Did Any of the Authors of the Gospels Know Jesus?

[Alceste]

Hey, he's your Jesus. Defend him.

Actually, Jewish people are still waiting for their Christ. Jay has no personal stake in an historical Jesus, he's just very well informed.

 

[oldbadger]

When you come out of hiding perhaps you can explain something to me.

I don't agree that the author of G-Mark was actually Mark, but I will put that aside. What evidence do you have that Mark actually knew Jesus personally?

Hi fantome...!
Well........ It was not strong evidence, (what is?) but Cephas was mentor/friend to a young lad, Mark. G-Mark is the only Gospel which makes a point about Officers grasping hold of a youth's clothing at the arrest, a youth who pulled out of his loincloth and ran free, naked. It's an interesting addition, the kind of 'note' that a writer might include because it happened to him.

A hundred years after it was written, Irennaeus (spelling?) made mention that Mark wrote G-Mark, using some of Cephas's notes, I believe.

Forgeting the other gospels for a sec..... How did the Gospel come to be named 'Mark'? Why not one of the disciples' names? There has to be a reason why it was titled G-of-Mark.

 

[oldbadger]

Seems kind of unlikely, given that the writer of Mark didn't even share a language in common with Jesus.

Fair comment....... I think Mark needed to speak Aramaic to share with Jesus, but, Mark was young, and 40 years after Jesus death Mark could have learned much.. Look....... I'm trying...... OK?

Of course, he could have dictated to another person. How many celebrities today write their biographies with a pro-writer?

 

[Alceste]

Fair comment....... I think Mark needed to speak Aramaic to share with Jesus, but, Mark was young, and 40 years after Jesus death Mark could have learned much.. Look....... I'm trying...... OK?

Of course, he could have dictated to another person. How many celebrities today write their biographies with a pro-writer?

Lots. I don't have a horse in this race, but whether or not Mark ever saw Jesus with his own eyes, 40 years is a long time. Put my grandmother in a room with her 13 siblings and ask them about life growing up on the farm. You'll be lucky if it doesn't come to blows.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A hundred years after it was written, Irennaeus (spelling?) made mention that Mark wrote G-Mark, using some of Cephas's notes, I believe.

Specifically …

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6): "This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form."

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

- Early Christian Writings : Mark

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, Jewish people are still waiting for their Christ. Jay has no personal stake in an historical Jesus, he's just very well informed.

Jay seems to have a huge stake in the historical Jesus. Try saying the phrase 'mythical Jesus' in front of him.

As for how informed he might be, I can't say. He seems shy about demonstrating it. That's how it seems to me anyway.

 

[oldbadger]

Specifically …

​

Great piece. Massively helpful. Bloody excellent. Thanks.

 

[Alceste]

Jay seems to have a huge stake in the historical Jesus. Try saying the phrase 'mythical Jesus' in front of him.

As for how informed he might be, I can't say. He seems shy about demonstrating it. That's how it seems to me anyway.

Is it possible that the mythical Jesus theory is not being accepted because a large majority of historians agree that the stories are based on an actual person, and not because people really want that to be true?

Me, I have no personal investment in this at all, so it's a simple thing for me to accept the concensus of experts whose job it is to sort this stuff out.

Actually, what am I saying? It's always easy for me to accept scholarly concensus, whether I care about the issue or not.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is it possible that the mythical Jesus theory is not being accepted because a large majority of historians agree that the stories are based on an actual person, and not because people really want that to be true?

Anything is possible, of course. The moon may yet be made of cheese.

Anyway, the historians definitely want it to be true. That's why I don't trust their conclusions.

As I asked someone else: Do you accept the consensus view of Mormon scholars about the nature of Joseph Smith?

Do you accept the consensus view of Muslim scholars about the nature of Muhammad?

Not me. I'm skeptical. Religion is so deeply infused into every molecule of our being. Virtually the only people who study Christian history are Christians and Jews. Virtually the only people who study Joseph Smith in depth are Mormons.

So when you say 'historians' in your backquote above, that's not exactly accurate. They aren't historians; they're biblical historians. And what sort of young men and women enter the field of biblical scholasticism?

Really, if there is any group of scholars to be distrusted, it is that group.

Me, I have no personal investment in this at all, so it's a simple thing for me to accept the concensus of experts whose job it is to sort this stuff out.

Scholars of the Great Leader of N. Korea have a consensus opinion about Him. If you want to accept that consensus, it's fine, but I think you might get a skewed view of Him. Me, I'm going to continue in my skepticism unless and until they can make compelling arguments backed by good evidence.

 

[Alceste]

Anything is possible, of course. The moon may yet be made of cheese.

Anyway, the historians definitely want it to be true. That's why I don't trust their conclusions.

As I asked someone else: Do you accept the consensus view of Mormon scholars about the nature of Joseph Smith?

Do you accept the consensus view of Muslim scholars about the nature of Muhammad?

Not me. I'm skeptical. Religion is so deeply infused into every molecule of our being. Virtually the only people who study Christian history are Christians and Jews. Virtually the only people who study Joseph Smith in depth are Mormons.

So when you say 'historians' in your backquote above, that's not exactly accurate. They aren't historians; they're biblical historians. And what sort of young men and women enter the field of biblical scholasticism?

Really, if there is any group of scholars to be distrusted, it is that group.



Scholars of the Great Leader of N. Korea have a consensus opinion about Him. If you want to accept that consensus, it's fine, but I think you might get a skewed view of Him. Me, I'm going to continue in my skepticism unless and until they can make compelling arguments backed by good evidence.

I think you have grossly underestimated the variety and complexity of the history nerd community.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think you have grossly underestimated the variety and complexity of the history nerd community.

So you think lots of secular types go into the field of Biblical Studies and Biblical History?

 

[Alceste]

So you think lots of secular types go into the field of Biblical Studies and Biblical History?

It's history I'm talking about, not "Biblical history". (Is that even a thing?) Stuff either did or didn't occur, and is the job of historians, archaeologists and anthropologists to sort that out.

And I do believe that any history nerd worth her paycheque is probably exceptionally curious to work out whether or not our various historical / mythical texts have any basis in actual events, whether we're talking about Jesus, Cleopatra or King Arthur.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's history I'm talking about, not "Biblical history". (Is that even a thing?) Stuff either did or didn't occur, and is the job of historians, archaeologists and anthropologists to sort that out.

Historians can certainly form opinions about whether Cleopatria was actually bitten by an asp or whether not. Whether Socrates drank hemlock or some other poison or none at all or didn't even exist. It's fine for them to do that. But I see no reason to bow to their conclusions. Most of them have a dog in the fight. I tell the story of how I once read a thick biography of Alexander, except I didn't actually read it but listened to it on tape, read by the author. She was an aging British woman, involved for much of her life as an Alexander scholar.

Anyway, when she came to the incident of the Gordian Knot, you could actually hear the outrage in her voice. "Any historian who thinks that Alex cut the knot rather than untying the knot... just hates Alex and isn't doing proper history!" she fairly shouted.

Something like that. It made me realize that historians are just people who make their conclusions based on lots of stuff other than the cold hard facts. So far as I know (or the author knew) Alex may not even have encountered the Gordian Knot. But she was fierce in her defense of his behavior with it.

And I do believe that any history nerd worth her paycheque is probably exceptionally curious to work out whether or not our various historical / mythical texts have any basis in actual events, whether we're talking about Jesus, Cleopatra or King Arthur.

Jesus is different in kind. You must know that.

 

[Alceste]

Historians can certainly form opinions about whether Cleopatria was actually bitten by an asp or whether not. Whether Socrates drank hemlock or some other poison or none at all or didn't even exist. It's fine for them to do that. But I see no reason to bow to their conclusions. Most of them have a dog in the fight. I tell the story of how I once read a thick biography of Alexander, except I didn't actually read it but listened to it on tape, read by the author. She was an aging British woman, involved for much of her life as an Alexander scholar.

Anyway, when she came to the incident of the Gordian Knot, you could actually hear the outrage in her voice. "Any historian who thinks that Alex cut the knot rather than untying the knot... just hates Alex and isn't doing proper history!" she fairly shouted.

Something like that. It made me realize that historians are just people who make their conclusions based on lots of stuff other than the cold hard facts. So far as I know (or the author knew) Alex may not even have encountered the Gordian Knot. But she was fierce in her defense of his behavior with it.



Jesus is different in kind. You must know that.

No, I don't know that. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Cleopatra, King Arthur, Ragnar Lothebrooke, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, etc are all in the same category, as far as I can see. Not in that they are similar mythic characters, or similarly in popularity, but in that the stories have varying degrees of overlap with actual history and are generally accepted by historians to be originally inspired by the lives of real people.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, I don't know that. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Cleopatra, King Arthur, Ragnar Lothebrooke, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, etc are all in the same category, as far as I can see.

OK. I disagree. None of the others were God on earth.

Not in that they are similar mythic characters, or similarly in popularity, but in that the stories have varying degrees of overlap with actual history and are generally accepted by historians to be originally inspired by the lives of real people.

Of course they were probably inspired by the lives of real people. So was Bugs Bunny. He was a wise-cracking pal of the creator of the strip, I'm sure.

I write fiction. All of my characters are 'inspired by real people.'

Except some are inspired by other fictional characters, so....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Poor guy. He's trying so hard.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

(Poor guy. He's trying so hard.)

Since none of the gospel writers knew him, why do you think he was/is trying so hard?

 

[Desert Snake]

No, I don't know that. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Cleopatra, King Arthur, Ragnar Lothebrooke, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, etc are all in the same category, as far as I can see. Not in that they are similar mythic characters, or similarly in popularity, but in that the stories have varying degrees of overlap with actual history and are generally accepted by historians to be originally inspired by the lives of real people.

Nifty. Have you researched the OP question yourself?
Because some people who have, have come to a different conclusion than jay, so....

have you??...........
Btw, I suppose you ignored Peggs post..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nifty. Have you researched the OP question yourself?

Speaking of (thoroughly hypocritical) calls for research, let's get back to …

the reason people think they didn't know jesus is just a time-frame factor, considering that some were family.....it would be quite strange if they didn't know him.

… why not clear up that preposterous drivel before trying to taunt someone?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, I don't see any evidence that they did. If he was so important in their lives, then they surely could've written about him during their lifetime instead of waiting many decades to get to it.