Okay, I won't riddle you with a bunch of question/answers this time.
Out of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 7 are fully credited without dispute to an author.Source
The seven which are Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, & Philemon, are credited to Paul Source
All other books are either anonymous or are pseudepigraphical.
Gospels:
The first 3 gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) are considered the synoptic gospels because of their similarity. The forth (John) is a much different gospel. All four are written anonymously with exception of John claiming to be "the disciple Jesus loved".
The gospels were given the "gospel according to..(author)" as late as the 2nd century and they stuck without question until the 18th century when textual criticism and paleography came about.
The major census amongst biblical scholars is that Mark was written first, then the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark and another document called the Q document, as their source for writing their gospels. Then there is Acts which is agreed upon being written by the same author as Luke. The gospel of John was written last using a alternate method and testimony. Source
So the question arises are the authors attached to the gospels really the authors?
First we must look at some other info.
What language were the gospels originally written in? Scholars unanimously agree upon Koine Greek, and were not translated in any way from another language. Source
So if the authors of the gospels were eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus, did they along with Jesus speak Koine Greek? No Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic and being Jewish Jesus spoke and knew Hebrew. Source
Literacy in the time of Jesus was considered about 10% of the population. So even if you could speak different languages at the time, over 90% of people couldn't read or write. If the authors of the gospels were Jesus' disciples which most were of lower class fisherman etc... the probability of 4 of them able to learn and write in Greek composition, which wasn't their primary language is pretty slim. Source1 Source2
Now given the Markan_priority , All but 40 versus of Mark are copied by Luke and Matthew.
Out of the 678 verses(depending on translation and version) of Mark, Matthew copies about 600 of which half are verbatim. Luke copies about 350 verses of which half of those are verbatim.
Just one of many many examples of this would be Mark 10:41-45 & Matthew 20:24-28
There are some spots credited to fatigue of copying Mark but writing in their own words that they end their paragraph copying Mark word for word.
"Matthew is more precise than Mark in the titles he gives to rulers, and initially (Matthew 14:1) gives Herod Antipas the correct title of "tetrarch", yet he lapses into calling him "king" at a later verse (Matthew 14:9), apparently because he was copying Mark 6:26 at that point."
"Luke apparently changed the setting of the story: whereas Mark placed it in a desert, Luke starts the story in "a town [nb 1] called Bethsaida" (Luke 9:10). Yet later on, Luke is in agreement with Mark, that the events are indeed in a desert (Luke 9:12). Goodacre argues that Luke is here following Mark, not realising that it contradicts the change he made earlier." Source
The preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke, with differences rendered in black.[13] Here the two texts agree verbatim, with an isolated exception, for a span of over sixty words. In the first words of Luke he specifically says he is not an eyewitness and that he has gathered his information from eyewitnesses to the best of his ability. Luke 1:1-4
The gospel of John is credited to John the Apostle. Most scholars agree he was not the actual author of John.
"The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books,[1] along with the Book of Revelation, as a single body of Johannine literature. According to most modern scholars, however, John was not the author of any of these books" Source
It is a more spiritual gospel and focuses more on Jesus' miracles. Of the four gospels John's is written in a more theological view and most scholars agree that John is not a reliable source of Jesus' historical life and ministry.
"Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus' life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics." Source
So what we have here is a single gospel writer(Mark) who possibly could have been Peter's interpreter and the only one of the disciples who could actually read and write in Greek. Then we later have Greek Christians who took Mark as a source along with other sources and tried to write gospels using those sources.
I won't go too much into the other books of the New Testament as they are mostly of Paul's letters of which only 7 of the 13 are credited to him. The books of Jude and James who are claimed to be written by Jesus' brothers are questionable.
The three epistles of John have already been covered as not written by John the Apostle.
The epistle of Peter is not agreed upon because the language, dating, style, and structure do not match Peter's knowledge and education.Source The 2nd epistle Peter is widely agreed that it was not written by Peter.Source
The final book of Revelations is still under dispute also. Source
Summary of Facts:
* Of the 27 books in the New Testament, only 7 are considered written by the authors they are credited to.
* All 4 gospels & Acts are anonymously written and to this day are being disputed.
* The primary language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic, not Greek.
* Most scholars agree that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources.
* According to most scholars John isn't considered a accurate source of Jesus' ministry, but holds historical value in many passages.
No comments:
Post a Comment