tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post4959331722768372271..comments2024-03-09T04:00:18.309-06:00Comments on Know Thyself: Gospel Authorship Part II: Formal Anonymity of the GospelsKeith Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-85205147720898274002016-05-05T08:47:10.400-05:002016-05-05T08:47:10.400-05:00Kaelik,
Thanks for the comment. First of all, if...Kaelik, <br />Thanks for the comment. First of all, if you are using "know" in an absolute sense, then you are right. We cannot "know" anything from the distant past in an absolute sense. But, from the stand point of historical investigation, which aims at knowledge in a probabilistic sense, not an absolute sense, then I think that we can have that kind of knowledge. <br /><br />Of course, all claims of an ancient text must be examined by historical methods to test their accuracy. Not everything Luke writes is necessarily factual. The question is, is there any good reason to question the claims that I have made above about the author's self identification in the preface to Luke? I don't think so. <br /><br />For example, take #1 above: this seems to be an admission, that might actually make the author's task of convincing you to read his version all that much more difficult, since there are other options. So, I do not think that there is any reason to doubt the the claim that there are other versions of the Jesus story. <br /><br />Again, #2. This could be embellishment to bolster the author's claims to authority. But, the interesting point here, and the one I drew is that this is clearly NOT a claim by the author to be an eyewitness himself. That again is an admission that does not help his case to be authoritative. <br /><br />We could go through all four, but again, it is not that everything that is said is to be believed without question. It is that one must use historical methods and reasoning to determine the probability of the factuality of what is said. I see no historical bases for questioning any of the four claims about the author made above. <br /> Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-7805767483726956942016-05-05T07:36:55.737-05:002016-05-05T07:36:55.737-05:00"The author of Luke identifies himself here i..."The author of Luke identifies himself here in many ways, but not by name. A few things can be known about the author's identity from this passage.<br />1) The author knows of other attempts to write "gospels."<br />2) The author claims to depend on, but is not himself, an eyewitness.<br />3) The author has undertaken investigation.<br />4) The author wants to provide an orderly account."<br /><br />You say "A few things we can know" but aren't those just things that are said. We can't know things just because they are said. I mean this both in the sense that obviously the author has clear motive to embellish his credentials and sources, and also that clearly the narrative of the author is part of the text, and therefore may be part of the same . . . I don't have a good word for it, but part of the allegory of the text?<br /><br />Specifically, "so that you may know the truth of what has been..." sure sounds more like something you would say at the beginning to cast your narrative regardless of the authors actual goals, rather than anything which conveys a specific meaning about the author's intention.Kaelikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07349979365240080710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-30211337755566284762015-10-06T08:49:39.867-05:002015-10-06T08:49:39.867-05:00Thanks for the good conversation here. Yes, I cert...Thanks for the good conversation here. Yes, I certainly think that the appeal to the beloved disciple, an eyewitness of Jesus living long after the events can be seen as an attempt to bolster the authority of the gospel. Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-273267200661258622015-10-05T16:07:23.494-05:002015-10-05T16:07:23.494-05:00Thank you for your reply!
To be honest, I think y...Thank you for your reply!<br /><br />To be honest, I think your explanation seems more reasonable than mine. Though I didn't intend to claim that the beloved disciple still lived at the time of the writing, but that he was claimed as the source by the author(s), and that the long-lived disciple provided a convenient alibi for how they would have an eye-witness account so long after the actual events.. A convenient source, that no one could talk to and fact-check properly. This doesn't seem to run counter to your explanation, and the passage would then serve multiple purposes.<br /><br />I should probably mention that I'm purely an amateur when it comes to history, and that I look forward to reading the rest of your essays on the authorship of the gospels!How Puzzlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129194621089416083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-7001782365359310832015-10-05T08:36:46.378-05:002015-10-05T08:36:46.378-05:00Not a naive question at all. I think you are righ...Not a naive question at all. I think you are right in the dating of John's gospel to somewhere around 90 C.E. But, I think that the evidence runs slightly counter to your claim that the beloved disciple still lived. I think that the verse is actually an attempt to cover over the idea that this beloved disciple is now dead. If there was a rumor in the community that this disciple would never die, and he was now dead, this needed to be addressed. Thus, what we find in the text. Again, pointing to authorship by someone (the WE) other than the beloved disciple. What do you think? Thanks for the comment. Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-31607683514572760912015-10-05T08:09:11.885-05:002015-10-05T08:09:11.885-05:00Not a naive question at all. I think you are righ...Not a naive question at all. I think you are right in the dating of John's gospel to somewhere around 90 C.E. But, I think that the evidence runs slightly counter to your claim that the beloved disciple still lived. I think that the verse is actually an attempt to cover over the idea that this beloved disciple is now dead. If there was a rumor in the community that this disciple would never die, and he was now dead, this needed to be addressed. Thus, what we find in the text. Again, pointing to authorship by someone (the WE) other than the beloved disciple. What do you think? Thanks for the comment. Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-34837137552474257762015-10-04T23:57:40.517-05:002015-10-04T23:57:40.517-05:00Perhaps a naive question. But as the Gospel of Joh...Perhaps a naive question. But as the Gospel of John were written around 60 years after the Crucifixion, any living disciples would be really old. Could the comment about such a never-dying disciple simply be an attempt by the author(s) to increase the validity of their work, by making up an explanation for how an eye-witness still lived?How Puzzlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129194621089416083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-82102105003085011522015-10-04T23:57:27.462-05:002015-10-04T23:57:27.462-05:00Perhaps a naive question. But as the Gospel of Joh...Perhaps a naive question. But as the Gospel of John were written around 60 years after the Crucifixion, any living disciples would be really old. Could the comment about such a never-dying disciple simply be an attempt by the author(s) to increase the validity of their work, by making up an explanation for how an eye-witness still lived?How Puzzlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12129194621089416083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-56043514768760217512015-10-03T21:46:49.676-05:002015-10-03T21:46:49.676-05:00"Since many have undertaken to set down an or..."Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account..." It's odd that Luke doesn't name any of the people who wrote down an orderly account... Unless he did not know their names.AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.com