Who wrote the Gospels

[Twilight Hue]

You said it all, when you said, it's like saying some holy guy)
You just told on yourself.
Now why would I want to waste my time with you. Go Figure

Well it's true. Christians are so keen on names when it comes to the many figureheads mentioned in the Bible, yet strangely enough discount any names responsible for the centralized book that mentions the biblical figures by which adherents base the entire Christian faith upon. Imagine if every character in the Bible was portrayed as this guy or that guy or that girl or that woman.....

 

[Grandliseur]

I have no need for either conservative or liberal Christian to define for me the love in my heart.

Neither do I.

 

[DAX1942]

Many Christian conservatives believe that two of the Gospels, Matthew and John were written by disciples who were first hand witness to the words of Jesus they heard. Many scholars argue that none of the Gospel writers were actual witnesses any of the events they wrote.

What is the evidence that would support these conflicting views?

To what extent if any does it matter whether the Gospels were eye witnesses or not?

The "gospels" were developed over centuries of Papal "Recensions", that is changing the various story lines to fit the current political climates. These changes were recorded as "Devine Inspiration". 1st Century writer Celsus sheds light on the building cults of Christianity and how people of that time could not understand changing their worship of Mitra to the worship of a dead person. The Council of Nicea set the direction for future Recensions.

 

[oldbadger]

Many Christian conservatives believe that two of the Gospels, Matthew and John were written by disciples who were first hand witness to the words of Jesus they heard. Many scholars argue that none of the Gospel writers were actual witnesses any of the events they wrote.

What is the evidence that would support these conflicting views?

To what extent if any does it matter whether the Gospels were eye witnesses or not?

Hi.... again.
The stories from the gospels mostly have basis in fact but there was only one partial witness, I reckon.

IMO only G-Mark may have been written by a partial witness. A most interesting anecdote in the arrest description could only have been written by the person who experienced it because the disciples were scattering for their lives and the Temple authorities would not have been interested enough to pass the incident on to gospel writers even if they ever got the chance.
Mark {14:50} And they all forsook him, and fled. {14:51} And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body;] and the young men laid hold on him: {14:52} And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
There you go, a memory never to be forgotten, and included in the account for personal reasons only? That was Mark!

Matthew was not a disciple, imo, nor a sub-tax officer (publican). (Levi was the sub tax officer, no doubt of senior family and not a local person, just a very nice bloke.) And Matthew needed to copy other accounts to make up his gospel = not a witness!

Luke was a doctor and an acquaintance of Paul's so no eye witness..... anyway, look at the copied story! He didn't even have a first hand story to tell! Not a witness!

G-John........ oh bless him! But he took a clutch of anecdotes and somehow bundled them together into a garbled timeline, discarding demon casting tales as beneath his God and making up 'back from the dead' tales as a reason for Jesus's arrest because he couldn't bring himself to describe the mayhem, criminal damage and picketing that Jesus really caused.

Ergo...... lots of plausible stories from the non-witnesses but only one partial witness account?

 

[oldbadger]

1st Century writer Celsus sheds light on the building cults of Christianity......................

Celcius copied by Origam and supported the existence of Jesus, describing his disciples as ten boatmen and two tax officers, which fits perfectly.
He described all as peasants but sub-tax officers (in Antipas's provinces) would have been Jews from outside the areas which they covered, of junior rankings within the Levite families........ Oh......... yeah...... one of their names was Levi.... fancy that!
I reckon the other sub-tax officer was Judah BenSimeon, known to the disciples from his ruthless past as Judah Sicario. Clearly from out of area? Definitely a money man since he held the group's money bag? Clearly a deadly person.

 

[oldbadger]

And since they STILL didn't know Greek or Hebrew, they had to trust what James' translators were paid to say. Convenient, no?
Sales don't equal truth.

Ah......... yes.
This clearly demonstrated by most characters in the gospels being given Latin or Greek names! As an HJ nerd this irritates me because Jesus and most of his disciples were Galilean and therefore only spoke Eastern Aramaic. It is unlikely that they were literate.
And so we even have to begin by guesstimating what most of their names realy were.

I reckon that only Mark was a partial witness, all the others just copied other reports which can't give them a strong case as witnesses.

But there's one angle that I cling to and that is the very strange fact that verses which cause embarrassment to the Christian cause (imo) were faithfully copied out and kept, so somebody was clearly scared stiff of either God or the guvnors! Then again, details got erased from earliest accounts such as the first name of Barrabas etc etc.

Why do I do this? There was always model-making....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That unbelievers mock and make unholy claims about the Bible is not surprising, but is to be expected.

What we do is point out the flaws in the Bible that identify it as human in origin, not divine. Yes, that is to be expected.

And it is desirable, at least to those who care that what they believe is correct.

Wouldn't you want to know if the main thrust of the Bible were wrong if it were?

When people exist only some 72 years after WWII who do not believe the concentration camps happened and that the Nazis exterminated millions of people in their camps, including Jews - it is obvious that it is so much easier to cast doubt on something that happened nearly 2000 years ago,

The degree of certitude attached to any idea should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence. The evidence for the Holocaust is robust. The evidence for the biblical accounts is weak.

Think how much would need to be true if the Holocaust were a hoax. How do you account for the concentration cams and ovens, the tattoos on holocaust survivors, multiple former prisoner identifying the same war criminals and their crimes, and the Nuremburg trials?

Now think how little needs to be true for the Bible to be a hoax. How little needs to be true for the Qur'an to be one? I presume that you consider the Qur'an mythology and fiction, and I would agree with you if you did.

Yet it has as much or more evidence than the Christian Bible.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Just look at the terrible Windows being updated relentlessly to improve it. Yet, atheists claim shamelessly that our DNA programming is auto-written.

Have you seen deformities? Surely we run on Windows.

If then we have people who claim that the holocaust is all lies (Illuminati conspiracy or the like) being only about 72 years ago that the evidence was brought out, how do you expect things nigh 2000 years old to have the nailed down evidence you demand? This means that the Bible critics, the unbelievers have a field day in proposing God is man made and his word that of shepherds, uneducated and uninspired.

If people can believe lies after less than a hundred years, how likely is it to be wrong after a couple thousand?

Here I find people who reject the Bible because of skepticism they claim necessary - lacking this same essential skepticism in regard to the rock soup that interacted with oceans in hot sea bottom vents and miraculously created life, DNA, that then kept on reinventing itself, rewriting itself until we have sexes, and an uncountable multitude of organisms simple and ultra complex in balanced ecosystems, climaxing with a human brain that is supposed to work in up to 10 or 11 dimensions according to some science article.

Science has data. The bible doesn't, at least it has as much as every other myth out there. It doesn't even have the best written myths, filled to overflowing with obvious tropes, inconsistencies in plot and characterizations and settings, and author biases.

One period, one semicolon off, and you could spend hours trying to debug the program written going through the whole program line by line to finally 3 hours later, or so, finding one irritating period lacking.

Again, if you are of a religion that promotes lots of pretty pictures instead of an objective look at reality, I can see why you think you are thinking we are better programmed than a Sim.

The point is that if people only about 72 years later can dismiss something as fictitious, as many indeed do, how much easier isn't it for unbelievers to put doubt on something that is nearly 2000 years old.

If people can believe Obama is at fault for Hurricane Katrina, how likely is it to be that unbelievably and stupidly wrong about something that happened 2000 years ago?

The Authorship of the Gospel's is God.

Funny, that's not Who is listed on the first page of each gospel. Did the Holy Spirit not tell the authors how to do title pages?

The Holy men only Written down what was instructed to them what to write down by God.

So do I. Prove me wrong.

He can nonetheless feel heat, understand the EM spectrum, understand the geometry of light rays, and so on. In other words, the concepts are all available to him.

It's not like a blind person can't stand in the shade and figure out it's less hot.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, I thought it was a good starting point

I agree. Its good to hear a conservative Christian view that involves considering the evidence rather than simply making statements of faith

I'm not sure how this makes it irrelevant. The Septuagint is supposedly translated by Jewish people. Additionally, the references to the OT were still from the Hebrew book. In other words, if I refer to the OT but speak in English, it is still referencing the Jewish scriptures.

My point was about Greek being the common language. We would both agree that the author was very acquainted with the Tanakh and was a Jew.

I think it all depends on how one views the information. IF one is viewing it with the position that Matthew isn't the author, then one can make their case with what we have in evidence, a Greek transcript.

There are individuals contributing to this thread that have spent a considerable amount of time studying early Christian history and the NT/OT. I'm a novice and am simply wanting to improve my understanding. The idea that the author is someone other than the disciple Matthew makes the most sense but I'm open and willing to be convinced otherwise. The earliest records of the gospel of Matthew available date back to the 3rd or 4th century. Those records are in Greek. There is no known Hebrew gospel, although clearly some early Christians believed there was including Papias and Jerome.

However, one must realize that if one holds to the position of "emphasising the Galilee period adds little weight" remains very subjective

Please explain to me how emphasising the Galilean period makes it more plausible that it was the disciple Matthew who wrote the gospel of Matthew.

However, if (as sited by the apologist) he did write it in Hebrew but the reality that Greek was the universal language, one could also hold to the position that the original Hebrew version is simply gone because of 2,000 years of deterioration along with whatever effort there was to destroy Christianity.

In regards to the language there doesn't seem to be evidence to support that it was a translation from Hebrew. I don't know how common it was for authors to write their works in two languages. Most don't. I don't know why the author of Matthew would, and it feels like a narrative developed to explain Papias's comment and also Jerome.

We must remember that
"The OGM represents what the early church identified as the original work of Matthew in Hebrew. The Ebionites maintained custody at a library in Caesarea which Jerome was granted access to, and he did a complete translation around 390 AD. While that translation manuscript was lost, over 49 quotes of that OGM were made by the early patristic commentators including over 20 by Jerome. Rives has built his reconstruction of the OGM based upon those 49 quotes along with various Hebrew versions of Matthew that have portions which scholars contend are from the OGM." (emphasis mine)

To ignore these points, IMV, would be wrong.

Original Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew

The argument put forward by Rives sounds compelling and this could be the strongest argument to support an OGM in Hebrew. I would be interested to hear the views of scholars to the contrary. Another excerpt from Wikipedia for you to consider true to my novice status :

The idea that some or all of the gospels were originally written in a language other than Greek begins with Papias of Hierapolis, c. 125–150 CE. In a passage with several ambiguous phrases, he wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia – sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi — perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen — or "translated") them as best he could."By "Hebrew" Papias would have meant Aramaic, the common language of the Middle East beside koine Greek. On the surface this implies that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic), but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."However, Blomberg states that "Jewish authors like Josephus, writing in Greek while at times translating Hebrew materials, often leave no linguistic clues to betray their Semitic sources."

Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other the preserved Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.Nevertheless, on the basis of this and other information Jerome (c. 327–420) claimed that all the Jewish Christian communities shared a single gospel, identical with the Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew; he also claimed to have personally found this gospel in use among some communities in Syria.

Jerome's testimony is regarded with skepticism by modern scholars. Jerome claims to have seen a gospel in Aramaic that contained all the quotations he assigns to it, but it can be demonstrated that some of them could never have existed in a Semitic language. His claim to have produced all the translations himself is also suspect, as many are found in earlier scholars such as Origen and Eusebius. Jerome appears to have assigned these quotations to the Gospel of the Hebrews, but it appears more likely that there were at least two and probably three ancient Jewish-Christian gospels, only one of them in a Semitic language.

Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia

The emphasis is mine too.

To say that "The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous" when the Patriarch Papias said differently already puts this quote in Wikipedia under suspect.

Does it, or are the author (s) simply convinced enough of the available evidence to come to a conclusion. I don't know.

Likewise, the rest of this quote can be dismantled as it is obvious that this person has formed his opinions and isn't honest enough to point to this fact.

That is one perspective. Its certainly been helpful to consider Jerome's testimony.

 

[David T]

That would not explain the contradictions of which there are many.

Are. You being a soutbern baptist creationionist without jesus here? Yupur question is befuddling clueless to my statement. Sort of like "look the Michelangelo La Pieta isnt accurate". You really need to stop alrsady with the science reading of the text. Its so uggh christian fundementalism, and obviously they are confused. Or are hoi proposing they actually understand the text? Ha... like who you? Clearly you dont understand it at all.

 

[Grandliseur]

And it is desirable, at least to those who care that what they believe is correct.
Wouldn't you want to know if the main thrust of the Bible were wrong if it were?

The desire for knowing what is truth - is perhaps a general human desire. Naturally, I would want to know if the Bible is or isn't wrong.
Qur'an
I have read half of the Qur'an, but due to the nature of the material, got bored and stopped reading. It didn't appear divinely inspired to me.
Divine influences -
are the crux of the problem. It must begin there: evolution versus creation.

I do not know if I got it right, but I think the following link gets you to an answer of mine to blu-2. Please read it since it pertains to that matter. Unfortunately, I do not know how to refer back with a link to that direct post; therefore, I include it in quotes here:
-------------------

blü 2 said:
If the question is, What's true in reality? why should the NT documents be treated any differently to other ancient documents?

If the question is not, What's true in reality? then what's the question?

My answer:
Reality dependent
You speak as if this reality you claim exists for all is simple to see. Yet, our awareness is colored by our paradigm, our senses, and our mental abilities, our rationality. These are not constants across the board of all humans.

Some people who are blind may not believe you if you claim that there is a beautiful rainbow following the heals of Irma, e.g..

My long time "friend" who has an electric / energy related education (don't know his exact diplomas) may be having better math skills than I - though I love math and am getting long in the tooth - yet, he is blind, cannot see, mathematically, geometrically that the evening shadow of the sun that at times throws my shadow up on a nearby wall making an image as tall or a little taller than myself -cannot be made by a sun hovering above a flat earth.

Programming and reality
In today's computer controlled world, programming is the key to all things. We know by experience how much trouble it is; programmers keep (Android, Apple) issuing new versions of their apps, because of improvements, fixes, and what not, and that goes for PCs too. Just look at the terrible Windows being updated relentlessly to improve it. Yet, atheists claim shamelessly that our DNA programming is auto-written. If you call this being anchored in reality, I think you have a ghost boat with its mirage anchor, and a reality that only you and fellow believers exist in.
Holocaust
If then we have people who claim that the holocaust is all lies (Illuminati conspiracy or the like) being only about 72 years ago that the evidence was brought out, how do you expect things nigh 2000 years old to have the nailed down evidence you demand? This means that the Bible critics, the unbelievers have a field day in proposing God is man made and his word that of shepherds, uneducated and uninspired.
Reality of individual: my_reality =! your_reality
In other words, your true reality is only as true as you alone think it is until the universe at large forces a reevaluation.
Here I find people who reject the Bible because of skepticism they claim necessary - lacking this same essential skepticism in regard to the rock soup that interacted with oceans in hot sea bottom vents and miraculously created life, DNA, that then kept on reinventing itself, rewriting itself until we have sexes, and an uncountable multitude of organisms simple and ultra complex in balanced ecosystems, climaxing with a human brain that is supposed to work in up to 10 or 11 dimensions according to some science article.

Why is that?
Does programming happen spontaneously in your reality? It doesn't in mine. I used to do programming. One period, one semicolon off, and you could spend hours trying to debug the program written going through the whole program line by line to finally 3 hours later, or so, finding one irritating period lacking.
---------
I know that Evolutionist have a definition of a term for what I just asked about. That does not change the facts, or reality.
End of quote:

In this then, the initial all important thing to determine is - is it chaos-did-it, or god-did-it! Without this primary goal having been established, one cannot get the rest right. We are told to search for God to be able to find him. This implies that he is hidden away from those who do not look for him.

 

[oldbadger]

If people can believe Obama is at fault for Hurricane Katrina, ...................................?

O.M.G!
You just could not make it up..... !
There's nowt as strange as folks.......

Come to think of it, is President Trump going to be blamed for Irma?

 

[oldbadger]

@adrian009 .......
Papias of Hierapolis, c. 125–150 CE. In a passage with several ambiguous phrases, he wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia – sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi — perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen — or "translated") them as best he could."

This....^^^^^^^
....and This .....vvvvvv
...................or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi


And there it is....... in any languages Matthew collected the accounts from other sources such as G-Mark, G-Quelle and another source, plus any possible separate anecdotes which caught up* through oral tradition.

The other (third source) is very unlikely to have been Matthew's own eye-witness account because if he had been there then he would not have needed to include other folk's testimony in his own account.

Further to that, attempts to weld the names Levi and Matthew together seem weak to me, whereas a sub-tax officer named Levi seems very reasonable, since such posts would have been consigned to persons of lower interest within the Levite 'class', and originating from outside the areas which they controlled.

*isolated anecdotes did most certainly 'catch up' with the main bodies of the accounts, one example being the story of the adulterous woman, probably true, which caught up with and was added to G-John some time later.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 .......
Papias of Hierapolis, c. 125–150 CE. In a passage with several ambiguous phrases, he wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia – sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi — perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen — or "translated") them as best he could."

This....^^^^^^^
....and This .....vvvvvv
...................or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi


And there it is....... in any languages Matthew collected the accounts from other sources such as G-Mark, G-Quelle and another source, plus any possible separate anecdotes which caught up* through oral tradition.

The other (third source) is very unlikely to have been Matthew's own eye-witness account because if he had been there then he would not have needed to include other folk's testimony in his own account.

Further to that, attempts to weld the names Levi and Matthew together seem weak to me, whereas a sub-tax officer named Levi seems very reasonable, since such posts would have been consigned to persons of lower interest within the Levite 'class', and originating from outside the areas which they controlled.

*isolated anecdotes did most certainly 'catch up' with the main bodies of the accounts, one example being the story of the adulterous woman, probably true, which caught up with and was added to G-John some time later.

Thanks for that. In some ways its like trying to make shapes out in deep fog. One day, one narrative appears likely, another day it all changes. It seem very unlikely as you argue, that the author was an eye witness because of the heavy reliance on other texts (known and unknown such as Q) and oral traditions were part of it.

I particularly wonder about the influence of Paul's preaching to the gentiles and how this contributed to the resurrection stories through oral traditions until the first gospels were written after 50 AD, or perhaps much later.

 

[oldbadger]

Thanks for that. In some ways its like trying to make shapes out in deep fog. One day, one narrative appears likely, another day it all changes. It seem very unlikely as you argue, that the author was an eye witness because of the heavy reliance on other texts (known and unknown such as Q) and oral traditions were part of it.

Surely! Jesus in the fogs of time, but mankind has produced 'Jesus in the smog'.

I particularly wonder about the influence of Paul's preaching to the gentiles and how this contributed to the resurrection stories through oral traditions until the first gospels were written after 50 AD, or perhaps much later.

As an HJ student my interest falls away somewhere within Acts, and from there on the subject matter could fall under the title of 'Historical Christianity'.

Paul does not show any interest in the life of Jesus, does not refer to incidents or conversations that Jesus had in any depth..... if at all. Fixates upon crucified resurrected God before focusing upon the expansion of the faith and conduct of the new churches. It's as if Paul had no real interest in the person of Jesus, he just waved him like a flag occasionally before giving his focused message. Of little or no value to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A very good source:

Kirby's Early Christian Writings​

An excellent source:

Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings​

Those impervious to scholarship can save time by simply ignoring both.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, this is your take for which I disagree complexly.

The crucifixion is traditionally dated around 30 - 33 CE. The earliest we meet Jesus in history is in Paul, from 50 CE on ie about 20 years later. Paul knows next to nothing about an historical Jesus.

I disagree completely:

Gal 2:
1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.
2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
...
6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.

As per the revelation, to which the Apostles added nothing, he apparently know everything about the historical Jesus.

When I came on the now-general idea that the first gospel written was Mark, everything clicked into place.

I think it unlikely that Mark was written before 75 CE (ie about 45 years on). Matthew and Luke follow in the next decade. John, the odd man out, is from around 100 CE (i.e. 70 years on).

Perhaps the problem is that it is you that thinks it is unlikely and you rely on suppositions.

Every letter has a window of possibilities because of the reality that no one really knows the exact date of the writings. The windows of possibilities is as follows:

Matthew: 37 to 100 AD
Mark: 40 to 73 AD
Luke: 50 to 100 AD
John: 65 to 100 AD

Please note that you selected pretty much the last year possible. Regardless, on all accounts of the years you selected, they all have the possibility of being sooner. Your position is even outside of dates for Mark.

I realize that you don't agree with the Gospels, but you should at least give both sides of the coins.

Mark is thus the original purported biography of Jesus, and the only one, since the other three take their basic information from it. It's notable that in Mark Jesus is simply a human, and that Yahweh adopts him as his son when Jesus is baptized by JtB, following Jewish tradition and particularly Psalm 2.

Mark was written with Romans in mind as it uses the word "farthing". And, in general, directing toward the persecution they were experiencing.

Matthew and Luke change this with their tales of Jesus' magical birth by divine insemination, a Greek idea. At the crucifixion they also change Mark's despairing, defeated Jesus into a much more dignified figure (and John goes the extra mile and makes him the cool MC of the show).

Yes, if your position is that it is nothing but a contrived effort, your viewpoint would be as such.

However, Matthew and Luke don't CHANGE the history but ADDED information about the history.

Matthew was written with the Jews in mind
Luke was written with the Greeks in mind
John was for the world.

Indeed, in any of the gospels, if you remove the miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy stories,

Yes... if you rewrite what is written, you can create anything.

The question is not whether anything in the gospels is false. It's whether anything in them is a true statement about a real person.

Of course, in my viewpoint, the question isn't about whether anything is true but rather what sentences would not be.

 

[blü 2]

As per the revelation, to which the Apostles added nothing, he apparently know everything about the historical Jesus.

You have me digging out my old notes ─

(1) Jesus was born in human fashion – Galatians 4: 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (also Philippians 2).​

(2) Jesus was a Jew of the line of David – Romans 1: [3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh.​

(3) Jesus had a ‘brother’ named James – Galatians 1:[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.
​

This is ambiguous, given Paul's other references to the followers of Jesus as 'brothers'.

(4) Jesus had a ministry to the Jews – Romans 15: [8] For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,​

(5) Jesus taught about the end-times – 1 Thessalonians 4[15] For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.​

(6) Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11: [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.​

(7) Jesus was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11: [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread.​

In the Greek text of 11:23 the verb παραδίδωμι paradídomi is used twice – first as παρέδωκα parédoka – 'I delivered' – and second as παρεδίδοτο paredídoto – 'was delivered, handed over, betrayed, surrendered'. Paul's reference to 'the twelve' (1 Corinthians 15:5) is evidence that he didn't know the Judas story. In my view 'handed over' is a safer translation.

(8) The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers – 1 Corinthians 2: [8] None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​

The meaning of τῶν ἀρχόντων ton arkhónton ('the rulers') is disputable. Historically it can only refer to the Romans with any accuracy. However, ‘arkhon’ is also the word for the (bad) spiritual rulers of the earth in gnosticism. I'm not persuaded that Paul is free from gnosticism, but leave that for another day.

(9) Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death – 1 Thessalonians 2: [14] For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, [15] who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men [16] by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!​

This passage is widely regarded as a late forgery or inclusion of an extrinsic gloss. It doesn't sound like Paul to me.

(10) Jesus died by crucifixion – 1 Corinthians 1:[23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles​

and

1 Corinthians 2: [2] For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified​

and

2 Corinthians 13:[4] For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God.​

and Philippians 2:8

(11) Jesus was physically buried 1 Corinthians 15:[4] that he was buried,

And that's about it. No parents, birth, childhood, adventures, details of ministry, no charges, no trial, a crucifixion without a crucifixion scene, all but nothing.

And even that much is subject to Paul's own statement in Galatians 1:12 that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.

Matthew: 37 to 100 AD
Mark: 40 to 73 AD
Luke: 50 to 100 AD
John: 65 to 100 AD
Please note that you selected pretty much the last year possible.

I'm persuaded by Ted Weedon's observation that the trial scene of Jesus in Mark is likely modeled on Josephus' report of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in Jewish Wars Bk 6, 5.3. The parallels are strong enough to support the hypothesis. Dates for the availability of that text vary, from 75 to Weedon's own 79 CE. So in my terms, I've gone as early as I can.

Regardless, on all accounts of the years you selected, they all have the possibility of being sooner.

Yes. Or later.

I realize that you don't agree with the Gospels, but you should at least give both sides of the coins.

I regard the gospels as selected copies (from among many) of lost originals, which they are, and my interest is in what they actually say, and why they say it, as with any other ancient document. I have no wish at all that they should say any one thing rather than any other. In that fight I have no dog.

Mark was written with Romans in mind as it uses the word "farthing". And, in general, directing toward the persecution they were experiencing.

The Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and enforced the diaspora around 70 CE ─ likely the reason Mark was written at all. I'm told that the Greek in Mark is clumsy and inexpert, suggesting its author was not a Greek speaker. (I take their word for it because my own Greek is fairly basic.) I'm inclined to think he was a Jew (implying he spoke Aramaic), since his is the least Greek gospel, not least the adoption scene.

However, Matthew and Luke don't CHANGE the history but ADDED information about the history.

Ahm, respectfully, no, each author changed it, each in his own way, and the author of John changed it again. For example, Mark's adoption of Jesus is from a different cultural universe than Matthew / Luke's virgin, divinely inseminated. The evolution of the Jesus story is obvious once you notice Mark is first. Mark has nothing from Matthew or Luke, Matthew and Luke have swathes of Mark.

Yes... if you rewrite what is written, you can create anything.

Ouch!

What did I rewrite, exactly?

 

[Kenny]

You have me digging out my old notes ─

(1) Jesus was born in human fashion – Galatians 4: 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (also Philippians 2).​

(2) Jesus was a Jew of the line of David – Romans 1: [3] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh.​

(3) Jesus had a ‘brother’ named James – Galatians 1:[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.
​

Well... I'm glad I have you digging.

Apparently you forgot a little above 1:19
18 Then afterthree years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with himfifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Peter is about as good as you can get it. Not sure what application you are inferring with numbers 1&2.
​

This is ambiguous, given
Paul's other references to the followers of Jesus as 'brothers'.

(4) Jesus had a ministry to the Jews – Romans 15: [8] For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,​

(5) Jesus taught about the end-times – 1 Thessalonians 4[15] For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.​

(6) Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11: [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.​

(7) Jesus was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11: [23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread.​

In the Greek text of 11:23 the verb παραδίδωμι paradídomi is used twice – first as παρέδωκα parédoka – 'I delivered' – and second as παρεδίδοτο paredídoto – 'was delivered, handed over, betrayed, surrendered'. Paul's reference to 'the twelve' (1 Corinthians 15:5) is evidence that he didn't know the Judas story. In my view 'handed over' is a safer translation.

Again, with all due respect (sincerely), isn't this viewpoint simply your personal viewpoint?

1 Cor 11:23 "I received from the Lord". (Not from the Apostles). It only seems to support my position. "received" - "Paralambano", not from the Apostles, not from the local pub but by Jesus Christ Himself.. So your application is somewhat inconsistent to what was received. It would appear that it had quite a good handle at the Judas story especially since it was also notorious about the land that was purchased with the blood money.

(8) The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers – 1 Corinthians 2: [8] None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​

The meaning of τῶν ἀρχόντων ton arkhónton ('the rulers') is disputable. Historically it can only refer to the Romans with any accuracy. However, ‘arkhon’ is also the word for the (bad) spiritual rulers of the earth in gnosticism. I'm not persuaded that Paul is free from gnosticism, but leave that for another day.

(9) Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death – 1 Thessalonians 2: [14] For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, [15] who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men [16] by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!​

This passage is widely regarded as a late forgery or inclusion of an extrinsic gloss. It doesn't sound like Paul to me.

I agree that it was most likely referring to the Jewish Authorities.

But your position of "this passage... as a late forgery" is hardly sustainable just because it doesn't sound like Paul to you. They would have to change much more than just one sentence to have it included as a forgery.

(10) Jesus died by crucifixion – 1 Corinthians 1:[23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles​

and

1 Corinthians 2: [2] For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified​

and

2 Corinthians 13:[4] For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God.​

and Philippians 2:8

(11) Jesus was physically buried 1 Corinthians 15:[4] that he was buried,

And that's about it. No parents, birth, childhood, adventures, details of ministry, no charges, no trial, a crucifixion without a crucifixion scene, all but nothing.

As I read this, it appears to me your position is more like "it doesn't deal with the subject matter that I want to deal with therefore he knows nothing".

This wasn't a letter to the Corinthian church to establish the foundations of where Jesus came from generationally but rather a correction of the carnality et al of the church in that city. It wasn't about the mother, the father, brothers and sisters but proper order in how to address issues at that particular church.

To try to take what was written in reference to that which should be done "decently and in order" and apply it to the whole of the story of Jesus would be like me taking what is written about how to serve a President as a waiter and trying to apply it to his foreign policy.

It is also obvious, by Acts and other letters, that they understood that the crucified Jesus was also the resurrected Jesus.

And even that much is subject to Paul's on statement in Galatians 1:2 that everything he tells you about Jesus comes out of his own head.

???
Now THAT is certainly a great example of you projecting your position onto what is written.

I'm persuaded by Ted Wheedon's observation that the trial scene of Jesus in Mark is likely modeled on Josephus' report of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in Jewish Wars Bk 6, 5.3. The parallels are strong enough to support the hypothesis. Dates for the availability of that text vary, from 75 to Weedon's own 79 CE. So in my terms, I've gone as early as I can.

Yes, undoubtedly "on your terms".

I wouldn't agree with your position. It could be better said that Josephus modeled Mark's report

I regard the gospels as selected copies (from among many) of lost originals, which they are, and my interest is in what they actually say, and why they say, as with any other ancient document. I have no wish at all that they should say any one thing rather than any other. In that fight I have no dog.
The Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and enforced the diaspora around 70 CE ─ likely the reason Mark was written at all. I'm told that the Greek in Mark is clumsy and inexpert, suggesting its author was not a Greek speaker. (I take their word for it because my own Greek is fairly basic.) I'm inclined to think he was a Jew (implying he spoke Aramaic), since his is the least Greek gospel, not least the adoption scene.

OK. Don't think that what you said changes anything.

Ahm, respectfully, no, each author changed it, each in his own way, and the author of John changed it again. For example, Mark's adoption of Jesus is from a different cultural universe than Matthew / Luke's virgin, divinely insemined. The evolution of the Jesus story is obvious once you notice Mark is first. Mark has nothing from Matthew or Luke, Matthew and Luke have swathes of Mark.

OK... we all have our different viewpoints (and have every right to have one).

I have always wondered what the issue with the similarities between the gospels. Having viewed the Synoptic Gospel's side by side.. .I find nothing that would make me think someone was making things up or just following what Mark said.

I do hope I am not coming across as confronting or demeaning. Writing doesn't show the honest respect that I have for this dialogue.

 

[oldbadger]

And that's about it. No parents, birth, childhood, adventures, details of ministry, no charges, no trial, a crucifixion without a crucifixion scene, all but nothing.

That's Paul............ absolutely no idea nor interest in the actual person of Jesus, or anything about him.

I can't remember Paul actually quoting anything that Jesus said, either..... is that right?