According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on. I would like to know: **For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they?** I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, **who** assigned them. For example: **The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:** 1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region. 2) X2 person or group, ..."" If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another. **The gospel according to Luke... ""** Please give sources, thank you!

I know our Gospel of Mark is anonymous, and I am trying to understand where the traditions of attribution come from. As far as I understand, the tradition is that the Gospel was written by Mark the interpreter of Peter, who would also be the John Mark referred in *Acts of the Apostles* as a companion of Paul who split up with Barnabas at some point. As *Acts* does not state that John Mark became an interpreter of Peter, I assume these are two different claims: - **Claim 1:** "The author of Mark was the interpreter of Peter". - **Claim 2:** "The author of Mark is John Mark, the character from *Acts of the Apostles*". I know that we can trace *Claim 1* one to Papias (though we do not know if he's discussing *our* Gospel of Mark), and later to Irenaeus (who is definitely talking about our Gospel of Mark). But they do not seem to indicate that the author was also John Mark from *Acts of the Apostles*. I have failed to find our first source for *Claim 2*. **I am interested in finding out at which point in history people started assuming that John Mark (the character in *Acts of the Apostles*) is the author of our Gospel of Mark** (or, failing that, at which point people started assuming that John Mark from the Acts of the Apostles became later in his life an interpreter of Peter).

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

I found conflicting sources on the internet: 1. The first source said the Letter to the Galatians was written between 52-55 AD. 2. The second source said it was written between 48-49 AD. Just comparing the dates did not interest me. When I see the relationship with the Jerusalem Council, it becomes more interesting. 1. The first source put the Jerusalem council before the writing of the Galatian letter. 2. The second source put the writing of the Galatian letter before the Jerusalem council. (To be honest, I myself prefer the second source for my own reason). But since I'm not an expert, I wonder at the different timing between two source? **Which source is correct ?**

Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions. Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such. How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?

From the creation until the time of Moses, who documented the events? Abraham? Prophets? Priests?

My pastor mentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man. Where does this concept come from (rather than just written by wise or experienced men)? Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just man's ideas and are indeed God inspired or "written"? Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?

this previous question asks for evidence that points to Deuteronomy being written during the reign of King Josiah. A lot of modern scholarship today suggests that Deuteronomy was a much later work, produced in a much later time period. So what evidence is there that points to Deuteronomy being written before this time? I am willing to accept that Deuteronomy may have some redactions and changes, but lots of liberal scholarship points to it being a much later text, with no relevance to Moses or the first four books of the bible at all. Any general answers that highlight evidence for an early date for Deuteronomy / before the reign of King Josiah are welcome. This question may also naturally lead to the question of authorship, so if that isn’t too broad, feel free to include that in your answers as well if you deem it appropriate.

The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an open question. The common scholarly opinion is that the author certainly wasn't Paul. Most modern Bible translations make no mention of the author, but some older ones such as the King James Version do: > Personally, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have written Heb 2:3-4. In his other letters, he always highlights himself as one of the apostles; here the writer has a very humble attitude and certainly doesn't count himself an apostle. > [**Hebrews 2:3-4 (KJV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:3-4&version=KJV) > 3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; > 4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? Was Paul the author of Hebrews? What supports Pauline authorship?

In [Did John misread the Septuagint? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/90362/did-john-misread-the-septuagint) , we have conflicting views: > … given our belief that Christ dictated the book [of Revelation] … and: > … the vision was from Jesus, but the words were not necessarily dictated, rather they could have been John's own words of what he observed in that vision. What is the division of beliefs among the various denominations regarding scripture?: - The text was literally dictated by God (or holy agent). - The text was the writers' words (except where explicitly stated. E.g. Revelation 2:1's "*Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; …*"), as inspired by God. - The text contains sacred truths, but also human opinions etc. - The text originates solely from the human imagination. Note that I'm not asking which view is correct, only about which major denominations hold which views. Also, I would hope the last category is empty, but it won't be surprising if it isn't.

I recently acquired the Oxford World Classic’s edition of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible with the Apocrypha. I was reading through the introduction when I stumbled upon this very odd and seemingly incorrect passage: >To begin with, as we have just seen, this loose collection of very different kinds of material composed over a period of almost 500 years—including in the Old Testament, history, prophecy, law, devotional verse, proverbs, and even love poetry and fiction, as well as, in the New Testament, letters from named individuals—all had to be placed in a specific order. ![Photo of the Introduction to the Oxford World Classic's edition of the Authorized King James Version with a sentence highlighted ][1] I know very well that the academic consensus on the length of the period in which the entire Bible was composed is roughly 1,300 to 1,500 years, and here in the text, it appears to me that it is stating that it is 500 years. Am I misreading, misinterpreting, or is this a printing error or simply a boldfaced error (in which case I do not feel comfortable moving on with the rest of this edition)?

I've heard arguments by people like Richard Carrier that the author of the Epistle of James is *outside* the category of apostles, meaning that this James is *not* an apostle. And that the James in the Book of Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians was not James the Just but James son of Zebedee. Can you respond to Richard Carrier's argument, which can be seen in [this video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DodGgjkMsZw) ? The reason why I asked you this is because I'm a Christian struggling with my faith and I wanted to ask my brothers in Christ to help me.

I know that the general answer to this question can be found easily. It was added to the Book in 1981, which is when Spencer W Kimball was the president of the Church. So it could probably be said that it was written under his direction - or something like that. However, I'm interested in more information than that. Also, although he did write at least one book I can think of , at that time President Kimball was having health problems which seem to me may have stopped him from doing much more than just approving writing work. I'm wondering if there's any specific information about who wrote the Introduction , who supervised the writing of it, or anything like that - or if it was just anonymously produced "by The Church".

I have been trying to search this on the web and it seems I keep getting conflicting information. Apparently, modern scholars believe the Gospel of Luke was written in the second century AD. If this is true then why do we include it in our Bibles? Why do people read it if it was written much later? And then, I read some info about it being written in the 60s AD. I tried to search this on StackExchange but no luck. Could you help me out?

In viewing and scanning theological literature and commentaries of the past centuries, the four disciples who wrote the Gospels were called "evangelists", the "Four Evangelists". Why were they given this appellation then but not now? Did it have more significance than just "authors" or "disciples then"? Why not the "Four Disciples"? And why do we not see this emphasis or usage of this word to describe them, in very modern Study Bibles and commentaries? Has there been a shift in theology and practice toward "Pastoral Ministry" or "Academic Theology" in recent times? {Additional research in "When was the 'Evangelist' title first applied to the Gospel authors?" *and* "What are the 'gospels' in the Gospels?" }

Papias was a church father from 60-130 AD. It is often said that he represents an authentic chain of tradition back to the original apostles as he has connections to either John, or elders related to the apostles. As such, Papias often becomes a key figure when utilising arguments for the gospels as he affirms Mark as the traditional gospel author (with a Petrine background) and Matthew and so forth. However, he also makes a seemingly odd statement about what Jesus said about the end times and talking vines: > The Lord used to teach about those times and say: "The days will come when vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when crushed will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, "I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me." We find this odd saying nowhere by Jesus in the gospels and scholars believe it to be similar to 2 Baruch . Even Eusebius expresses doubt towards Papias’ views of the millennium and Jesus’ authentic saying. Therefore, does this odd statement from Papias **lower his reliability on the gospel tradition given the lack of attestation and unusualness of this Jesus saying?** *What implications does this bear for gospel authorship and Papias’ role in describing the textual tradition?*

Is it not true that the place of this book in the Jewish bible was not established until sometime in the early Christian era? If that is so, is it not presumptuous to deem it as being among the so-called "Writings" and so equate it with Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs and Psalms? Is it not an incoherent erotic poem? What is inspired about that?

The skeptic, Matthew Wade Ferguson, writes the following at the infidels.org website: > The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, > written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, > after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, > redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a > narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the > faith of their communities. (sourced from here ) If one goggle searches, "historical reliability of the Gospels" an article in Wikipedia pops up which pretty much vindicates the skeptical view that mainstream scholars believe the Gospels are anonymous works. Is it really true that the traditional view of Christian apologists - i.e. that the New Testament was composed by either eyewitnesses are close associates of eyewitnesses of Jesus, is out of step with mainstream scholarship? Are there good reasons, in support of traditional Christianity, to doubt the doubts of the mainstream scholars on this question? And if so, what can be done to free up traditional Christianity from being subject to a type of “Babylonian captivity”?

For example, is the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was "written according to Matthew" considered an infallible **Sacred Tradition** in the Catholic or Orthodox churches?

I have been told that Peter could not read or write. Mark wrote all of Peters’s stories and scriptures. How can I determine if this true?