Re:An Unorthodox Scholar Uses Technology to Expose Biblical ...
by Amezarak on Thursday January 05, 2023 @09:19AM
(#34259854)
> the New Testament books called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by those people (if they even existed)
That's what a lot of scholars believe now, but this belief (and the converse!) is not based on extraordinarily strong evidence. A lot of historiography is fad-driven, and the NT authorship and dating issue is no different. For example, one of the most common and strongest arguments mustered for the late dating of the gospels is that they refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in prophetic terms. Thus, the argument goes, they must all postdate the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem at the very least.
But even from a purely secular perspective, this is not exactly an ironclad argument. Jerusalem had been destroyed before and sacked repeatedly, and that theme made a strong mark in Jewish literature and imagination. Jerusalem was at the time once again ruled by a foreign power. Revolts and messianic movements had already happened. Predicting the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans would not require an extraordinary prophetic miracle.
But for a lot of historiography, this is the only type of argument you can make. Reams and reams of paper are written about things like this, where there's really very little objective evidence.
> the texts do not even make any claims about their own authorship.
John does in fact make a claim about its authorship in John 21:4 and by the indirect way it always refers to John. Luke-Acts cannot be strictly identified as Luke through the text, but the author does claim to be one of Paul's companions and an eyewitness to those events.
But moreover, the tradition of ascribing the gospels to those individuals was carried through from very early on in the history of the church. It is entirely possible that this ascription was wrong, or mistaken, based on the evidence we have. But it's far too strong a statement to declare they were definitively not written by those individuals.
That's what a lot of scholars believe now, but this belief (and the converse!) is not based on extraordinarily strong evidence. A lot of historiography is fad-driven, and the NT authorship and dating issue is no different. For example, one of the most common and strongest arguments mustered for the late dating of the gospels is that they refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in prophetic terms. Thus, the argument goes, they must all postdate the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem at the very least.
But even from a purely secular perspective, this is not exactly an ironclad argument. Jerusalem had been destroyed before and sacked repeatedly, and that theme made a strong mark in Jewish literature and imagination. Jerusalem was at the time once again ruled by a foreign power. Revolts and messianic movements had already happened. Predicting the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans would not require an extraordinary prophetic miracle.
But for a lot of historiography, this is the only type of argument you can make. Reams and reams of paper are written about things like this, where there's really very little objective evidence.
> the texts do not even make any claims about their own authorship.
John does in fact make a claim about its authorship in John 21:4 and by the indirect way it always refers to John. Luke-Acts cannot be strictly identified as Luke through the text, but the author does claim to be one of Paul's companions and an eyewitness to those events.
But moreover, the tradition of ascribing the gospels to those individuals was carried through from very early on in the history of the church. It is entirely possible that this ascription was wrong, or mistaken, based on the evidence we have. But it's far too strong a statement to declare they were definitively not written by those individuals.