Dialogue With Skeptic (Part 3)

Sometimes I wonder if Village Skeptics hear themselves when they speak.  

Scholars agree the Gospels were anonymously written. 

That’s not entirely true.   A great many scholars believe that to be so.  Others do not. 

Wes Huff is one of them!

That’s not at all true.  Wes Huff has actually stated this:

Where this leaves us is with, in my estimation, relatively sound evidence to conclude that the names of the four canonical Gospels are indeed the authors. Although the early church testimony to these authors was not necessarily discussed in this particular blog, this early testimony also adds to the verification of the authors being the namesakes we associate with those particular documents. Of course it is theoretically possible that these documents were originally circulated anonymously, from the estimation of the evidence I do not believe that to be the case.

Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John?   They were regular people who spoke Aramaic.   By of contrast, the authors were educated people who wrote in some high falutin Greek.  This proves that these texts weren’t written by these 4 men.         

First, you named Matthew & Luke, one of whom (Matthew) was a tax collector which requires a degree of education.   The other, Luke, was a physician who traveled with Paul.   Why wouldn’t be sophisticated enough to write in Greek?

Secondly, Mark is strongly associated with Barnabas, who was a levite from Cyprus.   He was most certainly literate. 

Third, the text was written in koine Greek which is “regular Greek.”  It can be written with various degrees of sophistication.   If you think that Yeshua’s followers were uneducated “because Aramaic,” then you need to do more than talk down about their alleged education.  

Fourth, you’re not arguing any of this from the text itself or with any sort of stated epistemic foundation that has any sort of evidentiary foundation.   Instead what we have here is a conspiracy theory that amounts to “Scholars!” & “The list of potential authors who could offer eyewitness testimony” is super small & besides that they spoke Aramaic & weren’t nearly as smart as the actual authors whoever they were.”

What documentary evidence do you have that the Gospels were anonymously published & circulated?None.  

By way of contrast, we have evidence that these authors were exactly who the MSS evidence says they are, & it’s in the text itself. 

First — there is no evidence that these Gospels did not include an attribution of authorship.  Even if the “Kata” attribution was not in the first manuscript, it doesn’t therefore follow later copies didn’t include it.  In fact, they must have included it at some point.  The question is “When did it happen?” 

Second — The writers were part of a circle of people whose members included a tax collector at least 3 men who were levites/lawyers/scribes, & a physician.   John Mark is associated with both Peter & Barnabas.   He’s also associated with proximity to the temple and is most certainly the author of both Mark & John. James the Lesser is also among them. He’s Silas, Paul’s amanuensis.  

We can ascertain the authors’ identities by way of the text.  If it’s true that John Mark & John were written by the same individual, then that counts as internal attestation to authorship for both Gospels. 

Matthew calls himself “Levi” in Matthew. Mark does the same.    Contrary to Bart Ehrman & his disciples’s perspective, Matthew writing  himself into the text in 3rd person is not a problem.  According to the Pauline corpus, a reliable teacher, especially an Apostle, does not advertise themselves, especially in the days in which evangelical peddlers were prevalent.  Mark serves as a 2nd witness should Matthew be accused of perjuring himself.   

Luke waits until Acts to reveal his identity.  The fact that the Bible doesn’t name him as one of the 120, it doesnt therefore follow that he wasn’t an eyewitness.  Maybe he was & maybe not — but he traveled with Silas who most certainly was.  

I can’t think of any biblical scholars off the top of my head who think that the author of Mark & the author of John are the same.  That said, neither can I think of any who think James the Just/Lesser & Silas are the same individual— but the Bible says he is. 

The argument for John Mark as author of both Mark & John are one & the same person is similar to the argument that James the Lesser & Silas are the same person. 

• We know that the writers of the New Testament deployed gematria from time to time, which demonstrates that they were accustomed to the use of figurative numbers & therefore figurative language. 
• We also know that Luke understood Hebrew naming convention, which explains why Saul’s name is changed to Paul, why Nathaniel (John) is called Simon the Zealot in Luke’s corpus, why Matthew’s name is refined & expressed as Matthias, & why James the son of Alphaeus becomes known as Silas after the Jerusalem Council whose verdict had enormous significance relative to the spread of the Gospel & the Apostolic understanding of justification & the role that works play, if any, in the lives of believers.
• Each of these name changes happens at or near a life changing event in the lives of these individuals.   Matthew had just witnessed Yeshua’s ministry, resurrection, & ascension, & was made church treasurer. 
• Saul sees a great light & hears Yeshua speaking to him & repents of his persecutions on the spot.  Not long after, Luke begins referring to him as “Paul.” 
• Luke refers to Nathaniel as “Simon the Zealot,” in Acts & his Gospel.  These names mean “God has heard” (Simon), & Nathaniel means “Gift of God.”  Luke’s use of “Simon the Zealot,” seems to speak to both Nathaniel’s high regard for truth & his function as a gift from God & protector of Israel and the Law & Gospel. 
• Notice that John’s name is in Luke’s list in Acts 1.  Nathaniel’s name in John isn’t listed, but Simon the Zealot’s is. Why? John has a prophetic reason to name Simon the Zealot “Nathaniel.”  In John, he’s a zealot living in a land of angry & very likely disillusioned men.  Both land as a whole & the men of Israel then were in major need of truth therapy. 
• In Mark, we read of a young man who ran away from Gethsemane leaving his linen tunic behind. 
• John, in John, is listed as “the disciple whom Yeshua loved.” (John 13:23).   Mark is a Latin name” meaning “(he who is consecrated to the god of war.”
• Mark informs us that Peter & the young man in a linen garment attempted to follow Yeshua & his captors into the city.  John 18:15 says the same thing, & it indicates that the young man who had followed Yeshua with Peter was able to make his way as far as the high priest’s courtyard.  
• John means “grace of God.” The name emphasizes the mercy of God as a gift. 
• Mark’s gospel centers on the Gospel as Good News.   John’s Gospel emphasizes cosmic redemption & the “Good newsiness” of the cosmic program we call redemptive history in Chapter 3, which focuses on Nicodemus, one of the reform friendly members of the SanhedrinJohn Mark’s mother is Mary. She lived in Jerusalem according to Acts.   This is probably Mary, Yeshua’s mother, with whom Yeshua had entrusted John. 
• In Mark, he is the anonymous young man who ran from Gethsemane.  Why did he run?  Very likely, he ran in order to escape capture & to alert his family & friends about what was happening.    He is, in John, the young disciple whom Yeshua loved & able to gain limited access to the temple during the Sanhedrin’s inquisition. 
• In Acts 1, Luke lays out a list of characters some of whom reappear later in the narrative.   John’s character in the New Testament story follows the “innocence to experience” trajectory.  Luke refines John’s name into John Mark after John has stood before the Sanhedrin with Peter & prevailed, witnessed the stoning of Stephen, & endured the pain of his brother, James death by way of persecution & execution.After these events Luke alters John’s name from “grace/mercy” of God to “he who knows & understands and is dedicated to the god of war.”  In Paul’s eyes, John Mark probably seemed a bit impulsive & / or tied to Mary & his other family members. However, I think is important for us to remember that he went on to travel with Barnabas & probably contribute to Hebrews.   
• As to the Gospels, this means that what we have is two Gospels, one of which is written by Mark & moves quickly, is written in stageable vignettes, & tells the core story that both Matthew & Luke relay.   The other one, John was probably written later in his life & is quite sophisticated, demonstrating that he rose to the challenge educationally (in response to his inquisitors’ attitude in Acts 4).  
• By way of Mark authoring 2 Gospels God is seen to answer text critics, skeptics, & others who assert the Synoptic Gospels tell a different story than John.   Luke changes his name as a means of prophesying over the text as he writes in a manner than informs us that, as the Gospel spread, John Mark grew with it. 

May God bless us all, each & every one, & “Go and sin no more.”