Did Any of the Authors of the Gospels Know Jesus?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Did any of the authors of the Gospels know Jesus in life? My impression is that none of them did. But I'm wondering if that impression is wrong.

Please stick to topic and refrain from debating the question of whether or not Jesus existed. If you want to debate that, start your own thread please.

John and Matthew did. The other two were Mark (Peter's disciples), and Luke (companion of Paul). Either way, you have either the disciples or friends of the disiciples authoring the Gospels.

 

[outhouse]

John and Matthew did..

There is ZERO evidence that took place.


It is the consensus of many historians the authors were unknown.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is ZERO evidence that took place.


It is the consensus of many historians the authors were unknown.

I am going by what the Early Church Fathers, that were not to removed from the scene, tells me...instead of relying on what people 2,000 years removed from the scene are saying.

 

[outhouse]

I am going by what the Early Church Fathers, that were not to removed from the scene, tells me...instead of relying on what people 2,000 years removed from the scene are saying.

Your bias is noted.

The church fathers were FAR removed from Galilean Judaism and the origins of the movement.

They were Hellenist living in the Empire, not Jews from Galilee.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is ZERO evidence that took place.


It is the consensus of many historians the authors were unknown.

Means very little.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your bias is noted.

The church fathers were FAR removed from Galilean Judaism and the origins of the movement. They were Hellenist living in the Empire, not Jews from Galilee

This is the genetic fallacy. Where they lived or whether or not they were "Jews from Galilee" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of their claims. The fact of the matter is, the two people I am refering to (Papias and Ireanus) lived less than 200 years after the cross and they all lived within the Empire...which is a far less cry than individuals like yourself or any "historian" who is speaking on things that happened 2,000 years after the fact and not even within their own state, country, city, town, continent, or region.

 

[outhouse]

This is the genetic fallacy. .

Sorry that is not historically correct.


We have much more information on the topic for husdreds of year prior and hundreds of year after, and differenr geographic locations, these two did not have access to.


They relied on the books themselves for their knowledge, NOT only that, we have no writings from these people. Only later intepretations of their world from other apologist seeking the same belief.


Your showing bias and refuse to debate with any sort of an open mind.

 

[outhouse]

Can you bring anything at all into this debate besides apologetic thinking and bias???

 

[outhouse]

This is from a scholar I do not back or trust. But this is correct


The Formation of the New Testament Canon

The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention, cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark).
All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date.[2] But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D.[3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D.[3a]
This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on. At least some of Paul's epistles can be reasonably taken as dating no more than 16 to 32 years after the oral tradition had begun to flourish after the death of Jesus, although adulteration of those letters by later editors remains possible, and it is also possible that even in Paul's day forgeries were being made and circulated (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2). The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible.

 

[gnostic]

John and Matthew did. The other two were Mark (Peter's disciples), and Luke (companion of Paul). Either way, you have either the disciples or friends of the disiciples authoring the Gospels.

None of the earliest extant copies of the gospels had names of the authors, which really suggest that they were written anonymously. Nor were there any title that say "gospel".

The names were assigned through traditions, from the 2nd half of 2nd century. It is highly doubtful that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the actual authors.

And if we don't know who the real authors, we cannot say that any of authors met Jesus. All we have are guess works, speculations, and reliance on church traditions and writings of Church Fathers far removed from Jesus' time.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The fact of the matter is, the two people I am refering to (Papias and Ireanus) lived less than 200 years after the cross and they all lived within the Empire.

As I said in an earlier post, Papias (about half a century before Irenaeus) only mentions Mark's gospel. And as I also said, if "Luke" were the real Luke, he wouldn't have made a mistake about Paul's actions after his vision on the road to Damascus.

 

[outhouse]

As I said in an earlier post, Papias (about half a century before Irenaeus) only mentions Mark's gospel. And as I also said, if "Luke" were the real Luke, he wouldn't have made a mistake about Paul's actions after his vision on the road to Damascus.

True.

Paul doesnt even tell us he had a Damascus rd incident. He tells us he had a feeling from withim himself.

No miraculous happening at all.

 

[fantome profane]

I am going by what the Early Church Fathers, that were not to removed from the scene, tells me...instead of relying on what people 2,000 years removed from the scene are saying.

Yes at a certain point these books came to be associated with those names. But before that they were considered to be anonymous. You cite these "Early Church Fathers" not because they are the earliest reference we have, and not because they are the best reference we have. You cite them because they confirm your belief. That is nothing more than confirmation bias.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes at a certain point these books came to be associated with those names.

But before that they were considered to be anonymous. You cite these "Early Church Fathers" not because they are the earliest reference we have, and not because they are the best reference we have. You cite them because they confirm your belief. That is nothing more than confirmation bias.

Not at all. First off, at least to my knowledge, they ARE the earliest references we have. Second, two out of the four Gospels (Mark and Luke) weren't even disciples, so what reasons would they have to attribute Mark and Luke to the Gospels that bear their names if it weren't true. The names of Paul and Peter surely carried more weight than their friends (Mark and Luke)...so the fact that Mark and Luke's name, two lesser known individuals that not only weren't one of Jesus' disciples, but they never even MET Jesus..that shows that the Early Church Fathers were unbiased, and not only that, but as I said....I will go by what they said instead of folks living 2,000 years later on a religious forum are saying.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As I said in an earlier post, Papias (about half a century before Irenaeus) only mentions Mark's gospel. And as I also said, if "Luke" were the real Luke, he wouldn't have made a mistake about Paul's actions after his vision on the road to Damascus.

Made a mistake like what?

 

[outhouse]

I will go by what they said instead of folks living 2,000 years later on a religious forum are saying.

Its not forum members.

It is all credible historians and scholars



Yes we understand education and knowledge are bad in your eyes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

None of the earliest extant copies of the gospels had names of the authors, which really suggest that they were written anonymously. Nor were there any title that say "gospel".

True, and no one is disputing that. But there is/were no known competitors regarding the authorship of any of the Gospels. None. The uniform testimony has always been that Matthew and John, two disciples, wrote their books...and Mark and Luke, friends of the apostles wrote their books. The Jews were very meticulous about preserving ancient religious writings and they were a lot closer to the scene, both geographically and time-span wise than anyone that is alive today, and there was no reason to lie about it.

The names were assigned through traditions, from the 2nd half of 2nd century.

Tradition? That is your opinion. Like I said, you sit here 2,000 years removed from the scene trying to say who wrote what, or who didn't write what. I am going by someone that was, no less, 100 years removed from the scene. I will go with what he said.

It is highly doubtful that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the actual authors.

Well, to you. Ok, how about this...we can pretend that no Gospels existed at all, and just by Paul's writings alone, plus the external biblical sources that we have from pagans, we can determine that Jesus was a wise teacher that lived during the reign of Tiberius...he was crucified by Pontius Pilate...when he died a darkness filled the earth...he was raised three days after his death...was seen by his followers...and his followers were persecuted.

So even if you eliminate the Gospels, a case is still made for the historical Jesus. And these external Gospels sources all confirm what the Gospels say (Gospels that we've just eliminated, btw)...coincidentally.

And if we don't know who the real authors, we cannot say that any of authors met Jesus.

Not knowing who the real authors is would not be anything unique with Christianity. We don't know who wrote ANYTHING from antiquity. Neither one of us were there. So don't make it seem as if everything else in history is so certain but once you throw the Gospels in the mix, it is time to put on the skeptical capes. The taxi cab fallacy.

Second, as I JUST mentioned...you can eliminate the Gospels and STILL get the historical Jesus anyway.

All we have are guess works, speculations, and reliance on church traditions and writings of Church Fathers far removed from Jesus' time.

Speculation will be there regardless of whether you study the history of Christianity or anything else in history. Second, if you consider the Church Fathers "far removed from Jesus" time, then you are REALLY "far removed from Jesus' time", and therefore you have no credibility whatsoever to say who wrote what and when, just like you seem to be implying that the Church Fathers don't. Second, even if they were relying on church traditions, that would mean that the traditions date further back than the 95-125AD dates with Papias, and even scholars that date the Gospels late all agree that all the Gospels were written prior to 90AD. So even with that date, the tradition goes right back to when the Gospels were written, because Papias is the earliest source (95-125AD)

So please, stop the madness.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Its not forum members.

It is all credible historians and scholars

Wait a minute, all credible historians and scholars were alive when the Gospels were written??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

True.

Paul doesnt even tell us he had a Damascus rd incident. He tells us he had a feeling from withim himself.

No miraculous happening at all.

But he said that Jesus appeared to him (1Cor 15:3-7). Now whether these two events were the same event or two different events is yet to be known...but according to Paul, he Jesus appeared to him...and no historian disputes whether or not Paul wrote 1Corinthians, so let me stop you before you try to make that lame excuse.

 

[outhouse]

Wait a minute, all credible historians and scholars were alive when the Gospels were written??

Both of the people you mention lived long after the books were written.


And it is only from people who wrote hundreds of years later that we even know what they said.

There is nothing written from either party first hand.


You also do not understand that it was common at that time to attribute books to popular figures.

Your looking at this from two terrible positions, ignorance, and bias.


Any chance you could pick up a book and learn something about the subjects you wish to debate??? Or at least take a class???