Replies

Let me put it this way: where do you find evidence that the identified authors wrote the Gospels?

If you look at my posts previously in this thread you will see some of the evidence.

Some of the evidence, sure. But let us look at a good place of analysis. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4 uses these sources:

The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, Belknap Press, 1987

The Gospel of John, by William Barclay, Westminster John Knox Press, 1975

The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox, Knopf, 1992

The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, by Burton Mack, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993

Testament, by David Morell, Warner Books, 1993

The Synoptic Gospels, by Keith F. Nickle, John Knox Press, 1980

The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders, Penguin Books, 1993

The Catholic Encyclopedia - online at www.newadvent.org/cathen/

in order to arrive at this:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.

Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.

We'll return to the question of how the "canonical" books of the New Testament were determined in the fifth and last installment of this answer. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."

It was important to note that the Gospels were written by either eyewitnesses or with their input, but at a much later date than Jesus' Incarnation. Another conjecture is that the Q source may have been written by a community or group of writers who were eyewitnesses, and used by the Gospel writers as a source much later. And think of this: why would Matthew (traditionally the tax collector and Apostle and eyewitness) need to use Mark (a non witness) as a source?

Where does Jesus explicitly name Daniel as the author?

Matthew 24:15-16

Wrong. Your NIV source says:

15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

This does not say, neither does it say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel.

Do you remember this book?

Do you remember the intense speculation about who wrote it? There was even some of that here on FreeRepublic. In your answer here you still haven't answered my questions about the inevitable speculation and multiplicity of titles that would had arisen had the Gospels originally been written anonymously, not to mention how and why such anonymous material would have been received as authoritative by first and second generation eyewitnesses.

From your source:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

Reading that is like reading the strange perspective twisting and spinning of an AP or TIME news story. "Their eminence lent the writings authority"??

Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection.

ALL of the earliest Gnostic "gospels" postdated the earliest canonical gospels by at least a hundred years. The canonical Gospels were well-established and accepted throughout the early church prior to the later, more developed forms of Gnosticism and the Gnostic 'gospels". Why do you want to allow the heterodox late-comers to undermine what was already established historically?

We'll return to the question of how the "canonical" books of the New Testament were determined in the fifth and last installment of this answer. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."

More spin. Irenaeus "decided"? As if Irenaeus invented the criteria as a novelty in a vacuum, totally divorced from his own knowledge of history and from what he himself had received - the same Irenaeus who as a boy he had listened to the sermons of bishop and martyr, Polycarp, who was regarded as a disciple of the apostles themselves.

It was important to note that the Gospels were written by either eyewitnesses or with their input, but at a much later date than Jesus' Incarnation.

No kidding. That's good. Never overlook the obvious.

Another conjecture is that the Q source may have been written by a community or group of writers who were eyewitnesses, and used by the Gospel writers as a source much later. And think of this: why would Matthew (traditionally the tax collector and Apostle and eyewitness) need to use Mark (a non witness) as a source?

Matthew being dependent on Mark as a source assumes facts not in evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------

(Matthew 24:15-16) This does not say, neither does it say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel.

Does not say anywhere that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel?

Daniel 7:1 - "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.
2 Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea...."

Explicit 1st person references in the Book itself include
Dan. 7:2, 15, 28; 8:1, 15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:1, 2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5

Daniel was commanded to preserve the scroll in which these words are found:
Daniel 12:4 - But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end." Did Daniel disobey this command? Did he fail to obey it?

Jesus explicitly quoted Daniel, called him a prophet, and endorsed his writing. Even if he did that only one time (there are many more allusions by Jesus to the Book of Daniel) was He mistaken that one time? Did He lie that one time? If one time is not enough for you I don't know what else is. What does it mean to you that Jesus explicitly quoted Daniel, called him a prophet (a personal attribution) and endorsed his writing?

Not that what Ezekiel wrote would matter much to you if you reject Jesus on the subject, but was Ezekiel mistaken or lying when he quoted GOD as commending Daniel, again, by personal attribution?

Cordially,