Who wrote the Gospels

[Kenny]

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.

Got it!

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.

LOL... I don't think the issue will ever be settled. However, it does amaze me that people will hold to "experts" of today over those who definitely lived the closest to the actual events (Papias). Thus my question as to how we can come to the conclusion that Papias was wrong. I have only seen those who don't believe the Gospels as the ones that would hold to the position that Papias was wrong which then begs the question if the reason they have that position is just because they don't believe the narrative and try to come up with reasons to support their position whether or not there is evidence to the contrary.

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.

Perhaps I worded it wrong... sorry. Let me rephrase it, Matthew lived in the Galilean area and would be well acquainted with that specific period. So, it supports the possibility that he wrote it.

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.

Then, wouldn't one have to ask the question as to why Papias say it was in Hebrew? Or should another question be, "Why do you have to come up with a narrative to explain why Matthew isn't the author?"

However, you do bring up a good question... did they generally write it in both languages? Perhaps a better way to say it would be "It was written in Hebrew but because it went viral they translated it into the Greek"? Sounds a little more plausible than "Matthew didn't write it" IMO

Original Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew
Click to expand...
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.

Let me point out those things that irk me (although I am always open to learn). It is phrases like these that make me wonder if the author has an agenda.

What it the world is ambiguous about the statement "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language" - It seems quite black and white to me. Then the author continues with:

"By "Hebrew" Papias would have meant

Aramaic, the common language of the Middle East beside koine Greek.

Here is a 21st century person saying that when Papias said "Hebrew" he meant "Aramaic" as if no one spoke the Hebrew language in that time. Aramaic may have been the "common language" as was Greek, as was Latin, as was Hebrew (for the area that they lived in". Even today in Europe knowing 3 to 4 languages is not only normal but a necessity.

Just venting. Really puts a downer on my trusting the person's statements.

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."

I'm bi-lingual and translate often. You would never know that mine wasn't the original even though I am translating. there last statement would be correct.

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.

For me, Hebrew style is quite a rubber-band stretch.

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.

OK, I hear his opinion.

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.

Somehow, someone living during the time of the Apostle John carries more weight to me than someone who apparently doesn't believe what was said and lived 2000 years later.

\

 

[Kenny]

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?

Actually he did quote some things such as what is known as "the Lord's supper".

 

[blü 2]

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 him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.​

​

Yes, I should have added that Paul said Peter was an apostle and that there were other apostles. Thanks.

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

Of course. But at least I'm showing you the basis for my conclusions. I don't pluck them out of the air.

1 Cor 11:23 "I received from the Lord". "Paralambano", not from the Apostles, not from the local pub but by Jesus Christ Himself..

But not from an historical Jesus ─ a visionary Jesus who has no existence outside of Paul's mind. (Here no doubt we differ, but my view is good history practice, and yours is, I dare say, good religious practice.)

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's Matthew and Acts, neither written by Paul, or indeed in his apparent lifetime.

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

Several possibilities as to why Paul said 'Rulers' instead of 'Romans'. One is that he was pro-Roman (which has some support). Another is that he was keeping his head down. (Not strong.) Another is, as I said, that he used a gnostic expression. And another is, as you say, that he meant the Jewish authorities, though they don't fit 'rulers of the age' with any great precision.

But your position of "this passage... as a late forgery" is hardly sustainable just because it doesn't sound like Paul to you.

I was adding my opinion to that of others, not relying on it. As for copyists incorporating marginalia and glosses into the main text of their copies, see eg Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I think Paul's apparent misogyny in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is likely another example.

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".

To me, Paul's Jesus isn't relevantly historical. He never met him, he says he has no interest in researching him (Galatians 1:12 again, "For I did not receive it [my information about Jesus] from man, nor was I taught it"). Yet it still seems odd that (given he met Peter as he says, and assuming James was indeed blood kin of Jesus) he came away from a fortnight of discussions with them with zero more biographical information about Jesus than he went in with.

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

I agree Paul thought that.

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

On the contrary, it's exactly what Paul says: Galatians 1:[11] ... the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel [12] for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." That can only mean that everything he tells you about Jesus has no other source but his own head.

Yes, undoubtedly "on your terms".

As I said, it makes considerable sense to me that the destruction of the Temple was the impetus to write Mark at all, in which case 70 CE would be the earliest date, and 75 CE or so, a live possibility.

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

You could hypothesize a lost document that was the common source, I suppose, but I don't know of any evidence to suggest that. So much of Mark is modeled on the Tanakh that modeling from someone else seems right in the zone.

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 don't want to wish any viewpoint on you that you haven't expressed, but it's very usual for believers to think the bible must add up to a consistent whole and that reinterpretation for that very purpose is not merely desirable but sanctioned.

But that's not how history reads ancient documents. No sirree.

 

[blü 2]

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

In Acts 22:10 he quotes a vision-Jesus as saying "Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do."

But Paul was long gone when Acts was written,

And Ken is right about the Last Supper: 1 Corinthians 24: "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." and 25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

But Paul wasn't there, of course, so that appears to be traditional

Nothing else occurs to me.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually he did quote some things such as what is known as "the Lord's supper".

Hi Ken...
OK.... But Paul's Christianity needed confession and the remission of sins, and the last supper provided for that tenet ..... yes? Hence Paul had interest in what Jesus said and did at that last meal.

I just wish he might have bothered to give more details of the menu, me being an HJ student

But I'm glad that it was 'The Lord's Supper' and nothing to do with the passover which would have been irritating.

 

[oldbadger]

In Acts 22:10 he quotes a vision-Jesus as saying "Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do."

Hi...
I just wish Paul had explained that he had this blinding brain-wave idea of how to control a whole mass of folks.

And Ken is right about the Last Supper: 1 Corinthians 24: "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." and 25 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Surely, and thankyou.
Yes, I can see that without these sentences there wouldn't be Christianity as many Denominations and Creeds know it. So Paul repeated what every Christian knew at that time.
[/QUOTE]

 

[oldbadger]

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.

OK, and thankyou, I'm going to read Kirby's Early Christian Writings because they are free. I'm not buying the other.

However, I feel sure that there will be some great scholars and academics who are themselves impervious to the above works?

Anyway, you could do me one really big favour. I expect that you have intimate knowledge of all the above works and I feel sure that the most outstanding paragraphs from all are right there at forefront of your mind?

Please, please, would you care to post just one paragraph from any of it that can blast through the fogs of time and increase our knowledge further about 'Who wrote the gospels'?

Just one?

 

[blü 2]

u.
Yes, I can see that without these sentences there wouldn't be Christianity as many Denominations and Creeds know it. So Paul repeated what every Christian knew at that time.

It sure looks that way.

There's evidence from at least 400 BCE that the Greeks had a ceremony in which wine, representing Dionusos, and cakes, representing Demeter ('Earth Mother') were consumed as consuming those gods themselves.

 

[oldbadger]

It sure looks that way.

There's evidence from at least 400 BCE that the Greeks had a ceremony in which wine, representing Dionusos, and cakes, representing Demeter ('Earth Mother') were consumed as consuming those gods themselves.

That's interesting..... could there possibly have been a parting or 'goodbye' ceremony where Jews broke Bread and shared Wine together, this event descended from old customs from long before?

If so then that's fine, and does everything to anchor the accounts of the last supper whilst distancing from further reiligious tenets?

Thanks for that.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Alright....... Alright.......
So I clicked upon Early Christian Writings. Then clicked upon Gospel of Mark. Then clicked upon
Gospel of Mark: Daniel Wallace's Introduction

...and it is quite the best intro I ever read.

...smarty pants....

 

[oldbadger]

Mark: 40 to 73 AD.

There seems to be strong scholastic proposal for a Pre 62/64AD G-Mark.

The argument proposes that Jesus's 'Abomination and Desolation' descriptions as he leaves the Temple is not accurate enough to have been written after either the fall of Jerusalem or the Great Fire of Rome, but extremely accurate as a prediction.

Further to that, Roman Christians were being persecuted before the great fire because of their refusals to take part in Roman religious festivals etc..... they were being separated out before 64AD.

And so the above incidents above cannot be timeline barriers to an early G-Mark, nor to G-Martthew and G-Luke which would have followed soon after.

PS to @Jayhawker Soule ..... see? I do listen sometimes!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not buying the other.

So there!

By the way, I'm told that there is an old oral tradition of a missing verse between Genesis 2:1 and 2:2 which read:

And God created knowledge by which His creation could be perceived and cherished, and libraries in which this knowledge could be freely obtained, and God called upon His people to learn and grow.
​

Presumably, the verse was redacted because it was seen to place too much pressure on this nascent pinnacle of creation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

PS to @Jayhawker Soule ..... see? I do listen sometimes!

Sometimes.

So I clicked upon Early Christian Writings. Then clicked upon Gospel of Mark. Then clicked upon

Gospel of Mark: Daniel Wallace's Introduction​

...and it is quite the best intro I ever read.

But mostly you seem to revel in selection bias.

 

[Magus]

The entire persecution of Christians in the 1st century CE is entirely fictitious, not a single book in the New Testament was written in the 1st century CE either, they are all late
pseudepigrapha, they couldn't of written any of the New Testament without Josephus and the Septuagint either.

 

[oldbadger]

Sometimes.

Fair enough.............
So I'm a window shopper!

But mostly you seem to revel in selection bias.

Well.... true.
I do trawl the other gospels, you know, but for a quick review I would always focus on G-Mark.

Yes..... there is one huge mass of material on that web site.

 

[pearl]

Nobody knows any names or who even wrote them. It's all conjecture.

The Gospel authors are anonymous and are attributed by the Church with apostolic names.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Ken...
OK.... But Paul's Christianity needed confession and the remission of sins, and the last supper provided for that tenet ..... yes? Hence Paul had interest in what Jesus said and did at that last meal.

I just wish he might have bothered to give more details of the menu, me being an HJ student

But I'm glad that it was 'The Lord's Supper' and nothing to do with the passover which would have been irritating.

Yes, we all wish that Paul said what we want him to say no matter why he said what he said.

But... wasn't the Lord's Supper (as the story goes) the celebration of the passover?

 

[Kenny]

There seems to be strong scholastic proposal for a Pre 62/64AD G-Mark.

It is possible. Letter writing with dates is a more modern thing.

The argument proposes that Jesus's 'Abomination and Desolation' descriptions as he leaves the Temple is not accurate enough to have been written after either the fall of Jerusalem or the Great Fire of Rome, but extremely accurate as a prediction.

Further to that, Roman Christians were being persecuted before the great fire because of their refusals to take part in Roman religious festivals etc..... they were being separated out before 64AD.

And so the above incidents above cannot be timeline barriers to an early G-Mark, nor to G-Martthew and G-Luke which would have followed soon after.

PS to @Jayhawker Soule ..... see? I do listen sometimes!

Why... thank you!!

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, we all wish that Paul said what we want him to say no matter why he said what he said.

But... wasn't the Lord's Supper (as the story goes) the celebration of the passover?

Interesting......
I am told that The Great Temple had many refectories surrounding the courts where the passover meal was eaten immediately after the sacrificial ceremony.
I am told that the Passover meal could not be held over to another day after sacrifice.

The above two tenets would make the last supper just that, and not a passover meal.

EDIT: And Jesus did not take part in a passover sacrifice.

Did you note what Blu2 wrote about the bread and wine ceremony, thus....
@blü 2 said
There's evidence from at least 400 BCE that the Greeks had a ceremony in which wine, representing Dionusos, and cakes, representing Demeter ('Earth Mother') were consumed as consuming those gods themselves.

Now, although that's a Greek ceremony, the Jewish upper class was so hellenised and into Greek fashion, culture, Gods etc that I do wonder whether this could have permeated its way down into the peasant classes? Let's face it, even the Temple coinage was hellenised!

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, we all wish that Paul said what we want him to say no matter why he said what he said.

Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits - and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam