Thank you for posting a source.
So point 1 is that we lack authorship for the Gospels. I.e. that the books are written anonymously.
Firstly, the author attempts to treat this as primary evidence of it being a forgery, then later goes on to admit it is not a death blow by any means. Very contradictory, but hopefully later on the author of this ties it back somehowâŠ
So how do we know who wrote which book? This is something in which this author did not address. He insinuates there is no way to know who wrote which Gospel.
Well lets start with the ones authored by another hand. Mark was not authored by an Eye Witness, instead it was authored by Peterâs (an eye witness) disciple Mark. We know from Justin Martyr and Iraeneus that Peter is the person whoâs viewpoint it was written. That Peter had Mark transcribe the events in which he remembered. This is very interesting! For the Gospel is not the Gospel according to Peter despite Peter telling the story⊠Instead, it is the Gospel according to Mark. This is extremely unique and shows tremendous intellectual integrity in the Early Church.
This is were it getâs even more interesting, your source claims at no place is the authorship penned. However, in the title of the earliest manuscripts⊠They say âKATA MARKONâ which translates to âAccording to Markâ. To say there is no place the author has written their name is incorrect.
So to recap, the title and the early church both agree Mark wrote Mark. With the Early Church further elaborating that it is written by Mark but told from Peter.
The next would be Luke. Again in the earliest manuscripts we have âKATA LOUKANâ or âAccording to Lukeâ. Next Luke 1:1-4 plainly addresses this is a chronology of events for a specific person. âForasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.â
So already we know 2 things about Luke, the title claims it is from Luke, and it is being written for a specific person.
According to Iraeneus, Luke wrote the book âAccording to Lukeâ. Every major Early Church person is in agreeance that Luke was written by Luke there are no differences in opinions. Furthermore, there are massive writing similarities between Luke and Acts (such as what I touched upon earlier) which no secularist denies they are authored by the same person. If you wish you can then cross reference who was a disciple of both the original Apostles and Paul and you come to Luke again.
It is widely accepted that Luke is the author of Luke (and acts).
Next John.
Again we start with âKATA IWANNHNâ (Greek didnât like the copy paste) or âAccording to Johnâ. John, 1-3 John, and Revelation are widely agreed to be penned by the same author due to writing styles, early church belief, and other reasons. Revelation 1:4 states John wrote revelation âJohn, To the seven churches in the province of Asia:âŠâ
Furthermore, John uses unique language which often gets people all riled up. Some of this language includes âMy Belovedâ or âThe disciple that Jesus lovedâ. The argument goes 1 of 2 ways. Either A John is the author and is writing at his unique experiences. Or B the author is a 3rd person who was an eyewitness speaking about another persons unique experiences. Occams Razor comes to mind never-the-less⊠There is the most debate about John. I take the position of John is written by John.
Most controversy about John stems to the Gnostics in the Early Church. There was controversy over the book. Due to it conflicting with some theological view. This being said many Early Church peoples are in agreeance (despite their theological differences) that John was written by John.
Next Matthew.
Again we start with the title, âKATA MAQQAIONâ or âAccording to Matthewâ. So again, Early Church is in agreeance that Matthew wrote Matthew. Where the controversy arises is Eusebius states Matthew wrote in a Hebrew Dialect. Some say Matthew could not have written Matthew because it was written in Greek not Hebrew.
This for 1 shows the authority given to early church positions. For example: You cannot discount all the evidence for the other books given by the Early Chruch. Then turn around and say the Early Church says Matthew wrote in Hebrew therefore the book of Matthew was not written by Mattew.
And 2, the counter argument is Matthew was a polyglot and known to write the Gospel in many languages. Thus because the book of Matthew was written in Greek is not evidence it is not from Matthew since we have evidence of Matthew writing the Gospel in multiple languages.
There is no doubt among anyone, the author of Matthew was extremely intellectual and familiar with formal writing. This adds likelihood that Matthew did write them.
It is unique that despite the hatred for Tax Collectors at this time period (and throughout all of history) that the Early Church would eagerly attribute Matthewâs authorship to Matthew. If we take the secularist view of the Early Church trying to create a religion from scratch: attributing Matthew as a main author and authority is political suicide.
In summary of the point that we do not know the authors
To say we do not know the authors, you must take every title as coincidence. And you must throw out early church testimonies to the fact. Furthermore: literary similarities between known authored books must also be discounted.
In other words, you have to take some of the strongest literary evidence possible⊠and discount them simply because you assume it cannot be. The only book with wavering support of the early church is John. This being said, the book of John has a unique writing style that coincides with the other Johns and Revelation.
Point 2: Accusative not Genitive
So the author of this source states:
âFirst, even if the body of a text does not name its author, there is often still a name and title affixed to a text in our surviving manuscript traditions. These titles normally identify the traditional author. The standard naming convention for ancient literary works was to place the authorâs name in the genitive case (indicating personal possession), followed by the title of the work. Classical scholar Clarence Mendell in Tacitus: The Man And His Work (pp. 295-296) notes that our earliest manuscript copies of both Tacitusâ Annals and Histories identify Tacitus as the author by placing his name in the genitive (Corneli Taciti), followed by the manuscript titles.â
âInstead, the Gospels have an abnormal title convention, where they instead use the Greek preposition ÎșαÏα, meaning âaccording toâ or âhanded down from,â followed by the traditional names. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is titled ΔÏ
αγγΔλÎčÎżÎœ ÎșαÏα ÎαΞΞαÎčÎżÎœ (âThe Gospel according to Matthewâ).â
ââŠGospels have been âhanded downâ by church traditions affixed to names of figures in the early church, rather than the author being clearly identified.[2] In the case of Tacitus, none of our surviving titles or references says that the Annals or Histories were written âaccording to Tacitusâ or âhanded down from Tacitus.â Instead, we have a clear attribution to Tacitus in one case, and only ambivalent attributions in the titles of the Gospels.â
I will summarize his argument.
He is arguing that the standard titling was to use the genitive. Therefore since the Gospels are not in the genitive but the accusative, they are not reliableâŠ
Firstly, this is a very underhanded deception. The average is not a rule. He has already admitted other âbooksâ of the day do not contain genitive titles. But then goes on to make the argument that since the Gospels are not genitive they are unreliable. This alone should change his argument from being unreliable to being unique or an outlier.
So, the question is why are the Gospels not genitive? We can see other books in the New Testament are clearly Genitive. For instance: majority of what was written by Paul. So the Gospels do stand out as unique. This point I do not contest they are very unique pieces of literature. What I contest is the notion that their uniqueness is therefore evidence of un-reliability.
We can see in Romans and Acts that the Early Church shared possessions equally amongst individuals but shared like a commune (for lack of a better term). This is further stated by others outside the Early Church such as Tacitus who writes about Christians living simple lives with limited possessions.
The existences of communes were not unique to the world, what was unique was the willingness to revert from civilization into a commune.
The Christian belief was that Christ does not belong to one man, but to the world in itâs entirety. The titles of the Gospels reflect this world view very well. They are not attributing the Gospel message to themselves but to Christ, while stating that this is their view point.
I personally find this argument to directed at people who read it in English as âThe Gospel of Johnâ and then be confronted with the Early Church not writing it as such would be a cultural shock. To me this is deceptive: the reason being is the Early Church has specific reason to write genitive about other topics such as Paul writing to a Church, but they firmly believe none can be genitive about Christ instead we can only be accusative and not take possession of Christ because Christ takes possession of us.
In summary
After reading what I have so far I see no evidence of lack of authorship. Instead I see blatant disregard of both literary and cultural accords. If there is a specific argument on that page where you believe it shows the Gospels are not reliable please direct me to the relevant information.
I understand that this is a form of hot-hand fallacy, in which I am stating: because the first two points are incorrect the whole thing must be incorrect. I am forming this based on primary and secondary evidence assuming this is the primary and secondary evidence of this page. I am also leaving myself open to more persuasive evidence if it exists. But, I find no reason to continue with the âevidenceâ after what I have seen so far.