Atheists acknowledging historical Jesus' goodness

[Brian2]

Well Matthew sourced Mark and then added what he wanted. 97% of the original Greek is verbatim in Matthew. The Synoptic Problem has been largely decided based on the work of Marc Goodacre. But this is also up to 50 years after the time of Jesus and it's all in the Greek OT. There is much more detailed information in papers that demonstrate how scholars know the Septuagint was used. But the idea that someone gave a sermon that long and 50 years later someone remembered it is not possible. Also Matthew definitely used Mark so he wasn't remembering any words from a Jewish Rabbi. He was re-working Mark because he probably thought he could do a better job.

This is before Goodacre really put this to rest but there are several strong arguments as to why Mark is the source. They use Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction as source material.

The Wiki entry says - Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[16][17]
They source a professor in religion and an independent writer as sources so not perfect. This was Bart Ehrmans stance also who is a proper peer-reviewed historian. But the new scholarship does away with Q and M.

So Matthew isn't writing anything he heard.



Not in Biblical scholarship? The earliest fragment from the 3rd century is Greek. He also wrote for a Greek speaking audience.

There is attestation from the early Church that Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew and for whom the gospel was written.
Was Matthew’s Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

This of course would have been translated and if the Greek of Matthew is educated then an educated translator could explain that.
Why would the Aramaic or Hebrew writing of Matthew be ignored by scholars along with the audience that he was writing to?
To me it sounds like another naturalistic methodology that is employed in the dating and authorship of the synoptic gospels, which all have the temple destruction prophecy (70AD). So evidence is ignored because of this presumption it seems.

That the Septuagint was used is no problem if the Septuagint was in common use in those days in Israel, as it seems to have been.
That the teachings of Jesus were made up from things said in the Septuagint is something I have seen no evidence for. But of course Jesus was teaching the same moral values that the OT taught.

Yes beliefs, but is there evidence? The OT was canonized during the 2nd Temple Period and messianic world saviors, virgin born to human parents was a myth in the Persian religion. Saviors providing salvation to get souls to heaven was also a Greek invention (both cultures occupied the Israelites leading up to Christianity) but the Hebrews began to make predictions they too would be getting their own savior.

The prophecies of a Messiah came way before the 2nd Temple period.

The NT authors used the OT narratives in creating stories so they were writing the NT to be an update. Of course this was the chance to bring all the popular myths into Judaism. There also was a new Judaism being taught which is what is credited as the teachings of Jesus. But it's clear Rabbi Hillel was teaching this before Jesus would have been doing sermons.

Certainly Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. Are you turning that around with a presumption that Jesus did not exist, so the story of Jesus had to have been made up, so OT prophecies were used as source material for the life and death and resurrection of Jesus?
Hillel was not teaching a new Judaism but he seems closer to some of Jesus teachings than other Jews of his time.
Why would anyone want to say that the teachings of Jesus were copied from Hillel?
I know, you start off with the view that Jesus did not exist as recorded in the Gospels and so you need a source for what Jesus said, considering the teachings of Jesus were not things that just anyone could just make up.

 

[shunyadragon]

Elon Musk

Margherita Hack, Italian astrophysicist. Staunch atheist, said: I do not believe in God because I find the notion itself absurd, it is a human invention. I live perfectly without believing in God. I don't need God to behave good towards the others. Jesus' figure is essential. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"...it is extraordinary.

- What do you guys think?

Atheists admire many religious and well known figures in history for their 'goodness?' such as Buddha, St Francis, Gandhi, and Confucius.

Actually, the words of goodness from Christ are traditional in Judaism, and many Jews today are atheists or agnostic.

 

[joelr]

There is attestation from the early Church that Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew and for whom the gospel was written.
Was Matthew’s Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

Why would you disregard biblical historians and go to an apologetics site?

Bart Ehrman:
There was a long tradition throughout early and medieval Christianity that maintained that Matthew – commonly called the “most Jewish” of the Gospels – was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Given its heightened Jewish concerns (see, for example, 5:17-20, verses found in no other Gospel), wasn’t it probably written to Jews in their native language?

There are two preliminary points to be made. First, a number of scholars doubt if Matthew, or his community, was Jewish. It is widely thought, instead, that Matthew portrays a Jesus who insists that his followers keep the Jewish law precisely because they were not accustomed to doing so, that is, that they are gentiles who have entered into a Christian community and are just learning that this community needs to follow the dictates of Scripture.

Second, even if Matthew and his audience were Jewish, that would not be evidence that he wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic. Very few people wrote in Hebrew at this time, since the language of Palestine was Aramaic (a closely related language). But there is little to suggest that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Palestine or to Aramaic speakers. Few Jews outside of Palestine spoke Aramaic, and Jewish literature from outside (think Josephus, or Philo) was written in Greek.

There are compelling reasons for thinking Matthew wrote in Greek as well. Here is one. Since the 19th century it has been widely thought (on very convincing grounds that I won’t go into here) that Matthew used as one of his sources for his stories about Jesus the Gospel of Mark. That would explain their massive word-for-word agreements in places. But Mark was certainly composed in Greek. Matthew therefore had to use a Greek version of Mark. He copied it in places. In Greek. As a consequence, he must have been writing in Greek as well. There’s no other plausible explanation for his verbatim alignments with Mark.

This of course would have been translated and if the Greek of Matthew is educated then an educated translator could explain that.
Why would the Aramaic or Hebrew writing of Matthew be ignored by scholars along with the audience that he was writing to?
To me it sounds like another naturalistic methodology that is employed in the dating and authorship of the synoptic gospels, which all have the temple destruction prophecy (70AD). So evidence is ignored because of this presumption it seems.

Please stop with this "naturalistic methodology" thing. If scholars read the Quran and didn't use a "naturalistic methodology" and announced that this was now the official religion of the world and all Christian churches were converting to Islam because the updates are clear and you cannot argue with an angel sent by God, you would probably be the first to say "there isn't enough evidence to show Islam is real and updating Christianity???? YOu need evidence.....!."
You need evidence of supernatural happenings. A prophecy that says a man named Hitler will kill 6 million Jews and will work with Japan to destroy the world. An atomic weapon stops them. Created by a man who discovered E=Mc2.
Not the same old language and prophecies used since the Sumerians. There is no reason to believe any of the 4000 religious claims of miracles and prophecies. Same with all psychics, mediums, remote viewers, NO EVIDENCE TO WARRANT BELIEF. The amount of special pleading you do for your beliefs is insane.

 

[joelr]

That the Septuagint was used is no problem if the Septuagint was in common use in those days in Israel, as it seems to have been.
That the teachings of Jesus were made up from things said in the Septuagint is something I have seen no evidence for. But of course Jesus was teaching the same moral values that the OT taught.

Right, except I just copied words from a peer-reviewed Jesus historicity study by a PhD historian. And I told you there are historical papers that demonstrate this. Instead of thinking "I should follow Biblical history" you just go "meh, haven't heard anything bout that..." Yeah, in church? Or Bible study? Or the fundamentalist apologist websites?

The prophecies of a Messiah came way before the 2nd Temple period.

The OT was canonized and revised during the 2nd Temple Period. I have already linked to Professor Stravopolou explaining this. Now on to Bart Ehrman:
Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies – Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus?
November 8, 2015


In my previous post I started to explain why, based on the testimony of Paul, it appears that most Jews (the vast majority) rejected the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah.

I have to say, that among my Christian students today (most of them from the South, most of them from conservative Christian backgrounds), this continues to be a real puzzle.

“But there were prophecies of Jesus being the messiah,” they argue. “Hundreds of Old Testament passages, such as Isaiah 53, describe him to a tee.”

They genuinely can’t figure it out.

What About Old Testament Messianic Prophecies?
In their view, the Old Testament makes a number of predictions about the messiah:

• he would be born in Bethlehem
• his mother would be a virgin
• he would be a miracle worker
• he would be killed for the sins of others
• he would be raised from the dead

These are all things that happened to Jesus! How much more obvious could it be? Why in the world don’t those Jews see it? Are they simply hard-headed and rebellious against God? Can’t they *read*? Are they stupid???

What is very hard to get my students to see (in most cases I’m, frankly, completely unsuccessful) is that the authors of the New Testament who portrayed Jesus as the messiah are the ones who quoted the Old Testament in order to prove it, and that they were influenced by the Old Testament in what they decided to say about Jesus, and that their views of Jesus affected how they read the Old Testament.

The reality is that the so-called “messianic prophecies” that are said to point to Jesus never taken to be messianic prophecies by Jews prior to the Christians who saw Jesus as the messiah. The Old Testament in fact never says that the messiah will be born of a virgin, that he will be executed by his enemies, and that he will be raised from the dead.

Messianic Prophecies in Isaiah?
My students often don’t believe me when I say this, and they point to passages like Isaiah 7:14 (virgin birth) and Isaiah 53 (execution and resurrection). Then I urge them to read the passages carefully and find where there is any reference in them to a messiah. That’s one of the problems (not the only one).

These passages are not talking about the messiah. The messiah is never mentioned in them. Anyone who thinks they *are* talking about the messiah, has to import the messiah into the passages, because he simply isn’t there.

I should stress that no one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future messiah.

Then why are they read (by Christians) as if referring to the messiah? What happened is this: ancient Christians (within a couple of decades of Jesus’ death) who believed that Jesus *was* the messiah necessarily believed that Jesus fulfilled Scripture. They, therefore, began to read passages of the Old Testament as predictions of Jesus. And so the interpretation of these passages was changed so that they were now seen as foretelling the birth, life, and death of Jesus.

Once those passages are read that way, it is very hard indeed to read them the way they had been read before. When Christians read Isaiah 53, they simply can’t *help* but read it as a prediction of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. But for those who read the passage just for what it has to say, it does not appear to be about the messiah. (You’ll note that the term “messiah” never occurs in it.)

Are These Prophecies Really Messianic?
So that is one problem with Christians using the Old Testament to “prove” that Jesus is the messiah. They are appealing to passages that do not appear to be about the messiah. The other is the flip side of the coin. Christians who think that Jesus fulfilled predictions of the Old Testament base their views, in no small measure, on what the Gospels say about Jesus’ life: He was born in Bethlehem. His mother was a virgin. He healed many people. He was rejected by his own people. He was silent at his trial. And so on – there are lots of these “facts” from Jesus’ life, it is thought, that fulfilled Scripture. But how do we know that these are facts from Jesus’ life?

The only way we know is (or think we know it) is because authors of the New Testament Gospels claim that these are the facts. But are they? How do we know that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem? That his mother was actually a virgin? That he was actually silent at his trial? And so forth and so on? We only know because the Gospels indicate so. But the authors of the Gospels were themselves influenced in their telling of Jesus’ story by the passages of Scripture that they took to be messianic predictions, and they told their stories in the light of those passages.

Take Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. A couple of times on the blog I’ve talked about how problematic it is to think that this is a historical datum. It’s true that both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in that small village. But Mark and John do not assume that this is true, but rather that he came from Galilee, from the village of Nazareth. Moreover, Matthew and Luke *get* Jesus born in Bethlehem in radically different and contradictory ways, so that for both of them he is born there even though he comes from Nazareth. Why don’t they have a consistent account of the matter?

It is almost certainly because they both want to be able to claim that his birth was in Bethlehem, even though both of them know for a fact he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth. Then why do Matthew and Luke want to argue (in different ways) that he was born in Bethlehem? It is because in their view — based on the Old Testament prophet Micah 5:2 — that’s where the messiah had to come from. And so for them, Jesus *had* to come from there. They aren’t recording a historical datum from Jesus’ life; they are writing accounts that are influenced by the Old Testament precisely to show that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament.

You can go through virtually all the alleged messianic prophecies that point to Jesus and show the same things: either the “prophecies” were not actually predictions of the future messiah (and were never taken that way before Christians came along) or the facts of Jesus’ life that are said to have fulfilled these predictions are not actually facts of Jesus’ life.

One fact about Jesus life is certain: he was crucified by the Romans. And that was THE single biggest problem ancient Jews had with Christian claims that Jesus was the messiah. There was not a Jew on the planet who thought the messiah was going to be crushed by his enemies — humiliated, tortured, and executed. That was the *opposite* of what the messiah would do. To call Jesus the messiah made no sense — i.e., it was nonsense – virtually by definition. And that was the major reason most Jews rejected the Christian claims about Jesus.


Except I will say this is where Ehrman loses me. Jesus died because he was a Greek savior demigod. So many scholars write about the Hellenistic connection with the exception of Ehrman. He doesn't like to look into that part of the history. The Jewish messiah would not be killed but the Hellenistic saviors did, Ehrman seems to disregard that last century, I dont know why? Jesus is 100% a Hellenistic savior. That list I provided fits Jesus and Yahweh 100%.
I think he means strictly in Judaism a messiah would not be killed by his enemies.

Certainly Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. Are you turning that around with a presumption that Jesus did not exist, so the story of Jesus had to have been made up, so OT prophecies were used as source material for the life and death and resurrection of Jesus?

Oh definitely. Through the synoptic problem we now know that Mark is the source. But through Mark we find all of his sources. He uses Pauls letters extensively and much of the OT narratives. In the crucifixion narrative Mark uses Psalms:
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. Mark also re-writes Kings.
It's full of triadic ring structure, chiasmus and other literary elements only found in fiction. It's too much to get into.
There is a blog article based on peer-reviewed scholarship that covers some of this:
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark


and there are dozens of examples of Marks use of the Epistles taken from papers on the subject:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

We have so much of Marks sources that there isn't even room for oral tradition.

Also Mark has his main character teach in parables and he explains that he teaches this way, telling the reader the story is a parable.

In the Carrier article he covers a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. It's also not something that happens in real life, it's fiction. Mark is writing from the Greek school where all these devices were popular.
Jesus may have been a Rabbi teaching Hillilite Judaism but Mark seems to be complete myth.

 

[joelr]

Hillel was not teaching a new Judaism but he seems closer to some of Jesus teachings than other Jews of his time.
Why would anyone want to say that the teachings of Jesus were copied from Hillel?

If Jesus was a real person than he was a teacher like Hillel. Most likely the Hillite teachings were popular and that philosophy was used for the Jewish version of the Greek dying/rising savior.
Hillel was a generation before Jesus and was teaching all the things people think of today when Jesus is mentioned?

He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"[4] and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow." That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; now go and learn."[5] This rule is also known to be considered as Leviticus 19:18: וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ "Love your fellow as you love yourself."
The Golden Rule
Love of peace
Obligations to self and others
Other maxims[edit]

• "Don't trust yourself until the day you die".[21]
• "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."[21]
• "Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[24]
• "A name gained is a name lost."[25]
• "Where there are no men, strive to be a man!"[26]
• "My humiliation is my exaltation; my exaltation is my humiliation

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

I know, you start off with the view that Jesus did not exist as recorded in the Gospels and so you need a source for what Jesus said, considering the teachings of Jesus were not things that just anyone could just make up.

As we see Hillite Judaism covers all of it combined with wisdom in the OT.

But if you read the material on Mark it's very clear where everything came from. You wouldn't need to make anything up? The theology is Greek and Persian and the rest is Jewish wisdom.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is attestation from the early Church that Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew and for whom the gospel was written.
Was Matthew’s Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Attestation of the early Church does not justify the Book of Matthew as it is existing before 50 AD. There is absolutely no evidence they were dealing with an original Matthew gospel. The evidence is that Matthew and the other synoptic gospels are evolved compiled and edited texts likely beginning as a simple gospel (maybe Q) and sayings text

This, of course, would have been translated and if the Greek of Matthew is educated then an educated translator could explain that.

Actually no, you are assuming the existence of an original Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew to begin with, and no evidence that this is the case.

Why would the Aramaic or Hebrew writing of Matthew be ignored by scholars along with the audience that he was writing to?

It is not ignored. You are overstating who and when wrote Mathtew.

. . . To me it sounds like another naturalistic methodology that is employed in the dating and authorship of the synoptic gospels, which all have the temple destruction prophecy (70AD). So evidence is ignored because of this presumption it seems.

It sounds to me . . like.will get you a McDonalds's cup of coffee for 2 bucks unless you are over 60. Your naturalist theology makes too many assumptions that the gospel or gospels were compiled before 50 AD as they are found today. The evidence does not support your case.

That the Septuagint was used is no problem if the Septuagint was in common use in those days in Israel, as it seems to have been.

That the teachings of Jesus were made up from things said in the Septuagint is something I have seen no evidence for. But of course Jesus was teaching the same moral values that the OT taught.

The evidence is clear the teachings of Jesus are from the Septuagint and early Hebrew wisdom.

The prophecies of a Messiah came way before the 2nd Temple period.

True, but fulfillment is seriously in question.

Certainly Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. Are you turning that around with a presumption that Jesus did not exist, so the story of Jesus had to have been made up, so OT prophecies were used as source material for the life and death and resurrection of Jesus?

The prophecies exist, at least some, but the claim of fulfillment is open to serious question

Hillel was not teaching a new Judaism but he seems closer to some of Jesus teachings than other Jews of his time.
Why would anyone want to say that the teachings of Jesus were copied from Hillel?
I know, you start off with the view that Jesus did not exist as recorded in the Gospels and so you need a source for what Jesus said, considering the teachings of Jesus were not things that just anyone could just make up.

Not necessarily made up, but for the most part, found in the Septuagint and early Hebrew traditions.

 

[LuisDantas]

- What do you guys think?

To talk about a historical Jesus is to indulge in wishful thinking.

At this point in history it is still a bit taboo to consider that Jesus may have been (and IMO always was) a fully fictional character. But the evidence of its existence as a literal person is feeble under the most charitable light, while the scriptural texts are full of hints that he probably was not an existing person but rather a symbol.

 

[shunyadragon]

To talk about a historical Jesus is to indulge in wishful thinking.

Yes as far as the Biblical Jesus is based on belief .in the reliability of the gospels.

At this point in history, it is still a bit taboo to consider that Jesus may have been (and IMO always was) a fully fictional character. But the evidence of its existence as a literal person is feeble under the most charitable light, while the scriptural texts are full of hints that he probably was not an existing person but rather a symbol.

I believe there is evidence for a person Jesus is historically likely but of course, not documented at the time he lived. The collective records of the believers handed down early acknowledged the existence of a person Jesus they believed in, but that is insufficient to justify the certainty of a historical Biblical Jesus. Exaggeration and glorifying adding miracles is common in reverence of figures in history, ie Buddha, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great, There were likely many claiming to have Messianic claims or just claiming the time is nigh for Messianic fulfillment. Any of these claims can put someone before a Roman tribunal court and be executed by crucifixion for treason against Rome.

It is obvious that the Role of the Romans in the death of Jesus was whitewashed in the gospels to absolve Romans from responsibility for the execution of Jesus, but crucifixion is ONLY a Roman punishment for rebellion and treason against Rome. Jesus had to have been convicted in Roman Court or tribunal and executed under Roman Law.

The better argument against the Biblical Jesus is the created composite from a lesser figure Jesus to fit the Jewish Messianic figure, eventually portrayed in the NT from the Greek and Roman perspective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The genetic sources of our morality have been the subject of focused study going back to at least the 1990s. Here's a summary of one such experiment (from Mariano Sigman's The Secret Life of the Mind (2015) pp. 31-2) ─

One of the simplest and most striking scientific experiments to demonstrate babies' moral judgments was done by Karen Wynn in a wooden puppet theater with three characters: a triangle, a square and a circle. In the experiment, the triangle goes up a hill. Every once in a while it backs up only later to continue to ascend. this gives an impression that the triangle has an intention (climbing to the very top) and is struggling to achieve it [...] we spontaneously assign it beliefs and create narrative explanations of what we observe.

A square shows up in the middle of this scene and bumps into the triangle on purpose, sending it down the hill. Seen with the eyes of an adult, the square is clearly despicable. As this scene is replayed, the circumstances change. While the triangle is going up, a circle appears and pushes it upwards. To us the circle becomes noble, helpful and gentlemanly [...]

After watching one object helping the triangle climb the hill, and the other bumping it down, infants were encouraged to reach for one of them. Twenty-six of the twenty-eight (twelve out of twelve six-month-olds) chose the helper [...]
​

Such repeatable experiments are the basis of the observation that part of our morality is from our genes.

Yeah, that is a part. But there is more for in effect socialization for nurture and even nature in other senses.

 

[Sand Dancer]

If you read the preamble of the USA Constitution,

there are things which Jesus preached: justice, peace, common welfare, freedom.

I wish more Christians focused on those things.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Men of war will create a God of war. Men of peace will create a God of peace.
I believe Yahweh was a God of war because the warriors of that time created him in a way that reflected their values during that time. I believe Jesus was a God of peace because those same people many years later became a bit more peaceful and needed to invent a God that reflected their change in values during that time.

And many Christians judge the NT by Yahweh's standards instead of judging
the OT against Jesus's standards.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, that is a part. But there is more for in effect socialization for nurture and even nature in other senses.

The point is that the basics of our morality that i mentioned are built in. In particular, they don't require a god as an explanation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The point is that the basics of our morality that i mentioned are built in. In particular, they don't require a god as an explanation.

Yeah, but it is not enough in practice, because it doesn't stop religion, since it is also a natural behaviour.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but it is not enough in practice, because it doesn't stop religion, since it is also a natural behaviour.

Religion appears to arise from the evolved human response of fitting sensory input into a narrative, and instinctively devising that narrative where the input is otherwise unexplained.

 

[blü 2]

There is attestation from the early Church that Matthew wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew and for whom the gospel was written.
Was Matthew’s Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

The problem with the quote from Irenaeus in your link is that neither he nor anyone else knew who in fact wrote any of the gospels.

And if gMatthew is a translation from Aramaic into Greek, why does it draw so heavily on the Greek of Mark?

So I leave that question in my "Unlikely" drawer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion appears to arise from the evolved human response of fitting sensory input into a narrative, and instinctively devising that narrative where the input is otherwise unexplained.

Yeah, that is one way to see it. The other is that religion is a part of how humans deal with being human in the existential sense.

 

[Brian2]

The problem with the quote from Irenaeus in your link is that neither he nor anyone else knew who in fact wrote any of the gospels.

Why do you say that when the article also says:
Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

And if gMatthew is a translation from Aramaic into Greek, why does it draw so heavily on the Greek of Mark?

Papias also wrote, “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15).
It could have been that Mark was first, in Greek but with some Aramaic expressions also and that Matthew used Mark to write his Aramaic gospel and that either Matthew used Mark again to write a Greek gospel or that the translator of Matthew used Mark while translating. Or something else may have happened. Both Matthew and Mark may have obtained material from a common source, usually called Q. Nobody really knows but we do have early quotes which tell us Mark interpreted Peter and Matthew wrote an Aramaic gospel.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, that is one way to see it. The other is that religion is a part of how humans deal with being human in the existential sense.

That indeed is much the same idea, but I'd say my version was more specific.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That indeed is much the same idea, but I'd say my version was more specific.

Yeah, but sensory input leads to the 3 different variants of empiricism and how that relates to truth. And we do that differently.

 

[blü 2]

Why do you say that when the article also says:
Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

But he had no better information than anyone else. With the exception of Paul, the authors of the books and letters of the NT are all unknown, according to historical scholarship going back more than a century.

Papias also wrote, “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15).

We don't know who wrote Mark. We do know that whoever wrote it did so around 75 CE, some 45 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death.

It could have been that Mark was first, in Greek but with some Aramaic expressions also and that Matthew used Mark to write his Aramaic gospel and that either Matthew used Mark again to write a Greek gospel or that the translator of Matthew used Mark while translating. Or something else may have happened. Both Matthew and Mark may have obtained material from a common source, usually called Q. Nobody really knows but we do have early quotes which tell us Mark interpreted Peter and Matthew wrote an Aramaic gospel.

Yes, but none of them is contemporary, and we're left with what modern scholarship can tell us. And it tells us we don't know any of the authors except Paul.