not write them Apostles and Friends
of the Apostles
David Carr and Colleen Conway say all
four of the canonical gospels were
originally Anonymous it was only in the
second century CE when the four gospels
were published as a collection that the
superscriptions were added to the
gospels attributing authorship to
Matthew Mark Luke and John respectively
Dale Martin says we believe that all
four gospels were originally published
anonymously and the names they now bear
were given to the four books later in
order to link the books to Disciples of
Jesus her close Disciples of Disciples
of Jesus
however within the past few decades many
scholars have been pushing back against
this consensus in arguing the titles of
the gospels were most likely included
when the gospels were originally written
and they were always understood as
having come from Matthew Mark Luke and
John
one of the reasons the traditional
authorship of the gospels is denied is
because none of them internally mention
an author either in the preface or main
body
thus the gospels are by definition
internally anonymous
but that doesn't mean they ever
circulated without names attached to
them
in 2019 Simon gathercool wrote an
important paper where he points out a
lack of claim of authorship internally
is entirely irrelevant to the question
of the gospel's anonymity
the reason being is many ancient Works
were also internally anonymous xenophon
didn't include his name her pseudonym
within the text of the anabasas Josephus
left his name out of antiquity of the
Jews
we don't see any Preparatory
self-references in the works of polybius
diodorus horarian Latin authors like
Salas Livy and tacitus did not mention
themselves internally in their works
Mike Lacona adds that Julius Caesar did
not identify himself as the author of
his commentaries on the Civil War and he
writes entirely in third person
as the author of John's gospel may have
done
in fact elmar Herkimer noted that this
practice of an author leaving their name
out of the body of their work was the
standard Norm
if we look specifically at the genre of
ancient Greco-Roman biographies of which
the gospels fit nicely with we can see
it was common to write biographies
internally anonymous
gather coal notes Philo admitted his
name from his biographical works on
Abraham Joseph and Moses
Plutarch makes no mention of his name in
parallel lives
porphery does not State he is the author
of any of his surviving works
neither does philistratus nepas or
tacitus when he wrote a biography of his
father-in-law
Lucian does not mentioned he is the
author of his Works Alexander the false
prophet the toxaris and the biography of
deminax
he only mentions his name at the end of
one of his works the passing of
peregrinus where it reads Lucian to
Kronos with best wishes
gather Cole notes the only other example
he can find or an author's name is
mentioned is the fictional one of Alias
which is in a late work called the
Astoria Augusta
and because it is fictional it likely
wasn't written by the author it is
attributed to
additionally love day Alexander notes
the prologues of ancient technical
handbooks often lack the author's name
she argues Luke's prologue matches a
standard medical or technical prologue
from that time
and so it's not strange that Luke
doesn't mention himself either
thus given this survey gathercole says
the absence of the evangelist's name
should excite no comment at all such an
absence is not remotely a curious
feature
in other words given the cultural
context we should expect the gospels to
be internally anonymous
and so the argument the gospels do not
eternally identify the authors is that
actually evidence they were known as
Anonymous works
gather Cole goes on to say the absence
of a name within the body of a Nation
work is entirely understandable because
of all the other ways in which the
author might be identified there were of
course numerous ways of indicating an
author's name in or on a roll or codex
outside of the work itself
ancient Works would often identify the
author in an external fashion like in a
title or subscription above the main
body or in a table of contents a running
header an end title on a title page
signed by the author on the back of the
scroll or with the name tag attached to
the scroll
some of these methods are unlikely
candidates for how the authors or the
gospels were identified but the point is
the standard practice appears to have
been to introduce the author apart from
the main body
it's plausible the gospels always came
with titles attributing them to their
respective authors
Simon Swain said it is perfectly normal
for literary Works to begin without a
reference to their author the author's
name should already be known to the
reader or hearer from the usual devices
but what are the claim that the four
gospels were not attributed to Matthew
Mark Luke and John until the second
century
well there are many reasons I think
their titles were actually original
first the gospels would have needed to
be identified when copies were added to
private Library collections of the
various churches
so it is likely they came with some form
of external title to identify them
just as it was the case with other
ancient works
second it is unlikely the gospels would
have circulated without names attached
to them
for example the prologue of Luke's
gospel indicates it was sent to someone
named Theophilus
it is inconceivable the gospel would
have been sent to him without Theophilus
knowing who wrote and sent him a copy of
a gospel
it is unlikely he would have just
received some Anonymous texts and
considered it authoritative without
knowing it came from someone like Luke
as Richard bockham said the author's
name would have featured in an original
title but in any case would have been
known to the delicate in other first
readers because the author would have
presented the book to the dedicated
we know in the first century Paul's
letters were circulating between
different churches and whoever was
delivering the letters would have been
able to verify the letter came from Paul
likewise as gospels were being copied
and circulated the various churches
would have requested information on
where the gospel came from
it is unlikely they just would have
accepted any old writing without
believing it came from a reliable source
the early church father papias said he
didn't give stock to any tradition that
could not be traced back to a reliable
source like a disciple of Jesus or a
known Elder
so it is unlikely the early church would
have accepted Anonymous biographies
about Christ without knowing they came
from reliable sources
third when we study the early church
writings we can see there is unanimous
agreement among a multitude of witnesses
all agree the gospels came from Matthew
Mark Luke and John there are none the
dissent and attribute them to other
authors
even early copies of the gospels that
have survived that still have a title
attribute them to their respected
authors
no gospel manuscript has ever been found
that bears a different name
p66 from the second century notes John
is the author of The Gospel attributed
to him P4 which dates to the second or
third Century notes Matthew is the
author of The Gospel attributed to him
in the second century Clement of
Alexandria lists four gospel authors
throughout his Works Matthew Mark Luke
and John
the letter of Paulie crates of Ephesus
to Victor of Rome we see him identify
who the Beloved disciple is
the Gospel of John states its testimony
came from the Beloved disciple of Jesus
in polycrates identifies this disciple
as John
the meritorian fragment is missing its
opening but identifies Luke and John as
gospel authors irenaeus tells us the
four gospel authors her Matthew Mark
Luke and John
an indisputable testimony to John's
authorship of the fourth gospel comes
from Theophilus of Antioch
hagasipus seems to also suggest that
John was a gospel author
paulinaris refers to Matthew 26 17-19
and suggests the author of it was the
disciple Matthew the acts of John seems
to identify the Beloved disciple as John
heraclian says John 1 18 was spoken by
the disciple John
in a fragment we have from the early
Church Father papias we see he says that
Matthew and Mark were gospel authors and
gather Cole knows his information likely
came from John the Elder who was another
disciple of Jesus
additionally we have other texts that
point to the four traditional gospel
authors in the acts of Peter and the
twelve from the nag hamadi collection we
see a scene played out that is
strikingly similar to what we read in
John 13.
but instead of the conversation being
between Peter and the Beloved disciple
it is between Peter and John
this implies the Beloved disciple The
Authority behind the Gospel of John was
in fact a disciple named John
as gather Cole says seeing John as the
one beside Jesus the acts of Peter and
the Twelve Apostles thereby sees John as
the Beloved disciple and therefore the
author of The Gospel
in the Gospel of Thomas we get a hint
that Matthew may have been understood to
be a gospel author as he singled out
among the twelve to be an authority
figure on who Jesus was alongside Peter
when we survey the early data we see
unanimous consent that the four gospel
authors her Matthew Mark Luke and John
no one ever claims another author for
the four canonical gospels and no one
ever suggests the gospels were
understood as anonymous
even Justin Martyr suggests the gospels
were known to be attributed to
evangelists not that they were Anonymous
works
moreover it is important to note that
this unanimous attestation comes from
across the whole Roman world not simply
one region
multiple authors from different regions
all agree the four gospel authors are
Matthew Mark Luke and John
but perhaps a skeptic could argue they
all got their information from the same
Source before it's spread out
even if this was true given that we have
cited many second century sources the
original point of the tradition must
have been early for it to have become
such a widespread tradition by the
second century
meaning it likely originated in the
first century when the gospels were
being composed
but also when we study the traditions we
see variation irenaeus and later Church
fathers suggest the order of the gospels
were written in was Matthew first
followed by Mark then Luke and then John
but Clement of Alexandria believed
Matthew and Luke were written first then
Mark and then John
so it appears they had different
Traditions regarding the order the
gospels were written in
which shows us their information was not
all coming from the same source and
despite this we still have unanimous
agreement on who the gospel authors were
James D G Dunn also notes the titles of
the gospels have remarkable similarity
across manuscripts which suggests the
titles were added early before they
spread around in other churches could
add their own differing labels
the gospels were not known by a variety
of titles such an outcome was likely if
the titles depended on recipients rather
than the author each recipient of an
anonymous writing was likely to choose
an identifying label most convenient to
him the fact then that the gospels are
almost universally known by the Fuller
title The Gospel According to or simply
according to strongly suggests that the
title was given to each gospel as soon
as they began to be circulated to be
more widely known and used beyond their
places of origin
as noted the gospels would need to be
identified when copies were added to
private Library collections of various
churches
if they were entirely Anonymous various
churches would have found different ways
to label them which would have
inadvertently created different
traditions on who wrote them
but has done notes this is not what we
see we see the basic title or the later
abbreviated title
so it appears the titles of the gospels
that attributed them to their respective
authors were most likely original not
added at later points
this makes sense with the external data
that we discussed but also we should
note it seems that the names attached to
the gospels would be unlikely pics of
later forgers
Matthew is a gospel that is for
evangelizing the Jewish people but it
was attributed to a tax collector which
was a despised profession among the Jews
it is also unlikely that the gospel was
attributed to him on the basis of the
references to him in verse 9 9 and 10 3.
given how much of a minor role he plays
throughout his gospel
Mark and Luke were only followers of the
disciples not direct Disciples of Jesus
it would make no sense to attribute
gospels to men who were never close with
Jesus
why not attribute the gospel of Mark to
Peter which tradition says was Mark's
main source
why would you pick two people as gospel
authors who were not direct Disciples of
Jesus
only the last gospels attributed to a
close disciple of Jesus
given this there's no reason to think
forgers from the second century would
pick Mark her Lucas gospel authors or a
tax collector as the author of The
Gospel for the Jewish people
finally it has been noted by Scholars
Like Richard bockham if the gospels were
truly Anonymous early on we should
expect Church Father commentary on their
authorship to resemble the talk on the
book of Hebrews
Hebrews is truly an anonymous work and
instead of the church picking an author
to attribute it to they debated on who
wrote it and suggested different authors
p46 implies Paul was the author
tertullian attributed it to Barnabas
eusebius wrote that origin said Paul was
the author others attributed it to
Clement of Rome or Luke as gather Cole
says this sort of diversity is exactly
what we do not find in references to the
authorship of the Gospels
instead we have unanimous agreement not
Church fathers trying to figure out who
wrote Anonymous biographies
so when we survey the data there is no
reason to deny the traditional
authorship of the Gospels
it was a common practice in biographical
Works to be internally Anonymous most
Works identified authors externally like
with a tag or in the title
there was a practical need to identify
the gospels as they spread out and were
added to Christian libraries
we have no indication the gospels were
ever thought of as Anonymous and we have
unanimous attestation from multiple
Witnesses the authors were Matthew Mark
Luke and John
no other authors were ever suggested for
the four gospels and the Traditions
about them differ on Minor Details
indicating this did not all stem from
one source that fooled them all
Additionally the name's Matthew Mark and
Luke are unlikely titles forgers would
have selected and if the gospels were
actually Anonymous the conversation
about their authorship should have
resembled the talk about who authored
Hebrews
at the end of the day what reason do we
have to deny the traditional authorship
of the Gospels
additionally we have far more
attestation for their authorship than
other ancient works as Mike Lacona says
the best source of testing plutarch's
authorship is the lampreys catalog
written more than a century in perhaps
more than two centuries after plutarch's
death
additionally it is falsely attributed to
plutarch's son still no one questions
Plutarch in authorship
the first person to tell us the annals
were written by tacitus is Saint Jerome
who was writing over 300 years after
tacitus
in comparison it is clear we have far
better attestation for the gospels than
many other ancient works that no one
questions the authorship of
why are the gospels assumed to be
anonymous when the evidence strongly
favors they never were
to be honest I have yet to see a
sufficient argument to address this from
those who wish to maintain the gospels
were originally Anonymous as Martin
hengel said let those who deny the great
age and therefore the basic originality
of the Gospel superscriptions in order
to preserve their good critical
conscious give a better explanation of
the completely unanimous and relatively
early attestation of these titles their
origin in the names of the authors
associated with them such an explanation
has yet to be given and it never will be
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Were the Gospel Writers Biased?
The Jesus Prophecy that never came true...
The Book Of James Bible Study | Part 1 | Pastor Charles Philip | NLF Dubai
علي دعوة يفضح المسيحية في دقيقة واحدة فقط! - أسئلة صعبة عن المسيحية @AliDawah
Lindisfarne Gospels
The History of Body Ornamentation in Philippine Culture | Filipino Traditions | Object Rewind E05
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)