This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The authorship section was devoted almost entirely to the traditional view with hardly anything on scholarly views. I added a section for scholarly views, I revised the Christian-views section, and I added a very brief section on Muslim views (since we clearly value religious views as relevant). Here it is.
Christian views
By the second century there was a firm tradition associating each gospel to one of Jesus' apostles. Apostolic connection between the gospels and apostles was noted by numerous early church writers, such as
Papias as well as
Justin Martyr (c 100-165) who frequently referred to them as the “Memoirs of the Apostles." Justin also reports that these "memoirs" were read out at Sunday services interchangeably with the writings of the Old Testament prophets.
[1]
[2]
[3]
The Christian authors of antiquity generally associated the gospels as shown on the table. [4]
Gospel | Author and apostolic connection |
---|---|
Gospel of Matthew | Saint Matthew, a former tax-collector, one of the Twelve Apostles. |
Gospel of Mark | Saint Mark, a disciple of Simon Peter, one of the Twelve |
Gospel of Luke | Saint Luke, a disciple of Saint Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles |
Gospel of John | Saint John, one of the Twelve, referred to in the text as the beloved disciple |
Muslim view
Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet who brought a written message to the faithful, but they consider the gospels to be corrupt.
Modern scholarly views
The four canonical gospels are anonymous, with no author identified in the text.
[5] Scholars regard the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John
[6] not to have been written by their reputed authors. Scholars are divided over whether Luke, a colleague of Paul, authored the Gospel of Luke.
For decades after Jesus' death, his followers spread his message by word of mouth. Eventually they began writing down the words and deeds of Jesus. Most scholars agree the Gospel of Mark was the first canonical gospel written (see Markan priority). It was composed about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in the year AD 70. This gospel is well-suited to a Roman audience, and the author may have been from Rome, where there was a large Christian community. The next canonical gospel was Matthew, written for a Jewish audience. The author used Mark for his narrative structure and added substantial teaching material from a now-lost source, known as Q. Matthew was followed closely by Luke, the most literary of the gospels. Like Matthew, Luke basically follows Mark's order of events and incorporates material from Q. Like Acts, the Gospel of Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' message. Finally, around the year AD 100, the "beloved disciple" or his students composed Gospel of John, possibly in Ephesus. The fourth gospel tells a much different story from that found in the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John is the only canonical gospel that identifies an author, described only as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Scholars speculate that he might have been a disciple from Jerusalem. (See also Authorship of the Johannine works.)
References
This article uses Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels By David Oliver Smith as a source for the statement that The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.
The second reference on that sentence is without value as it says nothing of the kind, but Smith does in fact claim this on the page given. I was surprised to read this statement as I know of no such agreement amongst NT scholars. So I wondered where he got his information from. I want to know. He offers no explanation, no supporting data, nothing at all on how or when such a conclusion on such a controversial topic was reached. His only reference for this statement is to Randel Helms, a well known mythicist with an ideological axe to grind, and his book "Who wrote the Gospels?" which was published by the self-publishing Millennium Press in 1997. Helms has no data either.
I found one review of Smith's book, on page 167 of the journal "Religious Studies Review" at
[1]
which says Smith is unlikely to convince the jury of NT scholarship that his conclusions are established by even a preponderance of the evidence — to say nothing of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Smith is a retired lawyer, and while this implies there is no actual consensus, it doesn't actually discuss any data either. Smith makes any number of sweeping claims and generalizations which should set off anyone's alarm bells that the author is heavily biased. I am concerned this is not a reliable source, and its claims are not verifiable.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 04:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
E.g. for the Gospel of Mark:
Modern Bible scholars (i.e. most critical scholars) have concluded that the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author rather than by Mark. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] E.g. the author of the Gospel of Mark knew very little about the geography of Palestine (he apparently never visited it), [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] "was very far from being a peasant or a fisherman", [17] was unacquainted with Jewish customs (i.e. from Palestine), [20] [21] and was probably "a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine". [22] Mitchell Reddish does concede that the name of the author might have been Mark (making the gospel possibly homonymous), but the identity of this Mark is unknown. [21] Similarly, "Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament". [23] The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus takes the same approach: he was named Mark, but scholars are undecided who this Mark was. [20]
References
Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples—Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple—and by two friends of the apostles—Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons.
Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.
10. Just as historical critical scholars deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, so they also deny the authorship of the four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [...] But today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors.
We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: 'according to Matthew', 'according to Mark', 'according to Luke' and 'according to John'. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
We must candidly acknowledge that all three of the Synoptic Gospels are anonymous documents. None of the three gains any importance by association with those traditional figures out of the life of the early church. Neither do they lose anything in importance by being recognized to be anonymous. Throughout this book the traditional names are used to refer to the authors of the first three Gospels, but we shall do so simply as a device of convenience.
We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the "beloved disciple" (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These are, after all, the names found in the titles of these books. But what most people don't realize is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin. Why would later Christians do this? Recall our earlier discussion of the formation of the New Testament canon: only those books that were apostolic could be included. What was one to do with Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were? They had to be associated with apostles in order to be included in the canon, and so apostolic names were attached to them.
The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences.
We have already learned significant bits of information about these books. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns. The authors all wrote in Greek and they all used sources for the stories they narrate. Luke explicitly indicates that his sources were both written and oral. These sources appear to have recounted the words and deeds of Jesus that had been circulating among Christian congregations throughout the Mediterranean world. At a later stage we will consider the question of the historical reliability of these stories. Here we are interested in the Gospels as pieces of early Christian literature.
Beginning with Papias in the second century, a tradition developed in various forms that attributed the authorship of the Gospel of Mark to this John Mark, who had been the companion of both Paul and Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). In all its variations, the ancient tradition makes clear that Mark's Gospel was accepted and valued in the church, not because of its historical accuracy, but because it represented Peter's apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark itself makes no claim to have been written by an eyewitness and gives no evidence of such authorship. While most critical scholars consider the actual author's name to be unknown, the traditional view that Mark was written in Rome by a companion of Peter is still defended by some scholars who begin with the church tradition cited above and do not find convincing historical evidence to disprove it.6 For convenience, in this book we continue to refer to the Gospels by the names of their traditional authors.
Authorship by an apostle was so unimportant to early recognition of a writing's authority that names of apostles (Matthew and John) or names of people thought to be associated with apostles (Mark and Luke respectively with Peter and Paul) were only attached to the four Gospels at the beginning of the second century, after those had gained recognition primarily because of churchly appreciation of their content. Having studied the content of John and Matthew, historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that the Hellenistic Fourth Gospel was authored by the apostle John, and widely doubts that the First Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew. That the author of Mark was Peter's associate also seems unlikely, since that Gospel is very Hellenistic and Peter—according to both Acts and Paul—was highly Jewish. Similarly, that the author of Luke was Paul's companion is most improbable, since Acts's accounts concerning Paul conflict much with what Paul's epistles report. Again, had any of the Gospels been written by apostles, why were their names attached so late?125 Nor would apostle associates have been apostles!
During this period Disciples scholars such as Willett began to study at interdenominational theological schools and secular universities, and for the first time the Stone-Campbell Movement engaged historical criticism as the primary perspective on biblical interpretation. While Campbell's "Seven Rules" had advocated a kind of historical criticism, traditional conclusions about authorship, date, and the nature of biblical documents had been assumed, so that no one in the first generation had supposed that the consistent application of Campbell's own principles would lead to results that challenged and overturned these conclusions. By the end of the nineteenth century, those who followed the critical method arrived at a new set of conclusions that made the Bible look entirely different. Among these new conclusions: the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but represented a long development within history, the prophets were not making long-range predictions about Jesus and the church, but spoke to the issues of their own time; the Gospels were not independent 'testimonies" that provided "evidence" for the historical facts about Jesus' life and teaching, but were interdependent (Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q"); also, the Gospels were not written by apostles and contained several layers of reinterpreted traditions.
5. The geography of Gospel Palestine, like the geography of Old Testament Palestine, is symbolic rather than actual. It is not clear whether any of the evangelists had ever been there.
Mark's knowledge even of Palestine's geography is likewise defective. [...] Kümmel (1975, p. 97) writes of Mark's "numerous geographical errors"
Furthermore, it is more than doubtful whether evangelists like Mark or Luke ever caught sight of a map of Palestine.
Like the other synoptics, Mark's Gospel is anonymous. Whether it was originally so is, however, difficult to know. Nevertheless, we can be fairly certain that it was written by someone named Mark. [...] The difficulty is ascertaining the identity of Mark. Scholars debate [...] or another person simply named Mark who was not native to Palestine. Many scholars have opted for the latter option due to the Gospel's lack of understanding of Jewish laws (1:40-45; 2:23-28; 7:1-23), incorrect Palestinian geography (5:1-2, 12-13; 7:31), and concern for Gentiles (7:24-28:10) (e.g. Marcus 1999: 17-21).
suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.
Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament (Moloney, 11-12).
The four canonical gospels are anonymous and most researchers agree that none of them was written by eyewitnesses. [1] [2] [3] [4] Some conservative researchers defend their traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons most scholars have abandoned this theory or support it only tenuously. [5]
References
The historical narratives, the Gospels and Acts, are anonymous, the attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being first reported in the mid-second century by Irenaeus
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will likely say that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. If one is an evangelical scholar, they will likely deny the claim of mainstream Bible scholars.I note that your list of references reflects that paradigm, in that, it excludes all of those you define as "evangelical". Beginning with the difficulty of determining who actually qualifies as "a mainstream Bible scholar", there is the fact that about 40% of material in the field of New Testament studies is published through universities and secular publishing houses, and another 40% comes through seminaries. Since many of those at universities are practicing Christians, and many seminaries are quite liberal, it is not simple or easy to know who might fit in your categories.
Bart, if anything, is academically conservative. Most of his (non-text crit) positions are academic orthodoxy from the 1980s. [...] Virtually all of his positions were mainstream in the 1980s and have a substantial following today.
— BombadilEatsTheRing, Reddit
I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.
— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit
psstein • 16 days ago
Moderator MA I History of Science
I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.
Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.
La, la, la, can't hear you.Conclusion: for educated evangelicals therein is nothing particularly new or disturbing.
First, as Ehrman himself admits, there are no unbiased people, those who pretend to be unbiased are self-deluded.Let's not just skim over that. It's an important point, an absolutely true one, and if we can all agree on that single truth, then we can move to the next question: what is the best approach to neutralizing those biases? Acknowledging them is an important first step, but it won't move us very far toward neutrality. What will?
Second, the quotations above include conservative scholars, like the Holman bibles.I don't think so Tim. First, the Holman Bible is not a good example of conservative "scholarship". It's not a good example of scholarship of any kind. It has all kinds of problems. The Holman Bible translates Micah 5:2 as saying that Christ’s origin is "from antiquity” - that Jesus had a beginning - which is Arianism for Pete's sake. John 1:14, and 3:16 simply leave out all recent discussion over "the only begotten" without even footnoting it. In I Samuel 6:19, the King James says 50,070 people died. Holman says that seventy of the city of 50,000 died. No other translation of the Bible agrees with this! Holman Bibles are not representative of quality conservative scholarship.
tgeorgescu we weren't discussing the historical reliability of the gospels (in general). We were discussing whether the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous and written several decades after the death of Jesus.
Well, we were discussing the validity of the claim that scholars agree on anonymity, but yeah, okay, you're right, we weren't discussing the entire article. So, back on topic.
The criterion is not ideology. It is: we have to render the mainstream academic POV, first and foremost.
Oh, I agree completely, of course! You are absolutely right! Mainstream all the way! The ideology comes in with who is defined as mainstream, who is excluded, and why. And ideology is definitely present and interfering with neutrality. Let me demonstrate.
1) Here are some genuine Evangelical scholars who are still, genuinely, scholars doing what any fair-minded person would consider to be "mainstream" critical work. Bill T. Arnold, Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary; Linda Belleville, Professor of New Testament & Greek at Bethel College; Barry J. Beitzel, Daniel I. Block, Darrell L. Bock is a Humboldt Scholar (Tübingen University in Germany); Joyce Baldwin, Gregory Beale, Gary M. Burge, Philip W. Comfort, NT translator; Peter H. Davids, Raymond Bryan Dillard, Norman Ericson, Mark D. Futato, Prof of OT at Reformed Theological Seminary; Robert P. Gordon, Robert Guelich, Fuller Theological Seminary, NT, George Guthrie, prof of NT at Regent College, Victor P. Hamilton , Harold Hoehner, J. Gordon McConville,professor of O.T. at the University of Gloucestershire; J. A. Thompson, Marianne Thompson, Hugh G. M. Williamson.
I checked, and Craig Blomberg is the only "evangelical" in this article, which is weird because you're right, he is less of a scholar and more of an apologist whose views are close to fringe. Why include him?
2) Here are some moderates, who are conservative on some things, liberal on other things, but are solidly mainstream: N. T. Wright, Donald Guthrie, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce, Frederic G. Kenyon, Alan Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, Harry A. Hoffner, Wayne A. Meeks, Michael R. Licona, Richard Bauckham, Paul Rhodes Eddy, Greg Boyd, Larry Hurtado, Daniel B. Wallace, Craig A. Evans, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Gregory Beale, Ben Witherington III, Michael Bird, Simon J. Gathercole, R. T. France, Raymond E. Brown, James Dunn, Martin Hengel, Chris Tilling, Richard B. Hays, Brant J. Pitre, D.A. Carson, Richard Hess, Bruce Waltke, John H. Walton, K. Lawson Younger Jr. and the incomparable John P. Meier. (Gerd Theissen goes in here somewhere.)
A few of these are referenced in this article - three - I think. I skimmed.
3) A list of quality "mainstream" academics will include many liberals and atheist/agnostics. Those on the left recognized as doing genuine scholarly critical work are, Bart Ehrman, Mitchell G. Reddish, David Oliver Smith, Marcus Borg, Johnnie Colemon, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Burton L. Mack, Barbara Thiering, Harold W. Attridge, Lloyd Geering, Stephen L. Harris, Robert M. Price, Karen Leigh King, Maurice Casey, James H. Charlesworth, John S. Kloppenborg, Andrew T. Lincoln, Thomas P. Nelligan, Steve Moyise, and James F. McGrath.
Several of these are referenced, and some are referenced multiple times, (and several of them espouse fringe theories like Blomberg, which isn't mentioned).
That's a preponderance of one set of views, which sure makes it look as if "mainstream" in this article is synonymous with "liberal". That's purely ideological, and that's a mistake. It misrepresents what is actually going on in the field, and it is not good for the encyclopedia.
That sentence is not a good sentence. There is no consensus among the majority in the entire field of mainstream scholarship. It doesn't exist. There is only consensus within the liberal echo-chamber. That sentence is not well-sourced and is not supported with any data. It should go. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 23:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings;
• The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered;
• The Bible is to be interpreted in its context:
✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time;
✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context;
✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others;
• The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense.
✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion";
✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);
✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective;
★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
:The bulk of "liberal" scholars are Christians and Jews, there aren't many atheists and agnostics among them.True - did I say something to contradict that? The point was that liberals, whatever kind, are heavily represented in this article. Do you disagree with that? Without going down the rabbit hole that anyone is lying, are you disputing that these scholars are liberals?
"The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence".Critical scholarship requires differentiating between what is personal, and what is historical, then setting aside the personal and focusing on the historical. What is historical includes the ancient New Testament texts themselves. The assumption that
The Bible is a collection of books like any othersis a personal assumption, (reductionism), it is not a historical fact and cannot be considered a requirement for scholarship. McConville is right about that one thing:
it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositionsin order to be a scholar. It's just necessary to set aside your own.
a collection of books like any othersto transmit theological truths, then so be it, but such claim lies beyond what historians can and do investigate.
it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions: historians (even Bible-believing Christians) work with methodological naturalism (going by what they write about the American Civil War, WW1 and WW2). There is no way to explain why the God of Oneness Pentecostalism would do miracles to help the Trinitarians. That's why historians never posit miracles as objective historical facts, asking that it would be only allowed for the Bible is special pleading.
Authorship, Date, and Historical Context Mark was written anonymously. The designation “according to Mark” was added in the second century ce, as Gospels began to circulate beyond the audiences for whom they were written. One early second-century source claims that “Mark” was the apostle Peter’s “interpreter” at the end of Peter’s life, but no other evidence confirms that connection. Others have identified Mark as the “John Mark” who traveled with the apostle Paul (see Acts 12.12,25; 15.37–39; Col 4.10; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24), but none of these passages link John Mark with a written Gospel. Though the author’s identity is unknown, scholars find clues about its author in the Gospel itself. For example, its awkward style suggests that Greek was not the author’s first language. Other details, such as the imprecise citation of Jewish scripture (1.2), the over-generalized portrait of Jewish practice (7.3–4), and problematic geographical details (5.1,13) suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine. The Gospel appears to address a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles who faced persecution because of their devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the long-awaited Jewish messiah. Early church tradition saw ties to the Christian community in Rome, where Nero punished Christians as scapegoats for the fire in 64 ce, which raged for nine days and devastated much of the city (see Tacitus, Annals 15.44). Most scholars today opt for a different context in the same time period. They argue that specific details in Mark 13.9–13 are better suited to a setting in Syria-Palestine, where Jesus’s followers may have been hated by both Jews and Gentiles for not taking sides, in the Jewish War (66–72 ce).
— Suzanne Watts Henderson, THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE Fully Revised Fifth Edition New Revised Standard Version, p. 1431
Drawing the line: I have provided several WP:RS/AC claims from both enemies and friends of Ehrman, including Ehrman himself. That would be enough for any Wikipedia article. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Errata: Lindars and Court speak only of the Gospel of John. Their WP:RS/AC claim is accurately rendered, except it only concerns one gospel. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
tgeorgescu Once again you post on a position of personal opinion that is not pertinent. We are not discussing the claim of anonymity. We are discussing the sentence that claims there is a consensus in the field, and since religious studies actually encompasses several fields of study, that is a very broad claim without adequate support either in this article or in reality.
I am confused about how Bowen's assertion has anything to do with the discussion here as well. Looking back over this, I am struck by how much time and space in this long discourse has been about you 'proving' the veracity of your personal views, when the only question that matters is your ability to write neutral material in spite of your views. But then I keep asking questions you don't answer while instead writing on things that are not in any way pertinent. (For example, who, and where, did anyone ask that miracles as historical fact would be only allowed for the Bible
? But it doesn't matter. It's just another rabbit hole like most of the rest of this.)
I am afraid you have extended methodological naturalism beyond its intent - or actual application - and stretched it into philosophical naturalism. A theist can adopt naturalism as a method without accepting it as a philosophy.
[4] Methodological naturalism simply confines itself to natural explanations. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. The key point here is that science, because of MN, is entirely neutral to God. Questions about His action and design are outside its domain.
MN makes no assumptions about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and if you are making those assumptions, then you have reached beyond method and moved into philosophy.
Scholars of religious studies do not agree on whether or not methodological naturalism is even a predominant view in the field - nevertheless the kind of requirement you seem to see it as: Since they signed up for the job "historian", they have to obey methodological naturalism.
Here is a 2018 collection of essays that indicate how deeply the disagreement over MN goes.
[5] The field of religious studies is highly divided over the legitimacy of the kind of reductionism that MN requires. There are those who see MN as the only legitimate approach, and others who see its necessary reductionism as fundamentally misconstruing what it studies. The point here is that MN is not seen as the universal requirement you seem to think it is.
You offered the Holman Bible as an example of including conservative scholars, but it is a bad example. The Southern Baptists bought and paid for their own translation. Above, you said The Jesus Seminar was WP:FRINGE by design. Some scholars associated with it are not fringe.
So use the same standard: even if it was led by a top arch-conservative Bible scholar, with impeccable credentials among the Southern Baptists
that doesn't make the product something worth citing here on WP. There are better examples of conservative scholarship.
Ehrman's position has been noted. He is one of the many liberal scholars quoted in this article. I have made no objection to that beyond using him as the measure of who qualifies as mainstream. Please find another source for the claim of universal agreement in the contested sentence - w/o using Ehrman's blog or Youtube - or let's agree to remove it. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
As a young student, I heard a series of lectures given by a famous liberal Old Testament theologian on Old Testament introduction. And there one day learned that the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy) had not been written by Moses—although throughout it it claims to have been spoken and written by Moses himself. Rather, I heard Deuteronomy had been composed centuries later for quite specific purposes. Since I came from an orthodox Lutheran family, was deeply moved by what I heard—in particular, because it convinced me. so the same day I sought out my teacher during his hours and, in connection With the origin of Deuteronomy, let slip the remark, "So is the fifth book of Moses what might be called a forgery?" His answer was, "For God's sake, it may well be, but you can't say anything like that."
I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text. [1]
— Gerd Lüdemann
There are better examples of conservative scholarship: I do agree that the Southern Baptists are extremely conservative, but sometimes very biased sources may be cited, see WP:BIASEDSOURCE.
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
Consensus is not unanimity: what you point out is that there are some dissenting freaks who cannot answer questions like: why there are no miracles in the American Civil War? why there are no miracles in WW1? why there are no miracles in WW2?How do you know there weren't? Have you researched it? I just googled miracles in WWII and found a bunch of websites. I didn't read them. I just noted that they are there, contrary to your claim. Likewise for the other two wars. And really - dissenting freaks? Is that what you want to go with here? I asked yesterday and ask it again: who and where has anyone advocated bringing in miracles? Traditional authorship of the gospels does not require miracle, so this is so far off the point that I can't begin to see why this is here. Why bring this up? I'm sincerely asking. It seems like a huge rabbit hole to me.
References
I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.
tgeorgescu this has gotten too long to follow properly so I have created an arbitrary break.
I have never suggested anything other than that we stick to today's academic consensus
, however, I have asked repeatedly that you show with quality sources that there is such a thing as a consensus on a matter that has been highly disputed. When did this dispute end? How? What new historical discoveries closed what has been an open disagreement for decades? If this claim of consensus is accurate, this should be easy enough to source. It hasn't been. Instead, in an attempt to support the "idea" of consensus, you have cited the "majority of mainstream scholars", except this relies on positing a definition of what is a "mainstream scholar" which seems based largely on Ehrman's personal opinion rather than any objective standard. I would actually be willing to accept "the majority of mainstream scholars" (with a slight restatement of the text) except for the fact that "mainstream" has been defined - redefined - in an arbitrary manner, so that an entire group of critical scholars have been omitted from this article - not because of their scholarship or lack of it, but because of their POV.
But POV is not what makes a scholar a scholar. Method is what makes a scholar a scholar. Remember what Dr. Murphy at Florida State wrote? The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence". Critical scholarship requires differentiating between what is personal, and what is historical, then setting aside the personal and focusing on the historical.
If a researcher does this, and they are published and reviewed by reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, then they are "mainstream scholars". Mainstream is not defined by whether their ideas or views on any particular topic are in the majority or in the minority. That is unarguably WP's standard.
Taken from WP:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias... Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:... Avoid stating opinions as facts... Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts... Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources... the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained... ...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well... If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ... Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.
Let's do stick to today's academic consensus
but first, let's show there actually is one. The only consensus I find is inside one group while ignoring the other groups. Mainstream scholars are conservatives, liberals and moderates, and as far as I can source, the indication is that there is no consensus among them on this particular topic. There hasn't been consensus, and no new research or historical finds have presented themselves as prominent enough to change that - that I know of. Please point me toward a valid source if I am wrong. Otherwise, take the sentence out. There really is no other choice.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.
[1]
[2]
I have given multiple
WP:RS/AC-compliant
WP:RS written by authors on the both sides of the dispute. She claims that Ehrman is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view
and that the Holman bibles are not a good example of scholarship of any kind
. Neither is she convinced by Witherington, who shares her POV, but actually agrees with my
WP:RS/AC claim (in respect to the
Gospel of Matthew).
The list of WP:RS "on my side" is available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. By WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority [of modern scholars]" (1 RS). Please tell us if these fit WP:RS/AC or not. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think David Oliver Smith 2011 should be used as a source for claims that should be easily sourced in more reliable works. In addition there are two distinct Smith's in the Bibliography with the other one being Ian K. Smith 2010 whose work, at a brief glance, seems more in the academic mainstream. It would be incredibly easy to get the two mixed up so I would suggest initials be included. -- Erp ( talk) 02:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
[6] Resolution at the dispute notice board has concluded the disputed source should be removed. If a better source for "consensus" can be found, it can certainly be added back in at any time. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Divus303: what I don't understand is why you removed the sentence "It was a popular genre in contemporary Mediterranean elite literary culture, which tried to rationalize traditional myths." diff. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Someone arguing for historicity of unicorns can't be used as a source regarding claims about universal agreement on historicity of unicorns.
Bart Denton Ehrman is NOT a "scholar of antiquity" NOR an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". He is not a historian but a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity, who literally wrote a book claiming historicity of Jesus - "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". He is NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.
Full title of cited book is "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" - i.e. it is of the same value for proving historicity of Jesus as Action Comics #1 is for proving the historicity of Superman. A circular citation.
Richard Alan Burridge is NOT a "scholar of antiquity" NOR an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". He is not a historian but a Church of England priest and a biblical scholar whose doctoral thesis claimed that Gospels are biographies and not "writings which reflected the faith and life of the post-Easter church". He is NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.
Graham Gould is a freelance lecturer and writer in theology and a co-editor of the Journal of Theological Studies. NOT a "scholar of antiquity". NOT an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.
Further, phrase "almost universal assent" is the same as saying "nearly always agreeing on". Which is fine if we're talking about favorite flavors of ice cream - not on central tenets of a religion and the reliability of its supposed historic origins. Phrase "rarely questioned" would have the same objective value - but it would be literal weasel wording. Both phrases imply agreement where there is, clearly, none. 109.175.105.124 ( talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The authorship section was devoted almost entirely to the traditional view with hardly anything on scholarly views. I added a section for scholarly views, I revised the Christian-views section, and I added a very brief section on Muslim views (since we clearly value religious views as relevant). Here it is.
Christian views
By the second century there was a firm tradition associating each gospel to one of Jesus' apostles. Apostolic connection between the gospels and apostles was noted by numerous early church writers, such as
Papias as well as
Justin Martyr (c 100-165) who frequently referred to them as the “Memoirs of the Apostles." Justin also reports that these "memoirs" were read out at Sunday services interchangeably with the writings of the Old Testament prophets.
[1]
[2]
[3]
The Christian authors of antiquity generally associated the gospels as shown on the table. [4]
Gospel | Author and apostolic connection |
---|---|
Gospel of Matthew | Saint Matthew, a former tax-collector, one of the Twelve Apostles. |
Gospel of Mark | Saint Mark, a disciple of Simon Peter, one of the Twelve |
Gospel of Luke | Saint Luke, a disciple of Saint Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles |
Gospel of John | Saint John, one of the Twelve, referred to in the text as the beloved disciple |
Muslim view
Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet who brought a written message to the faithful, but they consider the gospels to be corrupt.
Modern scholarly views
The four canonical gospels are anonymous, with no author identified in the text.
[5] Scholars regard the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John
[6] not to have been written by their reputed authors. Scholars are divided over whether Luke, a colleague of Paul, authored the Gospel of Luke.
For decades after Jesus' death, his followers spread his message by word of mouth. Eventually they began writing down the words and deeds of Jesus. Most scholars agree the Gospel of Mark was the first canonical gospel written (see Markan priority). It was composed about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in the year AD 70. This gospel is well-suited to a Roman audience, and the author may have been from Rome, where there was a large Christian community. The next canonical gospel was Matthew, written for a Jewish audience. The author used Mark for his narrative structure and added substantial teaching material from a now-lost source, known as Q. Matthew was followed closely by Luke, the most literary of the gospels. Like Matthew, Luke basically follows Mark's order of events and incorporates material from Q. Like Acts, the Gospel of Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' message. Finally, around the year AD 100, the "beloved disciple" or his students composed Gospel of John, possibly in Ephesus. The fourth gospel tells a much different story from that found in the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John is the only canonical gospel that identifies an author, described only as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Scholars speculate that he might have been a disciple from Jerusalem. (See also Authorship of the Johannine works.)
References
This article uses Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels By David Oliver Smith as a source for the statement that The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.
The second reference on that sentence is without value as it says nothing of the kind, but Smith does in fact claim this on the page given. I was surprised to read this statement as I know of no such agreement amongst NT scholars. So I wondered where he got his information from. I want to know. He offers no explanation, no supporting data, nothing at all on how or when such a conclusion on such a controversial topic was reached. His only reference for this statement is to Randel Helms, a well known mythicist with an ideological axe to grind, and his book "Who wrote the Gospels?" which was published by the self-publishing Millennium Press in 1997. Helms has no data either.
I found one review of Smith's book, on page 167 of the journal "Religious Studies Review" at
[1]
which says Smith is unlikely to convince the jury of NT scholarship that his conclusions are established by even a preponderance of the evidence — to say nothing of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Smith is a retired lawyer, and while this implies there is no actual consensus, it doesn't actually discuss any data either. Smith makes any number of sweeping claims and generalizations which should set off anyone's alarm bells that the author is heavily biased. I am concerned this is not a reliable source, and its claims are not verifiable.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 04:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
E.g. for the Gospel of Mark:
Modern Bible scholars (i.e. most critical scholars) have concluded that the Gospel of Mark was written by an anonymous author rather than by Mark. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] E.g. the author of the Gospel of Mark knew very little about the geography of Palestine (he apparently never visited it), [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] "was very far from being a peasant or a fisherman", [17] was unacquainted with Jewish customs (i.e. from Palestine), [20] [21] and was probably "a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine". [22] Mitchell Reddish does concede that the name of the author might have been Mark (making the gospel possibly homonymous), but the identity of this Mark is unknown. [21] Similarly, "Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament". [23] The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus takes the same approach: he was named Mark, but scholars are undecided who this Mark was. [20]
References
Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century, some decades after most of the New Testament books had been written, claimed that their favorite Gospels had been penned by two of Jesus' disciples—Matthew, the tax collector, and John, the beloved disciple—and by two friends of the apostles—Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul. Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons.
Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
Most critical scholars deny that Mark was the author or that he wrote on the basis of Peter's recollections
I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.
10. Just as historical critical scholars deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, so they also deny the authorship of the four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. [...] But today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors.
We do not know who wrote the gospels. They presently have headings: 'according to Matthew', 'according to Mark', 'according to Luke' and 'according to John'. The Matthew and John who are meant were two of the original disciples of Jesus. Mark was a follower of Paul, and possibly also of Peter; Luke was one of Paul's converts.5 These men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – really lived, but we do not know that they wrote gospels. Present evidence indicates that the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the second century.
Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
We must candidly acknowledge that all three of the Synoptic Gospels are anonymous documents. None of the three gains any importance by association with those traditional figures out of the life of the early church. Neither do they lose anything in importance by being recognized to be anonymous. Throughout this book the traditional names are used to refer to the authors of the first three Gospels, but we shall do so simply as a device of convenience.
We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the "beloved disciple" (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These are, after all, the names found in the titles of these books. But what most people don't realize is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin. Why would later Christians do this? Recall our earlier discussion of the formation of the New Testament canon: only those books that were apostolic could be included. What was one to do with Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were? They had to be associated with apostles in order to be included in the canon, and so apostolic names were attached to them.
The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences.
We have already learned significant bits of information about these books. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns. The authors all wrote in Greek and they all used sources for the stories they narrate. Luke explicitly indicates that his sources were both written and oral. These sources appear to have recounted the words and deeds of Jesus that had been circulating among Christian congregations throughout the Mediterranean world. At a later stage we will consider the question of the historical reliability of these stories. Here we are interested in the Gospels as pieces of early Christian literature.
Beginning with Papias in the second century, a tradition developed in various forms that attributed the authorship of the Gospel of Mark to this John Mark, who had been the companion of both Paul and Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). In all its variations, the ancient tradition makes clear that Mark's Gospel was accepted and valued in the church, not because of its historical accuracy, but because it represented Peter's apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark itself makes no claim to have been written by an eyewitness and gives no evidence of such authorship. While most critical scholars consider the actual author's name to be unknown, the traditional view that Mark was written in Rome by a companion of Peter is still defended by some scholars who begin with the church tradition cited above and do not find convincing historical evidence to disprove it.6 For convenience, in this book we continue to refer to the Gospels by the names of their traditional authors.
Authorship by an apostle was so unimportant to early recognition of a writing's authority that names of apostles (Matthew and John) or names of people thought to be associated with apostles (Mark and Luke respectively with Peter and Paul) were only attached to the four Gospels at the beginning of the second century, after those had gained recognition primarily because of churchly appreciation of their content. Having studied the content of John and Matthew, historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that the Hellenistic Fourth Gospel was authored by the apostle John, and widely doubts that the First Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew. That the author of Mark was Peter's associate also seems unlikely, since that Gospel is very Hellenistic and Peter—according to both Acts and Paul—was highly Jewish. Similarly, that the author of Luke was Paul's companion is most improbable, since Acts's accounts concerning Paul conflict much with what Paul's epistles report. Again, had any of the Gospels been written by apostles, why were their names attached so late?125 Nor would apostle associates have been apostles!
During this period Disciples scholars such as Willett began to study at interdenominational theological schools and secular universities, and for the first time the Stone-Campbell Movement engaged historical criticism as the primary perspective on biblical interpretation. While Campbell's "Seven Rules" had advocated a kind of historical criticism, traditional conclusions about authorship, date, and the nature of biblical documents had been assumed, so that no one in the first generation had supposed that the consistent application of Campbell's own principles would lead to results that challenged and overturned these conclusions. By the end of the nineteenth century, those who followed the critical method arrived at a new set of conclusions that made the Bible look entirely different. Among these new conclusions: the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but represented a long development within history, the prophets were not making long-range predictions about Jesus and the church, but spoke to the issues of their own time; the Gospels were not independent 'testimonies" that provided "evidence" for the historical facts about Jesus' life and teaching, but were interdependent (Matthew and Luke used Mark and "Q"); also, the Gospels were not written by apostles and contained several layers of reinterpreted traditions.
5. The geography of Gospel Palestine, like the geography of Old Testament Palestine, is symbolic rather than actual. It is not clear whether any of the evangelists had ever been there.
Mark's knowledge even of Palestine's geography is likewise defective. [...] Kümmel (1975, p. 97) writes of Mark's "numerous geographical errors"
Furthermore, it is more than doubtful whether evangelists like Mark or Luke ever caught sight of a map of Palestine.
Like the other synoptics, Mark's Gospel is anonymous. Whether it was originally so is, however, difficult to know. Nevertheless, we can be fairly certain that it was written by someone named Mark. [...] The difficulty is ascertaining the identity of Mark. Scholars debate [...] or another person simply named Mark who was not native to Palestine. Many scholars have opted for the latter option due to the Gospel's lack of understanding of Jewish laws (1:40-45; 2:23-28; 7:1-23), incorrect Palestinian geography (5:1-2, 12-13; 7:31), and concern for Gentiles (7:24-28:10) (e.g. Marcus 1999: 17-21).
suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine.
Francis Moloney suggests the author was someone named Mark, though maybe not any of the Marks mentioned in the New Testament (Moloney, 11-12).
The four canonical gospels are anonymous and most researchers agree that none of them was written by eyewitnesses. [1] [2] [3] [4] Some conservative researchers defend their traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons most scholars have abandoned this theory or support it only tenuously. [5]
References
The historical narratives, the Gospels and Acts, are anonymous, the attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being first reported in the mid-second century by Irenaeus
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will likely say that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. If one is an evangelical scholar, they will likely deny the claim of mainstream Bible scholars.I note that your list of references reflects that paradigm, in that, it excludes all of those you define as "evangelical". Beginning with the difficulty of determining who actually qualifies as "a mainstream Bible scholar", there is the fact that about 40% of material in the field of New Testament studies is published through universities and secular publishing houses, and another 40% comes through seminaries. Since many of those at universities are practicing Christians, and many seminaries are quite liberal, it is not simple or easy to know who might fit in your categories.
Bart, if anything, is academically conservative. Most of his (non-text crit) positions are academic orthodoxy from the 1980s. [...] Virtually all of his positions were mainstream in the 1980s and have a substantial following today.
— BombadilEatsTheRing, Reddit
I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.
— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
r/Academic8iblical @ Search Reddit
psstein • 16 days ago
Moderator MA I History of Science
I don't know if I'd call Blomberg an outright apologist, though he frequently writes with an apologetic slant or purpose. He strikes me as part of the conservative evangelical scholarly ecosystem that really only talks to itself. Scholars like Blomberg are not publishing in the leading journals or with major presses.
Very broadly speaking, if you're routinely publishing with academic or respected religious publishers (e.g. Eerdmans, Fortress, Eisenbrauns) and have articles appear in mainstream journals (CBQ, JSNT), you're much less likely to be an apologist.
La, la, la, can't hear you.Conclusion: for educated evangelicals therein is nothing particularly new or disturbing.
First, as Ehrman himself admits, there are no unbiased people, those who pretend to be unbiased are self-deluded.Let's not just skim over that. It's an important point, an absolutely true one, and if we can all agree on that single truth, then we can move to the next question: what is the best approach to neutralizing those biases? Acknowledging them is an important first step, but it won't move us very far toward neutrality. What will?
Second, the quotations above include conservative scholars, like the Holman bibles.I don't think so Tim. First, the Holman Bible is not a good example of conservative "scholarship". It's not a good example of scholarship of any kind. It has all kinds of problems. The Holman Bible translates Micah 5:2 as saying that Christ’s origin is "from antiquity” - that Jesus had a beginning - which is Arianism for Pete's sake. John 1:14, and 3:16 simply leave out all recent discussion over "the only begotten" without even footnoting it. In I Samuel 6:19, the King James says 50,070 people died. Holman says that seventy of the city of 50,000 died. No other translation of the Bible agrees with this! Holman Bibles are not representative of quality conservative scholarship.
tgeorgescu we weren't discussing the historical reliability of the gospels (in general). We were discussing whether the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous and written several decades after the death of Jesus.
Well, we were discussing the validity of the claim that scholars agree on anonymity, but yeah, okay, you're right, we weren't discussing the entire article. So, back on topic.
The criterion is not ideology. It is: we have to render the mainstream academic POV, first and foremost.
Oh, I agree completely, of course! You are absolutely right! Mainstream all the way! The ideology comes in with who is defined as mainstream, who is excluded, and why. And ideology is definitely present and interfering with neutrality. Let me demonstrate.
1) Here are some genuine Evangelical scholars who are still, genuinely, scholars doing what any fair-minded person would consider to be "mainstream" critical work. Bill T. Arnold, Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary; Linda Belleville, Professor of New Testament & Greek at Bethel College; Barry J. Beitzel, Daniel I. Block, Darrell L. Bock is a Humboldt Scholar (Tübingen University in Germany); Joyce Baldwin, Gregory Beale, Gary M. Burge, Philip W. Comfort, NT translator; Peter H. Davids, Raymond Bryan Dillard, Norman Ericson, Mark D. Futato, Prof of OT at Reformed Theological Seminary; Robert P. Gordon, Robert Guelich, Fuller Theological Seminary, NT, George Guthrie, prof of NT at Regent College, Victor P. Hamilton , Harold Hoehner, J. Gordon McConville,professor of O.T. at the University of Gloucestershire; J. A. Thompson, Marianne Thompson, Hugh G. M. Williamson.
I checked, and Craig Blomberg is the only "evangelical" in this article, which is weird because you're right, he is less of a scholar and more of an apologist whose views are close to fringe. Why include him?
2) Here are some moderates, who are conservative on some things, liberal on other things, but are solidly mainstream: N. T. Wright, Donald Guthrie, Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce, Frederic G. Kenyon, Alan Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, Harry A. Hoffner, Wayne A. Meeks, Michael R. Licona, Richard Bauckham, Paul Rhodes Eddy, Greg Boyd, Larry Hurtado, Daniel B. Wallace, Craig A. Evans, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Gregory Beale, Ben Witherington III, Michael Bird, Simon J. Gathercole, R. T. France, Raymond E. Brown, James Dunn, Martin Hengel, Chris Tilling, Richard B. Hays, Brant J. Pitre, D.A. Carson, Richard Hess, Bruce Waltke, John H. Walton, K. Lawson Younger Jr. and the incomparable John P. Meier. (Gerd Theissen goes in here somewhere.)
A few of these are referenced in this article - three - I think. I skimmed.
3) A list of quality "mainstream" academics will include many liberals and atheist/agnostics. Those on the left recognized as doing genuine scholarly critical work are, Bart Ehrman, Mitchell G. Reddish, David Oliver Smith, Marcus Borg, Johnnie Colemon, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Burton L. Mack, Barbara Thiering, Harold W. Attridge, Lloyd Geering, Stephen L. Harris, Robert M. Price, Karen Leigh King, Maurice Casey, James H. Charlesworth, John S. Kloppenborg, Andrew T. Lincoln, Thomas P. Nelligan, Steve Moyise, and James F. McGrath.
Several of these are referenced, and some are referenced multiple times, (and several of them espouse fringe theories like Blomberg, which isn't mentioned).
That's a preponderance of one set of views, which sure makes it look as if "mainstream" in this article is synonymous with "liberal". That's purely ideological, and that's a mistake. It misrepresents what is actually going on in the field, and it is not good for the encyclopedia.
That sentence is not a good sentence. There is no consensus among the majority in the entire field of mainstream scholarship. It doesn't exist. There is only consensus within the liberal echo-chamber. That sentence is not well-sourced and is not supported with any data. It should go. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 23:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings;
• The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered;
• The Bible is to be interpreted in its context:
✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time;
✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context;
✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others;
• The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense.
✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion";
✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);
✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective;
★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
:The bulk of "liberal" scholars are Christians and Jews, there aren't many atheists and agnostics among them.True - did I say something to contradict that? The point was that liberals, whatever kind, are heavily represented in this article. Do you disagree with that? Without going down the rabbit hole that anyone is lying, are you disputing that these scholars are liberals?
"The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence".Critical scholarship requires differentiating between what is personal, and what is historical, then setting aside the personal and focusing on the historical. What is historical includes the ancient New Testament texts themselves. The assumption that
The Bible is a collection of books like any othersis a personal assumption, (reductionism), it is not a historical fact and cannot be considered a requirement for scholarship. McConville is right about that one thing:
it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositionsin order to be a scholar. It's just necessary to set aside your own.
a collection of books like any othersto transmit theological truths, then so be it, but such claim lies beyond what historians can and do investigate.
it is not necessary to adopt the naturalistic presuppositions: historians (even Bible-believing Christians) work with methodological naturalism (going by what they write about the American Civil War, WW1 and WW2). There is no way to explain why the God of Oneness Pentecostalism would do miracles to help the Trinitarians. That's why historians never posit miracles as objective historical facts, asking that it would be only allowed for the Bible is special pleading.
Authorship, Date, and Historical Context Mark was written anonymously. The designation “according to Mark” was added in the second century ce, as Gospels began to circulate beyond the audiences for whom they were written. One early second-century source claims that “Mark” was the apostle Peter’s “interpreter” at the end of Peter’s life, but no other evidence confirms that connection. Others have identified Mark as the “John Mark” who traveled with the apostle Paul (see Acts 12.12,25; 15.37–39; Col 4.10; 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24), but none of these passages link John Mark with a written Gospel. Though the author’s identity is unknown, scholars find clues about its author in the Gospel itself. For example, its awkward style suggests that Greek was not the author’s first language. Other details, such as the imprecise citation of Jewish scripture (1.2), the over-generalized portrait of Jewish practice (7.3–4), and problematic geographical details (5.1,13) suggest that the evangelist was a Hellenized Jew who lived outside of Palestine. The Gospel appears to address a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles who faced persecution because of their devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the long-awaited Jewish messiah. Early church tradition saw ties to the Christian community in Rome, where Nero punished Christians as scapegoats for the fire in 64 ce, which raged for nine days and devastated much of the city (see Tacitus, Annals 15.44). Most scholars today opt for a different context in the same time period. They argue that specific details in Mark 13.9–13 are better suited to a setting in Syria-Palestine, where Jesus’s followers may have been hated by both Jews and Gentiles for not taking sides, in the Jewish War (66–72 ce).
— Suzanne Watts Henderson, THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE Fully Revised Fifth Edition New Revised Standard Version, p. 1431
Drawing the line: I have provided several WP:RS/AC claims from both enemies and friends of Ehrman, including Ehrman himself. That would be enough for any Wikipedia article. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Errata: Lindars and Court speak only of the Gospel of John. Their WP:RS/AC claim is accurately rendered, except it only concerns one gospel. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
tgeorgescu Once again you post on a position of personal opinion that is not pertinent. We are not discussing the claim of anonymity. We are discussing the sentence that claims there is a consensus in the field, and since religious studies actually encompasses several fields of study, that is a very broad claim without adequate support either in this article or in reality.
I am confused about how Bowen's assertion has anything to do with the discussion here as well. Looking back over this, I am struck by how much time and space in this long discourse has been about you 'proving' the veracity of your personal views, when the only question that matters is your ability to write neutral material in spite of your views. But then I keep asking questions you don't answer while instead writing on things that are not in any way pertinent. (For example, who, and where, did anyone ask that miracles as historical fact would be only allowed for the Bible
? But it doesn't matter. It's just another rabbit hole like most of the rest of this.)
I am afraid you have extended methodological naturalism beyond its intent - or actual application - and stretched it into philosophical naturalism. A theist can adopt naturalism as a method without accepting it as a philosophy.
[4] Methodological naturalism simply confines itself to natural explanations. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. The key point here is that science, because of MN, is entirely neutral to God. Questions about His action and design are outside its domain.
MN makes no assumptions about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and if you are making those assumptions, then you have reached beyond method and moved into philosophy.
Scholars of religious studies do not agree on whether or not methodological naturalism is even a predominant view in the field - nevertheless the kind of requirement you seem to see it as: Since they signed up for the job "historian", they have to obey methodological naturalism.
Here is a 2018 collection of essays that indicate how deeply the disagreement over MN goes.
[5] The field of religious studies is highly divided over the legitimacy of the kind of reductionism that MN requires. There are those who see MN as the only legitimate approach, and others who see its necessary reductionism as fundamentally misconstruing what it studies. The point here is that MN is not seen as the universal requirement you seem to think it is.
You offered the Holman Bible as an example of including conservative scholars, but it is a bad example. The Southern Baptists bought and paid for their own translation. Above, you said The Jesus Seminar was WP:FRINGE by design. Some scholars associated with it are not fringe.
So use the same standard: even if it was led by a top arch-conservative Bible scholar, with impeccable credentials among the Southern Baptists
that doesn't make the product something worth citing here on WP. There are better examples of conservative scholarship.
Ehrman's position has been noted. He is one of the many liberal scholars quoted in this article. I have made no objection to that beyond using him as the measure of who qualifies as mainstream. Please find another source for the claim of universal agreement in the contested sentence - w/o using Ehrman's blog or Youtube - or let's agree to remove it. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
As a young student, I heard a series of lectures given by a famous liberal Old Testament theologian on Old Testament introduction. And there one day learned that the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy) had not been written by Moses—although throughout it it claims to have been spoken and written by Moses himself. Rather, I heard Deuteronomy had been composed centuries later for quite specific purposes. Since I came from an orthodox Lutheran family, was deeply moved by what I heard—in particular, because it convinced me. so the same day I sought out my teacher during his hours and, in connection With the origin of Deuteronomy, let slip the remark, "So is the fifth book of Moses what might be called a forgery?" His answer was, "For God's sake, it may well be, but you can't say anything like that."
I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text. [1]
— Gerd Lüdemann
There are better examples of conservative scholarship: I do agree that the Southern Baptists are extremely conservative, but sometimes very biased sources may be cited, see WP:BIASEDSOURCE.
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
Consensus is not unanimity: what you point out is that there are some dissenting freaks who cannot answer questions like: why there are no miracles in the American Civil War? why there are no miracles in WW1? why there are no miracles in WW2?How do you know there weren't? Have you researched it? I just googled miracles in WWII and found a bunch of websites. I didn't read them. I just noted that they are there, contrary to your claim. Likewise for the other two wars. And really - dissenting freaks? Is that what you want to go with here? I asked yesterday and ask it again: who and where has anyone advocated bringing in miracles? Traditional authorship of the gospels does not require miracle, so this is so far off the point that I can't begin to see why this is here. Why bring this up? I'm sincerely asking. It seems like a huge rabbit hole to me.
References
I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text.
tgeorgescu this has gotten too long to follow properly so I have created an arbitrary break.
I have never suggested anything other than that we stick to today's academic consensus
, however, I have asked repeatedly that you show with quality sources that there is such a thing as a consensus on a matter that has been highly disputed. When did this dispute end? How? What new historical discoveries closed what has been an open disagreement for decades? If this claim of consensus is accurate, this should be easy enough to source. It hasn't been. Instead, in an attempt to support the "idea" of consensus, you have cited the "majority of mainstream scholars", except this relies on positing a definition of what is a "mainstream scholar" which seems based largely on Ehrman's personal opinion rather than any objective standard. I would actually be willing to accept "the majority of mainstream scholars" (with a slight restatement of the text) except for the fact that "mainstream" has been defined - redefined - in an arbitrary manner, so that an entire group of critical scholars have been omitted from this article - not because of their scholarship or lack of it, but because of their POV.
But POV is not what makes a scholar a scholar. Method is what makes a scholar a scholar. Remember what Dr. Murphy at Florida State wrote? The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence". Critical scholarship requires differentiating between what is personal, and what is historical, then setting aside the personal and focusing on the historical.
If a researcher does this, and they are published and reviewed by reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, then they are "mainstream scholars". Mainstream is not defined by whether their ideas or views on any particular topic are in the majority or in the minority. That is unarguably WP's standard.
Taken from WP:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias... Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:... Avoid stating opinions as facts... Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts... Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources... the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained... ...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well... If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ... Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.
Let's do stick to today's academic consensus
but first, let's show there actually is one. The only consensus I find is inside one group while ignoring the other groups. Mainstream scholars are conservatives, liberals and moderates, and as far as I can source, the indication is that there is no consensus among them on this particular topic. There hasn't been consensus, and no new research or historical finds have presented themselves as prominent enough to change that - that I know of. Please point me toward a valid source if I am wrong. Otherwise, take the sentence out. There really is no other choice.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.
[1]
[2]
I have given multiple
WP:RS/AC-compliant
WP:RS written by authors on the both sides of the dispute. She claims that Ehrman is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view
and that the Holman bibles are not a good example of scholarship of any kind
. Neither is she convinced by Witherington, who shares her POV, but actually agrees with my
WP:RS/AC claim (in respect to the
Gospel of Matthew).
The list of WP:RS "on my side" is available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. By WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority [of modern scholars]" (1 RS). Please tell us if these fit WP:RS/AC or not. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think David Oliver Smith 2011 should be used as a source for claims that should be easily sourced in more reliable works. In addition there are two distinct Smith's in the Bibliography with the other one being Ian K. Smith 2010 whose work, at a brief glance, seems more in the academic mainstream. It would be incredibly easy to get the two mixed up so I would suggest initials be included. -- Erp ( talk) 02:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
[6] Resolution at the dispute notice board has concluded the disputed source should be removed. If a better source for "consensus" can be found, it can certainly be added back in at any time. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Divus303: what I don't understand is why you removed the sentence "It was a popular genre in contemporary Mediterranean elite literary culture, which tried to rationalize traditional myths." diff. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Someone arguing for historicity of unicorns can't be used as a source regarding claims about universal agreement on historicity of unicorns.
Bart Denton Ehrman is NOT a "scholar of antiquity" NOR an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". He is not a historian but a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity, who literally wrote a book claiming historicity of Jesus - "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". He is NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.
Full title of cited book is "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" - i.e. it is of the same value for proving historicity of Jesus as Action Comics #1 is for proving the historicity of Superman. A circular citation.
Richard Alan Burridge is NOT a "scholar of antiquity" NOR an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". He is not a historian but a Church of England priest and a biblical scholar whose doctoral thesis claimed that Gospels are biographies and not "writings which reflected the faith and life of the post-Easter church". He is NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.
Graham Gould is a freelance lecturer and writer in theology and a co-editor of the Journal of Theological Studies. NOT a "scholar of antiquity". NOT an authority on "virtually all scholars of antiquity". NOT a reliable source on historicity of Jesus NOR expertise of those who are.
Further, phrase "almost universal assent" is the same as saying "nearly always agreeing on". Which is fine if we're talking about favorite flavors of ice cream - not on central tenets of a religion and the reliability of its supposed historic origins. Phrase "rarely questioned" would have the same objective value - but it would be literal weasel wording. Both phrases imply agreement where there is, clearly, none. 109.175.105.124 ( talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)