Honor and Shame culture and the Bible?

[psstein]

I can't commentate at length right now, but the majority of scholars reject the apostolic authorship of Matthew and John, while Mark seems to have a slight majority in favor. Luke-Acts is a wreck in current scholarship, but as of 4 years ago, most scholars accepted the traditional authorship.

[Adrift]

Which appears to rely on theories in vogue a good 50 years ago.

Actually, if you read the source it cites, it's not even a decent summary at that. Theissen and Merz are far more careful and nuanced with their language, and don't exactly say what the Wikipedia page would have readers believe. The book used as a source is only from 1998, but one aspect of it is outdated, which is a reference to The Secret Gospel of Mark which was later revealed to be a hoax.

[Adrift]

I can't commentate at length right now, but the majority of scholars reject the apostolic authorship of Matthew and John

You've mentioned this before, but from my reading it's not that scholars necessarily reject apostolic authorship (though I imagine some do), it's simply that they hand wave it away as something unknowable with any degree of certainty. I can't remember reading many scholars that literally say, "Matthew was very likely not written by a guy named Matthew, John was very likely not written by a guy named John, etc." Rather they say things like, "the Gospels are anonymous, and we don't know who wrote them". Burridge at least mentions that he believes a Johnahine school wrote John in Four Gospels, One Jesus.

[shunyadragon]

You've mentioned this before, but from my reading it's not that scholars necessarily reject apostolic authorship (though I imagine some do), it's simply that they hand wave it away as something unknowable with any degree of certainty. I can't remember reading many scholars that literally say, "Matthew was very likely not written by a guy named Matthew, John was very likely not written by a guy named John, etc." Rather they say things like, "the Gospels are anonymous, and we don't know who wrote them". Burridge at least mentions that he believes a Johnahine school wrote John in Four Gospels, One Jesus.

Max Ehrman does reject apostolic authorship. The majority of the scholars that propose an unknown authorship, propose that the gospels were written edited and redacted after ~70 AD, and the apostles were no longer living.

[shunyadragon]

"Here" being Wikipedia.

Please note, the article is footnoted with sources. Cursing the source does not change the facts of the source.

[shunyadragon]

Which appears to rely on theories in vogue a good 50 years ago.

They remain the views of scholars today, such as Max Ehrman.

[shunyadragon]

I can't commentate at length right now, but the majority of scholars reject the apostolic authorship of Matthew and John, while Mark seems to have a slight majority in favor. Luke-Acts is a wreck in current scholarship,

but as of 4 years ago, most scholars accepted the traditional authorship.

Source?

[Raphael]

Max Ehrmann was a poet that died 60 years ago, I don't see how anything he says is relevant.

[Adrift]

Max Ehrmann was a poet that died 60 years ago, I don't see how anything he says is relevant.

Huh. Didn't know he was dead. I ate at his restaurant a few months ago. His burgers are on point.

[shunyadragon]

Max Ehrmann was a poet that died 60 years ago, I don't see how anything he says is relevant.

Sorry, Bart Ehrman.

[shunyadragon]

Huh. Didn't know he was dead. I ate at his restaurant a few months ago. His burgers are on point.

Sorry for the typo

Bart Ehrman does reject apostolic authorship. The majority of the scholars that propose an unknown authorship, propose that the gospels were written edited and redacted after ~70 AD, and the apostles were no longer living.

[Roy]

"Here" being Wikipedia.

Yes. So what? Since when did something being on Wikipedia automatically make it incorrect?

[Juice]

If there were authored gospels early, say before 100 AD, you would have external evidence that would name and define the gospels.

Why should we expect this for the Gospels when we don't have it for secular works never questioned? The earliest direct attribution of authorship of the Gallic War to Caesar comes from Suetonius writing about 160 years after it's publication. There are a few brief mentions of Caesar's "memoirs" before this by Cicero and Plutarch but that's it. The first to directly name the Gallic War and attribute it unequivocally to Caesar is Suetonius. Yet no classical historian disputes its authorship.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. So what? Since when did something being on Wikipedia automatically make it incorrect?

Any article on Wikipedia on a topic which is remotely controversial is automatically suspect because anyone can edit it and people with fringe views tend to push their view the hardest.

[Juice]

Any article on Wikipedia on a topic which is remotely controversial is automatically suspect because anyone can edit it and people with fringe views tend to push their view the hardest.

Exactly. Here's the edit history for the page Roy linked to. It's been edited numerous times this year already. All by anonymous contributors. There's a reason no academic paper would dare use Wikipedia as a reference.