Truth without Scripture?

[Mister Emu]

the latest Mark could have been written in AD 60.

AD 60 is ~30 years after the death of Jesus....

 

[Balolho]

Jesus' teachings came first. The Roman historian Tacitus records Him, and his records show that Jesus came first.

Jesus' teachings were not revolutionary. They came from God, and God was giving everyone the chance for salvation. God is not revolutionary. The Bible says He doesn't change.

Okay it's not revolutionary... but you will settle that he is a Jewish religious reformer. In the bible it's Paul teaching that came first. Jesus teachings based on the gospels is a suspect of some kind of plagiarism. The four gospels' almost recorded their verses in the same order or almost verbatim. The gospels are later books than the epistles of Paul. Paul is teaching also about the gospel.

 

[sojourner]

Well, I have to partially disagree with the last paragraph and I have read numerous books about the orgins of the Bible. Yes a great deal of scholarly reports sa that the first gospel was dated around AD but there is definitely evidence in the Bible which suggests they were written earlier. Acts was the 2nd book written by Luke - Paul is a central figure in Acts but it seems as though Acts ends abruptly when Paul is under house arrest. But Acts doesn't indicate anything about the last days of Paul or him dying. WHy? Probably because he was still alive when it was written. This mean it cannot be dated any later than AD 62. And since the gospel of Luke incorporates part of Mark - the latest Mark could have been written in AD 60.

As far as the gospel writes not accurately recording what Jesus said you have to look at people of that time. Obviously, these days, we wouldn't be able to remember specific quotes of somebody. However, you must understand this was an oral culture with much emphasis put on memorization - later Rabbis literally became famouns for having the entire Old testament memorized word for word. Additionally, the way in which Jesus spoke would have helped the ability to memorize as it was in poetic form - meters, balanced lines and parallelism. The "telephone game" is not in question with the gospels.

If Mark were written in 62 c.e., and if Luke is taken from Mark, and if Acts is the second writing of the Lukan author, then Acts would, of necessity, have to be later than Mark. The lack of reporting Paul's death is not cogent here. Why is Paul's death theologically imortant to the message of Acts? Acts is concerned with the founding of the Church, not specifically with Paul's ministry, or the saintliness of his person.

The "telephone game" isn't what I'm talking about. I'm well aware of the fact that oral societies had a highly-reliable capacity for verbatim. I'm talking about the agenda of the various writers, who may have "put words in Jesus' mouth" in order to accomplish their purpose in writing the gospel accounts.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Okay it's not revolutionary... but you will settle that he is a Jewish religious reformer. In the bible it's Paul teaching that came first. Jesus teachings based on the gospels is a suspect of some kind of plagiarism. The four gospels' almost recorded their verses in the same order or almost verbatim. The gospels are later books than the epistles of Paul. Paul is teaching also about the gospel.

Jesus, as a man, was a Jew who brought reforms. Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is where those reforms come from.

The fact that all the Gospels are synoptic (with the exception of John) proves that the persons writing them were either eyewitness or, in the case of Luke, one who obtained his account from someone who was first hand. They're several different accounts of the same occurrence, and do differ in styles of writing. It proves consistency; not plagiarism.

Paul's epistles may have been written earlier (I'm not sure actually), but the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Gospels were already widespread.

 

[lew0049]

If Mark were written in 62 c.e., and if Luke is taken from Mark, and if Acts is the second writing of the Lukan author, then Acts would, of necessity, have to be later than Mark. The lack of reporting Paul's death is not cogent here. Why is Paul's death theologically imortant to the message of Acts? Acts is concerned with the founding of the Church, not specifically with Paul's ministry, or the saintliness of his person.

The "telephone game" isn't what I'm talking about. I'm well aware of the fact that oral societies had a highly-reliable capacity for verbatim. I'm talking about the agenda of the various writers, who may have "put words in Jesus' mouth" in order to accomplish their purpose in writing the gospel accounts.

Well, I highly doubt any of the gospel writers actually believed there stories would be passed down generation to generation like they have. What purpose do you think they had? Just because there was a theological agenda doesn't mean, at all, that they were putting words in His mouth. Look at the Holocaust for example, the most accurate yet objective pieces of writing came from the Jews. Of course they had a theological agenda but to presuppose that there accounts contain fiction is inaccurate.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus, as a man, was a Jew who brought reforms. Yes, I'd agree with that. The question is where those reforms come from.

The fact that all the Gospels are synoptic (with the exception of John) proves that the persons writing them were either eyewitness or, in the case of Luke, one who obtained his account from someone who was first hand. They're several different accounts of the same occurrence, and do differ in styles of writing. It proves consistency; not plagiarism.

Paul's epistles may have been written earlier (I'm not sure actually), but the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Gospels were already widespread.

The fact that the synoptic gospels are synoptic does not, in fact, "prove that the persons writing them were eyewitnesses." What it might prove is that the writers of Matthew and Luke took material from Mark as a source. We're pretty sure that Mark was written first. Mark refers to the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. Therefore, Mark would have to be written post-70 c.e. That would place Mark forty years following the crucifixion. Jesus was about 30 when he was crucified. We can assume that his disciples were about the same age. People back then just didn't live long enough to make an eyewitness account written 40 years after the fact feasible.

 

[sojourner]

Well, I highly doubt any of the gospel writers actually believed there stories would be passed down generation to generation like they have. What purpose do you think they had? Just because there was a theological agenda doesn't mean, at all, that they were putting words in His mouth. Look at the Holocaust for example, the most accurate yet objective pieces of writing came from the Jews. Of course they had a theological agenda but to presuppose that there accounts contain fiction is inaccurate.

Sure they did! Luke states that he has set about to write an orderly account of these occurrences. Why would he do that (in a largely oral culture) if he didn't have posterity in mind as one impetus?

Matthew writes to a Jewish audience. Luke writes to a Gentile audience. Each author has a certain theological issue about Jesus' life that he wants to propagate. Look in luke, chapter 10. Here Jesus makes a statement about hiding information from some people. That statement is quite simply out of character for Jesus. But it does explain a theological thread present in Luke, that is consistent with the audience to which Luke wrote.

 

[lew0049]

Sure they did! Luke states that he has set about to write an orderly account of these occurrences. Why would he do that (in a largely oral culture) if he didn't have posterity in mind as one impetus?

Matthew writes to a Jewish audience. Luke writes to a Gentile audience. Each author has a certain theological issue about Jesus' life that he wants to propagate. Look in luke, chapter 10. Here Jesus makes a statement about hiding information from some people. That statement is quite simply out of character for Jesus. But it does explain a theological thread present in Luke, that is consistent with the audience to which Luke wrote.

As I said though, obviously the gospel writers had a very theological purpose in writing their accounts - nobody in the ancient world wrote history if there wasnt a reason to learn from it. Of course though, there are people who distort history to serve their ideological ends, but to presuppose this is the case would be a mistake.
Luke, the theologian of the social and poor concern.
Matthew, the theologian attempting to understand the relatinship between Christianity and Judaism
Mark, the theologian who shows Jesus as being the suffering servant


And two issues/comments about what you said in the above post and I would say that its important to keep these issues seperate:
First, as I stated earlier, there is good evidence which suggests the gospels were written earlier than AD 70. Regardless though, its important to understand that this would still be in the lifetime of various eyewitnesses and/or hostile eyewitnesses who could have served as corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around.
It is interesting to when you compare the gospel writtings with other biographies in the Ancient world. For example, the biographies of Alexander the Great: the two earliest were written by Arrian and Plutarch. Did you know though that these were written more than 400 years after the death of Alexander the Great? Yes historians still view there writings as generally trustworthy. Legendary material did not surface with Alexander the Great until after these biographies were written.
Go back to the beginning though, to the letters from Paul. Paul incorporates some creeds that go way back to the dawning of the church soon after the Resurrection (phil 2:5 Col 1:15). 1 Corinthians 15 probably being the most important creed in terms of the historical Jesus. Here is the point, if the Crucifixion was AD 30 (hence Pauls conversion around AD 32, meeting Ananians and other disciples probably around AD 35), at some point here Paul was given the creed. So here you see key facts about Jesus death PLUS a detailed list of people to whom He appeared to in resurrected form - all dating back to within 5 years of the events themselves. Now, if we are going to test the characters and/or integrity of the early disciples, you must realize that 10 out of 11 were put to death b/c they were trying to preserve the historical truth/their accounts. Also, lets look at how the gospels differed/were similiar from one to the next: if they were completely identical people who claim that the authors conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories, yet if they differed too much then people who claim that this itself would invalidate them as truths.
Later Jewish writings essentially say that Jesus did perform miracles by calling him a sorcerer who led Israel astray. Instead of saying this, if some of the things weren't true in the gospel writings, this would have been the chance to say that Christians claim Jesus worked miracles but Im here to tell you he didn't.

 

[sojourner]

there is good evidence which suggests the gospels were written earlier than AD 70. Regardless though, its important to understand that this would still be in the lifetime of various eyewitnesses and/or hostile eyewitnesses who could have served as corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around.

There is also good evidence that they were written post-70 c.e. People just didn't live that long back then.

Also, lets look at how the gospels differed/were similiar from one to the next: if they were completely identical people who claim that the authors conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories, yet if they differed too much then people who claim that this itself would invalidate them as truths.

Surely you must realize that the gospels were not as widely distributed and read as you appear to suppose. John is not synoptic. Thomas and Q are similar in places, different in others. It suggests that the community out of which Thomas and Q derive their shared material must have split very, very early, probably prior to 40 c.e. The differing material in Matthew and Luke must have been written post-Mark (which I still assert was written post-70 c.e., since it mentions the destruction of the Temple [which occurred in 70 c.e.]).