PDA

View Full Version : How do we know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels?



moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 02:57 AM
This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.


God bless

HisLeast
Apr 16th 2008, 03:29 AM
This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.

This won't help as an answer but it will probably help you better define the question. I don't think the problem is "did matthew, mark, luke, and john" write the gospels, but who were they? They seem to be written almost 1 generation after Christ, so many non-believers claim thats enough time for a "normal" story to evolve into a legend.

Souled Out
Apr 16th 2008, 03:49 AM
This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.
God bless

There’s just so much to church history. I’ve been studying varying aspects on and off for about a year and a half and I still have so much to learn, but from my research none of the manuscripts have author names.

The names were added later by the church. The names of each book were taken from the early church fathers, who quoted from the books and they would name the person who quoted it. This basically lets us know who wrote each book of the Gospels as they come from the writings of the first century Christians. With regard to Mark and Luke, we really don't know how close they were to the Jesus accounts but it assumed that they did have firsthand knowledge of Jesus.

If you do decide to study this, please share as I’d love to hear what you uncover.

Athanasius
Apr 16th 2008, 03:58 AM
This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in there by church tradition though I really don't know what that means. I tried finding some source that shows any evidence that they were the ones that actually wrote the gospels but my time was short and I just wasn't finding anything quickly so I am hoping some bible history buffs know the answer to this. Right now I just don't have hours to dig through websites on the net. Thanks.

God bless

What does it matter the name of the Gospel if it was written by eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge? Not saying there isn't an issue, but just asking the question. You're most likely dealing with the work of G.A. Wells. He's been refuted numerous times by many different apologists.

markedward
Apr 16th 2008, 04:18 AM
This was brought up on another thread by someone saying that there is no evidence that these men actually wrote the gospel that their names were put in(Note to other posters: I am the someone being referred to here.)

I did not say there was "no evidence."

I said that the gospels themselves do not say who authored them, and it was only church figures decades later who attributed names to them. They may be right, but church tradition has been wrong before.

As I said in the other thread:


I'm not saying Mark and Matthew and Luke and John couldn't possibly be the authors. What I am saying, though, is we don't know it was those four with absolute certainty.

Naphal
Apr 16th 2008, 04:45 AM
My understanding with regards to the book of Luke is that Luke uses medical terms that don't appear in any other gospel. Luke was a doctor.

Lars777
Apr 16th 2008, 05:29 AM
Also both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were addressed to Theophilus (Lk. 1:3; Acts 1:1). This similarity, coupled with the statement, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus" seems to leave no doubt that Luke was the author of not only the Gospel of Luke but of Acts as well.

markedward
Apr 16th 2008, 06:13 AM
My understanding with regards to the book of Luke is that Luke uses medical terms that don't appear in any other gospel. Luke was a doctor.Could you please provide examples?

matthew94
Apr 16th 2008, 06:31 AM
We have a strong church tradition regarding authorship. I have yet to hear any other strong theories. It's fairly easy to try to poke holes at accepted tradition, it's a lot harder to come up with a theory that's anywhere close to as evidential.


The Gospel According to Matthew
50’s-60’s

“Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew Language, and each one interpreted them as best he could” (Papias, 120)

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and paul were preaching at Rome” (Irenaeus, 180)

“We will begin with Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have published his Gospel before the others. He wrote it to the Hebrews, namely, those of the circumcision who believed”
(Origen, 228)


The Gospel According to Mark
50’s-60’s

“Having become the interpreter of Peter, Mark wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. However, he did not relate the sayings or deeds of Christ in exact order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwords, as I said, he accompanied Peter.” (Papias, 120)

“After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to ous in writing what had been preached by Peter” (Irenaeus, 180)

“In order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, Mark wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark” (Clement, 195)



The Gospel According to Luke
60’s

“Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel in a book” (Irenaeus, 180)

“By the style of writing, Luke may be recognized both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles and to have translated Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews” (Clement, 195)

“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke” (Muratorian Fragment, 200)


The Gospel According to John
80’s-90’s

“The fourth Gospel is that of John… it was revealed to Andrew that John should narrate all things in his own name, as they called them to mind” (Muratorian Fragment, 200)

“What a mind, then, we must have to enable us to interpret this work in a worthy manner. This is so even though it has been committed to the earthly treasure house of common speech” (Origen, 228)


The Fourfold Gospel
Late 100’s

“The Ebionites, who use only Matthew’s Gospel, are refuted out of this very same work…But Marcion, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is still proved to be blasphemous…from those passages which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ…prefer the Gospel of Mark. However, if they read it with a love of truth, they would have their errors rectified. Those persons, moreover, who follow Valentinus, make copious use of the Gospel according to John to illustrate their conjuctions. However, they, too, will be proved to be totally in error…It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number that they are. For, there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…it is fitting that she should have four pillars” (Irenaeus, 180)

“The Gospel of Luke that we are defending with all our might has stood its ground…the same authority of the apostolic churches will afford defense of the other Gospels also…I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s, who interpreter Mark was. For men usually ascribe Luke’s form of the Gospel to Paul” (Tertullian, 207)

“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the church of God under heaven… Matthew was written first. The second one written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter… Third was the one according to Luke…This is the Gospel commended by Paul. Last of all, there is the one according to John” (Origen, 245)

Darren
Apr 16th 2008, 06:45 AM
the most liberal scholar or theologian would date paul’s first epistle to his disciple timothy no later than 63 a.d. therefore the gospel of luke could have been scribed no later than 60 or 61 a.d., because paul quotes the good doctor in 5:18 of timothy. in this verse, paul, the hebrew of the hebrews, whose reverence for the old testament is undoubted, goes so far as to simultaneously call both deuteronomy 25: 4 and luke 10:7 scripture!

1Ti 5:18- For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward


despite the relative young age of luke’s account of jesus’ life, paul, the former pharisee, shows no reluctance to ascribe the term scripture.

you can even take this full circle, because in 2 peter 3:15-16, peter refers to the teachings of paul as scripture. these men, who would have died or killed to prove the veracity of the jewish torah, would not flippantly toss about the scripture tag unless they new it was god breathed.

Darren
Apr 16th 2008, 06:53 AM
very good matthew94.


i was just going to comment on the writings of papias. as papias wrote his exegesis of jesus' words by interviewing the elders of the churches started by the apostles. some of these were taught directly by john and matthew and luke and mark.

you are also correct on the fact that john mark was the scribe for peter.

Darren
Apr 16th 2008, 07:02 AM
another thought.

if i as a leader in the early church, had the power to ascribe an assumed name for the authorship of the writings that will be used to promote the life and teachings of the man i believe is the savior of the world, outside of john, the other three would be the last ones picked.

even john, in jewish culture, would not carry the weight of a peter or james. a tax collector, no way would i use a scoundrel like that, apostle or not, when i could use thomas. john mark deserted paul. and luke was a greek.

it is interesting to note, that the much later gnostic writings used this very logic when naming their "gospels". peter, philip, mary, and thomas all have unispired writtings accredited to their names.

Literalist-Luke
Apr 16th 2008, 07:10 AM
In addition to the points that have already been offered here, I would also point out that if somebody is going to dispute the position that the Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they will need to provide credible evidence to the contrary. Simply accusing our existing evidence in support of their authorship of being insufficient is hardly conclusive. If they weren't the authors then where is the historical evidence to the contrary? Where is a credible statement from that time period that disputes the genuineness of their authorship?

lucasipro
Apr 16th 2008, 08:03 AM
in reading from sources like wikipedia, and encyclopedia.com, there is sufficient thought and theory that suggests that the gospels of the new testiment were not written by the apostles they are named for, but that is all it is, just theory and suggestion. One major reference where you might find some information would be with Ehrman, Bart D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman) (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
Mr Bart Ehrman has received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is known worldwide for his authorship and work relating to the history of the writings on the new testament.

search all you want for all the information that you want and what you will find is theory and suggestion every time.

lucasipro
Apr 16th 2008, 08:08 AM
James 1:5 (King James Version)
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

If you ask of god with true intent, an open mind, and a humble heart, the truth shall be made knowen unto you.

valleybldr
Apr 16th 2008, 09:13 AM
James 1:5 (King James Version)
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

If you ask of god with true intent, an open mind, and a humble heart, the truth shall be made knowen unto you.

I don’t think this Scripture has any application in figuring out who wrote a book 2,000 years ago. We could more accurately say "the Gospel attributed to Matthew (Mark or Luke)." King James Onlyism is based on faith. Faith (for some) bridges the gap between known facts and conclusive evidence. todd

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 11:58 AM
I have to think about the first four books, but I know there is a part in Peter or such that speaks of Paul. Paul also referered to the other disciples. He met James and Peter. He rebuked Peter to his face.

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 12:10 PM
I believe that John the apostle was the one caught up in Revelation (in the spirit) to write things down, as he refers to Jesus as - one like the Son of man.

that is the phrase that Jesus used
Son of man

and also John was one of those that saw Jesus transfigured


Rv. 1:13
"...like unto the Son of man..."
;14:14
Matthew 24:30; 17:1-3

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 12:17 PM
2 Peter 3:15
"And account {that} the longsuffering of our Lord {is} salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;"

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 12:49 PM
MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO, PARTS I-VIII
-------------------
I. OUR SECOND GOSPEL

.... V. Authorship.-- The external evidence for the authorship is found in the Fathers and the MSS. The most important patristic statements are the following:
1. External Evidence: Papias-- Asia Minor, circa 125 AD-- (quoted by Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39): "And this also the elder said: Mark, having become the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, wrote accurately what he remembered (or recorded) of the things said or done by Christ, but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterward, as I said (he attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the needs (of his hearers), but not as composing an orderly account (suntaxin) of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them: for he took thought for one thing not to omit any of the things he had heard nor to falsify anything in them."
Justin Martyr-- Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD-- (In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): "And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his `Memoirs' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee `Boanerges, ' which means `Sons of Thunder, ' "etc.
Irenaeus-- Asia Minor and Gaul, circa 175 AD-- (Adv. Haer., iii. 1, quoted in part Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 8): "After the apostles were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit and fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization, they went out ("exierunt," in Rufinus' translation) to the ends of the earth preaching the gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent and preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also (had?) published a writing of the gospel, while Peter and Paul went westward and preached and founded the church in Rome. But after the departure (exodon. "exitum" in Rufinus) of the, Mark, the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, even he has delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter."
Clement of Alexandria-- circa 200 AD-- (Hypotyp. in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 14): "The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it."
Also (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 15): "So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter's attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mk. It is said that when the apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches."
Tertullian-- North Africa, circa 207 AD-- (Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, "not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was."
Origen-- Alexandria and the East, circa 240 AD-- ("Commentary on Matthew" quoted in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25): "The second is that according to Mark who composed it, under the guidance of Peter (hos Petros huphegesato auto), who therefore, in his Catholic (universal) epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son."
Eusebius-- Caesarea, circa 325 AD-- (Dem. Evang., III, 5): "Though Peter did not undertake, through excess of diffidence, to write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currency reported, that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attendant (gnorimes kat phoitetes) made memoirs of (or recorded, apomnemoeusai) the discourses of Peter concerning the doings of Jesus." "Mark indeed writes this, but it is Peter who so testifies about himself, for all that is in Mark are memoirs (or records) of the discourses of Peter."
Epiphanius-- Cyprus, circa 350 AD-- (Haer., 41): "But immediately after Matthew, Mark, having become a follower (akolouthos) of the holy Peter in Rome, is entrusted in the putting forth of a gospel. Having completed his work, he was sent by the holy Peter into the country of the Egyptians."
Jerome-- East and West, circa 350 AD-- (De vir. illustr., viii): "Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches."
Also xi: "Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing."
Preface Commentary on Matthew: "The second is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Alexandrian church; who did not himself see the Lord Jesus, but accurately, rather than in order, narrated those of His deeds, which he had heard his teacher preaching."
To these should be added the Muratorian Fragment-- circa 170 AD-- "which gives a list of the New Testament books with a brief account of the authorship of each. The account of Matthew and most of that of Mark are lost, only these words relating to Mark being left: `quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit' " (see below).
These names represent the churches of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and practically every quarter of the Roman world. Quite clearly the common opinion was that Mark had written a Gospel and in it had given us mainly the teaching of Peter.
That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname "Boanerges" supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned <Mark 3:17>.
A second point is equally clear-- that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes "Marcus, my son" (<1 Pet 5:13> the King James Version) in this connection. "Disciple" is self-explanatory. "Follower" is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. "Interpreter" is less clear. One view equates it with "translator," because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view-- that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon)-- is that it means "interpreter" simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).
There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.
The Muratorian Fragment is not clear. Its broken sentence has been differently understood. Zahn completes it thus: " (ali) quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit," and understands it to mean that "at some incidents (in the life of Jesus), however, he was present and so put them down." Chase (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)) and others regard "quibus tamen" as a literal translation of the Greek hois de, and believe the meaning to be that Mark, who had probably just been spoken of as not continuously with Peter, "was present at some of this discourses and so recorded them." Chase feels that the phrase following respecting Luke: "Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne," compels the belief that Mark like Luke had not seen the Lord. But Paul, not Mark, may be there in mind, and further, this interpretation rather belittles Mark's association with Peter.
The patristic testimony may be regarded as summarized in the title of the work in our earliest MSS, namely, kata Markon. This phrase must refer to the author, not his source of information, for then it would necessarily have been kata Petron. This is important as throwing light on the judgment of antiquity as to the authorship of the first Gospel, which the manuscripts all entitle kata Matthaion.
..... ....
(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 01:35 PM
LUKE, THE GOSPEL OF
-------------------
...... LITERATURE
-------------------
1. Text: The five primary uncials (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae) are the chief witnesses for the text of Luke's Gospel. This group is reinforced by L, Codex Delta and the Freer (Detroit) MS; R, T, X and Xi are also valuable in fragments. The other uncials are of secondary value. The Latin, Egyptian and Syriac versions are also of great importance. There are 4 Latin versions (African, European, Italian, Vulgate), 3 Egyptian (Memphitic, Sahidic, Bohairic), 5 Syriac (Curetonian, Sinaitic, Pe****to, Harclean, Palestinian or Jerusalem). Many of the cursive (minuscule) manuscripts are also of considerable worth, as are some of the quotations from the Fathers.
Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898), has advanced the theory of two recensions of this Gospel (a longer and a shorter), such as he holds to be true of Acts. In the case of Acts, the theory has won some acceptance (see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES), but that is not true of the Gospel to any extent. The Western text of the Gospel is the shorter text, while in Acts it is the longer text. In both instances Blass holds that the shorter text was issued after the longer and original text. His idea is that Luke himself revised and issued the shorter text. In itself this is, of course, possible, since the books are both addressed to an individual, Theophilus. The other edition may have been meant for others. Westcott and Hort, .... Julicher, however, frankly admits (Intro, 330) that "the ancients were universally agreed that the writer was that Luke, disciple of Paul, who is mentioned in Philem verse 24; <2 Tim 4:11>, and called `the physician' in <Col 4:14>; presumably a native of Antioch." This statement bears more directly on the question of authorship than of canonicity, but it is a good retort to the rather cavalier tone of Schmiedel, who is reluctant to admit the facts. The recognition of the Third Gospel in the Muratorian Canon (170 AD) is a fact of much significance...... Irenaeus (end of the 2nd century) makes frequent quotations from this Gospel. He argues that there could be only "four" Gospels because of the four points of the compass-- an absurd argument, to be sure, but a powerful testimony to the general acceptance of this Gospel along with the other three. It is needless to appeal to the presence of the Third Gospel in the Curetonian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, the African Latin-- versions that date to the 2nd century, not to mention the probability of the early date of the Memphitic (Coptic) versions Examples of the early use of this Gospel occur in various writings of the 2nd century, as in Justin Martyr (150 AD), the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (circa 140 AD), Celsus (circa AD 160), the Gospel of Peter (2nd century), the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (177 AD), probably also the Didache (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria (190-202 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD). It is doubtful about Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp; and the Epistle of Barnabas seems to make no use of the Third Gospel. But Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp quote Acts. But surely the general use and acceptance of the Third Gospel in the early 2nd century is beyond reasonable doubt. It is not easy to decide when the actual use began, because we have so little data from the 1st century (compare Plummer, Commentary, lxxiii).
.... 3. Authorship: The first writers who definitely name Luke as the author of the Third Gospel belong to the end of the 2nd century. They are the Canon of Muratori (possibly by Hippolytus), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. We have already seen that Julicher (Introduction, 330) admits that the ancients Universally agreed that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. In the early part of the 2nd century the writers did not, as a rule, give the names of the authors of the Gospels quoted by them. It is not fair, therefore, to use their silence on this point as proof either of their ignorance of the author or of denial of Luke's authorship. Julicher for instance, says (Introduction, 330): "There is no tradition worthy of the name concerning Luke, whom Papias did not mention, or at any rate did not know." But we owe to Eusebius all the fragments that we have preserved from the writings of Papias.
Our ignorance of Papias can hardly be charged up to him. Plummer (Commentary, xii) says that nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the fact that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. On the other hand, Julicher (Introduction, 331) is not willing to let it go as easily as that. He demands appeal to Acts, and there (ibid., 447) he denies the Lukan authorship save as to the "we" sections. J. Weiss (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; das Lukas Evang., 1906, 378) admits that but for Acts no sufficient reason would exist for denying the authorship of the Third Gospel to Luke, the disciple of Paul. A Pauline point of view in this Gospel is admitted generally. Many modern critics take it for granted that the Lukan authorship of Acts is disproved, and hence, that of the Gospel likewise falls by the way. So argue Baur, Clemen, De Wette, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Julicher, Pfleiderer, Schurer, Spitta, von Soden, J. Weiss, Weizsacker, Zeller.
" Harnack proceeds to make a plea for a hearing. Jacobus (Standard Bible Dictionary) admits that "Acts tells us nothing more of the author than does the Gospel." That is true so far as express mention is concerned, but not so far as natural implication goes. It is true that the place to begin the discussion of the Lukan authorship of the Gospel is Acts. For detailed discussion of the proof that Luke wrote Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. It is there shown that the line of argument which has convinced Harnack, the leader of the liberal criticism of Germany, ought to convince any openminded critic. It means a good deal when Harnack (Luke the Physician, 14) says: "I subscribe to the words of Zahn (Einleitung, II, 427): `Hobart has proved for everyone who can at all appreciate proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practiced in the scientific language of Greek medicine-- in short, a Greek physician. ' "It is here assumed that the line of argument pursued in the article on ACTS OF THE APOSTLES is conclusive. If so, little remains to be done in the way of special proof for the Gospel. The author of Acts specifically refers <Acts 1:1> to a former treatise which was likewise addressed to Theophilus. This we find to be the case with the Gospel passing under the name of <Luke 1:4>. The critics who admit the Lukan authorship of Acts and deny the Lukan authorship of the Gospel are hardly worth considering.
It is, therefore, largely a work of supererogation to give at length the proof from internal grounds that Luke wrote the Gospel, after being convinced about Acts. Still it may be worth while to sketch in outline the line of argument, even though it is very simple. Plummer (Comm., x-xvii) argues three propositions: " (1) The author of the Third Gospel is the author of the Acts. (2) The author of Acts was a companion of Paul. (3) This companion was Luke." Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909) has argued with great minuteness and skill the theory that the same linguistic peculiarities occur in all portions of Acts, including the "we-" sections. He accepts the facts set forth by Hawkins (Horae Synopticae) and adds others. He agrees, therefore, that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. Harnack is convinced by the exhaustive labors of Hobart (Medical Language of St. Luke) that this author was a physician, as we know Luke to have been <Col 4:14>. He shows this to be true of the author of Acts by the use of "us" in <Acts 28:10>, showing that the author of Acts received honors along with Paul, probably because he practiced medicine and treated many (compare Barnack, Luke the Physician, 15 f). These medical terms occur in the Gospel of Luke also, and the same general linguistic style is found in both the Gospel and Acts. Hawkins has made a careful study of likenesses and variations in style in these two books (compare Horae Synopticae, 15-25, 174-89). The argument is as conclusive as such a line of proof can be expected to be. For further discussion see Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 1908, 1-68; Zahn, Introduction, III, 160 ff. There are no phenomena in the Gospel hostile to this position save the Semitic character of chapters 1 and 2 (barring the classical introduction <Luke 1:1-4>). Luke, though a Gentile, has in these chapters the most Semitic narrative in the New Testament. But the explanation is obvious. He is here using Semitic material (either oral or written), and has with true artistic skill preserved the tone of the original. To a certain extent the same thing is true of the opening chapters of Acts.
..... (1) Unity.-- If the Lukan authorship of the book is accepted, there remains no serious doubt concerning the unity and integrity of the Gospel. The abridgment of Luke's Gospel used by Marcion does not discredit those portions of the Gospel omitted by him. They are omitted for doctrinal reasons (compare Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, chapter viii). His readings are of interest from the viewpoint of textual criticism, as are the quotations of other early writers, but his edition does not seriously challenge the value of Luke's work.
(2) Luke's method.-- Luke has announced his methods of work in a most classic introduction <Luke 1:1-4>. Here we catch a glimpse of the author's personality. That is not possible in Mark nor in Matthew, and only indirectly in passing shadows in the Fourth Gospel. But here the author frankly takes the reader into his confidence and discloses his standpoint and qualifications for the great task. He writes as a contemporary about the recent past, always the most difficult history to interpret and often the most interesting. He speaks of "those matters which have been fulfilled among us," in our time. He does not himself claim to have been an eyewitness of "those matters." As we know already, Luke was a Gentile and apparently never saw Jesus in the flesh. He occupies thus a position outside of the great events which he is to record. He does not disguise his intense interest in the narrative, but he claims the historical spirit.
He wishes to assure Theophilus of "the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed." He claims to have investigated "the course of all things accurately from the first," just as the true historian would. He thus implies that some of the attempts made had been fragmentary at any rate, and to that extent inaccurate. He has also produced an "orderly" narrative by which Theophilus may gain a just conception of the historical progress of the events connected with the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that "many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters" does not deter Luke from his task. The rather he is stirred thereby ("It seemed good to me also") to give his interpretation of the life and work of Jesus as the result of his researches. He stands not farther away than one generation from the death of Jesus. He has the keen interest natural to a cultured follower of Jesus in the origin of what had become a great world-movement. He is able to get at the facts because he has had intercourse with eyewitnesses of Jesus and His work, "even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Luke had abundant opportunity during the two years at Caesarea with Paul <Acts 24-26> to make careful and extended investigations. Many of the personal followers of Jesus were still living <1 Cor 15:6>. It was a golden opportunity for Luke's purpose. He had also the written narratives which others ("many") had already drawn up. We are, then, to expect in Luke's Gospel a book closely akin to Acts in style and plan, with the historian's love of accuracy and order, with the author's own contribution in the assimilation and use of this oral and written material. One would not expect in such a writer slavish copying, but intelligent blending of the material into an artistic whole.
.....A. T. ROBERTSON
(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 02:01 PM
This won't help as an answer but it will probably help you better define the question. I don't think the problem is "did matthew, mark, luke, and john" write the gospels, but who were they? They seem to be written almost 1 generation after Christ, so many non-believers claim thats enough time for a "normal" story to evolve into a legend.

I don't understand your statement of asking who were they...we know who they were, I just want to know if they actually wrote the gospels or not.


Souled Out:

There’s just so much to church history. I’ve been studying varying aspects on and off for about a year and a half and I still have so much to learn, but from my research none of the manuscripts have author names.

The names were added later by the church. The names of each book were taken from the early church fathers, who quoted from the books and they would name the person who quoted it. This basically lets us know who wrote each book of the Gospels as they come from the writings of the first century Christians. With regard to Mark and Luke, we really don't know how close they were to the Jesus accounts but it assumed that they did have firsthand knowledge of Jesus.

If you do decide to study this, please share as I’d love to hear what you uncover.

See this is my concern...when we say 'church tradition or church history' are we talking about the Catholic church that I don't trust because they have messed with scripture, or the 'church' as in the early first Christian churches?

As I said I would like to study this but right now there are just too many other things going on and from this thread...from the answers I am getting, it looks complicated. I was really hoping someone could post a link that said, why yes we know these men wrote the gospels and here is the evidence'...but as we can clearly see its not going that way...at least not yet.

What does it matter the name of the Gospel if it was written by eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge? Not saying there isn't an issue, but just asking the question. You're most likely dealing with the work of G.A. Wells. He's been refuted numerous times by many different apologists.


Xel'Naga:
What does it matter the name of the Gospel if it was written by eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge? Not saying there isn't an issue, but just asking the question. You're most likely dealing with the work of G.A. Wells. He's been refuted numerous times by many different apologists.

I don't know who G.A. Wells is...but knowing who wrote what matters because we have alot of bible discussions on here that relate directly to who wrote what. For instance yesterday there was a question on here as to the difference in scriptures in Matthew and Mark about the same event and trying to figure out why the difference. So I looked up this article on CARM like so many other Christian websites that talk about who wrote what in the gospels, that said that Matthew was an eye witness to the life of Jesus but Mark was not...it says this:

http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Now if we don't know that Mark really wrote the book of Mark, or that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, how can CARM or anyone else make this statement? To me, he has to be getting his information from somewhere that is reliable. He does list these sources:

1. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
2. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
3. Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper’s Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988.
4. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.
5. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
6. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985
7. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
8. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
9. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.


I told the person asking this question that the differences in the verses was probably because Matthew actually witnessed what happened so gave more detail, while Mark was getting the information second handed through Peter (though Peter witnessed it too) and either the woman in Mark's verse was forgotten or left out because he (Peter) didn't think it was that important.

Now my point is...if we don't even know who wrote what, how can anyone possibly claim who was an eye witness to Jesus and who wasn't, such as in Mark's case?

So I think its pretty important to find out how they know this for sure...from the looks of this thread that I read through, their is conflicting information about the authors.


matthew94
We have a strong church tradition regarding authorship. I have yet to hear any other strong theories. It's fairly easy to try to poke holes at accepted tradition, it's a lot harder to come up with a theory that's anywhere close to as evidential.

matthew...can you provide a link to those quotes you listed please? See I don't exactly trust 'church tradition'...that only means someone in the past in church leadership 'decided' this was the way it was. I would like some evidence. I am still trying to figure out who this Papias, was ...whenever I read that word it makes me think 'pope' as in Catholic pope and we know the Catholic churches tends to add quite a bit to the scriptures that have no bases in the bible to start with. This is probably not what you are saying and I am just 'lost'...which is normal for me...:rolleyes: More so today as I have a head cold...blah.

I may not address everyone that posted on here, but I real everyone's posts and do thank you for your input.

God bless

moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 02:23 PM
very good matthew94.


i was just going to comment on the writings of papias. as papias wrote his exegesis of jesus' words by interviewing the elders of the churches started by the apostles. some of these were taught directly by john and matthew and luke and mark.

you are also correct on the fact that john mark was the scribe for peter.

On your first post you did...I didn't understand it..sorry. On this one, you are saying this papias, got direct information from elders of churches started by the apostles so that is where he found out who wrote which gospel? Is that all the evidence we have though? I hate to sound so doubtful here but I was hoping for more then just the word of someone, but more evidence of some type.


Literalist-Luke
In addition to the points that have already been offered here, I would also point out that if somebody is going to dispute the position that the Gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they will need to provide credible evidence to the contrary. Simply accusing our existing evidence in support of their authorship of being insufficient is hardly conclusive. If they weren't the authors then where is the historical evidence to the contrary? Where is a credible statement from that time period that disputes the genuineness of their authorship?

Well I thought that too, but markward has a good point..the gospels aren't exactly signed by the authors. So I am trying to find out how these names were put to these books to start with.


lucasipro

in reading from sources like wikipedia, and encyclopedia.com, there is sufficient thought and theory that suggests that the gospels of the new testiment were not written by the apostles they are named for, but that is all it is, just theory and suggestion. One major reference where you might find some information would be with Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
Mr Bart Ehrman has received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is known worldwide for his authorship and work relating to the history of the writings on the new testament.

search all you want for all the information that you want and what you will find is theory and suggestion every time.

I would be careful with this too though..while you may have a point in the theories and suggests on this...assuming that someone that has a degree in the studies of the New Testament so 'they know what they are talking about'. doesn't always mean they can be trusted. I have seen far too many atheists believe people like Dawkins and others simply because they have a degree and studied in Christianity. In looking up this fellow I found a book review done on one of his books :

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452
Review ofBart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
Finally, regarding 1 John 5:7-8, virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. One wonders why this passage is even discussed in Ehrman’s book. The only reason seems to be to fuel doubts. The passage made its way into our Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it is not authentic. The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 affirmed explicitly the Trinity! How could they do this without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another millennium? Chalcedon’s statement was not written in a vacuum: the early church put into a theological formulation what they saw in the NT.

A distinction needs to be made here: just because a particular verse does not affirm a cherished doctrine does not mean that that doctrine cannot be found in the NT. In this case, anyone with an understanding of the healthy patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the data in the NT. The Trinitarian formula only summarized what they found; it did not inform their declarations.

God bless

Teke
Apr 16th 2008, 02:25 PM
Moonglow, as you've said, you know this came from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the church, which is us. Whether it was the church of us in the 1st century or the church of us in the 21st century, it still all came from us.

Without giving you a bunch of references, which you know I can provide for you, I'll put it simple as possible. Scripture doesn't uphold the church, the church upholds scripture. Don't be so fearful of RC influence, they were only one of many churches at the time. But at that time all the churches were united in one church. They had a lot of writings, and so the church came together in councils to decide what would be accepted as scripture (canon). The manner they confirmed scripture by was by the witness of the faithful, meaning the earlier Christians use of it.

So for instance, if they found all of John's disciples used certain scriptures and it continued to be used by others, it was confirmed as scripture. IOW they didn't confirm scripture based on manuscript dating, because all the writings had been passed around the churches and rewrote (lest the material they were written on should deteriorate and be lost) . So with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, godly men looked into the matter, also taking into consideration OT scripture, and unanimously agreed what was acceptable as scripture, meaning what was reliable.

Souled Out
Apr 16th 2008, 02:30 PM
See this is my concern...when we say 'church tradition or church history' are we talking about the Catholic church that I don't trust because they have messed with scripture, or the 'church' as in the early first Christian churches?

As I said I would like to study this but right now there are just too many other things going on and from this thread...from the answers I am getting, it looks complicated. I was really hoping someone could post a link that said, why yes we know these men wrote the gospels and here is the evidence'...but as we can clearly see its not going that way...at least not yet.
God bless

Moonglow, there is no way around church history. It just is what it is. There's nothing we can do about it. If you look up Ezra and his role in putting together the OT you'll get a sense of all the layers upon layers in both church and bible history.

A lot of people don't have the stomach or heart for all this but if you want to know you've got to understand that it is complicated. If you take the time to study it out you will be rewarded and you'll get a better understanding of how we've gotten to where we are today and why we are were we are today. You'll see God's hand in it and you'll see man's hand in it. It is mind blowing to say the least.

moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 02:38 PM
vinsight..can you provide a link to this please? Also I am going quote it and break it up for easier reading. One large block of text is difficult to read but it looks good. Thanks.


LUKE, THE GOSPEL OF
-------------------
...... LITERATURE
-------------------
1. Text: The five primary uncials (Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae) are the chief witnesses for the text of Luke's Gospel. This group is reinforced by L, Codex Delta and the Freer (Detroit) MS; R, T, X and Xi are also valuable in fragments. The other uncials are of secondary value. The Latin, Egyptian and Syriac versions are also of great importance. There are 4 Latin versions (African, European, Italian, Vulgate), 3 Egyptian (Memphitic, Sahidic, Bohairic), 5 Syriac (Curetonian, Sinaitic, Pe****to, Harclean, Palestinian or Jerusalem). Many of the cursive (minuscule) manuscripts are also of considerable worth, as are some of the quotations from the Fathers.

Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898), has advanced the theory of two recensions of this Gospel (a longer and a shorter), such as he holds to be true of Acts. In the case of Acts, the theory has won some acceptance (see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES), but that is not true of the Gospel to any extent. The Western text of the Gospel is the shorter text, while in Acts it is the longer text. In both instances Blass holds that the shorter text was issued after the longer and original text. His idea is that Luke himself revised and issued the shorter text. In itself this is, of course, possible, since the books are both addressed to an individual, Theophilus. The other edition may have been meant for others. Westcott and Hort, .... Julicher, however, frankly admits (Intro, 330) that "the ancients were universally agreed that the writer was that Luke, disciple of Paul, who is mentioned in Philem verse 24; <2 Tim 4:11>, and called `the physician' in <Col 4:14>; presumably a native of Antioch."

This statement bears more directly on the question of authorship than of canonicity, but it is a good retort to the rather cavalier tone of Schmiedel, who is reluctant to admit the facts. The recognition of the Third Gospel in the Muratorian Canon (170 AD) is a fact of much significance...... Irenaeus (end of the 2nd century) makes frequent quotations from this Gospel. He argues that there could be only "four" Gospels because of the four points of the compass-- an absurd argument, to be sure, but a powerful testimony to the general acceptance of this Gospel along with the other three. It is needless to appeal to the presence of the Third Gospel in the Curetonian Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, the African Latin-- versions that date to the 2nd century, not to mention the probability of the early date of the Memphitic (Coptic) versions

Examples of the early use of this Gospel occur in various writings of the 2nd century, as in Justin Martyr (150 AD), the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (circa 140 AD), Celsus (circa AD 160), the Gospel of Peter (2nd century), the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (177 AD), probably also the Didache (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria (190-202 AD), Tertullian (190-220 AD). It is doubtful about Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp; and the Epistle of Barnabas seems to make no use of the Third Gospel. But Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp quote Acts. But surely the general use and acceptance of the Third Gospel in the early 2nd century is beyond reasonable doubt. It is not easy to decide when the actual use began, because we have so little data from the 1st century (compare Plummer, Commentary, lxxiii).

.... 3. Authorship: The first writers who definitely name Luke as the author of the Third Gospel belong to the end of the 2nd century. They are the Canon of Muratori (possibly by Hippolytus), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. We have already seen that Julicher (Introduction, 330) admits that the ancients Universally agreed that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. In the early part of the 2nd century the writers did not, as a rule, give the names of the authors of the Gospels quoted by them. It is not fair, therefore, to use their silence on this point as proof either of their ignorance of the author or of denial of Luke's authorship. Julicher for instance, says (Introduction, 330): "There is no tradition worthy of the name concerning Luke, whom Papias did not mention, or at any rate did not know." But we owe to Eusebius all the fragments that we have preserved from the writings of Papias.
Our ignorance of Papias can hardly be charged up to him. Plummer (Commentary, xii) says that nothing in Biblical criticism is more certain than the fact that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. On the other hand, Julicher (Introduction, 331) is not willing to let it go as easily as that.

He demands appeal to Acts, and there (ibid., 447) he denies the Lukan authorship save as to the "we" sections. J. Weiss (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; das Lukas Evang., 1906, 378) admits that but for Acts no sufficient reason would exist for denying the authorship of the Third Gospel to Luke, the disciple of Paul. A Pauline point of view in this Gospel is admitted generally. Many modern critics take it for granted that the Lukan authorship of Acts is disproved, and hence, that of the Gospel likewise falls by the way. So argue Baur, Clemen, De Wette, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Julicher, Pfleiderer, Schurer, Spitta, von Soden, J. Weiss, Weizsacker, Zeller.

" Harnack proceeds to make a plea for a hearing. Jacobus (Standard Bible Dictionary) admits that "Acts tells us nothing more of the author than does the Gospel." That is true so far as express mention is concerned, but not so far as natural implication goes. It is true that the place to begin the discussion of the Lukan authorship of the Gospel is Acts. For detailed discussion of the proof that Luke wrote Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

It is there shown that the line of argument which has convinced Harnack, the leader of the liberal criticism of Germany, ought to convince any openminded critic. It means a good deal when Harnack (Luke the Physician, 14) says: "I subscribe to the words of Zahn (Einleitung, II, 427): `Hobart has proved for everyone who can at all appreciate proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practiced in the scientific language of Greek medicine-- in short, a Greek physician. ' "It is here assumed that the line of argument pursued in the article on ACTS OF THE APOSTLES is conclusive. If so, little remains to be done in the way of special proof for the Gospel. The author of Acts specifically refers <Acts 1:1> to a former treatise which was likewise addressed to Theophilus. This we find to be the case with the Gospel passing under the name of <Luke 1:4>. The critics who admit the Lukan authorship of Acts and deny the Lukan authorship of the Gospel are hardly worth considering.


It is, therefore, largely a work of supererogation to give at length the proof from internal grounds that Luke wrote the Gospel, after being convinced about Acts. Still it may be worth while to sketch in outline the line of argument, even though it is very simple. Plummer (Comm., x-xvii) argues three propositions: "
(1) The author of the Third Gospel is the author of the Acts.

(2) The author of Acts was a companion of Paul.

(3) This companion was Luke." Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909) has argued with great minuteness and skill the theory that the same linguistic peculiarities occur in all portions of Acts, including the "we-" sections.

He accepts the facts set forth by Hawkins (Horae Synopticae) and adds others. He agrees, therefore, that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. Harnack is convinced by the exhaustive labors of Hobart (Medical Language of St. Luke) that this author was a physician, as we know Luke to have been <Col 4:14>. He shows this to be true of the author of Acts by the use of "us" in <Acts 28:10>, showing that the author of Acts received honors along with Paul, probably because he practiced medicine and treated many (compare Barnack, Luke the Physician, 15 f).

These medical terms occur in the Gospel of Luke also, and the same general linguistic style is found in both the Gospel and Acts. Hawkins has made a careful study of likenesses and variations in style in these two books (compare Horae Synopticae, 15-25, 174-89). The argument is as conclusive as such a line of proof can be expected to be. For further discussion see Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 1908, 1-68; Zahn, Introduction, III, 160 ff. There are no phenomena in the Gospel hostile to this position save the Semitic character of chapters 1 and 2 (barring the classical introduction <Luke 1:1-4>). Luke, though a Gentile, has in these chapters the most Semitic narrative in the New Testament. But the explanation is obvious. He is here using Semitic material (either oral or written), and has with true artistic skill preserved the tone of the original. To a certain extent the same thing is true of the opening chapters of Acts.

..... (1) Unity.-- If the Lukan authorship of the book is accepted, there remains no serious doubt concerning the unity and integrity of the Gospel. The abridgment of Luke's Gospel used by Marcion does not discredit those portions of the Gospel omitted by him. They are omitted for doctrinal reasons (compare Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, chapter viii). His readings are of interest from the viewpoint of textual criticism, as are the quotations of other early writers, but his edition does not seriously challenge the value of Luke's work.

(2) Luke's method.-- Luke has announced his methods of work in a most classic introduction <Luke 1:1-4>. Here we catch a glimpse of the author's personality. That is not possible in Mark nor in Matthew, and only indirectly in passing shadows in the Fourth Gospel. But here the author frankly takes the reader into his confidence and discloses his standpoint and qualifications for the great task. He writes as a contemporary about the recent past, always the most difficult history to interpret and often the most interesting. He speaks of "those matters which have been fulfilled among us," in our time. He does not himself claim to have been an eyewitness of "those matters." As we know already, Luke was a Gentile and apparently never saw Jesus in the flesh. He occupies thus a position outside of the great events which he is to record. He does not disguise his intense interest in the narrative, but he claims the historical spirit.

He wishes to assure Theophilus of "the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed." He claims to have investigated "the course of all things accurately from the first," just as the true historian would. He thus implies that some of the attempts made had been fragmentary at any rate, and to that extent inaccurate. He has also produced an "orderly" narrative by which Theophilus may gain a just conception of the historical progress of the events connected with the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that "many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters" does not deter Luke from his task. The rather he is stirred thereby ("It seemed good to me also") to give his interpretation of the life and work of Jesus as the result of his researches. He stands not farther away than one generation from the death of Jesus. He has the keen interest natural to a cultured follower of Jesus in the origin of what had become a great world-movement. He is able to get at the facts because he has had intercourse with eyewitnesses of Jesus and His work, "even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word."

Luke had abundant opportunity during the two years at Caesarea with Paul <Acts 24-26> to make careful and extended investigations. Many of the personal followers of Jesus were still living <1 Cor 15:6>. It was a golden opportunity for Luke's purpose. He had also the written narratives which others ("many") had already drawn up. We are, then, to expect in Luke's Gospel a book closely akin to Acts in style and plan, with the historian's love of accuracy and order, with the author's own contribution in the assimilation and use of this oral and written material. One would not expect in such a writer slavish copying, but intelligent blending of the material into an artistic whole.

.....A. T. ROBERTSON
(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

God bless

moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 02:44 PM
Moonglow, as you've said, you know this came from somewhere. That "somewhere" is the church, which is us. Whether it was the church of us in the 1st century or the church of us in the 21st century, it still all came from us.

Without giving you a bunch of references, which you know I can provide for you, I'll put it simple as possible. Scripture doesn't uphold the church, the church upholds scripture. Don't be so fearful of RC influence, they were only one of many churches at the time. But at that time all the churches were united in one church. They had a lot of writings, and so the church came together in councils to decide what would be accepted as scripture (canon). The manner they confirmed scripture by was by the witness of the faithful, meaning the earlier Christians use of it.

So for instance, if they found all of John's disciples used certain scriptures and it continued to be used by others, it was confirmed as scripture. IOW they didn't confirm scripture based on manuscript dating, because all the writings had been passed around the churches and rewrote (lest the material they were written on should deteriorate and be lost) . So with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, godly men looked into the matter, also taking into consideration OT scripture, and unanimously agreed what was acceptable as scripture, meaning what was reliable.

Sorry teke but I am leery when it comes to the Catholic church...I have simply ran into too many scriptures that were added later to our scriptures by the Catholic church and that angers me a great deal. These verses were not in the original manuscripts at all. So anything coming from the Catholic church I have serious doubts about. The church IS based on scriptures the way I see it, not the other way around. Without our solid foundation we crumble. No church could have built without Christ first, and scriptures next.


Souled Out

Moonglow, there is no way around church history. It just is what it is. There's nothing we can do about it. If you look up Ezra and his role in putting together the OT you'll get a sense of all the layers upon layers in both church and bible history.

A lot of people don't have the stomach or heart for all this but if you want to know you've got to understand that it is complicated. If you take the time to study it out you will be rewarded and you'll get a better understanding of how we've gotten to where we are today and why we are were we are today. You'll see God's hand in it and you'll see man's hand in it. It is mind blowing to say the least.

That is what I would like to find out. Just wish I wasn't sick right now and so foggy headed...:B Makes it hard to focus.

God bless

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 02:47 PM
Those quotes come from my bible software program called --- PC BbleStudy. I bought the progam many years ago, not sure what they have around today.

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 03:05 PM
Here's a site to learn about the church fathers meaning.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xn-canon.html

markedward
Apr 16th 2008, 03:09 PM
We have a strong church tradition regarding authorship. I have yet to hear any other strong theories. It's fairly easy to try to poke holes at accepted tradition, it's a lot harder to come up with a theory that's anywhere close to as evidential.I'm not really trying to come up with alternative theories. Most of those sources giving names to the authors were written nearly a century after the gospels were written. The earlier source, Papias, gives some credibility to Matthew and Mark; did he know Matthew and Mark, or people who directly knew Matthew and Mark?

The reason this topic came up was, in another thread, I suggested that since we don't know with absolute certainty who wrote the four gospels, that there is the possibility that the slight differences in certain passages (such as whether it was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, or the sons themselves, who asked Jesus if they could sit at His right hand) was because the individual authors may have been first-hand witnesses who remembered things slightly differently or researched and received information from witnesses who remembered things differently.


I believe that John the apostle was the one caught up in Revelation (in the spirit) to write things down, as he refers to Jesus as - one like the Son of man.

that is the phrase that Jesus used
Son of manA) The "son of man" description comes from the book of Daniel. Considering that the Revelation draws heavily upon Old Testament prophecy (Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, etc.), there is the possibility that John used the phrase because he got it from Daniel.

B) The usage of the phrase itself does not necessitate that he was the John, the disciple of Jesus. "John" was a very common name in that culture of the ancient world. Jesus had a brother named John, He had a disciple named John, there was a man called John Mark, etc. This John never identifies himself as the disciple John, so it's possible he was Jesus' brother John, John Mark, or even another John who was a follower of the Way.

mcgyver
Apr 16th 2008, 03:16 PM
Could you please provide examples?

A couple of quick examples:

In the reference to "The eye of a needle", Mark and Matthew use the word raphis which is an ordinary tailor's or household needle. Luke uses the word belone which is a technical word for a surgeon's needle.

In Luke 4:35 when telling of the demon possessed man, when he writes: "when the demon had thrown him in the midst"...the terminology he uses is the correct medical terminology for a convulsion.

In Luke 9:38 when he recounts the man who asked Jesus to :"look on my son..." he employs the conventional word for a doctor visiting a patient.

(Wuest: Word studies in the New Testament, Trench :Synonyms of the New Testament, Barclay: The Acts of The Apostles)

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 03:22 PM
Hey, mcgyver!
Neat find there!

Teke
Apr 16th 2008, 03:25 PM
Sorry teke but I am leery when it comes to the Catholic church...I have simply ran into too many scriptures that were added later to our scriptures by the Catholic church and that angers me a great deal.

I do not know what your talking about on this.

I know the Protestants have less scripture than any of the churches. The Orthodox have more than the RC or the Protestants.


These verses were not in the original manuscripts at all.

There are a lot of manuscripts, you'd have to be more specific on what local it came from. For instance there are Syrian/Aramaic and there are Greek. The NT is an example of the blend.



So anything coming from the Catholic church I have serious doubts about. The church IS based on scriptures the way I see it, not the other way around. Without our solid foundation we crumble. No church could have built without Christ first, and scriptures next.



I'd agree the Church is based on scripture (that is in following it's guidelines/tradition), but that would be OT scripture since the NT didn't exist until it was canonized by the church. And without the church canonizing the OT for Christians it wouldn't be scripture to Christians.

Anyway I'm not advocating for the Roman church. But even scripture tells you that scripture isn't necessary, as it is written in the hearts of the faithful. So if all scripture disappeared tomorrow, the united church could rewrite it with no problem. ;)

The church didn't decide a canon of scripture for Christians to judge one another by.

markedward
Apr 16th 2008, 03:38 PM
A couple of quick examples:

In the reference to "The eye of a needle", Mark and Matthew use the word raphis which is an ordinary tailor's or household needle. Luke uses the word belone which is a technical word for a surgeon's needle.

In Luke 4:35 when telling of the demon possessed man, when he writes: "when the demon had thrown him in the midst"...the terminology he uses is the correct medical terminology for a convulsion.

In Luke 9:38 when he recounts the man who asked Jesus to :"look on my son..." he employs the conventional word for a doctor visiting a patient.

(Wuest: Word studies in the New Testament, Trench :Synonyms of the New Testament, Barclay: The Acts of The Apostles)Thank you, sir. I may have to find that book sometime.

mcgyver
Apr 16th 2008, 03:40 PM
Going on...:)

I subscribe to early authorship of the Gospels by those who's name they bear, for a couple of additional reasons to those that have already been posted:

First is the internal evidence within the synoptic Gospels themselves. For example, in both Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 mention is made to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, yet there is no mention of the fulfillment of that prophecy (AD 70 in the reign of Vespasian).

I find this curious, as the temple was the very center of Jewish religious and social life during the time of Christ. The destruction of the temple would have been an occasion of monumental import to the Jewish people (as indeed it was), but yet a Jew (Levi aka Matthew) and a gentile historian of the first rate (Luke) both fail to mention the destruction of said temple.

Secondly is the nature of the early church(es). These churches did not live in a vacuum...they communicated with each other, shared epistles and other writings with each other, and for the most part were very circumspect in what they accepted as genuine writings. In fact, one of the 5 principles of acceptance as canon was the mark of "Apostolic Authority" (was the writing written by an Apostle or one who had been a close associate of an Apostle.) Hebrews for example, was slow to be accepted as the author was unknown...Other pseudo-gospels were rejected because they were written using a Nom de plume, and the reasoning was that if indeed it had been written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit...why conceal the identity of the human author?

Thirdly, there is the wealth of scriptural quotations used (as has been mentioned earlier) in the writings of both the ante-nicene church fathers, as well as the great early church apologists. The early church ascribed authorship of the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These quotations were in wide use within the early churches.

My feeling is that just because we don't have either the autographs nor writings (Synoptic Gospels) dating to say...AD 60 (as an example); that could change tomorrow. Either way, I think that there is enough "circumstantial evidence" to support the authorship of the Gospels by the writers we have listed in our Bibles...

Respectfully submitted for thought...:hug:

Teke
Apr 16th 2008, 03:45 PM
I'm not really trying to come up with alternative theories. Most of those sources giving names to the authors were written nearly a century after the gospels were written. The earlier source, Papias, gives some credibility to Matthew and Mark; did he know Matthew and Mark, or people who directly knew Matthew and Mark?

The reason this topic came up was, in another thread, I suggested that since we don't know with absolute certainty who wrote the four gospels,

This is a good point. We don't know anything "with absolute certainty". For instance can we prove historic figures such as Alexander the Great ever existed, no we can't. We just take the word of those who wrote about him.

If we can't trust such faithful witnesses such as those who knew the Apostles and others who were their disciples, then who can we trust, where is our faith.
But this is the manner scripture was passed in, by the faithful. Paul's letters should demonstrate this concept to us. The churches of the first century didn't just accept anyone who said they new the gospel without a letter of recommendation to hear them out. There are plenty of examples in the NT of those who are named and sent out by the Apostles. I myself have traced some of those successions just to prove it to myself.

moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 04:10 PM
I do not know what your talking about on this.

I know the Protestants have less scripture than any of the churches. The Orthodox have more than the RC or the Protestants.


There are a lot of manuscripts, you'd have to be more specific on what local it came from. For instance there are Syrian/Aramaic and there are Greek. The NT is an example of the blend.



I'd agree the Church is based on scripture (that is in following it's guidelines/tradition), but that would be OT scripture since the NT didn't exist until it was canonized by the church. And without the church canonizing the OT for Christians it wouldn't be scripture to Christians.

the way you are wording things here is very confusing...probably because I am sick so bear with me. You say, "I'd agree the Church is based on scripture (that is in following it's guidelines/tradition),"...where is church tradition in scripture? Which church tradition are you talking about? The Catholic church says for its followers to do alot of things not based on scripture at all...or even goes directly against scripture. Can you clarify what you mean here? Then you say this: "but that would be OT scripture since the NT didn't exist until it was canonized by the church." Clearly we know the first Christians churches were not living by the OT which would mean following the OT laws. They were being directly taught about Jesus and what to follow from the disciples themselves and from Paul...later yes these people (hopefully them anyway) wrote the NT.

Your wording here: "the NT didn't exist until it was canonized by the church" again is very confusing. It sounds to me like you are saying the church wrote the NT. Yes the NT tells us the disciples wrote it...not church leaders hundreds of years later. Those church leaders HAD the scrolls to look at and their job in canonizing it was to figure out which writings were inspirited by God and which wasn't. Then put them all together in the book we now know as the bible. But yes they DID exist...other wise they couldn't have done this work in putting the writings together.

Anyway I'm not advocating for the Roman church. But even scripture tells you that scripture isn't necessary, as it is written in the hearts of the faithful. So if all scripture disappeared tomorrow, the united church could rewrite it with no problem. ;)

Where do you see that? I read this:

John 1
4 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

I never thought you were advocating the Roman church...sorry about any confusion there.


The church didn't decide a canon of scripture for Christians to judge one another by.

Ok this last statement really confused me. The topic isn't about judging, its about figuring out if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the ones that really wrote the gospels or not...so I am lost as to why you said this. Do you think I am judging you somehow? :confused I am truly sorry if you think so. I have very negative feelings towards the Catholic church who to them, 'tradition' is the gospel...even if it goes directly against the gospel! But this has nothing at all to do with you personally at all. So I am sorry for any misunderstanding here. ok? :hug:

God bless

matthew94
Apr 16th 2008, 04:33 PM
Moonglow asked...

matthew...can you provide a link to those quotes you listed please? See I don't exactly trust 'church tradition'...that only means someone in the past in church leadership 'decided' this was the way it was. I would like some evidence. I am still trying to figure out who this Papias, was ...whenever I read that word it makes me think 'pope' as in Catholic pope and we know the Catholic churches tends to add quite a bit to the scriptures that have no bases in the bible to start with. This is probably not what you are saying and I am just 'lost'...which is normal for me... More so today as I have a head cold...blah.

I'm not sure what a link to a quote would provide you with other than repetition. Perhaps you are interested in knowing a little more about the individuals quoted? Papias was an early 2nd century Christian. Irenaeus said this about Papias: "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." A simple search will tell you about the other individuals quoted.

I have a question for you too. It seems you are disappointed by the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have for the authorship of the gospels. My question is, what 'would' impress you? If the Gospels were signed, liberal scholars would just debate whether the signature was authentic (as they do with works that are signed). If you're simply looking for earlier references to authorship, we have to ask the question 'WHY would a bunch of people who knew they got an account from Matthew be interested in making sure that people 2000 years down the road knew it was Matthew? What would motivate someone who confirm authorship when they knew the author personally? Confirming authorship wasn't necessary until false stuff started floating around, and that's when we get the discussion going.

MarkedWard...

I'm not really trying to come up with alternative theories. Most of those sources giving names to the authors were written nearly a century after the gospels were written. The earlier source, Papias, gives some credibility to Matthew and Mark; did he know Matthew and Mark, or people who directly knew Matthew and Mark?

Again, historians wouldn't expect contemporaries of Matthew & Mark arguing (and therefore leaving evidence of) authorship. That no other authors were legitimately proposed speaks loudly in favor of the accepted tradition. If the same standards we are utilizing here were used on other ancient writings, we wouldn't know anything about history.


The reason this topic came up was, in another thread, I suggested that since we don't know with absolute certainty who wrote the four gospels, that there is the possibility that the slight differences in certain passages (such as whether it was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, or the sons themselves, who asked Jesus if they could sit at His right hand) was because the individual authors may have been first-hand witnesses who remembered things slightly differently or researched and received information from witnesses who remembered things differently.

In my mind, your point doesn't have anything to do with authorship. We can appreciate that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John wrote those Gospels and still appreciate the fact that they had human memories, weren't all present for every event in Jesus' life, used different sources, etc. This has little to do with authorship. It has to do with humanity.

I don't think it's as complicated as a lot of liberal scholars have made it. Luke wrote acts before Paul died (obviously). Luke wrote Luke before he wrote acts. This places the date of Luke in the early 60's at the latest. Even liberal scholars agree that Luke was written after Mark, so that pushes Mark into the 50's. There is debate about whether Mark or Matthew were written first, so they are probably both in the 50's. Matthew, Mark & Luke had no reason (let alone time) to write their Gospels in the 30's or 40's. They were there to tell people the stories orally. But as they got older, the churches recognized that written records would be advantageous to possess. The 4-fold Gospel wouldn't have become so prominent if the authorship wasn't trusted. And that is why the last list of quotes I gave is so paramount to this discussion:


“The Ebionites, who use only Matthew’s Gospel, are refuted out of this very same work…But Marcion, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is still proved to be blasphemous…from those passages which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ…prefer the Gospel of Mark. However, if they read it with a love of truth, they would have their errors rectified. Those persons, moreover, who follow Valentinus, make copious use of the Gospel according to John to illustrate their conjuctions. However, they, too, will be proved to be totally in error…It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number that they are. For, there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…it is fitting that she should have four pillars” (Irenaeus, 180)

That's not a new statement of which Gospels were authoritative. It's a recognition of a well-established tradition in the year 180. This is only disappointing when we read 21st century speed of information into the 1st century context.

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 04:36 PM
markedward

I don't think Daniel ever described what the Son of man looked like. At the very beginning part of Rev., we find that this writer seems to have an idea as to what the Son of man already looked like. Where Daniel did refer to the looks of God - He used "Ancient of days".

Peter, John and James were at the transfiguration.
Mark used the same type of phrase "white as snow".
Matthew "white as the light"
Luke "white and glistering"

John of Rev. 1 - wrote as to His head and hairs "white as snow".
"white like wool"

I just don't think a person that didn't actually see that Son of man time would have written in such a way - as to right away refer to Him as....

Rev. 1:13
"And in the midst of the seven candlesticks, {one} like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle."
"His head and {his} hairs {were} white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes {were} as a flame of fire."


Matthew 16:28
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
17:1
"And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart."
"And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light."
v2

Teke
Apr 16th 2008, 04:42 PM
the way you are wording things here is very confusing...probably because I am sick so bear with me. You say, "I'd agree the Church is based on scripture (that is in following it's guidelines/tradition),"...where is church tradition in scripture? Which church tradition are you talking about?

When God established the priesthood in Israel, He gave them things to do, aka tradition. Such as reading the commandments or scripture before all the people assembled. That is a tradition carried on by the Church, everyone as far as I know anyhow.


The Catholic church says for its followers to do alot of things not based on scripture at all...or even goes directly against scripture. Can you clarify what you mean here?

Your making a judgment call by what you have and use as scripture and your understanding of that. They do the same but use more scripture than you do to come to their conclusions. I'm not saying their completely right, but their not completely wrong either, you both use scripture.


Then you say this: "but that would be OT scripture since the NT didn't exist until it was canonized by the church." Clearly we know the first Christians churches were not living by the OT which would mean following the OT laws. They were being directly taught about Jesus and what to follow from the disciples themselves and from Paul...later yes these people (hopefully them anyway) wrote the NT.

Well it's not a subject of your thread, but the law is upheld by the Church. Paul says as much in the NT.


Your wording here: "the NT didn't exist until it was canonized by the church" again is very confusing. It sounds to me like you are saying the church wrote the NT. Yes the NT tells us the disciples wrote it...not church leaders hundreds of years later. Those church leaders HAD the scrolls to look at and their job in canonizing it was to figure out which writings were inspirited by God and which wasn't. Then put them all together in the book we now know as the bible. But yes they DID exist...other wise they couldn't have done this work in putting the writings together.

Yes, they existed. But they didn't have copy machines to make copies and send out. Somebody, church leader or scribe, had to write them out and send copies to the other churches.

The reason the church had to canonize scripture is because everyone was writing about Jesus and had their own ideas about that in the first century. So who do you believe. All you could do is find reliable witnesses that knew the apostolic teachings to verify them from. IOW a disciple of Jesus, had a disciple who in turn taught another and so on. Like passing the same blue book given to them, not a red one or a green one.

You wouldn't compare apples to oranges.


Anyway I'm not advocating for the Roman church. But even scripture tells you that scripture isn't necessary, as it is written in the hearts of the faithful. So if all scripture disappeared tomorrow, the united church could rewrite it with no problem.

Where do you see that?

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

+++++++++++

2Cr 3:1 ¶ Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some [others], epistles of commendation to you, or [letters] of commendation from you?

2Cr 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

2Cr 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.




Ok this last statement really confused me. Do you think I am judging you somehow?

No dear Moonglow, I do not think you are judging me. But there are many out there that use the bible in that manner. It's not a legal book, it's a spiritual book. Guess I should have clarified.
:hug:

mcgyver
Apr 16th 2008, 04:45 PM
Here's some more food for thought...

We know that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of The Apostles were written by the same person to a certain Theophilus...

We know that the Gospel of Luke was written prior to the Acts...

We know that Paul was martyred in the reign of Nero, who died in AD 68. Most sources place Paul's death in late AD 67...

We know that Paul was imprisoned in Rome AD 64....

Luke is extremely accurate in his history (Acts)...

The book of Acts leaves off with Paul being in prison in Rome for 2 years, no mention is made of an appearance before Caesar of Paul's death...Which would indicate that the Book of Acts was written prior to Paul's death, but after his imprisonment meaning that an early dating of the Gospel of Luke is evidenced.

Theologian C.H. Turner has pointed out that Acts falls into 6 separate sections, each ending with a “Progress Report”. These Sections are as follows:

(a) Acts 1:1-6:7; this tells of the church at Jerusalem and the preaching of Peter; and it finishes with the summary, "The word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

(b)Acts6:8-9:31; this describes the spread of Christianity through Palestine and the martyrdom of Stephen, followed by the preaching in Samaria. It ends with the summary, "Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.”

(c)Acts 9:32-12:24; this includes the conversion of Paul, the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the reception of Cornelius, the Gentile, into the Church by Peter. Its summary is, "But the word of God grew and multiplied.”

(d)Acts 12:25-16:5; this tells of the extension of the Church through Asia Minor and the preaching tour of Galatia. It ends, "So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily”.

(e)Acts 16:6-19:20; this relates the extension of the Church to Europe and the work of Paul in great Gentile cities like Corinth and Ephesus. Its summary runs, "So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed. “

(J)Acts19:21-28:31; this tells of the arrival of Paul in Rome and his imprisonment there. It ends with the picture of Paul “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him”.

Now here's where it gets interesting:

Theophilus is probably not a "given name" but a pseudonym...In the Gospel of Luke, the salutation is "Most excellent Theophilus"..."Most excellent" is a salutation which would have the modern equivalent of "To His excellency".

There is a school of though that says "Theophilus" might have been a high placed official (from the address "His excellency") within the Roman government...and that the book of Acts provides a legal brief to be used in Paul's defense before Caesar...Dating the book (once again) prior to AD 67.

I found this fascinating...

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 04:57 PM
Here's what is in the PC Study bible program I have...

THEOPHILUS
(the-of'-i-lus) (Theophilos, "loved of God"): The one to whom St. Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (compare <Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1>). It has been suggested that Theophilus is merely a generic term for all Christians, but the epithet "most excellent" implies it was applied by St. Luke to a definite person, probably a Roman official, whom he held in high respect. Theophilus may have been the presbyter who took part in sending the letter from the Corinthians to St. Paul, given in the "Acta Pauli" (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 378). There is also a magistrate Theophilus mentioned in the "Acts of St. James" as being converted by St. James on his way to India (compare Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles, II, 299), but these and other identifications, together with other attempts to trace out the further history of the original Theophilus, are without sufficient evidence for their establishment (compare also Knowling in The Expositor Greek Test., II, 49-51).
C. M. KERR
(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

Another good one, mcgyver!
Thanks

Teke
Apr 16th 2008, 05:34 PM
To add to the info Matthew has provided.;)




The Gospel According to Matthew
50’s-60’s

“Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew Language, and each one interpreted them as best he could” (Papias, 120)

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and paul were preaching at Rome” (Irenaeus, 180)

“We will begin with Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have published his Gospel before the others. He wrote it to the Hebrews, namely, those of the circumcision who believed”
(Origen, 228)


St Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (AD 67-107) is one of the earliest witnesses to this gospel.



:
The Gospel According to Mark
50’s-60’s

“Having become the interpreter of Peter, Mark wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. However, he did not relate the sayings or deeds of Christ in exact order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwords, as I said, he accompanied Peter.” (Papias, 120)

“After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to ous in writing what had been preached by Peter” (Irenaeus, 180)

“In order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, Mark wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark” (Clement, 195)

Mark the Apostle, aka John Mark, is known to be the author of this gospel. Some early writers suggest that the young man in the linen wrap (14:51,52) is Mark himself. His mothers house was a meeting place for Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Paul and Barnabas took John Mark with them to Antioch when they returned from the Jerusalem famine relief effort (Acts 12:25). He briefly assisted Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), departed from them (Acts 13:13) , then helped Barnabas (Acts 15:37-39, see Col. 4:10,11), and eventually was reconciled to Paul (Philem. 24). Later he also aided Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) and, according to tradition, subsequently used Peter's teaching as his primary source for this gospel, adding to it his personal experience and other church traditions.



:
The Gospel According to Luke
60’s

“Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel in a book” (Irenaeus, 180)

“By the style of writing, Luke may be recognized both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles and to have translated Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews” (Clement, 195)

“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke” (Muratorian Fragment, 200)

(AD 70-80)
Luke in his preface, 1:1, indicates knowledge of other written sources. Most believe he used Mark as a source. He is mentioned in Co. 4:14, 2 Tim. 4:11, and Philemon 24. He was a Gentile from Antioch by birth, and a physician by profession. He was a fellow worker with Paul, "we" in Acts 20:6, indicates Luke was with Paul as he traveled the coast of Asia Minor on his way to Jerusalem.



The Gospel According to John
80’s-90’s

“The fourth Gospel is that of John… it was revealed to Andrew that John should narrate all things in his own name, as they called them to mind” (Muratorian Fragment, 200)

“What a mind, then, we must have to enable us to interpret this work in a worthy manner. This is so even though it has been committed to the earthly treasure house of common speech” (Origen, 228)
Quote:
The Fourfold Gospel
Late 100’s

“The Ebionites, who use only Matthew’s Gospel, are refuted out of this very same work…But Marcion, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is still proved to be blasphemous…from those passages which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ…prefer the Gospel of Mark. However, if they read it with a love of truth, they would have their errors rectified. Those persons, moreover, who follow Valentinus, make copious use of the Gospel according to John to illustrate their conjuctions. However, they, too, will be proved to be totally in error…It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number that they are. For, there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…it is fitting that she should have four pillars” (Irenaeus, 180)

“The Gospel of Luke that we are defending with all our might has stood its ground…the same authority of the apostolic churches will afford defense of the other Gospels also…I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s, who interpreter Mark was. For men usually ascribe Luke’s form of the Gospel to Paul” (Tertullian, 207)

“Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the church of God under heaven… Matthew was written first. The second one written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter… Third was the one according to Luke…This is the Gospel commended by Paul. Last of all, there is the one according to John” (Origen, 245)



St John the Apostle was assisted by St Prochoros in writing this gospel. John, "Son of Thunder" (Mark 3:17).

John is the first of only three saints in history to be named by the church "the Theologian", because of the profundity of his gospel, which has been called the "spiritual gospel". John was about 100 yrs old when he died.
John was a "pillar" of the church in Jerusalem, and later moved to Ephesus. He served as the leading authority (Elder lit. presbyter in 2 John 1) of Ephesus for the remainder of his ministry. During the reign of Emperor Domitian John was exiled to Patmos where he wrote Revelation.

info from The Orthodox Study Bible (a first in English)

Literalist-Luke
Apr 16th 2008, 05:41 PM
Moonglow asked...

I'm not sure what a link to a quote would provide you with other than repetition. Perhaps you are interested in knowing a little more about the individuals quoted? Papias was an early 2nd century Christian. Irenaeus said this about Papias: "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." A simple search will tell you about the other individuals quoted.

I have a question for you too. It seems you are disappointed by the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have for the authorship of the gospels. My question is, what 'would' impress you? If the Gospels were signed, liberal scholars would just debate whether the signature was authentic (as they do with works that are signed). If you're simply looking for earlier references to authorship, we have to ask the question 'WHY would a bunch of people who knew they got an account from Matthew be interested in making sure that people 2000 years down the road knew it was Matthew? What would motivate someone who confirm authorship when they knew the author personally? Confirming authorship wasn't necessary until false stuff started floating around, and that's when we get the discussion going.

MarkedWard...

Again, historians wouldn't expect contemporaries of Matthew & Mark arguing (and therefore leaving evidence of) authorship. That no other authors were legitimately proposed speaks loudly in favor of the accepted tradition. If the same standards we are utilizing here were used on other ancient writings, we wouldn't know anything about history.

In my mind, your point doesn't have anything to do with authorship. We can appreciate that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John wrote those Gospels and still appreciate the fact that they had human memories, weren't all present for every event in Jesus' life, used different sources, etc. This has little to do with authorship. It has to do with humanity.

I don't think it's as complicated as a lot of liberal scholars have made it. Luke wrote acts before Paul died (obviously). Luke wrote Luke before he wrote acts. This places the date of Luke in the early 60's at the latest. Even liberal scholars agree that Luke was written after Mark, so that pushes Mark into the 50's. There is debate about whether Mark or Matthew were written first, so they are probably both in the 50's. Matthew, Mark & Luke had no reason (let alone time) to write their Gospels in the 30's or 40's. They were there to tell people the stories orally. But as they got older, the churches recognized that written records would be advantageous to possess. The 4-fold Gospel wouldn't have become so prominent if the authorship wasn't trusted. And that is why the last list of quotes I gave is so paramount to this discussion:

That's not a new statement of which Gospels were authoritative. It's a recognition of a well-established tradition in the year 180. This is only disappointing when we read 21st century speed of information into the 1st century context.Very well said, thanks. :thumbsup:

markedward
Apr 16th 2008, 07:29 PM
markedward

I don't think Daniel ever described what the Son of man looked like.Yes, but what John describes is very similar to descriptions later on in Daniel, and in Ezekiel (which I also mentioned).


I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.


Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.


At the very beginning part of Rev., we find that this writer seems to have an idea as to what the Son of man already looked like.John didn't already have an idea; he is describing what he was seeing in front of him. He said "I turned around and saw..." John's description of Jesus in Revelation 1 does not imply John had already seen Him as such previously, and a similar description to the gospel's doesn't necessitate that this John is the same John as the apostle.

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 08:06 PM
I don't believe that Daniel 10's second vision (the one on the 24th day time) shows the Lord, I take it as showing Daniel the man of sin.

girded with - gold from the earth
fine gold of Uphaz

I believe Daniel 10 is about the end times, but that is not for this thread. I just meant that John first says, one like the Son of man and then details what He looked like.

Neither Daniel nor Ezekiel actually placed the words as to the Son of man with a description, as far as I know.
Nebuchadnezzar had dream(s) as to the endtimes, then later sees the fiery furnace and refers to one like the Son of God, in it.

moonglow
Apr 16th 2008, 09:12 PM
Moonglow asked...


I'm not sure what a link to a quote would provide you with other than repetition. Perhaps you are interested in knowing a little more about the individuals quoted? Papias was an early 2nd century Christian. Irenaeus said this about Papias: "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." A simple search will tell you about the other individuals quoted.

I have a question for you too. It seems you are disappointed by the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have for the authorship of the gospels. My question is, what 'would' impress you? If the Gospels were signed, liberal scholars would just debate whether the signature was authentic (as they do with works that are signed). If you're simply looking for earlier references to authorship, we have to ask the question 'WHY would a bunch of people who knew they got an account from Matthew be interested in making sure that people 2000 years down the road knew it was Matthew? What would motivate someone who confirm authorship when they knew the author personally? Confirming authorship wasn't necessary until false stuff started floating around, and that's when we get the discussion going.

MarkedWard...


Again, historians wouldn't expect contemporaries of Matthew & Mark arguing (and therefore leaving evidence of) authorship. That no other authors were legitimately proposed speaks loudly in favor of the accepted tradition. If the same standards we are utilizing here were used on other ancient writings, we wouldn't know anything about history.



In my mind, your point doesn't have anything to do with authorship. We can appreciate that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John wrote those Gospels and still appreciate the fact that they had human memories, weren't all present for every event in Jesus' life, used different sources, etc. This has little to do with authorship. It has to do with humanity.

I don't think it's as complicated as a lot of liberal scholars have made it. Luke wrote acts before Paul died (obviously). Luke wrote Luke before he wrote acts. This places the date of Luke in the early 60's at the latest. Even liberal scholars agree that Luke was written after Mark, so that pushes Mark into the 50's. There is debate about whether Mark or Matthew were written first, so they are probably both in the 50's. Matthew, Mark & Luke had no reason (let alone time) to write their Gospels in the 30's or 40's. They were there to tell people the stories orally. But as they got older, the churches recognized that written records would be advantageous to possess. The 4-fold Gospel wouldn't have become so prominent if the authorship wasn't trusted. And that is why the last list of quotes I gave is so paramount to this discussion:



That's not a new statement of which Gospels were authoritative. It's a recognition of a well-established tradition in the year 180. This is only disappointing when we read 21st century speed of information into the 1st century context.

Great post matthew94...actually I never doubted OR questioned who the authors of the gospels were until it was brought up last night. I have never seen anyone question it before actually...never heard one person, (not even atheist) question it in all these years I have been on the net, in church, reading books, the bible, etc, on this. So frankly it threw me off completely and of course your reasoning is logical and quite correct. As I said before, later on this thread, how can I get refences such as from CARM or any other Christian site that explains who wrote what, when and why it was done if they don't have a solid source to go by? Of course I was hoping for an easy answer too...:rolleyes:

The whole thing even being brought up upset me basically. I don't mean to sound doubtful and questioning everything....I am being cranky. Sick people are usually a little cranky...so don't worry about it too much. Your post along with several others has helped greatly in calming me down on this so I thank you for your time and effort on it. Just ignore my other cranky post...:rolleyes: My glands in my neck are swollen, my throat hurts and I can't breath through my nose and on top of it I had a job interview today (trying desperately to not look or sound sick...lol) Had to get some groceries after that...then rush home, put the groceries away, inhale some lunch, then go get my son from school, THEN pay out the nose for gas for the car....and soon I have to take my son to an appointment and meet a friend for supper....tomorrow I can hide under the covers all day if I want too....:lol: (though I really want to get into the doctor! then hide under the covers).

God bless

vinsight4u8
Apr 16th 2008, 09:55 PM
Get well soon!
:pray: