Talk:Gospel/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Gospels Anonymous?

Revert

Hey folks, I made an edit today and it was immediately removed. I noticed the hidden, comment to talk about edits here first, so I thought I'd post something here. I think it would be useful to neutrally state/cite recent scholars who hold a dissenting view from the view that is currently advanced on the cite. I cited three works from serious scholars from the last five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenhead (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

– there is a lengthy discussion on this topic on this Talk page: Talk:Gospel#Scholarly consensus on the authorship of the gospels.

– the most recent edit with citations is:

It is often claimed that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and that almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. However, several recent scholars have challenged this claim and have argued that the gospels were not originally anonymous and that they instead bear eyewitness testimony.

References

– thanks – Epinoia (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

– there are a couple of archived discussions on this topic here and here (there may be more) – Epinoia (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out thosse sections where the topic of the gospels anonymity was discussed. I've looked them over briefly and think I've made a good contribution to the page. I think my edits were very fair, and would be worth while for a person looking for encyclopedic like information on the topic. It aids nutrality by citing recent scholarly sources in published works tthat offer a viewpoint contrary to the one in the sentence before it. If someone wants to engage the topic, they can look into those resources and come to thier own conclusion.

Lorenhead (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not toe the line of come to thier own conclusion. It toes the line of academic consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless- it passes the WP:CHOPSY test, and is not the viewpiont of a "tiny minority." Lorenhead (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the gospels are fundamentally anonymous is not a done deal, according to WP:FRINGE scholars. The bulk of WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars, i.e. almost everyone from Ivy Plus to US state universities, including most mainline Protestant and Catholic divinity schools, toe the line that the NT gospels are anonymous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

the WP:FRINGE page says we weed out views that have no or little scientific support. The scholars I've cited are reputable, and in thier work, they cite other reputable scholars. It is simply bias to hide that current reputable scholars are revisiting this topic and finding good reasons to reject the view.Lorenhead (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is upon you to show that our WP:RS/AC claim is false. If you want quotes which satisfy this guideline, I will give you quotes. Three books are not a majority of scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

the WP:RS/AC pages says, "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus." And it just so happens, there is an fantastic review article in the Oxford Journal of Theolgocal studies, by Cambridge University Professsor Simon Gathercole titled, "The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels" (October 2018). In this article Gathercole claims that the anoymity of the gospels is not a matter of studied resolved among scholars, but that rather, "As David Aune has noted, the topic of the anonymity of biblical books ‘has been almost completely neglected." (quoting D. E. Aune, ‘Anonymity’, in Aune (ed.), The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), p. 35). This review article claims that while the majority view is that they are anonymous, this view is based on faulty analysis. He concludes, "the standard reasons for considering the Gospels to be anonymous cannot support the claim," and he concludes instead, "that the most likely conclusion from the evidence is that the attributions are original" (pg. 448). Gathercole aweknolwedges that saying the attributions are original is a whole different topic than claiming who wrote the books.Lorenhead (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To sum up, Gathercole thinks that the overwhelming majority of scholars has it wrong that the gospels are fundamentally anonymous; he does not claim that the majority does not think that. According to Gathercole, The case against the majority proceeds with negative and positive arguments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

sure, He claims the majority view holds to the anonymous view. But he is another independent scholarly work at the Ivy League level who's work cites still other scholars who support this view. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community (WP.FRINGELEVEL. Citing the scholars and reveiw article seem like a great way to do that. One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. The article I've pointed you to above, and the number of peer-reviewed articles cited within them, demonstrate that this is a notable possition to mentino.

Regarding when a "fringe view" can be included, wikipedia gives several criteria. WP.Fringe- The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. WP.V- If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

Reliable sources disagree about this. The best thing to do would be to maintain a neutral point of view, cite the sources, and present what the vairious sources say..Lorenhead (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view includes giving due weight to various points of view. In the case of the authorship of the gospels, the overwhelming opinion of scholarship is that they are by unknown authors, aand for this we have Reddish as our source. If you wish to argue that this has changed you need to find a source that says so - that says "scholars now doubt that the authors were anonymous", or words to that effect. The three you mention don't say that, they simply say that they personally hold that view.

In fact, the viewpoint you're presenting stems from Richard Baukham's work, and he's the one you need to follow (he's also the only one of the three who writes in a scholarly way). Bauckham's book caused a stir when it came out, but his arguments and conclusions haven't been adopted by the scholarly community as a whole. Achar Sva (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. First of all, you seem to conflate two very different things. I dont dobut you that "the overhelming opinion of scholarship is that htey are by unknown authors (quoting Reddish). Just so I'm clear, I'm not challenging that, nor am I citing any scholars to challenge that viewpoint. I'm not saying anything about authorship. The gospels not being anynomous is not the same thing as knowing who the author is. The gospels haveing a name attached to them from the beginning is not in conflict at all with scholars dobuting that we know who acutally wrote them. I've cited several scholars on this, and Gathercole is another reputable scholar (cited above, but would be happy to add that to the citation in the article) writing in a reputable peer reviewed journal saying that this is a very live issue right now in current scholarship. Lorenhead (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(I indented your response to me, this is the normal practice). Gathercole is just one scholar, by himself he doesn't demonstrate that this is a significant minority view. The view is, in fact, identified with Bauckham, who has written by far the most detailed argument for it. But it's very much the preserve of a tiny minority of ultra-conservative scholars - you might like to read this book by Eric Eve. Achar Sva (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Gathercole and Bauchham are not the only voices for the possition that the gospels were not originally anonymous. And the view goes well beyond Bauckham. Leon Morris expresses that view in his work on the Gospel of Matthew (1992), and he points to JC Fenton's work on Matthew from the 1964 as an influence on his thinking that way. Michael Bird has taken this possition in his 2015 book "The Gospel of the Lord." Martin Hengel's 2000 book, "The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ" takes this possition as well. These are not crack-pot self publishers. You can look them up on wikipedia. This is not a tiny minority of people. Fenton, Morris, Bird, Hengel, Bauckham, Gathercole...these are reputable scholars, who are influencing a growing number of folks (like Pitre and Williams whom I cited). There is no reason to not allow this serious stream of thought to be seen. Just to be super clear. This is a seperate issue from authorship. Some of the works and voices cited above may well not attribute the gospels to the traditional authors that bear their name. Lorenhead (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So? Our article already says Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses;[32] a few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[33] So your edit is unnecessary. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not so. You must still be conflating the authorship question with the anonymity question. There is nothing on the page currently that says that scholars beleive the gospels were not anonymous. Currently it baldly states that "all four are anonymous." there is not even a citation for that statement. The second half of that sentence is fine, "most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses." At least in that quote there is a qualifier "most scholars." With regards to the original anonymity of the works, there exists no such qualifier currently, and it gives the impression of unaniminity among scholars. This is not the case, as I've shown. My edits are a needed addition. You could even do something similar, saying "despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars believe all four are anonymous..." with a citation for various scholarly viewpoints that hold to original non-anonymity. Lorenhead (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

– anonymous definition (Merriam-Webster): "not named or identified, an anonymous author" – none of the gospels identify the author by name; therefore, they are anonymous – Epinoia (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that Epinoia. That further reinforces why this edit is necessary. It seems to lack a growing understanding of the way in which ancient documents in the genre of Greco-Roman biography and history identified their author. Other ancient works share this feature with the gospels (examples: Livy, Arrian (Alexander), Tacitus (Germania, Agricola), Herodian (History), Josephus (Antiquities). There are no examples of gospel texts in existence that contain the beginning of the text that do not also contain the authorial inscription designating the author. So, from a textual historical perspective, we have no gospels that are ananoymous. This is in harmony with a growing understanding of how ancient biographical and historical documents were written. they are not like ancient epistles, in which the author typically identifies themselves in the opening. as an asside, that is what makes the book of Hebrews so interesting, in that, while it is an epistle, it does not identify an author, and while there is speiculation about who wrote it, the early church ressisted the urge to append an authorship claim to that work in perpetutity. Criag Keener's recent book, Christobiography (2019) is a good example of a erudite American Seminary Professsor the New Testament that is publishing on the topic of gospel genre, and he does not hold to the gospels being anonymous originally. Lorenhead (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that in the end your intended edits boil down to WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You are applying that way too broadly. That article WP:RGW states that if you want to highlight a theory you'll have to "wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." Well, I've pointed to a peer reviewed Oxford Journal, and books from a wide variety of "reputable bublishing houses." I am not leading the way here WP:NOTLEAD, nor am I a POV fighter. I have offered a neutral statement of fact that this is a viewpoint that is expressed often in current discussion regarding the gospels. I've listed Keener, Fenton, Morris, Bird, Hengel, Bauckham, Gathercole, Williams and Pitre. Lorenhead (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You seek to proclaim that it would have larger support than in reality. RGW means that Wikipedia reflects, but does not seek to change the outside world (i.e. WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I would characterize the opposition to an edit of this nature to violate the WP:NPOV policy and WP:MAINSTREAM norm. The Mainstream essay calls for giving minority views exposure, while excluding some descriptions or issues that cannot be reliably sourced. NPOV calls on editors to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. I've listed a number of well respected scholars from some top institutions, a tier peer reviewed journal, and other published written work. There is no way to reject adding an edit reflecting the existence of this minority possition among scholars without violating the NPOV policy. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Thus, I suggest the following edit: "The majority of scholars hold that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), though a minority of scholars disagree.(citations will go here) Almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[6]Lorenhead (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As I told you, the article already says that a minority disagrees. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

except that's not true. It currently reads: "All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission." There is no statement there that a minority disagrees regarding anonymity.Lorenhead (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Later in the article we find, "Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[34] (A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.)[35]" Again, this claims all four are anonymous and there is no mention of a minority view that does not follow that thinking. The quote does make mention of some who defend traditional authorship, but that is not what I'm arguing at all. Anonymity and authorship are two totally differnt topics. A person can hold the gospels are anonymous, and attribute them to traditional authors, or hold they are not anonymous but not hold to traditional authorship. One's view on the anonymity of the gospels does not dictate one's view point on authorship. Lorenhead (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind: Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable, do not give undue weight, and where appropriate, comply with WP:FRINGE. One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject WP.FRINGE. I've provided such reliable research. I appreciate your investment but your insistance to not allow a small edit highlighting serious scholarshp on an issue is confusing. Lorenhead (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(I indented your last para a little to bring it into line with the others.) Please do some re3ading - there are many books in the bibliography, please go through some of them. Achar Sva (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva, why did you revert my recent edit?Lorenhead (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason was Inacurate - the anonymity of the gospels is a fact, not an opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You added a phrase to one sentence: "Despite the traditional ascriptions the vast majority of scholars believe all four gospels are anonymous, though a minority disagrees with this assessment". (The addition is in italics). This is a gloss on the next existing sentence, which you rather oddly retain, but further on in the paragraph: "A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously." The redundant gloss is one reason for rejecting the edit; more significantly, by saying that "the vast majority of scholars believe all four gospels are anonymous" you misstate the nature of anonymity: the gospels are anonymous because they carry no authorial names, which is a fact, not an belief. Even Bauckham (by far the most credible of your proposed sources) says as much (see page 300 of his book. What Bauckham and others are arguing is that the traditional ascriptions are credible, not that the gospels carry in their texts the names of their authors.

Just by way of Background, Bauckham was reacting to the "Jesus-myth" movement, which held that there never was a historical Jesus. He (Bauckham said that, on the contrary, the gospels are very early and are based on highly reliable curated eyewitness testimony. ("Curated" means that those who saw and heard Jesus remembered his life and passed down narratives, orally at first, which very quickly became written texts). One can understand his motivation, but one can also see why it hasn't found acceptance outside ultra-conservative circles - which is rather ironic, given that Bauckham is no ultra-conservative.Achar Sva (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. But I think it is misguided. Perhaps there would be a better way to phrase my edit, I'm open to that. I've made several suggestions and I am sure with some help I could get a better end product. The majority of responses to my suggestion have not been helpful, and instead are mainly statements that the view is disallowed, which is silly since it is view found in reputable sources, from reputable scholars. Your two fold response to my edit leads me to believe that you don't understand what the edit communicates. First, you felt my sentence was a "gloss" on the next sentence, which it is not. The next sentence (my edit broke the sentence into two sentences, as it sits now it is the send half of the sentence in question) concerns authorship of the gospels. The material I added does not touch on authorship of the gospels. Saying that most (or even all) scholars reject traditional authorship is a completely different matter than the gospels being originally anonymous. That these two things are continually conflated on this talk page is concerning. It is most certainly not a gloss to say most believe them to be anonymous, and most believe them to be not written by the traditional author. This first, less significant, reason for rejecting the edit is baseless. Second, your more significant reason for rejecting the edit is that you think the edit is mistaken regarding the nature of anonymity because you find the text of the gospels, "carry no authorial names." You "cite" Bauckham on this. The position I am working to represent, which is held by a number of scholars, is that though the gospel texts, as Bauckham freely admits, while carrying no authorial identification in the text, are not anonymous, any more than Lucian's "Life of Demonax," Josephus "Jewish Antiquities," Tacitus's "Agricola," Suetonius' "Otho," and other ancient texts in the genre of ancient biography and historiography. In fact, it was the norm among Roman historians to not include their name in their work (Gathercole, 457, citing Historian Herkommer). That a work does not contain their name in the work does not mean the work is anonymous as there were other ways in the ancient world to communicate authorship. It is anachronistic to demand that an ancient work name the author in the text to not be considered anonymous. The reality that Bauckham and others press is that these texts were never anonymous in the sense that they were likely never presented as works without known authors. Bauckham and others "refute the idea that the Gospels were presented and received as anonymous..." (pg. 301). Keener claims, "Ancient works often omitted the author's name inside the document itself" and that the gospel's "first recipients presumably knew the author's identity." (Keener 407) Speaking of the traditional authors, Gathercole does not argue "that these figures actually wrote the gospels, but that these names are probably original." (476) This reality is highlighted by the fact that there exists no greek manuscript of any of the gospels in which the title page is intact, which do not also carry with it the authorial inscription. I don't think one can rest too much on that fact, since the texts are not originals, but it is significant that the earliest texts name the author on the "title page," that there the texts are unanimous in their ascription of authorship, and that they are never found without the name attached. This text evidence does tells us that there is no text evidence that these works were ever anonymous, even in a formal sense. I find the edit I made to be useful to highlight this perspective, while at the same time, not giving undue weight. As I stated, I'd be happy to entertain a better way to point to this tradition.Lorenhead (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, just by the way of background, Bauckham is not writing against a background of those espousing that there never was a historical Jesus, but that the gospels give us the best information about who the historical Jesus was and what he did and said (contra those using historical methods to identify the life of Jesus while remaining dismissive of the gospels). He is arguing that the kind of historiobiography the gospels are is classified as testimony, and thus, gives us an appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus.Lorenhead (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

– I think the operative word here is presumably, "first recipients presumably knew the author's identity." (Keener 407) – it's a presumption – as for the other authors mentioned, Lucian's "Life of Demonax," Josephus "Jewish Antiquities," Tacitus's "Agricola," Suetonius' "Otho," the first recipients did know the author's identity – Epinoia (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lets be clear- Presumably- "used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain" (Google search on the word). I think scholars on both sides of a question like this are fair minded enough to admit that what they are asserting is very likely true, by thier reasoning and investigation, but not known for certain. Unfortunatley, the article on the gospels as it sits now, does not maintain that same humility regarding the anonymity of the gospels. It simply states it to be the case that they are anonymous, despite the fact that reptutable scholars in reptuable soruces disagree with that assessment, finding that it is more likely to be the fact that the gospels were never anonymous and that they identify the author in the ways ancient Roman biography and historiography often did.Lorenhead (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

– to the sentence beginning, "A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship" I added "and contend that they were not anonymous" and cited sources provided by Lorenhead – I hope this is an acceptable compromise – if not, feel free to revert my edit – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I had to revert, as none of those sources actually deny that the gospels are anonymous - they argue that the traditional ascriptions are reliable, which is not at all the same thing. (Bauckham actually says openly that the gospels are "formally anonymous", meaning they originally carried no authors' names - it goes without saying that there is no such thing as "informally anonymous"). If Lorenhead has evidence that do indeed say that the gospels name their authors, then he needs to produce quotations. Achar Sva (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva, Gathercole states, "It is the purpose of this article to argue not that these figures actually wrote the Gospels, but that these names are probably original. In the light of these arguments, other hypotheses will have to be ventured besides anonymous publication." (pg. 476) Here, Cambrige Professor, writing in an Oxford published peer reviewed journal, argues that the names were probably original, and that the anonymous publication theory does not hold up. Saying the gospels are "formally anonymous" means that the author's name does not apper in the text of the gospel (as it does in most of the epistles). This does not mean that the author is not identified in other ways, such as in the superscription, or title (Gathercole's article actually has a rather interesting discussion of the variety of ways ancient authors identified thier work outside of the more formal way of inserting your name in the work itself). While recognizing the "formal" anonymity (again, meaning not identified in the gospel prologue or text), Bauckham, none the less, wites to "refute the idea that the Gospels were presented and received as anonymous (pg. 301)." This is not, as you say, merely a claim that the traditinoal ascriptions are reliable. Gathercole actually states clearly that that is precicely what he is not saying. He is not making a claim about the reliability of the traditional ascription. He is making the much simpler claim that the work is not anonymous.

@Epinoia, thank you for your suggested addition. I am not adverse to your edit and think the placement may be an improvement, but I would say that Bauckham is not typically considered a "conservative scholar." That would be my only hessitation regarding the edit you suggested; it makes it look like he is one of the conservative scholars the article is refrenceing previously. Perhaps this would be acceptable: (A few scholars defend the traditional authorship of the gospels or argue that they were not originally anonymous, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.) Lorenhead (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lorenhead, your quote from Gathercole clearly has him agreeing that the gospels are anonymous - "these names are probably original..." "Probably" is an admission that he has to rely on hypothesis. Achar Sva (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how you can interprete him "clearly" agreeing that the gospels are anonymous. He spends 20+ pages highlighing how the anonymous theory is wrong and in that quote I gave, he states that the anonymous publication theory does not hold up. He uses the word "probably" as he should. Any scholar making assessments of the data in situations where we dont have the originals should use words like "most likely" or "probably." That simply means, given the data we do have avalible, this is the most likely state of affairs. Using "tenative language" is a hallmark of actual scholarly work. Lorenhead (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva- I do not agree that my most resent edit "adds nothing to the existing sentence." In the Previous sentence two claims were made. one was that the gospels are anonymous, the other that the authors were not eyewitnesses. The text that follows makes the statement that some conservative scholars hold that the gospels were written by the traditional authors, but it says nothing about the claim of anonymity. The only way you can claim the edit did not add anything new would be to conflate that anonymity question with the authorship question. But clearly, these are two different things. One could claim the gospel of John was written by John the Aposltes, while still holding that the gospel was circulated anonymously originally. Conversly, one could claim that though the gospel was not anonymous, and the name John has been attached to it from the beginning, none the less the gospel is not actually written by John. You see, these are seperate issues. So saying conservative scholars claim something about traditional authorship says nothing about the anonymity claim. If you are worried about the sentence sounding repititious, how about: "Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[34] (A few scholars reject these views, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned these possitions or hold them only tenuously.)[35](add citations).Lorenhead (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If "most" scholars agree that none of the gospels are by eyewitnesses, it stands to reason that "a few" disagree - and there's no need to state the obvious. That applies to the eyewitnesses part: for the anonymity, I don't se Gathercole or anyone else saying that the gospels identify their authors, which would be what "not anonymous" would mean - in the absence of such evidence, all they do is argue that the traditional authors identified by Papias and Irenaeus are credible.Achar Sva (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree on the eyewitnesses part, that's why I did not look for changes on that. On the Anonymity part, I'm not sure where the miss communication is. Gathercole is explicit about this. He says, "Practical considerations make the presence of author’s names very likely (pg. 447)," and "The most likely conclusion to be drawn is that the attributions of authorship are original (.ibid)." He's literally arguing agaisnt the hypothesis that the gospels are anonymous, and takeing the counter possition that the documents had the author's name connected to the text from the origin of the document (that's what "attibutions of authorship are original" means). The quote from pg. 476 says the same thing. In saying the "names are probably original" he's making a claim of non-anonymity. In saying "other hypotheses will have to be ventured besides anonymous publication," he's saying the hypothesis that the gospels were published anonymously has been disproven (posssibly not to you or others, but to him as a scholar doing scholarly work on the topic). In saying that the attributions of authorship are original, Gathercole is saying that the gospels themselves identify thier authors (not simply Papias or Irenaeus). Keener aruges that the evidence does not suggest "that the Gospels were originally anonymous; thier first recipients presumably knew the author's identity. Ancient works often omitted the author's name inside the document itslef... (407)" He's arguing that the documents were not anonymous, that the authors were identified, even if not in the way modern books are identified. Bauckham claims that the documents are "formally anonymous" in that the author's name does not appear in the body of the gospel, but he claims instead that the ability to name an author for the gospels (and other ancient biography and historiography) should not be limited to texts with the author's name in the body of the text. He claims instead that the Gospels identify the name of the author "in the title" and so we should "not consider them intentionally anonymous." He sees his research on the topic as "denying that the Gospels were originally anonymous..." (pg.300). Morris makes the claim that in ancient times, "few books give any indication of authorship beyond the title page..." and that in the gospels, "The title page indicates the author quite clearly..." (pg. 14). His point was that there is no evidence that exists that disproves the hypothesis that the authroship was indicated on the title page from the beginning. There are four authors making the claim that, one way or another, the gospels were not anonymous. You dont have to agree with them. You can write an article and submit it to the Journal of Theological Studies and try to refute Gathercole, but you can't simply deny that he and others are making the claim that "these names are probably original." Lorenhead (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Gathercole and others may believe that, but they failed to convince the scholars.

If it would be so, you have to show why such "considerable evidence" failed to convince the scholars. As far as I know, "Papias meant our Gospel of Matthew" is considered false by the majority of scholars. So, it could be that "the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew" is a fringe view (as most editors here believe), or that it is a minority view (as you and Davidbena believe). Anyway, we could not trust Edwards to represent the majority view when he himself was advised by his mentors not to publish his book and stated that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is seen as a trap. No amount of original research would suffice to make it appear as the majority view, since Wikipedia does not establish the correctness of a scholarly view, it merely quotes mainstream scholars who support or refute it. So, it is futile to convince the Wikipedians of the correctness of Edwards's arguments, since it is not for Wikipedians to make that call, but for scholars who live by publish or perish. Wikipedians are merely the scribes of mainstream scholars. Wikipedia isn't a channel for publishing original research nor a discussion forum for boosting one's academic status nor an arena where scholars decide which should be the mainstream view. We trust the academia to pass such judgment, it is not Wikipedia's task to tell to the academia which new insight should become their majority view. As User:Benjiboi stated, "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting myself Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Gathercole is a reptuable scholar making the claim in a reputable source. Wickipidia, does not shut out minority views. As we've covered before, Wikipedia editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable, do not give undue weight, and where appropriate, comply with WP:FRINGE. "One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject" WP.FRINGE. Gathercole certinaly counts as that, and Bauckham is an academic source as well. Keener should as well, but he's more on the conservative side than the others. I've suggested an edit that does not give undue weight to the topic.

I've suggested changing this: Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[34] (A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.)[35]

to this: Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[34] (A few scholars reject these views, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned these possitions or hold them only tenuously.)[35](add citations for Gathercole, Bauckham and Keener)

I've conceded so much ground on this topic. I'm still open to suggestions to imporove things, but I can't see how what I've suggested is possibly giveing undue weight to a minority position. Lorenhead (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

also, in light of @Achar Sva's comments, perhaps it would be better to make this edit: Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[34] (A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship or argue for the non-anonymity of the gospels, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.)[35]Lorenhead (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

or you could go simpler still and say: Despite the traditional ascriptions, most scholars agree that all four gospels are anonymous and that none were written by eyewitnesses.[34](new citations) (A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.)[35]Lorenhead (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pitre

Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.

— T. Bill, Amazon.com

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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that nice quote from T.Bill from Amazon. lol. you have to be kidding me. I'm sure there are better critiques than this of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenhead (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record: these aren't WP:RS/AC sort of quotes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Newbie?

An editor, 7 hours old, who knows links like WP:CHOPSY? Who goes straight to the Gospel of John, like what-was-his-name-again? Right... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

At least they can claim I told them about CHOPSY. We had a discussion at my talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing

Let's be specific: Lorenhead's edit diff changed

All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.

into

It is often claimed that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), and that almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. However, several recent scholars have challenged this claim and have argued that the gospels were not originally anonymous and that they instead bear eyewitness testimony.

}}

References

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; that's not the case, this info is not in the article; the lead is being used to develop an argument. This is clearly shown by the WP:EDITORIALIZING at work here: "It is often claimed," "however." "Claimed" is false rhetorics, as in "That's just yourr opinion." Not al "opinions" have equal weight, and in this case, the majority is not to be introduced with a "it's just a claim"-disclaimer, and WP:UNDUE weight for a minority-view which isn't even mentioned in the article. No WP:CONSENSUS for this edit, but [[WP: DONTGETIT] behaviour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The term "claimed" puts into question three different pieces of info. Sloppy editing to push a specific point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I can appreciate that criticism of the edit. Thanks for actually enageing with the edit and offering reasons for not likeing it. The other criticisms above have not done that. After some discussion I suggested this: The majority of scholars hold that all four gospels were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), though a minority of scholars disagree.(citations will go here) Almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission." That seems like a much more tame edit. I'm happy with that. I suggested it above, but still get the same responses.Lorenhead (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on your comments regarding the WP.LEAD, I'll propose this new working of the edit later in the article: "Despite the traditional ascriptions, the vast majority of scholars believe the four gospels to be anonymous, though a minority disagrees with that assessment.(citation of Bauckham and Gathercole and Keener here) Most scholars agree that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.[34] (A few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.)[35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenhead (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My edits

So my edits have been reverted for no reason. I brought citations and all. Can a 3rd person take a look at this, please? --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure: no WP:CONSENSUS, still behaving in a problematic way after being unblocked.

• cholars have a consensus on the general outline of Jesus' life found in the gospels

Amy-Jill Levine writes: "There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus' life." Not "the general outline," but "a basic outline."

• though, scholars are quick to note

Strange interpolation, contradicting what's stated before

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Expansion on Composition section

@Red Slash: Since you reverted me on this... everything in the phrasing of that section is subtly favoring the admittedly popular but scholarly-fringe argument that the early Church "had it right." In general, if you add "Modern mainstream scholars hold" to a sentence on Wikipedia, you don't need to include that phrase, you can just state it normally rather than over-qualify it.

I'm really not sure an extended section on the "historiography" of older beliefs is due weight; that seems material more suited for Augustinian hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and so on. Jonathan Bernier in particular appears to be a no-name, and the phrasing is wildly misleading as it seems to describe the case against the traditional ascriptions getting weaker over time, rather than stronger via the trick of picking on one random scholar who picked a very late date. Richard Bauckham is a good source, I've been sourcing from a book of Bauckham's myself recently, but he is in the scholarly minority on his claims of earlier dates, and even he doesn't hold to the traditional ascriptions for the synoptics - which the section occludes by including him in a group that does, and acts as if he agrees on everything. If you are in favor of keeping it, then it needs to be sourced to more "neutral" sources as well, which I suspect would make it read more incendiary if it covers the scholarly debate. I'd much rather lead with the consensus view, and stick the historiographical debate elsewhere to keep this on-topic; if you think we should include it anyway, then it should be off in its own section, and detail all the reasons why modern scholars aren't crazy, rather than the added section's slant of acting as if it was solely the destruction of the Temple argument. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We kowtow to WP:RS/AC: in any major US university it is taught that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous. And that they were written at least 30 or 40 years after Jesus died.

So, to answer your charge: this is not a bug, it's a feature. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, really: if there is a US state university which teaches for a fact that NT gospels are not fundamentally anonymous, that would be a wonder (meaning a full professor teaches it to its students, as opposed to being taught by some fleeting teaching assistant). If there is an Ivy League university which does that, it would be a wonder of wonders.

If you're not yet convinced, see Ham, Ken; Hall, Greg; Beemer, Britt (2011). Already Compromised. Master Books. ISBN 978-0-89051-607-2. And Ham, Ken; Beemer, Britt; Hillard, Todd (2009). Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. New Leaf Publishing Group, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-61458-003-4.

These might sound like conspiracy theories, but the basic facts are true: WP:SCHOLARSHIP, meaning Bible scholarship, has moved a lot from the position of the fundamentalist/traditionalist Christian true believer. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys! I don't think this is going to make sense without posting the deleted stuff here. Humor me:

The early church historians were unanimous in assigning the gospels to the two apostles Matthew and John, and two followers of apostles, John Mark and Luke. Therefore they assumed an early dating of the gospels. Taking their lead from Papias (c. 110) the early church historians all testify to Matthew being the first gospel and originally written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). Mark was generally claimed to be the second written and composed when Peter was still alive (i.e. the 50s or 60s). Luke was thought to be written third, followed at last by John, believed to be written by the apostle at a very old age with the expressed goal of adding information that was missing in the synoptic gospels (i.e 80's-90's).[30]

Accurate, not undue weight. In a section about "when were they written" one would expect the views of people within the first century after Jesus's death to be the first views presented.

With the rise of historical criticism in the late 19th century the scholarly consensus regarding the dating of gospels started to change. The early historical critics believed that the gospels should be understood as folk literature not composed by a single author but instead written and re-written by a community over a long period of time. Using form criticism they broke down the gospels into pieces (pericopes) with the aim of discovering when and why different stories where added to a gospel tradition that later evolved into a written gospel. This hypothesis favoured late dating's of the gospels to give the supposed communities time to create and evolve the gospels. The leading early higher critic Ferdinand Christian Baur for example proposed the dating of the gospel of John to around 195AD.[31]

I won't call this perfectly written but I think the information here is important and without undue weight. Other than the weird typos, this all makes sense. You can't understand modern thinking without understanding where it came from and how it evolved.

During the 20th century, the idea of a late dating of the gospels started to lose ground in the light of new manuscript discoveries and scholarly studies. These new discoveries made it improbable that the gospels could be dated later than around the year 100. With the latter time limit set, the scholarly focused shifted to determining the earliest possible dating of the gospels.[32]

This could be made a little clearer, for sure. But this is developing a narrative of how critical views of the dating evolved. First, very close to the death of Jesus; later, a push wildly in the opposite direction to as late as 195 AD, and then due to physical evidence, put easily within a generation or two, at most, of his death.

Based primarily on the idea of Markan priority and the belief that Mark 13 alludes to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem most scholarly today places the creation of the gospels in their written form to about ca. 65-100AD, with redactions of the text beings made into the 3rd century.[33][34]

Again, copy-editing needed, but what about this is wrong?

A minority of mostly conservative scholars believe that the gospels should be understood as biographies based on eyewitness accounts and not folk literature. These scholars generally defend the early datings and the traditional ascriptions of the gospels. Starting from the final decade of the 20th century this minority has become more vocal and include such scholars as Martin Hengel, James D. G. Dunn and Richard Bauckham.[35][36][37] For a variety of reasons the majority of scholars do not agree with their conclusions.[38]

What, are we supposed to make our readers think that no one, not even devout Christian scholars, believes that these books were written by the people who the early church claimed they were? This isn't a violation of WP:FRINGE. There are two billion nominal Christians in the world. We're discussing a four-pack of Christian books--and not fringe books, but the ones that contain the core claims of Christianity. Three sentences about what Christian scholars today believe? That's hardly giving undue weight.

This section existed on the page before my edit. I used expanded it some and worked in into the narrative to make i flow better. --Formcriticism (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Modern mainstream scholars hold that like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek,[39] with the Gospel of Mark probably dating from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.[8]

Other than the claim that all four are anonymous, I'm not sure what is controversial about this. I guess it's awkwardly worded to make it seem like only modern scholars think that the Gospels were written in Greek.

So, help me out. What was so offensive about the removed text? Red Slash 04:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

About lumping Bauckham in that camp, see what SnowFire has replied. According to WP:DEM, opinions expressed inside Wikipedia are not based upon population census, but only on being affirmed by a sizeable chunk of mainstream scholars (there are other articles wherein the academic view does not apply, but this isn't one of them). So arguments like There are two billion nominal Christians in the world cut no ice. In the mainstream academia the idea that NT gospels were written by Jesus's apostles is somewhere very close to dead in the water. Wikipedia is heavily based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP and has no reason to privilege fundamentalist/traditionalist Christians over Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintoists, and Satanists. Liberal Christianity made peace for a long time with historical criticism. In short: Wikipedia sides with real scholarship over a naive acceptance of religious dogmas. So, yeah, the real issue is subtly undermining the academic consensus, stated in the voice of Wikipedia. It's not our task to WP:RGW. About one would expect the views of people within the first century after Jesus's death to be the first views presented: we might do that, provided we state very clearly that those people were flat out wrong. Giving the lie to modern mainstream scholars, speaking nigh-unanimously, is what Conservapedia can do, while Wikipedia can't do.

Those people weren't writing sine ira et studio, but had a faith to promote. And even Eusebius recognized that Papias was rather stupid and full of craps. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The point is not if Papias was full of crap or not. The point is that the early church historians all do use him as evidence. It is a descrpition of history. --Formcriticism (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• • "Accurate, not undue weight. In a section about "when were they written" one would expect the views of people within the first century after Jesus's death to be the first views presented."
• Hmm, this is why I said I suspect it would be more incendiary to go into the history in more depth. We flat out don't know what people in the first century thought on this topic. A lot of what we have from that period is in the New Testament, and they don't seem to write about gospels (Paul sure doesn't), with at most some letters that might date to the early 2nd century (but dated earlier by traditionalists) blandly talking about "scripture". Luke 1:1 vaguely talks about other gospels being out there, but only to hint that they're wrong / incomplete. And for that matter, even citing Papias to 110 is a little problematic. Papias's work, unfortunately, did not survive. We have a few quotations of Papias from Eusebius, writing at a much later date in the fourth century. But there's every reason to think that Eusebius was quoting selectively, taking the parts of Papias he thought was usable for his purposes, and discarding everything else, because Eusebius also basically insults Papias as rather naive. Basically, if we trust Eusebius, it seems like Papias was talking nonsense at least some of the time. And more generally, the quotation from Papias isn't even obviously talking about "our" gospels. We know that early Christians attributed lots of stuff to apostles that everyone, the Church, etc. thinks were false attributions. Papias claims that his Matthew was a "logia", or sayings gospel. But that doesn't sound like our Matthew, right? Maybe it was Papias just writing half-remembered second-hand info that flowed from real-Matthew. He also claims that his Mark didn't write his gospel in an "ordered form". This one is admittedly more borderline, but it at least suggests that Papias's Mark wasn't the same form as modern Mark, because "our" Mark is certainly ordered well enough. Anyway, the text does a little trick by saying that "church historians" are unanimous. That way, anybody who disagree simply can be dismissed as not a church historian. I'll mention one prominent case generally used by scholars for why the traditional ascriptions are suspect: Justin Martyr. When ancient Christian writers of the 3rd/4th/5th century discussed gospels, they generally named the gospel they were talking about, just as modern Christians do. 1st and 2nd century Christian works, however, often don't discuss gospels, or act as if there only was one. Justin Martyr quotes lines from the modern gospels, but does not say "As Mark wrote" or "As is seen in Matthew's gospel" or anything. That is very strange because later authors have no such compunctions, and Justin was writing in Rome - which was allegedly exactly where Mark wrote his gospel. Justin was maybe the most prominent Christian of his era, so why doesn't he name the gospels? It's not so unanimous now.
• Basically, if we want to have a section about what the early Church thought, sure, let's have it. But it's going to have to include all the facts and not merely highlight the pro-traditional view facts. (And more generally, I don't agree with the premise that we necessarily have to start with the older views anyway.)
  • "I won't call this perfectly written but I think the information here is important and without undue weight."

This is an argument about the truth about the gospel origins. But the section discusses the history of the subject. In is correct information that the earliets testimonies (Papias, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Muratorian Fragment etc) all claim Mark wrote Mark etc.--Formcriticism (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Ferdinand Christian Baur is very important at all. I'll be honest, this is maybe the second time I've seen his name. If he's important, his crazy dating of John isn't important. It's setting up a straw man to shoot down. I've never seen anyone discuss such a late date as a relevant thought had major support. If we want to talk about prominent 19th century scholarly views, then I'd say that Adolf von Harnack's views are the ones to highlight.
  • " But this is developing a narrative of how critical views of the dating evolved. "

That you dont know of the Tübingen School - that Baur founded - and belive him to be unimportant I would say is a form of anglocentricism. Critical biblical scholarship was founded and flurised in Germany. Bauer was i pioneer. --Formcriticism (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• But it's hugely misleading! It writes "the idea of a late dating of the gospels started to lose ground", but what it really means is that Baur's crazy theory was disproven. I happen to have come across a family Bible from 1857 or so, and here's the dates it offers: File:American Tract Society Bible Dates.jpg. All of these dates have moved backward since then. The actually fair phrasing would be "the idea of an early dating of the gospels started to lose ground."

The information in the Bibel you display is not from the leading critical scholars of the times but from fundamentalist Christians. That fundemantalist Christians have used early dates all the time is not relevant. What is relevant is the change i scholarship. --Formcriticism (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• • "Again, copy-editing needed, but what about this is wrong?"
• It's too reductive - if we really want to go into detail, there's more reasons than just "Marcan priority" and the destruction of the Temple to suggest the later date. It's like saying "Police arrested Alice because Bob said she confessed to killing Trudy." True, but if Alice had a bloody knife in her car trunk, video camera footage showing her exiting the crime scene, and had previously given the police an alibi that proved to be false, then it's probably best to mention those as well, lest the case come across as unduly simplistic. From a Christian perspective, merely discussing the destruction of the Temple is a somewhat weak argument (maybe it was a prophecy?), so I'm not sure it should be the one leading here.

It does not say it the only arguments. For brevity it points to two main arguments. The fact that it is very common to use the phrase pre- or post-70 when debating NT-texts show that the destruction of the Temple is central.

• • What, are we supposed to make our readers think that no one, not even devout Christian scholars...
• I agree entirely! But isn't this already covered elsewhere in the article? Anyway, I'm happy to expand this section if desired. I think it's the most keepable part, for sure.
  • Other than the claim that all four are anonymous, I'm not sure what is controversial about this.
• It was already in the article - the IP editor who added this was just repeating it. They'd added "Modern mainstream scholars hold" though which is unneeded; the idea that the Gospels were not originally written in Greek is very fringe as there's some extreme philological evidence that all suggests a Greek origin. (It doesn't rule out some sort of Hebrew or Aramaic proto-gospel, of course, but if such a thing existed, it's been totally lost and was only used as a source, and the gospels we know aren't raw translations of it.) SnowFire (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the New Testament were a product of a conspiracy which got its story straight since the beginning of the 1st century AD (or 2nd century AD, take your pick), we simply would not know that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous.

Same as Joel Baden argued for the Torah: if those problems weren't there (meaning real problems like anachronisms and contradictions in the very text of the Torah), we would have never suspected that it wasn't written by Moses. At least, the idea that Moses did not write the Torah would have been as WP:FRINGE as the Shakespeare authorship question. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with SnowFire and would like to see the section on current views on dating within Christian scholarship expanded a little--what dates, and more importantly, what are the reasons and backing they give. Red Slash 16:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try and expand it. (Today was July 4, but I'll definitely get to it shortly.) SnowFire (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Formcriticism: You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Especially lacking for WP:V to that Bernier. Using him as WP:RS highly smacks of WP:PROFRINGE. I mean: from the title of his book it is patently obvious that he does not like the mainstream consensus.

At amazon.com he boasts an endorsement of his book by Pitre, but an endorsement by Pitre is nothing to be proud of, since Pitre is an apologist of fundamentalism rather than a real scholar. It's a free country, and if he does not want to obey the requirements of the historical method, no one can force him to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You should read the work instead of amazon.com endorsments. I cite his work as he does a scholarly review of suggested different dates of the gospels. Bernies review of the academic littrature is the lates review I know . --Formcriticism (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It is the stated goal of Wikipedia to mirror the current consensus of mainstream scholarship – in the words of WP:NOT, "accepted knowledge". Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature. The encyclopedia does not act as an advocate for, or passionately promote, pioneering minority theories that are currently controversial (i.e soapboxing), even if there is a slim chance beliefs on the margin may eventually gain wide consensus (as happened with the proposals of the round Earth in Archaic Periods and continental drift before the mechanism of plate tectonics, two classic examples of cutting edge views once deemed fringe theories that turned out to be justified). Wikipedia acknowledges diverse viewpoints on contemporary controversies, but represents them in proportion to their prevalence (or due weight) among serious scholars and reporters with reputations of responsibility and reliability. Wikipedia may in some cases limit its mention of theories understood to be fringe to specific articles about those theories, and remove their mention from other articles, per the one way principle.

In summary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to advocate pet points of view, nor is Wikipedia in the business of adjudicating which pet points of view have a potential for subsequent wide acceptance in the future. Some marginal theories are fringe science and some are pseudo-science, but Wikipedia is not in the business of calling the shots as to where these stand except where reliable sources clarify those differences. Thus, Wikipedia is academically conservative, as is fitting for a standard reference work.

— WP:FLAT

Anyway, this has been reported again at WP:FTN. While I can tolerate a brief mention of the scholarly minority view, I won't tolerate that it gets most space in comparison to the academic consensus. Besides, Bernier is not even a full professor (correct me if I am wrong). So, if you mean that he did change the paradigm but did not even get a full professorship, you're clutching at straws. There is no indication that his attempts to redate the NT writings have been accepted by WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't forgotten about this. I've been trying to avoid WP:OR by weaving a web of cited sources from combining different books, but trying to find a proper scholarly overview of the entire topic and argument. As noted before, I'm fine with adding more on the "traditionalist" perspective, but I am inclined to agree per previous comments that Jonathan Bernier appears to be a nobody, equivalent to citing random websites. Let's at least use Bauckham or the like if we want to cite a more traditionalist perspective. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

I find the sentence "none were written by eyewitnesses" troubling. The simple reason is because in the ancient world, most sources describing events were not written by eyewitnesses. As such, even though scholars do not think that Plutarch, Tacitus, Illiad were written by eyewitnesses, we do not need to mention it. We can and probably should mention that the traditional attributions are challenged by scholars, but "none were written by eyewitnesses" feels more like a polemic. From an objective standpoint, in the ancient world, all sources are assumed not to have been written by eyewitnesses unless otherwise stated. Eyewitness testimony is exceedingly rare in the ancient world. --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCK comments stricken

Same discussion all over again? Reminds me very strongly of blocked User:GoogleMeNowPlease with his pov-pushing and edit-warring on the Gospels being eye-witness accounts. Even the poor editing by repetitious insertion of larve chunks of text: BiblicalScholarship diff diff versus GoogleMeNowPlease diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

- I believe it is important to the understanding of the gospels to note that none were written by eyewitnesses - Epinoia (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hello thanks for responding. I do not believe I am pushing a pov. I agree, of course, that most scholars do not consider Gospels as being an eyewitness testimony. I can assure you that none of my edits were done to push any point of view, and I have never engaged in an edit war, as far as I am aware.

Now, back to the topic. I do not disagree that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, my question is more importantly about our practice. Not being written by an eyewitness is the norm, it is not the exception. When we have articles about Tacitus, and Pliny and Plutarch, we do not start out by saying that they were not written by eyewitnesses. Our article on the Trojan war does not mention that the sources about the Trojan war do not come from eyewitnesses. I do not see the relevance of starting an article about 1st century AD sources by mentioning that they were not written by eyewitnesses, when not being written by eyewitnesses is definitively the norm for ancient sources. BiblicalScholarship (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCK comments stricken

- the general reader may not be familiar with the authorship conventions of ancient manuscripts - the article is based on scholarly sources that state that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses - as it appears that many people are taught that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, it is important to point out the position of mainstream scholarship on the issue - the article on the Trojan war does not mention that the sources about the Trojan war do not come from eyewitnesses because there is no contention on the issue, no one claims that the sources of the Trojan war were eyewitnesses - Epinoia (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

- If it is important to note that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, then it should be noted that the gospel Luke, in particular, is a documentary of eyewitnesses. Although Luke was not an eyewitness himself, the perspective for the "general readers" can remain the same. - Meanun 10:21, 27 January 2022

I don't know why I got accused of edit warring. I have not edit warred. But I do personally think we need to make this article read more like other articles we have about ancient sources. --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCK comments stricken

Five days at Wikipedia, and you already know what edit-warring is? And how to ping another editor? Remarkable accomplishment! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are suggesting. I have been a Wikipedian for more than 2 years, at least. I usually use my IP address to make changes, instead of creating an account. --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCK comments stricken

In that case: which IP? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Professor Richard Bauckham makes a good case for the gospel authors making significant use of eye-witness accounts in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony." Shouldn't his ideas be reflected on this page? RAMunro (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he does, but that is not common wisdom in the mainstream academia, according to WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Stated more simply, why should we care about a fringe theory concerning eyewitness accounts in texts composed in the late 1st century? Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Luke and John first written in Hebrew

I never heard that before, and I read many books of mainstream Bible scholarship. Sheer WP:FRINGE and sheer WP:OR (no WP:RS being WP:CITED for such astounding claim). Cannot pass WP:REDFLAG.

Morals: Littlewellknowfacts, either WP:CITE WP:RS or take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@Gospel Romance: [1] by Curt Parton is not WP:RS. See also WP:RNPOV: Wikipedia isn't a website for WP:SOAPBOXING the news of the gospel.

Mainstream historians have no reason to believe that the words the NT gospels attribute to Jesus are verbatim quotes from his speeches.

Also, the consensus of the Church Fathers in Antiquity can by no means be translated into a consensus of modern historians.

Parton believes that the "four gospels" are "genuine", while modern Bible scholars regard the Gospel of John as historically highly dubious (that is, Jesus from the Gospel of John bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jesus from the Gospel of John bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus)" Why should we think than any of the depictions of Jesus in the gospels has any historical accuracy or plausibility? Dimadick (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, except that we aren't performing WP:OR, but we actually WP:CITE mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jundonbee: Your edit is both WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of "Fringe". The works cited on the page are more accurately called "fringe". 2000 years of church history and 100's of millions of believers opinions on the matter is not considered fringe. For beginners Wikipedia explicitly says that I can edit the "tone" of the articles. Which is what I attempted to do. Jundonbee (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You can certainly edit for tone but you also need to abide by mainstream contemporary scholarly consensus. Tradition is not of any value - generally speaking, eyewitness reports are unreliable, and subsequent reports of such eyewitness testimony even more so. Achar Sva (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We render theology as theology and history as history. These are two very different academic fields. What it is true theologically could be completely false historically. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Matthew 1:18

There doesn't seem to be any credible scholars other than Ehrman who make the argument the passage in question was "altered." The γεννησις reading is used by the Church Fathers and many early manuscipts. I think this citation should either be removed or at least clarified to be Ehrman's opinion. Divus303 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have devoted all my attention so far to textual variants involving Jesus’ relationship to Joseph in Luke and John. Joseph is never called Jesus’ “father” or “parent” in Matthew’s Gospel, but given the circumstance that Matthew also records a birth story, one might expect to find some kinds of orthodox corruption here as well. We have already seen that the scribe of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, apparently through carelessness, presents a potentially adoptionistic variation of Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:16. It is striking that other witnesses supply different variations of precisely the same verse, and that these variations serve rather well to stress orthodox notions concerning Jesus’ birth. The text of most manuscripts reads “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom (fern.) was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.” But several witnesses of the so-called Caesarean text read “Jacob begot Joseph, to whom being betrothed, a virgin Mary begot Jesus, who is called the Christ” (Θ f13 OL arm [syrc]). The Caesarean changes are patently orthodox: now the text explicitly calls Mary a “virgin” (Image) and it no longer calls Joseph her “husband” (Image) but her “betrothed” (ImageImage). These changes serve not only to keep the text in line with the rest of the story (esp. vv. 18–25), but also to eliminate the possibility of misconstrual. Mary was not yet living with a man as his wife, she was merely his betrothed; and she was still a virgin, even though pregnant.⁶⁹ It should be added that there is little reason to suppose the Caesarean reading to be original. Not only does it lack early and widespread support, it also fails to pass muster on the grounds of transcriptional probabilities. Given the story of verses 18-25, who would have wanted to change the perfectly innocuous Caesarean text of verse 16 into one that could be understood as problematic (by calling Joseph Mary’s Image and by eliminating the word “virgin”)?⁷⁰ This Caesarean reading is thus better explained as an early modification of the other, an orthodox corruption that serves to circumvent an adoptionistic construal of the text.⁷¹

46. See the discussions of Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of Matthew 1:16”; id., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2–7; Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 61–64; and Alexander Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew 1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the Neutral Text,” 63–66.

69. The term image of course, could simply mean “young woman” or “maiden.” But in the writings of the early church, especially when the term came to be applied to Jesus’ mother, it took on the modern connotations of the word “virgin,” designating, that is, a woman who had never engaged in sexual intercourse. See LPGL 1037–38.

70. In addition to the works cited in note 46 above (i.e., Metzger, Brown, and Globe), see the penetrating discussion of Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 66–67, n. 34.

71. Other variants that function to protect the notion of the virgin birth in Matthew 1 modify passages that speak of Mary as Joseph’s wife (”wife” is changed to “betrothed” or “companion” in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Diatesseronic witnesses of Matt 1:20; it is changed to “Mary” or “her” in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin witnesses of Matt 1:24); so too descriptions of Joseph as Mary’s husband are modified in the Syriac traditions of Matthew 1:19. On these, compare Globe, “Some Doctrinal Variants.” Globe sees similar forces at work behind the changes of Matthew 1:18 (omit “before they came together”) and 1:25 (change “he did not know her until . . .”), only here, it is the orthodox desire to preserve the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity that is at work. The confluence of versional support (e.g., Syriac and Latin as independent traditions) demonstrates an early date for such modifications. A similar motivation may lay behind the omission of image from Luke 2:7 in manuscript W. Now Jesus is not called Mary’s firstborn son.

— Ehrman, loc. cit.

"Image" means there is an image I could not copy/paste.

My two cents: Ehrman is neither alone, nor bereft of evidence for making his claim. If you think otherwise, make a WP:V argument that Metzger, Brown, Globe, and Zahn do not support Ehrman. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Synoptic problem answers in the lede.

The lede states as fact that Mark was written first followed by Matthew and Luke, and that Matthew and Luke used mark along with the Q source, however, this is just one hypothesis that cannot be known for certain at this point. It also states that Luke and Matthew used sources unique to them, which verges on veering into the less accepted four source hypothesis. My edit clarifying this was reverted, but I think this is an important clarification. The lede can also state that the two source hypothesis is widely accepted, perhaps this is a good middle ground? Wasianpower (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the lead does not state as fact that Mark was written first followed by Matthew and Luke etc; it states this as the most common hypothesis adopted by biblical scholars. Wikipedia's task is not to make arguments but to present the majority scholarly opinion. Yes, there are significant minority opinions, but this is a general overview article, and the more specific articles go into those details. You're referencing the lead, but the lead is a summary of the main section, which does make the kind of distinctions you're talking about. By all means make an edit to this effect if you think it's needed, but don't go into too much detail: I repeat, the lead is a summary of this article which is itself a summary.Achar Sva (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous NT gospels

See User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Robyn Faith Walsh

What's the relevance of Robyn Faith Walsh (2021), The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament? Being published by CUP does not establish its relevance; impact does. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Texts published highly regarded sources like CUP, OUP, or the like are generally inherently impactful. Unless you can find explicit reason to exclude that information, the current dissatisfaction with its inclusion seems to be one of dismay that it disagrees with some older academic writings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

But to, answer your question, @Joshua Jonathan:

"Even if I am unpersuaded by some of Walsh’s arguments about authorship and book culture in Roman antiquity, these chapters make for stimulating reading. The book is highly provocative and should elicit spirited debate among New Testament scholars." "The origins of early Christian literature: contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman literary culture". Bryn Mawr Classical Review Review. September 11, 2021.

Other reviews are paywalled (such as this from Tilburg University and this from Klio). I really don't see an argument for exclusion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to link this in my first message, but please read WP:RSUW for a good explanation of why a CUP-published text from 2021 (and one that has already enjoyed thoughtful review by academic journals) is almost certainly worth inclusion free of undue weight concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No, sources published by CUP and the like are not "inherently impactful." Where's the "spirited debate"? Zero citations at Google Scholar, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I do not see this standard being supported by UNDUE. The policy states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The text was published by a reliable source. Other scholars have reviewed the text and readily accepted that its positions are well within bounds and worthy of discussion. Looking at the other passages in the same section, there are two other CUP sources dating to 2002 and 1998. The spirited debate is already happening in the sources. I see no policy argument for exclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A standpoint held by one author is not a significant view. A review is not the same as debate of a viewpoint in a regular scholarly article, of which I see no evidence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Your concerns seem be around the idea that it would be against WP:BALANCE to include Walsh. Per BALANCE: However, when reputable sources contradict one another and [bolding original] are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Walsh is a regularly published author on the subject, with secondary source reviews that reliably describe the contrasting viewpoints. Altering the passage to reflect the critiques of Walsh's perspective would not only ensure we have the most recent, reliably sourced scholarship but that we also have substantive critiques of said perspective. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Note "relatively equal in prominence." When one author comes with an alternative to a broad consensus, and is not referenced in any other publication, then that author's view is not "relatively equal in prominence." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be rather convinced that this material is unsuited for inclusion on this article. However, what do you think of this edit to Oral gospel traditions? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

BURDEN means providing a policy-based rationale for inclusion, which I did. Despite policy indicating a strong basis for inclusion and opposition to inclusion being based on sourcing preexisting this reliable source publication, I have alternatively proposed the edit I made to another article as a temporary solution. Please feel welcome to respond to that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:ONUS Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I am very aware of this policy. Singular opposition (the other editor who removed this content not engaging in discussion) is not consensus. Per WP:NOCON: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Since that material had stood for over a month, with several other editors actively working on the article in-between, that would mean restoring the passage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pushing this undue pov; see also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as I pointed out. If you want a consensus, get one. You could also look at the alternative solution I offered you. Also, let's not cast aspersions regarding POV-pushing, given I have provided reliable sourcing and policy-based points from the get-go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." you're ignoring basic policies: we don't give undue weight to minority positions. Walsh's pov is such a minority pov; it's only endorsed by herself. That's a tiny grain of sand on a beach of scholarly consensus, not worth of mentioning. Maybe that changes when her ideas are being discussed by other scholars, that is endorsed or rejected with arguments; at the moment, that's not the case. And if you want Achar Sva's opinion again, you could ask them, imstead of implying that two days without editing means they have changed their opinion. We can also ask Tgeorgescu, if you like, another regular contributor. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Finally, a more extensive answer! Given that two separate editors favor inclusion, there's actually an even split at present. Also, ONUS gives way to NOCON, given that the material survived uncontested for so long. You have no consensus for the BOLD deletion of the passage. Don't accuse me ignoring policy when I've explained my policy basis for everything—that's uncivil. Please also see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, as it is unusual that you didn't ping the editor who originally included the material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I have all sympathy for Walsh's POV, but if Achar Sva says it's a one man show, he is right in 95% of the cases. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

One month is not a long time; and you still haven't established the significance of this pov. There are so many publicayions in this field, that just being published is not enough to establish the relevance of a single publication. The book is an adaptation of a PhD-thesis; Robyn Faith Walsh is a beginning scholar. Her view may be relevant, but then, it needs more than just one publication~which has not been referenced by any other author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)