What's wrong with indulgences?

[NoodleNaught]

There's no evidence that the Gospels were written by the apostles. Most historians and theologians don't believe the Epistles of Peter were written by Peter but are rather falsely attributed.

With out conclusive evidence either way, the work must be attributed to author who "signed" the "work".

[Ben Kenobi]

The Catholic bibles contains additional books not found in most, if not all other bibles.

So which came first?

[Boris Godunov]

With out conclusive evidence either way, the work must be attributed to author who "signed" the "work".

Not when there are a lot of indications that those people weren't the authors. Otherwise, you're just being gullible.

[BeBMan]

You never heard about that Gutenburg fella?

Nobody has. Gutenberg on the other hand... /smartass

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm surprised you guys don't have more people living in the mountains then you could have the burgbergs.

[BeBMan]

[Jon Miller]

There's no evidence that the Gospels were written by the apostles. Most historians and theologians don't believe the Epistles of Peter were written by Peter but are rather falsely attributed.

I would say that there is textual evidence that John was written by John.

Many theologians ignore it, but it obviously exists.

JM

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Theological cripple-fight!

[Jon Miller]

Not when there are a lot of indications that those people weren't the authors. Otherwise, you're just being gullible.

Really, what are the indications that the apostle Luke wasn't the author of Luke?

What are the indications that the apostle John wasn't the author of John?

JM

[Fake Boris]

The traditional answer would be "it's fraud".

But you don't believe in the traditional answer, which makes you special.

[Nostromo]

Really, what are the indications that the apostle Luke wasn't the author of Luke?

What are the indications that the apostle John wasn't the author of John?

JM

There wasn't an apostle called Luke, AFAIK. The Gospel of Luke was supposedly written by Luke the Evangelist, but a lot of scholars doubt it.

The writer of this anonymous gospel was probably a Gentile Christian.[12] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time he composed the Gospel, he must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment.[36]

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author.[37] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[38] Both books also contain common interests.[39] Linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the books indicate that they are from the same author.[40] Those biblical scholars who consider the two books a single, two-volume work often refer to both together as Luke-Acts.[41]

The passages in Acts where the first person plural is used point to the author being a companion of Paul.[42] Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14).

The Church Fathers, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c. 170), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, held that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke.[43] The oldest manuscript of the gospel P75 (circa 200) carries the attribution “the Gospel according to Luke”.[44][45] however another manuscript P4 from about the same time period[46][47] has no such (surviving) attribution.

According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.[48][49][50] The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council.[51][52] Paul placed an emphasis on Jesus' death while the author of Luke instead emphasizes Jesus' suffering, and there are other differences regarding eschatology and the Law.[6] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, leading Hobart to claim in 1882 that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training. However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned; instead it is now believed this language reflects merely a common Greek education.[53][54][55][56][57]

The traditional view on Lukan authorship, however, is held by many scholars,[58] and according to Raymond Brown it is "not impossible" that they are right.[16] Since Luke was not prominent there is no obvious reason that this gospel and Acts would have been attributed to him if he didn't write them.[59] If Luke was only a sometime companion of Paul who idealized him long after his death, that could explain the differences between Acts and Paul's letter.[60] Even though the evangelist as depicted in the New Testament doesn't match the patristic description of Luke, the traditional view is still argued today.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Authorship

[Ben Kenobi]

Kenobi 1 - Cigar chomping DL - 0. Go me.

[Jon Miller]

There wasn't an apostle called Luke, AFAIK. The Gospel of Luke was supposedly written by Luke the Evangelist, but a lot of scholars doubt it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Authorship

I assumed he meant Luke the Evangelist.

Just because Luke and Paul were different people, doesn't mean that didn't work together. So that isn't an argument that Luke (Paul's associate) wasn't the author of Luke.

So basically there is one reason to think that Luke wasn't written by Luke (some contradiction between Acts and the letters of Paul). But historians would say (I think) that that is the usual amount of contradiction for histories at that time written by separate people at varying points in time.

There are reasons to think that Luke was Luke. Primarily that the people closest to the time associated it with Luke and that he focus was on Paul in Acts/etc.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

I would say that there is textual evidence that John was written by John.

Many theologians ignore it, but it obviously exists.

JM

The majority of scholars, however, believe that there is greater indication that none of the Johannine works were written by John the Apostle. I'm not interested in arguing something that's currently being hashed out by people with far more knowledge than either of us, I just wanted to point out that NoodleNaught's certainty over the authorship was unfounded.

[Jon Miller]

I agree that NoodleNaught's certainty is unfounded and do not think that Matthew or Mark were written by the people who they have been 'traditionally' attributed to.

Note that for me, there is no difference between 'written by the Apostle John' and 'written by a follower of the Apostle John based on what the Apostle John said' although I know that this would cause trouble for others.

I am not certain that John and Luke were, but I think the argument has merit. There is pretty clear evidence that it was written before 100 AD (even liberal scholars now place it as before 130 AD, note that scholars still consider it one of the last books of the NT written). So best evidence is that the earlier non-biblical Christian writers we have place the writer as John who knew Jesus.

It is actually quite interesting how scholarship has changed... and generally towards the gospel being more 'dependable' as more information comes to light. I didn't know this, but apparently the dead sea scrolls have most secular/liberal theologians now placing John as coming from a Palestinian influences rather than a Hellenic ones. I didn't know of this scholarship.

JM