Tweet
Yes, it is according to the 2 sources theory (i.e. Matthews as well as Luke being based on Mark and Q) that the authorship of the gospel of Matthew by the Apostle Matthew himself is cast in doubt, as a true apostel wouldn´t have to rely on other textual sources for his gospel.
Secondly, you are assuming that someone writing a Gospel would rely only on their own testimony. I don't think that at all. We do see many similarities between all the Gospel accounts, and I think part of that is that they rely on the same eyewitnesses for certain parts. I have no problem with the authors of the Gospel relying on more sources then just themselves, that would increase the reliability of the accounts. It seems pretty reasonable to me that even if they witnessed things that they would consult other people who were there for the earthly mission of Christ.
As for John the dispute is rather complicated. In the text itself it is never mentioned that John was the author, it only mentions a "beloved disciple" which, for strange reasons in importenes where it appears in John doesn´t appear in the other gospels (for example no other gospel states that John was upon crucifixation asked by Jesus to take care of his mother, but instead the other gospels say that all disciples had deserted Jesus to this time or on the last supper, where the "beloved disciple" asks jesus who the tritor is, whereas in the other gospels the disciples ask this among themselves). But it is never mentioned that the author himself claims to be this beloved disciple.
It is also believed that the gospel of John has a dual authorship, with the first part ending at John 20 and the second part which is the only part where the author is identified with the beloved disciple being a later addition and beginning in 21.
It is also believed that the gospel of John has a dual authorship, with the first part ending at John 20 and the second part which is the only part where the author is identified with the beloved disciple being a later addition and beginning in 21.
It's one thing to speculate as to dual authorship, but who would write the other half? Are they both similar in terms of style in the Greek? You would have to see differences along that divide in order to further this hyporthesis, and it's never been suggested that John 20 marks any kind of division in the book.
In contrast, we can look at Hebrews. The tradition was never clear who wrote the book, it shows the influence of Paul, and the ideas are consistant, but it has a much better Greek then Paul's. The fathers of the church have a diversity of opinions as to who wrote it whereas with John there has been no question.
Then earliest attribution to John seem to be made by Irenaeus around 180 AD.
But do we have extrnal sources as well that confirm the things done by Jesus?
AFAIk only Flavius Josephus mentions Christ during his lifetime, with an account that seems to be later have been altered by a christian writer (as Josephus couldn´t have stayed Jew if he himself really had thought that Jesus himself is Christ)
I've read the passage, and irony is used by historians. I can see a Jew saying, "he was the Christ!" to mock the claim, which by then would have been well known.
As for letters, look at the bible, Acts of the Apostles and all the Gospels. They are a collection of sources, not written by one person and should be considered as such.
Anyways, what you say about the Roman Archaelogical evidence, check out the road to Jericho sometime. It's exactly how Christ describes the road. They have found evidence of crucifixions at Golgotha, as well as tombs that are similar to those of Christ. The archaelogical evidence confirms many of the details referred to in scripture.
Comment