[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1022 KB, 2400x1256, Gospel-of-Mark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20331772 No.20331772 [Reply] [Original]

Who really wrote the Anonymous Gospels?

>> No.20331854

>>20331772
Josephus. Same as the rest of them.

>> No.20331917
File: 31 KB, 641x530, a0f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20331917

Me.

>> No.20331932

>>20331772
>Anonymous Gospels?
I've never read these before.

>> No.20331964

>>20331932
Gospel of Matthew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Composition
>the author was an anonymous male Jew

Gospel of Mark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship,_date_and_genre
>The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.

Gospel of Luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
>The author is anonymous

Gospel of John
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
>Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions

>> No.20332005

>>20331964

According to wikipedia?

>> No.20332026

>>20332005
According to every scholar and every church.

The original Greek manuscripts didn't have the author's name on them.

https://www.worldhistory.org/The_Gospels
>The original texts of the gospels had existed for about a hundred years with no names. The Church Fathers in the 2nd century CE assigned the names; none of the writers signed their work.

>> No.20332033

>>20331854
You mean Joseph Flavius?

>> No.20332228

>>20332005
I love when faggots bitch about muh wikipedia but can't be fucked to read any of the sources cited on the article.

>> No.20332240

>>20331772
>>20331964
The four gospels were written exactly by the people church tradition says wrote them. St Matthew wrote Matthew, St Mark wrote Mark, St Luke wrote Luke and Acts, St John wrote John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelations.
Q does not exist.

>> No.20332254

>>20331772
QAnon

>> No.20332282

>>20331772
The LORD God Almighty.

>> No.20332292

>>20332240
Fideism is a cope.

>> No.20332298

>>20332240
>fuck you dad, i'm going to blindly trust authority and you can't stop me

>> No.20332305

>>20332240
based

>>20331772
"the gospel according to [author]"
Seems pretty clear to me, retard OP.

>> No.20332307

>>20332298
As if those within living memory didn't know.

Anon, there is no hope for you.

>> No.20332312

>>20332307
Don't say that, there is always hope, with God anything is possible.

>> No.20332321

>>20332307
irenaeus was not "within living memory" and fishermen did not write. you're a retard chasing internet fashion.

>> No.20332340

>>20332321
>fishermen did not write
They can speak to a scribe just fine.

>> No.20332412

>>20332240
/thread

>> No.20332420

>>20332340
and somehow independently produce texts that have overlapping parts, allude to later events and generally show evidence of being composite works written decades latter from an assortment of oral accounts? you have to make a choice here: either you believe that the texts are magical and you ain't gotta explain shit, or you admit that their development can be reasoned about in which case the last two hundred years of historical criticism, performed in large part by practicing christians, has debated all this to death already and concluded that the gospels are a. anonymous and b. written decades after the events described. you would know all of this already if you actually gave a shit, but you didn't care about the bible a month ago and you won't again a month from now.

>> No.20332421

>>20332412
Wrong.
>>20332282
/thread

>> No.20332547

>>20332420
>you have to make a choice here:
no, I fucking don't.

>either you believe that the texts are magical
Protestant-think detected.

>or you admit that their development can be reasoned about
Yes, they can. To a point. Then it becomes a betting game.

>practicing christians
Ehrman doesn't count you fucking boob.

Fuck off with your pseudointellectual bombast, you amazing atheist protestant-heretic-parents faggot. Your claim about the authors being unknown to scientific historical-critical method retards doesn't mean they are anonymous. They were early Christians, whose authorship and traditions were handed down through the Catholic church. Literally what other anon told you here: >>20332240.

If you knew anything about this subject, or if you had been raised in the true faith, you would not have missed that. You may continue seething while wrong dipshit.

>> No.20332651

>>20332547
If anything Protestants are the ones who think the text is magical and hold to sola scriptura you ignorant arrogant cunt

Inshallah you will burn with the other arrogant people of the book who forsake Allah for their creed

>> No.20332716

>>20332651
>t. illiterate arab

>> No.20332737

>>20332307
Those within living memory had a hundred other Gospels that say things diametrically opposed to what the dudes who were writing their own Mark and Luke in the 200s were saying, what's your point?

>> No.20332744

>>20331964
"Anonymous" just means the author isn't explicitly identified in the text itself. By that standard almost all modern books are "anonymous" since they don't start with the author identifying himself, the name is on the cover.

We know who wrote the gospels

>> No.20332764
File: 397 KB, 750x1110, 1651798532122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20332764

>>20332298
Richard Bauckham put the traditional authorship of the gospels beyond dispute

>> No.20332809

>>20332420
The chain of logic for the gospels to be anonymous makes no sense and we have ZERO hard evidence to support the speculations of academics.

The theory goes that the attributions were added to the gospels 500-100 years after they were written which means they were circulating around the Mediterranean for a bare minimum of five decades before some unknown scribe added "According to Mark" to the title.

Do we have any manuscripts that are not attributed to the traditional authors? Such as a Gospel of Matthew entitled the Gospel of Andrew or the Gospel of Peter? No we do not. All manuscripts we have are titled and are correctly attributed.

Do we have any evidence of disputes between churches over who wrote the gospels? No we do not. Not a single letter or writing exists anywhere that shows anything other than complete and total unaniminity among the churches over the authorship of the four gospels. Not one writing that says "Hey we've had these writings for 50 years and we've NEVER taught that Mark and Luke wrote them!", as you'd expect if copies started randomly cropping up with attributions that had not been made up to that point.

Do we have any manuscripts without attributions? Nope. Every single manuscript found has the correct attribution, none are untitled.

Do we have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to show that the gospels were EVER anonymous? Nope.

So the secular theory says that one day a scribe decided to add "According to Mark" to lend credibility to the gospel account, this manuscript was then copied and filtered throughout Christendom in about 20 years with not a single other church disputing this arbitrary claim, and it happened exactly ONCE for each gospel with no other scribe ever thinking to do the same and create an attribution. ANd this happened not once, not twice, not three times but FOUR separate times for each gospel with a single scribe inventing apostolic authorship, it disseminating among the Mediterranean churches without dispute or conflict.

Frankly if you believe this theory your IQ is room temperature. It's all predicated on Justin Martyr not naming the gospels when we know Papias of Hierapolis named them and knew them in the first century.

>> No.20332811

>>20332737
>what's your point?
Not that anon but the point is those people didn't make it. Their traditions were rejected by the Church, sometimes as heresy sometimes as just not canon. The Church is the bride of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit and God the Father. Catholics through reason, councils, and decrees, have over millennia codified the true and correct faith. Those "other ancient Christians" were rightly adapted into or converted into the true faith.

tldr and for those who still don't get it: the Church came *first*. The bible came afterwards.

>> No.20332820

>>20332809
based post anon, do you have bonafides in ecclesiastical history/textual criticism of the new testament?

>> No.20332916

>>20331772
we

>> No.20332944

>>20332240
I don't see any reason to doubt the existence of Q. If anything Q makes a lot of sense as a Christian Dhammapada, a collection of sayings of Jesus easy for early Christians to carry around and quote from.

>> No.20332998

>>20332240
This except that Q does exist

>> No.20333012

>>20332944
>literally the dark matter of textual criticism

>> No.20333035
File: 94 KB, 640x480, 1646574432838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20333035

As far as I am aware, the reliability of the gospel can be traced to 3 years at best to 6 years at worst after Jesus' death. In terms of how long after it was formally recorded. That is for current historical standards demanded by SKEPTICS. For believers, the link is far more profound. Paul is considered reliable as a recorder even by doubters. So anything he says happened probably did happen. Consider he heard the gospel on the road from 'someone' after Jesus' death. He linked up with the apostles some years later (after preaching for some time on his own) and compared notes. Nothing disagreed and nothing needed to be added. Meaning whoever Paul heard it from also told him it exactly and Paul's interview with the Apostles also counts as historical eye witness testimony.

This is, frankly, enormous by typical ancient history standards. By a silly degree. That this is exactly what Jesus preached is unimpeachable by human standard for ancient history. That Jesus was real is unimpeachable. The only question is if you think he was divine and did miracles or not.

But know that this also means we have proven eye witness testimony Jesus was seen walking around physically after his recorded death. A death we know existed thanks to the boner Romans had for recording everything.

>> No.20333039

>>20332005
Biblical scholar here, not just some retard on the internet either. Yes, the gospels are anonymous. The names they are given came about later as a result of folk tales. I'm not talking like 1000 years after Jesus but a couple hundred. Either way, the gospels are anonymous, but using the names they have been given makes it easier to refer to them, which is probably why the Early Church Father's started using them too.

>> No.20333052

>>20333039
>not just some retard on the internet either
doubt.jpg

>> No.20333060

>>20333039
>retard thinks the entire early church somehow managed to unanimously agree on lying about their most important documents for centuries in an impossible conspiracy

>> No.20333066

>>20333039
>Yeah bro a scribe just added the names and every Christian community in the known world agreed to roll with it
Peak retard

>> No.20333075

>>20332298
Kek

>> No.20333097

>>20332809
>I'm smarter than most experts

>> No.20333108

>>20333039
>Biblical scholar here
sure anon sure

>> No.20333113
File: 243 KB, 680x709, 1645906043656.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20333113

>>20333097
>I'm smarter than most experts

>> No.20333123

>>20332298
>doesn't realize his entire position rests on blindly trusting authority

>> No.20333129

>>20332240
Based and truth

>> No.20333136

>>20333066
The people the disagreed got killed as heretics anon, do you not know the history of how the church got consolidated by roman power?

>> No.20333144

>>20333136
>There's no evidence because the evil Christians destroyed it all! But it's true because...It just is ok!
Pretty good example why secular scholarship is all bullshit. Speculation piled on with more speculation with virtually nothing to actually back it up.

>> No.20333152

>Write down a prediction of what will happen in 70 years
>It happens
>Historians decide that I wrote the prediction after the event happened because there was no way I could have known or guessed
WTF?

>> No.20334897

>>20332998
Academic cope.

>> No.20334915

>>20333097
(((experts)))

>> No.20335163

>>20332811
>Their traditions were rejected by the Church
The one that Constantine assembled to help him manage his massive state planning efforts (that failed)? So it has nothing to do with whether they're right or not, but rather with the political expediency (Because after all, the only people who were invited to Constantine's councils to create the seven sees were the ones who were already willing to collaborate with the state).

>> No.20336154

>>20331772
Anonymous

>> No.20336195

>>20331964
It definitely just means Jews.