Analysis of the authorship of the canonical gospels

[Cypress]

Analysis of the probability Matthew, Mark, Luke, John authored or dictated the canonical gospels.

Gospel	Evidence for authorship by apostle or evangelist	Alternative explanation​	Probability the gospel was written or dictated by the person the gospel is named after​
Gospel of Mark	Mark is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as a secretary to the apostle Peter and the author of a gospel. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	Pappias was confused about what he was told by people who knew the disciples of Jesus. Pappias was referring to a different Mark, not the Mark of the canonical gospel.	More probable than not​
Gospel of Luke	Luke is identified by Bishop Iranaeus in mid to late second century as author of the gospel of Luke. It is improbable Church leaders would randomly name a canonical gospel after a low-ranking and obscure Christian.	First surviving attestation for the authorship of Gospel of Luke is about 100 years after it was written, reducing the reliability of this attestation.	As probable as not​
Gospel of Matthew	Matthew is identified by Bishop Pappias in late first/early second century as an author of an Aramaic-version of a gospel.	Even if Matthew wrote an Aramaic-version of a gospel, Greek translators in the late first century or second century could have completely re-worked it.	As probable as not​
Gospel of John	Bishop Iranaeus in mid-second century was told by Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John) that John authored a gospel. That makes Iranaeus only one person removed from a disciple of Jesus.	Iranaeus could have been confused about what Polycarp told him, or it could have been a different John, not the apostle John, who authored the canonical gospel.	Probable​

 

[Yakuda]

So what?

 

[Cypress]

So what?

History and literary criticism is interesting to some educated people.

There are plenty of threads on this board about pedophilia for people who want to go that route.

Some people also do not practice blind faith. Any rational person who considers taking Christianity seriously wants to investigate the evidence for the reliability of the canonical literature.

 

[Yakuda]

History and literary criticism is interesting to some educated people.

Some people also do not practice blind faith. Any rational person who considers taking Christianity seriously wants to investigate the evidence for the reliability of the canonical literature.

Leaves you out

The reliability of the literature is separate from who wrote it. The information contained in the literature is either right or wrong no matter who wrote it. It can also be critically examined no matter who wrote.

The level of your fucking pomposity is hilarious

 

[Cypress]

Leaves you out

The reliability of the literature is separate from who wrote it. The information contained in the literature is either right or wrong no matter who wrote it. It can also be critically examined no matter who wrote.

The level of your fucking pomposity is hilarious

Unless you practice blind faith, the real selling point of Christianity is that there is testimony from eyewitnesses, or people who interviewed the eyewitnesses.

That is supposed to be what makes Christianity reasonable and convincing: it's intellectual basis is supposedly based on a historical claim about a historical person.

If there is no witness testimony, and if people intentionally lied about who wrote a book it makes me dubious, and it makes you a person who practices blind faith.

 

[Yakuda]

Unless you practice blind faith, the real selling point of Christianity is that there is testimony from eyewitnesses, or people who interviewed the eyewitnesses.

That is supposed to be what makes Christianity reasonable and convincing: it's intellectual basis is supposedly based on a historical claim about a historical person.

If there is no witness testimony, and if people intentionally lied about who wrote a book it makes me dubious, and it makes you a person who practices blind faith.

Again if a guy named Tom wrote it but people attribute not to Bill what's the difference? Either what Tom wrote is true if it's not.

 

[Cypress]

Again if a guy named Tom wrote it but people attribute not to Bill what's the difference?

Because if it's not written by an eyewitness, or somebody who knew the eyewitnesses, why should I trust it?

Either what Tom wrote is true if it's not.

How do you know it's true if you don't have the testimony of eyewitnesses or people who interviewed the eyewitnesses?

 

[Yakuda]

Because if it's not written by an eyewitness, or somebody who knew the eyewitnesses, why should I trust it?

How do you know it's true if you don't have the testimony of eyewitnesses or people who interviewed the eyewitnesses?

I care about it's accuracy at least as much as whether or not the author was an eyewitness.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously questionable.

 

[Cypress]

I care about it's accuracy at least as much as whether or not the author was an eyewitness.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously questionable.

That's why cops, courts, and every rational person looks to multiple witnesses for corroboration.

If you want to base your religion on testimony that doesn't come from eyewitnesses or even from people who interviewed the eyewitnesses, that's up to you. You are an example of blind faith.