The other thing to mention is that to begin to defuse various apologetic arguments (which, let's face it, are the aim of many of these Gospel authorship debates), we don't really need the probability of traditional authorship to be super low, just not crazily high.
The other part of this is whether there was a general habit of attributing authorship when other non-gospel works were mentioned by writers quoting sources in the first couple of centuries. Are there cases where authorship was known and just not mentioned, repeatedly, for long periods of time?
Great read. I really enjoyed it, and you have a new subscriber.
I tend to agree with you, but what still puzzles me is why those particular names were chosen. Why Mark instead of James? Why Luke instead of Andrew? I don't have an answer, but it's something I think about often.
Some scholars suggest the Gospels were written by a Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, but not the Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. That is possible, but it creates problems too. As you have pointed out, why do our earliest sources not present them that way?
I'm becoming more open-minded to the idea that Mark wrote Mark, but I'm still undecided. The bigger question is: what does that change if he did? We don't know much about Mark. Eusebius says Papias says Mark knew Peter, but it does not say how long he was in his presence. It does not say when he wrote the Gospel in relation to his time with Peter. So much of the study of the historical Jesus rests on where Mark is getting his information.
I can't imagine the real Matthew would have used Mark as a source. I doubt the real John could write. So I definitely don't think they are the authors of Matthew and John. Luke I feel similarly about. Maybe Mark is authentic in authorship. I don't know.
The other thing to mention is that to begin to defuse various apologetic arguments (which, let's face it, are the aim of many of these Gospel authorship debates), we don't really need the probability of traditional authorship to be super low, just not crazily high.
https://youtu.be/C7s22DR9gaI?si=dYzCk7zAoURJh-9Y
Interesting.
The other part of this is whether there was a general habit of attributing authorship when other non-gospel works were mentioned by writers quoting sources in the first couple of centuries. Are there cases where authorship was known and just not mentioned, repeatedly, for long periods of time?
Great read. I really enjoyed it, and you have a new subscriber.
I tend to agree with you, but what still puzzles me is why those particular names were chosen. Why Mark instead of James? Why Luke instead of Andrew? I don't have an answer, but it's something I think about often.
Some scholars suggest the Gospels were written by a Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, but not the Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. That is possible, but it creates problems too. As you have pointed out, why do our earliest sources not present them that way?
I'm becoming more open-minded to the idea that Mark wrote Mark, but I'm still undecided. The bigger question is: what does that change if he did? We don't know much about Mark. Eusebius says Papias says Mark knew Peter, but it does not say how long he was in his presence. It does not say when he wrote the Gospel in relation to his time with Peter. So much of the study of the historical Jesus rests on where Mark is getting his information.
I can't imagine the real Matthew would have used Mark as a source. I doubt the real John could write. So I definitely don't think they are the authors of Matthew and John. Luke I feel similarly about. Maybe Mark is authentic in authorship. I don't know.
Anyway, just rambling. Great read.