The Narrow Path Ministries

i have been talking with a debunker who is making a big deal out of the fact that matthew and john, supposed eyewitness accounts, use the 3rd person. he doesnt understand why this would be and therefore questions that they were in fact written by these men. for some reason i have never considered the question before.

does anyone have any thoughts about this?

TK

Writing about oneself in the third person may have been an expression of humility.

You will recall that Paul also wrote about himself in the third person:

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

Would the debunker with whom you were talking, conclude that Paul did not write 2 Corinthians?

good point, paidion. i didnt think of that passage. i'll ask him.

TK

Not to mention, in those very gospels, Jesus often talked about himself in the 3rd person, referring to himself as the "Son of Man" instead of "me" or "I".

You're friends' argument is merely grasping at straws IMO.

indeed he is, christopher! i think deep down he knows it. good point about the way jesus referred to himself. i hadnt thought of that either.

TK

Of course, some might argue that neither Jesus nor Paul were speaking in the third person.

An important question: where do the gospels explicitly claim to be written by the people who are said to have written them?

Shlamaa,
Emmet

An important question: where do the gospels explicitly claim to be written by the people who are said to have written them?

They don't.

Why is this an important question?

Hello, Christopher,

kaufmannphillips: An important question: where do the gospels explicitly claim to be written by the people who are said to have written them?

Christopher: Why is this an important question?

TK: i have been talking with a debunker who is making a big deal out of the fact that matthew and john, supposed eyewitness accounts, use the 3rd person. he doesnt understand why this would be and therefore questions that they were in fact written by these men (emphasis added).

What need is there to rally over something that the text does not even claim for itself?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

Hi Emmet,

What need is there to rally over something that the text does not even claim for itself?

I guess my answer would obviously be that if the authorship is unknown, why should the eyewitness claims be trusted by the church?

But again I would ask, why is it important that these gospels explicitly reveal their authorship internally? Is it not equally (or even more) credible that others in the early church affirmed who wrote them?

It seems to me that if someone is going to contest the authorship of the gospels, the burden of proof lies with them. The use of 3rd person as a proof is a very weak argument IMO and only serves to reveal the prejudice of TK's friend.

Hello, Christopher,

Thank you for your reply.

I guess my answer would obviously be that if the authorship is unknown, why should the eyewitness claims be trusted by the church?

Given that we have, at best, rather limited knowledge about either the (putative) eyewitnesses or the persons who vouch for them (or the persons who vouch for them, etc.), the general line of sourcing is significantly "unknown." So why, indeed, should the "eyewitness claims" be trusted by the church?

Is the faith of the church based upon eyewitness testimony, anyway? As an experienced litigator (or historian) might tell you, such testimony is notoriously fallible.

But again I would ask, why is it important that these gospels explicitly reveal their authorship internally? Is it not equally (or even more) credible that others in the early church affirmed who wrote them?

Internal evidence for authorship is primary; external evidence is secondary. Is it not curious that key leaders of the church would author such documents anonymously, without including their personal testimony and imprimatur? Paul, for example, placed his personal stamp of authority in works he delivered to the churches; likewise John the Revelator. As it is, the closest we have to an embedded imprimatur in the gospels is "John," which nevertheless invokes an unnamed "eyewitness."

As for the testimony of the early church, which specific sources do you mean to introduce in support of assigning authorship to these gospels? These sources provide the basis for gauging credibility.

It seems to me that if someone is going to contest the authorship of the gospels, the burden of proof lies with them. The use of 3rd person as a proof is a very weak argument IMO and only serves to reveal the prejudice of TK's friend.

How often, with Christians, does the "burden of proof" rest with everybody else . Granted, it's an easy way to deflect attention from one's own responsibility to meet a burden of proof.

It is the church that demands a radical redefinition of people's lives and reinvestment of their resources. Such high demands merit a high burden of proof.


Shlamaa,
Emmet